Seen any good films lately? [3]

when I watched Gravity I got a sense of the vast mind blowing vertigo Space thing. The Martian seemed to have a lot of static and pretty shots of the surface of Mars.

I see where you're coming from Mrs Figg. Gravity was definitely visually mind-blowing. For me though there was almost as much drama in getting to see what it would be like to walk on Mars based on the most recent knowledge. I agree that the pacing of The Martian wasn't it's strong suit, but I did enjoy the Robinson Crusoe survival story as well.

this is fabulous. try and find it with English subs.

Ive got that fim Figgles & yes, it is fab !!

this one is mind blowing.    

{{{Well I saw the Killing Jooke. Short review- dont bother go read the original comic.
Slightly longer review- a lot of the animation is cheap, the entire first hour has nothing to do with the source material, or in fact the rest of the film, and involves -spoilers-

Spoiler:

- its weird, uncomfortable, terribly written and I have no idea why its there- well I do, its a clumsy attempt to build her part up more prior to her brief but pivotal appearance in the actual Killing Joke story and to pad the running time out long enough to justify a full price cinema release for a film planed as a straight to dvd release (therein lies the original problem of course, I doubt it would be like this had been planned for cinema release from the start as it should have been).
Once we get to the Killing Joke story its a hell of a lot better, could have done without the song and dance number from the Joker, but its not as bad as it could have been. But its let down by a lack of imagination in the animation- the comics transitions from present to past are done so dully its almost an achievement in itself, and as the animation is not great it just cant compare for looks with Bollands original superb line work.
The voice acting is good, though not convinced by Gordon, everyone else, particularity Hamill are good however, in fact Hamill in particular gives the impression he has been waiting to do this Joker story for a long time and really goes for it, its the best performance in it.
But yeah, overall stick to the comic, and if you do watch it you can in all honesty skip the entire first half an hour and not ruin or miss a single thing, its that completely unnecessary and detracted from the main story. }}}

Mrs Figg wrote:this one is mind blowing.    

That does look amazing, like National Geographic on 'speed'

 that's a good description of it. Samsara is supposed to be the most beautiful film ever made.

has anyone seen Suicide Squad yet?  It's gotten bad reviews, but I've read one reviewer saying that all the others are just trying too hard to find bad things.

My sister and I saw Suicide Squad while on vacation and neither of us cared for it. I thought one of my step-brothers would be interested but he seemed put off by the negative buzz.

Personally I thought it was an unholy mess of a movie and while there were some good parts (Will Smith's performance as Deadshot stood out, and Margot Robbie gave a good performance too although I didn't think the writing for Harley Quinn was all that effective) they were drowned out by most everything else. I came in knowing barely anything about any of the characters except for the Joker and Harley Quinn and I left knowing scarcely more than before. Most of the characters blended into the background for the most part, and even the interesting ones didn't have enough room to breathe, with the sole exception of Deadshot (dat Will Smith star power). The emotional arc of the team coming together felt completely artificial and unearned to me.

I knew not to expect as funny a movie as that one trailer had suggested, but the action was pretty generic (admittedly with a couple memorable exceptions) and didn't really make up for things. They used maybe a dozen or more songs from various popular music genres but I don't think they played more than 30 seconds of any of them, and with at least one they chopped it up and re-edited it, so none of them really became memorable moments. Usually they were there because of some pun or juxtaposition over a single lyric, but it just didn't work for me, in part because there were so many and it felt like they were just flinging shit at the wall to see what would stick. The use of music in the "Bohemian Rhapsody" trailer was way better than in the actual movie.

I had high hopes for Jared Leto's Joker but he was barely in the movie. I didn't much like this version from what we did see, though.

Speaking of movies currently in theatres though, has anyone seen Star Trek Beyond? I hadn't been following it and didn't see it came out a month or so ago because Into Darkness completely killed my interest in the reboot series, but I've heard some really good things about it on other forums, though other people seem to hate it. Unlike its predecessor it's not written by Orci and Kurtzman, though, which is a good thing in my book.

{{{never mind non-St St films- why haven't you watched Wicker Man yet?!!! }}}

Eldorion wrote:Speaking of movies currently in theatres though, has anyone seen Star Trek Beyond? I hadn't been following it and didn't see it came out a month or so ago because Into Darkness completely killed my interest in the reboot series, but I've heard some really good things about it on other forums, though other people seem to hate it. Unlike its predecessor it's not written by Orci and Kurtzman, though, which is a good thing in my book.

It was alright, better than Into Darkness, but not as enjoyable as the first. 6.5-7/10.

I'm not really a trekkie though.

The Little Prince was scheduled for a theatrical release, but was rescued from the ADD summer blockbuster audience by Netflix. It's available on US Netflix. Really a sweet and charming film.

Awh

If you guys haven't seen The Clouds of Sils Maria yet I HIGHLY recommend that you do so. I watched it the other night with my sister and enjoyed it absolutely. It had beautiful scenery, like achingly-good; the dialogue was fun and interesting, the acting was excellent, and I enjoyed the story to boot. Some of the stuff related to the "Maloja Snake" felt like they were straight out of a really well-made Werner Herzog documentary. 

It's what some people would call slow-paced, but what I call well-paced. I really enjoy films like this that can move along at a seemingly mellow speed but that are able, at the same time, to inspire most of the emotions that one goes to the theater to feel. 

Interestingly enough, this is the film for which Kristen Stewart (of Twilight fame) won the French Cesar award. She's actually rather good in this role!

never heard of it, will check it out.

To be honest, I'm feeling overwhelmed by just how many movies are out right now that I want to go see. I already missed several over the last month. I'm quite curious about the new Viggo Mortensen family drama that's out right now:

Darnit. I can't catch a break! I went to go find the title so I could post the trailer for it, and I just found out that Werner Herzog's documentary about the digitally connected world, the new film in which Daniel Radcliffe plays some kind of rogue white supremacist, and the animated Kubo and the Two Strings are all coming out soon!!    IT'S TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING!!!   


...Well here's the Viggo film:




Ugh, I can think of like 30 movies I want to go see! AAAARRGRRGHGHGHGH


Hey, another film of his I didn't know about:

Morgan Freeman is in the Ben Hur remake?!

...

With DREADS??!??!

.........


I just watched about half of the trailer and then stopped. 

It looks like crap, but on the off-chance I go see I don't want any more of it spoiled. 

Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter?

{{{I saw the trailer and thought what is the point of it? The main draw of the original is its epicness and that chariot race- and yes you can make it all look more spectacular with cgi but you cant make it feel more spectacular because it wont feel as real as the original because they did it for real. And if you cant match the spectacle of the original there is no point as there isn't much more to it than that, the story is ok but nothing brilliant and since retreaded many times in varying forms}}}

We had discussed the Ben-Hur remake a month or so here. My feeling was the anachronistic language and themes spoiled all interest I could have in it.

The draw of the original* 1959 film for me is evenly divided between the epicness and Charlton Heston.  

This new guy, "Jack Huston" falls far short in my anticipation!

And what's this about Messala being Judah Ben Hur's brother??

*The 1959 version was actually the third version of the film, after the silent-film versions put out in 1907 and 1925

PettyTyrant wrote:and yes you can make it all look more spectacular with cgi but you cant make it feel more spectacular because it wont feel as real as the original because they did it for real. 

...Once again, this logic of yours fails to move me Petty. New film techniques and styles are invented all the time (or at least combined in different ways), and the point of those techniques is generally to immerse the viewer more completely in the film. While I agree that I don't think the 1959 version's chariot race is going to be upstaged by a 2016 version that uses CGI, I disagree that just because a thing is done "for real" in front of the camera means that it is necessarily more spectacular. See our discussion concerning war films a while back for reference.

I watched "Hologram for The King", a Tom Hanks film. It ambled on, taking in the amazing scenery of Saudi Arabia, You were treated to the odd hint of the do's & dont's of the Country but, it had more to do with Tom's character than any hologram or indeed any king ? We are left thinking "has he found a new kind of happiness ?" It didnt really move me.

the point of those techniques is generally to immerse the viewer more completely in the film.- Forest

{{I agree with that, the problem is 'spectacular' cgi doesn't, it does the opposite, it distances the viewer form immersion by obviously being not real. The brain is not fooled into thinking it is real therefore a sense of peril, of danger, of reality is absent whilst watching.
CGI used well, where it adds to a scene and is not the spectacular focus of it works excellently, but where the main actors and the protagonists are cgi (say in TH films for good examples) there is no feel of reality.

'I disagree that just because a thing is done "for real" in front of the camera means that it is necessarily more spectacular.'

It is not necessarily more spectacular, but it is usually more real if feel, the brain is more liekly to be fooled into believing what itis seeing if what it is seeing was a actually physically performed as compared to cgi performed.

Here i a good example form Bond, as here we have the 'real' action, ie a stunt man clinging onto a plane, and the studio stuff shot with a blue screen and back projection for the actor close ups- when watching the brain can easily differentiate between the 'fake' studio shots and the 'real' shots.
Were this made now with both studio and action shots 'fake' as in the action was cgi and the close ups studio and green screen work then it all feels fake.
Its all like the studio shots in the original, with a feeling of fakery to it.

}}}

Well, sure, good example. I think we both agree on that point. Obvious CGI is bad.

The similar scene from MI: Rogue Nation used CGI... but only to erase the harness and wires holding Tom Cruise to the plane.