Seen any good films lately? [3]

I was watching some clips of Back to The Future on youtube, great trilogy always fun to revisit...but the various plot holes/contractions and implications of time travel do make the films chronology and logic something of a

Why didn't Marty's parents recognize him as he grew up?

The Marty from the original 1985 was very familiar with the story of how his parents got together, so surely the same held true for the Marty in the 1985 he returns to-yes his parents only met him for a few days in 1955 but surely they'd have remembered him for getting him together and all his odd behavior and realized he looks exactly the same, something of a coincidence otherwise...

At the end of the original films Marty returns to 1985 but his parents and siblings how different jobs, personalities and are evidently much more wealthy, so it seems he's now stuck in a parallel universe, does his memory change to fit this new universe, or does he retain the memories of 1985-A? Does the second version of Marty that is sent back to 1955 when the original returns to 1985 have the memories of 1985-B? if so wouldn't that effect his actions in 1955?

In BTF  Part II, The Doc invites Jennifer and Marty to travel to the future to stop his son from getting arrested and screwing up, but if Marty and Jennifer travel to the future and are removed from the 1985 timeline how are they around to grow into their 2015 counterparts?  Wouldn't it be easier for the Doc to simply inform Marty to take better care of his kids and make sure his son isn't in that spot on that particular day?

I'm probably overthinking things, but I came across this old Den Of Geek article which points out similar things:

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/16532/the-plot-holes-and-paradoxes-of-the-back-to-the-future-trilogy

I agree with the author of that article, My head hurts.


Another Den of Geek article about the various easter eggs in the film is also quite interesting:

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/back-to-the-future/32891/back-to-the-future-88-geeky-spots-in-the-trilogy

Also:

http://www.cracked.com/article_22284_7-disturbing-details-you-never-noticed-in-back-to-future.html

{{There is only one way to resolve time issues- and that's to consult the Doctor!
So lets see what happens.

Point 1- Why didn't Marty's parents recognize him as he grew up?
Point 2- it seems he's now stuck in a parallel universe, does his memory change to fit this new universe, or does he retain the memories of 1985-A?

I have put these 2 together as they are the same thing when it comes to why.
Firstly anyone who time travels and becomes involved in new or alternative time lines is outside of those time lines- thus even if the time line is a dead end or over written by a subsequent time line the time traveling participant retains memories of that time line. Exhibit A- Amy Pond who remembers both growing up with just her aunt and growing up with her parents.
However for those in the time lines who are not time travelers, they retain no clear memories of time travel incursion save for the time line they currently find themselves in. Further when a time traveler known to the participants interferes in the participants time line the participants tend to lose the ability to clearly recall the events or all the details. This not only happens to the Doctor himself when he crosses his own time line but to the Brigadier too, as the records for his instance of involvement in such time crossing results are dated 'either 70's or 80's' which is pretty hazy recollection. We are shown that over and over humans in particular are very good at just glossing over such inexplicable time occurrences by not thinking about them.
Put the two together and you have an explanation for why Marty's parents do not make the connection and why Marty himself retains memories of his former time line as well as the new current one- though those memories may take a little longer to fully settle in. Again we can see this with Amy, when she awakes to find herself in the time line with her parents restored she is first shocked and surprised to see them, then queries herself as to why she is shocked to see her own parents as of course they should be there. Both sets of memories exist but it takes a bit for her to recall both fully.
The initial reaction to her parents is the same as Marty's at the sight of his changed parents and home.


Point 3- 'Wouldn't it be easier for the Doc to simply inform Marty to take better care of his kids and make sure his son isn't in that spot on that particular day?'

Yes, but Doc Brown is a genius, and therefore not practical and scatterbrained- like the geniuses at Blechtley Park where the government had to hire a lot of women to come in and make sure they had remembered to eat and were wearing underpants. The simple, obvious solution never occurred to him.

So there you go the expert on Time can solve all your Back to the Future issues! Always consult your Doctor! }}}}}

It's been a few years since I last watched The Shawshank Redemption, but couldn't sleep after a night shift so I put it on - I've got no problems with it being rated/voted as the best movie ever made. Maybe I should move on to Forrest Gump while I'm in the mood, that one is on par.

Went to see "Logan Lucky" last night & bloody good fun it was I loved the relationship between Jimmy ( Channing Tatum ) & Clyde ( Adam Driver ) Logan. Two brothers just getting along. I prefer Daniel Craig doing either Bond or, at least, serious stuff, thrillers, drama's but, he was ok in this as a jail bird called Joe Bang. I didn't always get the speaking as the actors drawled out a west Virginia accent but, it was funny & its one I will get my mitts on when its out to buy. And as its by Steven Soderbergh I felt quite confident Id enjoy it. The whole plan was to rob Nascar of all its loot & as Jimmy had worked on the construction site that were filling in the sink holes under Nascar he was obviously in a good place to work out how he was gonna do this. It left Hilary Swank ( special Agent Sarah Grayson ) wondering what the holy heck was going on & how anyone got away with it, & get away with it they did It felt in places like a parody & I'm sure that was meant. The actors played it so naturally I was sucked in & it felt like real life. Id recommend this film for its "feel good" quality

I've wanted to see that one! Maybe this week.

I hope you enjoy it Halfy. You can let me know if the characters they play are stereotypical or not

I can tell from the trailers their accents are on point, and the character types are very common to the good 'ole boy style of comedy. Look up My Name is Earl for more examples. Or the Dukes of Hazzard. They show a sort of country genius for invention while still being rather out of it. It's a crucial segment of the American population, one that we'd be much diminished without.

I was underwhelmed by Logan Lucky. I guess I was expecting less feel-good and more good-good. The investigation by the FBI at the end was particularly biased towards the criminals, which made the movie feel disingenuous in those scenes. Like when it feels like someone in a movie succeeds or fails only because we the audience wants that person to succeed or fail, you know what I mean?

Anyway, for a nice serving of "real" life I saw Wind River the other night, which is a fairly stark presentation of life and death and murder on an Indian reservation in Wyoming. I liked it. Reminded me of the writer/director's other screenplay for Hell or High Water, which also dealt a little with the eroded cultural heritage of Native Americans.

One thing that I like about these movies is that the characters of Indian descent feel like authentic people. I recently saw part of Australia again and I remember feeling uncomfortable with how the character of King George and the half-native boy are romanticized in that movie.

Cons:

I think I'd watch Graham Greene in just about anything. The fact is there's a very short list of Native American actors with Academy Award chops, so the same faces keep getting cast over and over. I hope that changes soon, but it's not Graham's fault (or Chief Dan George before him...)

Watched an old favourite of mine Big Trouble In Little China rather underappreciated in it's day (and even now) it's a uneven, but hugely enjoyable and imaginative hybrid of fantasy martial arts flick, and buddy comedy film, great fun, 80's genre cheese at it's most enjoyable.

I loved Kurt Russell in that. His swagger made me laugh, & James Hong had a few funny lines. Some cheesy films are great

I have just ordered this film from Amazon. Its Russian & from what Ive seen of it it seems like the sort of film I'm gonna like. I actually thought in the opening scene of this video that the icy town looked more like Lake Town than the one we got from Peejers ? It suited my imagination of Lake Town anyway

Looks ok

I kind of liked Peejer's Lake town, though I agree this one is probably closer to what Tolkien was thinking.

halfwise wrote:I kind of liked Peejer's Lake town, though I agree this one is probably closer to what Tolkien was thinking.

I think Jackson said in an interview most of the Laketown designs/sets were inspired by or inherited from GDT's designs , I can barely remember the Hobbit films at this point, but I liked the Laketown set, more stylized and oriental that Tolkien's version, but it expanded on the limited details Tolkien gave in interesting ways, at least it was still quite grounded and sensible in scale compared to the colossal size of Erebor...

I would definitely watch the non-dubbed version of the movie!

The story sounds familiar and nothing unique, but that opening sequence was interesting.

Too much Twilight for my tastes though, I fear. Perhaps the trailer is to blame for that.

Dead of Night (1945) is a British horror anthology film.

"Architect Walter Craig (Mervyn Johns) has been invited by Elliot Foley (Roland Culver) to his country home in Kent to consult on some renovations. Upon arrival at the cottage, he reveals to Foley and his assembled guests that despite never having met any of them, he has seen them all in a recurring dream.

He appears to have no prior personal knowledge of them but he is able to predict spontaneous events in the house before they unfold. Craig partially recalls with some dismay that something awful will later occur, and becomes increasingly disturbed.

The other guests attempt to test Craig's foresight and set him at ease, while entertaining each other with various tales of uncanny or supernatural events that they experienced or were told about."

I don't want to give anything away plot-wise for people who haven't seen the film. All trailers I could find give away one plot detail or another, but I think it's best to go in blind. Maybe some of the UK people are already familiar with it, but this is the MacDaddy of anthology horror. Predates the Twilight Zone by 15 years, but has all the hallmarks of it. Way ahead of its time for a 1945 film.

Discovered this one from a Twilight Zone podcast. One of the stories from the film has similarities to the TZ episode "Twenty Two", though both resemble a short story written around the turn of the century ("The Bus Conductor" by E.F. Benson).

There is only a blu-ray release of this film in the UK, so it won't work on US blu-ray players. The DVD print, as I understand it, has similar quality to the torrent I downloaded last year, which is... well to be generous it's watchable and the audio could use a lot of work. Would like to see a dusted-up US blu-ray release of this. Wondering how the print looks on the UK release.

Give this a watch if you find that sort of thing interesting. You can rent it from Amazon Video for a buck.

Forest Shepherd wrote:I was underwhelmed by Logan Lucky. I guess I was expecting less feel-good and more good-good. The investigation by the FBI at the end was particularly biased towards the criminals, which made the movie feel disingenuous in those scenes. Like when it feels like someone in a movie succeeds or fails only because we the audience wants that person to succeed or fail, you know what I mean?

I was underwhelmed too.  It seems to have been the same bait and switch we saw with Suicide Squad: great trailers, pretty meh in the execution.  Damn shame because we know Soderbergh can deliver.  I blame it partially on not cutting it tight enough to be funny. Timing wasn't there.

Hm, speaking of horror films... Is anyone going to see the latest adaptation of a Stephen King novel?

Forest Shepherd wrote:Hm, speaking of horror films... Is anyone going to see the latest adaptation of a Stephen King novel?

I was invited to see IT today with a couple of friends of mine, but I decided not to go, not really a horror movie fan and the trailers/plot synopsis didn't seem very interesting to me.

"Dead of Night (1945) is a British horror anthology film.".........Bungo.
I think Ive heard of it but I cant be certain but, it doesn't matter cuz I'm going to look it up & give it a go.

Forest Shepherd wrote:Hm, speaking of horror films... Is anyone going to see the latest adaptation of a Stephen King novel?

Going on Wednesday, I think.

{{Saw It tonight with the better half. This is pretty spoiler free as far as plot is concerned.

Um, its ok-ish. Kind of. For me it felt closer to the Goonies than anything else, nor did I think it was in the slightest scary- in fact the manner in which it goes for most of its scares got me increasingly crabbit as it went on.
Basically its this repeated in a number of fashions- quickly pan the camera right or left from a scene to reveal something (this can be anything from Pennywise, a monster, or someone just needing their inhaler!) and at the end of the pan on the reveal make a huge out of place noise.
Don't know about anyone else but I dont think someone standing behind you shouting "BANG!" is scary and basically thats what most of the scares in this film are based on.
I liked the effects, they range from the practical to the cgi with a mix of the two and generally work pretty well, though sometimes they seem slightly more comic than threatening and I was never sure if thats was intentional or not and added to that Goonies feel.

Harder to judge as an adaptation as its been decades since I read the book. However my long term impression of the book was that nearly all the stuff when they are adults was hugely padded and boring and needed a strict editor, and the stuff when they were kids was the good stuff- so I was actually quite happy that the film does away with the adult them altogether and is just a story about them as kids- though this does give it that Goonies feel
This was only slightly ruined by the ending credits opening with a reveal of the full title- IT: Chapter One. So I assume we are going to get a film with all the boring adult stuff next (don't know how relevant it is but that particular final credity revelation was met with a mixture of groans and rueful laughter from the audience I saw it with).

Acting wise the kids are solid- ranging from competent to genuinely good enough to carry the film. Pennywise on the other-hand less convinced by, the look is good but there is something about the performance which smacks of tying to hard to be quirky. If you imagine say a prime Michael Keaton playing this role you can imagine it having  a natural effortless quirkiness, this is quirky but without the naturalness and a lot of effort. And they screw up something major in PJ sort of way- Pennywise makes a big deal of teasing the kids that they will 'float to' and there is a visual pay off to this towards the climax- but in the original this refers to something Pennywise says to Georgie about the balloon floating, and that he will float too. Without the set up the constant teasing the kids with 'you'll float too' is rather meaningless. Like the 'good morning' bit in the Hobbit, only in reverse, that was a set up looking for a punchline, this is a punchline where they forgot to put in the set up!- how does that happen?!!)

Oh there is an issue with time too- they have moved when the kids stuff took place from the books setting of I think 50's/60's to the 1980's (this will allow a sequel when they are adults to be set in present day) but setting it in the 80's is what gives it the Goonies feel, its a bunch of kids riding about small town suburban American on bikes investigating something. But more than that it feels off, the events and characters dont feel 80's. Maybe for younger generations this wont be a problem, but for those of us who were there in the 80's this ain't right in how it feels, not genuine- its still feels like characters who belong in a different era and social milieu transposed.

Overall I wouldn't go out the way to see this unless your a really big fan of the book or maybe the mini-series. But its not the worst way to spend a couple of bored hours either. }}}}

I just finished the book, so I'll have to see it and get back with my opinion.

I assume the scenes involving childhood sexuality were left out?