Good films I watched this weekend (Vol 2)

Good films I watched this weekend (Vol 2)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Veeayt

3,139 posts

204 months

Tuesday 14th April 2015
quotequote all
I thought he just played himself

Asterix

24,438 posts

227 months

Tuesday 14th April 2015
quotequote all

qube_TA

8,402 posts

244 months

Tuesday 14th April 2015
quotequote all
robemcdonald said:
Whats better Sci-Fi?
1. Totally accurate representation of the science (I suppose Gravity is a close as we will get)
I think you can have a premise based upon science then present a scenario based upon that. GATTACA springs to mind here. It presents a technology that already exists to a point and could realistically be used in the way described it then illustrates the world that could create.

I would also include the likes of Capricorn One in this.

The 'science' in Gravity was really nonsense it's frustrating that a film presents itself as being scientifically accurate and almost educational in its presentation when it's absolute nonsense.

robemcdonald said:
2. Actual science merged with complete fantasy (Interstellar)
Not sure what the difference is between 1 & 2 here. If you present a hypothetical scenario or technology, then if it's shown in a plausible way so you don't have to suspend your disbelief too far it also works, 'Contact' or 'Strange Days' do this quite well. The 'machine' in Contact works in some mysterious way but it's consistent, the 'squids' in Strange Days are unlikely to ever exist but you're happy to accept that they do and their use is consistent throughout the film. It's not like the awful 'Source Code' where a device is presented, it's explained how it works, what it can and cannot do (you can see an event that happened but it's in the past so cannot be altered, you're just viewing it). But for the convenience of a happy ending they decide that it really can alter the past (yet none of the people that designed, built and tested the device knew or suspected it could do this), everyone is saved and a typical sci-fi paradox created.

The issue I have with Interstellar is nothing to with the sciency bits it crowbars into the plot it's more so that it's a weakly presented premise with people acting in an unbelievable way. The Earth is dying as food won't grow any more, yet folk are just carrying on as normal drinking beer and driving pickup trucks, it's just dusty, and no-one is really trying to do anything about it.
There's a wormhole near Saturn that is a conduit to another part of the galaxy, no-one knows why it's there, yet NASA know about it, but they're now a secret organisation because science, engineering, rockets etc are now regarded as bad because of wars and climate change m'kay (no other country presumably has a NASA or knows about it). There maybe planets on the other side where humans could go (despite no obvious means to get them there). A bookcase tells Matthew McConaughey to drive to NASA where Michael Caine tells him to leave his children to fly on a 100 year mission to see if these planets could be a new home, he jumps at the chance and leaves his kids behind (we're supposed to believe he's a crack test pilot and engineer, this in itself was too much), he finds that there was no plan to take people to a new world (despite being an engineer and test pilot he takes it all on the good will of a person he's just met, because you would wouldn't you?) he eventually falls through a blackhole to the other side of the bookcase and back in time to the start of the film and we find out its himself that tells him to go to NASA in the first place and reveals the secrets of gravity enabling NASA to build a new spaceship that can take everyone into space (although they still have nowhere to go), they're also somehow able to grow food and feed people in space now, just not on Earth. NASA are presumably able to show themselves and build the craft despite being secret and regarded as unnecessary. We don't find out who built the wormhole or the time travelling device. Matthew McConaughey could have also presented the information to himself at any point in time so could have avoided the whole trip in the first place, it's no more of a paradox than the one they presented. We have Matt Damon getting cabin fever for being stuck on a planet by himself for too long, yet David Gyasi can sit by himself in a spaceship for decades just chilling whilst he waits for McConaughey to return from a planet, doesn't run out of food or water or anything. Again if they can do this on a spaceship why can't they do it on Earth, or Mars or anywhere else? None of this is science it's just nonsense that doesn't add up or make sense.

You could have had a story whereby the planet is dying, a ship full of frozen embryos is sent out into deep space in a desperate attempt to find a planet and ensure people go on (everyone left behind dies), you could have had awesome CGI shots of an automated process that selects embryos and grows them, holographic or robotic 'mothers' could look after them, teach them about preparing to colonise a planet, by the time they arrive they're all fighting fit and ready. Different groups are sent to different locations, all of them fail/die as something goes wrong, the planets are no good. One team makes it, finds a primitive world that's just right, they need to tweak their DNA to be compatible as it's not quite the same as where they're from, something goes wrong and the spaceship crashes! The people arrive without any technology and their knowledge is lost as there's no ability to train them. They have to go back to a simple life as a result, camera pans out and you find out they're on Earth hinting that they're the origin of human life here, it would allow for proper science and tie in nicely with a Hollywood creationism plot. Sending people out into space for a long time is difficult, they need food, they get old, freezing them causes problems, there's no technology able to freeze and thaw a human without killing them, yet you could freeze and embryo and thaw it out as and when needed. A much safer bet for sending humans to far off distant planets.


robemcdonald said:
3. Complete science fantasy, The ships and technology just progress the plot (Star Wars etc.)
These can be fun, I liked the original Star Wars films (wasn't a fan of any of the sequels or prequels), Ghostbusters or Back to the Future are great. Make up a fantasy technology, a world or whatever, but stick to the plot. It can be daft but if it's entertaining then cool. Just don't invent a thing, explain how it works then ignore that later on.




blindswelledrat

25,257 posts

231 months

Tuesday 14th April 2015
quotequote all
Lordbenny said:
Whiplash - Fabulous, must be watched on a decent surround sound set up though which I'm lucky enough to have! My neighbours must be cursing me! One of the best ending to any film I've ever seen/heard.....9/10
I am willing to bet that it is a perfectly good film to watch via any medium, you are just happy that you have a nice surround sound system. wink

JustinP1

13,330 posts

229 months

Tuesday 14th April 2015
quotequote all
qube_TA said:
Lots.
This is why I love sci-fi.

I disagree with more than half of what you've put, but respect your differing viewpoint, read it all and was interested.

That said, I do think that there has been a phenomenon around Interstellar which has meant many judge the film and pick apart science and plot points ad infinitum in a way that no science fiction film has been picked apart before.

If you hold pretty much any film to this apparent Gold Standard and criticise it in the same way it would get ripped apart.

Physicists don't agree on how the edges of our scientific knowledge work in the real world. I can accept that some think Interstellar is accurate, and some do not.


tobinen

9,184 posts

144 months

Tuesday 14th April 2015
quotequote all
Blue Ruin. I'd say it's a arthouse film about revenge though I confess to not knowing what the revenge was about. Well-acted and shot. I'm going with a low-ish 6/10 but I think it warrants a second viewng and that may increase.

Quickmoose

4,482 posts

122 months

Tuesday 14th April 2015
quotequote all
tobinen said:
Blue Ruin. I'd say it's a arthouse film about revenge though I confess to not knowing what the revenge was about. Well-acted and shot. I'm going with a low-ish 6/10 but I think it warrants a second viewng and that may increase.
I liked this quite a bit....revenge was for the murder of the main character's dad..
I read somewhere that it was made for around 37,000..... all actors were friends...

qube_TA

8,402 posts

244 months

Tuesday 14th April 2015
quotequote all
JustinP1 said:
That said, I do think that there has been a phenomenon around Interstellar which has meant many judge the film and pick apart science and plot points ad infinitum in a way that no science fiction film has been picked apart before.

If you hold pretty much any film to this apparent Gold Standard and criticise it in the same way it would get ripped apart.

Physicists don't agree on how the edges of our scientific knowledge work in the real world. I can accept that some think Interstellar is accurate, and some do not.
Physicists liked the portrayal of gravity, blackholes, special relativity showing that the relative speed of time changes depending upon the speed of an object. So did I, those sciency bits are fine, also it did look great but putting all that to one side for a moment the story and the characters were IMO weak and the story didn't add up. No-one thinks Interstellar is accurate, not even the people who made it. But arguing that 'well you don't know what it's like to fall into a black hole as you've never done it so you can't say it's wrong' is the equivalent of having 'and then they woke up, it was all a dream' as the convenient get out at the end of a tale and expecting the audience to be satisfied.

JustinP1

13,330 posts

229 months

Tuesday 14th April 2015
quotequote all
qube_TA said:
JustinP1 said:
That said, I do think that there has been a phenomenon around Interstellar which has meant many judge the film and pick apart science and plot points ad infinitum in a way that no science fiction film has been picked apart before.

If you hold pretty much any film to this apparent Gold Standard and criticise it in the same way it would get ripped apart.

Physicists don't agree on how the edges of our scientific knowledge work in the real world. I can accept that some think Interstellar is accurate, and some do not.
Physicists liked the portrayal of gravity, blackholes, special relativity showing that the relative speed of time changes depending upon the speed of an object. So did I, those sciency bits are fine, also it did look great but putting all that to one side for a moment the story and the characters were IMO weak and the story didn't add up. No-one thinks Interstellar is accurate, not even the people who made it. But arguing that 'well you don't know what it's like to fall into a black hole as you've never done it so you can't say it's wrong' is the equivalent of having 'and then they woke up, it was all a dream' as the convenient get out at the end of a tale and expecting the audience to be satisfied.
I don't think it's that at all to be honest.

There's a big difference between what is plausibly possible (especially if a wormhole or blackhole is manmade for a purpose) and an obvious MacGuffin in a script.

In that respect, and by the same yardstick, Kubrick's 2001 did exactly the same thing.

In respect of the characters, again, what is the yardstick? I know there's plenty of films that have more fleshed out characters, I can reel them off, however, none of those character based stories also included interstellar travel and had to drag the viewer into understanding special relativity to understand the plot. smile

You can break Interstellar down to base parts and compare those base parts against other films as say X in film Y was better than Interstellar. However, as a package, and what it set out to achieve in the economic climate of blockbuster films, IMHO it is extraordinary.

Lordbenny

8,575 posts

218 months

Tuesday 14th April 2015
quotequote all
blindswelledrat said:
I am willing to bet that it is a perfectly good film to watch via any medium, you are just happy that you have a nice surround sound system. wink
I'm just saying that a good surre sound system makes the experience a whole lot better IMO smile

qube_TA

8,402 posts

244 months

Tuesday 14th April 2015
quotequote all
Did you find it believable that MC could be a crack test pilot / engineer and the world's only hope?

What skills did he apparently have?

Was it plausible that NASA had to be kept secret (yet were able to launch rockets without anyone noticing?)

If Michael Caine told you that he was an expert, that the world was dying and you needed to jump into a likely suicide mission would you abandon your children in an instant to live with their grandfather, especially when they'd already lost their mother?

If you and the mission were humanities only hope then why the secrecy given how hard it was supposed to be to get any kind of help or backing for anything that wasn't specifically about growing food (corn apparently and beer)? You could have had a whole Contact-esque fanfare and selection process where the people on Earth all get behind the last ditch attempt to save mankind?

If you had the ability to tell your past self anything you liked to give him an insight into their future would you be so vague (despite being clever enough to remember and transmit the map coordinates of the secret NASA headquarters after such a long mission)?

This isn't being overly critical or holding the film up to a 'gold standard'. I'm happy with far fetched ideas, hell I enjoy the Fast & Furious series, but this is a film that's trying to portray itself as being clever, scientific, thought provoking, accurate, deep and similar words yet the reality is it's a shallow half-arsed plot dressed up in eye-candy and pseudo-science to pull wool over an audiences eyes.

Soz, if you'd enjoyed it then great I just was annoyed I forked out to watch this flick on an IMAX screen and wanted my money back. I love sci-fi it has the most potential to be fantastic yet all we get is stupid Guardians of the Galaxy or Gravity type tosh.

JustinP1

13,330 posts

229 months

Tuesday 14th April 2015
quotequote all
qube_TA said:
Did you find it believable that MC could be a crack test pilot / engineer and the world's only hope?

What skills did he apparently have?
They showed that in the IMAX format cutscene of his dream with him as a pilot in a crisis. They also showed his engineering ability in the following scene taking apart the drone.

qube_TA said:
Was it plausible that NASA had to be kept secret (yet were able to launch rockets without anyone noticing?)
Who said they were launching rockets? The film suggested that rockets were being launched several years apart. If they can hide Area 51 and test all kinds of stuff, that's plausible to me.

qube_TA said:
If Michael Caine told you that he was an expert, that the world was dying and you needed to jump into a likely suicide mission would you abandon your children in an instant to live with their grandfather, especially when they'd already lost their mother?
If I remember rightly, Mahogany's dialogue covered this. If he stays they have no future anyway apart from poverty/starvation in years to come. If he goes he has the chance to buy them a life.

qube_TA said:
If you and the mission were humanities only hope then why the secrecy given how hard it was supposed to be to get any kind of help or backing for anything that wasn't specifically about growing food (corn apparently and beer)? You could have had a whole Contact-esque fanfare and selection process where the people on Earth all get behind the last ditch attempt to save mankind?
Totally plausible. The zeitgeist against technology was explained in the school scene. Their operation was underground. Publicising that risks it being canned.

qube_TA said:
If you had the ability to tell your past self anything you liked to give him an insight into their future would you be so vague (despite being clever enough to remember and transmit the map coordinates of the secret NASA headquarters after such a long mission)?
I think the message sent back was pretty specific and direct. It was pretty clear at that point in the film the correct message to send, and the parameters of what could be sent when and how were presented to him by someone else.

qube_TA said:
This isn't being overly critical or holding the film up to a 'gold standard'. I'm happy with far fetched ideas, hell I enjoy the Fast & Furious series, but this is a film that's trying to portray itself as being clever, scientific, thought provoking, accurate, deep and similar words yet the reality is it's a shallow half-arsed plot dressed up in eye-candy and pseudo-science to pull wool over an audiences eyes.

Soz, if you'd enjoyed it then great I just was annoyed I forked out to watch this flick on an IMAX screen and wanted my money back. I love sci-fi it has the most potential to be fantastic yet all we get is stupid Guardians of the Galaxy or Gravity type tosh.
I can agree to disagree.

That said, I put Gravity as an action film is space, not science fiction for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I do agree with you though that good sci-fi is heard to find and Guardians of the Galaxy in not it! smile Any good examples?

irocfan

40,153 posts

189 months

Tuesday 14th April 2015
quotequote all
JustinP1 said:
I can agree to disagree.

That said, I put Gravity as an action film is space, not science fiction for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I do agree with you though that good sci-fi is heard to find and Guardians of the Galaxy in not it! smile Any good examples?
that's actually an interesting argument there - GotG is not a good scifi movie in terms of science... however it is an enjoyable scifi movie

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 15th April 2015
quotequote all
ash73 said:
The only real problem is the paradox but it's pretty well hidden.
i thought it was patently obvious.

blindswelledrat

25,257 posts

231 months

Wednesday 15th April 2015
quotequote all
qube_TA said:
Did you find it believable that MC could be a crack test pilot / engineer and the world's only hope?

What skills did he apparently have?

Was it plausible that NASA had to be kept secret (yet were able to launch rockets without anyone noticing?)

If Michael Caine told you that he was an expert, that the world was dying and you needed to jump into a likely suicide mission would you abandon your children in an instant to live with their grandfather, especially when they'd already lost their mother?

If you and the mission were humanities only hope then why the secrecy given how hard it was supposed to be to get any kind of help or backing for anything that wasn't specifically about growing food (corn apparently and beer)? You could have had a whole Contact-esque fanfare and selection process where the people on Earth all get behind the last ditch attempt to save mankind?

If you had the ability to tell your past self anything you liked to give him an insight into their future would you be so vague (despite being clever enough to remember and transmit the map coordinates of the secret NASA headquarters after such a long mission)?

This isn't being overly critical or holding the film up to a 'gold standard'. I'm happy with far fetched ideas, hell I enjoy the Fast & Furious series, but this is a film that's trying to portray itself as being clever, scientific, thought provoking, accurate, deep and similar words yet the reality is it's a shallow half-arsed plot dressed up in eye-candy and pseudo-science to pull wool over an audiences eyes.

Soz, if you'd enjoyed it then great I just was annoyed I forked out to watch this flick on an IMAX screen and wanted my money back. I love sci-fi it has the most potential to be fantastic yet all we get is stupid Guardians of the Galaxy or Gravity type tosh.
Qube, you did know that it wasn't a documentary right?
If taken apart, almost every single film can be made to look ridiculous. In order to enjoy any film you have to suspend your cynicism and take it for what it is. It just strikes me that space/sci fi is your thing so you're determined to see the worst in it because everyone else likes it.

TCEvo

12,625 posts

201 months

Wednesday 15th April 2015
quotequote all
Clearing out some old videos thought I'd watch a few first; quality not actually too bad.

Dead Presidents

Second Hughes Brothers film from '96. Coming of age tale set in NYC Bronx, Vietnam & return home. Touch cliche in places & rather inevitable conclusion but overall pretty good with some brutal 'Nam action & a quality one-shot sequence mid way through.

Quickmoose

4,482 posts

122 months

Wednesday 15th April 2015
quotequote all
There arre levels of suspension of disbelief though right....
You can have a full on documentary with facts alone.
A recounting of a true story that goes from faithful (Apollo 13?) to ridiculous (U571)
You can have a story that adheres to stuff we know about and some stuff we don't (Interstallar?)
and you can have the faintly ridiculous F&F 7
and you can have pure fanatasy (Star Wars)

Interstallar made much of it's involvement with cutting edge science, and that involvement cannot be denied, the product of it is though fiction....every detail people don't like grates only because for some reason they want or thought it was (projectd as)fact... either way it causes debate and discussion and that can only be good for science, and good for cinema.

I bloody loved it because of all the ingredients, it would have to have been proper carnage for me think otherwise.
The actors, acting, score, SFX, director, the idea, the science....
I saw the holes, plot and otherwise, when sitting in front of the big screen I didn't give a sh*t, it took me to other worlds via beautful environments with beautiful music and a story I in some ways related to.
You know I see plot holes in every work of fiction... flying men with laser beams out of their eyes ffs...reallyhehe

Edited by Quickmoose on Wednesday 15th April 09:04

RESSE

5,692 posts

220 months

Wednesday 15th April 2015
quotequote all
tobinen said:
Blue Ruin. I'd say it's a arthouse film about revenge though I confess to not knowing what the revenge was about. Well-acted and shot. I'm going with a low-ish 6/10 but I think it warrants a second viewng and that may increase.
I agree.

PS It gets better the second/third time you watch it (in my opinion).




Nom de ploom

4,890 posts

173 months

Wednesday 15th April 2015
quotequote all
Hobbit - Battle of five Armies. looks great on blu-ray and better than in teh cinema imho, the fast editing i think on some films is too much for some cinemas so it was a better viewing "experience" at home.

However, sadly it doesn't make the film better. The whole project could have been so much better throughout. 5/10.

Funkycoldribena

7,379 posts

153 months

Wednesday 15th April 2015
quotequote all
Almost Married-6.5/10. Not as bad as I thought it would be,last 15 mins are 8/10.Bit Inbetweeners-ish (Emily Atack) is in it.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED