Good films I watched this weekend (Vol 2)
Discussion
blindswelledrat said:
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?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.
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.
Would you, leave your children at a moments notice, probably to never see them again, with their grandfather, when there's a shortage of food situation that you know is going to get worse as the planet is dying all because a bookcase told you to meet Michael Caine who then said you should, because he'd found a wormhole?
No, no-one would, the idea is idiotic. In the film no-one behaves in a way that's believable (Prometheus had a similar problem). If a bookcase told you to kill yourself because it would cure cancer you wouldn't do it, even if you were an expert in cancer. It would be extremely difficult for someone to make a story where that situation looks plausible but in Interstellar they've presented this pretty film, chucked in some dodgy science and passed it off as just that.
I love sci-fi, the original War of the worlds, The day the world stood still, 2001, 2010, Close Encounters, Alien, The Terminator, 12 monkeys, GATTACA, Contact, Capricorn One, Blade Runner, Moon, War Games, Her, Strange Days & Solaris spring to mind as being my faves. However War of the Worlds (remake), Independence Day, 2012, Matrix, Armageddon, Deep Impact, Source Code, Transcendence, Lucy, Event Horizon and their ilk are just rubbish, happy to dismiss them as they're just brain dead popcorn films. I'd be happy to bundle Interstellar into the second category if it wasn't for folk claiming it's all believable and Gentlemen Science Fiction.
But anyway this is a circular discussion. You like it, I don't, I've given my reasons.
/discussion
Hoping Ex-Machina is good.
qube_TA said:
Would you, leave your children at a moments notice, probably to never see them again, with their grandfather, when there's a shortage of food situation that you know is going to get worse as the planet is dying all because a bookcase told you to meet Michael Caine who then said you should, because he'd found a wormhole?
No, no-one would, the idea is idiotic.
200,000 people signed up just for the hell being part of the future of humanity on a one way mission to Mars.No, no-one would, the idea is idiotic.
What is so unbelievable about someone signing up to have a chance of actually saving the world?
As I said before, this was dealt with in the dialogue, IIRC between him and the grandfather. If he doesn't go, then even first world humanity is becoming precarious, to the point where the best hope he has for his children are menial jobs, or being self-sufficient before their death from starvation.
I don't know whether you missed key bits of dialogue, but that part was pretty clear to me.
qube_TA said:
It doesn't have to be a documentary, if you watch a James Bond film, is the actor who plays him convincing in that role? Is ian mckellen authentic as a wizard? Was Matthew McConaughey convincing as a cowboy with HIV selling drugs in a buyers club? Yes, yes and yes. However was he a test pilot engineer? Erm?
Would you, leave your children at a moments notice, probably to never see them again, with their grandfather, when there's a shortage of food situation that you know is going to get worse as the planet is dying all because a bookcase told you to meet Michael Caine who then said you should, because he'd found a wormhole?
No, no-one would, the idea is idiotic. In the film no-one behaves in a way that's believable (Prometheus had a similar problem). If a bookcase told you to kill yourself because it would cure cancer you wouldn't do it, even if you were an expert in cancer. It would be extremely difficult for someone to make a story where that situation looks plausible but in Interstellar they've presented this pretty film, chucked in some dodgy science and passed it off as just that.
I love sci-fi, the original War of the worlds, The day the world stood still, 2001, 2010, Close Encounters, Alien, The Terminator, 12 monkeys, GATTACA, Contact, Capricorn One, Blade Runner, Moon, War Games, Her, Strange Days & Solaris spring to mind as being my faves. However War of the Worlds (remake), Independence Day, 2012, Matrix, Armageddon, Deep Impact, Source Code, Transcendence, Lucy, Event Horizon and their ilk are just rubbish, happy to dismiss them as they're just brain dead popcorn films. I'd be happy to bundle Interstellar into the second category if it wasn't for folk claiming it's all believable and Gentlemen Science Fiction.
But anyway this is a circular discussion. You like it, I don't, I've given my reasons.
I get your point, but I don't really get why you think "it wasn't for folk claiming its all believable and Gentlemen Science FIction".Would you, leave your children at a moments notice, probably to never see them again, with their grandfather, when there's a shortage of food situation that you know is going to get worse as the planet is dying all because a bookcase told you to meet Michael Caine who then said you should, because he'd found a wormhole?
No, no-one would, the idea is idiotic. In the film no-one behaves in a way that's believable (Prometheus had a similar problem). If a bookcase told you to kill yourself because it would cure cancer you wouldn't do it, even if you were an expert in cancer. It would be extremely difficult for someone to make a story where that situation looks plausible but in Interstellar they've presented this pretty film, chucked in some dodgy science and passed it off as just that.
I love sci-fi, the original War of the worlds, The day the world stood still, 2001, 2010, Close Encounters, Alien, The Terminator, 12 monkeys, GATTACA, Contact, Capricorn One, Blade Runner, Moon, War Games, Her, Strange Days & Solaris spring to mind as being my faves. However War of the Worlds (remake), Independence Day, 2012, Matrix, Armageddon, Deep Impact, Source Code, Transcendence, Lucy, Event Horizon and their ilk are just rubbish, happy to dismiss them as they're just brain dead popcorn films. I'd be happy to bundle Interstellar into the second category if it wasn't for folk claiming it's all believable and Gentlemen Science Fiction.
But anyway this is a circular discussion. You like it, I don't, I've given my reasons.
I think I would agree with you if I felt that was how it was presented. What gives you that impression?
The difference between our views is simply that I watched it believing it to fit the exact genre of all the others you suggested which you label 'brain dead popcorn films'. It would also irritate me if I was supposed to find it believable but to me it struck me as deliberately and very obviously puerile and hence I watched it in that spirit and found it to be excellent.
toon10 said:
JustinP1 said:
ukaskew said:
The Signal - 5/10
I felt genuinely annoyed by this. It's really quite beautifully shot, the concept is interesting and it has a weird uneasy feel when 'things start happening'.
Sadly, it's staggeringly easy to work out that all is not what it seems, and there are a few moments in the script where they may as well have just hit the viewer over the head with a sledgehammer, add to that a few gaping plot holes and you're left with a really well shot film with a good initial concept, a terrible script and even worse ending where I just wanted to swear at the screen.
It's being dispatched from Lovefilm for me today - from a recommendation from this thread.I felt genuinely annoyed by this. It's really quite beautifully shot, the concept is interesting and it has a weird uneasy feel when 'things start happening'.
Sadly, it's staggeringly easy to work out that all is not what it seems, and there are a few moments in the script where they may as well have just hit the viewer over the head with a sledgehammer, add to that a few gaping plot holes and you're left with a really well shot film with a good initial concept, a terrible script and even worse ending where I just wanted to swear at the screen.
I'll tell you which side of the fence I'm on in the few days...!
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 13th April 14:29
MIT students into hacking go on a road trip to meet a top hackers who's been contacted them.
They get to a deserted cabin, 2 go in, one waits outside. They hear screams, go out, and she's gone and the car radio's going crazy and they black out.
The story then follows one of them as he wakes up, semi-paralysed in an underground secure bunker-hospital where he's locked in a room and everyone is wearing biological suits. They tell him he's been in contact with a known alien life form, and may be infected with something.
As has been said, the first half of this was really good, and I was sat there thinking why has this been reviewed so badly? Without spoilers the second half is not so good, by some way. It could have been a really good film. Not a bad watch if you can see it for free.
Predestination 7.75/10
Ethan Hawke is a time travelling agent who subtly changes the course of history. It's set in a time/place where space travel is a few decades ahead of our world, and time travel is discovered in 1981. His job is to prevent a bomber in 1974 killing 10,000 people.
After the first 5 minutes of sci-fi, the next 40 minutes is him speaking to a man in a bar in 1974 with the man explaining his bizarre life story. After that it picks up, and it becomes obvious that the previous 40 minutes is integral.
It's a great ride with some very well thought out twists and turns. A bit of a mind-bender and does make you think. It seems to be an Aussie film on a lowish budget. It lacks a little in execution because of the budget maybe, but still very worth a watch. If you like Primer or Timecrimes this takes the premise to the next level!
RESSE said:
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).
blindswelledrat said:
qube_TA said:
It doesn't have to be a documentary, if you watch a James Bond film, is the actor who plays him convincing in that role? Is ian mckellen authentic as a wizard? Was Matthew McConaughey convincing as a cowboy with HIV selling drugs in a buyers club? Yes, yes and yes. However was he a test pilot engineer? Erm?
Would you, leave your children at a moments notice, probably to never see them again, with their grandfather, when there's a shortage of food situation that you know is going to get worse as the planet is dying all because a bookcase told you to meet Michael Caine who then said you should, because he'd found a wormhole?
No, no-one would, the idea is idiotic. In the film no-one behaves in a way that's believable (Prometheus had a similar problem). If a bookcase told you to kill yourself because it would cure cancer you wouldn't do it, even if you were an expert in cancer. It would be extremely difficult for someone to make a story where that situation looks plausible but in Interstellar they've presented this pretty film, chucked in some dodgy science and passed it off as just that.
I love sci-fi, the original War of the worlds, The day the world stood still, 2001, 2010, Close Encounters, Alien, The Terminator, 12 monkeys, GATTACA, Contact, Capricorn One, Blade Runner, Moon, War Games, Her, Strange Days & Solaris spring to mind as being my faves. However War of the Worlds (remake), Independence Day, 2012, Matrix, Armageddon, Deep Impact, Source Code, Transcendence, Lucy, Event Horizon and their ilk are just rubbish, happy to dismiss them as they're just brain dead popcorn films. I'd be happy to bundle Interstellar into the second category if it wasn't for folk claiming it's all believable and Gentlemen Science Fiction.
But anyway this is a circular discussion. You like it, I don't, I've given my reasons.
I get your point, but I don't really get why you think "it wasn't for folk claiming its all believable and Gentlemen Science FIction".Would you, leave your children at a moments notice, probably to never see them again, with their grandfather, when there's a shortage of food situation that you know is going to get worse as the planet is dying all because a bookcase told you to meet Michael Caine who then said you should, because he'd found a wormhole?
No, no-one would, the idea is idiotic. In the film no-one behaves in a way that's believable (Prometheus had a similar problem). If a bookcase told you to kill yourself because it would cure cancer you wouldn't do it, even if you were an expert in cancer. It would be extremely difficult for someone to make a story where that situation looks plausible but in Interstellar they've presented this pretty film, chucked in some dodgy science and passed it off as just that.
I love sci-fi, the original War of the worlds, The day the world stood still, 2001, 2010, Close Encounters, Alien, The Terminator, 12 monkeys, GATTACA, Contact, Capricorn One, Blade Runner, Moon, War Games, Her, Strange Days & Solaris spring to mind as being my faves. However War of the Worlds (remake), Independence Day, 2012, Matrix, Armageddon, Deep Impact, Source Code, Transcendence, Lucy, Event Horizon and their ilk are just rubbish, happy to dismiss them as they're just brain dead popcorn films. I'd be happy to bundle Interstellar into the second category if it wasn't for folk claiming it's all believable and Gentlemen Science Fiction.
But anyway this is a circular discussion. You like it, I don't, I've given my reasons.
I think I would agree with you if I felt that was how it was presented. What gives you that impression?
The difference between our views is simply that I watched it believing it to fit the exact genre of all the others you suggested which you label 'brain dead popcorn films'. It would also irritate me if I was supposed to find it believable but to me it struck me as deliberately and very obviously puerile and hence I watched it in that spirit and found it to be excellent.
Ex Machina - thought halfway to run out of cinema and text qube that he should watch this as the best sci-fi of the decade. Even though I don't know his number. However, the last 30% put me off. It's beautifully shot - any man with camera experience can tell you that. And it's amazing. The ending, however... 
qube_TA said:
Furious 7;
It's not a great film, the earlier ones worked because of the banter and humour between the characters, it was almost Star Wars-esque with the comradery between them, you felt compelled to root for them even though it was a silly OTT film.
The first three films were low budget and all about cars n girls but easy to watch, when they made a 4th it was a surprise but they successfully expanded the idea to tie the first 2 films together (leaving the weaker 3rd on in a parallel universe), 5 & 6 successfully turned the street racing into some kind of heist / Mission Impossible affair, the street racers were now tech experts and highly trained, we just accepted this and went along with the ridiculously over the top story as it a was just entertaining & fun, lots of humour throughout.
I think they should have left it alone at 6 as it nicely wrapped up the whole saga bar the anomalous part 3.
7 is a different beast, with the loss of Paul Walker they were forced to construct a film using bits of other footage they had of him, the handful of scenes they had for the new one and CGI recreations using his brother (it's quite clever to watch how they did it). With a new director to boot it's now overblown and broken, nothing more than another generic Michael Bay type explosion fest, the cars are mostly forgotten now, and there's this uneasy awkwardness and sadness throughout. It would have been interesting to know what the film would have been if they hadn't had to rely on scraps of footage and heavy hearts. The Walker send-off was a nice touch and ultimately was why the film is worth a watch. It has its moments but is certainly the weakest since Tokyo Drift, I think their decision to make two more films is stretching the whole concept just too far, it's past time to let the franchise drive off into the sunset.
6.5/10
Watched it on launch night. I thought it was utter sIt's not a great film, the earlier ones worked because of the banter and humour between the characters, it was almost Star Wars-esque with the comradery between them, you felt compelled to root for them even though it was a silly OTT film.
The first three films were low budget and all about cars n girls but easy to watch, when they made a 4th it was a surprise but they successfully expanded the idea to tie the first 2 films together (leaving the weaker 3rd on in a parallel universe), 5 & 6 successfully turned the street racing into some kind of heist / Mission Impossible affair, the street racers were now tech experts and highly trained, we just accepted this and went along with the ridiculously over the top story as it a was just entertaining & fun, lots of humour throughout.
I think they should have left it alone at 6 as it nicely wrapped up the whole saga bar the anomalous part 3.
7 is a different beast, with the loss of Paul Walker they were forced to construct a film using bits of other footage they had of him, the handful of scenes they had for the new one and CGI recreations using his brother (it's quite clever to watch how they did it). With a new director to boot it's now overblown and broken, nothing more than another generic Michael Bay type explosion fest, the cars are mostly forgotten now, and there's this uneasy awkwardness and sadness throughout. It would have been interesting to know what the film would have been if they hadn't had to rely on scraps of footage and heavy hearts. The Walker send-off was a nice touch and ultimately was why the film is worth a watch. It has its moments but is certainly the weakest since Tokyo Drift, I think their decision to make two more films is stretching the whole concept just too far, it's past time to let the franchise drive off into the sunset.
6.5/10
te. 3/10 at best. Even the tribute was terrible imo. I got told off for whispering 'gaaaay'. To make things worse I had my car on display on the Saturday with a load of others outside a cinema. Got some free tickets without expiry date though. Going for Avengers & Mad Max. Wish me luck...Veeayt said:
Ex Machina - thought halfway to run out of cinema and text qube that he should watch this as the best sci-fi of the decade. Even though I don't know his number. However, the last 30% put me off. It's beautifully shot - any man with camera experience can tell you that. And it's amazing. The ending, however...
Exactly what I thought, could have been so much better, but still a good film.Pre-emptive post:
I recorded the whole of Film 4's Studio Ghibli film season because I have a modded Sky+ HD box with a metric fktonne of storage. Right now I have "Grave of the Fireflies" sitting on it and I dare not watch it, because every friend who has watched it tells me that they bawled their eyes out.
*ulp*
I recorded the whole of Film 4's Studio Ghibli film season because I have a modded Sky+ HD box with a metric f
ktonne of storage. Right now I have "Grave of the Fireflies" sitting on it and I dare not watch it, because every friend who has watched it tells me that they bawled their eyes out. *ulp*
Edited by JonRB on Saturday 18th April 00:54
JonRB said:
Pre-emptive post:
I recorded the whole of Film 4's Studio Ghibli film season because I have a modded Sky+ HD box with a metric fktonne of storage. Right now I have "Grave of the Fireflies" sitting on it and I dare not watch it, because every friend who has watched it tells me that they bawled their eyes out.
*ulp*
Your friends are correct, a beautiful but incredibly sad film. Was very 'dusty' when we watched it I recorded the whole of Film 4's Studio Ghibli film season because I have a modded Sky+ HD box with a metric f
ktonne of storage. Right now I have "Grave of the Fireflies" sitting on it and I dare not watch it, because every friend who has watched it tells me that they bawled their eyes out. *ulp*
Edited by JonRB on Saturday 18th April 00:54
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff