Skip to main content

Last movie you saw

derspatz said:
Hokay ... somebody ELSE please watch it and tell me which is likely to be true. :p

You just liked it coz Uma was init, but some of us watch movies for, you know, story, rather than the shapes of the bodies playing the characters. :)

regarDS
Click to expand...

I thought it was alright, i liked how all the objects fit in with the story, but yes it did get a silly near the end, i may be biased though considering i love Uma in anything she does.
 
Angels and Demons, very awesome. Reminded me how good of an actor Ewan McGregor actually is. Ayelet Zurer is very talented, and despite originally thinking she was miscast she was one of the best parts of the movie. Very..."kickass" without falling into the stereotype of that type of female character.

Hanks was ok, but he's still miscast. Like the novel, it doesn't try to be as controversial as the Da Vinci Code and I'm very appreciative of that because I do not like the books for the controversy, but the fun of having these puzzles/mysterious to solve. Howard, Goldsman (but I suspect more Koepp) wisely decided to make major cuts from the books, removing all the confusing stuff and the plodding pace that comes from trying to directly turn a book into a movie.

Overall, it's a reasonably intelligent, fun, pacy action flick which makes a definite impact and, above all, is really quite fun. Some big changes were made, but they (for the most part) made it a better movie. I was very impressed. Unfortunately, it continues to cop the residual flack from The Da Vinci Code. If only this had been released first...
 
Well...a little bit of both.

It's much better from a film-making standpoint. It's really a vast improvement. The script is much tighter, it's shot in a much...edgier way. Howard was much more daring in his changes - and there are a lot. The Hassassin is a completely different character. No longer a Middle-Eastern "beast" in it because of his hatred of the church, but instead a rather skilled European who's in it simply for the money.

I was furious when I first heard of this change yet when I saw the movie - I didn't hate it. This guy was scary, yet he lacked any attributes of the original Hassassin. He wasn't a complete monster (in fact, he rathering sparing in the lives he does take) but he was definitely more frightening than Silas. Once again, I think it comes down to the writing on this one and the fact that it didn't introduce yet another religious...thing.

CERN barely features, Kohler doesn't feature at all. Also, Vittoria's father does not feature (his role is taken by a random scientist). Vittoria has no romance with Langdon at all. Not even a 'moment'. The art, history and lectures are kept to a minimum. They're still the main focus of the film, but they don't try to turn it into this overly preachy, "intelligent" film like they did with Da Vinci. It's simply not trying to be that movie, and this aspect of the film is all the more enhanced by that. The cutting of all these subplots allows Howard to actually give a purpose/moral to the film, which was severely lacking in Da Vinci.

No doubt this will be swept up as "anti-religion" because it's related to The Da Vinci Code (as the book as been), but the story isn't one of "religion vs science" but of what could be accomplished if both of them weren't so hard-headed in their approach to the other. I fully agree with the idea of science and religion being complementary, not antagonist and I like that both the book and movie focus on this point.

The person I was with described it as being like 24 and I have to say that I agree. The tension is kept up the constant reminder that every hour someone will die, and that by midnight the Vatican will be gone. There's a massive sense of urgency and you actually have a reason to root for Langdon because he's doing something useful.

I think the best way to describe it is 24 with art, history and science. It's brisk, it's thrilling but it makes you think as well.

The other thing is, I think only the naive take the plots of these movies seriously and this is a major pitfall of the original film - it took itself way too seriously. There wasn't even a single joke cracked! Angels and Demons does not suffer from this problem and it's not afraid to attempt to be funny in the middle of all the mutilations and deciphering and there were quite a few scenes which had me laughing out loud.
 
Last edited:
See i liked a review I read that stated that if the plot was the ridler vs batman type unreal situation you'd be more likely to believe it, However it offers less than you'd except from a plot that allows for such a silly concept to work in it's reality.

Personally I thought the Davinci code was pretty bad, drawn out film making that wasn't very exciting. The controversial, religious aspects were just so ridiculous i don't see how people could take offence. This film i do think I'd like better, i would go see it if i got time, but i have come to understand it's a really brain dead blockbuster popcorn movie that suggests more intelligence behind it's plot that there actually is.
 
I'm seeing Angels and Demons tonight. :)

I haven't seen the Da Vinci Code... but they're seperate stories aren't they? Shouldn't really matter.
 
Baby on Board

Staring Heather Graham and Jerry O'Connell as a successful career oreintated couple who get pregnant, however both believe the others been cheating whey they have not, and so the pregancy is full of them being pissed off at each other. It's not great but it's amusing and not terrible or anything. It's a film that you know what to get, while not hilarious, there's enough laughs although the trail off a bit towards the end. Strangest aspect of the film is Lara Flynn Boyle for plays heather grahams boss who is just painful to look at. She is stick thin, but looks like her face has been stung by lots of bee's. Really was unsettling what the plastic surgery has done to her.
Yeah an enjoyable softball pleasant comedy.
 
The trailer for the new transformers movie is cool..


but however they've gone way too far on one aspect of the plot and it's killed the franchise for me.
 
Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus

Ok, so i actually watched this. Probably in the best possible scenario to watch such a film. Drinking, projected on a big screen in my friends backyard. The film is so dumb, so cliched mates were calling out practically whole sentences and plot points before they happened. It's the sort of dumb that works to being entertaining, however it may not be so great if you don't watch drinking with friends. One aspect thats a let down is, for as dumb and cheap as it is, it is cheap as hell. A bigger budget even with such a dumb script would have really helped. The budget and really limited and repeated nature of a lot of the cgi really holds the film back from being the cult classic it could be.
Everything about the film is bad, but it's enjoyable with a bunch of laugh out loud moments. Could be a little shorter as towards the end you want it to finishes. In the way of, you've had enough of it, not because it's unwatchable.


Star Crash

A cheap 1979 sci fi film with david hasselhoff in a supporting role that tried to cheaply cash in on star wars. The film really is cheap and crappy and makes little to no sense. Plot points and action scenes are hard to follow and really make no sense. There is an overall feeling of everything is completely under developed, it's more just things happening. Charaters such as the robot which you understand is meant to fill a likable comedic side role but it just doesn't work. The film screams of, a little bit too much effort was made in making such a piece of crap cinema and story telling. It has some of the worst production design i've ever scene. When i say too much work put in.. it's still all crap. Crap sets, crap models, crap design, crap acting but for the level of crap.. it seems a bit too much time was spent on making it than should have been. It's only for people who can find some pleasure in really b-grade period sci-fi stuff. It was particularly bad, but not unwatchable. I'd be damned if i could explain the story or any sense to it. For instance the lead character Stellar Star who is quite attractive is imprisoned for all of 5 minutes and her prison outfit is little to nothing which resembles a lot of her outfit for the rest of the film. Stuff just happens for no reason.
 
up_all_night said:
Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus

Ok, so i actually watched this. Probably in the best possible scenario to watch such a film. Drinking, projected on a big screen in my friends backyard. The film is so dumb, so cliched mates were calling out practically whole sentences and plot points before they happened. It's the sort of dumb that works to being entertaining, however it may not be so great if you don't watch drinking with friends. One aspect thats a let down is, for as dumb and cheap as it is, it is cheap as hell. A bigger budget even with such a dumb script would have really helped. The budget and really limited and repeated nature of a lot of the cgi really holds the film back from being the cult classic it could be.
Everything about the film is bad, but it's enjoyable with a bunch of laugh out loud moments. Could be a little shorter as towards the end you want it to finishes. In the way of, you've had enough of it, not because it's unwatchable.


Star Crash

A cheap 1979 sci fi film with david hasselhoff in a supporting role that tried to cheaply cash in on star wars. The film really is cheap and crappy and makes little to no sense. Plot points and action scenes are hard to follow and really make no sense. There is an overall feeling of everything is completely under developed, it's more just things happening. Charaters such as the robot which you understand is meant to fill a likable comedic side role but it just doesn't work. The film screams of, a little bit too much effort was made in making such a piece of crap cinema and story telling. It has some of the worst production design i've ever scene. When i say too much work put in.. it's still all crap. Crap sets, crap models, crap design, crap acting but for the level of crap.. it seems a bit too much time was spent on making it than should have been. It's only for people who can find some pleasure in really b-grade period sci-fi stuff. It was particularly bad, but not unwatchable. I'd be damned if i could explain the story or any sense to it. For instance the lead character Stellar Star who is quite attractive is imprisoned for all of 5 minutes and her prison outfit is little to nothing which resembles a lot of her outfit for the rest of the film. Stuff just happens for no reason.
Click to expand...



Hehehe Star Crash......B movie fun if you ask me.

As for Mega Shark well it's an Assylum film... Look them up. they deliberately make bad films because there's some fun in that. There are other titles just ad dodgy in their catalog and they might be better fun.

Still waiting for my copy.....Where did you get yours
 
So.....saw the new "Star Trek" flick last night.

You know I thought it was pretty cool. I don't think it's any spoiler to say that Leonard Nimoy pops up at one point, one of the best cameos I've seen in years.

Karl Urban did well. And the fun thing was how closely this was bound on the original ST series and the original Enterprise, albeit with younger actors.

I'm not convinced by the new James T Kirk, his skin wasn't good, and he was only half convincing to me. Bana was great as the Romulan villain, and wonderful special effects.

Scottie, his dimnutive sidekick, and the strange planet they were stuck on were all very good. Fascinating, even.

Let's see: 8/10. :) Live long and prosper
 
I am getting a 5 movie pack and inside that is the classic scifi "Faranheit 451" which is based on a book of the same name.

Also in that set is the movie "Timescape" about time traveling tourists who visit Earth to witness a comet hitting. That should be different I think.

Also in this set are the "Battlestar Galactica" mini series that started the new show, "Tremors" and "The Thing" 1982 version
 
Last edited:
bb-06 said:
I think the best way to describe it is 24 with art, history and science. It's brisk, it's thrilling but it makes you think as well.

The other thing is, I think only the naive take the plots of these movies seriously and this is a major pitfall of the original film - it took itself way too seriously. There wasn't even a single joke cracked! Angels and Demons does not suffer from this problem and it's not afraid to attempt to be funny in the middle of all the mutilations and deciphering and there were quite a few scenes which had me laughing out loud.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with your review of the film. I haven't read the book however, or seen The Da Vinci Code.

I really enjoyed it though.

Not a spoiler, but I did find myself wondering whether the Vatican's use of technology in the film is realistic or not?
 
"My Supe Ex Girlfriend"

OMG no wonder this movie keeps appearing in the bargain bin. It's not that good.

I expected far better seing as it's an Ivan Rietman film but I think he's run out of ideas and this was just bad. There was a ton of sexism both male and female. Mostly sexism from the Uma thurman character aimed at her male co star...

The story wasn't all that good either and I felt bad for the actors as it was kind of disjointed and the ending was one of the worst endings I have ever seen.


5/10
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top