login

Author Topic: What was the last movie you watched?  (Read 1523052 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 27762
  • Liked: 5617
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14640 on: November 22, 2014, 08:13:50 PM »
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I am not willing to believe that she is really effecting ANYTHING.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I know. That's why it's nonsensical and stupid.



Offline ScottotD

  • Not Quite Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 11158
  • Liked: 1269
  • E Pluribum Anus forever
    • Facebook
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14641 on: November 22, 2014, 08:34:08 PM »
Is that the one that ends with the girl saying she should stay in the kitchen?  :o
Scottotd on Instagram

"A thing I like that there was no chance would ever continue until recently is now continuing but it doesn't meet my exact personal specifications so fuck this"

- how I read any complaint about MST3k (or Star Wars or Ghostbusters)


Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 27762
  • Liked: 5617
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14642 on: November 22, 2014, 08:48:14 PM »
Is that the one that ends with the girl saying she should stay in the kitchen?  :o
I don't remember a line like that.



Offline Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 27762
  • Liked: 5617
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14643 on: November 22, 2014, 09:17:08 PM »
I watched Gamera: Attack of the Legion - It was okay, but I didn't like it as much as the last one. The large creature was pretty cool. And in theory I like the idea of one big Gamera having trouble fighting off many smaller creatures. But they didn't really do them very well with a) when they swarmed him it was bad CGI, and b) they were defeated by a bug zapper, and c) they had one larger creature anyway, negating the point of a hive mind type Legion "we are many".
  GAH! Why is that girl back again?! She doesn't have a connection to Gamera anymore. At least, I don't think. The end of the last one said she didn't. Gamera is getting literally IMPALED THROUGH THE CHEST at one point, and she's not bleeding because of it, so I guess not. Which means she is even more tacked on and pointless than the last time! Or is she the one doing that bullshit swirling fire embers that somehow revives him?
  Giant monster movies are essentially pretty simple. So I shouldn't be asking so many times what the hell is going on.
Gamera just defeats the first pod flower thing by blasting it with his fireball breath. Seems like our missiles would have done just fine against it, then. Except that our missiles wouldn't have stepped on several buildings just getting to it, thanks Gamera.
I have no idea what the swirling fire embers is that resurrected Gamera. Did the girl do that? After it happened her stone broke, so it seemed related, but we haven't seen her do that type of effect before.
I have NO idea what the fuck even the exploding flower was! The explosion looked like their simulation they ran earlier about it "releasing spores", so I thought it was doing what it was supposed to do. But no spores are released, and it just looked like a nuke went off. Did Gamera do that? He kind of screwed himself over in the process if he did.
And then near the end of the movie suddenly golden rings come from all over the planet and give Gamera a chest fire weapon from out of nowhere. What?!
  I do like how much this series is willing to let Gamera get hurt. Seriously, this turtle gets damaged more than Bill Cosby's credibility.
 

Looking forward to the third one, which is supposed to be much better.

EDT: Oh, and at 1:07:59 it's Cornjob!
« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 09:23:09 PM by Darth Geek »



Soguru

  • Guest
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14644 on: November 22, 2014, 09:24:52 PM »
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
It's a terribly boring film. It does have a certain appeal though. Between Jerry Goldsmith's music, the return of the original Enterprise 7, the status of the movie in the time it was released, it's still a halfway decent watch. I've never hated the movie. I actually liked it quite a bit when I was a kid.


Offline MartyS (Gromit)

  • Not Quite Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 11597
  • Liked: 2562
  • Weirdies!
    • My homepage
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14645 on: November 22, 2014, 09:52:14 PM »
And McCoy is good as always, though we don't get anything new from him here.

Hmmm, thinking about McCoy, his character doesn't change much at all from TOS through his guest spot to launch TNG.  At least I can't think of anything that changes.  It is a shame the only good bit of back story we get with him is in Star Trek V, it's one of the few really good scenes in that movie.


Offline BathTub

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8383
  • Liked: 356
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14646 on: November 22, 2014, 10:36:45 PM »
Glengarry Glen Ross - I spend 20 years thinking this was called Gengarry Ross. An interesting film, though it's play background shines through pretty hard. I'm not sure if I'm 100% on the scam, were they attempting to sell 'far off' worthless real estate, to people site unseen?

The Lone Ranger - This was just plain weird. Invoking the unreliable narrator pretty hard early on kind of means you can just write off a lot of stuff, but still a lot of it feels.. off.


Offline Nunyerbiz

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3400
  • Liked: 953
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14647 on: November 23, 2014, 01:52:44 AM »
Still trying to process "Interstellar", which is the first movie I've seen that humanized space flight, but don't start asking questions like

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I pointed this out on Facebook just today... even if a movie is 100% scientifically accurate, or even just 95% accurate, it can still suck. Scientific accuracy in my opinion does not affect the quality of any movie. If it did, I would have to say 1979's The Black Hole was a phenomenal piece of shit. As it is though, I think it still holds up very well.

I don't disagree. But the problem I had with Interstellar was that it spent a shitload of time on goofball science stuff. It really should have been 20-30 minutes shorter. I guess I can't blame all of that on needless science stuff, at least not until I see it again, but at least some of it.


Offline ScottotD

  • Not Quite Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 11158
  • Liked: 1269
  • E Pluribum Anus forever
    • Facebook
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14648 on: November 23, 2014, 01:28:38 PM »
Still trying to process "Interstellar", which is the first movie I've seen that humanized space flight, but don't start asking questions like

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I pointed this out on Facebook just today... even if a movie is 100% scientifically accurate, or even just 95% accurate, it can still suck. Scientific accuracy in my opinion does not affect the quality of any movie. If it did, I would have to say 1979's The Black Hole was a phenomenal piece of shit. As it is though, I think it still holds up very well.

I don't disagree. But the problem I had with Interstellar was that it spent a shitload of time on goofball science stuff. It really should have been 20-30 minutes shorter. I guess I can't blame all of that on needless science stuff, at least not until I see it again, but at least some of it.

I guess once you decide to do scientifically accurate you're stuck with dry explaining science scenes.
Scottotd on Instagram

"A thing I like that there was no chance would ever continue until recently is now continuing but it doesn't meet my exact personal specifications so fuck this"

- how I read any complaint about MST3k (or Star Wars or Ghostbusters)


Offline Edward J Grug III

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16136
  • Liked: 2596
  • Forum Tokens Collected: 5000
    • Glorious Bounty
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14649 on: November 23, 2014, 03:43:40 PM »
Still trying to process "Interstellar", which is the first movie I've seen that humanized space flight, but don't start asking questions like

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I pointed this out on Facebook just today... even if a movie is 100% scientifically accurate, or even just 95% accurate, it can still suck. Scientific accuracy in my opinion does not affect the quality of any movie. If it did, I would have to say 1979's The Black Hole was a phenomenal piece of shit. As it is though, I think it still holds up very well.

I don't disagree. But the problem I had with Interstellar was that it spent a shitload of time on goofball science stuff. It really should have been 20-30 minutes shorter. I guess I can't blame all of that on needless science stuff, at least not until I see it again, but at least some of it.

I guess once you decide to do scientifically accurate you're stuck with dry explaining science scenes.

I haven't seen the movie, but why?

I mean, you choose what you do and don't expalin - I can see a rocket in a movie without the science behind it being explained, or a vaccine or whatever. And even if you feel the need to explain things, you choose how to present that information.
FINE


Offline ScottotD

  • Not Quite Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 11158
  • Liked: 1269
  • E Pluribum Anus forever
    • Facebook
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14650 on: November 23, 2014, 03:59:06 PM »
Still trying to process "Interstellar", which is the first movie I've seen that humanized space flight, but don't start asking questions like

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I pointed this out on Facebook just today... even if a movie is 100% scientifically accurate, or even just 95% accurate, it can still suck. Scientific accuracy in my opinion does not affect the quality of any movie. If it did, I would have to say 1979's The Black Hole was a phenomenal piece of shit. As it is though, I think it still holds up very well.

I don't disagree. But the problem I had with Interstellar was that it spent a shitload of time on goofball science stuff. It really should have been 20-30 minutes shorter. I guess I can't blame all of that on needless science stuff, at least not until I see it again, but at least some of it.

I guess once you decide to do scientifically accurate you're stuck with dry explaining science scenes.

I haven't seen the movie, but why?

I mean, you choose what you do and don't expalin - I can see a rocket in a movie without the science behind it being explained, or a vaccine or whatever. And even if you feel the need to explain things, you choose how to present that information.

I put it down as a creative decision like making a period piece historically accurate, not one I think is needed to be honest but obviously what Nolan decided to do.   
Scottotd on Instagram

"A thing I like that there was no chance would ever continue until recently is now continuing but it doesn't meet my exact personal specifications so fuck this"

- how I read any complaint about MST3k (or Star Wars or Ghostbusters)


Offline Edward J Grug III

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16136
  • Liked: 2596
  • Forum Tokens Collected: 5000
    • Glorious Bounty
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14651 on: November 23, 2014, 04:06:12 PM »
Still trying to process "Interstellar", which is the first movie I've seen that humanized space flight, but don't start asking questions like

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I pointed this out on Facebook just today... even if a movie is 100% scientifically accurate, or even just 95% accurate, it can still suck. Scientific accuracy in my opinion does not affect the quality of any movie. If it did, I would have to say 1979's The Black Hole was a phenomenal piece of shit. As it is though, I think it still holds up very well.

I don't disagree. But the problem I had with Interstellar was that it spent a shitload of time on goofball science stuff. It really should have been 20-30 minutes shorter. I guess I can't blame all of that on needless science stuff, at least not until I see it again, but at least some of it.

I guess once you decide to do scientifically accurate you're stuck with dry explaining science scenes.

I haven't seen the movie, but why?

I mean, you choose what you do and don't expalin - I can see a rocket in a movie without the science behind it being explained, or a vaccine or whatever. And even if you feel the need to explain things, you choose how to present that information.

I put it down as a creative decision like making a period piece historically accurate, not one I think is needed to be honest but obviously what Nolan decided to do.

Right, I agree it's what he decided to do, and that's why its open to criticism. You implied he was forced to do it.

I haven't seen it yet, and probably won't until I can see it at home, but the more I hear about the movie, the less I like the sound of it.
FINE


Quantum Vagina

  • Guest
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14652 on: November 23, 2014, 04:31:20 PM »
Still trying to process "Interstellar", which is the first movie I've seen that humanized space flight, but don't start asking questions like

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I pointed this out on Facebook just today... even if a movie is 100% scientifically accurate, or even just 95% accurate, it can still suck. Scientific accuracy in my opinion does not affect the quality of any movie. If it did, I would have to say 1979's The Black Hole was a phenomenal piece of shit. As it is though, I think it still holds up very well.

I don't disagree. But the problem I had with Interstellar was that it spent a shitload of time on goofball science stuff. It really should have been 20-30 minutes shorter. I guess I can't blame all of that on needless science stuff, at least not until I see it again, but at least some of it.

I guess once you decide to do scientifically accurate you're stuck with dry explaining science scenes.

I haven't seen the movie, but why?

I mean, you choose what you do and don't expalin - I can see a rocket in a movie without the science behind it being explained, or a vaccine or whatever. And even if you feel the need to explain things, you choose how to present that information.

I put it down as a creative decision like making a period piece historically accurate, not one I think is needed to be honest but obviously what Nolan decided to do.

I haven't seen the film, but the review I saw said it felt like the crew was worried Neil Degrasse Tyson was going to burst into the room and tell them how wrong there facts were if they didn't show that they did their homework.


Offline Edward J Grug III

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16136
  • Liked: 2596
  • Forum Tokens Collected: 5000
    • Glorious Bounty
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14653 on: November 23, 2014, 04:32:41 PM »
I haven't seen the film, but the review I saw said it felt like the crew was worried Neil Degrasse Tyson was going to burst into the room and tell them how wrong there facts were if they didn't show that they did their homework.

Haha - Nice! I bet it just made people work harder to find faults though :P
FINE


Offline lassieface

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1378
  • Liked: 250
  • Stuff is fun n' stuff!
    • Striped Tea Cup
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #14654 on: November 23, 2014, 04:40:14 PM »
Every Nolan movie I've seen should have been at least 20-30 minutes shorter than it was.

Well, you're definitely not wrong when talking about freaking The Dark Knight Rises. I liked it, but that movie was eternal.