Very dated, but in a way it's cool to sometimes look back at the days preceding the internet. He was basically roaming on dial-up for unsecure company networks or BBSes with free games.
What movies have you seen recently?
- Thread starter Plainview
- Start date
Very dated, but in a way it's cool to sometimes look back at the days preceding the internet. He was basically roaming on dial-up for unsecure company networks or BBSes with free games.
Yeah, I kind of felt the same way. Maybe not as harsh but I did feel like after about an hour like the movie pretty much lost me.
Therefore I'm curious as to the meaning of 'dated'. If it means that the movie itself is dated, I'd still watch it one day but it's not a priority. If, on the other hand, the technology inside the movie is outdated and nothing more than that, I really have to watch the movie right now. There's nothing wrong with old tech at all, and actually, the analog age technology is the best when it comes to films. Makes even the simplest thing so intimidating and scary. Archaic technology is one of the things that made the original Alien so scary.
Never heard of it and gotta check it out. BTW I'd appreciate recommendations on any techno-thriller others heard about. Anything about hacking, computer technology, etc. is fine, as long as it's not about a virtual reality stuff (i.e. Tron, Lawnmower Man)
Hmm... Not sure exactly what qualifies for the genre, but some movies I can think of that likely would are...
Existenze ( although this is more about alternate or augmented reality)
De Ja Vu
Virtuosity
Swordfish
The Net
Source Code
and that is about all I can think of.
Just watched The Vanishing (1988 )It was pretty good, reeaaaally strange pacing and structure to it. Was a bit disappointed in the ending since I heard all about how shattering and horrifying it is... and I was kind of meh on it. The movie impressed overall though.
@blue
Took some time to package multiple orders from the forwarding company. Seconds came today, just came back from watching it.
Being distracted by new stylus for Venue 8 Pro and a can of beer certainly didn't help. I feel my experience was a little distracted, and I need to see it again. Being spoiled of the whole story didn't help either. Especially so because the movie is hard to follow, both in terms of script and editing.
Shot by James Wong Howe, the cinematography itself is a textbook wide angle lens shooting amped up to 11. Since everything is in focus, deliberate staging and camera movement takes the role of what editing should do in most films while looking very good same time, and the movie is very good at that; occasional brilliant use of devices mirror (which, a lot of times, can end up being very cheesy), awesome tracking shots, scary POV shots and close-ups, etc. Things ends up looking really good, a pinnacle of its kind, but at the same time very extreme and quaint rather than a standard.
Now, these shots are edited in a non-classical way that is a reminiscent of French New Wave. It tends to go one step more than most American New Wave directors would do. You see a lot of frequent cutting between shots that are shot in similar positions to indicate the passage of time, and some other editing quirks that makes the story itself a little confusing. The style as a whole is distracting, the way I think the director meant it to be. It's by no means abused, and some scenes use these unusual editing to a great degree, but sometimes it creates a confusion. This is reinforced by a script that does not try to explain or delay the exposition for some of the crucial informations. With these two things combined, I think, for example, the movie does not do a very good job at explaining why Rock Hudson freaks out when he finds out that all his neighbors are just like him. To stay emotionally attached throughout the film, you have to focus 100% for the 107 minutes, something that few movies require these days. So other than being scary, I'd say this movie requires a complete concentration. So keep that in mind when you watch it.
One thing that I found interesting was the supplement; I was hoping that an interview with one of the actors and the director John Frankenheimer's wife would reveal deeper understandings to the movie, but all they said was some backstories about the film. The revelation I wanted came in the form of an interview with Alec Baldwin, who is not even remotely related to this film, and just shot a film or two with John Frankenheimer before he died. He points out all the most important things to understand this film, so if you have the Criterion Collection title, it's really worth watching.
Took some time to package multiple orders from the forwarding company. Seconds came today, just came back from watching it.
Being distracted by new stylus for Venue 8 Pro and a can of beer certainly didn't help. I feel my experience was a little distracted, and I need to see it again. Being spoiled of the whole story didn't help either. Especially so because the movie is hard to follow, both in terms of script and editing.
Shot by James Wong Howe, the cinematography itself is a textbook wide angle lens shooting amped up to 11. Since everything is in focus, deliberate staging and camera movement takes the role of what editing should do in most films while looking very good same time, and the movie is very good at that; occasional brilliant use of devices mirror (which, a lot of times, can end up being very cheesy), awesome tracking shots, scary POV shots and close-ups, etc. Things ends up looking really good, a pinnacle of its kind, but at the same time very extreme and quaint rather than a standard.
Now, these shots are edited in a non-classical way that is a reminiscent of French New Wave. It tends to go one step more than most American New Wave directors would do. You see a lot of frequent cutting between shots that are shot in similar positions to indicate the passage of time, and some other editing quirks that makes the story itself a little confusing. The style as a whole is distracting, the way I think the director meant it to be. It's by no means abused, and some scenes use these unusual editing to a great degree, but sometimes it creates a confusion. This is reinforced by a script that does not try to explain or delay the exposition for some of the crucial informations. With these two things combined, I think, for example, the movie does not do a very good job at explaining why Rock Hudson freaks out when he finds out that all his neighbors are just like him. To stay emotionally attached throughout the film, you have to focus 100% for the 107 minutes, something that few movies require these days. So other than being scary, I'd say this movie requires a complete concentration. So keep that in mind when you watch it.
One thing that I found interesting was the supplement; I was hoping that an interview with one of the actors and the director John Frankenheimer's wife would reveal deeper understandings to the movie, but all they said was some backstories about the film. The revelation I wanted came in the form of an interview with Alec Baldwin, who is not even remotely related to this film, and just shot a film or two with John Frankenheimer before he died. He points out all the most important things to understand this film, so if you have the Criterion Collection title, it's really worth watching.
Last edited:
I just watched Robocop 2 for the first time in years.
It's definitely a pale imitation of the first film, but it does have a few cool bits. Also, after watching it, I feel like the 2014 Robocop actually took a lot of inspiration from Robocop for certain beats. Maybe they said "There's no point in remaking the original, it was pretty much perfect, let's do Robocop 2, because it almost hit the mark."
Like how the new one dealt with free will vs. following the program, in 1990 it was "I type it, you think it", how 2014's Murphy was kept from his wife, here the dirtbag OCP lawyer asks, "what can you offer [your wife]? Love?...A man's love?" and "there's not even enough of you left to make a corpse, just a few chunks of meat", which in 2014 was pretty much the only scene that was more gruesome than the first films. There was also the lineup of other, unsuitable cops that didn't make the grade.
The violence in Robocop 2 is great and the stop-motion is really well done. It blends with the background much better than the ED209 in Robocop, except for the lack of tween(?) motion blur frames, it actually looks as good as CGI in many places.
The basic plot isn't terrible and some good ideas are in there, but it's just too much like a comic book fantasy with fictional drugs, overly colorful, and implausibly motivated villainous characters. In contrast to the satirical version of Detroit that represented a dark extrapolation of then-current issues depicted in the first.
Overall, I'd give it a positive review, and say that like Robocop 2014, it's real failing is having to follow in some gigantic footsteps.
It's definitely a pale imitation of the first film, but it does have a few cool bits. Also, after watching it, I feel like the 2014 Robocop actually took a lot of inspiration from Robocop for certain beats. Maybe they said "There's no point in remaking the original, it was pretty much perfect, let's do Robocop 2, because it almost hit the mark."
Like how the new one dealt with free will vs. following the program, in 1990 it was "I type it, you think it", how 2014's Murphy was kept from his wife, here the dirtbag OCP lawyer asks, "what can you offer [your wife]? Love?...A man's love?" and "there's not even enough of you left to make a corpse, just a few chunks of meat", which in 2014 was pretty much the only scene that was more gruesome than the first films. There was also the lineup of other, unsuitable cops that didn't make the grade.
The violence in Robocop 2 is great and the stop-motion is really well done. It blends with the background much better than the ED209 in Robocop, except for the lack of tween(?) motion blur frames, it actually looks as good as CGI in many places.
The basic plot isn't terrible and some good ideas are in there, but it's just too much like a comic book fantasy with fictional drugs, overly colorful, and implausibly motivated villainous characters. In contrast to the satirical version of Detroit that represented a dark extrapolation of then-current issues depicted in the first.
Overall, I'd give it a positive review, and say that like Robocop 2014, it's real failing is having to follow in some gigantic footsteps.
I agree somethings about the villain were stretching it, but there is still some satire of Detroit I appreciate. Also, some good new fake commercials like the lethal car security.
Watched deliver us from Evil. f***in' intense and spooky as hell! They did a great job on this one. The characters are a little one dimensional but seeing as this is based off of the officers true accounts of the events that take place, it definitely keeps you engaged. The exorcisms were very Exorcist in their execution. I'll be buying this one when it releases. I love a good suspense flick and this one hit the spot!
Just watched this one little movie called The Visitor (1979) It stars John Huston(yes that director), Sam Pekinpah(yes that director too), Lance Henriksen, Glenn Ford and the likes, where the space ranger organization by Yahweh and Jesus sends their agent John Huston to stop devil's reborn incarnation and its evil plan.
If you have even the vaguest idea of what that means, you need to think again because you would still have no f***ing idea what the f*** the movie is about after you are done watching it.. It is truly a pinnacle of so-bad-it's-good film that will blow your god d--n mind for all the wrong reasons. And oh my god, DAT SCORE. It just refuses to go away from your head.
Last edited:
The Lego Movie - 9/10 me and my son enjoyed it was really entertaining. They did a great job with the design and animation. I grew up playing with Lego's so I'm sure that might push the score a little. One of the better kids movies of late. Some good jokes and cameos. My favorite was from a galaxy far far away.
Watched Captain America: The Winter Soldier the other day. I thought it was better than the first Cap movie. The movie flowed pretty well with some great action. I really like how the Winter Soldier turned out, IMO one of the better comic to movie transitions for a character.
Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind - 9/10 first time seeing it. I really enjoyed it. Great cast and stayed interesting throughout. So is it known if this guy is really telling the truth or if he made it all up? Funny cameo when Brad Pitt and Matt Damon show up... Pitt sitting there with a blank look and Damon looking at the 3rd guy thinking "you f***ing kidding me." as the girl keeps asking the 3rd guy (fat and ugly) questions.
The Usual Suspects - 8/10 had not seen this in a long time. Fun entertaining movie with a good cast. Spacey is great.
Hannibal - 7/10 I have not seen this since around the time it came out. It is kind of a mixed bag. It is nowhere near the level of Silence Of The Lambs. It is still pretty good just could have been better. I also enjoyed Red Dragon a little more.
The Usual Suspects - 8/10 had not seen this in a long time. Fun entertaining movie with a good cast. Spacey is great.
Hannibal - 7/10 I have not seen this since around the time it came out. It is kind of a mixed bag. It is nowhere near the level of Silence Of The Lambs. It is still pretty good just could have been better. I also enjoyed Red Dragon a little more.
Anybody here seen Zero Theorem ? It has Christopher Waltz starring and is directed by the guy who did 12 monkeys. I saw the trailer and was like WTF.
Not yet, but it's a film I'm really curious about.
Have you seen The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus?
I seen the Imaginarium, thought it would be a typical kiddies movie but enjoyed it more then i thought i would.
Sunshine - 8.5/10
Another fantastic movie from Danny Boyle, is there a genre this man can not do well ?
Sunshine is atmospherically amazing and visually stunning. Boyle's attempts to contrast the beauty of space with its harsh realities of danger works fairly well.
The story is rather predictable. If you read a synopsis of the movie you could pretty much guess 90% of it.
The acting is decent and has a couple of performances that stand out. Cillian Murphy as the somewhat distant physicist, Capa, and Chris Evans as the confident manly man engineer, Mace.
I am still not 100% sure what the movies point it. The last 30 minutes or so really muddies the water a bit for me, but I guess the overall message is about how humanity will endure and sacrifice in order to preserve mankind's future ?
Another fantastic movie from Danny Boyle, is there a genre this man can not do well ?
Sunshine is atmospherically amazing and visually stunning. Boyle's attempts to contrast the beauty of space with its harsh realities of danger works fairly well.
The story is rather predictable. If you read a synopsis of the movie you could pretty much guess 90% of it.
The acting is decent and has a couple of performances that stand out. Cillian Murphy as the somewhat distant physicist, Capa, and Chris Evans as the confident manly man engineer, Mace.
I am still not 100% sure what the movies point it. The last 30 minutes or so really muddies the water a bit for me, but I guess the overall message is about how humanity will endure and sacrifice in order to preserve mankind's future ?
That reminds me;I had a question about this part. Why when he is shown is he always blurry, double vision like ? is there a point to that ? Originally I thought it might mean they were imagining it, having some psychotic break, but that obviously is not the case.
The Lego Movie.
Not sure how I felt about the last 10 minutes but the rest was very good. Love Batman and hopefully 2 Has more Sups/Lantern.
Not sure how I felt about the last 10 minutes but the rest was very good. Love Batman and hopefully 2 Has more Sups/Lantern.