The Return of Even More Movies You've Watched This Week III

Off Topic
121

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]Nards wrote:
The Force Awakens was incredibly good.

It really made the prequels look even worse and such a horribly wasted opportunity. It really makes it look like the prequels were made by a computer that had been fed the components of a Star Wars movie and it spat out gibberish. The cartoony special effects piled on top of more cartoony effects with horrible over acting by CG characters and terribly misused real human actors are left even more inexcusable after this new movie.
George Lucas seemed to have lucked out when making the very first movie. I heard he was saved from disaster in the editing room with the original movie. He had a fluke and people thought he was a great director. I think he may have a good eye for things but he should have stopped there and let someone else do the prequels.[/quote]

I thought the story lacked a lot of depth. It was basically the original movie remade and told in a ridiculously simple way. They had a death star, only bigger but just as easily destroyed. A young person strong with the force growing up in the desert… Han Solo and the Falcon. The villain was less convincing as an emo teenager, and how would someone with no training in the force beat someone with training? Everything was accompished easily. As posted above, if the resistance has existed for 30 years why are they still operating on only one planet like shady rebels? Wouldn’t they be more established?

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie. Abrams does a great job telling the story, but the script/story had absolutely no creativity. I like how someone else said it, it was a terribly story told very well.
[/quote]

Well, like Silyak said we’re going to have to wait for episodes 8 & 9 to see JJ Abrams’ endgame. I personally have no problem with TFA touching base with the movie that started it all when ANH uses the most archetypal plot in storytelling as long as it takes the sequels in new directions - which I believe it will.

I don’t consider Rey’s arc to be forced (bad pun intended) at all. I didn’t want to get into spoiler territory but here we go…

SPOILERS
There was a big Max Von Sydow shaped neon sign singling Rey out as someone who wasn’t dumped randomly on some lackwater desert planet. The fact that said planet isn’t Tatooine is telling. It’s the first place they’d look for her or any fugitives. Instead she’s on a new planet being watched over by a devotee of The Church of the Force/ Jedi sympathizer who also happens to have in his possession part of the map to Luke Skywalker’s secret retreat who’s played by none other than Max Von Sydow.

Also, and I can’t stress this enough…it’s Max Von fucking Sydow.

/SPOILERS

IMO, the other criticisms were adequately explained during the movie.

[/quote]

I love so much that Max Von Sydow was in this. Like how Christopher Lee was in the prequels.

And the fact that The Force Awakens is similar to the first movie…you can say that with a smile or a scowl. I prefer to say it with a smile.

122

[quote]Nards wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]Nards wrote:
The Force Awakens was incredibly good.

It really made the prequels look even worse and such a horribly wasted opportunity. It really makes it look like the prequels were made by a computer that had been fed the components of a Star Wars movie and it spat out gibberish. The cartoony special effects piled on top of more cartoony effects with horrible over acting by CG characters and terribly misused real human actors are left even more inexcusable after this new movie.
George Lucas seemed to have lucked out when making the very first movie. I heard he was saved from disaster in the editing room with the original movie. He had a fluke and people thought he was a great director. I think he may have a good eye for things but he should have stopped there and let someone else do the prequels.[/quote]

I thought the story lacked a lot of depth. It was basically the original movie remade and told in a ridiculously simple way. They had a death star, only bigger but just as easily destroyed. A young person strong with the force growing up in the desert… Han Solo and the Falcon. The villain was less convincing as an emo teenager, and how would someone with no training in the force beat someone with training? Everything was accompished easily. As posted above, if the resistance has existed for 30 years why are they still operating on only one planet like shady rebels? Wouldn’t they be more established?

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie. Abrams does a great job telling the story, but the script/story had absolutely no creativity. I like how someone else said it, it was a terribly story told very well.
[/quote]

Well, like Silyak said we’re going to have to wait for episodes 8 & 9 to see JJ Abrams’ endgame. I personally have no problem with TFA touching base with the movie that started it all when ANH uses the most archetypal plot in storytelling as long as it takes the sequels in new directions - which I believe it will.

I don’t consider Rey’s arc to be forced (bad pun intended) at all. I didn’t want to get into spoiler territory but here we go…

SPOILERS
There was a big Max Von Sydow shaped neon sign singling Rey out as someone who wasn’t dumped randomly on some lackwater desert planet. The fact that said planet isn’t Tatooine is telling. It’s the first place they’d look for her or any fugitives. Instead she’s on a new planet being watched over by a devotee of The Church of the Force/ Jedi sympathizer who also happens to have in his possession part of the map to Luke Skywalker’s secret retreat who’s played by none other than Max Von Sydow.

Also, and I can’t stress this enough…it’s Max Von fucking Sydow.

/SPOILERS

IMO, the other criticisms were adequately explained during the movie.

[/quote]

I love so much that Max Von Sydow was in this. Like how Christopher Lee was in the prequels.

And the fact that The Force Awakens is similar to the first movie…you can say that with a smile or a scowl. I prefer to say it with a smile.[/quote]

He’s pretty much the only living actor with Hammer-level gravitas.

123

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Ted 2 - holy lulz, this should be mandatory viewing if you want a good laugh. [/quote]

I couldn’t even get 1/3 of the way through the first one, but then again I can’t stand anything Seth McFarlane does.

124

The Revenant - If you like the outdoors and general badassery you will love this movie. It’s easily some of the most beautiful cinematography I’ve ever seen. There is such amazing scenery in every set (locations were Calgary and Argentina), and every outdoor sequence was actually shot in the wilderness with natural lighting.

The story itself is the incredible legend of Hugh Glass, so if you’re familiar with that, then you already know what happens (for the most part). But to actually see it happen is something else entirely. The words “gritty, raw emotion” come to mind. Some of the scenes were done in excruciatingly-long takes that almost leave you begging for some relief.

If this movie has a failing, it’s that the somber mood can be overbearing, and it doesn’t really ever let up. It’s actually pretty tough to watch from an emotional standpoint, and while the ending is satisfying (moreso than the true story), it’s a pretty rough ride to get there. I left the theater feeling like I was worn a little thin. But I think it was definitely worth it.

9.5/10

1 Like
125

That’s just how I like a good film to impact me. Good review, Steel.
I’m gong to see it tonight!

127

Thanks for the info, Push. It’s good to have the facts, but I’m still looking forward to the film.

129

LOVED IT! Stunning in every sense. I’m going back to see it again.

130

Push, good review.

Also, did you catch, at the beginning of the Indian attack, the naked guy running into camp and gets shot? They say, “they got Colter.” Thats what i heard anyway. That refers to John Colter, of Colters Run. Colter died in 1812 and Colters run was in 1808. Not sure why they put that in the movie, although i could have misheard and/or misinterpreted the scene.

132

Fuck I have to wait a month for The Revenant to be released over here. Fuck!

133

Aside from the historical inaccuracies, there were numerous little things that annoyed me; one being that there were scenes where the dialog was overdubbed (I understand many scenes were one-shot deals, and re-takes were out of the question).

Another was the scene where Glass is cleaning his rifle with the barrel facing the other guys (when to his left it was clear across the river). My wife suggested it was symbolic to the story, or what happened next in the scene. Maybe.

Also, how warm were oilskin boots of that time period to be traipsing through frigid water at length, not to mention full body submergence without incapacitation due to hypothermia?

As someone who has long hair, I know how annoying it is when focusing on something at hand. How would a man in the wilderness deal with having to be fully aware of every detail of his environment with all that hair down in his face and over his eyes? Slick that shit back with mud, or tuck it under your hat!

In spite of these and a few other minor glitches, I’m going back to see it again.

136

Damn. The return on trade was worth that risk!

138

Has anyone seen The Hateful Eight yet?

139

Yes, Yogi, I have.

How was it, Yogi?

It was good. Not amazing, but good. If you like Tarantino movies you’ll already be able to predict pretty much exactly how it goes - floods of snappy dialogue punctuated with the occasional burst of gory violence.

Not the best Tarantino film, but certainly not the worst. I enjoyed it very much, even if it was a tad derivative.

140

Yeah, I saw the 70mm road show version. I agree with your assessment: good, but not Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill-level great. I haven’t seen the digital version, but I can’t imagine it being any better or worse than the 70mm.