Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by PeterG, Feb 26, 2013.
Yes. Very creeped out.
50 Shades of Grey is a terribly written book about an abusive relationship masquerading as an erotica book about BDSM, and its popularity utterly confounds me. And I absolutely do not think it should be a movie. I just hope that every young actress they ask has the same reaction Emma Watson did, because who the hell wants that on their filmography?
I am looking forward to the movie 'Sole survivor' (of an airplane crash). It's a documentary, soon to be released.
I thought this quote was perfect! And ITA, what respectable actress is going to take this part? It's basically like signing up to do a porn film! But being that it will probably get a ton of press and make a lot of money, I'm sure there's some actress looking to break into Hollywood who will be more than willing to get naked and faux fornicate for the cameras.
Neil Blomkamp would still love to do a movie version of Halo. Let's hope this happens soon. In the meantime check out "halo 4 forward unto dawn" on Netflix.
There's already a 50 Shades porn parody, which will likely be, by far, the more accurate of the two movie versions. Even if it's a parody, and extremely badly acted/filmed, going by the trailer. Although Universal sued since it was "infringing on their rights." For what? To make a less accurate version?
I don't even know why they're going to bother. Most theaters refuse to book NC-17 movies at all, even if a bunch of older women might come flocking. And if it's rated R, well, what's the point?
Because I love the Star Trek franchise, and the first JJ Abrams film, I went to the midnight showing. I have a very short review of the film with big spoilers, so don't read unless you want to be spoiled/
I thought the sequel really lacked a lot of things that made the first film work. There was no breathing room to let any of the emotional scenes pack a punch, and I felt the writing really left a lot to self-referential nods to the Trekkies out there. I also thought it lacked subtlety, and when I saw that they had four writers, I just thought to myself "wow...it took four writers to write this?" I know for Sci-Fi films, you have to have a suspension of disbelief, but there was just too many things that just didn't make sense. Also, there was just way too many cliches going on this time around. The pacing was off too. I felt they tried too hard to make you care about some of the characters, but when you don't allow any build up and breathing (quiet) scenes, then there's no pay-off. Like, I know where they're going with the Spock/Kirk thing and making Spock overly emotional, but I think that was simply a bad choice and way out-of-character. IMO, they should have maybe cut down the crazy emotional Spock scenes by 75% and it would have had the same impact if the surrounding characters recognize what a big deal it is for a Vulcan to show that much emotion.
I also shouldn't hold it against this movie, but I hate the way the Khan storyline worked here. I thought the way the Original Series and the Wrath of Khan film did a much better job with that. Again, I blame the directing and writing because I think they focused way too much on having wall-to-wall action, that the depth was just missing. Also Spock's "Khan!" scene was sort of blah and of course, the editing was so it didn't have any impact either other than to make the Trekkies happy that there was a "Khan" scene.
In terms of acting, I still don't get the point of having Carol Marcus in this movie other than being a future love interest for Kirk and bearing his child, but with the lame Spock/Kirk inversion crap, I wouldn't be surprised if she ended up having Spock's baby instead in this alternate universe. I also, don't know where they're going with the Uhura and Spock relationship, but it was just boring this time around. Karl Urban is a HORRIBLE Bones. He doesn't get the character at all, and he's extremely one-note. Not every other cast member plays their character the way they were originally portrayed, but at least they look like they're still trying to play them in a way that isn't obnoxious or a walking cartoon.
Overall, I'm disappointed after the excellent first film and the promise of 4 years in anticipation, JJ Abrams direction and the four writers it took to make this film decided to go the Michael Bay route and only give us a typical summer film.
I went to the midnight showing, too. Before going I joked that I would probably be the only girl in the theater with a bunch of guys who to Michigan Tech. That ended up being literally true I was, in fact, the only female in the entire theater. I was actually surprised; I've made that joke before for midnight showings of geek or superhero movies but it never ended up being true. Two of the Tech guys walked in right before it started and actually did a double take when they saw me. I laughed, I'm sorry. I couldn't help it.
I'm not actually a real Trekkie, I just loved the 2009 film a heck of a lot, I adore the cast in its entirety, and I love midnight showings (but one day I will watch the series, I'm sure of it!). So, my standards would not be as high as the review above mine. I liked it. I agree that it was not as good as the 2009 movie. It was more frenetic, the emotional scenes were too short in between lots of actions so they never had the impact they were meant to, and it would have been better if they'd just slowed it down for longer stretches of time a couple times throughout the film. That said, I did love it. This is how an action film should be done, and the cast was once again wonderful. I could watch Chris Pine charisma at me every day. I agree with whomever mentioned Abrams' obvious fetish for flares and Chris's blue eyes I spent a huge portion of the movie just thinking to myself, "wow, his eyes are really blue." If that was one of the things Abrams wanted us to walk away from the film with, he succeeded. The blonde girl was a totally blah addition I could have done without. The beginning and endings both smacked way too much of magical technobabble, which is not something I'm always a huge fan of in sci fi films or television. But overall it was a fairly solid film. It could have been better, but I really enjoyed it. Oh, and Benedict Cumberbatch is a total BAMF but I think we all knew that already.
Has anyone seen the trailer for Now You See Me? It looks like it has a ton o potential. I'd post a link but I'm on my stupid phone.
It has a great cast, an intriguing plot, and a horrible, horrible director. I want to see it but I am preparing myself to be disappointed.
LOL that was me. They're just as blue in person
This movie was all action and zero story development.
I'm a die-hard Trekkie, so I was curious how J.J. Abrams was going to reinterpret the whole
Khan storyline. I liked the Spock-Krik reversal, but it was totally obvious that the story would end on a positive note and there was no emotional impact. The most powerful scene from "Star Trek II" was Spock's death and memorial with the bagpipes -- J.J.'s interpretation cheapened it a bit
I agree that Alice Eve was pretty forgettable and Karl Urban was just a farce. I did enjoy seeing more of Simon Pegg, who I love (and who regrettable skipped Monday's premiere so I couldn't meet him).
I didn't mind the Easter Eggs, as they probably would've gone over most people's heads. I talked to J.J. briefly and producer Ricardo Orci at length about including these elements, and they both said they only tried to work them in where they could. It definitely felt more like space comedy than space drama.
I couldn't even make through a quarter of the book. I can't imagine a movie.
I went to one of the National Theatre broadcasts last night (fantastic play, This House, can't say enough good things about it). However it was playing on a screen next-door to Star Trek. I adore all things Trek, am planning on seeing the film in a week or two when the crowds die down ... but did it need to be so freakin' loud that it drowns out everything else in the building? Grr. Tho to be fair, I blame the movie theatre managment for not plotting the screens better.
Another film I have to recommend is The Angel's Share, which I saw on my recent trip to Portland. I found it somewhat uneven, but I still really enjoyed it. It's sort of 2 films in one. The first half is very typical Ken Loach, and what I went in expecting from the film: gritty, violent, the depressing circumstances of non-working-class youth and the almost inevitability of gangs. Then about half way through it turns into somewhat of a modern fable, farfetched but highly entertaining. But through it all are characters you really care about and root for. It was not a perfect marriage, but still an effective merging of two ideas under one umbrella.
Ditto. Though, given the (baffling, to me) popularity of the books, I just assumed they'd find some way to make a movie to cash in. So I can't say I'm in the least bit surprised.
Of course I felt pretty much the same way about Twilight ...
The trailer for Europa Report has arrived, and it looks good.
Famed russian director Alexei Balabanov has died of natural causes at the age of 54. He was not well known outside his country but has quite a following withing his own country. R.I.P.
LOL! I went to This House on Thursday, then Star Trek Friday morning. I thoroughly enjoyed both! It felt like I shouldn't enjoy This House (seventies British politics, really?), but I truly did. My Charles Edwards crush continues to grow. I enjoyed Into Darkness. I admit, I reacted to all the things that those who are not long term Trek fans wouldn't get. There were some eye roll moments (does every villain need a trench coat?), and an awful amount of running, but I really did enjoy it.
Trailers for smaller movies that have just been released. Black Rock is at the top of my list, as are The English Teacher and 33 Postcards. The latter was released in Australia in 2011, but is just getting a limited release in the U.S. now. But it looks good! Frances Ha is a maybe for me. I'd be interested in hearing what anyone has to say about it if they happen to catch it. Pieta looks quite good, but maybe too dark for my tastes. Another one I'd like to hear a review of from anybody who sees it. But then I read every review y'all post here anyway!
May 17 - The English Teacher (Comedy drama with Julianne Moore, Michael Angarano, Greg Kinnear and Nathan Lane)
May 17 - Black Rock (Thriller with Kate Bosworth)
May 17 - 33 Postcards (Drama with Guy Pearce)
May 17 - Frances Ha (Comedy drama, new cast. From imdb.com: A story that follows a New York woman (who doesn't really have an apartment), apprentices for a dance company (though she's not really a dancer), and throws herself headlong into her dreams, even as their possible reality dwindles.)
May 17 - Pieta (Korean drama. From imdb.com: A loan shark is forced to reconsider his violent lifestyle after the arrival of a mysterious woman claiming to be his long-lost mother.)
May 17 - State 194 (Documentary. From imdb.com: A look deep inside Israel and Palestine at the men and women trying to seize a historic opportunity to end the conflict and make implementing the two-state solution a reality.)
May 17 The Expatriate (Action thriller with Aaron Eckhart)
May 17 - Augustine (French drama with Vincent London. From imdb.com: A look at the relationship between pioneering 19th century French neurologist Dr. Jean-Martin Charcot and his star teenage patient, a kitchen maid who is left partially paralyzed after a seizure.)
May 17 - An Oversimplification of Her Beauty (Animated comedy drama. From imdb.com: A quixotic artist hypothesizes about why he feels bad when a mystery girl stands him up. The event prompts him to ask: what's the content of a momentary feeling? Is it the sum of your experiences? And perhaps more importantly, are your experiences the sum of you?)
We went and saw Star Trek tonight. I did not care for it. Too many corny moments. I rolled my eyes a lot during this film. However, I should be honest and say I have never seen even one full episode of Star Trek so I know nothing about the characters or all of the little hidden jokes that were probably what had my eyes rolling.
I think a lot of the "corny" moments would have worked a lot better had the writers and Abrams paced the story better so it built it up, so that there would have been a real catharsis. Instead, it happened prematurely and therefore for me, felt forced and false and undeserved.
However, I guess it's not fair since the original series was a tv show and therefore could dedicate episodes in building up the crew relationships, and had it been Shatner and Nimoy doing those scenes, with their history, it would have worked even if it made Spock out-of-character a bit.
Frances Ha! alas it doesn't look to be playing in my city's theatres.
I think it's probably quite a small budget film, so will just be playing in art house type theatres in select cities. I looked up Black Rock at my local theatre and it's not playing, so then I checked to see which theatres throughout our larger area, and it's not even listed! So maybe both are getting very limited releases.
I've been checking the usual suspects that play the smaller movies and nothing on the horizon so far! And at the rate our small theatres are shutting down...
Just got back from seeing 'The Great Gatsby'. I really liked it. I never read the book, and after the movie came out, I purposely avoided reading it or even reading the story. That worked. Those who have read the book may not like the movie. I thought Leo Di was great, and should receive an Oscar nom. Carey Mulligan was also very good, the 'trapped' woman, and Tobey McGuire as the narrator Nick was pretty good too.
Saw the Sapphires in cinema and it is a nice little movie so I highly recommend it.
I can't believe all the intense philosophical analysis I'm seeing of how Star Trek does and doesn't relate to the old version of Star Trek, and how it doesn't do justice to the old vision and ideas and blah blah blahdiddy blah. Okay, I know it's a well-loved series, but we're talking about a franchise that starred William Shatner.
I mean . . . WILLIAM FREAKIN' SHATNER.
(And Ricardo Montalban in the stupidest outfit ever.)
Maybe I'm just a disrespectful whippersnapper who was born too late, but I really liked the new movie. (And I think Galaxy Quest said about all there was to say about the original series.) You can have your Shatner any day . . . I'll have me some Cumberbatch! And I wouldn't say no to a little Chris Pine either. That boy has got a fine pair of baby blues on him.
Everyone talks about Chris Pine's eyes but did anyone notice those lips? Good god. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out he gets them plumped a little.
I wouldn't know; he seems to spend the majority of the Star Trek movies in a constant battered state so I always figured his lips were a result of getting punched a few too many times.
Not really. Too distracted by the eyes. I tend to notice those first and foremost.
Well, I'm one of those people who didn't like the new movie because even if it wanted to stray from the original series, it should do it in a way that's better or at least a way that doesn't relegate it to a simple Summer popcorn flick. Oh well, at least Cumberbatch and Pine are just so hot so we can turn our brains off.