Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[drsteelhammer]

Do you like Dogme95 in general or did you just stumble into it? I'm partially sympathetic to their efforts but haven't really gotten into it yet.

I watched one Dogme95 film in class, which was that one. After watching this one, I will probably be inclined to watch other ones in the future. I think some of the restrictions are silly, and that people should make whatever they want to make. But I did like that film for certain.

The good thing is even the founders don't take it seriously and break their own rules constantly

[Seprix]

Do you like Dogme95 in general or did you just stumble into it? I'm partially sympathetic to their efforts but haven't really gotten into it yet.

I watched one Dogme95 film in class, which was that one. After watching this one, I will probably be inclined to watch other ones in the future. I think some of the restrictions are silly, and that people should make whatever they want to make. But I did like that film for certain.

The good thing is even the founders don't take it seriously and break their own rules constantly

I'm just saying, I'd break the Vow of Chastity.

[Kuildeous]

I was flipping through Netflix, and I came across Journey to the West. The accompanying picture looked weird, and the story sounded interesting, so I watched it.

The style looked familiar, and I realized it was because it was directed by Steven Chow, who did Kung Fu Hustle. Okay, that deserves more watching.

I…liked it, but it had problems. The very opening was engaging enough, but the rest of the opening got pretty tedious. It had the same type of slapstick as Kung Fu Hustle—maybe a little bit subdued.

The introduction of the Pig Demon was beautiful. It was definitely the best scene of the entire movie. I also liked how the main character was able to see through the illusions.

The “romance” was weird and awkward. It was still funny, and it’s amusing to see the steps she takes to try to win him over. The blood spray was hilarious. If you don’t care about seeing the movie, she staged an elaborate abduction to win him over, including a couple of people being “killed.” One of her companions had a collar that sprayed an outrageous amount of blood. Even when the charade was up, his collar was malfunctioning, so he just sprayed blood the whole time.

The movie really fell apart with the Monkey King. The actor did a good job, I felt, but everything just crawled to a snail’s pace. And even when we had the final battle, it just didn’t work, even though I loved the various demon hunters.

I don’t regret watching it. It presented everything consistent with Chinese mythology (not sure if these were actual demons or fabricated by Chow). The middle was really quite fun, but it was sandwiched by tedium.

[Asper]

Aren't the earlier episodes of Dragonball heavily based on the traditional story Journey to the West? I think a lot of motives were taken from there.

[Kuildeous]

Aren't the earlier episodes of Dragonball heavily based on the traditional story Journey to the West? I think a lot of motives were taken from there.

I never watched Dragonball, but if it involves people of different abilities getting together and beating up different demons, I can see some serious overlap.

I wanted to like the movie, and I actually had a big grin on my face while watching the movie charmingly play out. I was ready for a nap during the second half.

[Asper]

Aren't the earlier episodes of Dragonball heavily based on the traditional story Journey to the West? I think a lot of motives were taken from there.

I never watched Dragonball, but if it involves people of different abilities getting together and beating up different demons, I can see some serious overlap.

I wanted to like the movie, and I actually had a big grin on my face while watching the movie charmingly play out. I was ready for a nap during the second half.

Well, there's this monkey-tail kid whose name (Son Gokū) is based on the name of the monkey king (Sun Wukong), and who got a size-changing staff and rides on a cloud.

But saying it was heavily based on it was probably a lie - it's losely based on it, and that's it.

[silverspawn]

Just saw Porco Rosso.

That, that was something else. Hihi..hi ...  xD :_))_***=))*

My second favorite Ghibli movie so far. But I'm on a qust to watch them all.

[Seprix]

Drsteelhammer told me to talk about movies more here, and seeing that I am going to have an editing degree soon, I will try to post here more often.

[pingpongsam]

Recently watched Dead Pool. Went in with very low expectations since I never heard anything good about it. I thought it was great, I laughed the whole way through.

[Jorbles]

Saw Joshy last night. It has a nice mix of humour and heart. Would recommend it.

[KingZog3]

Recently watched Dead Pool. Went in with very low expectations since I never heard anything good about it. I thought it was great, I laughed the whole way through.

It was ok. I found Zootopia much more funny, and I saw them almost back to back.

[Seprix]

About a third of the way through The Turin Horse. I will give my thoughts on it when I finish it some other day.

[pingpongsam]

Recently watched Dead Pool. Went in with very low expectations since I never heard anything good about it. I thought it was great, I laughed the whole way through.

It was ok. I found Zootopia much more funny, and I saw them almost back to back.

Interesting, Zootopia I thought was just okay. I know which one I'd rather my kids be watching, though.

[Seprix]

About a third of the way through The Turin Horse. I will give my thoughts on it when I finish it some other day.

I said I'd talk about this. It wasn't a terrible movie. I want to know what others thought about this movie.

[drsteelhammer]

I don't remember much from Turin Horse unfortunately, but speaking of Bela Tarr I watched Werckmeister Harmonies yesterday and that was a truly amazing movie. I'm a sucker for long takes, and it doesn't get more extreme than this The whole movie, which is 140minutes consists of 40 shots or so. Furthermore, it has a certain rhythm to it, that you can find all the way through, even in the snychronized footsteps of the protagonists. It is not only visually appealing, but also emotionally impactful that I can not recommended enough to anyone interested in film who has a little bit of patience.

Speaking of great films I saw recently: I rediscovered Terence Malick for myself. While Tree of Life was impressive, I didn't get too emotionally invested in it for some reason. Now I watched Days of Heaven and Knight of Cups and both of them were just a joy. It's a ride you have to get on, but I would encourage everyone to watch atleast two Malick movies. Getting on Malicks wavelength allows for a cinematic experience I haven't had anywhere else I believe.

Knight of Cups is surely one of my favourite movies at the moment.

[Kuildeous]

So they're remaking Death Race 2000. It'll be named Death Race 2050. For some reason I am actually thrilled about this.

Now I feel like I need to watch the original again just for all its cheese. C'mon, one of Sylvester Stallone's earliest roles.

Oh, and the remake has Malcom Macdowell. That usually piques my interest.

[KingZog3]

So they're remaking Death Race 2000. It'll be named Death Race 2050. For some reason I am actually thrilled about this.

Now I feel like I need to watch the original again just for all its cheese. C'mon, one of Sylvester Stallone's earliest roles.

Oh, and the remake has Malcom Macdowell. That usually piques my interest.

Hopefully it'll be better than the crappy Jason Statham remakes.

[Kuildeous]

So they're remaking Death Race 2000. It'll be named Death Race 2050. For some reason I am actually thrilled about this.

Now I feel like I need to watch the original again just for all its cheese. C'mon, one of Sylvester Stallone's earliest roles.

Oh, and the remake has Malcom Macdowell. That usually piques my interest.

Hopefully it'll be better than the crappy Jason Statham remakes.

I haven't seen any of those. From what I understand of the plot, it can hardly count as a remake. Sounds more like a movie version of Car Wars.

But if you're going to attach Roger Corman's name to anything, it should be schlocky as hell, so I'm hoping that'll happen with Death Race 2050. Thou shalt not use Corman's name in vain. Or vein, depending on which movie you're remaking.

[Seprix]

So they're remaking Death Race 2000. It'll be named Death Race 2050. For some reason I am actually thrilled about this.

I read the synopsis, and I'm certain RLM reviewed the movie on one of their Best Of The Worst episodes. It sounds really familiar, a dystopian America with death racing as a form of entertainment.

Anyways, I hope it's not just going to be a racecar version of The Hunger Games.

[Kuildeous]

I read the synopsis, and I'm certain RLM reviewed the movie on one of their Best Of The Worst episodes. It sounds really familiar, a dystopian America with death racing as a form of entertainment.

Anyways, I hope it's not just going to be a racecar version of The Hunger Games.

It should sound familiar. That's what the original pretty much was.

I couldn't say about the remake, but the original wasn't much like the Hunger Games. The Hunger Games was about pitting contestants against each other in a battle royale (almost like there was a similar movie of that name). Death Race was about racking up points on the "playing field." In this case, the playing field was all the roads. There was heavy competition between the racers, and certainly taking one out is a great way to improve your chances.

I really need to go back and watch the movie. I don't remember too much about it. I just remember the crowd's favorite skipping the free big points in order to teach the vultures a lesson.

[Witherweaver]

So I watched the recent Rocky Horror remake ('The Rocky Horror Picture Show: Let's Do the Time Warp Again').  It was, well, highly missable.  I think it was done as if it were a stage production.  I mean, I know it was originally a stage production, but the original movie was filmed as a movie, not as if there was a live audience.  For instance, the audio makes it sound like you're in a live theater; lots of shots are done with the entire cast facing the same direction (towards the 'audience'). Especially the dinner scene, where they're all on the same side of the table, facing outward.  (In the original movie, they were sitting around the table in a usual manner.)  Also the entire set looked like it could have been made on a stage. The original didn't feel that way.

It also comes through in the acting.. it's definitely a different style than normal movie acting (and from the original), and it feels more like stage acting.  I've never seen a live production of the show, so I'm not sure how it compares to that.  Here, though, it felt a lot more like people reciting lines, not like actual characters on the screen.

There is also cutaways to an audience watching the 'movie'; I suppose to reinforce this effect.

[Seprix]

I watched Doctor Strange, and I highly recommend it. It's a refreshing Marvel Studios movie in that it's not the same thing as all the other ones. The visuals are actually incredibly stunning.

The main character Doctor Strange (played by lovable Benedict Cumberbatch who absolutely killed in this role) was easily relatable and you understood him. The supporting cast was fantastic, even the love interest of Strange (who was one of the weak points of the movie, although this has to do with poor writing more than anything).

Even the villain of the movie was freaking cool. I took him seriously. I didn't want to fuck with that guy. He wasn't that typical "Batman Begins Liam Neeson thrown in because origin story needs a villain". He stood on his own, and I would actually want him to hopefully return in another movie although this isn't terribly likely for spoiler reasons. They didn't give him much backstory, but he didn't need it.

I want to talk about the film's beginning though. Strange's beginning story arc was just perfect. Go from the beginning to making him lose the use of his hands. You can make a movie out of just that. The love interest would obviously play a bigger role, and this didn't even have to be a superhero movie. It's such a well written beginning. It's incredibly intriguing and well done. It's so good. I almost wish this wasn't a Doctor Strange movie but instead a drama about a man learning to cope with losing the use of his hands. Yes, I love the beginning that much. Kudos to the screenwriter for knowing his shit.

This is a movie I want to watch again some day, and I don't say that about a lot of movies. I'm not sure if this movie beats The Winter Soldier for best Marvel Movie, but it is close.

I did have some gripes with the movie.
1. The love interest was underwritten. I don't want some sort of Damsel in Distress, and she wasn't cliche or anything, but she didn't feel terribly important to the plot. Doctor Strange already lost use of his hands, so he already had the drive to go and do Mysticism stuff. She was just kind of thrown in the script because it needs a love interest to garner more interest, which was a complete shame. This movie didn't need that, and if it did, they didn't put enough work into it.

2. This is relatively minor, but the villain kicked ass. He killed just about everyone really quickly. Doctor Strange is pretty new with all of this, but he put up a serious fight that seemed a bit inconsistent. I mean, it wasn't killing the movie, but I did find it a bit unbelievable. What I am trying to say is that Doctor Strange didn't get his ass kicked well enough in the first outing.

[scott_pilgrim]

I just saw Dr. Strange yesterday as well, and yeah, it was incredible.  It's definitely my favorite Marvel movie and maybe my all-time favorite movie.  Here's what I liked about it:

1. The "magic" made sense.  I think Dr. Strange has the most believable "magic" universe I've ever seen (previously I would have given the title to the Avatar the Last Airbender series), because it mostly works exactly like how you would expect it to.  It's not like there's some long list of spells that can be cast by saying or thinking the right words and moving your wand in a particular way.  You get the feeling that the laws of magic are built into the laws of nature in a simple and elegant way, even if no one (none of us and none of the people in that universe) really understands exactly how they work (just like how we think scientific laws are probably very simple even though we don't understand them fully yet).  Magic is about bending the laws of nature, time, space, and consciousness.  That being said, that was all stuff that I was expecting to get going into the movie, so there are a few things that didn't quite live up to my expectations.  I didn't like slide rings serving the function of wands (you would think you would not need some special object to perform magic).  I also didn't like the cloak, but I'll get into that more later.

As sort of a sub-point (this is very slightly spoiler-ish): I really liked the way time-based magic worked, because 1. there was a reason not to do it too much (because you didn't want to break the universe), and 2. it only applied to certain spatial regions where it was being directed, so you didn't feel like, hey, why is that guy going forward in time when everything else is being manipulated weirdly, or why is he maintaining his memories when he goes back in time, or whatever.  It's very rare for movies or shows to do stuff with time in a way that I can still suspend my disbelief, so they did really well there.

2. The visuals are just absolutely incredible.  I'm not sure what else to say about that, but I hope the brevity of this point doesn't downplay how emphatic I want to be about it.

3. The plot and characters are good, and there's stuff that happens within the context of that universe that keeps things unique and interesting.

4. Like most Marvel movies, they do a good job of integrating humor into a serious and exciting story.  There are a few moments that are pretty funny.

Here are some things I didn't like about it:

1. The cloak serves as a deus ex machina throughout the movie.  There are several points where he's just magically saved by the cloak.  This is made worse by the fact that it goes completely unexplained.  The movie is only 115 minutes, so I think they definitely could have afforded to spend some time talking about it.  Mostly it seemed like the only things it really added to the movie were comic relief in a few places, and otherwise it seemed like it was just there because it was probably important in the comic books.

2. Sort of going off of that, the pacing felt a little off to me.  It felt like they weren't really sure whether they wanted the movie to just introduce you to Dr. Strange and the other characters and backstory and universe, or if they wanted it to have a more standard save-the-world plot happening, and it felt like they didn't have enough time to fit both of those things together, which is odd, because again, it was only 115 minutes.  I think it could have been better if they would have spent an extra 30 minutes or so going a little deeper into the backstory and explaining the universe (especially the cloak), so you could get a better sense of exactly why we care about all the things that are happening.

3. I thought it was a little unreasonable how quickly Dr. Strange went from being a complete newbie to superhero status, but I guess the timing was never really implied, so I justified it to myself by thinking, everything that the movie is showing us is taking place over months or years.  Except then why did the villains take so long to accomplish things, so I don't know.

Overall a really fantastic and unique movie.

[pacovf]

Agree with the comments on the cloak. I forgive it because it was genuinely funny in a few places (mostly because of how disjointed the tone is), but still.

I have no problem about the love interest. I think she is important to the beginning of the movie, to see what kind of person Strange is. It broke my suspension of disbelief a little bit to see how unfazed she was by all the weird stuff going around though.

Speaking of which, the character development in the movie is a bit tilted. I actually did not find him very believable before Kathmandu. Cumberbatch has been typecast already, but I think he plays the unaware jerk a whole lot better than the unrepentant jerk. He is believable during the middle of the movie, but then at the end he seems strangely ok with dooming the bad guy to a fate worse than death? That's a big turn from his initial refusal to harm people. Also, Mordo's change of heart at the end felt very forced, even though they warn you about it.

I was very pleasantly surprised by the humour in the movie.

The visuals were stunning, and I was grinning all the way through the opening scene and the "eye-opening" scene. I wonder whether they will be able to reproduce that sort of thing in the second movie. Or maybe they will just keep Strange as a secondary character in new movies, sort of like Hulk. If that means he gets as much care as, say, Quicksilver in the recent X-Men movies, I would be ok with that.

@Scott: the training clearly happens over a long period of time, judging by the reaction from Palmer. I would like to think years, to explain why he is so damned proficient, but probably more like months. I imagine the reason why the bad guys took so long to strike was because they needed time to prepare for the ritual.

[tripwire]

I watched Doctor Strange, and I highly recommend it. It's a refreshing Marvel Studios movie in that it's not the same thing as all the other ones. The visuals are actually incredibly stunning.

I really agree with both the first and third sentences here, but could you explain why Doctor Strange seemed so different to you? Personally I felt like this was one of the most formulaic MCU films in a while (not necessarily a bad thing; it's a pretty fun formula.)