Clint Eastwood Forums

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: Christopher on December 19, 2011, 04:55:23 PM

Title: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on December 19, 2011, 04:55:23 PM
These movie discussion threads usually aren't started until the new year begins, but I thought I might get this one started just a little early.

I just watched the trailer for The Dark Knight Rises, which is obviously a very anticipated 2012 release. Here's the trailer on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R6zD8VcQTQ&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R6zD8VcQTQ&feature=player_embedded)

I think it looks good!

So, anyhow, here is the thread we can use to discuss the 2012 movies we're looking forward to or have seen. Another release I'm looking forward to is The Three Stooges. I'm glad that the Farrelly brothers are behind it--it gives me hope that the film will be fun and in the same spirit as the original shorts. I've gotten the feeling that a lot of people don't like the idea of this movie, but I'd rather have this than some biopic about the drama of the actors' lives.

Any other 2012 releases you're looking forward to?
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Doug on December 20, 2011, 06:18:58 PM
The football scene looks terrible.  First of all, a football scene...?  Second of all, it looks campy as hell.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on December 20, 2011, 06:22:12 PM
I think the villain looks quite menacing. And I'm not sure why there's surprise with the football scene--does the sport not exist in Gotham? ??? As for the field caving in, that looks alright to me too in a disaster movie sort of way (perhaps that's where it looks campy?). I have been reading that some people aren't pleased with the trailer, but I'm looking forward to the coming film.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Doug on December 21, 2011, 03:24:59 AM
I think the villain looks quite menacing. And I'm not sure why there's surprise with the football scene--does the sport not exist in Gotham? ??? As for the field caving in, that looks alright to me too in a disaster movie sort of way (perhaps that's where it looks campy?). I have been reading that some people aren't pleased with the trailer, but I'm looking forward to the coming film.

I"m not sure if you're asking if I'm surprised, or if you've noticed other people being surprised... but I am turned off by it.  Personally.  As for it looking campy...where should I begin?  Oh, how about with the fact that Hines Ward seems to be the only player on his team.   Then the sidelines appear conspicuously empty during the run back part.  And he's completely oblivious to the field blowing up behind him.  That strikes me as beyond silly.  It looks completely unrealistic and out of character from what we saw in the first two movies.  I suppose the scene could be touched up and improved before the movie's released, but overall it has that terrible disaster-movie look to it, yes.  I assume, and hope, that it's one small scene in the film that for whatever reason has been given way too much prominence in the trailer.  The trailer is okay, but not as good as for The Dark Knight.  But I don't need to see a trailer to be lining up to see it.  I saw The Dark Knight a few times in the theatre, and I'll be seeing this one too.  I have high expectations for it, because I believe overall it's going to deliver.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on December 21, 2011, 12:24:58 PM
Holy cow! This new batman trailer looks awesome!

http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/-drew-/3527369320/

Then there is a trailer for some crappy looking LOTR ripoff...
Even looks like they've managed to get that irish chap to play a wizard. When is Hollywood going to learn that enough is enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eM--4UklaL4

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on December 21, 2011, 03:28:01 PM
Then there is a trailer for some crappy looking LOTR ripoff...
Even looks like they've managed to get that irish chap to play a wizard. When is Hollywood going to learn that enough is enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eM--4UklaL4
I feel like I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here in the this thread so far... ;) but a ripoff?
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on December 21, 2011, 04:43:57 PM
Quote
  I feel like I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here in the this thread so far... Wink but a ripoff?

No reason to feel like that Christopher, ( I know that the hobbit is the prequel for the lord of the rings) and I just made those lines up for fun   ;)

I'd like to give my two cents on the dark knight trailer but am afraid i'll move dangerously close to potential spoiler areas, so I'll take my time to think a up a nice safe "review" (which is a bit difficult, avoiding certain pitfalls)  :-X

Another movie however i'm looking forwards to is Edgar Rice Burrough's ; John Carter, Warlord of Mars.

While the trailer is crammed with CGI, and looks way too much like a computer game, John Carter was one of my childhood heroes along with Tarzan, and I'm going to give this movie a chance.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlvYKl1fjBI

I'm definetly also up for AVENGERS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOrNdBpGMv8

All the main marvel heroes (or at least the ones marvel studios has the rights to) banding together against Loki (with friends) armed with a cosmic cube!
What's not to like  8)

The Expendables II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rkdTcQLwZ4

A movie so manly that I might grow a extra set of testicles during the first half hour of it  ;)

Also the Alien; Prometheus movie
(rumor has it the first trailer should be out in the next couple of days)  :o
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Hemlock on December 21, 2011, 04:46:43 PM
Dark Knight Rises trailer does look promising.The film simply can`t suck after those two great Batman movies Nolan has done.

These ones intrests me also...

Safe House http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWzTOoOpFa8

The Expendables 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rkdTcQLwZ4

Parker http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1904996/

But to me new James Bond film,Skyfall http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/ is the film of 2012 that I´m really looking forward to see.

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on December 22, 2011, 12:40:12 PM
This trailer just grabbed hold of my happy christmas mood, beat it up with chains, curbstomped it before throwing it in the back of a pick up truck and drove away with it, never to be seen again...

All in the most positive way, obviously   ;D

Alien; Prometheus trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_luIM6xaIck
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on December 22, 2011, 03:29:19 PM
Oh yeah, Prometheus is another 2012 film I'm looking forward to! I've heard that it takes place in the same world as Alien, but no one has seemed to come out to say whether it's a direct prequel or anything like that.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on December 24, 2011, 02:15:27 AM
Ridley Scott has said that it is tied to the alien mythology (whatever he means by that) and that it predates the other alien movies (at 0.37 you can see the space jockey rise up from the floor)
My guess is that the team we're following is the ones who eventually send out the warning signal, that the crew on the Nostromo eventually thinks is a distress signal... 
 
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on December 24, 2011, 10:50:58 AM
I've heard talk about the space jockey before but I'm not sure what that is--it's something that's seen in the original film, right?
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on December 27, 2011, 09:32:57 AM
Yup. The space jockey is the alien corpse they find before going further down into the hatchery in the first movie.

(http://www.virginmedia.com/images/alien-5-rumours-space-jockeys-590x350.jpg)

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on January 01, 2012, 10:12:30 AM
and here I was thinking that the expendables II had a pretty badass lineup... 

;D

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446192/
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Phantomstranger on January 10, 2012, 11:32:35 PM
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=85857
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on February 09, 2012, 02:46:09 PM
http://www.ironsky.net/?trailer

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on February 09, 2012, 08:57:41 PM
^ Please tell me that's not a real movie ... I don't know whether to ;D or :'(
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on February 09, 2012, 09:30:26 PM
http://www.ironsky.net/?trailer

^ Please tell me that's not a real movie ... I don't know whether to ;D or :'(
Haha ;D Looks legit: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on February 13, 2012, 11:49:36 AM
Quote
^ Please tell me that's not a real movie ... I don't know whether to  ;D or  :'(

Better reach for that cleenex, KC...   :D

No wonder the south lost the american civil war...  :o

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=33125
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on February 18, 2012, 08:54:13 PM
I saw my first 2012 release tonight with The Woman in Black. It's a Hammer horror film, and it's quite well done! In the hands of a lesser director, it could have been very annoying, but James Watkins (who really hasn't directed much at all) keeps the film subtle enough so that he can throw in some effective scares.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Lin Sunderland on February 19, 2012, 09:05:40 PM
I saw my first 2012 release tonight with The Woman in Black. It's a Hammer horror film, and it's quite well done! In the hands of a lesser director, it could have been very annoying, but James Watkins (who really hasn't directed much at all) keeps the film subtle enough so that he can throw in some effective scares.

Does the fact Daniel Radcliffe stars in it detract from the story? Do you "see" him as Harry Potter?
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on February 19, 2012, 09:07:13 PM
Do you "see" him as Harry Potter?

Only if he was wearing the glasses, I'd say. :D
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Lin Sunderland on February 19, 2012, 09:08:51 PM
Only if he was wearing the glasses, I'd say. :D

Duh!   ;D
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on February 20, 2012, 11:18:50 AM
Does the fact Daniel Radcliffe stars in it detract from the story? Do you "see" him as Harry Potter?
I've only seen the first Harry Potter movie, so I can't really say.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on February 21, 2012, 06:34:53 AM
Warhorse

Snorehorse ... I havn't read the book or seen the play but this movie didn't do it for me..
At best a childrens film..

Bored rigid

2/5
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on February 21, 2012, 06:55:36 AM
"Snorehorse"! ;D
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Lin Sunderland on February 21, 2012, 06:59:40 AM
I started to read the book but got too upset to finish it and now would NOT go to see the movie. Even The Duchess of Cambridge cried when she and William went to the premier.

I know it is only a movie however......... :'(
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on February 21, 2012, 07:32:04 AM
From what I've heard the film differs from the book in a lot of ways Lin and none of them good.
This film left me totally unmoved, I'm not a big Spielberg fan (tho Duel was great) the whole thing
Felt very episodic and strangely unmoving... I do know some friends who's children have seen it and they
Loved it so maybe that's who the film speaks to in a simplified war is bad kinda way..
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Lin Sunderland on February 21, 2012, 06:13:04 PM
Thanks Gant, maybe I will wait until it is out on DVD and rent it. Than if I get upset there are plenty of tissues handy.  :D
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on February 29, 2012, 06:14:13 PM
The IMDb lists a movie version of Jack Kerouac's On the Road as being for 2012. I don't know if we'll see it this year or not, but I did just come across this news about it from the Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/on-the-road-poster-new-photos-kerouac-riley-296038 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/on-the-road-poster-new-photos-kerouac-riley-296038)

I hated the book but felt that it might make a good movie, so I'm looking forward to this.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on March 01, 2012, 09:28:23 AM
On The Road was my fave book all thru school, I'll look forward to the movie but wonder why it's taken so
long to be filmed.
I remember enjoying One From The Heart with Nick Nolte and John Heard as Kerouac many years ago.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on March 01, 2012, 02:41:32 PM
Yeah, I've heard rumors about the possibility of a movie version for several years now.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on March 02, 2012, 08:25:44 PM
I've seen some other 2012 releases.

Safe House: I enjoyed this. The best way I can think to describe it is as a gritty action movie. It stars Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds, and they're both good.

Chronicle: I like the idea that the movie is just footage taken of this group of kids who are exposed to some strange rock and then acquire special powers afterward. But at some point along the way I did find myself looking at my watch to see when it'd be getting closer to the end. I do think the movie could have benefitted from a more conventional film making style. Also due to this style, only one character really gets developed.

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island: I actually haven't seen the first one, but didn't think it'd matter. I didn't even realize that one of the stars was in the first one as well. Anyhow, I was just hoping it'd be fun and I like the Rock. The movie was just okay.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: AKA23 on March 03, 2012, 04:34:30 PM
I saw "Safe House" too. I thought it was decent. I wouldn't go rushing out to see it in the theater, but for a rental or something, check it out. I'm really disappointed with Denzel Washington though. The guy is such a great actor, and a pretty good director, and for the past few years, he's done a series of pretty forgettable action movies that really don't challenge him in any way. I just find that really sad. His last truly impressive movie was "The Hurricane," and that was in 1999. His movies are a recycle of the same plots over and over, and it's getting old. The last decent movies he did were in 2007, when he did "American Gangster" and "The Great Debaters." Everything he's done since has been pretty mediocre.   
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on March 04, 2012, 08:50:04 PM
I just watched the trailer for Tim Burton's Frankenweenie--here's the IMDb page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1142977/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1142977/). I remember seeing Burton's first short film version of this some years back, and it was cool (it was also narrated by Vincent Price, which was a nice plus).
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on March 06, 2012, 08:36:26 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d0/Safe_House_Poster.jpg/220px-Safe_House_Poster.jpg)

Not something I'd usually rush out and see but seeing that I'm on holidays and the weather was iffy yesterday I went and saw this. OK for what it is. Action, explosions, fights with jumpy camera work but I've seen it all before.

Have to agree with AKA23 about Denzel Washington though. Is he forever going to be stuck doing these types of films? We've had Training Day, The Book Of Eli, Man On Fire, Deja Vu, Taking Of Pelham One Two Three in the past few years.

2/5.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on March 14, 2012, 12:11:59 PM
Saw John Carter yesterday.

(http://i.space.com/images/i/15649/i02/john-carter-white-apes.jpg?1330972288)

As you may or may not know, Edgar Rice Burrough (author of Tarzan) wrote the novels waaay back in 1912, and it shows in the style of the tales and the pseudo imagined science that the tales are soaked in.
So many things don't make sense, and the viewer is expected to just roll along with a lot of glaring things in the movie but that's the charm of it all.
This is a classic tale of high adventure and heroism, where the hero really is a bona fide hero, and the villain is sinister and without any sense of morality, but somehow, among the glaring plot holes and corny cliches (mind you, they weren't cliches back when Burrough wrote them) there's this pure joy of telling a classic hero tale and to me that was very infectious.  ;)
I found this strange joy in the movie that I remembered from watching say, 20.000 leagues under the sea (the kirk douglas/james mason version) so I found the movie highly enjoyable despite the flaws.
Sometimes it's just nice to watch a genuine goodhearted hero kick some villanious arse, and standing up for what is right while munching some popcorn 8)
Usually I'd rate such a movie a 4/10, but in this case, I'd give it 7/10 on the charm alone  O0
trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aWrKEWei7w
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on March 14, 2012, 12:37:38 PM
Your the first person Dane that I've heard have something positive to say about this movie.. It's getting really slated here.
I'm tempted to take Gant jr along but I've been put off by reviews saying it's over long and boring..
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on March 14, 2012, 06:56:48 PM
I agree with Dane--I enjoyed it but it's not going to be a movie that sticks with me for a long time.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on March 14, 2012, 07:06:31 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ac/Contraband2012Poster.jpg/220px-Contraband2012Poster.jpg)

Slim pickings at my local cinema this week so I went and saw this. In fact I was the only one in the theater. My own private screening if you will. :D

Wasn't too bad but nothing memorable. Mark Wahlberg who used to smuggle drugs for a living but has left that life behind since he now has a family is sucked back into the business.

3/5.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on March 14, 2012, 08:46:00 PM
... has left that life behind since he now has a family is sucked back into the business.

Methinks I've heard that one before. ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on March 14, 2012, 10:06:42 PM
Methinks I've heard that one before. ;)

I forgot to mention that the baddies come after his wife and kids. Now that hasn't been heard of before. ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on March 15, 2012, 07:59:50 AM
Quote
Your the first person Dane that I've heard have something positive to say about this movie..
Now that doesn't say a whole lot of good about the movie, does it?...  ;D

If you could sit through movies like Prince of Persia, Conan the barbarian (2011) Pirates of the Carribeans 4, Season of the witch, Clash of the titans, Immortals and Tron Legacy you should be more than okay  8)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on March 15, 2012, 04:55:57 PM
Unfortunately I don't think I could stomach any of those movies..
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on March 16, 2012, 11:57:56 AM
Quote
Unfortunately I don't think I could stomach any of those movies.. 
I don't blame ya  ;)
The guys who did the now (in)famous Plinkett Star Wars prequels review have this online/MTV review show going, and I think they're really fair in it, pointing out the flaws and the good things in equal measure. It's definetly one of the more balanced reviews I've seen .
You could give that a try and if they don't sell it, spend your hard earned cash on something else.  8)
http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-silent-house-and-john-carter/
review start at 11.06
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on March 18, 2012, 06:39:16 AM
Okay... I'm having a really hard time staying sceptical about the Prometheus movie now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HHcHYisZFLU
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on March 18, 2012, 02:09:02 PM
Okay... I'm having a really hard time staying sceptical about the Prometheus movie now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HHcHYisZFLU
I liked the look of the first trailer, and I'm still liking how this looks. I'm really looking forward to it.

The Dark Shadows trailer is online now too. It looks fun, though I have read some negative reactions from people who are familliar with the original show. But then I even read another article stating that the movie might, in fact, be darker than the trailer lets on. Here's the article: http://www.fangoria.com/index.php/home/all-news/1-latest-news/6738-qdark-shadowsq-trailer-is-here (http://www.fangoria.com/index.php/home/all-news/1-latest-news/6738-qdark-shadowsq-trailer-is-here)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on April 08, 2012, 12:34:15 PM
Looks very interesting.
The whole Burton/Depp/Bonham Carter/Elfman collaberation still works its magic  O0
If I had one bad thing to say (and it's not actually bad, more "nitpicky") it would be that i would like to see Burton not take on another franchise like batman, Planet of the apes, Alice in wonderland etc. but instead craft a tale of his own.
He certainly proved he could do that with A nightmare before christmas  ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on April 08, 2012, 12:44:33 PM
Yeah, I agree. I would like to see him work on some other new stuff. Though he will have Frankenweenie out later this year, based on his own short film.

I saw The Hunger Games also, and really liked it. I'd say it's my favorite 2012 movie so far.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: allycat on April 08, 2012, 02:29:21 PM
Yeah, I agree. I would like to see him work on some other new stuff. Though he will have Frankenweenie out later this year, based on his own short film.

I saw The Hunger Games also, and really liked it. I'd say it's my favorite 2012 movie so far.

Planning to see it on Tuesday evening. I heard it's a cross between The Running Man and Twilight. Have to say I've never seen The Running Man (although I know of it) and sadly, I have seen Twilight (though on Lovefilm, wouldn't see it at the cinema) – so I guess it's designed to appeal to teenagers? But I am interested enough to check it out ...

And then I want to rent The Running Man for those classic Arnie catchphrases!  :D
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on April 09, 2012, 02:06:44 AM
Quote
And then I want to rent The Running Man for those classic Arnie catchphrases!

Forget about The Running man...
THIS is the movie you should see instead
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfoNiIXTOgA
(but watch The Running Man afterwards to cheer you up  :o)

I have seen Hunger Games as well, and it's definetly a step up from twillight, and as Christopher said, probably the best movie of 2012 so far ;)

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: allycat on April 09, 2012, 06:08:16 AM
Forget about The Running man...
THIS is the movie you should see instead
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfoNiIXTOgA
(but watch The Running Man afterwards to cheer you up  :o)

I have seen Hunger Games as well, and it's definetly a step up from twillight, and as Christopher said, probably the best movie of 2012 so far ;)


I saw Battle Royale many years ago. It was good, although I'm really not into gore or horror or anything like that so I guess I 'enjoyed' it as much as a squeamish person can  :o
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on April 09, 2012, 06:09:15 AM
I don't usually have a movie that stands out to me quite as much so early in the year. I plan on reading the book soon.

And Battle Royale is another book and movie that would be worth checking out.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on April 09, 2012, 08:50:07 AM
I enjoyed The Hunger Games. Intelligent sci if aimed at a younger audience. Unfortunately it's been cut
for Uk release to enable it to receive a 12a certificate..

As well as The Running Man it put me in mind of Lord of the Flies a bit..
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on April 09, 2012, 02:43:24 PM
It was cut for the UK release? It looks like to me they were careful to make sure they got a PG-13 rating in the US (this has worked out for them since it's already made 300 million in the US).
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: allycat on April 13, 2012, 02:58:08 PM
It was cut for the UK release? It looks like to me they were careful to make sure they got a PG-13 rating in the US (this has worked out for them since it's already made 300 million in the US).

I'm not sure, maybe. That would be a shame if so. I think I'm going to try and see it this weekend/in the next few days. Am off work for a few days now woo hoo!
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on April 13, 2012, 05:39:53 PM
Hi ally. It was cut but not by much apparently... Just some boodletting
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: allycat on April 15, 2012, 03:31:46 PM
Hi ally. It was cut but not by much apparently... Just some boodletting
I saw it this eve. Enjoyed it. Thought some of the editing was a bit mixed - not sure if death scenes were cut but it seemed so - generally a good film. Are they going to do the next book?
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on April 15, 2012, 03:34:30 PM
Yeah, I thought the editing makes it tough to see some of what's happening, but I figured it was done purposely to avoid an R-rating here for fear that the MPAA wouldn't take to 12 year olds being killed by other teenagers. I have read that the second book in the series, Catching Fire, is supposed to come out by late next year.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on April 15, 2012, 11:28:01 PM
I heard an interview with someone from the censor board here in the UK and that is exactly what worried them..children killing children.. The filmakers wanted the 12 a certificate over here so it was the sight of blood that had to go.. so that has to be the killing scenes... Tho the guy said that they managed to lose the blood without too much editing..
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on April 16, 2012, 06:20:50 AM
I heard an interview with someone from the censor board here in the UK and that is exactly what worried them..children killing children.. The filmakers wanted the 12 a certificate over here so it was the sight of blood that had to go.. so that has to be the killing scenes... Tho the guy said that they managed to lose the blood without too much editing..

So ... adults killing children would have been OK with the censor board? ???
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on April 16, 2012, 07:53:58 AM
Now don't go complicating things...   ;D

I guess a film showing adults killing children wouldn't be aiming at a 12a cert.  someone who saw the American
version did say that they thought that would play as a cert 15 in the UK.. tho I guess that was just their opinion.

11 year old Ms Gant jr thoroughly enjoyed the movie and wasn't the slightest bit disturbed... I'm not a sure a few splashes
of blood woulda made much difference..
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: allycat on April 21, 2012, 01:43:30 PM
Hmm, well I had an issue with the fact you didn't get to know the other teenagers hardly at all ... not sure if you do in the book(s) but it felt a bit lacking in characterisation.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on April 21, 2012, 06:35:42 PM
Well, it's easier on the audience if they don't get to know the characters that are doomed to get killed off. If they do ... how are they supposed to enjoy the killing?
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on April 22, 2012, 11:38:32 AM
Well, it's easier on the audience if they don't get to know the characters that are doomed to get killed off. If they do ... how are they supposed to enjoy the killing?
That doesn't really apply to The Hunger Games for the most part. This is semi-spoiler stuff, I guess, but as soon as the games begin, several people die very quickly--there's no big action sequence that leads to their deaths.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on April 22, 2012, 04:00:06 PM
Well, as I said ... the killing's more fun if you don't get to know the characters.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: allycat on April 27, 2012, 02:10:56 PM
Well, as I said ... the killing's more fun if you don't get to know the characters.

I don't tend to 'enjoy' any killing in films, even though I know it's not real. Just too squeamish I guess!  ::)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on April 28, 2012, 04:22:54 AM
Quote
11 year old Ms Gant jr thoroughly enjoyed the movie and wasn't the slightest bit disturbed... I'm not a sure a few splashes
of blood woulda made much difference..
IMO kids can watch some pretty gruesome stuff as long as there is a happy ending.

Quote
Well, as I said ... the killing's more fun if you don't get to know the characters.
agree. Could we watch Dirty Harry from the same viewpoint if we were told the tragic tale of how all the people Harry shot, went down that dark tragic road of crime and violence to begin with ?
No. but that's not why we watch Dirty Harry. We want to see Clint being badass, shooting cool one liners, gunning down baddies and dont think about his anger issues or obvious damaged psyche, because we just want to be entertained by our suspension of disbelief.

Hunger Games deals with some pretty mature themes, but tries to cover them up, by glossing over the gruesome nature behind it all, but occasionally our sense of disbelief is shattered because our obvious second thought would be 'Are people truly okay with this?'
In Hunger Games at the beginning, there's this scene where this Lady Gaga looking woman (forgot her name) arrive from the first sector, and shows this big propaganda movie (read; Exposition) as to why the former rebellious sectors have to give up two of their teens to the hunger games, ( apparently completely oblivious to the fact that NO ONE present dont want to be here) and it jarred me a bit out of the movie because I started thinking about of the peace negotiations that lead to the rebellious sectors agreeing to all of this. Did the rebellious generals suing for peace have a gun to their head when they signed this peace treaty? Agreeing to send two of their young ones to a death game every year? Who came up with that idea? Caligula?
 
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on May 23, 2012, 05:53:20 AM
The trailer for The Great Gatsby has been released: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARN6agiW7o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARN6agiW7o). I'm definitely intrigued by it!
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Hemlock on May 26, 2012, 08:35:16 PM
http://www.skyfall-movie.com/site/

 8) 8) 8) 8)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on June 09, 2012, 11:12:31 AM
I've seen a variety of 2012 releases that I haven't made my usual brief comments about... but I did want to mention I saw Prometheus yesterday, and I quite liked it. I'd like to see it again just so I knew how much I liked it (if that makes sense). I've already heard possibilities of a sequel and that would be fine with me.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on June 13, 2012, 01:54:54 PM
Oh no Christopher, not you...

(http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/599239_10150918276592819_209558090_n.jpg)

So many conflicting plotpoints, lacked explanations and examples of lazy scriptwriting that it took me completely out of the otherwise beautifully shot and wonderfully acted movie.
had I known damon lindelof was behind the script i wouldn't have had so high expectations...
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on June 13, 2012, 02:07:20 PM
Like I said, I liked it but I'm not sure how much I liked it. I had a similar reaction to Drive last year, and it did play very well for my second viewing.

Plus a sequel might provide more explanations.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on July 10, 2012, 08:55:41 PM
I saw The Amazing Spider-Man tonight and liked it a lot. It might be my favorite of the recent superhero movies we've had. I very much appreciated the fact that the action scenes didn't look as cartoonish as they did in Sam Raimi's movie too.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on July 11, 2012, 12:02:24 PM
I have seen it as well, and liked it quite a bit as well. It is definetly superior in almost every aspect of the Sam Raimi movies.
It was generally well cast all over, and the plot had a nice pacing, the major exception being how Dr. Conners SUDDENLY decided to make everyone in NY a lizard man.
The three major things I liked about the movie;

Spiderman starts out at first to going into the superhero business for revenge, but slowly change from having that motive, into becomming a overall protector of the New Yorkers, when he realise what he can do with his powers.

Gwen Stacy, the heroine, wasn't just a typical damsel in distress but actually contributed to the plot, solving the problem and even fighting back at the villain.

Spiderman quibbing jokes and snarking when he fights in costume, as opposed to Raimis spiderman who was always silent and serious.

Choosing between Spiderman and Avengers as the best superhero movie of the year is a tough one (and let's not forget that dark Knight Rises still looms in the horizon) because while Spiderman had a far better (and well known) story development along with a nice fresh take on all the wellknown characters, Avengers had far more "moments", meaning that while the story was ridiculous simple, it had far entertainment value spread all over the movie (if you're following me)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on July 19, 2012, 01:33:29 AM
Is it me getting old or does it feel a little early to be re-booting Spiderman ?? The first Sam Rami film was barely 10 years ago and it doesn't sound like they've really changed that much unlike the recent Batman films..
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on July 19, 2012, 06:28:18 AM
It has only been 10 years, but this one is better.

We're supposed to see another reboot of Superman next year--I don't think it's connected to Superman Returns from a few years back.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on July 19, 2012, 11:43:28 AM
According to Gant jr it was ok but not as good as Rami's second Spiderman movie.. and apart from some stuff about
Parkers family and meatier part for his girlfriend it didnt really re boot the series like say the last Star trek movie..
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on July 19, 2012, 02:57:30 PM
Yes and No regarding the Spiderman reboot IMO.
Yes, because the last Raimi movie left Parkers life in a complete mess. Mary Jane had still left him due to the mess with the symbiote, and Gwen Stacy considered him a major A-hole after the stunt he pulled in the bar where Mary Jane worked (the infamous dancing scene) along with that he had found closure with his uncles' killer, and harry Osborne was dead, so he was essentially without friends or girlfriend, and only had aunt May left.
Off screen Tobey Macguire and Kirsten Dunst had stated publicy that they would never return to their respective roles, and Raimi wouldn't make another spiderman movie without full control of the project, and considering how he used the control he actually had with the third movie, I can kinda understand that the studio refused...

No, because it could have been handled a bit differently instead of a reboot.
Just like Superman Returns, where it off screen was stated, that the story would take place chronologically after Superman II, and the horrible 3 and 4 should just be disregarded. When the movie started, it was stated briefly when the starting credits rolled, that superman had travelled to Krypton for a few years after it had been found, and that he was now returning to Earth to start over again.
The Hulk and Punisher reboot(backtracking) briefly told the characters origin story when the credits rolled, and just dived into the new story, but that's a bit harder with Spiderman that had three movies under his belt.
Still the same thing could have been done with spidey, by just telling that he had just fought Dr. Octopus and that he and Mary Jane had gotten together.

What i'm getting wary of, is that it seems to be considered the norm to reboot these big franchises every time a new crew is put together to make a new origin movie. Warner is already planning a Batman reboot, because the Nolan version don't exactly have room for the fantastic villains the "regular" DC universe is sporting, and Warner wants to roll Batman into position for a Justice League movie...
I could actually imagine the same thing could happen to Spiderman, seeing as the new franchise is going to be a trilogy, and if this means that we every 6-8 year have to sit through another origin story, I could imagine that the superhero franchise would strangle itself...  :P
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on July 20, 2012, 11:52:11 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/83/Dark_knight_rises_poster.jpg/220px-Dark_knight_rises_poster.jpg)

What a major disappointment! Overlong and just not as as interesting as the first two Nolan Batman films. Plenty of explosions and the like for the kiddies but I'd had enough after an hour and a half and there was still an hour to go after that. The bad guy was awful (Not the actor or his portrayal, just in general) but I suppose The Joker is a hard act to follow.

2.5/5.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on July 24, 2012, 01:05:08 PM
Have returned from watching The dark knight rises and while it was a good Batman movie, it didn't exactly rock my world.
Too much exposition at the beginning, uneven jumpy story progress, a rehash of the plot from Batman begins and some choppy editing.
The first two movies had Batman grounded pretty well in reality, but in this movie there is pretty much nothing he wasn't able of which stretched my suspension of disbelief a couple of times.
On the plus side EVERYONE delivered stellar acting, Anne Hathaways' Catwoman motives were always kept unclear, and Tom Hardy as Bane works well, (but against Ledgers' Joker, which is no easy feat)
The plot twists at the end worked well, along with the ending.
While not the best finale to Nolans trilogy, I'd still recommend you go see it.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on July 24, 2012, 01:53:24 PM
I saw The Dark Knight Rises yesterday and enjoyed it quite a bit. I've enjoyed all three of Nolan's Batman movies, with maybe The Dark Knight being my favorite of them.

I really loved Anne Hathaway in it as Catwoman. ^-^ O0
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: AKA23 on July 25, 2012, 06:06:41 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/83/Dark_knight_rises_poster.jpg/220px-Dark_knight_rises_poster.jpg)

What a major disappointment! Overlong and just not as as interesting as the first two Nolan Batman films. Plenty of explosions and the like for the kiddies but I'd had enough after an hour and a half and there was still an hour to go after that. The bad guy was awful (Not the actor or his portrayal, just in general) but I suppose The Joker is a hard act to follow.

2.5/5.

I think I'm with you on this one, although I'd probably rate the film a little higher than that. What do you think of these observations, Schofield?

I saw "Dark Knight Rises" over the weekend. I was not one who felt that the prior two films were any kind of masterpiece. As a result, I didn't suffer from sky high expectations for this new entry, so I think I can speak more objectively and less emotionally about this new film. Contrary to many, I actually thought "Batman Begins" was the strongest film of the trilogy, though "The Dark Knight" was also strong. Overall, I'd say that "The Dark Knight Rises" was a fairly entertaining film, but was most certainly the weakest film of the trilogy. Ultimately, I found the whole film to be very pedestrian. It tried to do too much. It felt very epic, but it tried far too hard to be epic, and in so doing lost much of the smaller more character driven elements that made the first two pictures unique. Bane was a relatively weak villain, and because he was mostly a physical villain, much of the psychological interplay that made the first two films interesting was largely absent from this one. Thematically, I thought the exploration of the themes that were so prominent in the first two films, especially "The Dark Knight," were present, but were superficially presented.

One of the main themes of "The Dark Knight" was that the Joker gave the citizens a choice of what kind of society they wanted to be. Most prominently in the scene on the boat, the Joker gave Gotham city the choice to rise above self-interest or save themselves by destroying the other. One choice would allow them to reform their city, and focus on the values that could make it great and allow it to endure, the other would cause them to go further into decline. In this one, Nolan represented Bane as offering this "choice" to Gotham's citizens, but in the end, it was all a rouse. Nolan chose to do something else entirely, which I won't reveal because it would be a major spoiler.

Much of the psychological torture, the interplay that made the villains of the first two intelligent and terrifying, was largely absent from this one. Realism was sacrificed in this picture as well. The idea of having the Batpod instead of the Batmobile again highlighted this. Much of what made the first two films interesting was that even though these were comic book movies, they retained an element of humanity and realism. Having a flying car undermined this sense of realism. The journey that felt so real and human in the first two films felt very conventional in this one.

Everything about this was much weaker than the other two, and every theme was significantly muted. All the supporting characters, which had such interesting roles in the first two films, were mostly sidelined here in favor of Bane, and Batman himself was sidelined for much of the film. Michael Caine had the best role, but even his role was significantly reduced, and Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman had little to do.

Lastly, Nolan chose to end the film on a cliched note. For much of the film, it appeared that he wanted to do something big, bold, and emotionally resonant, but what he settled for was a cop out. It was conventional, it was gimmicky, and it betrayed the very themes he spent most of the film trying to develop.

On the positive side, I felt like Anne Hathaway's portrayal of Selina Kyle was one of the best aspects of the film. Nolan casted that part quite well. He took a risk, which many thought wouldn't pay off, and it did. I wished she would have been the main villain rather than Bane. That would have been very interesting. Instead, she was left with precious little to do. Overall, I do think it was a fairly entertaining film, but unlike the first two films, it offered little more than that.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on July 25, 2012, 06:37:15 PM
I saw The Amazing Spider-Man for a second time today, and have to say it's been my favorite superhero movie of the year. O0
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Doug on July 26, 2012, 04:58:20 AM

I saw "Dark Knight Rises" over the weekend.

For the most part I agree with what you have to say.  The movie's plot feels cobbled together.  Bane's plan is incredibly cliched and unexciting...and ultimately illogical.  Bruce Wayne has been reduced to a sniveling little bore when the movie opens.  There's not enough Batman, and when he does finally come out, he has no plan or purpose, and does nothing beyond get into a fist-fight with Bane.  Every attempt at emotional impact feels like second-rate tricks, including the (continuing!) mourning of Rachel, the confrontation with Alfred, and his struggles in the prison.  The twist at the end is annoying in how it affects the status of Bane.  The opening action sequence is the only action sequence that feels fresh. 

I did however like Catwoman a lot.  It's my favorite aspect of the movie.  I liked Bane at first, but by the end, I'd lost interest in him.  His "plan" was just stupid. 

I enjoyed the movie, but it doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.  I want to see it again, but it really diminishes the trilogy in my mind, and it didn't have to.  Not if they'd just made a better script.

I rate the first two the same, but The Dark Knight is clearly my favorite.

Batman Begins A
The Dark Knight A
The Dark Knight Rises B-
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: AKA23 on July 29, 2012, 01:37:41 PM
I saw "Trishna" over the weekend. It's a small independent film set in India. I liked Frieda Pinto in the title role, and atmospherically, the movie was quite stunning. The cinematography was great, and I enjoyed the music in the film. Story-wise, however, I thought the film was extremely bleak and very depressing. I also did not understand why Trishna took the actions she did, or why her boyfriend had a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality all of a sudden. It didn't seem to me that the character transformation was explained at all, or justified in any way. Apparently in the original novel, there were two different characters, which in the film, which was only loosely based on the original story, was combined into one. This film was an adaption of a book I've never read (Tess of the D'Urbervilles), but if the story is as bleak and depressing as this one was, I don't think I'd want to. Unless you're a big fan of Frieda Pinto and want to see her act in what was a good role, I would strongly recommend avoiding this one.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on July 30, 2012, 09:27:08 AM
Thoroughly enjoyed the new Batmam movie.. The first one is probably my fave but I thought this a fitting end to the trilogy..

Without spoiling it for anyone.. did anyone else feel the end was a litle ambiguous.. ?

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on July 31, 2012, 04:15:16 AM
Finally!  DC has one-upped Marvel by producing a decent 3rd installment in a trilogy.  The Dark Knight Rises is just as good as, even better than, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.  Whereas Marvel has put out some great comic book hero movies in the past 10 years, their third installments to the Spider Man and X-Men series were nowhere near as good as their predecessors.  I'm hoping this won't be the case for Iron Man because I've enjoyed that series thus far.  I'm confident they'll do well.  I hope as well as The Dark Knight Rises.

I saw the new Batman movie twice last week and thought it was very, very good.  It was entertaining and held my attention from beginning to end.  There's not many trilogies you can say this about, but every film in this series was done very well and worth seeing again.  As for the football scene, I thought it was fine.  You have to remember something, the runner is going full throttle for a touchdown.  With his adrenaline pumping and helmet on, I find it believable him not noticing anything until the very end of his run.  Sure, on the surface it seems silly but not at all improbable.  All of the actors did a fine job and Michael Caine had a very good scene with Christian Bale.  I won't describe it because I don't want to give anything away.  Bale was good as usual as The Caped Crusader and Anne Hathaway looked sensual as The Catwoman.  She was a very nice addition to the series and I enjoyed her portrayal as Selena Kyle/Catwoman.  I didn't recognize Tom Hardy as Bane.  I only realized afterwards that he was Shinzon in 2002's Star Trek: Nemesis.  He also starred in This Means War with a newer Star Trek star, Chris Pine (Kirk).  Of course, Morgan Freeman is good in just about anything he's in and I'm glad he returned for this film.  What's all this "The Legend Ends" jazz?!  Nonsense!  I see no reason why there can't be a fourth installment starring Christian Bale.  No reason whatsoever.  

I was hoping to see a trailer for Eastwood’s new film, Trouble With The Curve, but no such luck.  There was, however, a teaser trailer for the new Superman movie due out next year called Man Of Steel.  Looks promising ….but then again, so did Superman Returns.  

(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=5064346912621725&id=7e3776b96e13553a7d6450cb811db891)(http://ts4.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4618842857472987&id=09e766f711fa30f1dcefbedff5291c5a)(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4598592102073632&id=17941a7636d8fc5c7a62b45e6de1f7a9)(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=69432116037&id=f73653e1dca86812e5b6d7cc71574464&index=sf&url=http%3a%2f%2fimages1.variety.com%2fgraphics%2fphotos%2f_storypics%2fdarkknight_rises_review.jpg)


Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on July 31, 2012, 07:54:03 AM
Quote
did anyone else feel the end was a litle ambiguous.. ?
Yes, and very open ended. Especially about the young cop. The way his story ends pretty much had "to be continued" written all over it.

Quote
Whereas Marvel has put out some great comic book hero movies in the past 10 years, their third installments to the Spider Man and X-Men series were nowhere near as good as their predecessors.  I'm hoping this won't be the case for Iron Man because I've enjoyed that series thus far.

No worries (you might say) the different franchises are owned by completely different movie companies.
The movie rights to X Men are owned by Fox, and the movie rights to Spiderman are owned by Sony. Iron Man, Captain America, Thor are owned by Marvel.
Movie rights to Hulk, Punisher, Fantastic Four and Daredevil were all previously held by Universal, Lions gate, and Fox respectively, but have now "returned to the fold" seeing as no movie have been made about the characters in over four years (which is the deal that Marvel have had with the different studios)
That said, I liked X men; First class. Fassbender was cool as a young Magneto who played as a nice contrast to McAvoys' Xavier (the ending was still rushed and more than a bit rubbish, mind you  ;) )

Quote
What's all this "The Legend Ends" jazz?!  Nonsense!  I see no reason why there can't be a fourth installment starring Christian Bale.  No reason whatsoever. 
If I wanted a fourth installment of the Nolan Batman franchise, I'd prefer he took a look at The dark knight returns, where a aging 60 year old Bruce Wayne, decides to dress up again.
That said, I wouldn't mind a Robin movie. While I felt that the character potential was wasted, he definetly struck me as a very likeable character I'd like to know more about. 
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on July 31, 2012, 08:22:38 AM
No worries (you might say) the different franchises are owned by completely different movie companies.  I liked X men; First class. Fassbender was cool as a young Magneto who played as a nice contrast to McAvoys' Xavier (the ending was still rushed and more than a bit rubbish, mind you  ;) )
If I wanted a fourth installment of the Nolan Batman franchise, I'd prefer he took a look at The dark knight returns, where a aging 60 year old Bruce Wayne, decides to dress up again.  That said, I wouldn't mind a Robin movie. While I felt that the character potential was wasted, he definetly struck me as a very likeable character I'd like to know more about. 

I haven't seen X-Men: First Class so I can't comment on it.  I did see the 3rd installments of the Spider Man and X-Men movies and regardless of whom owns what, they were disappointing.  They weren't horrible; likeable but just not very good.  A 60 year old Bruce Wayne is a great idea but I'd like to see that done separately from the Bale series.  I for one hope they pick up where The Dark Knight left off with Robin joining forces with Batman.  Not sure if you mean a Robin movie by himself, which I don't think would work.  It'd be interesting, I'm sure, but the Dynamic Duo together would be better.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/BatmanComicIssue1%2C1940.png)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on July 31, 2012, 09:51:32 AM
We seem to be getting into some spoiler material about The Dark Knight Rises...

SPOILERS FOLLOW:


I was curious about the ending too. The way I took the ending was that Batman wasn't going to be back, but was going to enjoy his life with Selina (and really, who can blame him?). I was curious about the fact that we get the shot of Gordon wiping down the newly fixed Bat-signal, but I think that'll be for the new Batman about to take over.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on July 31, 2012, 10:05:14 AM
Quote
haven't seen X-Men: First Class so I can't comment on it.  I did see the 3rd installments of the Spider Man and X-Men movies and regardless of whom owns what, they were disappointing.  They weren't horrible; likeable but just not very good.

I'd say soemthing harsher about them, but that's better left for another time   ;)
I'd rate X Men; First Class between X1 and X2 (X2 being the best IMO) It's pretty much a reboot of the franchise (after that awful X3 pretty much got rid off all the major players in the X universe) telling the story about how Xavier and Lnesherr met, and started the original X Men. ( btw, stay away from the Wolverine; origins movie  ;) )
Quote
A 60 year old Bruce Wayne is a great idea but I'd like to see that done separately from the Bale series.
Nolans' Batman begins movie is based on the critically acclaimed comic book Batman; Year One, written by one Frank Miller (Sin City, 300) who also wrote the Dark knight returns, so they'd fit well within their own continuity. Rumor has it that Zack Snyder (Watchmen, Sucker Punch, upcomming Man of Steel) is in talk to direct it, so I doubt we'd get Bale to do another batman movie anyway  ;)
Just found out that there's comming a two part animated (seemingly more kid friendly) version out this year, Peter Weller (Robocop) doing the voice of batman (not a bad choice really) and I guess if that becomes a success, we'll see a live version.
Quote
  but the Dynamic Duo together would be better.
Sure, Robin and batman 'll always fit together, but in the comic continuity, Dick Grayson eventually left Batman and became Nightwing, which has had a (mostly) succesfull run for almost two decades, so I'd imagine that would most likely be the angle they'd be going for. Guess only time'll tell  :) 
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on July 31, 2012, 10:59:20 AM
Personally, I think it'd be foolish to continue without Bale as Batman.  That mistake was already made, twice, in replacing Michael Keaton.  While the prospect is interesting, I doubt very much Robin alone or Nightwing would be successful on the big screen. 
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on July 31, 2012, 12:37:00 PM
So sre we taking Alfreds final scene as fact... ? it didn't quite ring true to me..
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on July 31, 2012, 12:40:14 PM
So are we taking Alfred's final scene as fact... ? it didn't quite ring true to me..

Not sure what you mean, Gant.  Could you specify?  I see definite possibilities for a 4th installment.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on July 31, 2012, 11:26:00 PM
I don't think I can Jed without possibly spoiling things for others who may not have seen the film..
but I often think with Nolans films he lets you read into an ending what you want..

As for the series  continuing, I can see it going forward as Nightwing but with different directors..
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on August 01, 2012, 04:25:03 AM
I don't think I can Jed without possibly spoiling things for others who may not have seen the film..
but I often think with Nolans films he lets you read into an ending what you want..

As for the series  continuing, I can see it going forward as Nightwing but with different directors..

Oh, ok Gant.  Well, you do as Christopher did and post "spoilers follow" in large letters so as to give warning but if you'd still rather not I understand.

Growing up watching reruns of the 60's Batman tv series, Robin was my favorite.  I agree, it would be interesting to see something done with Nightwing but I seriously doubt it'll happen, unless it's a straight-to-dvd format.  I think a Nightwing tv series would be cool, if done right. 

(http://www.peeperstv.com/pictures/305762/burtwardrobin.jpg)  (http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4643160953716980&id=1999960a43b5e2bf61231147a0186c40)

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: AKA23 on August 09, 2012, 10:28:51 AM
I saw "Hope Springs." The trailers are pretty misleading. It's a lot more of a drama than it is a comedy. Overall, I thought the performances were quite good, and I liked the premise of the story, but I don't know if I'd really recommend it. I was extremely uncomfortable watching much of the movie. I don't know if it was just that, for me, old people and working out sexual frustrations don't really scream "must see" to me, or whether I was just uncomfortable with the surprisingly sexual nature of the film, but I didn't really enjoy a lot of it. I tend to avoid sex comedies and stuff for the same reason, but if you like Tommy Lee Jones or Meryl Streep, and you aren't put off by these elements, you'd probably enjoy it. I'm pretty surprised that it managed to get a PG-13 rating. Although they didn't really show a lot of sex, there was quite a lot in there that, if I were a parent, I definitely wouldn't want my 13 year old child to see. The standards of what qualifies for a PG-13 these days, in some cases, is pretty surprising to me. I definitely think this should have been Rated R. If you want to see "Trouble With the Curve's" preview, it was playing before "Hope Springs." I did enjoy that!
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: AKA23 on August 11, 2012, 05:29:22 PM
I saw "The Bourne Legacy" today. It was an entirely forgettable, and totally unnecessary, film. There were a lot of good actors in it, so I was hoping it might be something worth seeing, but it really wasn't that good. For much of the film, not very much happens, and I found myself closing my eyes and getting tired before I jolted myself back to watch the movie. It really felt to me like they just scrambled for any kind of semi-plausible way to continue this story after Matt Damon decided not to return to the franchise. Unless Damon returns, I won't be watching these films again.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on August 11, 2012, 07:53:48 PM
I haven't seen any of the Bourne movies yet, but isn't The Bourne Legacy was one of the novels in the series? I just had a quick look and saw that there were other Bourne books before that one, so perhaps since Damon didn't want to come back, they decided to jump to the one without his character. ???

I saw both Total Recall and The Watch recently. I watched the original Total Recall before going to see the new one since it'd been such a long time since I'd done so. I do like the original one better. I felt that there was a chase sequence that just went on and on way too long in the remake. I won't say too much more than that.

The Watch was fun in its own sort of vulgar way. :D
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on August 12, 2012, 05:55:21 AM
I haven't seen any of the Bourne movies yet, but isn't The Bourne Legacy was one of the novels in the series? I just had a quick look and saw that there were other Bourne books before that one, so perhaps since Damon didn't want to come back, they decided to jump to the one without his character. ???

I saw both Total Recall and The Watch recently. I watched the original Total Recall before going to see the new one since it'd been such a long time since I'd done so. I do like the original one better. I felt that there was a chase sequence that just went on and one way too long in the remake. I won't say too much more than that.

The Watch was fun in its own sort of vulgar way. :D

I've seen Total Recall and The Bourne Legacy recently.  They were ok, but I agree in that they were forgettable.  The only thing I like about the original Recall is Schwarzenegger.  Well, ok, Sharon Stone was hot.  I love Beckinsale but unfortunately, her presence wasn't enough to save the remake.  Hahaha, they did a good job with the triple-ahem-breasted prostitute in the new version.  Jeremy Renner is a very good action star but I prefer Matt Damon in this role.  The original series was much better and Damon was more convincing.

The trailers weren't strictly action so I was holding out hope for a preview of Trouble With The Curve.  No such luck.  C'est la vie.  8)

Unfortunately, one of the highlights of Totall Recal 2012...well, 3 highlights  8)

(http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2012/07/24/total-recall-kaitlyn-leeb_240x320.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Sylvie on August 15, 2012, 02:26:13 AM
(http://pmcdn.priceminister.com/photo/rebelle-brave-disney-pixar-veritable-affiche-de-cinema-format-120x160-de-mark-andrews-brenda-chapman-avec-les-voix-de-kelly-macdonald-billy-connolly-emma-thompson-2012-912752013_ML.jpg)

"Rebelle" ("Brave" English title), the last Disney-Pixar : very good one, really funny ... and for once, there is no Charming Prince at all  ;) !
 
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on August 17, 2012, 10:42:29 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4c/The_Bourne_Legacy_Poster.jpg/220px-The_Bourne_Legacy_Poster.jpg)

I quite enjoyed this. It's nothing special but for an action film, it gets a pass from me. Jeremy Renner is not Matt Damon but I think many people are going into this film thinking Renner is playing Bourne but he isn't. It's a completely different character. Obviously the film makers are trying to cash in on the name but the way the story is told and Bourne is mentioned several times, I found it interesting for the two hours. A little disappointing that Joan Allen and David Strathairn's roles were so minuscule. Aussie fans will get a kick out of seeing Shane Jacobson in a small role.

3/5.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on August 18, 2012, 06:13:18 AM
Out of the major releases the US is getting this weekend, I figured ParaNorman would probably be the most promising--I will go see The Expendables 2 soon but have never expected much from it. I enjoyed ParaNorman. I don't believe I've seen any TV spots of it and I had to look the trailer up online. It's about a kid named Norman who can see and talk to dead people. Everyone thinks he's a freak because they see him talking to no one. The town he lives in has a legend about a curse of a witch... and the curse turns out to be true. It's a fun movie with a good message to it, but I doubt I'd take really young kids to see it.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on August 19, 2012, 05:34:09 AM
I saw The Expendables 2 yesterday and IT WAS GREAT!  Respectfully, I disagree about this resembling straight-to-video action movies of the 80's.  No, not even close.  Those are extremely poorly made productions and these films are anything but.  I see absolutely,  positively NOTHING wrong with Arnold Schwarzenegger poking fun at his action star image.  Judging by the audience reaction, they loved it.  It's all meant to be fun and that's EXACTLY what it was.  If you're expecting Arnold to be as he was before, then perhaps you'll be satisfied with his upcoming film, The Last Stand.  I saw a trailer for it before the movie and it looks good.  I got a great kick out of Chuck Norris in this film, too.  The audience reaction to his appearance and the theme from The Good, The Bad And The Ugly accompanying him was overwhelmingly positive.  I don't want to give anything away, but I was hoping for a little more from him but am still very happy with what he contributed.  Jean-Claude Van Damme was very convincing as the bad guy and I enjoyed seeing him again, too.  Yu Nan was a nice addition.  Always good seeing a woman kicking butt in action films.  Jet Li had some great fighting sequences and I thought the rest of the original cast was as effective this time around as the last.  It's great seeing Stallone in top form again and I'm a fan of a lot of Jason Statham's films (except for Crank 2, that was horrible).  I watched The Expendables again before going to see the sequel and wasn't tired of it at all.  These are now my all-time favorite action movies.

(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4534073121703805&id=e786d3ad170988243a145bff24ab7c2f)(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4554379718100486&id=75a4d68d0edbee1ddbe3c3b631626a15)(http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4643560403370670&id=608ce198cd886415ca872d1a52fba183)(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4950590426842465&id=7c2ad42d7a9c30d07433fdf72bc15eaa)  

Eastwood and Connery are legends, icons and I for one would love to see them in the next sequel but only if their parts were written in a manner befitting their age and status.  It can be done.  As far as Eastwood directing the next sequel, sure, I'm all for it because on the whole, I can't stand what's he's been producing otherwise as a director only.  Bring in Carl Weathers as a former team member and Steven Seagal (he'd have to get in shape!) as an antagonist.  Too bad Charles Bronson and Lee Marvin aren't still with us.

*SPOILER ALERT*  Number one, this isn't a trailer but a scene from the movie.  If you'd rather wait to see the film, then return to it afterwards.  Number two, if you've seen the movie and didn't care for it, then this is not for you.  Otherwise, if you're interested, then click on and enjoy.  The scene involves Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Willis and Norris.  The Expendables 2 movie clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOP-_X6N9B4)

So, as you can tell, I am extremely pleased with this film!  A true action film in every sense of the word.  I'm looking forward another sequel and especially The Tomb, another action movie starring Schwarzenegger and Stallone due out next year. ...I just hope it's not another City Heat!  :-\

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-As3PeFN92aY/T79mKzn-M3I/AAAAAAAAAAQ/cZeKrNlq30w/s1600/aged-arnold-schwarzenegger-and-sylvester-stallone-in-the-tomb.jpg)

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: rr-electricangel on August 19, 2012, 05:39:41 PM
Quote
I saw The Expendables 2 yesterday and IT WAS GREAT!
I have to agree. I took my dad and two older brothers to see it and we laughed our asses off. If you are looking for some deep message in this movie then you are not going to be in the right state of mind to enjoy it. It is meant as entertainment. Nothing more. I don't think this is Clint Eastwood's type of movie though. He would only be in Expendables 3 as a cameo (at best) and it might not even be a shooting scene. Hey, but you never know...
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on August 20, 2012, 06:45:22 AM
^I've moved the above two posts here from the thread in the News forum titled "Can Clint be in front of camera soon again? In " Expendables 3 ?"

Any other reviews of The Expendables 2 can go here, as this film has nothing to do with Clint Eastwood.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Hemlock on August 31, 2012, 08:54:59 PM
Although The Expendables 2 had a lame (seen it so many times before) plot,some bad acting and stoopid scenes/jokes and such I still enjoyed it enormously  ;D

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on September 01, 2012, 03:08:06 AM
Expendables 2 is officially my no 1. guilty pleasure of 2012  :D

I've seen comedies this year that made me laugh less than this. It was a nice mix of classic oneliners, snappy comebacks, meta jokes (yes, Dolph Lundgren has those degrees RL) and ol' fashioned american action  ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on September 01, 2012, 09:28:26 AM
In Expendables 2 I realize that some of the more self-referencing writing was meant to be cheesy but really fell flat for me. I would put the movie about on par with the first one--it was okay. If they make a third one, I'll be tempted to not go see it in theaters.

I saw Premium Rush last weekend and enjoyed it pretty well. That would be a crazy dangerous job even without being chased down by someone that wants the envelope you're supposed to deliver!

And then I saw Lawless yesterday. It's based on a true story and I'm really curious how close the actual story is to this one. It's about three brothers who are bootleggers in the early 1930s. After I watched the movie I saw a short blurb from Roger Ebert's review where he mentioned that it's very well made and good performances, but just doesn't seem to rise above its violence. I agree with this mostly. It struck me at times of being somewhat dull at times, but there is quite a bit of graphic violence that breaks those moments up.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Hemlock on September 01, 2012, 07:46:23 PM
Of the upcoming films this year I´ve mixed feeling with this one...

(http://www.latestnewsexplorer.com/wp-content/uploads/et_temp/Jack-Reacher-poster-39697_650x400.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK7y8Ou0VvM

The trailer looks good but the guy is way too short for the role  ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on September 01, 2012, 07:47:46 PM
Maybe SK will enjoy it ... since he's not a "big" fan of the books! ;D
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on September 01, 2012, 07:52:59 PM
I've watched the trailer now and I have to say ... not only does that little runt not look anything like Reacher, he doesn't sound remotely like him, either. What were they thinking? ???
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Hemlock on September 01, 2012, 07:54:21 PM
Maybe SK will enjoy it ... since he's not a "big" fan of the books! ;D

Yeah,I read about it  ;D Even with the midget in the lead I´ll go to see it...than again Ian Fleming was not happy with Sean connery as James bond and everything turned fine.That film series is 50 years old now  8)

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on September 01, 2012, 07:58:00 PM
No love for Mr. Cruise? I don't know anything about the character, other than what I've read on here, but I do like Cruise alright.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on September 01, 2012, 08:09:57 PM
Maybe SK will enjoy it ... since he's not a "big" fan of the books! ;D

Funny thing is, there is something about Tom Cruise, I don't know what it is but I've never been a fan of his. I've seen a few of his films, always because another actor was in it but wouldn't rush out to see anything he's in. I don't hate him but I've never liked him. I just don't know why.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Hemlock on September 01, 2012, 08:15:49 PM
No love for Mr. Cruise? I don't know anything about the character, other than what I've read on here, but I do like Cruise alright.

I got nothing against Tom Cruise.I like many of his films but he does not fit the describtion that author of the book series,Lee Child has given to Jack Reacher:

"Name: Jack Reacher (no middle name)
Born: October 29th
Measurements: 6'5", 220-250 lbs., 50" chest
Hair: Dirty-blond
Eyes: Ice blue!

http://www.leechild.com/reacher.php

But as said the film can be good anyways  ;)

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on September 05, 2012, 12:28:54 AM
I gotta be honest.. I'm sooo looking forward to this.... It's my part of town  :)

Quote
Cockneys Vs Zombies

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2Gb5F7QZcY1UcogqLGg1htqrXSdowxepyLG0Eze6uyzSyCvCb)

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4Kxjw59l1blQRXInG4p4RVsI4fNYpKYzAPse9b8Gy8-E0jZaG-A)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Hemlock on September 11, 2012, 05:21:56 PM
^ should be intresting  ;D
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on September 13, 2012, 06:45:03 PM
Here's the trailer for the new Lincoln movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJVuqYkI2jQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJVuqYkI2jQ) I'm looking forward to it and will definitely try to catch it when it comes out here in November.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on September 24, 2012, 06:06:13 AM
Quote
Berberian Sound Studio 2012

Starring Toby Jones and directed and written by Peter Strickland

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNQQ3wnONVNzBn4OgARqoVD_Q90tygunz2cpDSVJP5Z1GEUR_a)

An English sound engineer flies to Italy to work on what he thinks is a film about horses but ends up working
on an Italian horror film..

This is a really teriffic film, very intense and intelligent.. At first Jones character is appalled to be working on such a
movie..but after a while begins to become sucked in. As a fan of Italian 60s/70's Itallian horror cinema there is
plenty to enjoy..  I guess this film reminded me a little of Videodrome.. Gradually Jones is drawn into an alternative world thru working on this film. Jones is fantastic in the central role as someone totally out of his depth.  Theres a really strange, weird eeriness to this movie..
Brilliant  5/5

(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRtdT74KHz1TkzcDc5gOv2KZDescg-WvkDv4Fx31VydK9edJhn-)

Coincidently I was in a bar in London last week and Jones walked in with some friends..I think if Id seen this movie then I would have congratulated him on it.. and on his fathers performance in Firefox

I want to see this again..!

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on September 24, 2012, 07:08:16 AM
That does sound really interesting, Gant. I'll have to look out for that one.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on September 24, 2012, 08:17:26 AM
It really was great Christopher.. and you wouldn't need to be a fan of Dario Argento and
Italian horror.. to really appreciate it... I just love originality in cinema and this has it..
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on September 24, 2012, 06:43:37 PM
I've seen a little Argento and I definitely like Itallian horror!
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on September 28, 2012, 12:05:39 AM
Quote
Cabin in the Woods

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDh67kKw2qrVJzWhwmfCN8gEgn5sOb5BaCN_N-3Pged5lEaIjj)

Five seemingly stereotypical teenagers gather for a weekend in the woods... and then the fun starts..

What seems like the kind of horror film we've all seen a thousand times.. turns into something completely different.
Impossible to say much more without spoiling it.. But the whole thing builds up to an amazing last half hour..
Good fun and a thrill ride.. Obviously made by people who love horror films..
Entertaining and unpredictable...

Why do the characters in horror films do such dumb things... watch this and find out...  :)

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHTURC7az7P7qJYlZSstPKc4asFXtZ4GrOn0gGC4ZRWx7WY3TpYQ)

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on September 28, 2012, 01:36:14 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4f/Moonrise_Kingdom_FilmPoster.jpeg/215px-Moonrise_Kingdom_FilmPoster.jpeg)

Fans of Wes Anderson's quirky offbeat films won't be disappointed with this. Two 12 year olds meet one summer and become pen pals. They make a secret pact to get together the following summer  and run away together.

Great cast, Bruce Willis, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Edward Norton and Harvey Keitel.

4/5.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on September 28, 2012, 05:47:26 PM
I saw Looper today and would say it's amongst the best I've seen this year. O0
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on October 08, 2012, 01:43:30 AM
I havn't seen Taken 2 (and don't plan on seein' it)

But this short tweet by English film critic Mark Kermode made me chuckle..

Quote
Coming soon.. Taken 3D. This time. they've taken his dog. He will find them, he will kill them,
and he will throw sticks at the audience

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on October 08, 2012, 07:32:08 AM
^ ;D I've seen Taken a few times, and while it's not a great movie, I do enjoy it. I do plan on seeing Taken 2 here soon.

I saw Frankenweenie over the weekend. It was pretty good, though the older short film is better (it's been a long time since I've seen it though).

Taken 2, like I already mentioned, and Here Comes the Boom are two movies I want to make sure I get around to seeing (the latter is out this coming weekend). There are some others out or coming out that I'd like to see, including Seven Psychopaths.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on October 08, 2012, 08:21:34 AM
I thought Taken was great fun Christopher.. but Taken 2 doesn't sound so good unfortunately..
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on October 11, 2012, 02:57:28 PM
Quote
What seems like the kind of horror film we've all seen a thousand times.. turns into something completely different.
Impossible to say much more without spoiling it.. But the whole thing builds up to an amazing last half hour..
Good fun and a thrill ride.. Obviously made by people who love horror films..
Entertaining and unpredictable...
I couldn't agree more.
Cabin in the woods is one of the most entertaining horror movies I've seen in a long time.
Part affectionate nod and  part fresh take on the horror franchise, in a way that I haven't seen since Zombieland and Trollhunter.

Quote
I thought Taken was great fun Christopher.. but Taken 2 doesn't sound so good unfortunately..
And that rumor is right. Taken 2 lacks the punch (pun not intended) and excitement, that made the first one such a great action movie, with a franchise potential on par with the Die Hard franchise.
This is just another run of the mill bad-guy-wants-revenge movie, and Liam Neesons steely gaze is now fixed entirely on the paycheck at the end of the movie... 

On a side note...
Speaking of Die Hard...
Die Hard 4; A good day to die harder *groan*
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/a-good-day-to-die-hard/teaser-trailer
While it's technically a 2013 movie, I thought I'd post the teaser here.
I'm kinda "meh" on this one at the moment, but at least it looks more pumped up than the last one...

Instead of watching Taken 2, I'd recommend Judge Dredd 3D instead.

(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BODkyNDQzMzUzOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODYyMDEyOA@@._V1._SY317_.jpg)

I seem to have taken a liking to movies that bomb at the box office this year.
First John Carter, and now this...  ::)

As a long time Judge Dredd fan I had some high hopes for this one to at least surpass the 95 Stallone version, and boy does it deliver on that point.
Megacity One is shown (as it should be) as a brutal police state, barely able to support itself, on the edge of total anarchy and chaos, set in a dystopian future.
This gritty society still has enough recogniceable features to deliver the same kind of social comments and political satire that the Judge Dredd comic eventually became well known for during the mid 90ies though, and that shows a remarkable respect to the source material, while still delivering on the action.     
Judge Dredd is not the brightly coloured superhero type seen in the Stallone movie, but here shown  more as a Dirty Harry type character, following a uncaring law to the letter, with Karl Urban delivering an excellent portrayal of the character.
The 3D effects are quite good, and works well when you see the world through the eyes of the users of a new drug called slo-mo, a drug that gives the brain the illusion of watching the world passs by at 1/100 % of real time.
When these visuals are showing, the 3D effects easily surpass those of say, Tron; Legacy, and I didn't feel cheated by having to shell out the extra money for the 3D glasses.

The plot is pretty simple; The rookie Judge Anderson is born with a minor mutation that gives her limited psychic abilities, and is put out on a field test, supervised by Judge Dredd.
When a gang related triple homocide is called in at one of the bleak massive social  housings, (called a city block) Dredd and Anderson takes on the investigation only to find out that the block may be the housing for the production of the new slo-mo drug.
MaMa, the ringleader of the slo mo production, quickly steps in and have the entire block sealed off via a hacked security network before the two judges can leave, and a brutal battle for survival takes place as the stakes keeps getting raised, as the two judges begin to run out of options and ammunition.
The movie has been videly and wrongly accused for ripping of another Lionsgate movie called The Raid; Redemption (which would also be a nicer alternative to taken 2, btw.  ;) ) but in all fairness, the production of Dredd had been going on for some time before the production of The Raid had even started.   
 
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on October 11, 2012, 07:21:48 PM
The new Die Hard movie set to come out is actually the fifth film in the series, which you may have just mis-typed.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: dane with no name on October 12, 2012, 04:28:26 PM
Oops. Yes, that was a typo

(though I don't think the world would miss Die Hard 4.0 that much  ;) ) 
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on October 21, 2012, 04:35:40 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/04/To_rome_with_love_ver2.jpg/215px-To_rome_with_love_ver2.jpg)

Woody Allen's latest was a hit and miss for me. Great to see Woody onscreen again and his character's part of the film was the most enjoyable for me. As was the storyline concerning Roberto Benigni's character but the Jesse Eisenberg and the Penelope Cruz character's storylines left me wanting more Woody.

2.5/5
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: AKA23 on October 28, 2012, 08:34:58 PM
I saw "Argo." I think it's been overhyped, but it was definitely worth seeing. Affleck did a good job of taking a historical fact-based story and making in thrilling and relevant. That's not an easy thing to do. Ben Affleck is a very competent director who makes very interesting choices. All 3 movies that he has directed have been good. I see him and George Clooney as the actor-directors of the future who have potential to be in the Eastwood mold.

I also saw "Cloud Atlas." I have really never seen a movie like it before. It was visually and thematically interesting, but it was close to three hours, and the story made little to no sense. I don't really know if I'd recommend it or not, because there was so much about it that is so unique that I'm not sure whether it was a hot mess or something worthwhile. It is definitely one of a kind.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Doug on October 30, 2012, 06:33:12 AM
What I've seen over the last month or so...

The Hunger Games.  Did not like it.  Really didn't like it.  The girl is certainly nice to look at, if that counts for anything.  C

The Cabin in the Woods, which I did like a lot.  I'm not sure why, but it was fun.  B+ 

Prometheus was fantastic visually.  The writing...was horrible.  The movie seemed to have a checklist of things to cover, and no one involved cared how stupid the characters came across or how illogical the plot, just so they could cross off everything they wanted to cover.  B-

I saw Moonrise Kingdom for the second time, and it just comes across as too much Wes Anderson fluff to really love it.  I do like his movies, but his quirks are getting old for this fan.  I'd give it a B.

Seven Psychopaths.  At times brilliant, and at other times just too caught up in its own cleverness.  Sam Rockwell is great in it, though.  B+

Looper.  I enjoyed it a lot, even if it for me seemed much longer than its two hours.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis are great in this.  Still hate the title, but whatever.  B+

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Hemlock on November 01, 2012, 04:51:50 PM
Skyfall is quite good film but it doesn`t feel like James Bond-film at times.Daniel Craig is once again excellent as is rest of the cast but the story is mainly a simple revenge-story and I kind of wanted to see"old school"Bond-film.
But as said the film is good,sometimes even great but they should lighten the atmosphere a bit in the future films...not meaning that I`d like to see another Moonraker or Die another Day.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Walt on November 19, 2012, 04:16:19 AM
Skyfall is quite good film but it doesn`t feel like James Bond-film at times.Daniel Craig is once again excellent as is rest of the cast but the story is mainly a simple revenge-story and I kind of wanted to see"old school"Bond-film.
But as said the film is good,sometimes even great but they should lighten the atmosphere a bit in the future films...not meaning that I`d like to see another Moonraker or Die another Day.

Agreed. Skyfall is a very good movie and I enjoyed it a lot but, despite the references to past films, it didn't feel like Bond. The last Mission Impossible film was more like Bond than this latest outing. Craig's a great actor but he's not my idea of Bond, more like a Steve McQueen waxwork that's started to melt  ;D
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on November 26, 2012, 11:18:53 PM
Skyfall is quite good film but it doesn`t feel like James Bond-film at times.Daniel Craig is once again excellent as is rest of the cast but the story is mainly a simple revenge-story and I kind of wanted to see"old school"Bond-film.
But as said the film is good,sometimes even great but they should lighten the atmosphere a bit in the future films...not meaning that I`d like to see another Moonraker or Die another Day.

I enjoyed it but thought it was overlong. Maybe if there hadn't been 30 minutes of advertisments and trailers before the film it wouldn't have felt so drawn out.

3/5.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on November 27, 2012, 12:17:03 AM
I enjoyed Skyfall but agree that despite all the references it didnt quite feel like a Bond movie... Very obviously put together
to celebrate the 50 year anniversary, tick all the boxes and get the franchise back on track ... I do think Craig is excellent tho.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on November 27, 2012, 08:27:21 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/93/The_Intouchables.jpg/220px-The_Intouchables.jpg)

Technically, a 2011 film but it has only just seen its release down here. Not a bad little film. Plenty of amusing moments between two unlikely pair of people.

Quote
Philippe, a rich quadriplegic who owns a luxurious Parisian mansion, and his assistant Magalie, are interviewing candidates to be his live-in carer. Driss, a candidate, has no ambitions to get hired. He is just there to get a signature showing he was interviewed and rejected in order to continue to receive his welfare benefits. He is extremely casual and shamelessly flirts with Magalie. He is told to come back the next morning to get his signed letter. Driss goes back to the tiny flat that he shares with his extended family in a bleak Parisian suburb. His aunt, exasperated from not hearing from him for six months, orders him to leave the flat.
 
The next day, Driss returns to Philippe's mansion and learns to his surprise that he is on a trial period for the live-in carer job. He learns the extent of Philippe's disability and then accompanies Philippe in every moment of his life, discovering with astonishment a completely different lifestyle. A friend of Philippe's reveals Driss's criminal record which includes six months in jail for robbery. Philippe states he does not care about Driss's past because he is the only one that does not treat him with pity or compassion, but as an equal. He says he will not fire him as long as he does his current job properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intouchables

3/5.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on November 28, 2012, 12:51:17 PM
I like the sound of this movie SK... I'm gonna check it out...
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Doug on November 28, 2012, 02:55:17 PM
I enjoyed Skyfall a lot.  Far more than I was expecting, given that I don't like Craig as Bond, and I'm one of the few people who really dislikes Casino Royale

However, I do agree that by the end it doesn't really feel like a Bond film. The blatant nod toward The Dark Knight was distracting, and the ending for me felt very un-Bond like.  Although that's not necessarily a bad thing.  Anyhow, I definitely recommend it.  B+
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: AKA23 on November 28, 2012, 03:52:14 PM
"The Intouchables" is my favorite movie this year by far. I know I already wrote my thoughts on this months ago, but I just wanted to reiterate that I highly recommend it.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on November 29, 2012, 12:59:03 PM
Anyone seen The Master yet.. Im intrigued but can't make up my mind whether or not I want to see t...  ::)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Doug on December 08, 2012, 12:21:14 AM
I wanted to see The Master, but missed it.  I saw Sight & Sound had at #1 for films of 2012.  (If that means anything.)

I saw Killing Them Softly, and I really loved much of it until you got to the end where I realized that was it and there wasn't anything there.  There's nothing to the plot beyond the setup and it's not even an interesting character study or anything.  It has a lot of decent dialogue, but it doesn't add up to anything, it has some highly stylized scenes of violence, but I really got nothing from it.  Too bad.  Strangely, three different groups of people walked out in the middle.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: AKA23 on December 08, 2012, 11:56:54 AM
I went to see "Killing Them Softly" too. I sat there for about fifteen minutes totally disengaged, so I ended up leaving and getting my money back. I rarely ever do that, so I'm with Doug on this one.Z

I've seen a bunch of movies recently. The best would probably be "Flight." I'd definitely check that out at the movies if you have not already done so.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on December 08, 2012, 03:58:30 PM
You got your money back from the theater? How is that set up? Does your theater do that if you leave the movie within a certain time once it starts?
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: AKA23 on December 08, 2012, 05:15:04 PM
I believe so, yes. I don't know what the time limit for it is, but I've done this twice in my life, at different theaters, shortly after the movie starts. I think it's been 10-15 minutes after the end of the previews. I almost never do this, but the two times I did, both theaters were happy to oblige.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Doug on December 18, 2012, 12:30:45 AM
The Hobbit.  I give it a B+.  It looks stunning. Only a couple instances where the CGI was a little obvious. Of course I didn't watch it in 3-D, in the higher frame rate, or at the IMAX. I'm sure it will please all fans of Middle Earth. But my problem with it is simple: It's too damn long. The book isn't that long, and now they're extending it out to a three-part epic and it's just too much. The movie only covers the first six chapters, which means having to add in a lot of details that aren't in the book, including major battle scenes that just become monotonous. That's my complaint, but keep in mind I'm not the fan of the LOTR trilogy that many others are.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Sylvie on December 18, 2012, 01:53:21 AM
The Hobbit.  I give it a B+.  It looks stunning. Only a couple instances where the CGI was a little obvious. Of course I didn't watch it in 3-D, in the higher frame rate, or at the IMAX. I'm sure it will please all fans of Middle Earth. But my problem with it is simple: It's too damn long. The book isn't that long, and now they're extending it out to a three-part epic and it's just too much. The movie only covers the first six chapters, which means having to add in a lot of details that aren't in the book, including major battle scenes that just become monotonous. That's my complaint, but keep in mind I'm not the fan of the LOTR trilogy that many others are.

I saw it on the first day with my daughter Alison (a real fan of Tolkien trilogy, then of the Jackson Trilogy)... and I must admit that we are very disappointed : too many long fights, the Dwarfs are ridiculous in too many scenes (not in the book, they are only funny !) ... Only the Gollem (Gollum) is fantastic, but the whole story seems a series of "clichés", very well made in fact but too "easy" ... some parts of the story were taken from  the Tolkien's  "Silmarillion" (The Wood Magician for exemple).
Well, I will give it a C ...
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Doug on December 18, 2012, 02:04:36 AM
... some parts of the story were taken from  the Tolkien's  "Silmarillion" (The Wood Magician for exemple).
Well, I will give it a C ...

Apparently he's mentioned in the book, but only in passing. I read the book twice when I was young, but it's probably been close to 30 years. I did come home and skim through the book, because I certainly couldn't remember all those battle scenes and the subplot with the orc...and lo and behold they weren't in there.  I tried to read The Silmarillion long ago...just dreadfully boring.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on December 18, 2012, 12:38:54 PM
I might end up going to see The Hobbit. I'm reluctant because it is so long, and I heard it was supposed to be a trilogy. I could understand if it was going to be done in two movies, but three just makes it seem like they're cashing in on it. I would think that the quality is going to have to suffer as a result (I just think the Lord of the Rings movies are okay).
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Lin Sunderland on December 18, 2012, 05:28:50 PM
It is not anywhere near as good as "Lord of the Rings" and it is far too long. I found it so padded out that I began to lose interest. I wont bother to go and see the remaining two. 1/5
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on December 18, 2012, 10:09:31 PM
The movie only covers the first six chapters, which means having to add in a lot of details that aren't in the book, including major battle scenes that just become monotonous. That's my complaint, but keep in mind I'm not the fan of the LOTR trilogy that many others are.

I could never understand the hoopla about The Lord Of The Rings. I read the book about ten years ago. It took me nearly 6 months to bore my way through it. The films didn't grab me either. I didn't have anything to read so I started The Hobbit last week. I've read the first six chapters and there is no movie in that. The main characters have had a party, left for their adventure, had a run in with some wolves and Bilbo meets Gollum. That's it.

I could understand if it was going to be done in two movies, but three just makes it seem like they're cashing in on it.

Exactly. :)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Doug on December 26, 2012, 05:33:49 AM
Django Unchained.

Inglourious Basterds was a film that shouldn't have worked, with its hodgepodge of genres and an even stranger mix of musical styles in the soundtrack, but for me it worked beautifully. Now Tarantino gives us Django Unchained, and so you'd think he could channel his fetishes for spaghetti westerns and exploitation films into one kick-ass western-style action flick, but it's a mess. In every way Basterds shouldn't have worked but did, Django doesn't work when it should. It's too long and too disjointed, and it's trying too hard to be everything and just seems off the mark too many times. It has plenty of humor, but it's missing the sort of easy quirkiness that such a film needs so it doesn't look like it's taking itself so seriously. Is it a parody, an homage, or is trying to say something meaningful underneath all its exaggerated characters and scenes of hyper-violence?

The best scene, I thought, was near the end when Django and Dr. Shultz are having dinner with the plantation owner played by Leonardo DiCaprio. That's where everything is working together, creating an emotional, tension-filled scene that Basterds did so successfully throughout the movie.  Unfortunately, it descends into silliness soon after. I thought Jamie Foxx was great, as were Christoph Waltz and DiCaprio. The soundtrack, however, is a mess. It goes from Morricone (it uses music from Two Mules for Sister Sara) to 70's folk-rock to hip hop. There's no unifying theme or tone, nor is the music integrated into the action, and at times just seems to be put there with no reason and at too high of a level.

So all in all, I was disappointed. It has a lot going for it, but it's just too much of a mess for it to work the way it should have. In my humble opinion. B-
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Sylvie on December 26, 2012, 07:54:40 AM
I saw "Django Unchained" trailer on French screen only a few hours ago, in early afternoon, when I went to see "Jack Reacher" with my daughters : I don't like Tarantino's movies very much (except "Jackie Brown"), and this last one, despite of DiCaprio :), I won't go to see it ...

As for "Jack Reacher" a good movie I found, some small scenes (light, attitude ...)  made me think of Ryan Gosling in "Drive"...
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on December 26, 2012, 09:57:11 AM
Sylvie, have you read the Reacher books? Because I have, and I saw the trailer for Jack Reacher, and I think I'll skip it. Tom Cruise just CANNOT be Reacher for me.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Sylvie on December 26, 2012, 11:10:01 AM
Sylvie, have you read the Reacher books? Because I have, and I saw the trailer for Jack Reacher, and I think I'll skip it. Tom Cruise just CANNOT be Reacher for me.
Hi ! KC  :) !

No I have not read the Reacher books yet, but I've planned to do it ! I saw them on Amazon ;)!

That's the problem with the image of a hero we've got in mind and the "reality" in movies !
Who would you have preferred to see playing the part of Jack Reacher ?
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on December 26, 2012, 04:41:27 PM
That's the problem with the image of a hero we've got in mind and the "reality" in movies !

I usually don't mind so much, but in this case, the author insists so much on the commanding physical presence of his hero that it's hard for me to accept someone who looks so totally different. Besides not being tall enough and big enough and strong enough ... he has a slick, Hollywood-glamor look to him that is all wrong for Reacher, an anonymous-looking brute who could blend into a crowd, at least when everyone isn't standing up.

Quote
Who would you have preferred to see playing the part of Jack Reacher ?

Aside from a young Clint Eastwood (who would have been perfect)? Hard to say. Lee Child himself (author of the Reacher books) has made the point that there are not that many six-five, two-twenty, dirty-blond actors out there, and if you are looking for one who can be counted on to "open" a major studio picture, there really isn't a single one. And Child was happy to see Tom Cruise get involved, because the books aren't that easy to adapt for the screen and aren't a surefire bet to make money. Having Cruise behind the project made a big difference there.

Just dreaming, though ... even though he, too, is way too short for the part, I think Daniel Craig could have brought the Reacher persona off, at least a lot better than Cruise. Though by now he's probably too identified with James Bond. (But casting a Brit in the part would have been elegant; the author of the books about this very American hero is British himself.)

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on December 26, 2012, 11:31:57 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/The_Sapphires_poster.jpg/220px-The_Sapphires_poster.jpg)

Based on a true story of four Aboriginal women who formed a girl group in the 1960's. Sort of like the Aussie version of The Supremes. Being discovered and landing their first big gig. Playing for American Marines in Vietnam. Very well made and a great soundtrack.

4/5.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on December 27, 2012, 05:06:42 AM
I heard a lot of good things about this film SK... I'll definitely be looking out for it...  :)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on December 27, 2012, 10:12:37 AM
I very much enjoyed seeing Jack Reacher last night.  Cruise has proven to be an effective action movie star and this movie is certainly no exception.  The fight sequences reminded me of the Bourne series with Matt Damon and even some other movies starring Jason Statham.  I enjoyed seeing Robert Duvall, too.  I don't believe he's worked with Cruise since Days Of Thunder.  I'm not familiar with the novels, so I can't comment on those.  I've heard criticisms to the effect that Cruise has no place playing this character and I can understand and respect that.  As for me, I was entertained so much that I may see it again, given the opportunity.  That's only if somebody I haven't seen it with asks.  Otherwise, I'm perfectly content and happy I've seen it and would like to see sequels. 

Going back to the novels, I may consider reading them.  As I was watching the film, I was thinking they may be interesting to pursue.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d1/Jack_Reacher_poster.jpg/220px-Jack_Reacher_poster.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8f/Oneshot-bookcover.jpg/220px-Oneshot-bookcover.jpg)
(http://media2.apnonline.com.au/img/media/images/2012/11/09/337000_336990_jack_reacher_1__ct460x326.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on December 28, 2012, 04:30:11 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b0/Les-miserables-movie-poster1.jpg/215px-Les-miserables-movie-poster1.jpg)

I haven't seen a lot of musicals in my life, so I'm no expert but I did enjoy this film, although at 150min it's way too long. All but a few lines of dialogue are all sung by the cast. I've never read the book or seen stage versions of this but it was the story that interested me throughout. I've said before that to me, the story is the biggest factor in a film. If I'm not interested in the story, it won't matter who's in it or how great the production is, I'll come away disappointed.

3/5.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Lin Sunderland on December 29, 2012, 11:51:05 AM
I have seen Les Miserables on stage and I did like it very much. It has minimal scenery but the story is strong. I think the movie will be better because the actors can move about unlike on the stage. I am not a great lover of musicals either SK, but this one interested me. I hope to get to see it very soon in our local cinema. 
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on December 29, 2012, 10:16:11 PM
Back on the topic of Jack Reacher, the movie based on a Lee Child novel, I found this in a recent interview with Lee Child:

Quote
The first Jack Reacher movie is coming out this week. How does it feel to see a man you’ve written 17 books about re-envisioned on film? Does Tom Cruise seem like Reacher to you?

In that aforementioned TV career, as well as my day job, I was the union organizer for the last couple of years. It was a time of huge change and upheaval, and management strategy depended on what they thought I was going to think. One time I found (O.K., stole) a psychological profile of me they had commissioned. It was absolutely fascinating — someone else’s detailed opinion of me. The movie is like that — someone else’s detailed opinion of Reacher. Someone else’s view. In this case, the someone is a bunch of smart, savvy film people who are also genuine fans of the books. I’m well aware of the alchemy that has to take place, and my observation of the process was obviously intensely personal and self-interested, but also academic in a surprisingly detached way. I found myself agreeing with their choices 99 percent of the time. I would have done it no differently. Cruise instinctively understood Reacher’s vibe and attitude, and his talent gets it all on the screen. When I read that psychological profile all those years ago, I found myself nodding along, ruefully. They nailed it, I thought. Same with the movie. Which is more than just a cute metaphor. There’s always a little autobiography in fictional characters, and actors try to inhabit the character, so to an extent I was watching Cruise play a version of me, and yes, I recognized myself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/books/review/lee-child-by-the-book.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

A friend of mine who has read several of the books went to see the film and liked it quite a lot, so I guess I'll have to go, after all.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on December 30, 2012, 02:34:12 AM
From what I've read of Jack Reachers character in these novels I can think of one actor who'd perfectly fit the bill
playing him.... Unfortunately he's  now probably a little too old for the part.... ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Lin Sunderland on December 30, 2012, 03:47:50 AM
From what I've read of Jack Reachers character in these novels I can think of one actor who'd perfectly fit the bill
playing him.... Unfortunately he's  now probably a little too old for the part.... ;)

I second that Gant.  O0
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on December 30, 2012, 05:56:05 AM
Quote
ARGO

(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTOk5-CeThlbjlq_R3tX8xg-Me90oe4kzjcgHaK9ysqVtt1cl9X0sIjyLm0)

Finally got to see ace political thriller and it didn't dissappoint.. Very funny and thrilling film (Which is a very difficult thing to achieve) and amazingly based on a true story... I thought this was a cracking movie and very well directed by Ben Affleck.. Amazingly some of the most far fetched aspects of the story are the true bits..  :o

A real white knuckle ride... 5/5

and great to see the old Warners logo again..   :)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on December 31, 2012, 04:02:33 AM
Back on the topic of Jack Reacher, the movie based on a Lee Child novel, I found this in a recent interview with Lee Child:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/books/review/lee-child-by-the-book.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

A friend of mine who has read several of the books went to see the film and liked it quite a lot, so I guess I'll have to go, after all.

Very interesting, thank you.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on January 05, 2013, 07:11:49 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1d/Quartet-Poster.jpg/220px-Quartet-Poster.jpg)

An absolute delight. Dustin Hoffman's directorial debut is a fun ride. A retirement home for opera singers and classical musicians put on a concert each year to celebrate Verdi's birthday. Maggie Smith, Billy Connelly are a treat to watch in this as is the whole cast. Be sure to stick through the end credits to see all the supporting players and their arts background appear on screen.

4/5.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Lin Sunderland on January 07, 2013, 12:39:40 AM
Thank you for the review of Quartet SK. I hope to get to see it this week as it is due to reach our 'outback' cinema.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on January 12, 2013, 03:53:54 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3e/Hitchcock_film_poster.jpg/215px-Hitchcock_film_poster.jpg)

Hitchcock (2012)

The best film I've seen in the cinema for a long while. Fans of Alfred Hitchcock and the film Psycho won't be disappointed. Anthony Hopkins was brilliant as Hitchcock, Helen Mirren as his long suffering wife was just as good.
Film centers around Hitchcock's battle to get Psycho made. His battle with the censors and even the head of Paramount Pictures.
Don't miss this one boys and girls.

5/5.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on January 12, 2013, 04:21:21 AM
Hitchcock (2012)

The best film I've seen in the cinema for a long while. Fans of Alfred Hitchcock and the film Psycho won't be disappointed. Anthony Hopkins was brilliant as Hitchcock, Helen Mirren as his long suffering wife was just as good.
Film centers around Hitchcock's battle to get Psycho made. His battle with the censors and even the head of Paramount Pictures.
Don't miss this one boys and girls.

5/5.

Sounds interesting.  I'll probably have to wait to see it on cable or borrow the dvd from the library.  This seems worth checking out.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Doug on January 24, 2013, 07:45:40 AM
What I've seen recently:

Brave. Very disappointing Pixar film. Just a stupid plot. Really no other way to put it. I suppose they should get some points for making a movie about a princess without a love story, and in fact it's an anti-love story, but couldn't they have made the plot about something other than her being a brat and bringing a curse upon her mother, who gets turned into a bear? Really? That's the best story they could come up with, her mother gets turned into a bear? Ugh.

Premium Rush. Yet another film starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  He's a bicycle messenger in NYC, intrusted with an envelope which a rogue cop (Michael Shannon) is intent on taking away from him. For the first 30 minutes, I was enthralled. It was like an intense adrenaline rush watching these bikes racing through the streets of New York City, and I would still recommend it for that, but once they start introducing us to the plot, the movie falls apart. The writing is horrible. Too bad. It was interesting for me as well because it has got to be the only American movie where Pai Gow tiles plays a major role in the plot, and I'm the rare gweilo who actually knows the game.  8)

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.  Competent, touching, amusing.  It's like a really well-made movie for TV, with very good actors. But nothing more.

Woody Allen's To Rome with Love.  I loved it.  I'd heard nothing but mildly negative things about it, and so was expecting the worse. I love the magical realism of it, and I particularly liked how the stories were edited together, rather than separated as distinct stories. It's not Midnight in Paris, but I don't consider it one of his lesser films at all.

Alps.  I loved Dogtooth, but Greek filmmaker Giorgos Lanthimos's follow up film is a big letdown.  It has the same sort of feel, where people don't quite act or speak like real people, only it was just boring and frankly a bit pointless, as far I was concerned. It's about a group of people who contract themselves out to play surrogate to families who have lost a loved one. Sounds interesting, but nothing is really made of it. Skip this and go see Dogtooth, if you haven't already.

And lastly... Rust and Bone. French filmmaker Jacques Audiard is one of my favorite directors (Read My Lips, The Beat That My Heart Skipped, A Prophet), and again he doesn't disappoint. It's not up there with those three other films, but it is one of the best films I've seen so far from last year.
From IMDb:
Quote
Put in charge of his young son, Ali leaves Belgium for Antibes to live with his sister and her husband as a family. Ali's bond with Stephanie, a killer whale trainer, grows deeper after Stephanie suffers a horrible accident.

The f/x is seamless and fantastic--you'll swear Marion Cotillard really is an amputee. This is what cinema is all about. It's tender, brutal, inspiring, naturalistic, honest, artistic...  Still, it's not up there with the other films of his I mentioned, but he is a master filmmaker, and you should really see it.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Doug on January 30, 2013, 03:17:05 AM
Beasts of the Southern Wild.  I found it decent enough, though I know it has its fans. For me, I just couldn't quite connect to the characters or the story, at least in the way it was told.

Jack Reacher.  I really, really liked it. I haven't read the books, don't care to read the books, but I thought the movie was exceptional. Maybe the whole motivation behind everything is a bit thin, but it's probably my favorite film of the year so far (though I have a lot more I want to see).
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on February 08, 2013, 02:17:02 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6a/Lincoln_2012_Teaser_Poster.jpg/215px-Lincoln_2012_Teaser_Poster.jpg)

Daniel Day Lewis is a shoo in for Lincoln. Laugh, may you will but come next February or March when the envelope is open, I'll be proved right.

6 months later and I'll be flabbergasted if Daniel Day Lewis doesn't grab his third best actor oscar for this film. Absolute brilliant film allround. I loathe politics but this film had me for the full two and half hours. Just fantastic.

5/5.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on February 25, 2013, 08:05:24 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/96/Brave_Poster.jpg/220px-Brave_Poster.jpg)

I watched Brave on dvd recently.  Ever since Toy Story, I've been a big fan of CGI films.  Brave is okay, but it's no How To Train Your Dragon, which is far more entertaining. 


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6a/Lincoln_2012_Teaser_Poster.jpg/220px-Lincoln_2012_Teaser_Poster.jpg)

Lincoln I saw by default.  My uncle & I wanted to see the new Stallone action movie, Bullet To The Head but missed it due to the blizzard.  The following weekend, due to lack of ticket sales, it was only showing late at night so I'll have to wait for dvd.  The same went for another action movie called Parker, starring Jason Statham.  So, we decided on Lincoln.  My uncle was disappointed but I found the movie not only entertaining but interesting, from a historical perspective.  My first impression is that Lincoln isn't a great movie, with marvelous acting.  However, it is a very good film and I'm willing to see it again when the opportunity presents itself.  Perhaps I'll like it more upon further viewings.  Besides Daniel Day-Lewis, I also enjoyed the performances of Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on February 25, 2013, 09:12:10 AM
Jack Reacher.  I really, really liked it. I haven't read the books, don't care to read the books, but I thought the movie was exceptional. Maybe the whole motivation behind everything is a bit thin, but it's probably my favorite film of the year so far (though I have a lot more I want to see).
I liked Jack Reacher a lot too, though I wouldn't mind to check out a book or two to see how I liked them.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on March 09, 2013, 09:22:45 PM
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTOk5-CeThlbjlq_R3tX8xg-Me90oe4kzjcgHaK9ysqVtt1cl9X0sIjyLm0)

Finally got to see ace political thriller and it didn't dissappoint.. Very funny and thrilling film (Which is a very difficult thing to achieve) and amazingly based on a true story... I thought this was a cracking movie and very well directed by Ben Affleck.. Amazingly some of the most far fetched aspects of the story are the true bits..  :o

A real white knuckle ride...

and great to see the old Warners logo again..   :)

100% agree. So glad they brought it back on the big screen here after the Academy Awards. It was released on DVD a couple of weeks ago but there were still plenty of people wanting to see it last night.

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: AKA23 on March 10, 2013, 05:40:29 PM
100% agree. So glad they brought it back on the big screen here after the Academy Awards. It was released on DVD a couple of weeks ago but there were still plenty of people wanting to see it last night.

I thought "Argo" was entertaining. The problem with "Argo" is that it was billed as being a fact-based drama, and it has a very loose relationship with the truth. Firstly, Tony Mendez was Latino. Ben Affleck is white. Secondly, and more importantly, the overwhelming majority of the work that led to the rescue of the diplomats was done by Canadians, not by the CIA. Tony Menendez was only in Iran for something like a day and a half, so much of the movie  which shows his being intimately involved with every aspect of everything is made up. Lastly, the most thrilling part of the movie, the concluding scenes in the airport, were entirely invented for the purposes of the film. None of that happened. The Iranians didn't detain the diplomats when they were seeking to escape. They didn't even know the operation was happening until it was over. If you care about accuracy, and I do when films are billed as being based on history, the movie is a bit of a disaster. If you don't care about history, and only care about its value as an entertainment vehicle, then that is something else entirely.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on March 10, 2013, 06:16:16 PM
AKA ... you should have figured out by now that "fact-based dramas" USUALLY have a "loose relationship with the truth." If you want a movie that presents things just as they actually happened, watch a documentary (and be on your guard even then).

I think you'd have complained about Homer making up scenes that didn't actually occur in the Trojan War. ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: AKA23 on March 10, 2013, 07:02:26 PM
AKA ... you should have figured out by now that "fact-based dramas" USUALLY have a "loose relationship with the truth." If you want a movie that presents things just as they actually happened, watch a documentary (and be on your guard even then).

I think you'd have complained about Homer making up scenes that didn't actually occur in the Trojan War. ;)

If you are making a movie that you say is based on facts, the movie should in my opinion be true to those facts. Obviously some things need to be inferred, but when the story you are creating is directly contradicted by the facts of the historical events you claim to be portraying, you have a problem. Every movie involves some dramatic license, but that should be kept to a minimum if you claim your movie is based in history. If you are making up the majority of your movie, the movie is fiction, and should be labeled as such. 
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on March 10, 2013, 07:38:18 PM
If you are making up the majority of your movie, the movie is fiction, and should be labeled as such. 

I saw the film with three other people and we all said after coming out, how much was true and how much was made up for the film. Although we all agreed, it didn't matter, we all enjoyed the film. As I was walking out through the final credits, I'm sure I spotted something on the screen about "although based on fact some scenes have been dramatisied" or something to that effect.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on March 10, 2013, 09:01:50 PM
I think MOST stories are based on facts, at some level or other. And most facts, taken by themselves, don't add up to make a very good story.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on March 10, 2013, 09:47:03 PM
What's that expression?

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.  ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on March 10, 2013, 10:12:45 PM
"Print the legend." ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: AKA23 on March 11, 2013, 10:30:58 AM
I think MOST stories are based on facts, at some level or other. And most facts, taken by themselves, don't add up to make a very good story.

That may be but in my opinion, "Argo" was far outside the norm, even with respect to other movies of the same type. When I did research into it, I discovered that most of the movie was totally made up. I know that movies are primarily to entertain and not to inform, but the truth is that most people are "low-information" consumers. The typical viewer is simply not going to take the time to research what is true and what is not. They either don't have the time, don't have the interest, or don't have the intellectual capacity to separate what was truth from what was not. Since this movie could be the only exposure the overwhelming majority of people have to these facts, I think it is incumbent upon the filmmakers to make a good faith effort to present things accurately. I did like the film but the makers of "Argo" did not do that, and in my opinion, that would have been the right thing to do.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on March 11, 2013, 10:53:42 AM
I haven't seen Argo but would like to.  Not because it won any awards, but because the trailer I'd seen months ago made it seem interesting enough.  It is unfortunate that Hollywood, more often than not, takes so many liberties at the truth's expense in order to sell tickets.  In this situation I'd like to see not only the film, but any documentaries if they do exist.  Does anybody have any information regarding this?

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Doug on March 11, 2013, 03:02:48 PM
In this situation I'd like to see not only the film, but any documentaries if they do exist.  Does anybody have any information regarding this?

According to Ben Affleck the DVD will have an in depth featurette that will give you the real story. In the same interview that he revealed that, he talked about the changes he made to the story and why he made them. (The easy answer is to make a better movie.)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on March 11, 2013, 03:54:12 PM
I don't mind if they played around with the facts a lttle to make a more entertaining film... I thoroughly enjoyed it and would definitely like to see any documentary on the subject that did give a facts only account..

Whatever they did ... it doesn't come anywhere near Braveheart when it comes to pi**ing around with historical facts..  ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on March 11, 2013, 07:51:47 PM
Hollywood is in the entertainment business, not the education business. Caveat emptor, and if it's facts you're looking for ... buy a book.

Or visit your local library. ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on March 12, 2013, 07:18:48 AM
 O0
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on March 12, 2013, 07:41:31 AM
Hollywood is in the entertainment business, not the education business. Caveat emptor, and if it's facts you're looking for ... buy a book.

Or visit your local library. ;)


That's a very good point.  Obviously, we can't rely on Hollywood to always do the right thing.  Still, I don't agree that just becuase they can change, alter and twist facts around that they should.  For me it comes down to respecting history.  Kudos to those in the industry that do and shame on those who don't.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Gant on March 12, 2013, 07:48:58 AM
At least I'm certain that Firefox stuck to the facts....
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on April 28, 2013, 04:11:22 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/38/Promotional_poster_for_Song_for_Marion.jpg/220px-Promotional_poster_for_Song_for_Marion.jpg)

Song For Marion

Terrence Stamp, Vanessa Redgrave, Gemma Arterton, Christopher Eccleston

A beautiful little film. The thing that struck me about this film was that the characters seemed so real. They could have been people I know. It didn't look like the cast were acting. Just spendid.

Quote
Arthur (Stamp) is the grumpy husband of Marion (Redgrave), who is terminally ill yet continues to participate with enthusiasm at her local seniors' choir. Arthur is unimpressed when the choir, led by Elizabeth (Arterton) serenades the couple at their home.
 
As Marion’s health deteriorates, Arthur is keen to please his dying wife and even agrees to take her place in the choir. The transition for Arthur proves to be more trying for Arthur thanks to the unconventional songbook that includes racier songs such as Let's Talk About Sex. Arthur's experience in this new social environment will take him on a journey of self-discovery and thaw his bitterness, qualities that he will need in his imminent transition to life without Marion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_for_Marion

4/5.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on October 10, 2013, 06:30:10 AM
Looper

I liked this sci-fi/time travel/action movie:  Action Movies!(& TV) (http://www.clinteastwood.org/forums/index.php?topic=9606.msg213893#msg213893)


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0a/Looper_poster.jpg)
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Christopher on October 10, 2013, 07:35:14 AM
Looper

I liked this sci-fi/time travel/action movie:  Action Movies!(& TV) (http://www.clinteastwood.org/forums/index.php?topic=9606.msg213893#msg213893)


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0a/Looper_poster.jpg)
Are you trying to get your post count up?
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on October 10, 2013, 08:49:14 AM
Are you trying to get your post count up?

I can't tell if this inquiry is meant to be silly or serious but regardless, no.  There are multiple topics one subject can fall under, so I like to cover my bases.  The bulk of my text is in one location that may not be otherwise viewed elsewhere so I go to said locations and redirect.  I hope this helps.

Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on October 10, 2013, 09:18:23 PM
I can't tell if this inquiry is meant to be silly or serious but regardless, no.  There are multiple topics one subject can fall under, so I like to cover my bases.  The bulk of my text is in one location that may not be otherwise viewed elsewhere so I go to said locations and redirect.  I hope this helps.

But it's really not necessary to revive a thread that hadn't been posted in for six months just to "cover your bases." There aren't that many new posts on the forum every day ... anyone who is interested in viewing your posts will find them even if they're only in one thread. And everyone could be spared from clicking on multiple "New posts" only to find nothing but a link to something they've already read.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on October 10, 2013, 09:49:05 PM
But it's really not necessary to revive a thread that hadn't been posted in for six months just to "cover your bases." There aren't that many new posts on the forum every day ... anyone who is interested in viewing your posts will find them even if they're only in one thread. And everyone could be spared from clicking on multiple "New posts" only to find nothing but a link to something they've already read.

That's not the point but I won't waste our time elaborating any further.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.  As there are no "double-posting" rules being broken, I see no harm being done.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: The Schofield Kid on October 10, 2013, 10:02:29 PM
I can't see why you go to the trouble of posting in three threads. Everyone will see your review in one thread. The other two posts are irrelevant.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on October 10, 2013, 10:12:07 PM
I can't see why you go to the trouble of posting in three threads. Everyone will see your review in one thread. The other two posts are irrelevant.

Your opinion is noted.  So I don't have to be redundant, please see previous posts on the matter to possibly better understand.  If you are still at a loss as to my reasoning, there is nothing I can do about that.  Moving forward, I suggest staying on topic.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: KC on October 10, 2013, 10:15:18 PM
As there are no "double-posting" rules being broken, I see no harm being done.

It actually is de facto double posting (triple posting in this case). That rule was meant to spare Board readers from seeing multiple new posts that turn out to be all the same post, which is exactly the effect of what you are doing.
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: Jed Cooper on October 10, 2013, 10:30:03 PM
It actually is de facto double posting (triple posting in this case). That rule was meant to spare Board readers from seeing multiple new posts that turn out to be all the same post, which is exactly the effect of what you are doing.

So much for staying on topic.  Again, respectfully, I wholeheartedly disagree.  First, I've been posting like this for well over a year and it's just now become an issue?  Second, I go out of my way not only to not use the same image, but also not even to use the same text.  What you may find "irrelevant", others have found useful.

With that being said and returning to topic, That's My Boy was a funny, entertaining Adam Sandler comedy from 2012
Title: Re: 2012 Movie Discussion
Post by: antonis on October 19, 2013, 10:32:50 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Lincoln_2012_Teaser_Poster.jpg)

Finally saw it.Serious film but,with no soul.Just like all previous Spielberg films.