[polishgenius]

Apt, on 01 May 2015 - 06:45 PM, said:

What makes RED fun to me is the fact that it's a comic book story and that is how it plays out.

Which is odd because the comic it's based on has very, very little to do in tone or content with the films.




You should watch The Losers- it's also literally a comic book story (and much closer to its inspiration than RED, though it still deviates). Also an incredibly cool cast (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Idris motherfucking Elba and of course Chris Evans stealing the show).


And yeah, I agree, The Expendables isn't very good, but the similarities in all four films is that they're an elite, secret team of operatives that get betrayed by their commanders and have to fend for themselves etc etc. I should perhaps have said premise rather than plot, but yeah.

[A Demon Llama!]

worry, on 27 April 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

Watched The Guest, an action thriller from the same dude who made You're Next. Not quite as good, but still entertaining and laugh-out-loud funny at the weirdest moments. Also watched The Woman In Black. Great setting/mood, and an intriguing first half hour, but that's about it. The mystery disappears SO early in the story, and about 90% of the scares are performed for the camera and internally meaningless.

I really liked The Guest. Plus, the soundtrack was kick ass.

[HoosierDaddy]

Avengers was good fun. Quite enjoyed it. Nothing fantastic, but nothing bad (IMO), great popcorn flick.

[QuickTidal]

AVENGERS: AoU was a solid 2 1/2 hours of entertainment. Really quite enjoyed. That said, it comes in about 4th place for me in the MCU behind GotG, CAP2, and the first AVENGERS. But yeah lots to like, lots of worldbuilding and especially...

Spoiler

Thor actually realizing about the Infinity Stones, and the new Avengers team at the end made up of Vision, Scarlet Witch, War Machine, and The Falcon! EDIT: Although, fuck Joss Whedon for not letting Cap say the whole "Avengers! Assemble! phrase.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 02 May 2015 - 11:33 AM

[Aptorian]

Also watched Age of Ultron yesterday.

Great film.

What I didn't get is IMAX. They recently opened an IMAX in my cinema and we thought hey, that's probably worth paying a bit extra for. Hell. Fucking. No. Admittedly I don't go to the cinema that often but I really could not tell you the difference between IMAX and none IMAX. It's just regular 3D and regular loud sounds and bass. Pfft.

[Traveller]

Isn't an IMAX screen just a bigger screen? Our Imax is about four times the size of the regular one.

[Aptorian]

That might actually be it. The IMAX theater replaced the old big one and it did seem bigger. Still, it cost like 8 dollars extra and according to the, admitted quite cool, 5 minute count down window, it's supposed to be the best image quality and sound quality you can get.

This post has been edited by Apt: 03 May 2015 - 02:33 PM

[polishgenius]

It's good advertising but it's mostly that- unless a film's been filmed specifically in IMAX it's really just a bigger screen and I suppose better speaker arrangement. And no Hollywood film is filmed entirely in IMAX, although parts of some are, like most of Nolan's more recent ones (Interstellar had 66 minutes, and I got to see it in IMAX non-3D, which was pleasing).


I go to IMAX quite a lot, though, because the cinema I go doesn't do a lot of blockbusters in 2D and I tolerate 3fuckingD a lot better in IMAX, and it does make a difference when I go back to a regular screen, mostly because the screens look fucking tiny.

[Aptorian]

That reminds me.

Before Avengers came on there was a 7 minute clip from Wonderland Tomorrowland. I'd heard absolutely nothing about this film but it looks really good. It's some kind of Disney film with George Clooney and a bunch of crazy robot people.

Just based on that clip alone I really want to watch that film. It had a ridiculously tight pace.

This post has been edited by Apt: 03 May 2015 - 03:31 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

Apt, on 03 May 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

That reminds me.

Before Avangers came on there was a 7 minute clip from Wonderland. I'd heard absolutely nothing about this film but it looks really good. It's some kind of Disney film with George Clooney and a bunch of crazy robot people.

Just based on that clip alone I really want to watch that film. It had a ridiculously tight pace.

Tomorrowland?

Looks like a time-travel thingy to me.

[Aptorian]

Yes, Tomorrowland.

I was reminded of Neverland from Peter Pan. Some kid who wants to go to some other world. But there weren't anything particular that suggests that the universe it takes place in.

Looked really fun though. I loved that scene where the kid went to town on a bad guy with a baseball bat.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 03 May 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

It's good advertising but it's mostly that- unless a film's been filmed specifically in IMAX it's really just a bigger screen and I suppose better speaker arrangement. And no Hollywood film is filmed entirely in IMAX, although parts of some are, like most of Nolan's more recent ones (Interstellar had 66 minutes, and I got to see it in IMAX non-3D, which was pleasing).


I go to IMAX quite a lot, though, because the cinema I go doesn't do a lot of blockbusters in 2D and I tolerate 3fuckingD a lot better in IMAX, and it does make a difference when I go back to a regular screen, mostly because the screens look fucking tiny.

I'd like to note (since it was designed in Canada) that there ARE films done completely in IMAX, but they are mostly 45-60 minute documentary style. They used to show them at the Cinesphere in Toronto where the first IMAX projectors first ran.

You can tell the difference between IMAX footage and regular footage by the fact that on a Letterboxed bluray (THE DARK KNIGHT for exmaple) jumps open top to bottom and the black bars disappear because that's how wide and tall an IMAX camera shoots. That said, it's horrifically expensive to do, and setups for it are tough...IMAX theatres these days are just what PG said, running bigger screens (but if the films are shot normally, it's still shown at that aspect ration), and sound differences. Otherwise yeah it's a waste of cash.

HoosierDaddy, on 03 May 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:

Apt, on 03 May 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

That reminds me.

Before Avangers came on there was a 7 minute clip from Wonderland. I'd heard absolutely nothing about this film but it looks really good. It's some kind of Disney film with George Clooney and a bunch of crazy robot people.

Just based on that clip alone I really want to watch that film. It had a ridiculously tight pace.

Tomorrowland?

Looks like a time-travel thingy to me.

It's based kind of around the Tomorrowland section of Disneyworld in Florida...and the reason you should see it will be because it's done by Brad Bird...and he dleivers QUALITY films.

[QuickTidal]

The wife had never seen THE TRUMAN SHOW, so we watched that today. I still love that film and it still holds up incredibly well. And I still think it's Jim Carrey's finest drama perfromance...cause he gets to ride the line between his manic comedy and goofy grin...and more dramatic character work.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 03 May 2015 - 04:41 PM, said:

I'd like to note (since it was designed in Canada) that there ARE films done completely in IMAX, but they are mostly 45-60 minute documentary style. They used to show them at the Cinesphere in Toronto where the first IMAX projectors first ran.

Thass why I said 'Hollywood'.

[Tiste Simeon]

QuickTidal, on 03 May 2015 - 04:46 PM, said:

The wife had never seen THE TRUMAN SHOW, so we watched that today. I still love that film and it still holds up incredibly well. And I still think it's Jim Carrey's finest drama perfromance...cause he gets to ride the line between his manic comedy and goofy grin...and more dramatic character work.

Man I want to see that film again!

[worry]

If you haven't been to a Disney park, "Tomorrowland" is one of several theme regions they're divided into (eg Adventureland, Frontierland, Fantasyland). Tomorrowland is a combo of what we'd now call retro-futurism and, due to updates over the years, somewhat more modern sci-fi. Anyway, it looks like the movie has not much to do with that aside from the broad theme, but there's also a weird creepy Bioshock-y underground campaign with this movie: http://www.stopplusultra.com/

I suppose that, and of course Brad Bird's involvement, means it's going to be something more than your average kids movie.

[McLovin]

Watched AVENGERS on Bluray to prep for AGE OF ULTRON today. Woot!

EDIT - or not...

This post has been edited by McLovin: 04 May 2015 - 07:23 PM

[Aptorian]

I just rewatched The Dark Knight Rises. I haven't watched this film since it came out in the cinemas.

I didn't like the film when it came out and I think I dislike the film even more now. That manuscript is a mess. So many illogical decisions. The movie never manages to suspend my disbelief.

I think the only way this story would have worked would have been to split in two and have a fall and rise. As it is, none of it comes of terrible convincing.

[amphibian]

It's in large part due to Frank Miller. I'm researching a large article on the illogical and toxic asshole in my spare time right now.

[polishgenius]

I know TDKR is partly based on The Dark Knight Returns, but, even if you dislike that story (which I don't - Miller's an arse sure but he used to write really good stuff and this was perhaps the best of it), I can't really see how any of the problems in TDKR can be attributed to Miller.