register

  • Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 

Recent Viewing Part IV

Film, TV & DVD » Recent Viewing Part IV (Posts 3331 to 3360 of 5515)

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 108
  5. 109
  6. 110
  7. 111
  8. 112
  9. 113
  10. 114
  11. 115
  12. ...
  13. 184
  14. >
  1. Yeah that edge is what made him stand out from the pack. Someone with vision. I've always admired him for that edge. Tarantino has that too, even though they have completely different things to say.
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
  2. Timmer wrote
    Sheeeeeeiiiit!

    Don't worry you'll get it eventually wink

    Stay with it Gilles. Brilliant series.


    This post is from January 26th.

    It's now June 16th.

    I have just watched season 4 episode 2.

    I finally get it. Hilarious ! biggrin
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2016
    biggrin applause
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2016
    DreamTheater wrote
    Definitely The Terminator, if only because it has gotten the superior sequel (IMO).


    That's some airtight logic there.

    Thor wrote
    DreamTheater wrote
    But Verhoeven's Robocop has its strengths too. Has anyone seen the remake, and is that even worth the time?


    It's OK, but it lacks much of Verhoeven's "edge".



    More than edge, it lacks exactly what made Robocop brilliant: the satire.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2016
    There is a bit of satire in the remake as well, but it's more 'on-the-nose'.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2016
    The only thing I remember sticking out was the free will aspect. Had they focused on that more, it could have been a worthy remake. It would have brought something new to the franchise, rather than cynically slapping a well-loved film to its title to add to the growing list of cheap cash-ins. (Free will is a small theme in the original, but it's more about the character, whereas the overarching narrative is a satire on capitalism.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2016
    Or maybe they did? I've forgotten most of the film to be honest.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2016
    Timmer wrote
    No, I agree, damned tough choice there.


    Absolutely.
    Which is why I do so appreciate Frank Miller.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2016
    Well. I need to get that.

    I had no idea such a thing existed!?
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJun 17th 2016
    Martijn wrote
    Timmer wrote
    No, I agree, damned tough choice there.


    Absolutely.
    Which is why I do so appreciate Frank Miller.


    Oh yessy indeedy!!! biggrin beer
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
    Steven wrote
    I must admit it was satisfying to see Islamic terrorists get decimated, but it still stands as a solid war film. Silly progressive types will hate this. (Double bonus: feminists will hate it too.)



    Pisses off feminists and Muslims? Man, i must watch this!
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
    Martijn wrote
    Thor wrote
    Captain Future wrote
    I'm still not convinced the depiction of American patriotism in ID4 was intended to be satire.


    I think its satirical aspect is pretty well established by now, if you've heard some of Emmerich's own statements over the years.


    It certainly is. But am I being slightly cynical in assuming Bay made such statements about his intentions well after it was clear no audience on earth took the film seriously as a genuine War Of The Worlds kind of invasion thriller, rather than well before?


    I don't buy it was satire. Many Muricans are that stupid. Look at Trump and his followers for instance.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016 edited
    Roland Emmerich is not American. He's German, he's gay and he's very liberal in his politics -- he's the opposite of a conservative, American Republican. So every time he waves an American flag with pompous images and music, it's almost always satire -- or at the very least having fun with the American sense of patriotism.
    I am extremely serious.
  14. DEATH PROOF + PLANET TERROR

    Of the two Groundhouse films, the Tarantino entry is the better one, because of the usual high standard dialogue scenes, Kurt Russell's awesome presence, and amazing third act, but Rodriguez' take on the zombie genre is great fun too, in that typically over the top don't take it too seriously way. I consider it a semi-sequel to From Dusk Till Dawn.

    Tarantino: 9/10
    Rodriguez: 7/10

    I also like the awful dirty print look both these films have... on blu-ray it's even more pronounced.
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
    Thor wrote
    Roland Emmerich is not American. He's German, he's gay and he's very liberal in his politics -- he's the opposite of a conservative, American Republican. So every time he waves an American flag with pompous images and music, it's almost always satire -- or at the very least having fun with the American sense of patriotism.


    I am sure the Murican audience doesn't take it as such.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
    Maybe not. But we Europeans can have a laugh.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
    If indeed there was an element of satire, either the script was intended for a more satirical direction, where Emmerich seemed to work against it, or, less likely, the script was played straight and Emmerich decided to take a more satirical direction. But I would be very surprised if both script and director intended for it to be satire given that it's very poorly communicated if it really is satire.

    Whatever it is, it's a pile of shite. I really don't understand why people defend this film so fervently - it's rubbish. (Except from the score.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
    It doesn't really need any defense. It's long since become a cornerstone of contemporary science fiction.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
    Yes, but for the wrong reasons.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
    Nah, the right ones -- NOW. But back then, a different story. You sound like a cry from 1996.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
    Thor wrote
    It's long since become a cornerstone of contemporary science fiction.


    This War Of The Worlds wannabe?
    I think you attribute it entirely too much value, Thor. smile
    Forbidden Planet / Star Wars / 2001 this is not.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
    The first 20 minutes or so are promising then it's just rubbish.

    So, what makes this a cornerstone of contemporary science fiction then Thor?
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016 edited
    Well, the first layer -- which everyone got (then and now) -- is obviously the effect extravaganza/the ride/the amusement park-aspect complete with self-aware comedy.

    But the second layer -- the satire/deliberate exaggeration/joyous celebration of patriotic clichées (a sort of contemporary CASABLANCA) -- is something that has become more clear over the years, in light of Emmerich's statements, leanings, comments and later films.

    In short, it's a popcorn ride with a lot of ATTITUDE and SUBTEXT.

    True, it's no 2001 or SOLARIS or BLADE RUNNER or ALIEN or even STAR WARS, but nor does it aspire to. It does its own thing. That's why I fully agree with those who now put it on the Top 10 list of sci fi movies of all time. At the very least Top 15.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
    You sure love seeing art where none exists.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016 edited
    Not really. But just because something is mainstream or produced within Hollywood doesn't mean it can't be art. It always depends on what the filmmaker wants to say.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
    Thor wrote
    But just because something is mainstream or produced within Hollywood doesn't mean it can't be art.


    Of course. But just because you see art, doesn't mean it is.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016 edited
    Actually, the easy way out is to say 'oh, this is Ingmar Bergman, this must be art!' and 'oh, this is Paul W.S. Anderson; it can't be art'. At the risk of sounding terribly arrogant, a true cineaste is less concerned with 'labels' and more interested in what the work contains or wants to say. More about the filmmaker than whatever the context of its production.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
    Yes, except I never said that. I didn't even imply it. I judge the merit of the film... on the merit of the film. And the film in question has very little of it, despite your best efforts.

    In case you think I'm making a sub-textual statement about the ethereal nature of art and how it relates to the ontological and epistemological quandaries of human experience, I'm not. I'm saying you're full of crap. biggrin
  29. ID4 was and will always be awesome. A great time at the movies. I remember it vividly.
    "considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
    I meet people like you all the time, Steven. People who make easy puns at academia or film studies because of sheer and utter ignorance. That's fine. If anything, it leaves all the more to enjoy for me.
    I am extremely serious.

3331 to 3360 of 5515

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 108
  5. 109
  6. 110
  7. 111
  8. 112
  9. 113
  10. 114
  11. 115
  12. ...
  13. 184
  14. >