DominicCobb

ChainsawAsh said:

My post wasn’t meant to be seen as critical.

It should have been.

ElectroDroid said:

TV’s Frink said:

ElectroDroid said:

TV’s Frink said:

ElectroDroid said:

Review of:
The Last of the Jedi

-pretty good YA series

Oh good we’re back to ridiculous “look at me!” takes. Cool.

It’s just my opinion. I know not everyone likes the series.

What.

Oh, I thought you knew I was joking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Last_of_the_Jedi

I read the first one back in the day. I think it actually qualifies as middle grade.

ElectroDroid said:

I’m pretty sure there were shots of a fake Carrie in VIII

lol I know this makes me sound crazy but I swear some of them weren’t real

Yes it does, which ones?

I’d be interested to see Lourd get a sizable role. She went from one line background extra to one of the most prominent members of the Resistance in TLJ. Would be cool if she became a legit character.

This thread’s actually been surprisingly civil when it comes to name calling recently.

Unless you mean name calling politicians, in which case who gives a shit? I’ll call Donald Trump a dumbass fuckstick all I want.

Mike O said:

xXx is painfully 2002, but kind of fun.

It somehow feels even older than that.

The Return of Xander Cage wasn’t too bad; at least Donnie Yen got to kick some ass.

Yep. Also he gets in a surfing motorcycle chase with Vin Diesel.

suspiciouscoffee said:

I think he’s referring to that specific image of Spongebob, which for us youngsters was a social media meme trend about a year ago (it was lame then too).

Fair enough.

dahmage said:

Dom’s too old to understand. Us young-uns get it. Wink wink

Tru

LuckyGungan2001 said:

DominicCobb said:

LuckyGungan2001 said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Oh yay this is fun. 😕

If there isn’t already a song lyrics thread, go make one I can ignore please.

Exactly what I was talking about.

Um… you think Spongebob memes are the kind of memes 30 and 40 year olds post???

Out of touch thirty to forty year olds, definitely

So… you don’t think teenagers and twenty somethings post Spongebob memes?

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

canofhumdingers said:

yotsuya said:

NeverarGreat said:

joefavs said:

DominicCobb said:

On the one hand, maybe it drains remote suns just like how it destroys remote planets. But in that case, why does it drain its own sun? On the other hand, maybe it does move around to new suns, but in that case why doesn’t it completely drain the first sun it orbits like it does the second (Hux’s speech is in daylight)? To me it doesn’t matter much either way.

I honestly never thought it was two different stars. I just figured the star that they drained to destroy the Hosnian system was large enough that they were able to get two charges out of it.

But Finn claims that the weapon draws power from the sun until it disappears, implying that once the draining starts, it will not stop until the star is destroyed. Poe repeats this during their attack.

Stop and think for a moment. Using up two stars does not mean it had to move. It is possible that they found the ideal system with multiple stars to use with this weapons. They probably destroyed the smallest star first and from a larger one they might get several charges out of it. There is a big difference between Sol and Sirius. A star that might give one charge could be the companion of a star that can give sixty. And I never got the impression that the first star was destroyed as Starkiller base never went dark which it would if the sun was sucked dry. Sometimes science can be the friend of wild SF storytelling.

You keep mentioning how the sky never went dark, but… I thought we only saw it charge once? It was charged at some point off screen (same system or a different one? The film doesn’t answer this question and it’s really irrelevant. It could’ve been charged before the movie even started for all we know). It expends this charge when it fires on the Hosnian system. Then it begins draining the star that it currently orbits in order to fire on the resistance.

So, of course the sky never went dark. We only actually SAW it charging once, after it had fired.

Are you suggesting that it only somewhat drains the sun, and after a bit the sun builds back its energy so that it’s not dark anymore?

Shouldn’t the sun have gone supernova before being drained?

Listen man, I have no idea.

TWINIONENGINE said:

Sorry, but being banned for the above is not fair.

I’m not trolling. I’m not trying to “wind people up”. I’m just posting about star wars.

The only thing I’ve done is posted my reactions after watching this movie. I was critical of the movie, yes. But my take is very in line with what many other people in this forum are posting.

Forum rules:

http://originaltrilogy.com/announcement/Updated-OTcom-Forum-Rules-and-Guidelines-Applies-to-all-forums-including-Off-Topic/id/52717

Breaking any of these rules will result in a warning, followed by any number of temporary bans at any arbitrary length as determined by the moderators. Excessive rule-breaking will eventually result in a permanent ban.

I received no warnings of any kind, either privately or via posts in this topic.

I also received no temporary ban. Just an unexpected ban after I posted a critical take of the movie.

I had no idea I was in danger of being banned.

Breaking the following rules may result in an immediate and permanent ban with no prior warning: [harassment, personal attacks, slurs, socks]

I did absolutely nothing to harass members, or personal attacks, or slurs.

I only opened a second account so I could post about a star wars movie. I would have used my main account, had it not been banned. If I had any way to contest the ban, or come back after a temporary ban, I would have just done that rather than create a new account. This is not “sock puppetry”.

Again, I’m not trolling. I’m just posting my thoughts after watching a movie.

I would like to keep doing that occasionally, without immediately being banned. My posts above are not deserving of a ban.

If there is some particular thing I have said that is worthy of a ban on these forums, please let me know via a warning or a temporary ban. I’ll adjust accordingly as I quite like this thread and reading the takes of other poster. I’d ask that my first avatar KILLOFFPOE please be unbanned.

Yeah… making another sock and posting that here isn’t going to help you. You should probably just bring your concerns to a mod privately, if you don’t want to get perm banned.

canofhumdingers said:

yotsuya said:

NeverarGreat said:

joefavs said:

DominicCobb said:

On the one hand, maybe it drains remote suns just like how it destroys remote planets. But in that case, why does it drain its own sun? On the other hand, maybe it does move around to new suns, but in that case why doesn’t it completely drain the first sun it orbits like it does the second (Hux’s speech is in daylight)? To me it doesn’t matter much either way.

I honestly never thought it was two different stars. I just figured the star that they drained to destroy the Hosnian system was large enough that they were able to get two charges out of it.

But Finn claims that the weapon draws power from the sun until it disappears, implying that once the draining starts, it will not stop until the star is destroyed. Poe repeats this during their attack.

Stop and think for a moment. Using up two stars does not mean it had to move. It is possible that they found the ideal system with multiple stars to use with this weapons. They probably destroyed the smallest star first and from a larger one they might get several charges out of it. There is a big difference between Sol and Sirius. A star that might give one charge could be the companion of a star that can give sixty. And I never got the impression that the first star was destroyed as Starkiller base never went dark which it would if the sun was sucked dry. Sometimes science can be the friend of wild SF storytelling.

You keep mentioning how the sky never went dark, but… I thought we only saw it charge once? It was charged at some point off screen (same system or a different one? The film doesn’t answer this question and it’s really irrelevant. It could’ve been charged before the movie even started for all we know). It expends this charge when it fires on the Hosnian system. Then it begins draining the star that it currently orbits in order to fire on the resistance.

So, of course the sky never went dark. We only actually SAW it charging once, after it had fired.

Are you suggesting that it only somewhat drains the sun, and after a bit the sun builds back its energy so that it’s not dark anymore?

LuckyGungan2001 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Between that and Dom watching that xXx, we need a “Why Did You Watch/Read/Listento That?” thread.

Can’t speak for Chyron, but maybe because it’s a good album?

You can’t speak for chyron, but you can speak for me, if you want.

LuckyGungan2001 said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Oh yay this is fun. 😕

If there isn’t already a song lyrics thread, go make one I can ignore please.

Exactly what I was talking about.

Um… you think Spongebob memes are the kind of memes 30 and 40 year olds post???

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

Alright so for whatever reason it’s been two full years since the last time I posted my “last movie seen,” that changes now. Get ready for a long list of movies (don’t worry, not from these past two years).

In here…

Call Me By Your Name (2017) - A seemingly effortlessly beautiful film. Makes me want to move to Italy and read all the time and think about swinging the other way (almost). If I have one complaint, it’s that we don’t spend enough time with the main couple once they become a couple, but perhaps that’s on purpose? Either way, a film that has stayed with my long since I saw it. A-

Free Fire (2017) - A sort of fun little action set piece flick, set in Boston (which is always with my final score). I definitely appreciate how clumsy it all was, even if there ultimately isn’t much weight to the violence. And great cast (Armie Hammer again, killing it). B

Wonder (2017) - Saw this on a whim. Not usually a big fan of these kind of person with disability makes everybody a better person movies, especially when they’re also precocious little kid gets bullied but then makes everyone happy movies, but this one took the subject frankly (even if still sentimentally) and explored the other characters as well, which really elevated it. B

All the Money in the World (2017) - A film almost as cold as J. Paul Getty, which actually works in its favor. A great story, with a some impressive performances (considering their last minute nature), but not quite as suspenseful as it needed to be. B

Fire and Ice (1983) - Awesome animation, though for some reason the running really bothered me. Weird complaint, I know. Pretty thing story, terrible characters, so the visuals was really all it had going for it (again, besides the running animation). C-

I, Tonya (2017) - A thoroughly enjoyable watch, even if it doesn’t quite have the edge it thinks it does. Didn’t feel satisfied with the answers they gave for the “incident” either. Margot Robbie is great, though. B

The Post (2017) - What is there to say except that Spielberg does it again. This is truly a master at work, every scene is perfectly staged, the whole thing moves at breakneck speed with you on the edge of your seat, even though there’s basically no action to speak of. Loved the business angle that was shown with Streep’s character, really ties the whole film together. One of my favorites this past year. A

The Meyerowitz Stories (2017) - Not a Sandler fan at all but this proves once again that he’s good when he’s not playing a caricature. The movie’s basically just about the family dynamics so probably the highest compliment I can give it is that I bought them as a family. Main issue is the female family members don’t really get any respect which is just odd. B

A Ghost Story (2017) - Powerful existential story about love and loss and time and space and infinity. Not quite as moving as I wanted it to be, but still an engaging watch. B+

The Beastmaster (1982) - Pretty much bad in every conceivable way. Only redeeming bits being some cool action and a fun premise. D

xXx (2002) - A James Bond film with none of the charm, intrigue, suspense, or fun. Not good! D

xXx: State of the Union (2005) - Better in some ways than the last but a lot worse in others. At least it’s more ridiculous and therefore more watchable. D+

xXx: The Return of Xander Cage (2017) - Actually fun, thank god! They took the Fast and Furious route with this, more ensemble and less Diesel, and more ridiculousness and less seriousness. Quite watchable. B-

Paddington (2014) - Surprisingly engaging and delightful film, lots of fun to be had. B

Mudbound (2017) - Little too sprawling for its own good, but still a very compelling story. B+

The Foot Fist Way (2008) - Pretty slight but amusing. Not as funny as it needed to be, though. Still, McBride is great. C-

It Comes at Night (2017) - Nice little suspense picture. Never fully cared, but still somewhat gripping. B-

Darkest Hour (2017) - Gary Oldman is, of course, amazing, and the production values are great, but otherwise it’s a fairly straightforward biopic. B

The Lost City of Z (2017) - A good old fashioned adventure picture, the likes I haven’t seen in quite some time. Pretty great, but Charlie Hunnam is a bit of a weak link. B+

Super Dark Times (2017) - Very tense coming of age sort of film, though not of the typical sort. Some third act twists are the only thing that impede on what otherwise feels very authentic. B+

Good Time (2017) - I love this kind of get stuck in some shit and spend the whole runtime trying to work your way out kinda story. Robert Pattinson and the musical score make highly recommend it. B+

Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) - I truly don’t know what took me so long to watch this, though I’m glad I finally did. Besides the obvious (Mickey Rooney) and a couple lines of dialogue, the film actually feels a good bit ahead of its time. A-

Paddington 2 (2018) - Even better than the first, a fantastic little movie that has some surprising emotional heft to it. It’s better than it looks. B+

Roman Holiday (1953) - Well I had forgotten how much I liked Audrey Hepburn, so I decided to finally watch another of hers. A beautiful picture, and Hepburn’s great in it. I don’t totally buy the relationship with Peck’s character, but whatever. Still good. B+

Molly’s Game (2017) - Probably tries to pack too much into one movie, and almost works, except I ultimately don’t think the emotional core (with her dad) truly works. An interesting watch though. B+

Sabrina (1954) - Hepburn’s great again, though the story’s not as interesting. I don’t really buy any of the romantic pairings, but the cast makes the whole film a breeze. B

The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) - A treat to see Boston in the sixties! Oh, and the film is good too. Great style and interesting main characters, even if I feel like we never quite crack the surface of what makes them tick (though I suppose that’s part of the point. B

Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2017) - When a film is so completely overwhelmed by a central character/performance, it helps to make it all about them. And thus is Denzel/Roman, and I’d say the film is worth watching for that alone, if not for the fitting and heartbreaking morality play that surrounds him. B+

Well that’s it for now. I’ll try to post more regularly in the future, so there’ll be less of this^ kind of thing.

Why would you watch xXx?

Great question.

Actually, why would you watch the second one after seeing the first.

Another great question.

And then why the third one! what is going on with you Dom? 😃

At least the third one wasn’t bad.

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

Alright so for whatever reason it’s been two full years since the last time I posted my “last movie seen,” that changes now. Get ready for a long list of movies (don’t worry, not from these past two years).

In here…

Call Me By Your Name (2017) - A seemingly effortlessly beautiful film. Makes me want to move to Italy and read all the time and think about swinging the other way (almost). If I have one complaint, it’s that we don’t spend enough time with the main couple once they become a couple, but perhaps that’s on purpose? Either way, a film that has stayed with my long since I saw it. A-

Free Fire (2017) - A sort of fun little action set piece flick, set in Boston (which is always with my final score). I definitely appreciate how clumsy it all was, even if there ultimately isn’t much weight to the violence. And great cast (Armie Hammer again, killing it). B

Wonder (2017) - Saw this on a whim. Not usually a big fan of these kind of person with disability makes everybody a better person movies, especially when they’re also precocious little kid gets bullied but then makes everyone happy movies, but this one took the subject frankly (even if still sentimentally) and explored the other characters as well, which really elevated it. B

All the Money in the World (2017) - A film almost as cold as J. Paul Getty, which actually works in its favor. A great story, with a some impressive performances (considering their last minute nature), but not quite as suspenseful as it needed to be. B

Fire and Ice (1983) - Awesome animation, though for some reason the running really bothered me. Weird complaint, I know. Pretty thing story, terrible characters, so the visuals was really all it had going for it (again, besides the running animation). C-

I, Tonya (2017) - A thoroughly enjoyable watch, even if it doesn’t quite have the edge it thinks it does. Didn’t feel satisfied with the answers they gave for the “incident” either. Margot Robbie is great, though. B

The Post (2017) - What is there to say except that Spielberg does it again. This is truly a master at work, every scene is perfectly staged, the whole thing moves at breakneck speed with you on the edge of your seat, even though there’s basically no action to speak of. Loved the business angle that was shown with Streep’s character, really ties the whole film together. One of my favorites this past year. A

The Meyerowitz Stories (2017) - Not a Sandler fan at all but this proves once again that he’s good when he’s not playing a caricature. The movie’s basically just about the family dynamics so probably the highest compliment I can give it is that I bought them as a family. Main issue is the female family members don’t really get any respect which is just odd. B

A Ghost Story (2017) - Powerful existential story about love and loss and time and space and infinity. Not quite as moving as I wanted it to be, but still an engaging watch. B+

The Beastmaster (1982) - Pretty much bad in every conceivable way. Only redeeming bits being some cool action and a fun premise. D

xXx (2002) - A James Bond film with none of the charm, intrigue, suspense, or fun. Not good! D

xXx: State of the Union (2005) - Better in some ways than the last but a lot worse in others. At least it’s more ridiculous and therefore more watchable. D+

xXx: The Return of Xander Cage (2017) - Actually fun, thank god! They took the Fast and Furious route with this, more ensemble and less Diesel, and more ridiculousness and less seriousness. Quite watchable. B-

Paddington (2014) - Surprisingly engaging and delightful film, lots of fun to be had. B

Mudbound (2017) - Little too sprawling for its own good, but still a very compelling story. B+

The Foot Fist Way (2008) - Pretty slight but amusing. Not as funny as it needed to be, though. Still, McBride is great. C-

It Comes at Night (2017) - Nice little suspense picture. Never fully cared, but still somewhat gripping. B-

Darkest Hour (2017) - Gary Oldman is, of course, amazing, and the production values are great, but otherwise it’s a fairly straightforward biopic. B

The Lost City of Z (2017) - A good old fashioned adventure picture, the likes I haven’t seen in quite some time. Pretty great, but Charlie Hunnam is a bit of a weak link. B+

Super Dark Times (2017) - Very tense coming of age sort of film, though not of the typical sort. Some third act twists are the only thing that impede on what otherwise feels very authentic. B+

Good Time (2017) - I love this kind of get stuck in some shit and spend the whole runtime trying to work your way out kinda story. Robert Pattinson and the musical score make highly recommend it. B+

Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) - I truly don’t know what took me so long to watch this, though I’m glad I finally did. Besides the obvious (Mickey Rooney) and a couple lines of dialogue, the film actually feels a good bit ahead of its time. A-

Paddington 2 (2018) - Even better than the first, a fantastic little movie that has some surprising emotional heft to it. It’s better than it looks. B+

Roman Holiday (1953) - Well I had forgotten how much I liked Audrey Hepburn, so I decided to finally watch another of hers. A beautiful picture, and Hepburn’s great in it. I don’t totally buy the relationship with Peck’s character, but whatever. Still good. B+

Molly’s Game (2017) - Probably tries to pack too much into one movie, and almost works, except I ultimately don’t think the emotional core (with her dad) truly works. An interesting watch though. B+

Sabrina (1954) - Hepburn’s great again, though the story’s not as interesting. I don’t really buy any of the romantic pairings, but the cast makes the whole film a breeze. B

The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) - A treat to see Boston in the sixties! Oh, and the film is good too. Great style and interesting main characters, even if I feel like we never quite crack the surface of what makes them tick (though I suppose that’s part of the point. B

Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2017) - When a film is so completely overwhelmed by a central character/performance, it helps to make it all about them. And thus is Denzel/Roman, and I’d say the film is worth watching for that alone, if not for the fitting and heartbreaking morality play that surrounds him. B+

Well that’s it for now. I’ll try to post more regularly in the future, so there’ll be less of this^ kind of thing.

Why would you watch xXx?

Great question.

Actually, why would you watch the second one after seeing the first.

Another great question.

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

Alright so for whatever reason it’s been two full years since the last time I posted my “last movie seen,” that changes now. Get ready for a long list of movies (don’t worry, not from these past two years).

In here…

Call Me By Your Name (2017) - A seemingly effortlessly beautiful film. Makes me want to move to Italy and read all the time and think about swinging the other way (almost). If I have one complaint, it’s that we don’t spend enough time with the main couple once they become a couple, but perhaps that’s on purpose? Either way, a film that has stayed with my long since I saw it. A-

Free Fire (2017) - A sort of fun little action set piece flick, set in Boston (which is always with my final score). I definitely appreciate how clumsy it all was, even if there ultimately isn’t much weight to the violence. And great cast (Armie Hammer again, killing it). B

Wonder (2017) - Saw this on a whim. Not usually a big fan of these kind of person with disability makes everybody a better person movies, especially when they’re also precocious little kid gets bullied but then makes everyone happy movies, but this one took the subject frankly (even if still sentimentally) and explored the other characters as well, which really elevated it. B

All the Money in the World (2017) - A film almost as cold as J. Paul Getty, which actually works in its favor. A great story, with a some impressive performances (considering their last minute nature), but not quite as suspenseful as it needed to be. B

Fire and Ice (1983) - Awesome animation, though for some reason the running really bothered me. Weird complaint, I know. Pretty thing story, terrible characters, so the visuals was really all it had going for it (again, besides the running animation). C-

I, Tonya (2017) - A thoroughly enjoyable watch, even if it doesn’t quite have the edge it thinks it does. Didn’t feel satisfied with the answers they gave for the “incident” either. Margot Robbie is great, though. B

The Post (2017) - What is there to say except that Spielberg does it again. This is truly a master at work, every scene is perfectly staged, the whole thing moves at breakneck speed with you on the edge of your seat, even though there’s basically no action to speak of. Loved the business angle that was shown with Streep’s character, really ties the whole film together. One of my favorites this past year. A

The Meyerowitz Stories (2017) - Not a Sandler fan at all but this proves once again that he’s good when he’s not playing a caricature. The movie’s basically just about the family dynamics so probably the highest compliment I can give it is that I bought them as a family. Main issue is the female family members don’t really get any respect which is just odd. B

A Ghost Story (2017) - Powerful existential story about love and loss and time and space and infinity. Not quite as moving as I wanted it to be, but still an engaging watch. B+

The Beastmaster (1982) - Pretty much bad in every conceivable way. Only redeeming bits being some cool action and a fun premise. D

xXx (2002) - A James Bond film with none of the charm, intrigue, suspense, or fun. Not good! D

xXx: State of the Union (2005) - Better in some ways than the last but a lot worse in others. At least it’s more ridiculous and therefore more watchable. D+

xXx: The Return of Xander Cage (2017) - Actually fun, thank god! They took the Fast and Furious route with this, more ensemble and less Diesel, and more ridiculousness and less seriousness. Quite watchable. B-

Paddington (2014) - Surprisingly engaging and delightful film, lots of fun to be had. B

Mudbound (2017) - Little too sprawling for its own good, but still a very compelling story. B+

The Foot Fist Way (2008) - Pretty slight but amusing. Not as funny as it needed to be, though. Still, McBride is great. C-

It Comes at Night (2017) - Nice little suspense picture. Never fully cared, but still somewhat gripping. B-

Darkest Hour (2017) - Gary Oldman is, of course, amazing, and the production values are great, but otherwise it’s a fairly straightforward biopic. B

The Lost City of Z (2017) - A good old fashioned adventure picture, the likes I haven’t seen in quite some time. Pretty great, but Charlie Hunnam is a bit of a weak link. B+

Super Dark Times (2017) - Very tense coming of age sort of film, though not of the typical sort. Some third act twists are the only thing that impede on what otherwise feels very authentic. B+

Good Time (2017) - I love this kind of get stuck in some shit and spend the whole runtime trying to work your way out kinda story. Robert Pattinson and the musical score make highly recommend it. B+

Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) - I truly don’t know what took me so long to watch this, though I’m glad I finally did. Besides the obvious (Mickey Rooney) and a couple lines of dialogue, the film actually feels a good bit ahead of its time. A-

Paddington 2 (2018) - Even better than the first, a fantastic little movie that has some surprising emotional heft to it. It’s better than it looks. B+

Roman Holiday (1953) - Well I had forgotten how much I liked Audrey Hepburn, so I decided to finally watch another of hers. A beautiful picture, and Hepburn’s great in it. I don’t totally buy the relationship with Peck’s character, but whatever. Still good. B+

Molly’s Game (2017) - Probably tries to pack too much into one movie, and almost works, except I ultimately don’t think the emotional core (with her dad) truly works. An interesting watch though. B+

Sabrina (1954) - Hepburn’s great again, though the story’s not as interesting. I don’t really buy any of the romantic pairings, but the cast makes the whole film a breeze. B

The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) - A treat to see Boston in the sixties! Oh, and the film is good too. Great style and interesting main characters, even if I feel like we never quite crack the surface of what makes them tick (though I suppose that’s part of the point. B

Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2017) - When a film is so completely overwhelmed by a central character/performance, it helps to make it all about them. And thus is Denzel/Roman, and I’d say the film is worth watching for that alone, if not for the fitting and heartbreaking morality play that surrounds him. B+

Well that’s it for now. I’ll try to post more regularly in the future, so there’ll be less of this^ kind of thing.

Why would you watch xXx?

Great question.

Alright so for whatever reason it’s been two full years since the last time I posted my “last movie seen,” that changes now. Get ready for a long list of movies (don’t worry, not from these past two years).

In here…

Call Me By Your Name (2017) - A seemingly effortlessly beautiful film. Makes me want to move to Italy and read all the time and think about swinging the other way (almost). If I have one complaint, it’s that we don’t spend enough time with the main couple once they become a couple, but perhaps that’s on purpose? Either way, a film that has stayed with my long since I saw it. A-

Free Fire (2017) - A sort of fun little action set piece flick, set in Boston (which is always with my final score). I definitely appreciate how clumsy it all was, even if there ultimately isn’t much weight to the violence. And great cast (Armie Hammer again, killing it). B

Wonder (2017) - Saw this on a whim. Not usually a big fan of these kind of person with disability makes everybody a better person movies, especially when they’re also precocious little kid gets bullied but then makes everyone happy movies, but this one took the subject frankly (even if still sentimentally) and explored the other characters as well, which really elevated it. B

All the Money in the World (2017) - A film almost as cold as J. Paul Getty, which actually works in its favor. A great story, with a some impressive performances (considering their last minute nature), but not quite as suspenseful as it needed to be. B

Fire and Ice (1983) - Awesome animation, though for some reason the running really bothered me. Weird complaint, I know. Pretty thing story, terrible characters, so the visuals was really all it had going for it (again, besides the running animation). C-

I, Tonya (2017) - A thoroughly enjoyable watch, even if it doesn’t quite have the edge it thinks it does. Didn’t feel satisfied with the answers they gave for the “incident” either. Margot Robbie is great, though. B

The Post (2017) - What is there to say except that Spielberg does it again. This is truly a master at work, every scene is perfectly staged, the whole thing moves at breakneck speed with you on the edge of your seat, even though there’s basically no action to speak of. Loved the business angle that was shown with Streep’s character, really ties the whole film together. One of my favorites this past year. A

The Meyerowitz Stories (2017) - Not a Sandler fan at all but this proves once again that he’s good when he’s not playing a caricature. The movie’s basically just about the family dynamics so probably the highest compliment I can give it is that I bought them as a family. Main issue is the female family members don’t really get any respect which is just odd. B

A Ghost Story (2017) - Powerful existential story about love and loss and time and space and infinity. Not quite as moving as I wanted it to be, but still an engaging watch. B+

The Beastmaster (1982) - Pretty much bad in every conceivable way. Only redeeming bits being some cool action and a fun premise. D

xXx (2002) - A James Bond film with none of the charm, intrigue, suspense, or fun. Not good! D

xXx: State of the Union (2005) - Better in some ways than the last but a lot worse in others. At least it’s more ridiculous and therefore more watchable. D+

xXx: The Return of Xander Cage (2017) - Actually fun, thank god! They took the Fast and Furious route with this, more ensemble and less Diesel, and more ridiculousness and less seriousness. Quite watchable. B-

Paddington (2014) - Surprisingly engaging and delightful film, lots of fun to be had. B

Mudbound (2017) - Little too sprawling for its own good, but still a very compelling story. B+

The Foot Fist Way (2008) - Pretty slight but amusing. Not as funny as it needed to be, though. Still, McBride is great. C-

It Comes at Night (2017) - Nice little suspense picture. Never fully cared, but still somewhat gripping. B-

Darkest Hour (2017) - Gary Oldman is, of course, amazing, and the production values are great, but otherwise it’s a fairly straightforward biopic. B

The Lost City of Z (2017) - A good old fashioned adventure picture, the likes I haven’t seen in quite some time. Pretty great, but Charlie Hunnam is a bit of a weak link. B+

Super Dark Times (2017) - Very tense coming of age sort of film, though not of the typical sort. Some third act twists are the only thing that impede on what otherwise feels very authentic. B+

Good Time (2017) - I love this kind of get stuck in some shit and spend the whole runtime trying to work your way out kinda story. Robert Pattinson and the musical score make highly recommend it. B+

Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) - I truly don’t know what took me so long to watch this, though I’m glad I finally did. Besides the obvious (Mickey Rooney) and a couple lines of dialogue, the film actually feels a good bit ahead of its time. A-

Paddington 2 (2018) - Even better than the first, a fantastic little movie that has some surprising emotional heft to it. It’s better than it looks. B+

Roman Holiday (1953) - Well I had forgotten how much I liked Audrey Hepburn, so I decided to finally watch another of hers. A beautiful picture, and Hepburn’s great in it. I don’t totally buy the relationship with Peck’s character, but whatever. Still good. B+

Molly’s Game (2017) - Probably tries to pack too much into one movie, and almost works, except I ultimately don’t think the emotional core (with her dad) truly works. An interesting watch though. B+

Sabrina (1954) - Hepburn’s great again, though the story’s not as interesting. I don’t really buy any of the romantic pairings, but the cast makes the whole film a breeze. B

The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) - A treat to see Boston in the sixties! Oh, and the film is good too. Great style and interesting main characters, even if I feel like we never quite crack the surface of what makes them tick (though I suppose that’s part of the point. B

Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2017) - When a film is so completely overwhelmed by a central character/performance, it helps to make it all about them. And thus is Denzel/Roman, and I’d say the film is worth watching for that alone, if not for the fitting and heartbreaking morality play that surrounds him. B+

Well that’s it for now. I’ll try to post more regularly in the future, so there’ll be less of this^ kind of thing.

Mrebo said:

yotsuya said:

In any case, I thought of something significant. While Leia demotes Poe for wasting their resources in destroying the dreadnought after they jump to hyperspace, in the end, his actions proved to be something that kept them from total destruction because that dreadnought’s weapons could probably have destroyed the fleet through their shields. So Poe saved the day at the beginning of the story and Rose’s sister did not die in vain and at the end of the day, Luke and Rey save the last survivors to fight another day. So the movie is not as dark as it could have been. But even so, Poe learns a valuable lesson about command and when to take risks and that it needs to be more calculated and less reckless.

I’m not sure if it was intentional or not that Poe’s action was ultimately a good decision. It was possibly not thought out that way by RJ. Or, as I mused previously, RJ was focusing on the ethics of decisions, rather than whether the result is good or moral.

Under that theory, it didn’t matter if attacking the Dreadnaught was strategically sound or ultimately a good thing, Poe had to learn to not act for the wrong reasons. I’m not sure how convincing that is - even if my theory is true - because we can believe Poe was operating under a calculated strategy and ended up being right about it. And it enhances the feeling that Leia and Holdo were thinking too short term and treating “hope” with too much reverence.

If Poe was right, he was right by accident. The only reason the Resistance came under attic after they escaped was because of tech believed to be “impossible.” It’s an important lesson either way.

I wouldn’t be surprised, considering that’s basically the whole idea behind laser. It’s impossible for me to tell though as there was half a year between my most recent IMAX 70mm and IMAX laser screenings (different films too), and everything in between was just much worse projection systems. But I will say you probably won’t get an accurate representation of either on your computer monitor.

NeverarGreat said:

DominicCobb said:

NeverarGreat said:

Matt.F said:

NeverarGreat said:

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

tere are good explanations for most of them anyway.

There are explanations now that we’ve had ages to ponder them. Conversely, the novelization for TLJ isn’t even out yet.

The TFA novel straight up explains how the Starkiller beam could destroy a planet on the other side of the galaxy from where the base itself is located. It just depends on it you want to accept that explanation.

That is to say, you like the movie or you don’t, and that’s your choice. But holding ST and OT up to different yard sticks isn’t exactly fair.

We shouldn’t need novelizations to justify the events of a movie.

But as for different yardsticks, the Death Star was a moon sized space station with essentially a big version of a blaster that could blow up rocky planets. It required the resources of a galaxy-spanning empire to build.

Starkiller Base is a piece of construction many times larger than the Death Star, with a primary weapon requiring seemingly universe-breaking technology that has never been previously hinted at or explained, built by an organization that by all indications is a fraction the size of the Empire.

These are not two yardsticks.

Iteration is your answer.

The German Empire was defeated in WWI, the Nazi’s “rose from the ashes” and 20 years later the Third Reich invaded Poland and WWII began.

The engineering iteration upon the previous weapons, saw the war machine now employ cannon that could span the English channel, unmanned V2 bombs, U boats, and any number of other more advanced hardware (including ultimately nuclear weapons).

Pretty obvious that the First Order is based upon the hardware of the Empire (TIE Fighters, Star Destroyers, Stormtrooper armour, Starkiller Base, etc), and so iteration is your answer to why they are more advanced.

But that still doesn’t answer the question of why they were able to build a far more ambitious project with far less resources. If we saw that they used a robotic workforce and had a lot of automation for their fleet it would make sense, but we get no indication that it’s different from the Empire in this regard. Hux even says that it’s a machine ‘that you have built’. Yet another missed opportunity if you ask me.

Why do we need to see the First Order’s means of production? The only time we saw that before in Star Wars was in one of its most infamous scenes (“Shut me down, machines making machines”). We have no idea how they or the Empire did it so why should it matter?

In the OT trilogy there was no issue showing means of production, since the largest structure we saw was a part of the story’s table setting exposition and they never made anything more impressive than that.

For the prequels, we got a lengthy scene showing the creation of the Clone army, a scene of the droid factory (which was largely unnecessary since the droid army was also established at the beginning of the prequels), and in just GL’s prequels we got an explanation for how the Death Star was designed and saw it being constructed 20 years before it would be finished.

Say what you will about the prequels, it’s undeniable that they have enough rock salt.

That’s what the prequels did, explain things. Didn’t make the movies any better.

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

Well if SKB eats a sun then right after the sun is eaten theoretically everyone should die.

I feel like that the idea for the Starkiller weapon was originally conceived as “this laser destroys suns in remote systems, thus killing those planets too,” but this was probably changed as it’s a lot less straightforward.

I don’t really have a problem with that, though. I don’t mind inconsistencies with the physics in Star Wars, even though sometimes it does get a bit absurd, like everyone seeing the Republic being destroyed from another star system in TFA. But I didn’t really care about that either, so there’s that.

I honestly don’t care either, even the “why does everyone see the laser in the sky” thing is something I can’t be bothered by, no matter how much I try.

The one thing that bothers me is that they decide to explain that it uses the power of the sun, which then only invites you to question which sun they used for the first attack.

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

So I just watched The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises back to back, and I think that if TLJ treated Luke the same way TDKR treats Batman, TLJ Luke would be much more acceptable to me.

For example, at the end of both TLJ and TDKR, the older hero passes on the torch to the pupil, but while in TDKR Batman wins the war and finally provides peace a second time, Luke… just passes on the torch and says “hey boyos, now that I’ve given you guys hope please clean it up!!”

No.

I actually really liked the idea. Too bad you didn’t. Care to explain?

By the way, I know it’s extremely different because Batman is the protagonist of TDKR while Luke isn’t the protagonist of TLJ, but I think that approach was still viable if they wanted to.

The other big obvious difference is that we’re talking about a part 3 vs. a part 2.

Most importantly, though, Batman doesn’t “win the war” and “finally provide peace.” He just defeated this specific threat (with the help of others). There’s no suggestion whatsoever that there will be peace in Gotham from here on out. In fact, it’s made quite clear there won’t be, otherwise what’s the point of him passing the torch to JGL?

What I mean is, Luke could’ve done something more concrete as opposed to just giving hope. For him to have a great and ultimate concrete victory would not only give his death scene a lot more weight when it came (and I’m not saying to change that, it could stay just the same in the exact same spot in the film), but it could make the FO the guys on the run instead of the Resistance in IX, shaking things up a bit, and it would’ve been really cool too.

The comparison between TDKR and TLJ was drawn because I remembered Bruce coming out of the pit after failing miserably and winning a battle while sacrificing himself without sacrificing himself, as opposed to Luke doing the exact same thing except he doesn’t concretely win the battle. I guess that’s what I’m trying to say. Luke did everything Batman did, but he didn’t win. He still went out as a loser. Sure it was an amazing scene where he beat Kylo mentally in one of the most extraordinary and beautiful moments of the saga, and he might have philosophically won, but it’d be like if at the end of TDKR, even though Batman sacrificed himself and saved Gotham, Bane just came back and continued being the overwhelming powerful force that controls the city. So what Batman did technically didn’t affect anything, but it shook everyone’s spirit.

But yeah, I guess it’d impossible. Glad I’m not a screenwriter for Lucasfilm I suppose.

Luke did win the battle though, he finally allowed the Resistance to escape which was literally the whole goal of the Resistance for the entire film.

And with saying Bane comes back, again this is where the fact that we’re talking about a part 3 vs part 2 is important. And Catwoman was the one who took out Bane anyway.

By the way, a picture of an IMAX or Dolby screen most likely isn’t going to be able to represent what the image quality was actually like, especially if it’s a picture snapped on a phone.

Collipso said:

Does TFA have any IMAX sequences?

Edit: I have no clue what any of that means by the way, all I know is that IMAX is when in Chris Nolan’s movies some action scene is happening so the screen of my laptop goes full screen.

Why am I so dumb

The entirety of the Falcon escape from Jakku was shot in IMAX, although the blu-ray and digital releases keep the 2:35:1 crop.

IMAX is essentially a large capture format. Usually when people say IMAX, they mean IMAX 70mm film. In simplest terms, when movies are typically shot on film, they are shot on 35mm. IMAX provides better picture quality and often, depending on whether the director want to use it or not, a taller aspect ratio. Dunkirk, for example, had 75% of its runtime shot on IMAX, which meant if you went to the right screen to see it, then for 75% of the film the majority of what your eye was seeing was the movie (hence “IMAX”).

Couple useful images:

Boushh said:

Thanks for replying 😄

Yeah that makes sense and I hadn’t thought about it.

Lucky you!!! So they actually printed Rogue One and The Last Jedi in 15/70mm even though Rogue One had no IMAX sequences whatsoever, and The Last Jedi had some but they were left out of the final theatrical cut which were leaked here as you might know. I’m curious as to what the rationale of leaving those out was.

I wonder if there were any 5/70mm prints for non-IMAX vertical projectors?

Have you ever been to IMAX 4K Laser screenings in big screens able to display full 1.43 AR IMAX? I live in France and there’s both a 2K LieMAX and a brand spanking new Dolby Cinema theater but they often screen 3D and / or French dubbing and awww hell naw there’s noooo way I’ll ever watch anything dubbed. 😦 😦

Edit: IMDB says “70mm horizontal” so there you go, question answered. Ditto for Rogue One

Edit 2: does Digital Laser IMAX actually use 1.43 AR or is that 70mm film only and digital IMAX is 1.85 tops?? This is so confusing.

It depends on the theater and the film. I’ve only been to one laser showing and it was for TLJ. The film was a consistent 2.35:1 the whole time, but as far as I’m aware it’s that way across the board, for every format. The screen I saw it on looked to me like it was 1.90:1, although I don’t know if you could call it lieMAX because it’s one of the biggest screens in the country. I didn’t get the chance to see Dunkirk in laser but from my understanding it was in the proper 1.43:1.