DominicCobb

Ryan McAvoy said:

DominicCobb said:

Mad Max (1979) ...this film would not be remembered today if it weren't for its sequel and its discovery of Mel Gibson. B-

I'd disagree with that one point. The amazing way the chase scenes are shot would be influential regardless of what came after. Those shots of the camera seemingly inches from two cars bumper-to-bumper grinding metal are breath taking. Tarantino would still have based the chase in Death Proof on it... but then again he knows all films, from ever ;-)

It probably would have had an impact, but, as you mentioned Tarantino has seen everything and loves referencing obscure stuff. I just don't think it would be the cult classic it is today - because it isn't even really the cult classic it is today today. When people think of Mad Max, they don't think of Mad Max, they think of The Road Warrior.

So would you suggest the slide whistle or? I'm going to a concert next month and all I have is one of those tubes that makes noises when you turn it upside down. Don't know what it's called.

JEDIT: I looked it up and it's called a "groan tube" so I will probably be okay with that.

Dreamgirls (2006) - A pretty good film. Not exactly what I expected (I knew it had music but I did not know it was a musical). Emotional depth is sort of passed over for theatrical dramatics, but it's all presented and acted well so I don't mind much. B

Ex Machina (2015) - Great. Intriguing and thrilling and powered by some amazing performances. I love it when I film can work so well with so little characters and locations. A-

Labyrinth (1986) - I've been meaning to watch this for a long time. It's pretty much how I expected, which is why it took me so long to watch. Pretty bad, but also good somehow. Enjoyable, anyway. C+

Mad Max (1979) - It's no wonder that this isn't the film that made the series a cult classic. It's got almost none of the franchise trademarks. It almost feels like it was made as a prequel (this is what Max was like before the apocalypse) in that way. I've seen it before, and, like Tobar, it's not nearly as depressing as I remember. It's just a somewhat brutal 90 minute revenge thriller. It's good, but this film would not be remembered today if it weren't for its sequel and its discovery of Mel Gibson. B-

The Road Warrior (1981) - Somehow better than I remember, though I don't think I fully appreciated it the first time I saw it. This is a lean, mean, apocalyptic action machine, and a very good one at that. Raw action firing on all cylinders. What more could you want? B+

Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome (1985) - For whatever reason, I never saw this film until just now. I think I didn't have access to it when I first saw the other two films in the franchise, and then never really felt compelled to seek it out due to its mixed reception. I wish it hadn't taken me so long. This movie is so much fun. It's almost better than the Road Warrior in some ways - its bigger budget gives it more chances for spectacular sets, locations, action sequences, and cinematographic flourishes. Of course, Road Warrior's small budget is part of its charm, but I enjoy Thunderdome for other reasons. It plays like a fantastical adventure film (much unlike Road Warrior), and I really love that. The climax is a retread of the previous film's, but whatever, it's still cool. B

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) - And then you come to this film, where the whole movie is a retread of Road Warrior's climax, and it works AMAZINGLY. Max gets the short stick a little bit here (he was never really a big part of the previous films, but I think that his arc here was clear but a little undercooked), but Tom Hardy is a great choice to fill the mantle (love how expressive his face is, and that voice is bad ass) and of course Charlize Theron's Furiosa is the real star. Don't know if they'll bring her back but apparently Hardy's signed on for four more sequels which I'd love to see, because Fury Road is without a doubt the best film in the series and one of the best action films I've seen in awhile. A-

It'd be hilarious if frevious saw TFA and loved it, but convinced himself he hated it just so he could keep his signature.

I'm making my way into season 3 of TCW and I still don't like it as much as season 1 of Rebels. TCW's got cool stuff in it but is really lacking in characterization and it just doesn't feel as much like Star Wars as Rebels.

Mrebo said:

Do you agree?

BS

How do you feel about the current state of CGI? Good enough (for Star Wars 7?), have you given into accepting it more or less, or still bothered by CGI characters?

 CG still looks unreal but what can a person do but accept it. Thankfully some filmmakers have been trying to reincorporate practical effects.

For what it's worth, I saw TPM when I was a kid and never liked Jar Jar.

Return to the PT? But we just returned to the OT! Besides, before we know it, it'll all be ST.

Voss Caltrez said:

DominicCobb said:

I agree that Struzan's SE posters are pretty dull, but his PT ones a great no matter what people think of the movies themselves. Anyway, it seems strange to complain about Struzan or even Struzan imitators (I quite liked that Super 8 poster) when they're the only ones trying to keep the old fashioned poster style. I'd rather a second-rate Struzan poster for TFA than a photoshop job.

 

Good point. However, if Struzan and his imitators are simply doing photo realistic collages how is that competing with Photoshop-created movie posters that utilize the same style: photos done in collage? It's okay for people like us who are nostalgic but what about the general public?

I'd rather have painted movie posters that were more stylistic and making use of the variety the medium allows then just trying to make something look like a photograph. A style that expresses a certain tone or evokes strong feeling.

 A fair argument. Nostalgia doesn't tint my view of painted posters the way it does others, as I am fairly young. My issue with photo collages is there's always a distinct sense of unreality to them. Painted collages embrace that unreality, obviously, but they come across more fancifully, if that makes any sense, due to the medium. Instead of the uncanny valley there's a colorful whimsy, which suits the Star Wars franchise well. Even if they're in a photorealistic style, they're still clearly paintings (by the way, my favorite SW posters are not Struzan's, to be clear).

generalfrevious said:

Movie posters are a lost art nowadays (have there been any good official posters in the last 10 years?), and I doubt we can make them great again. Same with trailers as well.

 Movie posters tend to not have the same romanticism they used to have - due to their focus on photographic collages, mainly - but you can still find some good ones.

Movie trailers are as good now as they've ever been, which, in my opinion, is not all that good, but that's just me. I don't care about trailers, but most made today are of a fairly high quality.

I agree that Struzan's SE posters are pretty dull, but his PT ones a great no matter what people think of the movies themselves. Anyway, it seems strange to complain about Struzan or even Struzan imitators (I quite liked that Super 8 poster) when they're the only ones trying to keep the old fashioned poster style. I'd rather a second-rate Struzan poster for TFA than a photoshop job.

Mentioning the PT would ruin the film for some viewers while contradicting it would ruin the film for other viewers. So, like I said, it's probably best if they don't delve too deeply into the character's past, and I'd be surprised if Disney didn't feel the same way.

I'm still inclined to not believe the rumors, but a Boba Fett movie makes almost too much sense. He's one of the series's most popular characters, yet has never been given a real spotlight in any of the films. It's bound to happen at some point.

I doubt they'd do an origin story because there's no reason to. I don't see why Boba can't just be Boba at the start of the film and then do his Boba thing for the film's duration.

Meant to post a couple days ago. Saw the trailer in theaters before the Avengers and was literally shaking from head to toe. Now trailer has ever made my heart beat so fast, or got me feeling choked up at the end. Words cannot describe how excited I am for this movie. 

By the way, I saw the trailer in 3D, and it's actually really cool looking in that format. For instance, I'm not a big fan of crash zooms, but the one in the trailer, when seen in 3D, is breathtaking. Star Wars is meant for 2D in my mind (though not surprised it's 3D because every Disney movie is), so I'll probably see it standard first and then IMAX 3D the second time.

Man, Star Wars on the big screen again. Great times ahead.

captainsolo said:

Do you guys think I should try the Captain America films?

YES. The first one isn't the greatest but it has a certain old fashioned sense of adventure that you can't find in any other Marvel film so I really love it. The second one is fantastically thrilling and probably the best movie Marvel has done.

Anyway, haven't done this in a long time. So here goes (will be brief):

Late Spring (1949) - Beautiful filmmaking of the sort you can only expect from Ozu. A

Murderball (2005) - Engaging documentary about something that I didn't even know existed. Exciting, funny, touching, but not sentimental. Good stuff. A-

Apocalypse Now Redux (2001) - I've put off watching this for a long time. My reasoning was that the theatrical was perfect, so I had no need to watch any other version. Well, the theatrical is still more perfect, but this is a good example of how more of a good thing is a good thing. Not sold on the French plantation scene, but everything else is great. A

A Taste of Cherry (1997) - Riveting and oddly rewarding. A little-seen gem. A

The Homecoming (1973) - Quite strange but definitely good. Wasn't familiar with the Pinter play, but this seems to be a good adaptation of a funny and thought-provoking work. A-

Furious Seven (2015) - All that I could ask for. Amazing. Not the best of the franchise, but definitely a high point. B+

The Lives of Others (2006) - Well produced, but not as powerful as it wants to be. B

The Sacrifice (1986) - Exactly as powerful as it wants to be. Incredible filmmaking. A+

Careful (1992) - What the fuck is this movie. Probably the weirdest thing I've ever seen. Funny, but not quite good. Still, they went for an aesthetic and kept with it. I saw it at a Q&A with the screenwriter and, well, it explained a lot. C

Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief (2015) - Eye opening. A must see. A

I've Heard the Mermaid Singing (1987) - Nice little picture. Yep, that's about it. B

Playtime (1967) - Intriguing and delightful. A comedy like no other. Will be watching more Tati films now. A-

Wanda (1970) - Hard to watch but also hard to look a way. B+

Mr. Death (1999) - Quirky documentary with an endlessly interesting subject. B+

Life is Sweet (1990) - Highly hilarious and effective. Brilliantly acted. And, yes, quite sweet. A-

The Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) - The novelty of the first film is nowhere to be found, but this is as fun as any movie the studio has made. B

^This is actually usually the first fan edit I tell people about. 

I like it!

Well considering AMC always has a marathon for every movie franchise, this should be more of an assumption than a rumor. Chances are it will happen. Whether or not that guy's source is accurate doesn't really matter.

What does matter is whether or not it will be the theatrical versions. And of course it won't be. So I won't go (well, probably).

Enjoying Darth Plagueis so far. Learning Palpatine's backstory isn't sitting quite right with me (especially because what I always suspected to be his history is not what is depicted in the book) but I guess that's what I was asking for.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Yet another round of bickering sparked off by a Nolan film. *le sigh*

But not about the film's quality, thankfully!

I see Interstellar as a film about evolution and compassion and the triumph of the human spirit. 

The film is certainly touching on the religious tenants of faith and love (note the prominent organ - Nolan as admitted as much, but as far as I know the man himself is nonreligious), but, as Ryan said, it is essentially areligious. It's of course interesting to look at it from a religious perspective. It's almost like the closest thing you can get to an atheist's religious movie. We don't believe in God, but we do believe that there will be something after us, and that, someday, humanity will evolve. I have faith, or at least I hope, that, when we do evolve into greater beings, that love, peace, compassion, and altruism will be our primary values.

Of course, part of the beauty of the film is that you don't have to view that way. You can easily see it as a reflection of religious values and I'm sure Nolan would be okay with that. At the end of the day, it's really a story about a man who loves his daughter, and a woman who loves her father. I think anyone, regardless of religious affiliation, can see the beauty in that.

SilverWook said:

Han and Luke wore their regular clothes under the armor you know.

 The stormtroopers on the other hand...

I've always wanted that. Star Wars 77 is great and I love it and it's my all time favorite movie... but if I were to do a special edition of it I would most certainly regrade it. By nature of the film's smaller budget it used less expensive lenses and film stock and the movie just generally feels cheaper than the rest of the trilogy. If a special edition is supposed to make the movies more consistent, regrading is very necessary.

SilverWook said:

Perhaps some off screen moments are best left to the imagination?

 Considering the fact that this isn't nearly the most awkward part of this scene they could have depicted, I'll let it slide.

Been meaning to get a copy of that omnibus for some time now. I own original copies of issues 12 and 15 (Doomworld and Star Duel) and I want to read the rest of the series, but I don't think it'd be economically feasible to get them all individually. So I'll try for the omnibus.

Unfortunately, it seems they've gone out of print (and the new collections are way more expensive for whatever reason) so I should probably pick one up sooner rather than later.

Taking notes, appreciate the suggestions so far.

I've heard some mixed things about the Courtship of Princess Leia though, maybe even from this site? 

Truce at Bakura no good... or maybe it is? Care to elaborate?

Any of the Old Republic stuff worth checking out? And what's the deal with the New Jedi Order books? There seems to be like a thousand of them, are any good?