Mondess122

Guardians of the Galaxy

Definitely the most fun I had at a theater in a while. It's also generally a gorgeous piece of filmmaking; definitely see this in 3D. The villains were a little weak, but they were serviceable, I suppose. 4 out of 5 Troll dolls.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Baaaaad. An incomprehensible mess with a romance that doesn't even make the least amount of sense, villains that have laughably simplistic motivations, CGI that manages to look worse than it did in the first film and poorly shot and edited action scenes. And oh, ofcourse, a lot of Sony products. I feel like Sony and its subsidiaries treat their films solely as products and marketing tools, more so than any other film studio. 1.5 out of 5 pointless plotlines.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

As a non-Trekkie (I've only seen the Abrams films and First Contact), I thought this was a pretty damn bad introduction to the franchise. It's a pretty decent introduction to 2001: A Space Odyssey though, since it does deal with some of the same themes and it's about as slow...I guess it has that going for it? 2 out of 5 slowly moving Enterprise shots.

SilverWook said:

 Actually, he was the paperboy.

Oh, how about that. Didn't recognise him. 

Hayden Christensen was in In The Mouth of Madness?

Whaaat.

I guess I'll be one of the few who's skeptical about the casting of Lupita Nyong'o. Unlike seemingly everyone else, I wasn't wowed by her performance in 12 Years a Slave; she wasn't necessarily bad, but I thought her performance in that film was overdramatic and too "Shakespearean". I don't know, her performance just seemed out of place.

And is it just me, or does every film released these days feature at least one cast member from Game of Thrones?

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mondess122 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Superman's only bland when lameass writers choose to write him that way.

I guess that's true. I'm not a comic book guy, so I don't know if he's radically different  (i.e. more complex, less bland) in the comics compared to his portrayals in the films.

Therein lies the rub.

But when I think of complex or interesting superheroes, Superman doesn't come to mind. He doesn't seem to have much personality.

I'm sure someone could come to the same conclusion in regards to Batman if they only know the character from the Adam West TV show.

That's not the response I was hoping I was going to get. If my idea of Superman is too simple, then in which comicbooks, cartoons or other forms of media can I find a more complex, more fleshed out and more personalized approach to Superman? I think Superman / Clark Kent / Kal-El is a bland character with a simple backstory and not much personality of any kind, but if he's not like that outside the first two Superman films, Man of Steel and the film adaptions of The Dark Knight Returns (which are the only forms of media related to Superman that I'm familiar with...not a lot, I know), then where can I find this different Superman?

Now, before I derail this thread:

The World's End (2013): Pretty good. I'm not the biggest fan of Edgar Wright's works. He's damn good at directing, but I don't think his sense of humor is all that hilarious. Don't get me wrong, his films are definitely funny, just not "bust-a-gut-laughing"-funny. With that said though, The World's End is probably my favorite film of his. I liked the plot, I liked the characters, I liked how ambitious it turned out to be and the jokes seemed a bit more subtle than before. 3.7 out of 5 blue hands.

This is the End (2013): Not as funny (or good) as The World's End, but still fairly enjoyable. Some jokes dragged on for too long and the product placement was a little obnoxious, but I kept invested in what was going on and the film does have its moments here and there. It's not great, but it's a decent timekiller. 3.1 out of 5 Milky Ways.

DuracellEnergizer said:

 

Mondess122 said:

They somehow made Superman a blander hero than he already is.

Superman's only bland when lameass writers choose to write him that way.

 

I guess that's true. I'm not a comic book guy, so I don't know if he's radically different  (i.e. more complex, less bland) in the comics compared to his portrayals in the films. But when I think of complex or interesting superheroes, Superman doesn't come to mind. He doesn't seem to have much personality.

Man of Steel (2013)

Crap. They somehow made Superman a blander hero than he already is. All characters in the film only exist to give either a speech or redundant, boring exposition. The structure is a complete mess, with flashbacks popping up in the most random spots, and they're not even in chronological order. I really liked Snyder's Watchmen and I thought his remake of Dawn of the Dead was decent, and I love most of what Christopher Nolan has made (aside from Batman Begins, but even that was still pretty enjoyable), but this is worse than underwhelming: it's really bad. It might just be the my least favorite film of 2013, at least so far. It's boring, it's lifeless and it's annoying.

1.25 out of 5 balls of steel.

Eh, I thought Barbeau was okay. I don't like her as an actress, but her scenes were the most interesting (although that doesn't mean much).

I'll say this about The Fog though: it's not nearly as bad as Carpenter's The Ward. A poor man's Shutter Island that ends with a bad joke.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I had the reverse reaction, myself - I found Halloween rather dull.

I really couldn't care less about the characters in The Fog, which is the biggest reason why I was so bored by it. Halloween had a great performance by Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee Curtis was really likeable in that. The Fog on the other hand had way too many characters in my opinion, and none of them were all that interesting or likeable. Even the bland characters had a point in Halloween (to get killed, basically). In The Fog, it's "Hey, it's Janet Leigh! Hey, it's Jamie Lee Curtis!" but then they barely do anything.

Pacific Rim: Still cartoony, silly, cliched fun, even on the small screen. Yeah, it's predictable and the characters are simplistic, but that's part of the charm of it. It feels like a traditional blockbuster done right. 4 out of 5 Independence Day similarities.

Dirty Harry: My favorite Clint Eastwood film, and one of my favorite films in general. Maybe it starts out a little too slow, but besides that, I adore it. Clint gives an awesome performance and Andrew Robinson is also very effective as the Scorpio killer. And Lalo Schifrin's score is like candy to the ears. The sequels are good too, except for The Enforcer. That's pretty much the definition of lame. 4.5 out of only 5 bullets.

The Fog (1980): Strange to think that Carpenter achieved so much more with so much less when he made Halloween. The Fog is just really boring. It's not scary, it's not entertaining, and worst of all: it's not engaging. The climax is pretty neat, but besides that, it's mostly fast-forwardy stuff. 2 out of 5 lighthouses.

Star Wars Episode VII: The New Blood

Star Wars Episode VIII: Jacen Takes Coruscant

Jacen Goes to Hell: The Final Star Wars.

Eugh. It's terrible. Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd, a bored Sean Connery, terrible Bondgirls (although to be honest, they got the looks), weak action, the list goes on. The only thing I can give it is that it isn't nearly as boring as some of Moore's films. 

Skyfall. The main villain wasn't in drag. Zero moonbuggies out of ten. 

(Although seriously, I really think Diamonds are Forever is the worst Bond. Skyfall was great.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MajE0PcEoUU&feature=g-u-u

Egh. Like everyone else, I have mixed feelings about this. But all we can do now is speculate. The fact that Disney bought Lucasfilm doesn't automatically mean there's a higher probability that the unaltered versions of the original trilogy will be released. We simply don't know yet. It's certainly a change, if it's a change for the better or for the worse (or neither) is something we have yet to see. Less Lucas sounds good though.

We can expect one thing from Episode 7 though...

Harmy said:

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

Interesting little vid, but one question:

Are you 3 different people? :P

TV's Frink said:

kenkraly2007 said:

Some of you may think the blu-ray box is not worth getting but your mistaken the saga on blu-ray is worth getting and hairy_hen episode 4 a new hope does sound great on blu-ray you may think it does not but I do.

Well, that's like, your opinion, man

Eight-year-olds, Dude.

But seriously though, a few months ago you said all if not most errors of the DVD's (including the 'colars', ofcourse.) AND even those found in youtube clips of the Blu-rays(!) would be fixed by Lucasfilm, and you said you 'couldn't wait for all six movies of the awesome saga remastered and fixed for the blu-ray release (with DTS!)', while you complain about us on other forums. September arrived and you seemed to have disappeared from the face of the earth. The reason why you didn't come here to further promote the blu-rays is debatable, but right now you're saying 'yeah, there are still errors...ehm...Star Wars on Blu-ray! Yay!'. Is it just me, or is that a little contradicting yourself?

kenkraly2007 said:

I like the blu-rays if some of you don't that's your opinion. I understand why some fans won't buy it cause of the changes etc and cause of some issues fans have complained about over the years but the bottom line is the blu-rays are worth getting.

'Yeah, i understand why some people don't get them...but still people, get them.'

So far the pro's and cons of the OT blu-rays for me are

Pros: Somewhat better sound, movies are sharper, deleted scenes, some other extras, some fixes.

Cons: Most is left unfixed, pink sabers are even more pink now, more unnecessary stuff added  like the Krayt call and Darth Vader's 'No! NOOO!' (which also brings along more errors, like the disappearing rock), still an odd colortiming, some scenes are way too dark.

I'm sorry, but right now the movies aren't worth getting. Wait for 'fixed' editions (or 'original' editions for that matter) :P

Empire is definitely in my top 3, or even my absolute favourite. Star Wars is great too but is a lot lower in my list, probably because I think Empire is better in almost every way (sets, acting, story, characters, SFX, music, overall impact) and I think there are a lot of movies better (or more enjoyable) than Star Wars imho.

Here's my list, in no particular order:

- The Empire Strikes Back;

- Star Wars;

- Back to the Future (The first one);

- Raiders of the lost Ark;

- The Fellowship of the Ring (EE);

- The Big Lebowski;

- Kick-ass (Yep...I keep coming back to that movie. Consider it a guilty pleasure, if you want to.).

But to be honest, i haven't seen that many movies in my life like most people in this thread, although I keep telling myself to see more (especially the 'classics').

TheHutt said:

I noticed an encoding glitch in SW:

Just before the infamolus "Close the blast doors" sequence, there seems to be some pixelation, as Han and Chewbacca run past the camera.

Yep, i can confirm this. There is definitely some around 1:27:19, and i think i spotted some more during that sequence.

Edit: Whoops, late response.

X-men: First class has now surpassed Star Wars: The complete saga boxset as the best selling blu-ray in America at Amazon.

Proof: http://tinyurl.com/3ebyl2v

I don't think Lucasfilm was expecting this. Seems the negative attention the blu-rays have been getting had some influence. (:

Hello!

Big fan of the Despecialized editions, imho the best looking OT reconstructions out there so far. Normally i don't burn fan-edits, preservations or other projects, but this time i will. These will be my blu-ray editions of Star Wars, even if they are 'just' 720p, contain less-than-perfect GOUT footage and will be burned on a DVD-9 (in my case a DVD-DL). Screw the official ones. Before i'll burn Empire and Jedi (i will wait for Star Wars V1.2), i have a couple of questions:

1. Are these covers designed for 11 mm / 14 / other mm blu-ray cases? I really want to use those covers and buy the correct cases for them :x

2. Do you have plans for an updated Empire or Jedi (for the near future)? Because i will feel kinda pissed if i burned all the AVCHD's and hear 'Alright, V1.2 is available and guess what...Jedi and Empire are getting updates too soon!!' a day after. I want a little certainty, y'know? ;P

Thanks,

Mondess122

Another long time lurker here. Hello.

Lol, they couldn't even get Chad Vader to do the voice? It sounds like a pitched down voice. Wasn't there an article stating that Matthew Wood and possibly some other Lucasfilm employee are now officially in all 6 movies? If so, i wouldn't be surprised if they did the 'NooNoooo!' and the 'painful position Krayt cry'. But that also means there has to be another added voice in Empire. Somebody please check this.

I wasn't planning to buy this immediately to begin with, but now...an absolute never.

I wonder how people who grew up with the 2004SE will react to this.

Can i please have the links for both versions?

Many thanks in advance. This looks very promising.

twooffour said:

Which I couldn't find on Youtube.

Kevin Spacey's impersonation is obviously up there, but I couldn't find the one with Walken. Would it be that one sketch of whatever where Chris is in a stormtrooper suit and sort of winks at the camera?

As I said, haven't seen it, would really love to.

Christopher Walken almost WAS Han Solo...proof: http://ramascreen.com/sly-stallone-and-christopher-walken-almost-played-han-solo-in-star-wars/

Can you imagine the images: Walken talking with Jabba in the SE, Walken with Chewbacca at his side, Walken in carbonite, Walken helping the frickin Ewoks...you get the idea.

And Rambo in the forest of Endor? That would've been amazingly epic and hilarious at the same time.

adywan said:

This will stop the argument about whether it's a galaxy or a forming star....

I know exactly what that is!...wait....maybe not.

Looks awesome though. :]

Errm

Well actually yes, EU, Cheap...but i just wanted to show the idea of it.

...Sorry? :S