• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Which movie did you watch today and how would you rate it?

Ex Machina

Cerebral science fiction, told in a slow, thoughtful pace. A software coder for a Googe-like company wins a week's vacation at the CEO's isolated mountain resort, where he meets the CEO--one of those young, absurdly rich, tech geniuses. The CEO claims to have developed true AI--in the form of a young female humanoid--and the coder is challenged to assess her intelligence. In other words, does she pass the Turing Test?

But after a few days, it becomes clear that the real question is,

who is testing whom?



Filmed in a stark, minimalist setting, the movie explores ideas of intelligence, sensuality, attraction, friendship, and of course, what will happen when computers become smarter than us? The movie's imagery was by turns beautiful and disturbing. This movie will appeal to those who science fiction tastes run more toward Kubrick than Abrams.
 
Ex Machina

Cerebral science fiction, told in a slow, thoughtful pace. A software coder for a Googe-like company wins a week's vacation at the CEO's isolated mountain resort, where he meets the CEO--one of those young, absurdly rich, tech geniuses. The CEO claims to have developed true AI--in the form of a young female humanoid--and the coder is challenged to assess her intelligence. In other words, does she pass the Turing Test?

But after a few days, it becomes clear that the real question is,

who is testing whom?



Filmed in a stark, minimalist setting, the movie explores ideas of intelligence, sensuality, attraction, friendship, and of course, what will happen when computers become smarter than us? The movie's imagery was by turns beautiful and disturbing. This movie will appeal to those who science fiction tastes run more toward Kubrick than Abrams.

So they made the AI a woman so as to explore sensuality and attraction and not say...a guy.
 
The idea of constructing an ideal woman is a common adolescent male fantasy. Between this and superhero movies, adolescent male fantasies rule the box office.
 
The Iceman, 7/10: Starring Michael Shannon as serial killer/hitman for hire Richie Kuklinski. I watched this movie because I had seen the HBO special interview some years ago. The movie is interesting but it is quite pedestrian as times and doesn't quite project Kuklinki's menace. The cast is pretty good and the acting is good. Kuklinksi claims that he had killed more than 200 people. I find this hard to believe.
 
Marsipulami 2/10

I love Franquin comics. So I only saw this out of some sort of loyalty to the author. It´s about Spirou´s pet Marsipulami before he met Spirou. In the film Marsipulami is worshipped like a god by a tribe in the jungle and as a reward gives his followers eternal life. The secret everybody tries to get their hands on. It´s such a dumb story and has zero connection to the comics in any way. As so common in French films aimed at children it´s horrendously racist and sexist.

There is one scene which is genuinely funny. A reporter and his guide have been dug down into sand and await being eaten by ants, when a Chihuahua comes and fucks the guides brains out as only a dog can do. That was very well done and a laugh out loud moment. The rest of the film was total shit.

Most of the film´s humour is of the type, "oh look at that big and strong man who also has a squeaky and high pitched voice". I don´t think they failed with it. I think the film is exactly the way they wanted it to be. It´s just not my type of humour. I mostly just found it disturbing and in bad taste.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1723642/
 
The idea of constructing an ideal woman is a common adolescent male fantasy. Between this and superhero movies, adolescent male fantasies rule the box office.
if either you or credoconsolans seriously think that a reclusive rich 20 or 30-something computer tech genius male creating an AI with synthetic android-esque body wouldn't make it a female, you two have some SERIOUS issues with a disconnection from reality.
 
The last movie I saw in the theater was "NightCrawler" with Jake Gyllenhall.

I loved it. Thought it was the best movie of the year. and should have won the Oscar for Film AND Best Actor.

"Birdman" was OK. A bit weird; not sure I got it. I might have to see it again. Keaton was great, though.
 
The Perfect Host: 6/10 (relative to its genre, i'd say maybe a 4/10 relative to Film as a whole)

fairly boiler-plate little genre fare of the "criminal on the run enters a house as hide-out and gets more than he bargained for" variety - the destination is pretty obvious, though the journey is fairly amusing.
was fun to see David Hyde Pierce playing very much not to type, he makes for a fun little psycho here, and the ending wasn't quite the eye-rolling cliche i was expecting (though it was still an eye-rolling cliche, just the less obvious one).

overall, it was a fairly entertaining movie to watch at 3am in the throes of insomnia, so that's something.
 
The idea of constructing an ideal woman is a common adolescent male fantasy. Between this and superhero movies, adolescent male fantasies rule the box office.
if either you or credoconsolans seriously think that a reclusive rich 20 or 30-something computer tech genius male creating an AI with synthetic android-esque body wouldn't make it a female, you two have some SERIOUS issues with a disconnection from reality.

It's a male adolescent fantasy.

The idea that someone will become a fabulously wealthy reclusive tech genius who not only comes up with the idea but does all the manufacturing himself and thus invents the digital version of a blow-up mannequin - alone, so the decision is his alone to make a female. Because as a recluse, he doesn't have time for REAL women because like adolescents he can barely talk to a real female without wetting himself.
 
Avengers: Age of Ultron
8/10
This movie is another success for Marvel
But maybe not as big a success as the first Avengers movie
It isn't quite as strong in it's actions, it isn't quite as funny and Ultron isn't quite as compelling as Loki
But overall it is still a very entertaining and well put together action movie
Also helping are good performances from Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson in their new roles and James Spader does well with what he is given for Ultron
 
Two movies that might be considered "stylish".

Drive (2011) - I was expecting something different. Quiet good-guy (with a few bad boy habits) meets quiet good girl with ex-convict husband. I thought the husband was going to be the one to worry about.

I enjoyed it and would watch it again in a couple years. 7.5/10


A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night (2014)

A drug addict. A dealer/pimp. A prostitute. A big pile of dead bodies. Lots of lonely and desperate people. Western pop culture. And a skate-boarding female vampire. Set in a run down industrial setting.

I liked the visual aspects. Good black-and-white cinematography. The acting was ok. The story was - I'm not sure.

I thought there might be a message or commentary on Iranian society but I couldn't tell you what it was.

But I enjoyed it from start to finish.

7.5/10
 
Mortdecai 1/10 (2015)

Somebody who isn´t Wes Anderson tries to make a Wes Anderson movie and fails. The story is stupid and incoherent. A crooked art dealer is hired to find a painting for the MI5 because... no clue. Nothing makes any sense. Acting is atrocious. Constant over acting. I didn´t laugh once the entire movie. Not even a chuckle.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3045616/
 
Tropic Thunder - 7/10

Far from the greatest comedy I've ever seen, but it was fun and funny from start to finish.
 
Interstellar 8/10

Not bad sci-fi. Not bad at all. Somebody actually made an effort. But a bit much talking. They could have explained a lot less. Either you care and you already know the science or you don´t in which case you don´t want to hear it. Some of the science was incorrect. That annoys me. I don´t mind them doing unscientific things in sci-fi. But if you do, don´t try to explain it as if it really works. But most of the science was spot on. My hat off to that. Also... don´t care why the Earth is dying. Just establish that it is and get on with the movie. The plethora of environmentalist lectures was boring. Again... either you know the science in which case you don´t need to hear it... or you don´t care.

But 2001 ruined everything for everyone by being the gold standard. Interstellar would have benefited greatly from less talking and having silent moments where they just show it. It took me about five minutes in to work out how Interstellar ends, and I was correct in every detail. I think the ending for Interstellar is better than 2001, but they could have had more fun with it, milked it more. I just love the visualisation they did for the quantum tunnelling effect. That was seriously cool and pretty. The nods and winks to 2001 is all over Interstellar. They even brought in John Lithgow (from 2010) which was a nice touch. I didn´t think Matthew McConaughey was the best choice for the main character. But that was a pretty mild critique. He felt too much of a cowboy, and not enough of a nerdy scientist... which he was supposed to portray.

I still gave it a high rating, because it is very well made. I loved the visits to the earlier wormhole expeditions. The story was believable. Matt Damon´s character was amazing. One of his best roles IMHO.
 
The Avengers 2 (short story) - A very enjoyable ride. If you like the first, you'll like the second. Extremely competent film seeing it is based on comic books. I don't really see how it could get any better for its genre. 4 of 4

The Avengers 2 (long story with potential spoilers) -

Let me start by saying I know no comic book cannon, so I won't even try to go there.

The problem with media is the Buddhist understanding of impermanence. You are always changing and your experiences change you. We have already seen The Avengers, so now we are stuck with that bar of expectations. How to keep something old new, something already done undone and exciting. Sequels are extremely hard to pull off because you need to be new enough to warrant the experience, but familiar enough that people can just sit themselves back into it. No longer an origins film, we are watching an established set of heroes fighting together post The Winter Soldier due to the consequences unveiled in that film. How does it pan out? I think the feel of this is Avengers II to Avengers as is Captain America Winter Soldier to Captain America. It is a more "mature" movie. Some people may like it more than others.

Whedon manages extremely well. He knows the material, he is great at crafting stories, and unlike many action movie people, he is good at establishing characters. This film does this well, relatively early on. It is a crucial part to films like these. The key to super hero films is to realize that the viewer knows it'll be alright in the end, it is how to get to that point and for the viewers to care about the characters on the screen. Honestly, it is why Chris Evans is empathetical in Avengers rather than Fantastic Four. The party, which appeared unnecessary is being used to establish a couple major plot points to be used later on. I personally find that as effective film making, where the exposition isn't being told to you, but being shown. I'd also say, the pacing of the film was remarkable. I kind of kept waiting for the movie to end because some much stuff just continued to happen. I felt I got my money's worth about half way into the film.

One of my complaints about the film is the humor. It seemed to go all over the place from Whedon-esque brilliance to flat out campy comic book humor. There also seemed to be a little too much attempt at humor. Sometimes I felt like I was watching Star Trek seeing the jokes coming a mile away, and then sometimes the Whedon genius would pop up and hit you laughing. The early humor seemed too forced, but as the film moved on, it seemed more natural to the film. Ultron's humor bothered me a little, but I was able to write it off as he was created by Stark, so that could be expected.

The greatest thing about the film is it doesn't break the First Law of Science in Film. If you are going to butt fuck science, don't try to use science to justify it. He doesn't try to use science, and in general, it holds onto the largely forgiving realm of comic book plausibility. The one implausible thing I have is Black Widow. So there are a billion robots about to attack the Avengers. Everyone has a super power or a notable weapon, except her, seems like a liability.

The ending, really good. Looking forward to what is being foreshadowed ahead. Of course with Hulk and Black Widow... anyone that knows Whedon, those in relationships are typically doomed. There is little gain for Whedon for characters to be happy, when their misery can be exploited. Sad to see Whedon leaving, but I can't imagine how much effort he needed to put into the whole production. I hope he'll be around still to bounce stuff of him. I don't want the next Avengers to suffer the fate of X-Men III, from the looks of the potential replacement, we may be safe from that.

 
Elysium, 2/10: starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster. Syfy movie that explores social inequality in the future. I fell asleep for a bit it as it was so predictable. Not sure why it got good reviews because it was pretty poor. Jodie Foster was awful.
 
Riddick.

Looks like everyone's watching science fiction today!


Anyway, this was the third in the very loose Riddick trilogy, the other two being "Pitch Black" and "The Chronicles of Riddick." First movie was a straight up "stuck on scary planet with scary monsters" show, while the second was...I don't even know where to begin. For some reason I can't quite pin down, I enjoyed Chronicles of Riddick. It was a glorious mess of a movie about a militaristic race of humanoids taking over the galaxy one planet at time, and the only thing standing against them is Vin Diesel's character, Riddick.


This one returns the title character to where he was at the beginning of the series. A convict with a bounty on his head. He's been stranded on a planet just as scary as the first one, and as in the first act of the second movie (yeah, it is complicated) mercenaries come looking for the reward. There's a twist, and the last act is a dreary, rain-soaked battle against CG monsters, but at the end of the movie? I was entertained. I'd like to see more of the universe Riddick inhabits.

6.5/10
 
I didn´t think Matthew McConaughey was the best choice for the main character. But that was a pretty mild critique. He felt too much of a cowboy, and not enough of a nerdy scientist... which he was supposed to portray.

I did not get the sense that he was supposed to portray a nerdy scientist. He was a test pilot.
 
I didn´t think Matthew McConaughey was the best choice for the main character. But that was a pretty mild critique. He felt too much of a cowboy, and not enough of a nerdy scientist... which he was supposed to portray.

I did not get the sense that he was supposed to portray a nerdy scientist. He was a test pilot.

Which wouldn´t be believable for a modern astronaut.
 
I did not get the sense that he was supposed to portray a nerdy scientist. He was a test pilot.

Which wouldn´t be believable for a modern astronaut.

Really? You think that NASA would be using nerdy scientists to pilot their spacecrafts? I don't know what you mean by "modern", but Space Shuttle pilots, even up to the end of the program, were military pilots. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_crews and click on the names of the pilots. I only clicked on about five of the most recent ones and they were all former military pilots or test pilots.
 
Back
Top Bottom