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

[DrZoidberg]

In response to both of the above, it all depends on how you view time travel, which of course has no real world basis on which to pin any take. I look at it as the act of travelling in time creates a new reality, or another dimension, and if you have this view then the movies are consistent. Take the original Terminator movie for example. Before John Conner sent Kyle Reese back in time to save his mother, John Conner was born, and existed in their timeline. He couldn't have been conceived by Kyle Reese originally, as Kyle did not exist at that time in the original timeline from which John Conner was born. So, the John Conner from second movie could not have been the same John Conner as in the first movie, they had to have had different fathers. Terminators travelling even further back into Sarah Conner's past spin off another timeline, and each act of time travel does the same.

I enjoyed the movie thoroughly, and I disagree that the acting was bad in any way. It seemed to me that Sarah and Kyle both had very realistic reactions to how they were expected to hook up and create a progeny. There was only one place at the very end that seems contrived in that regard, and that is the fault of the script, and the screenwriter's need to produce an 'everything is perfect' ending, and not the fault of the actors.

But it's the circular and paradoxial nature of time travel which was the point of the first two movies - both of which were in the same timeline. The John Connor from T2 is the same John Connor talked about in T1 since Sarah didn't have a son who fought the machines in a future without the machines. The reason that there was Judgement Day was because of the advances in robotics Cyberdine was able to make due to studying the chip of the original Terminator. If Skynet hadn't sent it back in time, it wouldn't have been created, the same way that John wouldn't have existed to send Reese back in time if he hadn't sent Reese back in time. It's only after they destroyed Cyberdine Systems at the end of T2 that a new timeline was created.

It's trying to write stories about that and plugging these new timelines into the original concept where the notion fell apart and that's why the three movies after T2 were absolute garbage (also because of the lack of involvement of James Cameron who is apparently the only person who can do a Terminator movie well). It's true that we have no real world bases to pin any take of the concept on, but that doesn't stop us from being able to say "This take was lame and stupid". As an example, the T5 one was sent back in time to protect Sarah Connor. The only reason for that was so that she would live long enough to give birth to John Connor. When it activated the time machine and sent Sarah and Reese into the future with no saviour baby being made, it failed its mission. Since the entire premise of all the Terminator movies was "keep John Connor alive so he can go on to lead the fight against the machines", a plotline which involves the good guys ensuring that he's never born completely eliminates the rationale for everything that's ever been done in the series.

I agree with you that the problems with Sarah and Reese were script problems and not actor problems, since both of them have been excellent in other things and they just had absolutely nothing to work with. The reason that they were horrible doesn't change the fact that they were horrible.

The problem with time travel is:
time travel = anything goes

The audience needs to be fooled into thinking there´s some sort of rules or constraints. But once that lid is off time-travel movies usually become boring. Because it´s unclear what to hope for. Time-travel is hard to pull off. The thing that Terminator does right is that it starts off with a preposterous premise. It´s basically saying to the audience, right from the start, to turn off their brains because it´ll be of no use to them. It´s a thrill ride and a romp. It´s not really about time travel. It´s about things exploding and looking at a naked muscular dude... oh... and a killer robot on a rampage. Terminator 2 was just more of it... and CGI. The terminator films have always been RETARDED.

Terminator isn´t hard sci-fi about time travel. Not even almost. There´s no clever thought experiment here. Ergo... they´re not really about time travel.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The problem with time travel is:
time travel = anything goes

The audience needs to be fooled into thinking there´s some sort of rules or constraints. But once that lid is off time-travel movies usually become boring. Because it´s unclear what to hope for. Time-travel is hard to pull off. The thing that Terminator does right is that it starts off with a preposterous premise. It´s basically saying to the audience, right from the start, to turn off their brains because it´ll be of no use to them. It´s a thrill ride and a romp. It´s not really about time travel. It´s about things exploding and looking at a naked muscular dude... oh... and a killer robot on a rampage. Terminator 2 was just more of it... and CGI. The terminator films have always been RETARDED.

Terminator isn´t hard sci-fi about time travel. Not even almost. There´s no clever thought experiment here. Ergo... they´re not really about time travel.

"Anything goes" does not mean "Therefore nothing is stupider or lamer than anything else". Even though the first two movies had the same preposterous and paradoxical premise, they handled the matter well. The latter ones did not. This one was the most retarded out of the bunch. If the Terminator movies were GOP Presidential candidates, T5 would be Donald Trump. T1 and T2 had well-crafted storylines to go along with the action, even though the premises behind the storylines were kind of ridiculous. T5 tried to distract from the lack of a story with action scenes but didn't pull it off. It wasn't a thrill ride, it was a mess.

The core concept of the Terminator movies was that John Connor must be born and protected or else the machines win. No matter how ridiculous that might be, that's what the franchise is about. Even if it's no more than a CGI romp, that's what the CGI romp is about - it's not just random romping.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Gods and Generals (2003) 5/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0279111/

Prequel to the 1994 film Gettysburg. This time it´s about Stonewall Jackson. If you´re not a huge history nerd, stay away. This is not a well made movie. Everybody is a stereotype. Paper thin boring characters. Stonewall Jackson actually IS Jesus. There´s just so much self sacrifice and teary eyed prayer and man can take. There´s zero attempt to accurately portray the period or their behaviours. The way it handles the slavery debate is boring. They make sure to cover every base in order for nobody to be offended. But while doing so they turn all the Southerners into saints. The first film, Gettysburg, I loved. They had interesting things to say about slavery. Granted that in this film they were in deeper waters since they were now making a film about the pro-slave side. But this way of doing it made it boring. It´s not believable that everybody on both sides had the deepest respect for black people.

The dialogue was tedious and annoying. Everybody talked like they were holding a speech before an auditorium and they had a staff of clever speech writers at the ready. It had a comedic effect. When lowly privates hold lengthy memorized quotes from Cicero in their minds and deliver pitch perfect in the heat of battle.... pure comedy.

The sets are gorgeous. The photo is great. The clothes, and props are amazing. All the positive marks I gave are for those bits. As far as I can tell the troop movements in the film were accurate, as well as the behaviour of all the generals in battle, ie not the dialogue.

I think this film should be seen as an American propaganda piece. This isn´t an attempt to portray an historic era. This is "history". It´s like history, but better.

 

[James Brown]

The problem with time travel is:
time travel = anything goes

The audience needs to be fooled into thinking there´s some sort of rules or constraints. But once that lid is off time-travel movies usually become boring. Because it´s unclear what to hope for. Time-travel is hard to pull off. The thing that Terminator does right is that it starts off with a preposterous premise. It´s basically saying to the audience, right from the start, to turn off their brains because it´ll be of no use to them. It´s a thrill ride and a romp. It´s not really about time travel. It´s about things exploding and looking at a naked muscular dude... oh... and a killer robot on a rampage. Terminator 2 was just more of it... and CGI. The terminator films have always been RETARDED.

Terminator isn´t hard sci-fi about time travel. Not even almost. There´s no clever thought experiment here. Ergo... they´re not really about time travel.

"Anything goes" does not mean "Therefore nothing is stupider or lamer than anything else". Even though the first two movies had the same preposterous and paradoxical premise, they handled the matter well. The latter ones did not. This one was the most retarded out of the bunch. If the Terminator movies were GOP Presidential candidates, T5 would be Donald Trump. T1 and T2 had well-crafted storylines to go along with the action, even though the premises behind the storylines were kind of ridiculous. T5 tried to distract from the lack of a story with action scenes but didn't pull it off. It wasn't a thrill ride, it was a mess.

The core concept of the Terminator movies was that John Connor must be born and protected or else the machines win. No matter how ridiculous that might be, that's what the franchise is about. Even if it's no more than a CGI romp, that's what the CGI romp is about - it's not just random romping.

I have to agree. I saw it Friday, and I could not summarize the overall plot to save my life. It had entire scenes that made no sense to me. How come this monstrous tech company, bigger than Google, Apple, and Facebook combined, on the night of their massive product rollout, had absolutely no employees in their home office beyond one security guard at the front desk? What year was it , after the good guys saved the day, when Kyle Reese, with a knowing smile, had to tell his younger self to not forget that one day the world will come to an end?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The core concept of the Terminator movies was that John Connor must be born and protected or else the machines win. No matter how ridiculous that might be, that's what the franchise is about. Even if it's no more than a CGI romp, that's what the CGI romp is about - it's not just random romping.

That is the crucial point. Not being very realistic isn't the crime (it can't be for an action film). And that isn't even close to what is being complained about.

The problem is you typically need to draw inside the lines of the universe you have developed. The first two films drew inside the lines. The remaining films decided to try and explain why the lines didn't matter anymore.

 

[Jayjay]

The core concept of the Terminator movies was that John Connor must be born and protected or else the machines win. No matter how ridiculous that might be, that's what the franchise is about. Even if it's no more than a CGI romp, that's what the CGI romp is about - it's not just random romping.

That is the crucial point. Not being very realistic isn't the crime (it can't be for an action film). And that isn't even close to what is being complained about.

The problem is you typically need to draw inside the lines of the universe you have developed. The first two films drew inside the lines. The remaining films decided to try and explain why the lines didn't matter anymore.

T2 drew outside the lines of T1. In T1, the basic idea was that you can't change your fate. And then in the sequel they changed it anyway. We are just more forgiving towards it because it made dramatic sense and T1 & T2 were far better movies than T3-5.

 

[KeepTalking]

The problem with time travel is:
time travel = anything goes

The audience needs to be fooled into thinking there´s some sort of rules or constraints. But once that lid is off time-travel movies usually become boring. Because it´s unclear what to hope for. Time-travel is hard to pull off. The thing that Terminator does right is that it starts off with a preposterous premise. It´s basically saying to the audience, right from the start, to turn off their brains because it´ll be of no use to them. It´s a thrill ride and a romp. It´s not really about time travel. It´s about things exploding and looking at a naked muscular dude... oh... and a killer robot on a rampage. Terminator 2 was just more of it... and CGI. The terminator films have always been RETARDED.

Terminator isn´t hard sci-fi about time travel. Not even almost. There´s no clever thought experiment here. Ergo... they´re not really about time travel.

"Anything goes" does not mean "Therefore nothing is stupider or lamer than anything else". Even though the first two movies had the same preposterous and paradoxical premise, they handled the matter well. The latter ones did not. This one was the most retarded out of the bunch. If the Terminator movies were GOP Presidential candidates, T5 would be Donald Trump. T1 and T2 had well-crafted storylines to go along with the action, even though the premises behind the storylines were kind of ridiculous. T5 tried to distract from the lack of a story with action scenes but didn't pull it off. It wasn't a thrill ride, it was a mess.

The core concept of the Terminator movies was that John Connor must be born and protected or else the machines win. No matter how ridiculous that might be, that's what the franchise is about. Even if it's no more than a CGI romp, that's what the CGI romp is about - it's not just random romping.

The core concept is preserved. John Connor is still born, the timeline is just pushed back because Sarah and Kyle don't get together until much later.

Show

That is why John Connor can't kill his mother at the end, otherwise he can't be born, turned into a Terminator, and sent back to create Genisys. The original Terminator was not destroyed in the same fashion, and was instead melted down by acid, so Cyberdyne never got the tech to make Skynet, but John Connor was turned into the new phased metal Terminator, and sent himself back in time to create Genisys, which is the new Skynet. It's the exact same concept, but the timeline is moved back. Now Kyle Reese would be older than John Connor, instead of the other way around, but they can still fight Genisys together. And it is all preserved at the end as well, in the after credits sequence it is revealed that Genisys was not destroyed after all.

In response to Jimmy's post about the Sarah and Kyle relationship, it is only the part at the very end that felt contrived. Sarah is resisting the relationship because she thinks she's been pushed into it her whole life, but at the end she finally feels like she is free to make a choice, so what does she do? She chooses to have a relationship with Kyle, of course. Up until that point, their respective reactions to the expected relationship feel very realistic to me. But it is contrived just to preserve that core concept that you claim was not present.

ETA: I do agree with your point about Genisys having no staff other than a single security guard on the night before their big release, but that is only in hindsight now that you mention it. I didn't notice it at the time, as I was caught up in the action. And who knows, there were like five buildings in the complex that were destroyed, maybe one of those was staffed to the gills with programmers who all got snuffed out in the ensuing climax.

 

[prideandfall]

Nightcrawler: 4/10

decent story about a slightly strange guy who has trouble holding, a job who stumbles into the profession of chasing after crime and accident scenes to film them, in order to sell the footage to local news outlets.
i think perhaps i'm just the wrong person to have seen this, because i heard so much hype about how warped and twisted this movie was and how psychotic and slimy the main character is, and then i saw it and the character struck me as simply not drowning in the bullshit of the social facade and who spoke his mind without being a minging pussy about it.
i kind of feel like 99% of this film is supposed to be viewer shock at how immoral and awful this person is, and if you didn't find the character awful or immoral the whole movie just felt a bit flat and pointless.

 

[Daioh]

Justice League: Throne Of Atlantis
4/10
One of the latest animated features from the DC universe
Starting off the voice acting is all fine, none are outstanding but equally none of them are out of place
The animation is a bit disappointing, it looks nothing like the DVD cover which seems to promise one type of animation but delivers a completely different kind. and while the animation quality is not bad, it is also not particularly great
The biggest problem lies with the script as most of the characters are either just plain bland because they have no screen time or bland just because despite their screen time they are given no development
And the villains plans are just half baked and ultimately fizzle out into nothing
Overall I found this movie to be mostly disappointing
Not bad
But I wouldn't really bother with it again

 

[TSwizzle]

The Big Hit, 5/10: A Mark Wahlberg action/comedy. Wahlberg is part of a professional killers network and gets roped into helping out on a freelance kidnapping caper. Hilarity ensues when the target of their kidnapping is the god daughter of their vicious boss. It's all very silly and I'm not sure how I was able to stick it through to the end.

 

[MarkW]

The Big Hit, 5/10: A Mark Wahlberg action/comedy. Wahlberg is part of a professional killers network and gets roped into helping out on a freelance kidnapping caper. Hilarity ensues when the target of their kidnapping is the god daughter of their vicious boss. It's all very silly and I'm not sure how I was able to stick it through to the end.

I'd give this one a similar rating, having watched it some time back. There was just enough in the way of redeeming elements to keep me watching, but the story is way too complicated and the action too over the top.

For me, a very different movie tonight:

Lawrence of Arabia

10/10

While quite a bit of license was taken with history here, and today it's a bit disconcerting to see two of the three main Arab roles taken by an Englishman (Alec Guinness) and a Mexican-American (Anthony Quinn). But as cinema it's classic--David Lean created one of the most memorable epics in film history, Maurice Jarre's score is of equal stature, and Peter O'Toole triumphed in his first big role as the charismatic T. E. Lawrence.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

For me, a very different movie tonight:

Lawrence of Arabia

10/10

While quite a bit of license was taken with history here, and today it's a bit disconcerting to see two of the three main Arab roles taken by an Englishman (Alec Guinness) and a Mexican-American (Anthony Quinn). But as cinema it's classic--David Lean created one of the most memorable epics in film history, Maurice Jarre's score is of equal stature, and Peter O'Toole triumphed in his first big role as the charismatic T. E. Lawrence.

Interesting timing, with Omar Sharif passing away today. One of my favorite films.

 

[Jayjay]

Kingsman: The Secret Service
5/10

I had high hopes for this, having read the comic book and because it was directed by the guy who did Kick-Ass (also based on a comic book by Mark Millar) and X-Men: First Class. But somehow, it turned out a bit underwhelming. It's about a secret group of british jamesbondesque agents who save the world with spy gadgets and politeness, investigating a ploy of apocalyptic proportions by an accentric millionaire played by Samuel L Jackson (and he does a jolly good job at it, being as anti-bond as he can be). Also Colin Firth as Galahad is great, but his protege Eggsy played by Taron Egerton doesn't really pull off the suit. Bonus points for Michael Caine's supporting role as Arthur, especially...

Show

Him reverting to a cockney accent for his last words.

The closest comparison point I can think of is Vin Diesel's xXx from a few years back, so if you thought that was fun, I suggest checking this one out as well, just don't expect it to blow your mind.

 

[Cerberus]

For me, a very different movie tonight:

Lawrence of Arabia

10/10

While quite a bit of license was taken with history here, and today it's a bit disconcerting to see two of the three main Arab roles taken by an Englishman (Alec Guinness) and a Mexican-American (Anthony Quinn). But as cinema it's classic--David Lean created one of the most memorable epics in film history, Maurice Jarre's score is of equal stature, and Peter O'Toole triumphed in his first big role as the charismatic T. E. Lawrence.

Interesting timing, with Omar Sharif passing away today. One of my favorite films.

One of mine too. That scene of 'Omar Sharif' approaching the well through the heat haze was an unforgettable - and certainly suspenseful - cinematographic moment.

 

[Cerberus]

Sleeper - The plot involves the adventures of the owner (played by Woody Allen) of a health food store who is cryogenically frozen in 1973 and defrosted 200 years later in an ineptly-led police state. The film contains many elements which parody notable works of science fiction. (Wiki).

After he's been thawed out Diane Keaton asks 'When did you last have sex?' to which he replies 'Two hundred years ago - two hundred and four if you count my marriage.' What a classic line!

 

[credoconsolans]

Sleeper - The plot involves the adventures of the owner (played by Woody Allen) of a health food store who is cryogenically frozen in 1973 and defrosted 200 years later in an ineptly-led police state. The film contains many elements which parody notable works of science fiction. (Wiki).

After he's been thawed out Diane Keaton asks 'When did you last have sex?' to which he replies 'Two hundred years ago - two hundred and four if you count my marriage.' What a classic line!

My favorite classic line from that movie:

Diane Keaton: I have a PhD in Sex
Woody Allen: Do they make you take Spanish with that?

 

[Draconis]

Terminator Genisys 8/10 - I have to admit to being partial to Terminator movies: This isn't as good as T2 but better than T3 (and easily beats T4). The wife and I didn't find it remotely overcomplicated, nor could understand the panning it's received by critics. Lots of action... but some of the dialogue is a bit, urgh, but Emilia Clarke does very well. Perhaps the biggest problem for me is the overuse of humour - all that smiling! I always thought a Terminator movie had to be somewhat more serious than this (we're talking about the fate of 3 billion people here!) Great twist in the middle though. Who would have thought the hero could become the villain? Erm...

Interesting that the Terminator got an upgrade at the end - perhaps opening the door to another actor taking over?

 

[Ford]

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 5/10

It was just...okay. The "reboot" movie which preceded it was much, much better.

In this one, the apes are even more impressively done. They're even more startlingly realistic, more nuanced, and are each fascinating characters in their own right. Andy Serkis as Caesar is brilliant as always.

The human characters, on the other hand, are one dimensional. Even boring. I mean Gary Oldman is a terrific actor, but even he can't make his character interesting.

The other thing that was odd was the way the apes switched language. I don't think it is a spoiler to say that by this movie some of them have developed a limited human vocabulary, but they start out by communicating in their own sign language (with subtitles for our benefit). And of course they speak human while interacting with humans. But they also then switch from ape to human amongst themselves, and for no apparent reason.

The ending was good, though.

Show

The look of resignation on Caesar's face as he prepares to lead them in war is heartbreaking.

 

[Jayjay]

The other thing that was odd was the way the apes switched language. I don't think it is a spoiler to say that by this movie some of them have developed a limited human vocabulary, but they start out by communicating in their own sign language (with subtitles for our benefit). And of course they speak human while interacting with humans. But they also then switch from ape to human amongst themselves, and for no apparent reason. [/HIDE]

I haven't seen the DotPotA yet, but usually when this happens in movies I imagine it is "translated" for benefit of the audience by the documentarians who filmed it...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting timing, with Omar Sharif passing away today. One of my favorite films.

One of mine too. That scene of 'Omar Sharif' approaching the well through the heat haze was an unforgettable - and certainly suspenseful - cinematographic moment.

And to get a great feel for Lawrence of Arabia, you can watch Star Wars, where John Williams lifts a lot of the material.