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

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

X-Men - Apocalypse (open spoilers, nothing too bad but some spoilers)

This film was a conglomeration of a ton of X-Men films. It had some really good parts like X2 or Days of Future Past. It had some really not so good parts like X3 and Wolverine. At points you had to remind yourself that you just need to accept certain aspects, and especially ignore any and all continuity violations created. Granted, they could claim DoFP was to X-Men universe like Star Trek the reboot was to the Star Trek universe, so it could be possible, but I don't want to give them that much credit, after all... Wolverine. The villain was... well... I don't know, kind of invincible, could create super powerful minions... who could be subdued with lesser powerful mutants. The premise that puts Magneto back in the game seemed just absurdly contrived. From the moment you see him and who he is with, you know instantly what will happen. Sure, they could have put in a swerve, but they didn't. But at points, the film was much better... typically the action sequences.

What is funny, and I remarked while watching it, is how violence isn't as damaging as it used to be or can be completely unpredictable. Sure you have the stars like MacClaine or Bourne who seem to survive all sorts of harrowing physical violence, but when a high school jock is plastered against the bathroom wall which crushed a urinal... it seemed a bit odd for even him to look up... only a bit bemused (not stunned)... meanwhile Mystique punches a henchmen and he is knocked out. Really silly.

Overall, a decent film, better than X3, not as good as X2 or the last film. I thought maybe the film would suffer from having too many characters, which wasn't the problem. The problem was the story was not very true to itself and betrayed the premises it began with or developed in the story. You build up a super villain, with super henchmen... and... well... *sigh*. Might as well have had Eeyore as a sidekick. And can someone explain to me how metal is in sand (which is fucking silica!).

2.5 of 4
 
The Taking of Pelham 123 (1974) 7.5/10

Fairly solid movie where the plot/purpose was not at all told beforehand. The lack of dialogue relating to the plan was awesome. I almost see it as a predecessor to Die Hard on this point.

Lots of visual attention is needed for us in our social media age now.

Gonna look up novelist and screenwriter for other possible good movies.
 
repoman said:
The Taking of Pelham 123 (1974) 7.5/10

Fairly solid movie where the plot/purpose was not at all told beforehand. The lack of dialogue relating to the plan was awesome. I almost see it as a predecessor to Die Hard on this point.

Lots of visual attention is needed for us in our social media age now.

Gonna look up novelist and screenwriter for other possible good movies.
Click to expand...

I really liked that movie.

Do NOT waste any of your life on the modern re-make, it is a total dud.
 
I watched Extraterrestre (7/10) A spanish film which uses the arrival of extraterrestrials as a way to study human behavior.

Inscrutable alien spacecraft arrive at earth, and hover over cities. People panic and evacuate, even though the aliens aren't actually doing anything. As services fail, first data, then power, then water, those who stayed behind in the cities start experiencing the tension one would experience if you no longer had anyone restraining you from doing things, while being faced with an inscrutable threat.
 
I also saw After the Thin Man, in response to the recommendation received here after watching the original.

This one I only give 6/10 and probably won't watch any more sequels. While the performances are as good, we begin to see a decline in the quality of the writing. Not only is the mystery at the heart of the movie a bit more plebian than the first, we see annoying racial stereotypes, and the even more addition of a dog-centric sub-plot. The snappy husband and wife dialogue is as good as ever, but there is less of it.
 
Sarpedon said:
I also saw After the Thin Man, in response to the recommendation received here after watching the original.

This one I only give 6/10 and probably won't watch any more sequels. While the performances are as good, we begin to see a decline in the quality of the writing. Not only is the mystery at the heart of the movie a bit more plebian than the first, we see annoying racial stereotypes, and the even more addition of a dog-centric sub-plot. The snappy husband and wife dialogue is as good as ever, but there is less of it.
Click to expand...

If you're going to watch a movie series from the 1930s you're going to have expect some non-PC things. That shouldn't detract from your enjoyment of a movie, anymore than watching a movie or TV series about ancient medieval life should disturb you because they have slaves or that women don't have equal rights.
 
Of course, I am used to such things. Its just that the movie has to be good to justify it. In this film, one character was both an annoying asian stereotype, and a plot device. That is weak plotting as well as offensive, which is why I mentioned it. The first movie didn't have that, nor did it pad screen time with dog tricks.

I love the Marx Brothers, for example, despite the presence of obnoxious racial stereotypes, mainly because the comedy is so good. I watch movies from the thirties and forties all the time.
 
repoman said:
The Taking of Pelham 123 (1974) 7.5/10

Fairly solid movie where the plot/purpose was not at all told beforehand. The lack of dialogue relating to the plan was awesome. I almost see it as a predecessor to Die Hard on this point.

Lots of visual attention is needed for us in our social media age now.

Gonna look up novelist and screenwriter for other possible good movies.
Click to expand...

He wrote a book called the Snake, about a Black Mamba set loose in NYC. It's a fun read. Not a movie, to my knowledge.
 
Sarpedon said:
Even if I grant you the idea that US imperialism was no different than the european (which I don't: while I would never claim that US motives were altruistic, the methods were clearly quite different, and for the most part involved fostering a friendly local government, rather than outright possessing another territory. Exceptions such as Hawaii exist, but that was clearly a case of it being an essential strategic asset for a Pacific power, who's own government was simply too weak to prop up. If the USA hadn't taken it, someone else would have, the only question being if that would have been the British, Russian, or Japanese Empires.), you cannot deny there was a well of sympathy for China in light of its treatment by the Japanese that was genuine and unfeigned. The presence of racism in the USA does not exclude the idea of sympathy. The Japanese Empire was a threat to our strategic interests, so helping China was beneficial. That doesn't mean that the sympathy wasn't genuine.

I also dispute that the USA in the 19th century was too weak. After the Civil War, the USA was the most powerful nation in the world. Had the people been in favor of imperial projects, we easily could have conquered Mexico and Canada, and anything else in our hemisphere we wanted. France and Britain could have combined their fleets and sent them over, and our monitors would have smashed them. Our armies were bigger than theirs and our means of production greater. We disbanded our armies and scrapped our navy because we were not interested in further war and conquest. It is true that thirty years later, that appetite was whetted again, ready for the war with Spain, but the idea that we couldn't have built an empire in the 19th Century is entirely fatuous.
Click to expand...

I agree at the end of the Civil War, we were a world power, but we had a lot of stuff to do nearer to home. Like "conquer" the West and rebuild the South.

Regarding China, there was a substantial American mission movement in China which worked to keep the plight of the Chinese in view.

Was it you who read the Tuchman book on Stilwell? I forget...anyway, good read.
 
No it wasn't. I've read several books on the subject, but not that one.

Movie Thread!
 
Actually a TV show, but shown at cinemas.

Doctor Who Power of the Daleks.

Six episodes deleted by the BBC now animated into about 2.5 hours of a movie. It's based on a story from the 60s and feel like it. The animation is basic and stilted, but you can get used to it. A transitional period for the show, so the character of the Doctor isn't there, but the main scientist is great. 5.5/10
 
Horatio Parker said:
Sarpedon said:
No it wasn't. I've read several books on the subject, but not that one.

Movie Thread!
Click to expand...

Uh....would make a good movie?
Click to expand...

Gettysburg was a great movie. Gods and Generals, (ie Gettysburg 2) was also good, but not as good.

Speaking of which, any good tips for good American Civil War movies? Gone with the Wind and Glory are given. But then what?
 
DrZoidberg said:
Horatio Parker said:
Uh....would make a good movie?
Click to expand...

Gettysburg was a great movie. Gods and Generals, (ie Gettysburg 2) was also good, but not as good.

Speaking of which, any good tips for good American Civil War movies? Gone with the Wind and Glory are given. But then what?
Click to expand...
Andersonville was pretty good for a 'made for tv' movie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I didn't think Gettysburg was a great movie, and when people said 'Gods and Generals' wasn't as good, I didn't bother.

The trouble with Civil War movies is that people are so concerned with balanced interpretations that they make the films ponderous and overwrought. Gettysburg had the atmosphere of a bunch of dudes trying to endure serious constipation while performing community theater with a raccoon clinging to their chins. It showed the events just fine, and I commend it for that. But the excitement isn't there. Its better history than filmmaking.

Glory was good because it had a clear right and wrong side, plenty of character development, and wasn't afraid to be exciting.

There was a crappy made for tv movie adaptation of the story of the CSS Hunley, the first submarine to sink an enemy vessel. DO NOT recommend. It had Donald Sutherland as General Beauregard, but that was the only good thing about it.

That is also the only one I know of that shows the naval side of the Civil War. Why? I think the Battle of Mobile Bay would make an awesome movie. Admiral Farragut was a veritable old man action hero which is so in fashion these days. "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" is just his most famous line one out of many. Or the Monitor vs the Virginia.

Or the battle of Chickamugga, with Ron Pearlman as General Thomas. And why the hell isn't there a movie about the Vicksburg campaign?

I think americans are kind of hesitant to make these kinds of movies.
 
Point of order: should we discuss made for TV movies in this thread or the TV one? It seems that there's a wealth of TV movies and documentaries on the Civil War, but few feature films.
 
Sarpedon said:
Point of order: should we discuss made for TV movies in this thread or the TV one? It seems that there's a wealth of TV movies and documentaries on the Civil War, but few feature films.
Click to expand...

But they're nearly all shit. I've seen a few. They're all just about how valiantly these brave souls blah blah blah gave their lives for freedom blah blah carpetbaggers. It's like everybody is a victim. I haven't seen a single one that attempts to explain the hard stuff. They all take the easy route, ie explore patriotism.
 
Then we are in agreement on that point. I really think that Glory is the only good Civil War movie, because it is the only one that has the guts to take a side and show some of the issues.

Of course, there are lots of older Civil War movies. I've seen a few, of the same era as Gone With the Wind, but not with the same longevity. Mostly pro southern with the real issues glossed over. I tend not to enjoy the ones that take the South side, because that means glossing over the issues.
 
DrZoidberg said:
Sarpedon said:
Point of order: should we discuss made for TV movies in this thread or the TV one? It seems that there's a wealth of TV movies and documentaries on the Civil War, but few feature films.
Click to expand...

But they're nearly all shit. I've seen a few. They're all just about how valiantly these brave souls blah blah blah gave their lives for freedom blah blah carpetbaggers. It's like everybody is a victim. I haven't seen a single one that attempts to explain the hard stuff. They all take the easy route, ie explore patriotism.
Click to expand...
Andersonville is an exception while the Confederates are bad guys, the worst of the bad guys were actually Union prisoners who were taking advantage of weaker Union prisoners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom