I would go even further and say horror movies have been replace with gore, for the same reason you stated above.
-
Features
Which movie did you watch today and how would you rate it?
- Thread starter C_Mucius_Scaevola
- Start date
I would go even further and say horror movies have been replace with gore, for the same reason you stated above.
Opoponax
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,384
- Location
- California Central Coast
- Basic Beliefs
- Apathetic Atheist
Siege of Jadotville
It's a Netflix movie, but not a series, so I'll just put it here.
Generally, it's about a group of Irish soldiers who, under the auspices of the UN, have to fight for their lives in 1961 Congo. For the background details surrounding the conflict (but it will spoil the ending if you look at the wiki page, so...) :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jadotville
As for the movie itself, it ventured into being really good at times, but just as often was really clumsy. I won't say they used every war cliche where the underdog fights heroically, but they took multiple pages from that book. The bad guys are for the most part, bad. The good guys are all good. Had this been made in say, 1955, it would've probably been a war classic. But since it's not 1955, it's a move that's a bit better than mediocre.
Battle scenes: they range from downright awful to tolerable. One stupid frontal assault follows another. It reminded me of how kids play war (charge!). But like the rest of the movie, there were some good elements to the battle scenes as well. It's just that the amateurish ones contained some real laughers and head scratchers.
The acting is solid, but being subject to a billion cliches and blunt-force dialogue at times, it couldn't help but suffer.
Overall, it's a hodgepodge of good and bad that mixes to create a tolerable film while learning some history at the same time.
5 or 6 outta 10 I guess.
It's a Netflix movie, but not a series, so I'll just put it here.
Generally, it's about a group of Irish soldiers who, under the auspices of the UN, have to fight for their lives in 1961 Congo. For the background details surrounding the conflict (but it will spoil the ending if you look at the wiki page, so...) :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jadotville
As for the movie itself, it ventured into being really good at times, but just as often was really clumsy. I won't say they used every war cliche where the underdog fights heroically, but they took multiple pages from that book. The bad guys are for the most part, bad. The good guys are all good. Had this been made in say, 1955, it would've probably been a war classic. But since it's not 1955, it's a move that's a bit better than mediocre.
Battle scenes: they range from downright awful to tolerable. One stupid frontal assault follows another. It reminded me of how kids play war (charge!). But like the rest of the movie, there were some good elements to the battle scenes as well. It's just that the amateurish ones contained some real laughers and head scratchers.
The acting is solid, but being subject to a billion cliches and blunt-force dialogue at times, it couldn't help but suffer.
Overall, it's a hodgepodge of good and bad that mixes to create a tolerable film while learning some history at the same time.
5 or 6 outta 10 I guess.
credoconsolans
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,900
- Location
- Texas
- Basic Beliefs
- neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
And he lies to her and tells her her tube malfunctioned just like his.
What really bugged me about that movie was, at the end, they couldn't both go back into cryo sleep because there was only one fucking medical bed. This ship with over 5000 people on it who were doing something as dangerous as colonizing another planet and after the movie specifically said that they had redundant backups for everything, only had one fucking medical device.
They didn't even throw in a line like "Oh no, the other 50 we had on board got fried in a power surge and we're only left with one". They just only had one of those.
That was dumb.
They didn't even throw in a line like "Oh no, the other 50 we had on board got fried in a power surge and we're only left with one". They just only had one of those.
That was dumb.
Underseer
Contributor
Passengers 0/10
This movie is :sick001:
Can't even begin to describe how much I despise this godawful movie.
Spoilers - it's a tragedy.
I spent $5 to watch it on pay per view. I want my fucking money back.
So... Yet another glamorization of Stockholm syndrome?
My deepest apologies to any meninists who feel I have some how persecuted men by saying that Stockholm syndrome is a bad thing, because I'm pretty sure that's the only way a meninist could attract a woman.
WTF do you want from a movies?I knew what I paid for,and I got entertained.Sure the science sucked,so what?The story was different.Be alone for 90 years or make some one like you.the crappy special effects in the middle are way too common.
6/10
6/10
credoconsolans
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,900
- Location
- Texas
- Basic Beliefs
- neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
I know, right? Exactly what I thought as well. 5500 hundred people and only 1 med bay and only one medical bed? I guess if they expected no one to EVER wake up along the way, it makes sense not to waste expensive equipment on them, but they were going to a new colonized world. 5500 new mouths to feed, they brought farming equipment, plants, animals, etc., why wouldn't they bring medical equipment too?
- - - Updated - - -
I didn't know what I paid for. I had no idea what the plot was about. The story was not different. It was completely predictable once you got to a certain point. It's not "make someone like you" it's like the other throwaway character said, "You're drowning so you pull someone in with you." I don't know anyone who thinks that's a good thing.
James Brown
Veteran Member
A good thing? No.
A natural thing? Sadly, yes.
What would you have done if you were in that scenario?
A natural thing? Sadly, yes.
What would you have done if you were in that scenario?
WAB
Veteran Member
Passengers 0/10
This movie is :sick001:
Can't even begin to describe how much I despise this godawful movie.
Spoilers - it's a tragedy.
I spent $5 to watch it on pay per view. I want my fucking money back.
There are two films I can think of that offended me in the way you describe. The most awful film I ever saw through to the end was Surveillance (2008). The film is technically well made, and the acting is good, but the climax is without doubt the worst I've ever had the misfortune of seeing in a mainstream film. I wrote a vitriolic review of it on Amazon, to which many people commented, all in the negative, telling me how I had misunderstood the movie, and how it was a "keen observation into the minds of psychotic people" - which it was, no doubt. But, the film does not offer any judgment of the sickos involved - it in fact celebrates them, and makes anti-heroes out of them. Or, what's worse, actual heroes to certain people who have nasty skeletons in their closet. The worst thing about this movie were the minor characters, the victims, NONE of whom offer any kind of real resistance to the evil that's done to them. A truly rotten flick.
I won't even name the other film I hate almost as much as Surveillance, since I did that years ago on this very BB and was abused for my ignorance and lack of artistic savvy. It's a colorful, arsty-fartsy celebration of evil, which has no redeeming qualities apart from the fact that it was well-made as a physical object, and starred a great actor, who has done much finer things.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,731
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Angry Birds (well, the first 10 or 15 minutes) - You shouldn't judge a book by its cover. I did, and figured, I wouldn't like the film. I saw positive reviews, so I figured I'd give it a shot. The result? It appeared to be extremely cliche, not funny, and totally uninteresting. Maybe it gets better, but I ran the numbers on the risk v. benefit and the results indicated not waiting and wasting an hour of my life. 1 of 4
Underseer
Contributor
The Search for General Tso
7/10
A documentary about a dish called "general Tso's chicken," which is ubiquitous in Chinese-American restaurants, but not anywhere else, apparently.
The documentary ends up being about the history of Chinese food in America and the history of Chinese-Americans. Quite fascinating, and the prejudice faced by Chinese-Americans seems so similar to every other group that came here: violence, vandalism, attempts to restrict immigration from that country, etc.
Why do we have to go through the same racist bullshit with every nationality?
7/10
A documentary about a dish called "general Tso's chicken," which is ubiquitous in Chinese-American restaurants, but not anywhere else, apparently.
The documentary ends up being about the history of Chinese food in America and the history of Chinese-Americans. Quite fascinating, and the prejudice faced by Chinese-Americans seems so similar to every other group that came here: violence, vandalism, attempts to restrict immigration from that country, etc.
Why do we have to go through the same racist bullshit with every nationality?
credoconsolans
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,900
- Location
- Texas
- Basic Beliefs
- neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
It's "natural" to want to destroy other people's lives for your own selfish needs?
Yeah, no.
There's a thing called empathy or compassion that normally stops people from doing that.
In his situation? Unlike he, who didn't seem to have any hobbies other than drinking and wandering around naked, I don't tire of my own company, so I would have been a little more thorough than him in investigating all my options - e.g. medical technology and would have just stayed alone.
Opoponax
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,384
- Location
- California Central Coast
- Basic Beliefs
- Apathetic Atheist
I haven't seen the movie, but from what you've described it sounds like a situation in which a person made an awful yet also understandable decision. According to Rotten Tomatoes, it looks like critics largely hated it (31%), but audiences largely liked it (64%). And the situation presented does seem thought provoking. I like to think that in such a situation that I'd do the right thing and remain alone until blasting myself out into the vacuum of outer space when it became intolerable, but no one has ever been in that situation, so who knows?
Or maybe the movie is just unwatchable because of idiotic inconsistencies, like that abomination Prometheus. I'll shut up now.
James Brown
Veteran Member
I just meant that it's natural for a drowning man to clutch at someone else. Selfish, sure, and potentially harmful to both, definitely. But to me, it's perfectly natural. Am I remembering right that he had spent a year in what is basically solitary confinement?
Yes, his actions are understandable, given the situation which he was in. They're just not forgivable. He sentenced an innocent woman to die in the cold emptiness of space because he was lonely. While one can understand his motivations for doing so, he's still the main villain of the movie, not the hero or the acceptable love interest.
prideandfall
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,118
- Location
- a drawer of inappropriate starches
- Basic Beliefs
- highly anti-religious agnostic
do you understand at all that per the movie he waited almost 2 years before waking her up?
do you also understand that even a first year psychology student could tell you that most humans would be pants-on-head retarded batshit INSANE after being totally socially isolated for almost 2 years?
there's a point at which pouty-lipped ethical shaming simply no longer applies, though ultimately Passengers is just a rom-com with a sci-fi background and rom-coms in the US have a really bad track record of portraying the shitty things men do to women on a regular basis as romantic gestures.
but it certainly wasn't any worse than basically anything any male has ever done in any rom-com in the history of ever, so at the very least the context around the cliche was a bit different.
which is actually slightly interesting in a very mildly subversive way wherein the whole backdrop of the film just served to rationalize a guy doing the kind of shit guys do to women in rom-coms and have a real reason for it besides "psychopathic behavior is romantic."
Last edited:
Yes, I do understand all of that. This is why I said his actions were understandable - it had to do with my understanding of them. And yes, I agree with you that the majority of rom-coms are filled with deviant sociopaths who need to be on some kind of watch list.
None of that changes the fact that it was a horrific thing for him to do and there's no cause to forgive him for it.
prideandfall
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,118
- Location
- a drawer of inappropriate starches
- Basic Beliefs
- highly anti-religious agnostic
i think perhaps the main issue i have with the perspective is wondering why A. a fictional character needs to be forgiven for having not actually done a thing because they're imaginary, and B. why forgiving the character or not has any relevance to the rating you'd give the film as a viewing experience.
meh, whatever... this has already been a significant and pointless derail of this thread. i found Passengers to be a surprisingly tolerable rom-com and nothing more, so i'll say 6/10.
speaking of 6/10... ghost in the shell: 6/10
didn't really get the point of them changing the thematic and narrative focus on the movie, because the original worked perfectly well and is still relevant.
however, the shifted focus was equally poignant to the original so ultimately nothing was really lost, it was just changed in ways that felt very arbitrary.