|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You've got to be making GBS threads me (count the characters, including spaces) That's pretty good.
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:Equalizer 2 looks good. The first one was one of the better old man action movies of recent times so i'm down for the second one which looks like the action has been bumped up a notch. Yeah, the first one is a lot of fun. Glad Antoine Fuqua is back and they didn't farm it out to someone else like the Olympus Has Fallen sequel.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Zombieland is pretty lousy, and Gangster Squad is even worse, so unless 30 Minutes or Less is a real hidden gem, shouldn't be surprising that Venom is looking rough.Happy Noodle Boy posted:It’s a Sony movie trailer so that “we are Venom” shot is actually the last shot of the movie. This has been my assumption.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Well that was a fun trip.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
This trend where seeing movies about scantily-clad models killing people is feminist is pretty convenient.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
What we need is someone, some visionary director, to make a movie specifically deflating this idea.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Sure, okay, but there's still gonna be tits in it right Possibly, though maybe focus on some tasteful upskirt shots instead.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Almost Blue posted:I thought he wasn't even in Avengers 3? Turns out there's also going to be a 4.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:He’s beloved by fan girls everywhere as everyone’s favorite dweeby space nazi TIL something about Martin Scorsese.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:I often like updating stuff to fit the quality of the times. A grim, but fair, assessment of the age in which we live.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I actually ended up sort of liking The Walk but this is a weird trip Zemeckis is on The actual walk itself in The Walk was worth the price of admission when I saw it in 3D. Totally justifies the light caper stuff that precedes it, if not the hamfisted 9/11 memorial at the end.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
kiimo posted:The super predator for example wasn't finished until a few weeks ago. Gotta say, that super predator is pretty intimidating. No conscience. No empathy. However it is it ended up that way, hope those soldiers can take it on and bring it to heel.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:This is like the 3rd movie this decade where Henry Cavill punches people in a public restroom (the other two were The Man from UNCLE and BvS). Unless there's two bathroom fights in Man from UNCLE and I'm forgetting the second, that one is Armie Hammer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
As under-appreciated Guy Ritchie movies go I'm more likely to rep for Legend of the Sword, but The Man from UNCLE is a lot of fun.Timby posted:It's got some really odd pacing issues, but Cavill and Hammer have excellent chemistry. A bit unfortunate that both of them have more chemistry with everybody than Alicia Vikander has with anybody.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Deakul posted:Seriously, what the hell is that accent Hardy is going for? He sounds like Simple Jack. It's the same accent he uses in The Drop (which is very good), which takes place in Brooklyn and is presumably an attempt to land on something in that vicinity.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:What's the biggest recent movie - like, the studio tentpole or blockbuster - that had the trailer which gave the least away or presented scenes in such a way that didn't really reveal the context? Are there any really good examples? There aren't many that come to mind for me, but I tend to forget trailers once I've actually seen the movie. Infinity War did this a bit. For the trailer they added the Hulk to a big climactic battle, to hide that Bruce Banner would spend most of the movie unable to transform. They also changed around how many gems were in Thanos's gauntlet for some trailers to obscure what order various scenes would appear in.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Yes we do. Well, I do. Gonna need some details here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Teenage Fansub posted:Mentioned it in BSS, but it would've been nice to catch a glimpse of the post-rapture world to give more of a feeling than just a few bummed people in their building. Some quick shots of people in cities, memorials, while Johansson is talking, before we see Ruffalo. This would require the death of half of all living creatures in the universe to have meaning outside of it representing a traumatic impotence for a dozen or so people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Gravy Jones posted:Once you hit two minutes and give away a chunk of the plot what's the distinction between a teaser and a trailer at that point? The difference is that "teaser" gets people even slightly more interested in the ad so marketing departments hit it like a rat with a dopamine button. You might as well complain that a brand of potato chips hasn't quite earned the moniker "crispy" or some poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
kiimo posted:I've literally never heard anyone dislike Clooney before and I work at a place where I get unsolicited opinions on every actor under the sun. Yeah, because he's a fine actor and a middling director and most people care about the first while the question here is more about the latter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
Having not seen the cartoon, is there something about the villain where he's supposed to be ugly?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Does CBS put Discovery up on iTunes or anything? Yeah, you can buy it on iTunes, Amazon streaming, Blu-ray, etc. Feel free to dump on the show itself, obviously, but being weirded out by a streaming-first release is kinda quaint in 2019.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:You do realise they’re not actually siblings, right? Hard for me to fault someone for getting caught up in the magic of cinema.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:I Am Mother - This one is being distributed by Netflix in the US, for those who are interested.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
I'd put Almost Famous and Purple Rain up there with those movies. This Is Spinal Tap and Walk Hard as well, if we're counting comedies. Though I do think you identify some advantages that rapper-focused movies can have.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Nah, the best parts of Genisys were when they got creative with the nano-bots, like the MRI scene and it launching little bits of itself through Arnold in their final fight. Movie had its issues, but it's way better than the real nadir of the franchise in 3, which I guess is why they're copying that one the most closely, with stuff like the part solid / part liquid Terminator.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Salvation is well shot and has great production design. As long as you can suffer through the bad parts—when literally anyone is talking—there's a lot to like. Whereas Rise of the Machines is good for about 30 seconds at the very end.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Yeah, the dress has every right to be pissed off about its treatment.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Honestly, it's a sign of respect for Kubrick's genius to not even bother trying to compete with him except where you're slavishly reproducing one of his shots.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
I like how Tom Hanks can't decide whether or not Fred Rogers pronounces his 'r's (he did) within the span of a single song. But, yeah, this sucks. If you want to see Mr. Rogers treat people with a deep sense of human decency and compassion there's hundreds of hours of footage available of the man himself, and even America's dad comes off as less warm and kindly than the original, so what's the point?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:Doesnt feel like hes been in a lot of really good movies though, wish he was I'm guessing from this comment you've seen Hell or High Water (streaming on Netflix) and Leave No Trace (Amazon Prime), but if not, get on them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2019 05:23
|
|
|
Right now you're lucky if you go see a big movie and it tells all of one story, nevermind more than one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Also they should have feathers goddamit. The raptors in Jurassic Park 3 are an older generation from the ones in the previous movies and they've actually got a few feathers, which suggests that the lack of them is just one of the many features that Wu engineered to match the dinosaurs to people's expectations.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:I thought that was stated explicitly It's definitely explicit about Wu modifying the dinosaurs for marketability—them not being real dinosaurs—but I don't recall feathers being specifically mentioned (though it's been a bit since I've watched any of them). The original Jurassic Park movie was 1993, so it talks about dinosaurs being the ancestors of birds, but it came out before there was actual fossil evidence of feathered dinosaurs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
joe football posted:Being really smart hasn't really helped primates or say elephants thrive in the Holocene, but I guess pack hunting carnivores like wolves or dolphins would be closest to what raptors are in the movie and they do ok enough. So there can be a bit in the new movie with ranchers being mad about raptors taking too many pigs or whatever and wanting to up the number they can kill per dinosaur killing permit I mean, like you get at, wolves (and dolphins) are doing okay because there's legal limits on people's ability to kill them. If raptors are a nuisance it's because the Jurassic World society will have decided to protect them, not because they're entering some new age of the dinosaurs as the movie threatens. The Jurassic Park novel actually gets at this, with the compys, which are about the size of house cats, being the most successful of the dinosaurs at making themselves nuisances on the mainland.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:The whole "They don't have feathers because there not real dinos" fails on several levels. Firstly, the idea Dinosaurs had feathers was still a controversial and somewhat niche idea at the time of the first movie. The First movie in-fact made it a very important plot point how close to natural the scientists (and the filmmakers) tried to make the Dino's, and it shows how in the first movie they behave more like dangerous animals than the movie monsters of the rest of the series. JP1 in fact explicitly went against "what people expect of Dinosaurs" which is why instead of slow like the popular conception, the dinos are fast. Instead of waddling upright like the general public thought it did at that time, T-Rex walks like a bird like the newest science said it did. Even a genetically-engineered animal is an animal and it doesn't immediately become unworthy of any moral or emotional consideration just because it was genetically-engineered. They're an endangered species whether or not they were designed. They're living creatures capable of suffering even if they're not perfect recreations of a past species. Chris Pratt's character has an emotional attachment to the creature he raised from the time she hatched, even if she's not a real velociraptor. In regards to the first problem, it's not as clear cut as you're making it seem. After all, the whole plot of how "nature finds a way" and they start breeding is dependent on them being hybrids: Grant explains that the raptors are breeding because they have frog DNA patching some of the gaps their creators had been unable to reconstruct. They're alive, chaotic and unpredictable, even if they're something new. And ultimately the claim is not that the filmmakers purposefully excluded feathers to indicate that the dinosaurs aren't perfect recreations, but rather that the movie still works even in light of subsequent paleontological discoveries. The movie being about animals that are, in part, a recreation of an existing species, but also in part something new—and the movie and book both address this tension—makes it resilient to changes in our understanding of dinosaurs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Just as well, he's no good at directing anything else than films about british criminals. King Arthur is actually pretty good, though admittedly the best part is Arthur being a fantasy-medieval British criminal.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Josh Trank owns. Yeah, the bits of his movie that identifiably made it into the final version of Fantastic 4 are pretty cool, they're just trapped amongst a bunch of garbage. I suppose I can understand why Fox didn't want a body-horror F4, but like with Lord and Miller, mainly seems a case of a studio freaking out when a director tried to actually make the movie they were hired to make. Also, I hope people are aware that the Dr Dolittle reports y'all are reacting to are just some nonsense someone posted on reddit. Like, here we go: quote:J.J. Abrams shoots all his movies nude but for tightly-wound layers of plastic wrap on the theory that it enhances the erotic energies directed into the film. That's why family-friendly Disney let him go for Episode VIII, until having to admit his theory might be true following the mixed reactions to The Last Jedi. Feel free to get all worked up about that. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Oct 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:I mean...we were mostly just reacting to the trailer that makes the movie look like stank dogdick Oh, yeah, it definitely looks like garbage. My comment was limited to the subset of posts taking the reddit stuff seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
Mat Cauthon posted:Something about the fight choreography is...stilted? More like he's striking poses than fighting. Still, looks pretty cool, probably worth checking out. Yeah, there's only one shot in the trailer where a person with a gun shoots someone in-frame, and it's this:  where it's being used in more of a melee context than an actual gunfight. Everything else is people shooting people off-screen and being shot at by people off-screen. Now, they may be using those moments for the trailer because the focus is on showing off all the characters and that's where you get nice clean looks at them, in which case, fair enough, but it's also a way to shoot gunfights that avoids having to do complex choreography, so if it's how the whole show looks that'll be pretty disappointing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2019 19:53
|
|