• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Film What's the Last Film You Saw? v. Tell Us What You Thought!

Status
Not open for further replies.
ForEverAfter said:
The Thing (remake)

The creature is so highly evolved and physically capable, I don't believe that it developed the technology necessary for interstellar flight. Sharks don't need to build swords or guns. Technology, in it's early stages, is an extension of the survival instinct. As long as a species relies on technology, it no longer needs to rely on it's inherent physical abilities. There is no point in punching a deer to death when you can just shoot it in the head. The more technologically advanced the species, the weaker it becomes physically. We no longer need to climb trees or defend ourselves against predators. Technology allows us to be fat and lazy. Over time, we devolve physically; we lose abilities that we no longer require.

When scientists write science fiction, highly advanced alien species are - more often than not - relatively frail and physically vulnerable; they rely on weaponry to defend themselves. This makes sense.

The Thing is a fucking stupid film. I didn't like John Carpenter's version; and, the remake is worse. The aliens look like cheap Resident Evil monsters. Despite being technologically advanced enough to travel across the universe, they can't defend themselves against a flame thrower. Despite being smart enough to imitate the DNA, language, and emotional state of another species, they can't create an organic substance that resembles a tooth filling - or clip on an earring. Give me a fucking break.

It doesn't make any God damned sense that they'd both be extremely physically powerful and develop the technology to travel across the universe, without bringing a fucking laser gun. If they're powerless against fire, wouldn't they have developed some sort of armour or shield mechanism before building rocket ships? A bunch of civilians with a flame thrower or two shouldn't be able to beat an alien with long tentacles capable of mimicking DNA and interstellar travel. And why do the humans even have flame throwers and grenades? They're fucking scientists!

God damn horse fucking monkey shit eating son of a camel's hump with a bachelor degree in sodomizing tree frogs.
Click to expand...
Heh. While I don't disagree with some of these points, isn't it more of a concept film about nature creating a monster based simply on the evolutionary principles that it follows rather than an argument that "this could happen"? How would the humans fight back against an alien capable of all that this creature is shown to be capable of if the other abilities you say it ought to have theoretically are also part of its repertoire of powers (you'd lose the whole Antarctic isolation and small numbers of a rag tag team of scientists dimension of the movie's fear factor)? Isn't most every "humans beating the aliens" movie ludicrous in that they imply that we would stand a chance against creatures capable of interstellar travel (when just a few decades worth of technological superiority have played such a massive role in the outcome of many human wars)? Aren't most horror movies, and most movies and vast genre works of fiction in every media, ridiculous logically if your really deconstruct them logically? I've not seen
Carpenter's version not high, so I'm not even defending the movie that much -- just questioning the idea of leaning so heavily on one's judgement of a film based on the degree that belief must be suspended to enjoy it.
 
I'm all for the suspension of disbelief as long as it's reasonable. Check this out (spoilers):

NSFW:
The aliens brutally murder people and then clone their DNA. They end up looking exactly like the characters, clothes and all. But the aliens can't clone inorganic material. So after brutally murdering their victims, they clone them and take their clothes. Let's ignore the fact - for the moment - that NONE of the cloned victims had a spot of blood on their clothing them despite the fact that the aliens kill people by impaling them through the chest with tentacles and what not. I mean, that's pretty fucking stupid, but let's just not worry about it for the moment...

If the aliens go to the effort of cloning and dressing up like the human characters, why can't they clip on an earring too? At the end of the remake, the scientist chick says to Joel Edgerton's character: "You know how I knew you were human? You're earring," and Edgerton's character reaches for his right ear. "It was your left," she says, and blasts him with the flame thrower.

Why would the alien - after cloning and dressing up like Edgerton - not know a little detail like this? It's a super intelligent being that replicates not only genetic material but speech patterns and emotional states, yet the position - and existence - of an earring is beyond it's capabilities?

When it clones people, why wouldn't it create a black organic material that resembles teeth fillings rather than creating a white organic material that resembles teeth?


Ridley Scott's "Alien" doesn't have any plot holes whatsoever. Good films don't, generally. It is not a question of suspension of disbelief. "The Thing" is a poorly conceived film. It doesn't make any sense on so many levels. The bloody clothes thing is the biggest mistake, but there are so many. "Halloween" is a better film, and "Halloween" is a piece of shit.
 
ANOES 3, consistently been a fave of the series. with arquette and fishburne, it's better than the average b-grade/genre flick.
 
cults - the wave (1981).

i had never seen this before, nor realized until informed by a colleague; that it was apart of american middle school sub culture teaching and based on a true scenario that had occurred in the late 60's.

it was enjoyable, although somewhat bittersweet when the harsh realization that kindred to films such as 'to sir with love'; passion in education is weakening in modern day society.

...kytnism...:|
 
MV5BMTI2NDY4Mzc1Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzUyNDk5MQ@@._V1._SY317_CR5,0,214,317_.jpg


I had never seen this before, but found it very enjoyable.
 
I have watched two good Robert Downey Jr films this week, actually make that three as I saw the Avengers Assemble at the cinema on Tuesday, but the other two films The Soloist was a really great film, Jamie Foxx was amazing in it and Downey Jr was really good it it too, I love true story films, and I loved the whole story and film, it was really well made and I would recommend it to anyone that has Netflix, stream it tonlght, it's a quality film, I don't want to say too much about it before people watch it though.

I also watched another Robert Downey Jr film last night A Guide to Recognising Your Saints which although took some time to get me gripped it did eventually and I really enjoyed it, is an indie film about a guy that manages to get out of the city where all his friends and family have no intention of leaving ever, the film is split between scenes of the guys youth and when the guy comes back to town after 18 or so years, it's a really good film and I'd recommend it too, some top acting in it, even by Channing Tatum, lol.
 
Summer with Monika

harriet andersson is a badass little actress. the way she checks her dress. she is the only thing cool in this movie. the camera and her are friends. she is not exceptionally beautiful.

there are lots of pretty shots. some city porn. and these shots where it feels like a photograph with someone moving in or through. like when they sneak past the cabin at the apple orchard.

quite a few directors give or owe it nods. especially godard. monika's character reminds me of who anna plays at some point in almost all of her godard movies. the way monika complains about mushroom soup and the way marianne complains about her single dress. the montage of neon street signs expressing her desire. their cigarette kiss. but godard does a much better job. Summer with Monika is worth watching if you are going through them, but there is something jagged and off about it. i think it is trying to be strange in the way the story lurches forward uncomfortably--which might work well toward the movie's themes, but it doesn't work for the movie itself. it feels stilted in the way the way of so many 50s films. it's hard to be affected by a scene of a man beating his wife when the actor is doing it limp wristed. the actor who plays the male lead is irksome in general.

i can't believe i didn't write anything about it on BL, but i've also seen Through a Glass Darkly. a few years ago. didn't realize it was the same girl until looking her up on imdb. now i think i remember her shining in that one as well, but i'll never know. i am quite sure i prefer it.
 
Last edited:
get the gringo

starring mel gibson as a hardened professional criminal who ends up in a mexican jail after a botched robbery. gibson does the cynical hard man role well, it was competently shot and quite entertaining. that being said, the story was incredibly implausible and they had to include a kid with a tragic backstory who gibson off course ends up protecting from the evil mexican criminals. all in all, it was the kind of stupid entertainment i like when really hung over.

outrage
written and directed by takeshi kitano, who, per his usual MO also plays the main part. it was one of the most beautifully shot and directed films i've seen in a long time, the acting was impeccable, but unfortunately the story dragged a bit at times. it's about a yakuza gang war and was not as violent as i thought it would be. if you don't mind the rather slow pace of the narrative, i highly recommend it. it was a bit like a japanese version of eastern promises.
 
"Man on Wire"

On August 7, 1974, Philippe Petit, a French wire walker, juggler, and street performer days shy of his 25th birthday, spent 45 minutes walking, dancing, kneeling, and lying on a wire he and friends strung between the rooftops of the Twin Towers. Uses contemporary interviews, archival footage, and recreations to tell the story of his previous walks between towers of Notre Dame and of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, his passions and friendships, and the details of the night before the walk: getting cable into the towers, hiding from guards, and mounting the wire. It ends with observations of the profound changes the walk's success brought to Philippe and those closest to him.
 
MV5BMTUwNTQ4MTY5NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzk5NzYzNw@@._V1._SY317_CR7,0,214,317_.jpg

Black out 2012, this had a kinda lock stock and two smoking barrels feel to it but since it was Dutch made it kinda sucked at that still watchable though, just about ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top