396 replies to this topic

[S K Y F A L L]

The new EVEREST trailet gots my attention.

[univex]

Whiplash

 

Weird movie, IMO.  Totally overpraised.  J.K. Simmons is a great actor and he has no problem playing this total psychopath of a music teacher.  

 

But the main thrust of the story is this: brilliance can and sometimes must be achieved through psychological torture, just to stand apart from the mediocre.

 

Um...  no. 

 

That´s just the easy way out for people who abuse their power and people who are eager to sacrifice their dignity.  

 

Truth is: hard work is important - but losing your humanity will not get you to happiness.

 

Thumbs down for this film, I´m afraid.  I can only imagine this becoming a critical darling because some reviewers simply love it when a character acts in the meanest way possible.  Unless it happens to them in real life.

 

 

I agree with everything you say. And still, I loved the film. I really didn´t agree with Simmon´s character at all. And I found that Teller did the right thing on, well, telling. I read the last bit of the film as a revenge movement from his part. It was supposed to be Simmon´s revenge and it back fired on him. Still, he believes he broke Teller in order to make him better and succeeded. I think Teller was good right from the start. As was Charlie Parker. "Losing your humanity will not get you to happiness" - Yes! absolutely. Although, I think Teller did keep his humanity and won because of it, showing Fletcher there´s two ways of getting there. Just an interpretation, of course. Personally, it reminded me a lot of Paris Blues, with Newman and Poitier. All of this said, I still think it´s a good film just because it´s simple, driven, well crafted, well acted (this was the main thing for me). Good soundtrack as well (of course). I´ve had many music teachers like Fletcher. They were all proven wrong eventually. Sad, sad people who can´t really do, or didn´t do as much as they thought they were meant to, and so they teach and break people. Like I said, sad, sad people. Great masters aren´t like that. Art is not a game, you can't coach it. And it´s not meant to be the army either. 

The new EVEREST trailet gots my attention.

 

Mine as well. And so did the Macbeth trailer with Cotillard and Fassbender.

[DaveBond21]

Weird Science (1985)

 

Great fun as always - American teen comedy / scifi movie with lots of fun moments and the gorgeous Kelly Le Brock.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

[SecretAgentFan]

The new EVEREST trailet gots my attention.

 

But after you´ve seen the new trailer for Robert Zemeckis´ "THE WALK" you will consider "EVEREST" old hat and not in the slightest powerful evoking a fear of heights...

[univex]

True. Very true.

[Professor Pi]

 

Interesting.  The first half of the film I loved, expecting something extraordinary to come.  The actors are magnificent, the cinematography makes great use of the interiors, and the score heightens everything by being only an ominous, very low droning in the background (um, hints of JP and CE?  IMO, this score is the total opposite to Williams´ orchestral masterpieces).

 

 

I agree that it is not a clone of Willliams' scores, more of a variation on a theme, much like classical composers did.  Quiet, subdued, not big or orchestral.  However, this may be totally in my ears and unintended by the composer, it just fit in with the themes of the movie. 

 

There were definitely some predictable elements to the second half (Kyoko comes to mind.)  And some left deliberately vague (e.g. fate of helicopter pilot.) 

[S K Y F A L L]

 

The new EVEREST trailet gots my attention.

 

But after you´ve seen the new trailer for Robert Zemeckis´ "THE WALK" you will consider "EVEREST" old hat and not in the slightest powerful evoking a fear of heights...

 

I'm sure I'll enjoy both, I liked the doc MAN ON WIRE too.

[x007AceOfSpades]

 

The new EVEREST trailet gots my attention.

 

But after you´ve seen the new trailer for Robert Zemeckis´ "THE WALK" you will consider "EVEREST" old hat and not in the slightest powerful evoking a fear of heights...

 

Everest has a far better cast and looks much more tense and thrilling in comparison to Zemeckis further exploiting 3D and nothing more.

 

But that's just me.

[S K Y F A L L]

 

 

[SecretAgentFan]

The trailer intrigues me.  Like a Zombie film with real people instead.

 

And the last scene... man, that is really horrifying.

[tdalton]

Looks interesting enough.  Sadly, it'll probably end up being a rather paint-by-numbers affair like most things are today.

 

And as far as the poster, who on Earth put that together.  Please tell me that's not supposed to be Brosnan behind Owen Wilson.

[Call Billy Bob]

That trailer worked for me. I'll for sure check it out.

[SecretAgentFan]

Looks interesting enough.  Sadly, it'll probably end up being a rather paint-by-numbers affair like most things are today.

 

And as far as the poster, who on Earth put that together.  Please tell me that's not supposed to be Brosnan behind Owen Wilson.

 

Yes, that is some horrible photo shopping.

[tdalton]

It's actually rather funny.  They're clearly banking on Brosnan's name recognition, otherwise he wouldn't be on the poster.  Going by the trailer, his part seems much smaller than that of Owen Wilson and Lake Bell, yet he's getting prominent display on the poster.  That's understandable, given that he was James Bond at one point, but then the guys who make the poster come along and completely sabotage that whole thing altogether.  There is absolutely nobody that is going to look at that poster and, without aid of the "and Pierce Brosnan" credit figure out that that's supposed to be Pierce.

[seawolfnyy]

Early reviews for Jurassic World are promising. I predict it will end up around 75-80% on Rottentomatoes.

[Call Billy Bob]

Early reviews for Jurassic World are promising. I predict it will end up around 75-80% on Rottentomatoes.

I've read nothing but praise so far. My friends and I are holding off on seeing it this weekend so it can be part of my bachelor party on the 19th. Re-watching 1 and 2 tonight in anticipation!

[seawolfnyy]

I've seen a few ho-hum reviews but nothing overly bad. I'm thoroughly excited and believe it'll be the best entry since the first. Also, have fun at your bachelor party CBB! Don't do anything too crazy....

[Call Billy Bob]

Also, have fun at your bachelor party CBB! Don't do anything too crazy....

One of my groomsmen doesn't drink, so he knows what his job is that night 

[DaveBond21]

Fright (1971)

 

Starring Susan George, Honor Blackman, George Cole, Denis Waterman.

 

This may have been the very first babysitter-in-a-house-at-night-stalked-by-a-madman movie.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Jurassic World - 2015 - 2.5/5 - Directed by Colin Trevorrow - starring Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard

I was planning on rewatching the first three Jurassic Park films, but became per-occupied with my Xbox One. So I opted to jump straight to Collin Trevorrow's Jurassic World. Jurassic World tries and fails to capture the Spielberg essence that made the original film such an extravaganza. Jurassic World is a step up from Jurassic Park III but is quite lackluster with a script and direction that just as workmanlike as the come. It's a sequel that you can tell Universal just wanted to cash in on the name instead of making something of quality to stand next to Spielberg's film.

 

Set twenty-two years after the original film, Jurassic World is the new dinosaur theme park on the island of Isla Nublar. Park Operations manager, Claire Dearing's (Bryce Dallas Howard) Zach and Gray (Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins, respectively) are visiting and attending the theme park. Claire and Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan) the owner of the park, are getting ready to unveil a genetically modified dinosaur, The Indominus Rex, however the dinosaur has escaped. Former Navy SEAL and current Raptor trainer, Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) is then tasked with trying to track the dinosaur along with helping Claire find her nephews.

 

Jurassic World sets out to be both entertaining and grim. Spielberg created a perfectly balanced film that was very entertaining & light-hearted, but also terrifying at times. It's possible to recreate what Spielberg did twenty-two years ago without having Spielberg or directly copying his style. Colin Trevorrow is not that person. One could say that this isn't Spielberg's anymore, but if you going to make a sequel (2 and 3 seem to be discarded) to the original and try and promote it like the original to bring in that crowd, you should probably try and capture that same magic. Instead you get what is definitely a studio-directed film that just wants to make a quick buck instead of doing something really special. Mind you, I wasn't really excited over this, but it was the fact that I really love Spielberg's original that prompted me to check this out. It isn't as awful or disappointing as expected, but it's just another excessive CGI-filled blockbuster that feels as if there's something missing from truly being good.

 

Jurassic World definitely wanted people to feel like kids again when we're following Nick and Gray around the park, but the tonal shifts, between their fun scenes and the more suspenseful, serious scenes with Pratt and the rest of the cast regarding a missing dinosaur is really jarring. To go from Pratt barely escaping death and genuinely feeling terrified to seeing two people having fun breaks that tension. Whether it was meant to calm people down before the next action scene, it just felt distracting, and had the film kept going on with more action and tension I definitely would've like it much more.

 

I definitely like Chris Pratt much more in this than I did in Guardians Of The Galaxy, so I'm slightly warming up to him. His character isn't given much to do or rather isn't given much of a backstory. In fact none of the characters are given much of a backstory at all. And the general idea of turning the dinosaurs into military weapons was just embarrassing. There's a scene where Vincent D'Onofrio's character is talking about sending a Raptor into caves where we can't send drones... I couldn't believe this was actually greenlit. A genetically modified dinosaur just to feed off corporate greed is one thing, but trying to weaponize them was just something I couldn't wrap my head around.

 

The product placement in this was a bit annoying. I understand that quite a lot of films get their budget from product placement (Bond films for example), but there was just too much in here that was painfully obvious. Me and my friends literally pointed out obvious it was seeing name brands and products shown. The kid turning his head so you see the Beats by DRE logo. Chris Pratt drinking a classic Coca-Cola bottle. An endless barrage of Mercedes-Benz logos on cars. Framing your shot perfectly so we can see the Starbucks logo as people walk by. And my personal favorite: "Verizon Wireless presents: Indominus Rex". Some people complained about showing James Bond drinking a Heineken in two scenes maybe fifteen minutes apart. A Heineken shown for maybe a split second, compared to in your face product placement.

 

Above all of this, it was still entertaining at times. Those times were of course anytime there was a dinosaur action scene. Despite being filmed very mediocre by Trevorrow and incredibly weak CGI, I was actually entertained. If only the rest of the film was just as good though. Because there's truly some fun action in the film. It won't top Spielberg's film or come any where close, but in an age where we have endless Marvel films where third acts means giant action scene where everything is destroyed, Jurassic World keeps it pretty simple, going absolutely bonkers a few times, but to heighten the scene instead of trying to impress the audience (which isn't to hard nowadays). I don't care how far CGI has advanced or what we can do with it - Spielberg's dinosaurs still looked much better.

 

It may seem that I hated Jurassic World, but I didn't. I was just disappointed by this studio affair. Outside of the thrilling action scenes (despite being rather plainly directed and shot), the film is just a disappointing mess that brought the film down for me. Entertaining action scenes aren't enough for me. It's not being hard to impress or entertain. It's just wanting the film to be consistent and wholly good, something Jurassic World fails at doing.

[SecretAgentFan]

Haven´t seen it yet but planning on doing it.  

 

I have, however, re-watched "Jurassic Park" - and I must say I find it very interesting that the media is now celebrating that one as unsurpassable.  During its initial run, the special effects and the Dino sequences, of course, met with universal acclaim.  Yet, most critics were not so kind to the rest of the film, and watching it now again I have to say I agree.  The story is a total mess, taking its time to set up why "Newman" tries to steal Dino-DNA, introducing a lab full of scientists who are breeding the dinosaurs.  But all these scientists disappear when the tropical storm hits - and the concept that "Newman" (sorry, i don´t know the actor´s name) is the only specialist on hand who knows how to control the computerized park  (and this during an important trial run to which the park´s owner´s grandchildren are invited) is not believable at all.  And having "Newman" and his plot to steal Dino-DNA leave the picture after the first hour, I wondered why so much time had been used to establish this character.  This way, this subplot was only there to explain why the park goes downhill.  But that could have been explained so much more efficiently with something else: the tropical storm messing with the electricity, setting the dinos free, exposing the whole park circuit as problematic - bang, you´re there.

 

Also, despite Sam Neill bringing some welcome malevolence to his kid-hating character, the Jeff Goldblum-character is so much more interesting and fun.  Yet, the story opts to go with the Neill character, telling a boring story of him warming to kids and becoming a father figure.  Goldblum, however, is deliciously set up - and then hurt at the one hour mark and almost forgotten for the rest of the film.

 

And the ending with the T-rex attacking the raptors, thereby saving the humans, remains a disappointing shortcut to a happy ending - I remember how audiences groaned at that in the cinema and I still understand them.

 

So, "Jurassic Park" is IMO not a masterpiece at all - but a hugely flawed film whose saving grace are the action-chase-sequences with the dinosaurs.  

 

I´m curious to see whether I will like "Jurassic World" better.  Judging from the basic story I think I will.

[Safari Suit]

I always found the Jurassic Park movies to be good fun, with slightly quirkier and more interesting characterisation than, for example, the Transformerses or the American Godzilla movies, but no more than that (in fact I remember finding the first film quite disappointing in its day, even at a tender age). They have something many of their imitators and successors lack, so in many ways they seem better than they did on their first release, but Jaws they ain't. I guess if pushed I'd say the original is overrated and the sequels are underrated, but I find them all to be at about the same level. OK, the third one is clearly a lot sloppier and (seemingly) cheaper than the first two, but I have a soft spot for it because it's a mean, lean, fun ride which came out in a very weak era for action/popcorn movies (if not all movies). Nowadays we're not so impoverished, so I'm not sure how well Jurassic World, which has a plot synopsis that's hard to buy before you even see the film, will fare, but I look forward to checking it out all the same.

[sharpshooter]

I saw Jurassic World on Saturday. I'd give it a 7 or 7.5/10.

[univex]

 

 I don't care how far CGI has advanced or what we can do with it - Spielberg's dinosaurs still looked much better.

 

 

This. Absolutely. What´s going on with CGI? I have to say, after I watched JW, I went and watched JP and, boy oh boy, those dinos looked way more real. I know they had Stan Winston, and yes, I do think that made all the difference in the world, but the CGI had more weight to it, more realism. 

 

JW was entertaining. And it served it´s own nostalgia well. But damn, JP is still miles ahead, as flawed as it is.

 

And getting the raptors to hunt with a mammal alfa, turning them into weaponized dinos, creating a white genetically engineered killing machine, ... I mean, didn´t they have any other ideas? I´m not saying plausible ones, but there are so many other dinosaurs they could´ve used. Ones that did exist at one point.

 

And I guess hollywood´s new heros are, again, the Johnny Weissmullers and the Rock Hudson brutes, right? Gone are the days of the specialists, paleontologists and mathematicians are no longer interesting, right? And brain is a thing of the past. Long live Pratt and his shorts and smell. Really a good depiction of today´s society. I´m sorry, I´ve met many Navy intelligent, suave people. They´re not all stupefied brutes. Just take Sir. Christopher Lee or even Fleming. And even Indy was an academic with an agenda. Get Pratt in a suit and bow tie and you´ve got a joke on your hands.

 

On well, entertaining, but not mind blowing, since it´s not what they´re aiming for these days.

[SecretAgentFan]

THE LOST WORLD & JURASSIC PARK III

 

Weird.  Rewatching those two reversed my opinion on them.  While I liked Spielberg´s sequel during its initial run in the cinema, now I only like the dinosaur sequences and Jeff Goldblum.  Apart from that the story is an absolute mess, sequences strung together without enough interesting thoughts.  Also, the film mainly takes place at night which makes for a very drab, uniform look.  And once again, even Goldblum as the hero gets watered down after the one hour mark, with the story incorporating too many uninteresting characters.  Why?

 

Joe Johnston´s follow-up, however, is visually much more interesting and gets some major variations going within the dino sequences.  Sam Neill is allowed to be sardonic which is wonderful for the film - but the struggling couple (Macy & Leoni) are just as annoying as the (again) too smart kid.  Still, the film gets down to business quickly and stops before overstaying its welcome.  So, for me, this is the better sequel.

[seawolfnyy]

Jurassic World- ***1/2

22 years after the disaster at Jurassic Park we are finally given a true sequel to the timeless classic. Not as good as the original, but honestly it was never going to be. Colin Treverrow does a commendable job resurrecting the franchise for a new generation.

Set 22 years after the original, John Hammond's dream is finally realized as the park is open. However, to maintain interest, inGen develops a hybrid dinosaur, the Indominus Rex. Naturally, this doesn't go well and the dinosaur manages to reek all sorts of havoc on the park.

The plot, while not wholly original, actually works well as its been seen time again In real-life that people do not learn from the mistakes of the past. We become complacent and must satiate the desire to go ever further. It's this idea that fuels Jurassic World. People are no longer wowed by dinosaurs in this world, so something newer and scarier needs to be created.

Bryce Dallas Howard and Chris Pratt lead an otherwise forgettable cast. Howard especially is able to do a lot with her character as we see Claire Dearing go from a no-fun, all-work type to a caring and protective aunt. Pratt is Pratt, but his role seems to be more an audition tape for Indiana Jones. Vincent D'Onofrio plays the un charismatic villain, while B.D. Wong actually shines as the greedy, mad scientist (as well as being the only returning cast member).

Again, it's gotta be said that CGi just can't hold its own against practical effects and the dinosaurs in the original still look better than in this film (especially the raptors). That's not to say that the dinos look bad, but I would've liked more animatronics. That said, the park itself looks fantastic and the I-Rex/T-Rex fight at the end is insane. I also loved that it was the T-Rex from the original film.

My biggest gripe with the the film has to be Michael Giacchino's abysmal score. Never once did I get the sense of wonder that I did listening to John William's iconic theme the first time we see the brontosaurus in Jurassic Park. At least it wasn't Hans Zimmer. I still get shutters thinking of that awful score for Interstellar.

Despite not matching the original for spectacle, Jurassic World still manages to placate itself as a frenetic and fun summer blockbuster. Gone is the magic of seeing dinosaurs come to life for the first time, but it still manages to warn us of the dangers of meddling with nature and of the bond we can make with animals. Better than the two previous terrible sequels (especially Jurassic Park 3), Jurassic World was an enjoyable return to the island that inspired us all 22 years ago.

[x007AceOfSpades]

 

 

 I don't care how far CGI has advanced or what we can do with it - Spielberg's dinosaurs still looked much better.

 

 

This. Absolutely. What´s going on with CGI? I have to say, after I watched JW, I went and watched JP and, boy oh boy, those dinos looked way more real. I know they had Stan Winston, and yes, I do think that made all the difference in the world, but the CGI had more weight to it, more realism. 

 

JW was entertaining. And it served it´s own nostalgia well. But damn, JP is still miles ahead, as flawed as it is.

 

And getting the raptors to hunt with a mammal alfa, turning them into weaponized dinos, creating a white genetically engineered killing machine, ... I mean, didn´t they have any other ideas? I´m not saying plausible ones, but there are so many other dinosaurs they could´ve used. Ones that did exist at one point.

 

And I guess hollywood´s new heros are, again, the Johnny Weissmullers and the Rock Hudson brutes, right? Gone are the days of the specialists, paleontologists and mathematicians are no longer interesting, right? And brain is a thing of the past. Long live Pratt and his shorts and smell. Really a good depiction of today´s society. I´m sorry, I´ve met many Navy intelligent, suave people. They´re not all stupefied brutes. Just take Sir. Christopher Lee or even Fleming. And even Indy was an academic with an agenda. Get Pratt in a suit and bow tie and you´ve got a joke on your hands.

 

On well, entertaining, but not mind blowing, since it´s not what they´re aiming for these days.

 

CGI is Hollywood's favorite tool towards cutting corners. You can blatantly tell when they're looking or running away from something on a green screen. Spielberg's mix of practical and CGI in the original film is still top notch.

[DaveBond21]

 

 

 

 

I saw the trailer. The only thing with me is that I would be hoping Owen Wilson's character would get killed.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[SecretAgentFan]

THE TERMINATOR

 

Hadn´t seen this in a long, long time - but it still works like crazy for me.  A fantastic chase picture with a clever sci-fi twist.  Efficient, tense, and with the main villain still frightening due to his relentlessness.

 

A textbook example for what so many contemporary action films do wrong, Cameron´s film offers spectacle yet always balances it with quiet character driven scenes, never just pummeling the viewer into submission but building up interest, thereby letting the audience in.  Also, the human characters really hurt when hit and become exhausted from running.  These days, people are behaving like terminators themselves.

 

And - one more thing that modern films should take notice of - the film is over when it needs to be over.  No protracted sequences bloating the film, no series of endings.  It tells its simple story, and that´s that.  Beautiful.

[Professor Pi]

San Andreas

 

Earthquake porn.