It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Matewis: favorite part from the beginning : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP9Xw2KxvwM
haha yeah I remember I couldn't stop laughing at the beginning. It's such a smart movie really, it's a pity that towards the end it loses a bit of punch but I think it's completely normal right? As it's almost impossible to keep up with that level of comedy and creativity. In the end, it's a movie that's so good that it makes itself look a little bad.
Post edited August 16, 2017 by contra_cultura
avatar
tinyE: What did you think?
avatar
drmike: I was engaged three times. I haven't been allowed to think for eons.

A lot different from the book but looking at it as just the movie, I didn't think it was that bad like some folks make it out to be. No, it's not gritty. Reminded me of Star Trek TOS.

Granted my dead grandmother could come up with better military tactics than folks running around in tight groups like that.

Call it more of a satire?

I am glad that they cut the scene of "Johnny" grabbing "Carmen" like that. Always wondered why it was there in the first place. No, I'm not linking to it.
It was absolutely a satire, a brilliant one, and I loved it. It was a full on attack on Heinein's politics and in my opinion, a very just one. Even his friends thought he was nuts. I've read interviews with Ellison where he talks about how hard he was to be around and how archaic and dismal his views were.

Great movie. Great satire.
avatar
tinyE: It was absolutely a satire, a brilliant one
Yeah, for about ten minutes. Then it keeps going with nothing more to say for two more painfully tedious hours. I appreciate the idea, but it's an idea for a comedy sketch, maybe a short film, but not a 2+ hours feature.
Post edited August 16, 2017 by Breja
avatar
hurvl: While the story is far from as dazzling as the visuals, it's not as clear cut or generic as most and I found it interesting. Then again, I have a tendency of liking big budget disasters, like Jupiter Ascending or John Carter.
Well, you sold me, because I liked both of those movies.
avatar
hurvl: While the story is far from as dazzling as the visuals, it's not as clear cut or generic as most and I found it interesting. Then again, I have a tendency of liking big budget disasters, like Jupiter Ascending or John Carter.
avatar
GR00T: Well, you sold me, because I liked both of those movies.
I really liked John Carter, and for the life of me I don't understand why it bombed. Jupiter on the other hand was a trainwreck. Just a mess of half-baked ideas and hilariously bad performances. Redmayne's performace might give Jeremy Irons in Dungeons & Dragons a run for his money.
avatar
tinyE: It was absolutely a satire, a brilliant one
avatar
Breja: Yeah, for about ten minutes. Then it keeps going with nothing more to say for two more painfully tedious hours. I appreciate the idea, but it's an idea for a comedy sketch, maybe a short film, but not a 2+ hours feature.
Okay okay I overdid it, but the kid in me also loved the cool insects, the explosions, and the really groovy decapitations. :D

I'm not proud. :P

And I agree on John Carter. I don't think it was a great movie but it wasn't bad, and I think it just got caught by shit advertising, a slow summer, and people that weren't in the mood for that genre at that time. Bad timing can kill a great movie and vice versa.
Post edited August 17, 2017 by tinyE
avatar
Breja: Yeah, for about ten minutes. Then it keeps going with nothing more to say for two more painfully tedious hours. I appreciate the idea, but it's an idea for a comedy sketch, maybe a short film, but not a 2+ hours feature.
avatar
tinyE: Okay okay I overdid it, but the kid in me also loved the cool insects, the explosions, and the really groovy decapitations. :D

I'm not proud. :P
I'll give you that- the production values are insane. It still looks phenomenal to this day, better in fact than many modern big budget productions.

avatar
tinyE: And I agree on John Carter. I don't think it was a great movie but it wasn't bad, and I think it just got caught by shit advertising, a slow summer, and people that weren't in the mood for that genre at that time. Bad timing can kill a great movie and vice versa.
Maybe. I also remember quite a few people thinking of it as an Avatar rip-off. Which is just sad, but then again expecting the wider audience to know such a thing as books exists would be just silly. The funny thing is, if John Carter did not bomb, Disney might not have bought Star Wars. It was their last in a long line of attempts to make their own, before they just gave up and bought out Lucas.
Post edited August 17, 2017 by Breja
avatar
Breja: I really liked John Carter, and for the life of me I don't understand why it bombed.
I think you summed it up in your last post: no one realized it was a book (series), and a decent old sci-fi read at that. I thought the movie was far, far better than anyone seemed to give it credit for.

avatar
Breja: Jupiter on the other hand was a trainwreck. Just a mess of half-baked ideas and hilariously bad performances. Redmayne's performace might give Jeremy Irons in Dungeons & Dragons a run for his money.
No question about it, but for some reason I get a kick out of it. One of my guilty pleasures, I suppose.
Post edited August 17, 2017 by GR00T
avatar
GR00T: Well, you sold me, because I liked both of those movies.
avatar
Breja: I really liked John Carter, and for the life of me I don't understand why it bombed.
It was horribly marketed. Why would you call a movie "John Carter" instead of "Princess of Mars"? Even the working title, "John Carter of Mars", was 100% better. If I hadn't read international websites specialized in science-fiction, I wouldn't have known that there was a new movie taking place in another planet. A pity because, as you said, it was enjoyable.
Finally saw the new Power Rangers movie. I liked it much better than the TV show. :)
Watching Hotel Transylvania 1 & 2 today. The library's wifi is rather crappy today.

Actually having a problem with #2. The wolf character can't eat a deer in the second movie but knocks off an entire herd of sheep in the first one? Hello? Continuity anyone?
avatar
GR00T: Well, you sold me, because I liked both of those movies.
avatar
Breja: I really liked John Carter, and for the life of me I don't understand why it bombed. Jupiter on the other hand was a trainwreck. Just a mess of half-baked ideas and hilariously bad performances. Redmayne's performace might give Jeremy Irons in Dungeons & Dragons a run for his money.
I've often entertained the idea that Eddie Redmayne chose to be in Jupiter Ascending as a kind of protest/rebellious act against the general opinion of him. "I won an Oscar for Best Actor for The Theory of Everything. Hahaha, those fools! Next year I'll show them!"
avatar
Breja: I really liked John Carter, and for the life of me I don't understand why it bombed. Jupiter on the other hand was a trainwreck. Just a mess of half-baked ideas and hilariously bad performances. Redmayne's performace might give Jeremy Irons in Dungeons & Dragons a run for his money.
avatar
hurvl: I've often entertained the idea that Eddie Redmayne chose to be in Jupiter Ascending as a kind of protest/rebellious act against the general opinion of him. "I won an Oscar for Best Actor for The Theory of Everything. Hahaha, those fools! Next year I'll show them!"
I thought that's why he did "Fantastic Creatures..."
avatar
Breja: I really liked John Carter, and for the life of me I don't understand why it bombed. Jupiter on the other hand was a trainwreck. Just a mess of half-baked ideas and hilariously bad performances. Redmayne's performace might give Jeremy Irons in Dungeons & Dragons a run for his money.
avatar
hurvl: I've often entertained the idea that Eddie Redmayne chose to be in Jupiter Ascending as a kind of protest/rebellious act against the general opinion of him. "I won an Oscar for Best Actor for The Theory of Everything. Hahaha, those fools! Next year I'll show them!"
I'm starting to believe there is some secret "who can be the most over the top pants-on-head crazy villain in a crappy movie" contest going on between some of the best actors. I mean, we've got Irons in D&D, Redmayne in Jupiter, Micheal Sheen in Twilight, Eva Green in 300 Rise of an Empire, Kenneth Branagh in Wild Wild West (though in all honesty I have to admit I actually kinda like that movie)... there is defiantely a pattern here.
Post edited August 18, 2017 by Breja
avatar
hurvl: I've just watched Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2239822. It's the most expensive movie ever made in France (figures vary, but 177 million US dollar is often mentioned). From its box office results, perhaps the last French attempt on a big budget movie for a long while.

That's a shame, because it's really well made, with lots of details and energy put on bringing the world to life. If you want a sci-fi spectacle, best viewed on a big screen, then go see it. If you want entertaining action, characters and humor, then go see it.

While the story is far from as dazzling as the visuals, it's not as clear cut or generic as most and I found it interesting. Then again, I have a tendency of liking big budget disasters, like Jupiter Ascending or John Carter.
I'm just back from seeing it. I liked it, though it definately has it's share of problems. The visuals are great, but the story is very predictable and the characters, both good guyus and bad, are rather boring. There's zero chemistry between the main characters, and I didn't really buy their romance for a second. Also, the movie feels very unfocused, as if there's almost too many ideas, the whole, let's call it, "Rihanna episode" is entirely unrelated to the plot, could be cut without missing anything, despite taking a big chunk of the movie. It's a fun episode, but still.

But there's plenty of fun concepts, great designs, and the interdimensional bazaar heist part near the beginning was really clever and fresh. I actually regret it's set at teh movies beginning, it would have made for a more interesting climax than the rather by the numbers gunfigh/race to disarm a bomb.

Anyway, despite teh problems, it's fun and worth seeing on the big screen. Just don't expect it to measure up to the Fifth Element.