So anyone seen some good movie recently?

[McDuffies]

longs to the blurb writers. There are no grand statements here, about a generation or even about the characters. Watching short clips of the film isn't gonna do anyone any good. It's about the long stretches and what they add up to (or don't).

Must say, it's weird to use the quantity of positive press a film has received as evidence that it sucks. Anyway, thanks for proving me right, board.

It's only a few people dude. What, now you're using Spaceprincess as a lacmus for what forum thinks?

I principally don't like blurbs and it's kinda weird to see a film advertised with those. But in all seriousness, film looks interesting because it has a kind of Jarmush vibe. Between a film made with 40.000$ budget centered around ordinary people and a 50 million budget so called "epic" with more cg than is neccesary, I can not imagine why anyone would call the former "pretentious". It's not like it's heavy with symbolism, what you see is pretty much what you get.
People might get out of "Avatar" complaining that it had, say, a weak plot, or no character development, but that's crap cause noone really goes to see a film like that for plot of character development. You don't go to Hollywood blockbuster movie for character development; you go for fx and chase scenes and explosions. Noone should be surprised by that.
On the other hand there are films like extraordinary Linklater's "Tape" that are nothing but plot and character development, and if someone's put off by the fact that it features three actors, one room and one camera, they certainly are better off with "Avatar".

[Yeahduff]

It's only a few people dude. What, now you're using Spaceprincess as a lacmus for what forum thinks?

To be fair at this point she makes up about 20% of the board. And I probably sound more defensive than I am.

But yeah, Jarmusch and Cassavetes are names people keep using to describe what's going on in this movie. And Kevin Smith, but I'm not so sure about that one. It's one of those movies that I hesitate to recommend to anyone because it speaks personally to me, and I don't feel there's a whole lot that's universal about it. I dunno, if anyone around here I think you'd appreciate it.

As for Avatar, I don't know if that's a great example of the Hollywood/Indie divide. That one's supposed to be more than just a blockbuster. The main draw is the visual aspect, yes, but as a cultural milestone it's supposed to be a bit more I think. All the same, I didn't bother seeing it, so who knows.

[RobertBlake]

Waterworld

Most definitely one of my favourites.

Saw it twice when it came out in theaters. When it came out on video, I watched it all the time. Recently, I finally bought the DVD.

[Spaceprincess]

Iron Man 2 was pretty good. It was rather funny and the banter between Gwen Paltrow and Robert Downey jr was really fun.

[Laemkral]

Iron Man 2 was pretty good. It was rather funny and the banter between Gwen Paltrow and Robert Downey jr was really fun.

Pretty good??? PRETTY GOOD?!? I just saw Iron Man 2 and it was NOT "pretty good". IT WAS FUCKING AWESOME!!!! The fanboy in me is going bonkers over it because it's better than the first!! THIS IS WHAT THE SPIDER-MAN SERIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN!!! This is HOW YOU DO A SEQUEL!!!

[Tellurider]

Also just saw Iron Man 2, thought it was great, loved it. I especially like how they're taking a totally different tack than the Batman films, keeping it light even with plenty of reasons for dark emo drama. But I'd have liked to see more Roark in it, I really liked his character and I think he should have had more screen time.

Hammer made me feel so embarrassed for him every time he was on camera though. It's like pure awkwardness made flesh. "The newspapers are going to run out of ink" *wince* really? Really? Did you really just say that? arrrrgh... you are made of fail you dweeb.

One nitpick - that was an atom? Really? It did not look like an atom to me at all. Also, new element? So... 113, 115, something like that? You know those super heavy elements are highly unstable right? Writer fail - should have said "new isotope" and everything would have been fine. The movie does a great job with suspension of disbelief on the pseudoscience front but that... that was stunningly stupid.

I'm a chemist, what do you want from me.

[Laemkral]

Also just saw Iron Man 2, thought it was great, loved it. I especially like how they're taking a totally different tack than the Batman films, keeping it light even with plenty of reasons for dark emo drama. But I'd have liked to see more Roark in it, I really liked his character and I think he should have had more screen time.

Hammer made me feel so embarrassed for him every time he was on camera though. It's like pure awkwardness made flesh. "The newspapers are going to run out of ink" *wince* really? Really? Did you really just say that? arrrrgh... you are made of fail you dweeb.

One nitpick - that was an atom? Really? It did not look like an atom to me at all. Also, new element? So... 113, 115, something like that? You know those super heavy elements are highly unstable right? Writer fail - should have said "new isotope" and everything would have been fine. The movie does a great job with suspension of disbelief on the pseudoscience front but that... that was stunningly stupid.

I'm a chemist, what do you want from me.

Tony Stark invented a new kind of atom, and a whole new kind of physics so its super stable but produces lots of energy. He's Tony Stark. He and Reed Richards invent shit that any normal scientist would go "But...PHYSICS!!" while pointing to the laws of the universe that they're breaking with complete abandon.

I liked how they did Hammer, that he's a guy who wants to be Stark but clearly isn't. Stark has charisma, vision, brilliance. Hammer is a dork with limited foresight and lacking in the smarts category.

Jon Favreau needs to direct a LOT more movies for Marvel. They need to give him whatever he wants so he'll keep doing this and keep making awesome. In fact, the whole Marvel team thats responsible for these movies being FANTASTIC need to get huge raises (which they can do since Disney bought out Marvel) and continue making these.

[Tellurider]

You're not understanding my nitpick.
1) the model of the "new atom" did not look like an atom. I was trying to see the atom and I could not see it. Also, how can you know what the new element is if you can't see the number of protons? Number of protons is what defines an element!
2) Saying "I'll make a new element" is something you would see in saturday morning cartoons or a bad webcomic. Rookie mistake.
3) It annoys me so much because it was SO DUMB that it jarred me out of my happy movie enjoying state to go "wtf no. no." I was there with my friend who is also a graduate student in chemistry and before I could even say anything she turns to me and goes "does that look like an atom to you?" so I know it's not just me. I am upset about it because it derailed my immersion in the story.


***mild spoiler alert here - highlight to read***


Like I said, there are other ways to get the exact same effect without saying something so dumb. Like, a new isotope. A new crystal lattice. Antimatter. A new type of nuclear structure that redefines the substance on the atomic level. But they didn't SAY any of that. They didn't SAY "a new kind of atom that will overturn modern physics," they said "a new element," and I KNOW what an element is, so I can't sit there and pretend that it makes sense when it doesn't. We don't even know what the palladium is doing in there; from what I know about palladium, catalyzing a reaction is the most probable possibility. You don't need a whole new element for catalysis, just changing the structure or the isotopes would accomplish the appropriate pseudoscience solution WITHOUT SOUNDING LIKE SOMETHING MADE UP BY A FIVE YEAR OLD.

***end spoiler***


Also, I wasn't bitching about Hammer. I liked how they did the character. My comment was more "omg you guys can you believe what a dweeb he was."

Because omg you guys SUCH A DWEEB.

[Laemkral]

You're not understanding my nitpick.
1) the model of the "new atom" did not look like an atom. I was trying to see the atom and I could not see it. Also, how can you know what the new element is if you can't see the number of protons? Number of protons is what defines an element!
2) Saying "I'll make a new element" is something you would see in saturday morning cartoons or a bad webcomic. Rookie mistake.
3) It annoys me so much because it was SO DUMB that it jarred me out of my happy movie enjoying state to go "wtf no. no." I was there with my friend who is also a graduate student in chemistry and before I could even say anything she turns to me and goes "does that look like an atom to you?" so I know it's not just me. I am upset about it because it derailed my immersion in the story.

Gotcha.

Also, I wasn't bitching about Hammer. I liked how they did the character. My comment was more "omg you guys can you believe what a dweeb he was."

Because omg you guys SUCH A DWEEB.

He's come a long way from Zaphod Beeblebrox (that's the only other thing I know Sam Rockwell from)

[McDuffies]

To be fair at this point she makes up about 20% of the board. And I probably sound more defensive than I am.

*shrug* it's an empty board.

But yeah, Jarmusch and Cassavetes are names people keep using to describe what's going on in this movie. And Kevin Smith, but I'm not so sure about that one.

"Clerks" is probably a stock example that a black and white, dialogue-driven film with low budget can be appealing to broad audience. Of course Clerks is also very low-brow and fast paced, so "Stranger than paradise" is probably a better reference point, being that it was also financially succesful film and a career-maker, only it's author didn't go on to direct Hollywood gross-out comedies.

As for Avatar, I don't know if that's a great example of the Hollywood/Indie divide. That one's supposed to be more than just a blockbuster. The main draw is the visual aspect, yes, but as a cultural milestone it's supposed to be a bit more I think. All the same, I didn't bother seeing it, so who knows.

What is supposed to be so special about it? Here, it was marketed with basic "this is expensive movie, so it must be good" angle.

"Indy movie" label is fake anyways. Things that are in USA tagged with indy are: All films in foreign languages (being as they're usually distributed by smaller distributors); all films in english language which are produced outside of Hollywood; all films that are produced in Hollywood, but directed by a director who demands a lot of creative freedom (such as Altman or Lynch). So basically, films that are not indy are a vast minority of yearly production.

[Phact0rri]

people freely attribute the term to indie to anything they assume is not a massively popular thing. Even if they are just stupid and it is a popular thing.

[McDuffies]

people freely attribute the term to indie to anything they assume is not a massively popular thing. Even if they are just stupid and it is a popular thing.

It's a very american-centric idea. Over here, I don't remember anyone ever using such term; frankly, it seems like a construct made intentionally to alienate people from watching non-Hollywood films. Like - let's label everything we didn't make; identify it with hipster culture, with drugs and sex: you oughta have it while you're in college, when you do all other sorts of weird stuff. When you mature, you have to return to hollywood production. There's a whole world out there, but that entire world is weird and risky, and the only things that aren't are coming from this one suburb.
We here are more keen on idea of art fiels, a vague notion that some films are purely for entertainment, while others have "deeper meaning".

[Dr Legostar]

You're not understanding my nitpick.
1) the model of the "new atom" did not look like an atom. I was trying to see the atom and I could not see it. Also, how can you know what the new element is if you can't see the number of protons? Number of protons is what defines an element!
2) Saying "I'll make a new element" is something you would see in saturday morning cartoons or a bad webcomic. Rookie mistake.
3) It annoys me so much because it was SO DUMB that it jarred me out of my happy movie enjoying state to go "wtf no. no." I was there with my friend who is also a graduate student in chemistry and before I could even say anything she turns to me and goes "does that look like an atom to you?" so I know it's not just me. I am upset about it because it derailed my immersion in the story.


***mild spoiler alert here - highlight to read***


Like I said, there are other ways to get the exact same effect without saying something so dumb. Like, a new isotope. A new crystal lattice. Antimatter. A new type of nuclear structure that redefines the substance on the atomic level. But they didn't SAY any of that. They didn't SAY "a new kind of atom that will overturn modern physics," they said "a new element," and I KNOW what an element is, so I can't sit there and pretend that it makes sense when it doesn't. We don't even know what the palladium is doing in there; from what I know about palladium, catalyzing a reaction is the most probable possibility. You don't need a whole new element for catalysis, just changing the structure or the isotopes would accomplish the appropriate pseudoscience solution WITHOUT SOUNDING LIKE SOMETHING MADE UP BY A FIVE YEAR OLD.

***end spoiler***


Also, I wasn't bitching about Hammer. I liked how they did the character. My comment was more "omg you guys can you believe what a dweeb he was."

Because omg you guys SUCH A DWEEB.

Yeah, i was thinking "molecule" would have been better. His model thingy looked a bit like buckminsterfullerene. But, oh well, better than "precious tritium" I guess. I also thought the movie rocked. And while I have little knowledge or interest in either Thor or Captain America I'm really enjoying all the build up to the Avengers they're doing and all the crossover with the marvel universe.

[Yeahduff]

people freely attribute the term to indie to anything they assume is not a massively popular thing. Even if they are just stupid and it is a popular thing.

It's a very american-centric idea. Over here, I don't remember anyone ever using such term; frankly, it seems like a construct made intentionally to alienate people from watching non-Hollywood films. Like - let's label everything we didn't make; identify it with hipster culture, with drugs and sex: you oughta have it while you're in college, when you do all other sorts of weird stuff. When you mature, you have to return to hollywood production. There's a whole world out there, but that entire world is weird and risky, and the only things that aren't are coming from this one suburb.

Well it's more like indie is used as a marketing tool. Instead of losing market share to actual underground filmmakers, you adopt a few of the quirks and throw in big but slightly different stars like Bill Murray and Scarlett Johannsen and call it indie.

[KWill]

Perfume: Story of a Murderer.

I was impressed.

[Levi-chan]

Saw Moon. Very good, loved Rockwell. Nice use of space.

Also, saw trailer for The Adjustment Bureau. IIIIIIINTERESTING.

[comicracy]

Robin Hood was good, although it left me wanting more. Probably because it ended with the line "and so the legend begins."

[MixedMyth]

I heard that that was surprisingly good. I have trouble imagining Russel Crowe as Robin....but I guess it worked.

Me, I really want to see Iron Man 2. But not as much as I want to see Prince of Persia!

[Dr Legostar]

I heard that that was surprisingly good. I have trouble imagining Russel Crowe as Robin....but I guess it worked.

can't be worse than Kevin Costner.

[Laemkral]

Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog. Okay, not really a movie, but I just bought it off iTunes. Heard there's a sequel in the works, very excited.