I nearly did mention Lost in Translation. I would be surprised if that one is not considered as a true gem and certainly an amazing reflection of the times. Cast Away, yeah! I can buy into that one. A.I. ... not so sure. Personally I found the story bland and the whole thing relied too heavily on some pretty looking effects and cinematography - call be a snob if you will, but I like a movie to excel in some areas and hold their own in other areas too. Speaking of which Gravity managed this, so I expect it will remain in movie goers memories - I found After Earth to be much in the same kind of frame although it was more aimed at younger audiences, I imagine that After Earth will out live Gravity simply because the one of humanities greatest concerns was faced ("fear") and given that message alongside the Heroes journey it just has more impact upon the memory. Mad Max ... Cannot see that one lasting in the memory very long at all. Interesting take on the original, but as I mentioned above, it may have been above average in one or two areas, but for me it failed over all. I think the recent spat of Marvel movies will last for a long time. To me they are probably the most impactful movies since 2000 in terms of their long term appeal and the scope of the audience they manage to touch. Transformers though I simply regard as mindless special effects, bad acting, terrible storylines and missed opportunity for a black comedy (which it very nearly is by accident - it reminds me of Critters for some reason!?!?) There is one AMAZING film that I was just reminded about ... There Will Be Blood 2345678 - Yeah! I could easily be convinced of that! The movies have gotten better, but I think (being English) the regular TV shows have a hard job surpassing the likes of the Two Ronnies, Faulty Towers and such. Wasa huge fan of Father Ted, The IT Crowd, and Black Books. The lastest thing I watched that seriously blew me away was Rick and Morty, in that category Family Guy, The Simpsons and such have been the general benchmark. Oh! and of course South Park! Some of the kids stuff is good too (not that I watch much of it), but I have to give a shout out for Adventure Time
One of the 6 billion reasons it was a bad movie. No-one mentioned this problem in any of the 64 thousand script meetings and rehearsals? How was this ok'd when there are so many better alternatives that give the same dramatic outcome? Lazy, disrespectful, and poor, writing.
Sellbin - Maybe it is a matter of taste. maybe around 30% of what you listed I wouldn't regard as "memorable." OF course there are lots of good movies, but I just don't think they measure up ... maybe it is simply a matter of the distance I have from them and my childhood etc. Thanks for the list btw! You reminded of some great movies Who can forget McLovin XD Although I really dislike The Fast and the Furious I can imagine that they'll (some of them) stand the test of time because they tap into a very specific juvenile fantasy that most of us carry to some degree or another, but as a piece of art and storytelling ... not much too them. Cloverfield, atmospheric, but little more. Apocalyptico ... nah! I didn't think about animations tbh! Frozen and Shrek both great (although I feel Shrek would've been better served stopping at two movies! District 9 was really intriguing. I liked that one a lot. 300 certainly did something different and rightly got a lot of recognition for it. Anyway, thanks a lot! This has really go tme thinking. What deceade would you class as the best for movies? THAT is a tough question, so I'll narrow it down to 80's, 90's 00's and ten's' I honestly cannot answer the question properly myself and now realise it is simply a question of looking at the period in my life when I watch a lot of movies. That would be in the 90's, but there were some classics from the 80's ... I'd have to go for the 90's though, I think it will be looked back at as a truly great decade for film. Just looking at 2000-2010 there are some great comedies, but I notice a lot of remakes (too many.)
Not unless it's in the film they aren't, and she fell to the bottom of the bomb bay. I suppose there's another page in there to retcon the friendship bracelets too, but they're still not getting any more of my hard-earned yen.
All ships have artificial gravity in like all space movies except like 2. How is this now suddenly a film breaking trope? More breaking in the gravity department is that she fell straight down the bomb bay, while when she dumbly kicked the remote down instead of taking half the time to climb the ladder to get it, it landed somewhere around her face region, suggesting the actual point of gravity moved a substantial distance in just a few minutes.
I don't think that artificial gravity is the issue in Sci-fi on ships (granted they could have tech that generates it, like Star Trek has artificial grav genernators). The problem that is being brought up is using that gravity dropped bombs should not work in space, and I doubt even less that they would have groups of people throwing them from the bays through an energy shield of some sort (even then they might not hit the target due to debris floating around the vessel being bombed). So it would be more believable to have a guy out on a guide-line in a space suit shooting at an Imperial Star Destroyer with an RPG-7. So just because you have artificial gravity on a ship, does not mean it works on things outside of it.
True, but even assuming that they operate by gravity, the gravity generator or whatever would make them fall, and once they leave the ship and enter the vacuum of space, there wouldn't be too many equal and opposite forces to stop them from moving regardless of whether the ships artificial gravity has any affect on them or not.
I like energy weapons. I can make them go, "pew pew, pew pew pew!" You gotta admit, though, on a visual level, the bombers in Last Jedi were pretty cool even if they didn't make the most sense. Well, as much sense as anything else in Star Wars.
I haven't seen the movie, just rants and clips. I like kinetic energy weapons, they poke holes in things.
I preferred "Rogue One", but I didn't have many issues in "The Last Jedi". I didn't find it taking itself very seriously (how can it when a part involves milking a giant alien creature?). I don't have any expectations regarding these movies, though. I never have. After seeing my favorite books tortured I've developed a decent tolerance in regards to movies. Critics shouldn't be listened to. I have rarely liked a movie that the critics have liked so I take what they say with a grain of salt. The recent Star Wars movies are about the only exceptions to it. Edit: Titled movie wrong. Also, saw "IT" again and still liked it; I noticed more things this time around. I'm looking forward to seeing it with my mom again on Sunday. I recommend this movie a lot.
I haven't worked up the courage to see the new one. I'm still tortured by memories of the '90s movie/tv series and how boring it was. Tim Curry was definitely the best part.
I don't like the first one in the least bit and I don't even like Tim Curry in it. This new one's fairly fun (not really scary) and it's just a good movie. If it helps any, my dad (who's an avid Stephen King fan and who also dislikes the original movie) says that the new "IT" is watchable several times over. If you're worried, just wait until it comes out on Netflix or Redbox. The movie is different than the book in a variety of ways, but it tries to keep the pacing so there's limited time to grow bored.
Well, I just saw Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri. (it only just got released here but has been out for ages in the US) I was cautious, based on the trailer below; concerned it was going to be another Oscar bait 'Fargo' style film but ultimately over written and directed, trying to be zany and push the boundaries in pursuit of laughs... you know, the kind where you think 'yeah it's good, I guess...' but leaves you ultimately unsatisfied. As one critic put it: 'Three Billboards is not the movie you think it is.' From the very first scene it was evident this was going to be a masterfully crafted film. Trust in the director and the story was quickly established. Every scene had purpose and drove the narrative, often in unexpected ways, and I soon knew that when each scene started something important was going to happen. It was very funny, but also genuinely moving and emotional, there was even plenty of tension and mystery. The characters are deep and rich, complex and well fleshed out, but easy to understand with fantastic performances (with one exception IMHO). The writing is superb, with perfect pacing and information conveyed incredibly well. The score is on point and the direction is careful and considered. It was a thoroughly satisfying cinema experience. I know I tend to get a bit excitable here when I comment about a movie I thought was really good, but holy fuck this was good. An absolute must see. (I genuinely predict Oscars for Best Picture, Best Screenplay (not sure which category) Best Actress, and Best Actor in a Supporting Role. Not sure about Director. I think they might give that to Del Toro, or Greta Gerwig along with whatever screenplay category they don't put this in.)
Guys, it's official. They're making a Star Wars spin off about Han Solo. Selena Gomez will be playing the main character.
I knew they were making a Han Solo movie, but I didn't know Selena Gomez was attached. I never really thought of her as being able to convincingly play a young Harrison Ford. Then again I never really though Cate Blanchet could play Bob Dylan, so I could very easily be mistaken on this.
Watching Back to the Future III (for the umpteeth time) The Doc in 1885 is the one from 1985, so how can the young Doc in 1955 exist once the Doc in 1885 gets shot by Mad Dog?
Huh? His parentage is never brought into it. 1955 doc is completely clean from the events that happen to him after, which from his perspective includes 1985, 2015 alt 1985, and 1885. 1885 doc doesn't lead to 1955 doc. It leads to time traveler loco family doc. Or am I missing something?
After running Zapped last month (heartwarming 80s teen comedy about a kid who gains telekinetic power and uses it to expose his female classmates breasts without their consent), my cable company is now going to run Revenge of the Nerds, the heartwarming 80s teen comedy about socially inept college students using technology and disguises to commit a variety of sexual assaults, topped off with a healthy handful of racial and sexual stereotyping. Ah, those were the days, glad to see that they're not over everywhere
BTF: Marty inadvertently travels back to 1955 and collaborates with the earlier, younger version of Doc, to get him (Marty) back to 1985 BTF II: Marty and the Doc travel into the future, from 1985 to 2015, to prevent Marty's (future) kids going to jail. In the process old Biff uses the time machine (and the Sports Almanac) to travel back to 1955 and give his younger self the book, in order for him to make his millions from sports betting. To prevent the terrible, and alternative 1985 that ensues from Biff's wealth, Marty and Doc also travel back to 1955 to prevent Biff getting his hands on the book. This done, the Doc and his time machine are hit by lightening and he's sent hurting back to 1885 BTF III: While living in 1885, Doc is shot and killed by Mad Dog. This Doc is the one from 1985, so if he gets killed while living in 1885, how can the younger Doc be living in 1955? Hold on... None of the events in 1985 / 2015 have happened to the 1955 Doc. He's a Doc who was effectively leapfrogged by these events. Time travel is very confusing.
1955 doc only goes on to become 1985 doc, who then experiences all the rest. That's all. Nothing more. Killing 1885 doc is essentially only killing 1985 doc AFTER all the events. 1885 doc doesn't have anything to do with creating or becoming a 1955 doc, so his death would have zero impact on Doc being born, growing up, etc.
