Recent movies I've seen that are definitely worthwhile...

The job of a storyteller is to artistically smuggle in something intrinsic into the narrative, not to reinvent the story form. There is an art to the telling, but it is how seamlessly one can insert his own personal spin on the sociopolitical component that separates a good writer from a great one.

 

:? :? :? :? :?

:shock:
AHHHH!!!!!!!
Now I know why I love cats & wargaming.

 

1. Well, duh. But that isn't quite what I said. What I said was that as long as we keep our own environment in a manner that allows us to survive, then does it really matter that the three horned tree sloth goes extinct or not? Species have been going extinct for millions of years. Sure that rate is increasing, but at some point it will balance out. If by balance out that means we will destroy one too many species and it will cause half of all humanity to die off, well, it's still a balancing out, isn't it? Perhaps not the preferred method, but a balancing nonetheless. But in the context of the movie Avatar, their planet is nothing more than a giant floating coal mine waiting to be exploited. It will matter not one bit if we nuked it to end any and all resistance and then mined it for the ore. We survived for thousands of years before and will long after their memory is gone.

2. What you have postulated here is an opinion. No one can prove that Evolution has anything to do with consciousness. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is about the survival of the fittest.

However, I do believe in the soul, and I do believe as you regarding its role in Evolution. But, again, there is no proof of it. And I do believe in higher, nobler concerns. In my opinion, if one does not believe in souls or an afterlife, then survival and continuity of family/species IS the highest order. If you are simply born, live, then die and you are gone forever at the end, then why bother to aspire to anything beyond your own immediate needs/desires? Aren't you just wasting time with idle pursuits?

I hope no one is offended by this conversation. I find it stimulating. My disclaimer is that I frequently play devil's advocate. I realize that no one really knows me here and may not get that about me. Anywho, back to the thread!

 

Hee hee. I don't own cats but I watch my brother's cats and those suckers will hunt you for blood. :lol: Little bastards.

 

Well, Mama & I have five (YES, 5!) of 'em. We love them all dearly. Our smallest is Pretty Kitty, he's 11#'s. (Normal size cat.) Then there's Baby Kitty, she's the only female of the group & she weighs in around 13#'s. Duffy, our trouble-maker, he's a hefty 18#'s. Now comes the brothers; Super Kitty is 29 1/2 #'s & his sibling is BIG KITTY. He's ONLY 30#'s. :shock: What can I say, after raising seven children we (Mama) went thru 'empty nest' syndrome.

Now I know this topic is "Recent movies..." but, this is a movie waiting to be filmed!!

 

Sherlock Holmes.. the Guy Ritchie edition.

The key factor to enjoying this film is disconnecting any part of your brain that has read Sherlock Holmes fiction or seen any serious film or TV adaptation of it. Done it? Ok, good - now you are ready to enjoy this film.

Really, it would have been best to have labelled this film "inspired by Sherlock Holmes". It is a rollicking fun movie in the tradition of Ritchie's other films (Snatch, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, etc.). A lively, fast moving plots with a few twists along the way, assorted action scenes, people beating the crap out of each other periodically, over the top villains, etc. As an action film, its a lot of fun - especially if you enjoy Steampunk. The acting is pretty good as is the chemistry between the actors. The cat and mouse play between Holmes and Irene Adler was amusing.

The movie is unusual in that it definitely shows the "seamy underbelly" of London, especially in the background shots. Victorian London is there in all of its coal dust covered, slimy mud in the streets glory. A lot of films set in the 19th century miss just how nasty the streets were in most areas, as well as the drunks, prostitutes, street urchins, etc. Kudos to Ritchie for putting a lot of that stuff in the background, as opposed to some films where you can really tell a city is just a street set.

That said, if you are looking for a serious and accurate Holmes movie, this is not it. Better in that case to pick up the A&E Holmes series from the late 90's on DVD (which was phenomenal and my favorite Holmes adaptation). I probably would not have liked this film as much had I not been forewarned to enjoy it for its own merits, and not as a Holmes movie (thanks to two friends of mine there).

Andy

 

To Druvas..

Yes, but PURPOSEFULLY driving out plant and animal species is not only doing the kind of damage to our biosphere that CAN put our survival at risk, it is simply irresponsible, and, IMO, wrong.

Extermination of a sentient people, which you would do if you nuked Pandora, is simply Hitler-esque genocide.

Their memory will be gone, but our memory will now record us officially becoming a race of psychopaths.

Well, as you say, I do believe in the soul, and believe that once sentience comes into being, you have more concerns than mere survival. Survival isn't LIVING. It isn't being worthy of LIFE. That takes on a higher level of responsibility. Sure, Darwinism may not it self back this up, but that shows the folly of going to science for a firm grip on issues of morality. There are many things the laboratory is ill equipped to give you answers on. Questions of morality being one. Science needs to go elsewhere to get a moral sense of things, since their own discipline falls short. That would be like asking theologians to investigate dark matter. That's not their thing. And any answers they may deign to give would not be useful or helpful.

And if it turned out we didn't have a soul, well, still, there is the mattetr of who you are as a person. And if you are the sort of person who can rationalize all kinds of foul deeds in the pursuit of survival, you may have "survived", but what have you really accomplished? Mere survival alone means nothing but...survival. There is no meaning in that.

That is the same with civilizations.

You have a choice as to what kind of person you will be, soul or no. Same with civilizations. What values will you stand for?

BTW, not harshing on you, Druvas, just debating your points.



Sherlock Holmes, that's next up for me.

 

Yeah, I guess my problem with the movie was the rewriting of history. It was a bit frustrating as I didn't realize this was going to happen in the movie. I knew it was historical fiction but I didn't know it would be an out and out rewrite.

This, imo, took away from my enjoyment of the movie while, otoh, my friend that saw it with me loved it. Overall, I have to say quite interesting. Made some strong statements about vengeance, revenge and justice. I saw a lot of the first two and little or none of the third in this movie.

So, I'd give it a strong 3.5 out of 5 stars.

 

Basterds is now my fav Tarantino flick. Used to be Pulp Fiction.

 

The history rewriting threw me for a loop as well; my main beef with it was once you rewrite history slightly, it makes it harder to guess what else will get rewritten as things progress.

I actually did not care for the main "commandos behind the lines" plotline, mainly since the commandos effectively committed war crimes by violating the Geneva Convention. I probably would have reacted differently if the victims had been hard core Waffen SS types, but the guys they depicted getting whacked were regular German army troops. If the roles were reversed and it was borderline psycho German commandos brutalizing captured GI's, we as viewers would be repulsed. I'm not sure the double standard holds up well here.

Personally, I found the other plotline with the girl vs the SS investigator a lot more interesting. On a side note, kudos to Tarentino (or whoever wrote that scene) for the scene in which the undercover allies go to meet a contact in a tavern and try to pass themselves off as German soldiers. German dialects are very distinctive, and the part where the German officer pegs the operatives as fakes because the English guy learned German as a stage actor and thus had no regional accent was spot on. The whole sequence was good, but I appeciate that level of attention to detail.

Andy

 

My wife and daughter went to see it but I had to miss it! I wanted to see that movie with them because I thought it would be great. (I was having to work on finals so I sat in a restaurant typing up papers while they went to the movie. I work better with food and people milling about.)

Glad to hear you enjoyed it. Maybe I can use that as an excuse to get them to go see it again.

 

I am eagerly awaiting my Blu-Ray copy of Public Enemies in the mail. Has anyone seen this yet? No spoilers please!

Best Buy sent me $40 in coupons for failing to deliver some Christmas gifts in time. As far as I am concerned, they can be late anytime they want.

 

Saw Daybreakers. Must say, disappointed. Sciencevamps don't really work for me. Then, the movie didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, action movie or social commentary, and did a muddled job of mixing motifs. Didn't suck, but won't be picking it up on DVD.

 

But how does it compare to the episode of Buck Rodgers with the Space Vampire? :lol:

 

Book of Eli - not spectacular, but not bad.

Pros - Realistically gritty post-apocalyptic (aka "PA") fair, with your usual "humans out of options" staples like banditry, cannibalism, poor hygiene and bad teeth. Denzel Washington does another excellent job at delivering brutal *ss-kickings to those who deserve them (see also: Man On Fire). The washed out, overly bright cinematography is par for the course, though after seeing it in The Road and several other PA films I'm starting to wish someone had a fresh idea for how to shoot a PA film. Some interesting story twists involving the sense of sight.

Cons - Several logic flaws, though that's to be expected.
Logic flaw one (major): in the badlands, folks have resorted to cannibalism. In the town Eli wanders across they have a reliable source of water, but given that the town is in the middle of the desert with no cultivation or livestock in sight and the big boom is stated as about 20 years ago, what do these folks eat since they are stated as not being cannibals? There is only so much canned food to scavenge with minimal vehicles available, and a fair amount of that would have gone bad after twenty years
Logic flaw two (major): Without giving away a spoiler, Eli carries the last copy of a book that is widely available. Given how many books are printed and distributed in the US, even given a concerted national effort to destroy all copies of said book I doubt you could get down to one. Heck, just the copies buried in the rubble of collapsed houses and buildings would guarantee a ready supply.
Logic flaw 3 (minor): Its never stated where the first part of the movie takes place, but given the terrain it is hard to see that in the later part of the movie they could drive to a West Coast city on one tank of gas.

Anyway, logic flaws aside it's worth seeing. Post-apocalyptic *ass-kicking, enough plot to get by on, decent acting. Three stars out of five.

Andy,
post-apocalypse film connoisseur

 

I'd go with Buck. More fun, hotter chicks.



Just saw Book of Eli. EXCELLENT rumination on the nature of man, civilization and faith/religion. Like V for Vendetta, not nearly as much of an action movie as the trailers indicate, but this was for the good.

Must take exception to the "logic flaws" above, as they are nitpicks one COULD come up with plausible explanations, if one chose. But I consider them irrelevant (no offense), as they aren't the point of the film.

Oh, and go see Sherlock Holmes, a surprisingly fun time at the theater.

 

Finally saw Avatar last weekend. Very cool, visually, but plot-wise, meh. Tickets were $12 for the matinee :shock: :!: Seems kinda pricey, but maybe they have to charge more to replace the 3d glasses I saw people pocketing after the movie. Cretins. I should have turned them in.

 

The Lovely Bones-Beautiful mediation on life, the afterlife, loss, sadness and moving on. Peter Jackson is obviously a fan of the book. Good movie, but definitely some long and slow moments. If your head isn't there in that world, you will be bored. Kinda like 2001 or Blade Runner, also movies I love, but have that trait.

Come to think of it, you can say that about the LOTR films, too. Some "slow" moments, and if you aren't into it, you will get bored.

 

Psst....same director.