Birdman - there was plenty of room for interpretation, which I really enjoy. The acting was top notch, but you expect that from a cast with the likes of Michael Keaton and Edward Norton. I felt like Zach Galifianakis was kind of doing his usual thing that he does wherever I see him, but he fit the role great. Apparently some people have found the movie tedious, like my friend who complained about getting bored halfway through, but it captivated me and I was really eager to see how it would all unfold. The ending certainly left me with a bunch of questions, but in a good way.

I didn't really care for the soundtrack which had a bunch of jam session type drumming with nothing but the drums. It was certainly different and memorable because of that, but I like a soundtrack that stands out because the tracks stay in your head and take you back to specific scenes in the movie when you hear them again.

Another problem I had was Emma Stone's giant bug eyes. They took up like half the screen in close shots, and the screen was big so that's a lot of eye to deal with. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying she's not a pretty woman, I just wasn't prepared for it.

8/10

In a theatre?

Watchmen (in March 2009). I think it was a fine adaptation - and not only because it did away with the metafictional pirates - and also had one scene that really should have been in the comic book itself. 8/10

Anywhere, Nikki. You reminded me that I should see Watchmen, though.

Ah, okay.

In that case, it'd be Ashens and the Quest for the Gamechild. It's a pretty funny piece with surrealism, geek humour and obscure references - in other words, pure FGR gold material. 9/10

The Congress. 6/10, I guess?

The last movie I watched that I had not previously seen was The Amazing Spiderman 2.

It was astonishingly terrible.

Maleficent

Some nice visuals and not a bad initial premise. However, even without their dependency on the original, it didn't make much sense why Maleficent became attached to Aurora when she did. Overall, they could have gone a much more sensible and non-contradictory method by not making King Stefan the 'evil guy'. The 'true love' twist was done a lot better in Frozen. The 3 god-fairies were too 3 Stooges like for my liking. I am rather critical when it comes to stories where the 'villain' is the protagonist. It wasn't a terrible movie, and I still wouldn't recommend it, especially if you saw the original Disney Sleeping Beauty (which they presume you're at least familiar with).

The latest Star Trek movie.

It was a good action movie, but it was not a good Star Trek movie. And it filled me with dread for Episode VII which is being directed by the same guy. I have no faith that he will stay true to the spirit of Star Wars. (Which was all-but-confirmed with the 'action-stance' sith we see in the trailer.)

I feel pretty optimistic about Ep. VII. I feel like Star Wars has less of a clearly defined "spirit" to ruin... or at least, a harder one to ruin. If it's overly action-y, indulgent, and shallow, like Abrams' ST reboot, it'll be closer to classic SW than his new ST is to classic ST. I think Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness were definitely more Wars-y than Trek-y. Which isn't a huge surprise I guess, given that Abrams has said he was always a Star Wars fan, not so much a Trekkie.

Anyway, the current state of Star Wars media isn't so glorious... I can't imagine these new films sinking further into the depths. If they're even a marginal move in the direction of the former heights, as we perceive them through thick filters of nostalgia, I'll be happy. They can't be worse than the prequels, knock on wood?

OH HAHA, THIS IS A STAR WRAS THREAD NOW KROK. sry.

Most recent movie I saw was... Inherent Vice. It was a beautiful mess, I liked it a lot. 8/10. Haven't read the novel. Figured it would be better to go Movie->Book on that one. From what I gather, an indecipherable morass of plot and intrigue is half the point of the story, and the movie captured it quite well. Visions of Foucault's Pendulum danced in my head.

By the way, Freelancer, when Massassi dies later this year - where will you go and pout then?

Magnolia. No lower than 8/10. I'd have to watch it a second time to be sure.

This.

I've been going through the good episodes of TNG lately, and it's awesome. Also, you can find clips of LeVar Burton and Michael Dorn on Youtube, where they diss the Abrams films for lacking the crucial moral and intellectual aspects of the shows. Damn you Abrams!

I'd rather watch Captain Jean-Luc Picard, of the USS Enterprise recite Shakespeare with Q, any day of the week.

post those clips, bro

From 3:13 to 5:45 and also 7:02 to 8:02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSO1jc2asfE

Can't find seem to find the LeVar Burton one I had in mind, but the gist of his beef is that new Trek isn't true to Gene Roddenberry's idealistic vision. Don't bother with the clip Youtube suggests ("Why is 'Next Gen' Star Disappointed in New 'Trek'"); in that one he's mostly pissed that the new movies negate the timeline of TNG.

Personally, I might suggest that ST works much better as a TV show than a film. After all, it was the success of Star Wars that led to the creation of the TOS films, which are more action-y than the original show as well.

I totally agree with your observation that this is just the difference that actually might make Abrams good for Star Wars, though.

Everyone always seems really hell-bent on the idea that sequels and remakes need to be exactly like the films that came before them.

Those people should go watch Superman Returns.

Whiplash,

Jebus bleeping cripes, he plays a great angry man.

I've had a hard time finding movies made in the last 10 years that kept my attention span or interest me. But the last move I watched was 'Better living through chemistry'. It wasn't that bad actually.

John Wick.

Do you like action? Keanu Reeves? A plot? This contains some, if not all of those things!

John Wick really surprised me... i liked it way more than i expected to

the last movie i saw was night at the museum 3... it was ok... i laughed, i got some feels... if you liked the first 2 i'd recommend it

last movie i saw in theater was Chappie... imagine serious mode short circuit where instead of a generally nice law abiding person teaching a newly alive robot it's a gang of criminals

Last night I was watching one of the Hobbit movies. I don't know which one, because I didn't bother to check, but after about 30 minutes I found myself amused at how it reminded me of a Star Wars prequel than it did a Lord of the Rings movie.

I dunno. For me, an action movie should have a good villain and a understandable driving plot, but that version of Khan was ...odd and the story was a mess imo. I assumed the movie wants me to believe Khan is dangerous because he's highly intelligent, but his plan of smuggling his friends into torpedoes, which are designed and distributed to be hurled at planets, seems like the dumbest idea ever. And why make Khan have super strength as well? That makes him more dangerous, yes, but there doesn't seem to be a real pay-off for that ability story-wise...?

Khan always had super strength. However, he wasn't always a lanky Brit. That parts new.

I think his intention was to always steal the ship (designed to require basically no crew) with his people loaded as torpedoes.

That I got. Khan needed to get his torpedo-people on board for his future hijack. What I don't understand or follow is that, since it was the bad warhawk admiral guy, Marcus, who authorized the loading of those new experimental torpedoes (iirc) onto the ship, Khan not only had to predict or just hope that all his friends will be in those torpedoes loaded but that his sworn enemy will permit those weapons to be used in the first place as well. And that the very first mission using these issued experiment bombs will the be one involve him on that planet.

ehhh

Well here's the thing

Khan designed the super ship and the torpedoes. If everything had gone to plan, Marcus would have thought Khan was on his side, the torpedoes would have been loaded onto the super ship, and Khan would have used his people to take over. Instead, Marcus found out about the torpedoes. Khan went ballistic, and Marcus ordered the Enterprise to fire the torpedoes into enemy territory so that all evidence of his involvement with Section 31 would be erased or inaccessible.

The whole point of the movie is that Khan's original plan went pear-shaped. Khan's "plan" made no sense because it wasn't a plan; it wasn't 4-dimensional space chess, it was a freaky intelligent, ambitious and opportunistic villain thinking on his feet and taking advantage of an evolving situation. That's not a weak point, that's the only good part about the movie.

Interstellar 10 / 10

Horns

Daniel Radcliffe is great but the rest of the film is ehhhhhhh.

6/10

La Region Centrale - 9.5/10, it going boring at parts but the cinematography and soundtrack were great

mmmm. I guess I learned something new today. I admit it's been a year or so since I seen the film. I was under the impression Marcus didn't know about the people in the torpedoes because, otherwise, Marcus could have just hurled the evidence into a sun or hide it away somewhere like his huge ship. Enterprise's mission to that planet Khan was one was a suicide trip but the evidence didn't need to be there as well.

The movie was written by a 9/11 truther as an allegory to 9/11.

Yeah.

The Room - 9/10

It actually sucks when watched alone, but with a group, it's great. Oscar worthy, in fact.

so someone who thinks the 9/11 attacks were committed by a collection of arabian terrorists funded by saudis with no aid of the CIA? that's a weird thing to make a movie about

ಠ_ಠ

I think you might be missing the point.

i was trying to make a joke about why they should even be called 9/11 truthers, because there's no truth in what they say

Oh, at least half. It's pretty great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFBweo_sKdg

This is the greatest scene in the history of cinema.