- Jun 10, 2014
- 16,578
- 20,016
Founding Member
Yep. Insane what he lived through.Wow. Google to find some real articles about this Glass guy in Revenant. Talk about a bad ass.
Yep. Insane what he lived through.Wow. Google to find some real articles about this Glass guy in Revenant. Talk about a bad ass.
Well it wouldn't have been a remarkable enough story to make a film about it 180 years after the fact if he had died, would it? Besides, it's still a fantastic film, probably the best of the year. And the ending in the movie is decidedly different than what happened in real life.So he lived? Guess I can skip that one.
I watched Hotel for Dogs last night with the kids. Anyone want me to write a review?
Watched that with my kids awhile back. Good film....for watching with kids.
Maze Runner
Post apocalyptic premise, frantic pace....exciting, but annoying as well. Don't want to spoil it, but I was annoyed that the 'grievers' that chase the kids are part animal and part robotic, but no explanation of what they are or how/why they were made is ever given. There are characters that should have been in red shirts, their deaths were foretold as soon as they got on screen. The 'bad' kid that argues with the lead does his role very well, but it is a stupid role with bad dialogue and pitiful actions. It is almost like he is only there because someone said there should be that role in the script - very sophomoric handling of his plot content. But what really got me was the lead frequently asking everyone to pause like his spidey sense is tingling, then WHOMP they get attacked. Run another 10 minutes and repeat. I liked the fantastical construction of the Maze, and the deeper plot about why they were put in it. I'll accept it was setting the stage for the subsequent 3 (?) films, but standing on it's own it was a B+ with credit for monsters and action, dinged for storyline.
Maze Runner 2 - Scorch Trials
Given the premise of the first one, this one picks up and keeps going with the plot but, given the twists in the initial film you keep wondering with every new person we meet which side they are really on. That could be good as it keeps things interesting, but it can also be annoying as you struggle to bond to anyone to care about them as a character. Oh, and the lead continues that 10 minutes of running punctuated by "Wait...." WHOMP. Credit for a few deeper wrinkles with our lead, and again solid monsters and action, but I find myself more annoyed by the storyline. Still, ,good enough to make me want to see the last 2 when they come out.
We saw The Martian last week. Meh. I can't believe it's actually up for best picture.
I read the book before seeing the movie, which probably plays into my poor review (the book was really good). Obviously the movie can't cover all the story lines from the book and we wondered how folks followed the story without having read the book. Too many details were left out of the movie, IMO.
I'm curious, if you didn't read the book what did you think?
And if you read the book, what did you think?
I liked The Martian fine, it was a lot funnier than I was expecting. Ending was pretty hokey, though. Also surprised it's up for Best Picture, but it's been a REALLY weak year again for movies (like last year). I really thought Hollywood was on the rebound after a ridiculously strong 2013, but that year turned out to be an anomaly.
Oddly enough, Interstellar was based a lot more on actual astrophysics and space travel theory than The Martian. It incorporated a fantasy aspect that The Martian didn't have, which is why it might have seemed less realistic, but other than that, it was very true to science.Agree with sas here.
I thought it was good, more realistic than Interstellar. I thought it played more to the actual science as well, at least for the most part. The way he got from the module to the Hermes was a bit "yea right" but at the end of the day, it is a movie afterall.
I did not read the book.
I was under the impression, at least from previous conversations, that there was an overt effort to stick to science on the Martian, more so than Interstellar did with the fantasy type ending.Oddly enough, Interstellar was based a lot more on actual astrophysics and space travel theory than The Martian. It incorporated a fantasy aspect that The Martian didn't have, which is why it might have seemed less realistic, but other than that, it was very true to science.
I thought Gravity was better than The Martian, but I didn't 'read' Gravity. Sometimes reading the book ruins the movie, as I think it did for me and The Martian.I was under the impression, at least from previous conversations, that there was an overt effort to stick to science on the Martian, more so than Interstellar did with the fantasy type ending.
I was aware that Interstellar used a lot of real science, in fact the blu ray has either extras, or there's an extra disc, that talks about nothing but the science of it, and how they brought in different scientists to make it as real as possible.
I guess the Martian just didn't incorporate any fantasy, which would be why some may consider it sticking to the science more.
Either way, I enjoyed them both, fantasy or not. Hell I really liked Gravity.
I'm fascinated with space and tend to watch all the shows on those high number channels
Nothing wrong with it. Both films are hilarious.
Just watched "It Follows" last night - odd premise, but it works.
Not sure how much stock you guys put into the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes - but it got a 97%, so I'm like... how bad could it be.
It was pretty scary... and set in a Detroit suburb so it was kind of bleak.
If you like the Teen-style horror movies, this one was pretty good.