What's The Last Movie You Saw?

[fueledbycoffee]

Just finished Y Tu Mama Tambien. Excellent film, and the final scene was a nearly perfect execution of Chekhov's Gun. I love that there's really three stories wrapped into one, the main plot, about the road trip, then the story of rural Mexico at the end of the last century, and the politics, scenes and people that make it up, and the third, which I can't say without spoiling it for anyone who might see it, but once the Gun goes off, much of the rest of the film makes a great deal of sense.

Next up, since I seem to be on Gael Garcia Bernal kick, is Even the Rain.

[Clifford]

Last Film I saw was Super 8.

Imagine Cloverfield, you remember Cloverfield, right? Now imagine Cloverfield Spielberg style, with children and lots of hoo-rah. That's my description of the film.

[Julius Aurora]

^So basically I don't want to see it then. Well the trailers did look a bit boring.

Rise of the planet of the Apes, yeah, it was alright. Nothing to write home about but worth watching for the novelty.

[Nef Yoo BlackBeard]

ahhhhhhhhhh i haz noe moor duhboomz ta spind et tha punch en judy shew
i hada nu big shiny duhboom dat unca BB gib me wen he kumd home frum pillyjin!
but i tradid et ta unca fart fer tha bigiss frog ebber !
but et krowkt en dint jump eny moor rrrrrr
but din i tradid tha frog wiff tha shef dat kooks stuff fer sum pottij ! deer weer no fefvers or tales or fur or udder yukky stuff innet !
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[PKMKII]

Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Whole thing was butchered by a viciously commercial rewriting of the story to excise the story part to make room for more bad CG fight sequences. Speaking of bad CG, the dragon looked cartoonishly awful. Plus, the cinematography felt amateurish, less like a cinematic movie and more like a made-for-TV movie.

[Roland Deschain]

Just finished watching Revenge of the Nerds. I've not seen it in a long time, so had forgotten most of it. Great film, but very silly and very very 80s. There is a little bit of fairly gratuitous female nudity in it, but films of this ilk/era are well-known for that. I have the other three films in the series to watch, but they will be coming at a later date.

I watched a film called Rubber last night. It's about a rubber tyre that wheels itself around killing people with telekinetic powers. It's a modern-ish B-movie affair that doesn't take itself seriously. I laughed through most of it, so it must be good. Allegedly.

[Qwertyuiopasd]

Saw The Ides of March Monday night. It was quite good. Interesting commentary on modern politics in America, and almost Shakespearean in construction.

[Roland Deschain]

Saw The Ides of March Monday night. It was quite good. Interesting commentary on modern politics in America, and almost Shakespearean in construction.

I've seen that advertised, and it looked interesting. I do like political films if they're well-made, and this one appears to have a decent cast. I'm sure the fact that it is of a Shakespearean construction had more than a passing influence on the title.*

After my last post last night, I finally got around to watching Sucker Punch. I must say, this is a funky film aimed at young adults/teenagers, which still has enough to keep adults interested. Opinion is quite divided on the intranets about this one, with people not getting the metaphors. If you pay attention to the dialogue before the really funky stuff starts, you'll catch big clues as to what's going on. Unable to deal with reality, the protagonist associates what's going on to a fantastical reality in her head. She goes even further than this, piling a metaphor on top of a metaphor, essentially sanitising the film enough for its aimed-at audience without compromising the film artistically. I won't spoil it for those who haven't watched it, but the ending...truly excellent, if not what I wanted to happen. If you like funky films, then I recommend this to you.

Two other films i've seen in the past couple of weeks are Troll Hunter (Trolljegeren) and Let the Right One In (Låt den rätte komma in) from Norway and Sweden, respectively.** The past couple of years have been good for Scandinavian TV and Cinema, with these two films instantly entering my all time favourite list. Troll Hunter follows a documentary style, with a group of university film students stumbling upon a man who hunts trolls in the wilds of Norway. They then follow him in his job, living the thrills and dangers with him for a short while. The trolls themselves are well done, and fit nicely into the film with the emphasis not just on them, but on the interaction of the people as well. Let the Right One In is about a bullied 12 year old boy who befriends the girl next door. Little does he know that she is a vamipire, doomed to drink blood or die an agonising death. The roles these two played must have stretched their skills to the limits, but they appear more than up to this as their relationship blossoms from friends onwards. I read the book earlier this year, and the film does leave one or two items out of it, such as Eli's complete back history and her relationship to her carer Håkan, but this does not compromise the film in any way, as the focus is on the lead characters and their relationship.***

* As a good Shakespearean film, you should watch The Merchant of Venice with Al Pacino. I thought this was a good version, with Pacino playing Shylock very well.
** Watched in the original language with the theatrical English subtitles. Americans; beware the oversimplified subtitles used on the original DVD/Bluray release of Let the Right One In in the USA, which were altered back to the original subtitles on current versions after uproar from fans and the director.
*** This was remade/reinterpreted as Let Me In by Hollywood, with, apparently, other plot points left out. I've not seen this version yet, but have it ready to watch in the near future. Watch this space ----> .

[pieces o'nine]

(Låt den rätte komma in) from Norway and Sweden, respectively.** The past couple of years have been good for Scandinavian TV and Cinema, with these two films instantly entering my all time favourite list.
... is about a bullied 12 year old boy who befriends the girl next door. Little does he know that she is a vamipire, doomed to drink blood or die an agonising death. The roles these two played must have stretched their skills to the limits, but they appear more than up to this as their relationship blossoms from friends onwards.

I watched it without subtitles and quite liked it. I haven't decided whether to watch the US remake.

[PKMKII]

(Låt den rätte komma in) from Norway and Sweden, respectively.** The past couple of years have been good for Scandinavian TV and Cinema, with these two films instantly entering my all time favourite list.
... is about a bullied 12 year old boy who befriends the girl next door. Little does he know that she is a vamipire, doomed to drink blood or die an agonising death. The roles these two played must have stretched their skills to the limits, but they appear more than up to this as their relationship blossoms from friends onwards.

I watched it without subtitles and quite liked it. I haven't decided whether to watch the US remake.

The hollywood version removed one of the central elements that I guess they thought would be too controversial for American audiences, namely [SPOILER]that they made the heroine a biological girl, and not a castrated transsexual.[/SPOILER]

[gronank]

Star Wars: Episod VI - return of the jedi
explain to me how a tribal society of tree dwelling, poorly armed teddy bears is capable defeating a legion of "the best troops of the empire".

explain to me why they built the death star mk2 with the same critical vent, only this time large enough to fit a spaceship in it. I mean, if the vent is necessary couldn't they atleast put some grates in there or something? mabe a sharp S-turn or two?

Why bother with a deathstar at all if you can fit a few hundreds of Terra-ton yielding hydrogen bombs (or equivalent) on each of the smaller star destroyers effectivly providing the same capability of planetary annihilation at a fraction of the cost?

An all-terrain vehicle that is destroyed if moved over a slippery, slightly angled surface is not in fact an all-terrain vehicle.

I feel that Empire Engineers isn't the brightest bunch. I for one, would have spent all that time and effort spent on the deathstars on dyson spheres instead.

[Roland Deschain]

I watched it without subtitles and quite liked it. I haven't decided whether to watch the US remake.

Ooh, la-de-da with your polyglot skills I wish I could watch it and understand it, but alas! I think the theatrical subtitles did very well. You should read the book too, PoN. If you can understand Swedish, then you could read it in the original language. Thus I once again envy you.

The hollywood version removed one of the central elements that I guess they thought would be too controversial for American audiences, namely [Corrected SPOILER]that they made the heroine a biological girl, and not a castrated boy.[/Corrected SPOILER]

I could not read what the spoiler was, even at max zoom, although I already knew what it must be, as i'd read about it beforehand, but quoting you certainly made up for that, lol. As to the US version, I have now watched it. As a standalone film, without other reference points (ie - Swedish film or book), it's good. It is very enjoyable, and does not skimp on the strong adult themes. It hints at something that the Swedish film did not, but I won't say what here, as that would spoil it. It is subtly done, but if you know what it means, then it is obvious. Taken with reference points, it seemed a little anaemic, if you'll excuse the pun, although almost infinitely better than that Twilight twaddle. I did enjoy it, with the lead actors doing well in their roles once again, but I simply kept thinking about Let the Right One In whilst doing so. It seemed to have some missing element, and seemed watered-down, for want of a better word. Such a shame, but there you go. One more thing that both films left out is [Book Spoiler]Oscar wets himself a lot, and has to wear a pissball (a piece of sponge) in his [under]pants so as not to embarass himself[/Book Spoiler]. There's a lot of character development missing in both films, but I think that the Swedish film carries it off far better than the US film. The order to enjoy them in is: US film; Swedish film; Book. That way, each subsequent version will build on the previous, and you'll get to enjoy them all when you first watch (or read) them.

Another film I watched recently was The Uninvited, apparently a remake of an older film. This is a ghost story based around a girl in her late teens (Emily Browning, the lead from Sucker Punch) who comes out of an asylum after 10 months. Emily plays a solid character as the lead, who is trying to come to terms with a large upheaval in her life both in the past and the present. It's quite good, if entirely predictable. I knew what was going to happen after not much plot had taken place, but still enjoyed it pretty much. As a film to take up a couple of hours, i'd recommend it to you. There is a psychological element to the film, which I won't talk about so it's not spoiled for you, that adds a little something to it. I can't remember seeing the original, but I know I must have at some point, as the title sounds very familiar.

I also watched Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise yesterday, but I don't really think a synopsis is needed here, as it's pretty much covered by the one I did of the first one. If you still want one, read my synopsis for the first film and add gratuitous shots of young ladies in skimpy bikinis. As I said before, funny but very 80s.

[Roland Deschain]

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi
explain to me how a tribal society of tree dwelling, poorly armed teddy bears is capable defeating a legion of "the best troops of the empire".

It's a similar occurrence to any form of guerilla warfare. Those native have the advantage. They had those traps set up already, and lured the Stormtrooper legion into them. If you don't know the terrain very well, there are inherent dangers in entering it, especially with hostile natives resident. The Stormtroopers, due to their heavy armour and vehicles, have to go through relatively open spaces. The Ewoks, with their hairy little legs, are able to hide far better in the jungle foliage. This enabled them to launch a number of surprise attacks on the Stormtroopers, completely taking them by surprise. There are apparently scenes of the Ewoks cutting up, cooking and eating Stormtroopers, but these were left out to ensure the child-friendly rating. The only hint left of them is in the last scene, where they are using Human/Mandalorian-looking leg bones to play Stormtrooper helmet drums.

explain to me why they built the death star mk2 with the same critical vent, only this time large enough to fit a spaceship in it. I mean, if the vent is necessary couldn't they atleast put some grates in there or something? mabe a sharp S-turn or two?

The reason this vent was still there is mainly two-fold: 1)the Death Star was still under construction, as evidenced by its Swiss Cheese look, and 2) they had a bloody massive shield generator on the planet. The Death Star could fire with this shield still up, so there was no danger perceived during construction. Add to this the overconfidence of the Emperor, his visions of the future being only possible outcomes as was taught to Luke by Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back, and you have a recipe for disaster. You have to remember that the rebel fleet, under the guidance of Admiral Ackbar and Lando Calrissian, had decided to go up against the Imperial fleet, as they stood more chance than going up against the Death Star, and at least had a chance of taking some of them with them. It wasn't until the unexpected intervention of the Ewoks that the Rebel Alliance stood any chance of winning. The Emperor was also a little pre-occupied with Luke's turning to the Dark Side to pay his full attention to the battle, which was part of Luke's reason for going up there.

Why bother with a deathstar at all if you can fit a few hundreds of Terra-ton yielding hydrogen bombs (or equivalent) on each of the smaller star destroyers effectivly providing the same capability of planetary annihilation at a fraction of the cost?

They would need the concentrated firepower of hundreds of Star Destroyers with more firepower than the Millennium Falcon to blow up a planet. The simple fact is, there aren't hundreds of Star Destroyers in the Imperial Fleet, and to move the entire fleet, or at least most of it, to one star system to destroy one planet, just wouldn't be effective in terms of fleet distribution. The Death Star is first and foremost a symbol. The threat of a leader who could build something that large is immense. Imagine you're sitting on your home planet, enjoying a cocktail at night on the beach, when suddenly a second moon (or third, even) appears in the night sky. That's enough to freak out even the most rational of people. Then imagine that it can fire a beam at your planet that won't allow you enough time to get into a ship and flee. That's the real power of the Death Star, not a green beam of energy.

An all-terrain vehicle that is destroyed if moved over a slippery, slightly angled surface is not in fact an all-terrain vehicle.

You have a valid point here. AT-STs can move over most surfaces quite comfortably, but there are still limits to its abilities. It has no problem with normal jungle (Endor) or snow (Hoth - watch Empire, and you'll see one) terrain. It also has limited vision due to its armour. A camera system would be good for this. Unfortunately, moving tree logs under its feet are not what it was designed for. The limited vision, which is obviously a large design flaw, allowed the Ewoks to launch their attack with the rolling logs. It almost stayed upright, but didn't quite manage it. The weaknesses in the armour, and the same could be said of the AT-AT, are due to compromises for manoeuvrability, as too much armour would both greatly add to its weight, and make it much slower. They can be quite nippy in open terrain.

I feel that Empire Engineers isn't the brightest bunch. I for one, would have spent all that time and effort spent on the deathstars on dyson spheres instead.

Dyson spheres are cool, aren't they? Unfortunately, you need the correct kind of star to surround, which would be in relatively short supply, although with almost the whole galaxy to choose from, it wouldn't be impossible to find quite a few (see Ringworld by Larry Niven for some cool concepts on Dyson spheres). The problem is that they would need more material for one Dyson sphere than for a thousand Death Stars. This isn't cost-effective at all, although I do admit that it would be cool. Plus, they wouldn't be able to easily move a whole star, especially at light speed. I suppose you could harness the energy of the star to power propulsion and weapons, but again it comes back to the problem of having the technology available to do so.

[gronank]

It's a similar occurrence to any form of guerilla warfare. Those native have the advantage. They had those traps set up already, and lured the Stormtrooper legion into them. If you don't know the terrain very well, there are inherent dangers in entering it, especially with hostile natives resident. The Stormtroopers, due to their heavy armour and vehicles, have to go through relatively open spaces. The Ewoks, with their hairy little legs, are able to hide far better in the jungle foliage. This enabled them to launch a number of surprise attacks on the Stormtroopers, completely taking them by surprise. There are apparently scenes of the Ewoks cutting up, cooking and eating Stormtroopers, but these were left out to ensure the child-friendly rating. The only hint left of them is in the last scene, where they are using Human/Mandalorian-looking leg bones to play Stormtrooper helmet drums.

But the shield generator was a prepared imperial position, they could at least put a simple fence around it. And what bussiness did they have roaming off into into the jungle in the first place? they could easily just walk into the base and nullify any ambush atempts.

The reason this vent was still there is mainly two-fold: 1)the Death Star was still under construction, as evidenced by its Swiss Cheese look, and 2) they had a bloody massive shield generator on the planet. The Death Star could fire with this shield still up, so there was no danger perceived during construction.

It still seems like an easy fix to a easily identifyable design flaw to just not include that sort of shaft in the first place.

Add to this the overconfidence of the Emperor, his visions of the future being only possible outcomes as was taught to Luke by Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back, and you have a recipe for disaster. You have to remember that the rebel fleet, under the guidance of Admiral Ackbar and Lando Calrissian, had decided to go up against the Imperial fleet, as they stood more chance than going up against the Death Star, and at least had a chance of taking some of them with them.

It is still no excuse for Achilles to not keep a pair of sturdy boots.

It wasn't until the unexpected intervention of the Ewoks that the Rebel Alliance stood any chance of winning. The Emperor was also a little pre-occupied with Luke's turning to the Dark Side to pay his full attention to the battle, which was part of Luke's reason for going up there.

They would need the concentrated firepower of hundreds of Star Destroyers with more firepower than the Millennium Falcon to blow up a planet.

The Millennium Falcon, as far as I know, is a light freighter converted into a contraband-runner and is in no way a millitary vessel. The Star Destroyers on the other hand are capital war vessels with a substansial fighter assets. Although they seem suspiciously undergunned when it comes to anti-capital weaponry. Anyway, it is no way necessary to destroy the entire planet when irradicating all prospects of life would suffice plenty.

The threat of a leader who could build something that large is immense. Imagine you're sitting on your home planet, enjoying a cocktail at night on the beach, when suddenly a second moon (or third, even) appears in the night sky. That's enough to freak out even the most rational of people. Then imagine that it can fire a beam at your planet that won't allow you enough time to get into a ship and flee. That's the real power of the Death Star, not a green beam of energy.

The fear would be much greater if I knew there was thousands of smaller vessels, whose whereabouts are mostly unknown capable of delivering admitedly less impressive but equally lethal destruction to my homeworld at any moment. In conclution: fear of death from invisible at any possible moment > fear of death from great black blob only when said great black blob is present.

You have a valid point here. AT-STs can move over most surfaces quite comfortably, but there are still limits to its abilities. It has no problem with normal jungle (Endor) or snow (Hoth - watch Empire, and you'll see one) terrain. It also has limited vision due to its armour. A camera system would be good for this. Unfortunately, moving tree logs under its feet are not what it was designed for. The limited vision, which is obviously a large design flaw, allowed the Ewoks to launch their attack with the rolling logs. It almost stayed upright, but didn't quite manage it. The weaknesses in the armour, and the same could be said of the AT-AT, are due to compromises for manoeuvrability, as too much armour would both greatly add to its weight, and make it much slower. They can be quite nippy in open terrain.

The main consern of all those walkers is the incredibly high center of mass and the not-so-discrete silhouette. I think the design would be considerably improved by a more "spidery" aproach with lower center of mass, also it is often a good idea to put the main armament on a swivel to improve flexibility.

Dyson spheres are cool, aren't they? Unfortunately, you need the correct kind of star to surround, which would be in relatively short supply, although with almost the whole galaxy to choose from, it wouldn't be impossible to find quite a few (see Ringworld by Larry Niven for some cool concepts on Dyson spheres). The problem is that they would need more material for one Dyson sphere than for a thousand Death Stars. This isn't cost-effective at all, although I do admit that it would be cool. Plus, they wouldn't be able to easily move a whole star, especially at light speed. I suppose you could harness the energy of the star to power propulsion and weapons, but again it comes back to the problem of having the technology available to do so.

You wouldn't build a dyson sphere as a spacefaring ship, stars are a bit too heavy for that, you build them as energy harnessing structures and they would probably work poorly as a weapons platform. You doesn't need a completly covering dyson sphere, I guess you would call it a dyson ring, and it would require considerably less material

[pieces o'nine]

I watched it without subtitles and quite liked it. I haven't decided whether to watch the US remake.

Ooh, la-de-da with your polyglot skills I wish I could watch it and understand it, but alas! I think the theatrical subtitles did very well. You should read the book too, PoN. If you can understand Swedish, then you could read it in the original language. Thus I once again envy you.

Silly boy.

I didn't say that I speak the language; I said that I quite liked the movie. I thought the plot was sufficiently clear, with or without words, for any viewer of moderate intelligence. If it will help your self esteem, I will admit to watching one of the critically acclaimed Austin Powers (again) this week, and I laughed (again) at all the same puerile jokes.