Rate the last film you watched out of 100 Page 2029

  • Page

    of 2767 First / Last

  • LeoliansBro 10 Dec 2012 11:52:49 44,222 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Apparently it's all pretty close to historically accurate as well. Apart from the epilogue.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • hypernova 10 Dec 2012 12:14:23 1,967 posts
    Seen 9 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    A Scanner Darkly

    For some reason I hadn't seen this yet, but I went in thinking I was expected to dislike it (seem to recall some hate for it at the time). I liked it.

    The animation style really highlights the actors involved though. Downey Jnr's over acting isn't as grating when he's an animated character, and it seems like the Dead or Alive team animated Winona Ryder, as too much effort is made to make her boobs move, which looks daft. The one who comes off worst is Keanu - this film highlights the fact that he cannot act. The guy just speaks in one dull tone, to the point where you can't concentrate on what he's saying - it's like listening to the hum of an electrical appliance.

    7/10

    Edited by hypernova at 12:16:07 10-12-2012
  • megastar 10 Dec 2012 12:17:57 17,186 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Looper

    This was alright actually. However, I was a bit confused by the fact that when he shot himself at the end - his future self vanished into thin air and the day was saved etc etc, but if his older self suddenly never existed then he wouldn't have come back in the first place and started hunting this child down. None of the film would have happened surely? They wouldn't be running from anyone, they would probably be on a farm somewhere blissfully unaware that anything ever happened.

    Just sayin, like!

    7/10
  • imamazed 10 Dec 2012 12:23:13 5,584 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    megastar wrote:
    Looper

    This was alright actually. However, I was a bit confused by the fact that when he shot himself at the end - his future self vanished into thin air and the day was saved etc etc, but if his older self suddenly never existed then he wouldn't have come back in the first place and started hunting this child down. None of the film would have happened surely? They wouldn't be running from anyone, they would probably be on a farm somewhere blissfully unaware that anything ever happened.

    Just sayin, like!

    7/10

    That was just one of many plot holes in the fillum though, really
  • WrongShui 10 Dec 2012 12:49:40 6,618 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    imamazed wrote:
    megastar wrote:
    Looper

    This was alright actually. However, I was a bit confused by the fact that when he shot himself at the end - his future self vanished into thin air and the day was saved etc etc, but if his older self suddenly never existed then he wouldn't have come back in the first place and started hunting this child down. None of the film would have happened surely? They wouldn't be running from anyone, they would probably be on a farm somewhere blissfully unaware that anything ever happened.

    Just sayin, like!

    7/10

    That was just one of many plot holes in the fillum though, really
    The only plot hole that bothers me is...
    The realisation his younger self had should of propagated to his older self after he had it
  • LeoliansBro 10 Dec 2012 12:52:54 44,222 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It was weird. Whatever happens to your younger self automatically happens to the older self too as well, right?. Right?

    So in that case why does Bruce Willis remember his wife after he had escaped? If he's affected by what's happened in the past, then obviously meeting her won't happen any more, nor will any of that 'alternate' future.

    Conclusion: time travel is full of gaping logical problems.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Scurrminator 10 Dec 2012 12:54:42 8,411 posts
    Seen 49 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    WrongShui wrote:
    imamazed wrote:
    megastar wrote:
    Looper

    This was alright actually. However, I was a bit confused by the fact that when he shot himself at the end - his future self vanished into thin air and the day was saved etc etc, but if his older self suddenly never existed then he wouldn't have come back in the first place and started hunting this child down. None of the film would have happened surely? They wouldn't be running from anyone, they would probably be on a farm somewhere blissfully unaware that anything ever happened.

    Just sayin, like!

    7/10

    That was just one of many plot holes in the fillum though, really
    The only plot hole that bothers me is...
    The realisation his younger self had should of propagated to his older self after he had it
    There are multiple timelines - see image here
    They kind of explain this with his friend's older self being cut up and Bruce Willis saying STOP FUCKING THINKING ABOUT IT SO MUCH!

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • Scurrminator 10 Dec 2012 12:56:03 8,411 posts
    Seen 49 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:

    So in that case why does Bruce Willis remember his wife after he had escaped? If he's affected by what's happened in the past, then obviously meeting her won't happen any more, nor will any of that 'alternate' future.

    Conclusion: time travel is full of gaping logical problems.
    He starts forgetting as that timeline is erased. This is shown several times. Were you awake for the film?

    Edited by Scurrminator at 12:56:27 10-12-2012

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • LeoliansBro 10 Dec 2012 12:57:29 44,222 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Scurrminator wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:

    So in that case why does Bruce Willis remember his wife after he had escaped? If he's affected by what's happened in the past, then obviously meeting her won't happen any more, nor will any of that 'alternate' future.

    Conclusion: time travel is full of gaping logical problems.
    He starts forgetting as that timeline is erased. Were you awake for the film?
    Yep. However there is no (meta) time for this to occur in: as soon as he changes the past, the future is instantly changed.

    Or if not, answer me this: how long does it take for a change in the past to affect the future, and why does it take this amount of time?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Blakester 10 Dec 2012 13:13:43 3,614 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Caught up on a couple of animated features this weekend: Arthur Christmas and Brave.

    My benchmark for a good animated feature is if it has five or more of the following:

    1) Likeable characters
    2) Interesting setting
    3) Visually stimulating
    4) Good jokes for kids and adults
    5) A scary bad guy
    6) Something in my eye at the end
    7) Able to hold the kids attention throughout

    Both passed the test, although I think Brave just edges it.

    Therefore 75% and 80% respectively.

    When you can't see the angles on the wall you're in trouble.

  • Scurrminator 10 Dec 2012 13:44:15 8,411 posts
    Seen 49 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Scurrminator wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:

    So in that case why does Bruce Willis remember his wife after he had escaped? If he's affected by what's happened in the past, then obviously meeting her won't happen any more, nor will any of that 'alternate' future.

    Conclusion: time travel is full of gaping logical problems.
    He starts forgetting as that timeline is erased. Were you awake for the film?
    Yep. However there is no (meta) time for this to occur in: as soon as he changes the past, the future is instantly changed.

    Or if not, answer me this: how long does it take for a change in the past to affect the future, and why does it take this amount of time?
    The reason his character is forgetting is that he 'left' his own timeline and by simply being alive that future is gone and he starts to forget about it. So his memory of where he came from is being overwritten. He has no memory of what his 'past self' is doing or what the new future will be as it's not his timeline (otherwise he'd have known where to go right away!)
    I believe it's explained in the diner scene

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • LeoliansBro 10 Dec 2012 13:46:55 44,222 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Why does he 'start' to forget about it? It never happened. Never. Not 'it starts to slip away from him', not 'it becomes less likely and therefore he can still kinda remember it'. If you even consider the latter, his memory must instantly become an impossible mush as soon as he returns, because he must be aware of every possibility.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Scurrminator 10 Dec 2012 13:53:24 8,411 posts
    Seen 49 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    This image explains it better than I can.
    They aren't from the same timeline.

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • mikeck 10 Dec 2012 13:57:07 1,936 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I had a very random weekend of watching films with Mrs CK - started with the Zemeckis version of A Christmas Carol whilst putting up the Christmas tree, then Sabrina (Hepburn, Bogart) whilst sorting through our DVD collection for films we are getting rid of (really need to downsize the sprawling collection), followed by The Producers and then Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

    Fel like a really random, but good mix, and I had only watched Lock, Stock before, but had forgotten quite a lot of it.

    A Christmas Carol - 8/10
    Very good version, and I loved the animation style, pretty scary in places too, and the first ghost in particular was well designed and better than other versions.

    Sabrina - 6/10
    Had a few odd (funny) moments for a film made in the '50s, and I did enjoy this. I can always watch an Audrey Hepburn film as she was so beautiful, and effortless on screen. The story was okay, but nothing special.

    The Producers - 9/10
    I can't believe I hadn't watched this before, such a great film. Good humour, and very on the cusp of acceptable for the time period, loved how tongue in cheek this was. Great performances by the two leads, but this film reminded me how much I love Gene Wilder - such a supremely talented actor. Will be singing Springtime for Hitler (in my head) and Prisoners of Love for some time to come.

    Lock,Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - 8/10
    Wow, this film has aged (unless the DVD transfer is of known bad quality), but apart from it looking so ragged in places, it is still a very good film. Can't believe it was released 14 years ago when I was still in college...
  • mrpon 10 Dec 2012 13:58:32 28,909 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I tell you what, Netflix has got some dross in the Seasonal section. I scrolled through about 60+ titles. Didn't recognise a single one.

    Give yourself £5 or ½ gig, you're worth it.

  • LeoliansBro 10 Dec 2012 14:00:23 44,222 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Scurrminator wrote:
    This image explains it better than I can.
    They aren't from the same timeline.
    That timeline pic helpfully illustrates my point. How does young Joe killing himself in timeline C kill Old Joe from timeline B?

    Edit: spoilers hidden above, obv.

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 14:00:39 10-12-2012

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deckard1 10 Dec 2012 14:00:35 27,981 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    No Santa Claus the Movie?
  • mrpon 10 Dec 2012 14:02:52 28,909 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It didn't jump out at me, I paused on some Jenny McCarthy thing (Santa Baby?) for about 10 seconds then carried on.

    Give yourself £5 or ½ gig, you're worth it.

  • kalel 10 Dec 2012 14:08:26 87,637 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    mikeck wrote:
    The Producers - 9/10
    I can't believe I hadn't watched this before, such a great film. Good humour, and very on the cusp of acceptable for the time period, loved how tongue in cheek this was. Great performances by the two leads, but this film reminded me how much I love Gene Wilder - such a supremely talented actor. Will be singing Springtime for Hitler (in my head) and Prisoners of Love for some time to come.
    Old school Mel Brooks is seriously awesome. The guy was way ahead of his time and most of it is still borderline acceptable today. I don't think Blazing Saddles would be made these days,
  • mikeck 10 Dec 2012 14:14:32 1,936 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    mikeck wrote:
    The Producers - 9/10
    I can't believe I hadn't watched this before, such a great film. Good humour, and very on the cusp of acceptable for the time period, loved how tongue in cheek this was. Great performances by the two leads, but this film reminded me how much I love Gene Wilder - such a supremely talented actor. Will be singing Springtime for Hitler (in my head) and Prisoners of Love for some time to come.
    Old school Mel Brooks is seriously awesome. The guy was way ahead of his time and most of it is still borderline acceptable today. I don't think Blazing Saddles would be made these days,
    I do forget how good Mel Brooks was, Blazing Saddles would never get made today, you're so right.

    All the way through The Producers I thought the other lead (Zero Mostel) was the voice of Fred Flintstone, in fact I was convinced of this...was upset when it turned it he wasn't.
  • LeoliansBro 10 Dec 2012 14:18:41 44,222 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    mikeck wrote:
    All the way through The Producers I thought the other lead (Zero Mostel) was the voice of Fred Flintstone, in fact I was convinced of this...was upset when it turned it he wasn't.

    His last film? Watership Down (the seagull).

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kinky_mong 10 Dec 2012 14:32:52 10,276 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Original theatrical cut Alien.

    Director's cut Aliens.

    Assembly cut Alien 3.

    Go down the pub.
    Thanks, and good advice for Resurrection from my memory of watching it on TV years ago!

    All the eurogamers who actually play with each other on xbl rather than just post pseudointellectual pc handwringing bollocks on the forums, love the shit out of biggy.

  • AcidSnake 10 Dec 2012 14:37:19 7,268 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    If you are going to watch the theatrical cut of Alien I suggest you find time down the road to watch the directors cut anyway, for one scene in particular...

    Whereas the theatrical of Aliens can be completely ignored if you've seen the extended...

    AcidSnake - He can't see your sig, avatar, images or vids and talks about himself in the third person because he's proper old-skool...UID 24017

  • -cerberus- 10 Dec 2012 14:54:43 2,842 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    The Assembly Cut of Alien³ on the other hand is a must see!

    Take the plastic bag challenge to cure stupidity.

  • LeoliansBro 10 Dec 2012 14:57:03 44,222 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Aliens Director's Cut is the winner or 'Film Most Improved by the New Additions / Changes' (narrowly edging out Bladerunner).

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deckard1 10 Dec 2012 14:57:38 27,981 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Oh my god he did the little 3!!
  • kalel 10 Dec 2012 15:07:08 87,637 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Alien cubed?
  • Wacko_AK 10 Dec 2012 15:12:44 185 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    The Hit List - 6/10

    Cuba Gooding Jnr playing a disaffected government hitman who offers to kill 5 people for a man he has met in a bar. Decent enough if a bit predicable at times. Gooding is pretty good in it though.

    God Bless America - 6/10

    Natural born Killers meets Idiocracy..
  • Scurrminator 10 Dec 2012 15:13:17 8,411 posts
    Seen 49 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Scurrminator wrote:
    This image explains it better than I can.
    They aren't from the same timeline.
    That timeline pic helpfully illustrates my point. How does young Joe killing himself in timeline C kill Old Joe from timeline B?

    Edit: spoilers hidden above, obv.
    Look at where ALL of the old Joe's come from - one person.

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • LeoliansBro 10 Dec 2012 15:36:32 44,222 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Scurrminator wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Scurrminator wrote:
    This image explains it better than I can.
    They aren't from the same timeline.
    That timeline pic helpfully illustrates my point. How does young Joe killing himself in timeline C kill Old Joe from timeline B?

    Edit: spoilers hidden above, obv.
    Look at where ALL of the old Joe's come from - one person.
    Look at the point at which the relevant Old Joe splits off from the Young Joe - before the red X. The Old Joe's timeline from then on is unbroken until mysteriously at the end it stops because of someone he doesn't derive from, and never was, killing himself.

    See my pic, and where the red X needs to be for this to be logical
    (or of course anywhere before the split).

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Page

    of 2767 First / Last

Log in or register to reply