Movies you just saw

[BobbyMac]

I've got but one question about Jurassic World...

Was it better than 2012? (The movie... not ND's season)

.

 

[GATTACA!]

Saw it today with my 3 kids. Kinda sucked personally, usually those movies are pretty good.

Christ this is rough crowd lol. I enjoyed it alot. It was a nice return to the deeper pixar films. Cars 2 Monsters U and Brave were all kinda missing that element for me. Also two pixar films in one year is a treat! The short was also one of my all time favorite pixars shorts. Some really beautiful imagery in there, especially the cloudy time lapse.

 

[greyhammer90]

Also saw jurassic world last night, and some of you had crazy expectations. It certainly was no Godfather but come on that was a fun summer movie. It was absurd, but it was enjoyable.

I hate this argument so much. Mad Max: Fury Road was a "fun summer movie." Jurassic World was straight stupid. It wasn't as bad as The Lost World but it sucked hard.

Saying "it was about dinosaurs eating people!!! What do you expect???" is a total cop out. As I said before, Jurassic Park was about exactly that and it's an excellent movie that stands on its own without having to say "Well it was good for what it was." If the filmmaker who's heading a "fun summer movie" can't figure out a way to do it without making a shit film it's on him/her, because any plot can be a great movie.

I mean one of the best movies of the last 30 years was about a guy trying to replace his carpet.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Christ this is rough crowd lol. I enjoyed it alot. It was a nice return to the deeper pixar films. Cars 2 Monsters U and Brave were all kinda missing that element for me. Also two pixar films in one year is a treat! The short was also one of my all time favorite pixars shorts. Some really beautiful imagery in there, especially the cloudy time lapse.

Best since Up in my book.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Bought a copy of Miller's Crossing cheap, and marveled at what re-engineering for Blue-Ray hi def can do, and, marveled at how some few movies never become dated. It was as fresh, as I remember it twenty-five years ago!

Saw Lucy. Not so much. Morgan Freeman saved it. It was a better movie as 2001 a Space Odyssey. To me it started up Quentin Tarantino-ish, and ended up like a bad knock-off of Ray Bradbury. Better than average, but not by much.

Best recent movie I have seen is Gone Girl. I can't believe a movie that long kept me interested. I am still thinking about it but the hyperbolic allegory of that couples courtship and marriage was profound, as was the commentary on our society, especially surrounding class, celebrity, our rush to opinion, and Nancy Grace in general; "Icebreaker!"

 

[IrishLion]

I hate this argument so much. Mad Max: Fury Road was a "fun summer movie." Jurassic World was straight stupid. It wasn't as bad as The Lost World but it sucked hard.

Saying "it was about dinosaurs eating people!!! What do you expect???" is a total cop out. As I said before, Jurassic Park was about exactly that and it's an excellent movie that stands on its own without having to say "Well it was good for what it was." If the filmmaker who's heading a "fun summer movie" can't figure out a way to do it without making a shit film it's on him/her, because any plot can be a great movie.

I mean one of the best movies of the last 30 years was about a guy trying to replace his carpet.

But for some of us, it's really not a cop out.

I love the Movie "Pacific Rim." I love it because I expected to see giant robots fighting giant kaiju, and that's what I got.

The dialogue was awful and cheesy. I literally laughed at some of Charlie Hunnam's *serious* lines. And it couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a commentary on doomsday or a caricature of kaiju films, and in a serious movie, that indecisiveness is annoying. But this was movie about giant robots fighting giant kaiju. None of these criticisms kept it from being a fun summer movie to me, based on what I wanted and expected.

I haven't seen "Jurassic World" yet, but I would go in expecting dinosaur mayhem. I don't care about the dialogue being bad or the plot lacking scientific data or being convoluted. As long as there is entertainment value to the dinosaur mayhem, I'll be satisfied.

Now, if I go watch my DVR of "Gone Girl" and see a cheesy summer action flick instead? Then I'll be upset. But only because it's okay to look for different things from different movies.

 

[greyhammer90]

But for some of us, it's really not a cop out.

I love the Movie "Pacific Rim." I love it because I expected to see giant robots fighting giant kaiju, and that's what I got.

The dialogue was awful and cheesy. I literally laughed at some of Charlie Hunnam's *serious* lines. And it couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a commentary on doomsday or a caricature of kaiju films, and in a serious movie, that indecisiveness is annoying. But this was movie about giant robots fighting giant kaiju. None of these criticisms kept it from being a fun summer movie to me, based on what I wanted and expected.

I haven't seen "Jurassic World" yet, but I would go in expecting dinosaur mayhem. I don't care about the dialogue being bad or the plot lacking scientific data or being convoluted. As long as there is entertainment value to the dinosaur mayhem, I'll be satisfied.

Now, if I go watch my DVR of "Gone Girl" and see a cheesy summer action flick instead? Then I'll be upset. But only because it's okay to look for different things from different movies.

You're twisting my argument. The problem isn't expecting something different from different movies. Obviously there's a difference between Jurassic World and Citizen Kane in terms of what their subject matter is and what the tone ought to be. The problem I have is giving a movie a pass because it's "supposed to be stupid" when in reality it's just a bad movie. If Jurassic World wanted to just be a movie where dinosaurs eat people that'd be fine. But (1) it clearly wasn't because it was very obviously trying to tell a similar message as Jurassic Park about the dangers of the commercialization of a genetic product, and (2) even if it was just a movie about dinosaurs eating people it really, really sucked at being a fun movie about dinosaurs eating people. It had terrible acting (the kid actors look like they're about to laugh half the time), painful CGI that looks worse than the 1993 movie, and pacing that kills any sort of momentum the movie had. There was one fun scene where dinosaurs attack the park, the rest was just a bunch of bad characters stumbling through the woods with the occasional CGI monster winking at the camera. I brought up Mad Max for a reason earlier. It's plot was basically an escort mission in a video game. But it was well edited/directed/acted and its material was elevated as a result.

 

[Black Irish]

"Jurassic Park vs Predators vs Terminators."

It would make ALL the money.

 

[greyhammer90]

"Jurassic Park vs Predators vs Terminators inside the Millennium Falcon"

It would make ALL the money.

.

 

[gkIrish]

"Iron Man's dream of Jurassic Park vs Predators vs Terminators inside the Millennium Falcon"

It would make ALL the money.

.

 

[GATTACA!]

You're twisting my argument. The problem isn't expecting something different from different movies. Obviously there's a difference between Jurassic World and Citizen Kane in terms of what their subject matter is and what the tone ought to be. The problem I have is giving a movie a pass because it's "supposed to be stupid" when in reality it's just a bad movie. If Jurassic World wanted to just be a movie where dinosaurs eat people that'd be fine. But (1) it clearly wasn't because it was very obviously trying to tell a similar message as Jurassic Park about the dangers of the commercialization of a genetic product, and (2) even if it was just a movie about dinosaurs eating people it really, really sucked at being a fun movie about dinosaurs eating people. It had terrible acting (the kid actors look like they're about to laugh half the time), painful CGI that looks worse than the 1993 movie, and pacing that kills any sort of momentum the movie had. There was one fun scene where dinosaurs attack the park, the rest was just a bunch of bad characters stumbling through the woods with the occasional CGI monster winking at the camera. I brought up Mad Max for a reason earlier. It's plot was basically an escort mission in a video game. But it was well edited/directed/acted and its material was elevated as a result.

Oh come on, some rose colored glasses? If you had seen jurassic world in 93 it would have blown your balls off. There was nothing wrong with that CGI and if the original had been that ambitious with its action it would look 10x shittier. Everyone is so jaded by the amount of CGI we see now they criticize the 5% that is a little off and don't give the movie credit for the other 95%.

You guys are acting like this is some giant turd, and we should feel bad for Chris Pratt. It's got like a 70% on RT and had the biggest opening weekend of all time.

 

[Huntr]

When I saw JP back in 93 or 94, I was really disappointed after reading and loving the book so much. The show's OK, but it's a real disappointment compared to Crichton's book. But, I came to terms w/that a long time ago and enjoy JP for what it is. JW doesn't come close. JW is SyFy channel level drek, but with better cgi.

 

[ACamp1900]

When I saw JP back in 93 or 94, I was really disappointed after reading and loving the book so much. The show's OK, but it's a real disappointment compared to Crichton's book. But, I came to terms w/that a long time ago and enjoy JP for what it is. JW doesn't come close. JW is SyFy channel level drek, but with better cgi.

The book was amazing!! I have read it three times, though not in many years... I understand why, but it was disappointing how many characters they omitted or cut down to like one little scene, like the ‘vet’ on the Island who has all of one line in the movie, or the Dr. played by BD Wong in the film… they were much bigger characters in the book,... and the hunter, I forget his name as it's been a long time, but the hunter/game warden in the book was one of my favorite characters in any Crichton book ( I read almost all of them in high school and college) … he was ‘cool’ in the movie but not nearly as central to the story and he dies!!!! I hated when he died in the movie, he was so badass in the book…

 

[greyhammer90]

Oh come on, some rose colored glasses? If you had seen jurassic world in 93 it would have blown your balls off. There was nothing wrong with that CGI and if the original had been that ambitious with its action it would look 10x shittier. Everyone is so jaded by the amount of CGI we see now they criticize the 5% that is a little off and don't give the movie credit for the other 95%.

You guys are acting like this is some giant turd, and we should feel bad for Chris Pratt. It's got like a 70% on RT and had the biggest opening weekend of all time.

I don't think it's rose colored glasses at all. Of course I would've been impressed with the level of technology on the display from a CGI-fest made in 2014 if I had observed it in 1993. There are many things that legitimately look better, mostly the naturalistic movement of the animals (for example, the brontosauruses in the iconic "Welcome to Jurassic Park" shot have aged terribly). But on the whole the movie looks faker. It just does. Seriously watch this:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KXYQqcXe4P0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

versus this

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ivG0kdJAy7k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And you might argue "Jurassic Park couldn't have shown a T-Rex chase the kids through an open field without looking worse" but I would respond that the ability to show restraint and get what you need out of a shot and leave the rest to an audience's imagination instead of saying "yeah well we need this shot so it'll look as good as we can make it look" is a valuable trait as a filmmaker. I know I'm not going to convince you since we're both pretty dug in at this point, but the CGI was disappointing to me. The raptors going through the woods at night looked like a Pixar film. This is all besides the point for me anyway. The CGI was only one small part of a very flawed movie.

 

[greyhammer90]

When I saw JP back in 93 or 94, I was really disappointed after reading and loving the book so much. The show's OK, but it's a real disappointment compared to Crichton's book. But, I came to terms w/that a long time ago and enjoy JP for what it is. JW doesn't come close. JW is SyFy channel level drek, but with better cgi.

To this day I wish we had gotten a T-Rex attacks in the water scene like we got in the book. I understand that the technical limitations at the time didn't allow it realistically. But damn it would've been cool.

 

[gkIrish]

My issues with JP3 and JW are that the dinosaurs are super intelligent and have camouflage and all this crazy stuff that takes away from the scare factor. The beauty of Jurassic Park is that it was terrifying because everything escalated slowly. The iconic scene with the TRex and the flashlight is the best example. If they remade that scene with this t-rex/raptor dinosaur in JW those kids would have died within 5 seconds.

And as presented, there's no way that new dinosaur in JW should have lost to a T-Rex and raptor. There were some cool scenes in JW but as a whole it failed to show me anything that I will remember in 20 years. I will say that underwater dinosaur was freaky.

 

[GATTACA!]

And you might argue "Jurassic Park couldn't have shown a T-Rex chase the kids through an open field without looking worse" but I would respond that the ability to show restraint and get what you need out of a shot and leave the rest to an audience's imagination instead of saying "yeah well we need this shot so it'll look as good as we can make it look" is a valuable trait as a filmmaker. I know I'm not going to convince you since we're both pretty dug in at this point, but the CGI was disappointing to me. The raptors going through the woods at night looked like a Pixar film. This is all besides the point for me anyway. The CGI was only one small part of a very flawed movie.

See honestly to me that clip from JP looks very puppetish. I think JP is a vastly better movie and visually amazing for when I was made. But I don't think JW is that far behind visually. Especially considering what they attempted. Youre right of course that sometimes subtlety is better, but for what they did achieve I don't think the CGI was bad at all. They went for alot more day time shot which are more difficult and the overall speed of the dinosaurs is much more dynamic in JW. Episode 9 of Got is a good example of terrible CGI, JW is way better than that embarrassment.

 

[Irish#1]

Watched Fury over the weekend, outstanding IMO. Brad Pitt is still a very good actor.

 

[pumpdog20]

Christ this is rough crowd lol. I enjoyed it alot. It was a nice return to the deeper pixar films. Cars 2 Monsters U and Brave were all kinda missing that element for me. Also two pixar films in one year is a treat! The short was also one of my all time favorite pixars shorts. Some really beautiful imagery in there, especially the cloudy time lapse.

Fair enough, I've just always found Amy Poehler to be annoying, and Phyllis from the office had an annoying character.

 

[ND NYC]

the difference between JP and JW can be summed up in 2 words:

Steven Spielberg

 

[FearTheBeard]

Saw jurassic world the other night, wow it was terrible. I went in expecting to see some things that were a little over the top and didnt expect too much from the characters but this was ridiculously terrible. Action scenes were awesome and thats why i saw it mostly, but Pratt was terrible and had so many stupid lines. "That dinosaur tricked us into thinking it escsped to get us in the cage." I wish i could remember all the dumb stuff he said; and then you had the typical romance sideshow from the aunt and Pratt, and you knew from the get go the older brother was gonna go from the one who ignored the younger one and kept checking out girls to eventually protect him and save his life. I knew the science would be a reach but also it was so unbelievable i just couldnt go with it. Glad i saw it on a weeknight for a cheaper price thats for sure

Edit: i think the best was the dinosaur somehow removed its own tracking device implanted it because "it remembered where they inserted it"

 

[Who'saWildManNow]

Just saw "Spy" with Melissa McCarthy/Jason Statham directed by Paul Feig. It starts off slow but quickly rolls into a hilarious movie. This was a very well directed, thought out script that rides the fine line of absurdity and respect perfectly.

 

[Irish#1]

Watched John Wick. Not one of Keauna Reeves best pics.

 

[NDALA]

We watched The Babadook and Walk Among The Tombstones last night neither was anything spectacular but we enjoyed both. I'd say they're worth watching.

 

[GATTACA!]

Saw Ted 2 the other night. It was meh, a few moments were funny but overall it wasn't close to the first one


Also there were a few spots of terrible CGI

 

[GrangerIrish24]

Popped in Inglorious Bastards since there was nothing on last night. Brad Pitt at his best.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Watched Nightcrawler last night. Decent flick.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

We watched The Babadook and Walk Among The Tombstones last night neither was anything spectacular but we enjoyed both. I'd say they're worth watching.

I was really excited for The Babadook, but couldn't help wanting to slap the crap out of that bratty kid from 5 minutes on.

 

[Irishnuke]

I was really excited for The Babadook, but couldn't help wanting to slap the crap out of that bratty kid from 5 minutes on.

I'd rather live with whatever the Babadook is supposed to be than live with that kid.

 

[Irish YJ]

Watched John Wick. Not one of Keauna Reeves best pics.

Saw it too. I thought it was one of his better ones LATELY.