NOW CLOSED ; List some movies you've watched recently. Theatre, rental, TV... and give a */10

[Eug]

Twinsters - 8/10

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2980626/
Trailer: http://youtu.be/1txduZwL2Yg

Documentary of a true story of twin sisters separated at birth who just happen to find each other through YouTube and Facebook after 25 years. Turns out one is an American actor who decides to document the entire process on video including the first time they meet on Skype. It also doesn't hurt that they understand film and they have friends in the industry to help them make this movie. Very well done documentary, directed by one of the sisters herself, despite the fact it was their first time directing/producing a movie ever, done with a Kickstarter production budget of way less than $100000.

I found it on Netflix, just browsing around.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Twinsters - 8/10

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2980626/
Trailer: http://youtu.be/1txduZwL2Yg

Documentary of a true story of twin sisters separated at birth who just happen to find each other through YouTube and Facebook after 25 years. Turns out one is an American actor who decides to document the entire process on video including the first time they meet on Skype. It also doesn't hurt that they understand film and they have friends in the industry to help them make this movie. Very well done documentary, directed by one of the sisters herself, despite the fact it was their first time directing/producing a movie ever, done with a Kickstarter production budget of way less than $100000.

I found it on Netflix, just browsing around.

A few years ago my father found an adopted half sister no one had met or knew who she was through facebook - oddly he was friends with her other half sister for 2 or 3 years (randomly friended because of where he grew up) and through conversation found out they were related and about the other one. She'd lived in the same town as me her whole life and none of our family knew she was there. Of course, they didn't make a documentary about it. /blog

 

[Muse]

How to Train Your Dragon (2010) 4/10

Not my cup of meat. I stuck it out because, well, it took a lot of concentration to pick up on all the stuff happening. But I thought the script, the idea, the casting, the acting all pretty much sucked. It was horribly Hollywood! I used to like Dreamworks stuff. Maybe they lost it.

 

[Muse]

I'm with Zin on T1 being a horror film. His arguments are cogent, spot on. And yeah, scifi is about now, now projected into that extension of now known as "the future." But T1 is not scifi. And T2? Well, different director, way later, what they have in common is mostly an Austrian body builder known for saying "I'll be beck."

 

[MongGrel]

Tempted to go on a SCI-FI is and always was a BS term to begin with rant, but wont bother.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_fiction

 

[ImpulsE69]

Tempted to go on a SCI-FI is and always was a BS term to begin with rant, but wont bother.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_fiction

There's no point. Speculative fiction just encompasses everything that isn't based in reality. Sci-fi as a genre would just be a subsection of it. We can all agree that T1 has elements of multiple genres.

 

[Eug]

T1 is of course sci-fi. Just because it also fits into other genres too doesn't mean it isn't sci-fi.

BTW, I was reading a nostalgic review of T1 which admitted that many reviewers including that reporter totally overlooked that movie. The article was a mea culpa saying that when it came out they just didn't bother seeing it because they assumed it would be bad. But then they noticed that audiences loved it so eventually they went to see it. However even then many still gave only grudgingly somewhat positive reviews... until decades later.

How to Train Your Dragon (2010) 4/10

Not my cup of meat. I stuck it out because, well, it took a lot of concentration to pick up on all the stuff happening. But I thought the script, the idea, the casting, the acting all pretty much sucked. It was horribly Hollywood! I used to like Dreamworks stuff. Maybe they lost it.

I liked that movie. Can't remember it well enough to get it a score now because it was many years ago that I saw it but I was quite pleased with it.

A few years ago my father found an adopted half sister no one had met or knew who she was through facebook - oddly he was friends with her other half sister for 2 or 3 years (randomly friended because of where he grew up) and through conversation found out they were related and about the other one. She'd lived in the same town as me her whole life and none of our family knew she was there. Of course, they didn't make a documentary about it. /blog

He should watch Twinsters.

 

[MongGrel]

There's no point. Speculative fiction just encompasses everything that isn't based in reality. Sci-fi as a genre would just be a subsection of it. We can all agree that T1 has elements of multiple genres.

I guess everyone could agree that it is speculative fiction and stop arguing about it for no real reason then.

 

[Eug]

I guess everyone could agree that it is speculative fiction and stop arguing about it for no real reason then.

That wasn't the original discussion and the term doesn't really have much meaning for most people anyway. Just about nobody says they're going to see a speculative fiction flick.

 

[Aikouka]

I'm with Zin on T1 being a horror film. His arguments are cogent, spot on. And yeah, scifi is about now, now projected into that extension of now known as "the future." But T1 is not scifi.

Eh, I consider both Terminator and Alien to be Sci-Fi Horror films. Is the Sci-Fi moniker necessary? Not really, but it does tell you that it has some elements that are not of this world. Albeit, Alien is far more so than Terminator given the difference in settings. Although, if we want to debate about what's Sci-Fi or not, do we just consider Terminator 2: Judgment Day to be an Action movie? I usually consider it Sci-Fi Action, which is also what I call Aliens. I also like to point out how both franchises (helmed by James Cameron) took the same turn.

 

[MongGrel]

That wasn't the original discussion and the term doesn't really have much meaning for most people anyway. Just about nobody says they're going to see a speculative fiction flick.

Yeah, well this isn't a T1 thread to begin with, either.

So the discussion and bickering about T1 is getting a bit old fast, and messing the thread up in general.

What next, a five page dissertation about the pros and cons of The Wizard of Oz ?

I'm done with it myself at any rate.

 

[MongGrel]

The Worricker Trilogy

I really liked this myself, were only three of them made but many well known actors in it.

Bill Nighly, Michael Gambon, Christopher Walken, Rachel Weizse, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Wyonna Ryder, and others in various three episodes on Amazon Prime for free.

8.7/10

http://www.amazon.com/Page-Eight/dp...sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=the+worricker+trilogy

 

[Muse]

Is the Sci-Fi moniker necessary? Not really, but...

Yes, the Sci-Fi moniker is necessary. My fave example lately is The Martian (which I have read, not seen yet). It's pretty grounded in current science, at least gives that impression, but takes it where they haven't gone yet. Could it happen like that? Hmm, it made me wonder. Wondering what you can do with technologies beyond what's been done is the bedrock of science fiction. For instance, someone with enough imagination could have predicted weather satellites, smart phones, advanced modern computer/internet technology back in the 1960's, even sooner. That's science fiction! I read some Robert Heinlein that made me think, "he could see into the future."

A lot of what gets called science fiction isn't very purely science fiction at all. There are no ground rules, it's something of a catch all phrase that people drag out for their often slap dash personal convenience. For the most part there's no rigor in the naming of things outside of science, that certainly goes for the naming of fiction!

 

[MongGrel]

That's science fiction! I read some Robert Heinlein that made me think, "he could see into the future."

A lot of what gets called science fiction isn't very purely science fiction at all. There are no ground rules, it's something of a catch all phrase that people drag out for their often slap dash personal convenience. For the most part there's no rigor in the naming of things outside of science, that certainly goes for the naming of fiction!

Was one of the points I was trying to illustrate actually, Robert Heinlein and Harlan Ellison were two of the biggest supporters of the speculative fiction term to begin with.

Look at the link earlier I guess.

Arthur C Clark was noted for that also, the out take from him in the Steve Jobs movie as far as what computers would do is a good cut.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC3E2qTCIY8


Sci-Fi a lot of the time becomes science fact later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UZS5vnnZI8

...

 

[MongGrel]

ARTHUR C. CLARKE: Seven Wonders of the World

*shrug*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNWL855ibMA

9.9/10

 

[Perknose]

Making a Murderer - On Netlfix - This has gotten alot of attention lately. I think I heard about it on NPR. Then I mentioned it to my brother and he said that he already started watching it. I have to be careful about spoilers so I'll say this. Episode 1 was awesome. Episodes 2-10 were a mix of great and pointless. The last 9 episodes could have been 40 minutes instead of 60 and that would have helped immensely.

Oh, what is it about? It's about a guy who was wrongfully convicted of rape and sent to jail for 38 years. Served 20 before DNA got him out. Ya, no spoilers since that is episode 1. What is amazing is the gross negligence on the side of the government. The rest of the series is what this show is really about. It's about how he was accused of murder. What's crazy is that it sounds like he was framed! I can't get more into details without spoiling too much. But he was accused in 2004 and it seems as thorough the entire ordeal starting at that point was documented. So it is pretty in depth.

Thanks! Just finished the second ep. Mind blown and deeply disturbed. How can we expect to inculcate "the rule of law" in say, Afghanistan or Iraq when this shite goes down here?

Maybe the worst part (I've known this before through the work of the Innocence Project) is the way multiple appeals courts stand by even the worst and obviously flawed decisions.

 

[MongGrel]

The only reason I just couldn't get into Making of a Murder, was it just seemed a long protracted series of things I all ready know happen to begin with.

The phrase "Justice is Blind" has been known for centuries as a fact, depending on what evidence enters a courtroom and the procedures involved with most political systems in general.

Some are more corrupt than others, on all levels.

Many people involved in corporate corruption just get a slap on the wrist more or less these days for destroying lives on a mass basis, and are rewarded for it more or less. Sorry, I didn't mean to get all political here, but it is just a fact.

Political mode off.

 

[K1052]

Wow. You're starting to make me doubt my decision to cancel the tickets I had to the 70mm showing in MN. Looks like it starts today on other screens in the area, so I was planning to just go see it regular.

A thread on Reddit indicated the theater here didn't do such a great job with the presentation of 70mm. Apparently it's in on one of their smaller screens and they just don't use a strip across the bottom so the image overall is a bit smaller than a normal projection would be. There wasn't one person in the thread that said the presentation was worth the price of admission. /shrug

It was disappointing that they only took one run in Minneapolis for the roadshow and that it was the Southdale. The Uptown (among others) would have been a much superior venue. A lot of the multiplexes that had it also didn't seem to have adjusted their masking, which admittedly is somewhat difficult to do xmas eve, so you're left with naked blank screen space.

 

[Ichinisan]

Yeah, well this isn't a T1 thread to begin with, either.

So the discussion and bickering about T1 is getting a bit old fast, and messing the thread up in general.

What next, a five page dissertation about the pros and cons of The Wizard of Oz ?

I'm done with it myself at any rate.

Well I thought it was interesting.

 

[Ichinisan]

Yes, the Sci-Fi moniker is necessary. My fave example lately is The Martian (which I have read, not seen yet). It's pretty grounded in current science, at least gives that impression, but takes it where they haven't gone yet. Could it happen like that? Hmm, it made me wonder. Wondering what you can do with technologies beyond what's been done is the bedrock of science fiction. For instance, someone with enough imagination could have predicted weather satellites, smart phones, advanced modern computer/internet technology back in the 1960's, even sooner. That's science fiction! I read some Robert Heinlein that made me think, "he could see into the future."

A lot of what gets called science fiction isn't very purely science fiction at all. There are no ground rules, it's something of a catch all phrase that people drag out for their often slap dash personal convenience. For the most part there's no rigor in the naming of things outside of science, that certainly goes for the naming of fiction!

Jurassic Park!

 

[DigDog]

gravity, the martian, arguably even interstellar, all are going for hard science. seems the nerds on the internet made enough noise. which is good, in a way, i guess.

i mean.. they are built from the ground up to be "impervious to nerd criticism", to be scientifically accurate, and i imagine this is because we've spent the last 20 years pointing out every plot + science fallacy in every movie ever.

 

[CZroe]

What next, a five page dissertation about the pros and cons of The Wizard of Oz ?

https://youtu.be/x7RrJWJCUcw

 

[ImpulsE69]

Well I thought it was interesting.

Honestly I did too. It speaks volumes to peoples thoughts and ratings of movies. I now know that purebeast doesn't know what horror is and can ignore his ratings of such films

 

[Ns1]

Hateful Eight (70mm) - 7.5/10

To summarize, it's 3 hours of Tarentino wanking off onscreen via dialogue and camera work. If you're not into Tarentino movies, this probably won't change your mind.

Regarding the film/70mm aspect of it, I appreciate his dedication to the craft and his desire to keep film alive. That said, I would have been perfectly happy if this was a digitally shot movie. What, nobody has thought of making ultra wide screen lenses for red cameras yet? Surely it could be done for less than the 100 million or whatever TWC invested into this film roadshow project.

Having said all that, I hope this roadshow trend this continues and the overture/intermission are pretty cool. I saw it at the arclight so overture/intermission + no trailers/commercials led to a pretty classy experience.

 

[Cerb]

The Thirst - 4/10

A cheesy vampire movie. Basically average, if not a little below. Glory has very nice little...tracks of land, though. I guess my biggest gripe is that there wasn't nearly enough buildup, character-wise, for most of the plot. Not to go into spoilers, but major plot-related actions just seem to come out of nowhere. No suspense, no history, no nuance, just a little mellodrama, then *BAM* do crazy stuff.