Movie Discussion Thread

1. Australia was schizophrenic and waaaay too long. Had a few good moments but I cannot recommend. Waste of a netflix! Do not rent. Jar Jar Binks is in it, and plays a 8 year old aborigine boy. Repeat, do not rent!

2. Land of the Lost looks hilarious, I will probably go see that this week.

3. Year One looks pretty bad. They took the character Jack Black plays in every movie and the character Michael Cera plays in every movie and threw them into ancient times. Plus McLovin is in it. Black and Cera are funny but the same characters, same jokes, different setting formula does nothing for me.

4. Public Enemies, the John Dellinger Gangster movie looks like this summer's "sleeper." Johnny Depp can be really good if he is given a role that minimizes his chances of overdoing it and this looks like a good story and a good surrounding cast for him. Bonnie & Clyde is one of my favorite movies and something about the trailers for this remind me of B&C.

5. GI Joe looks like it is going to be so much wasted potential... it looks horrible. Accelerator suits? This movie might make me cry.

I haven't watched a new movie in so bloody long. In fact, I think my only trip to the theatre in '09 so far has been Watchmen. I think I'm going to try and convince my girlfriend to a double-bill date night and catch Up and Drag Me to Hell, though it'll probably be easier to drag her to Star Trek, Terminator, or Wolverine.

Land of the Lost does actually look like it might be pretty good, even though I absolutely loathe Will Farrell. If they really must resurrect LotL, the screwball comedy route is probably the best way to go.

I won't be seeing Up. I like most of the Pixar stuff I've seen, but I'm just sick of them at this point. That was the most disappointing thing about the second half of WALL-E; I was very aware that this was a Pixar film, unlike the first half, which felt much more quirky and fresh. Besides, if you've seen the previews, chances are you've already seen the best parts of the movie.

G.I. JOE looks awful. Is it a or a movie or a video game? I have a hard time telling the two apart often anyway, but that thing looks ridiculous. I've had enough of this "everything old is new again" business. I don't want to see every friggin' book, comic, TV series, or movie I ever watched last century "reimagined." Seriously, what's next, Enter the Dragon '09? A Joss Whedon remake of the Sergio Leone trilogy?

That 9 movie looks pretty interesting. If I'm looking forward to anything this summer, it's that. It'd be nice to see a kids movie that doesn't patronize kids.

I've heard great things about Up, and hope to be able to see it with my wife and sleeping baby in the near future.

And I'll go out on a limb and say that G.I. Joe might be awesome. They had zero chance of making a GI Joe movie based strictly on the cartoons that was any good. I think a GI Joe movie that is more "inspired by" the source material rather than based on it could have potential to be fun.

-MMM

mjl1783 wrote:

G.I. JOE looks awful. Is it a or a movie or a video game? I have a hard time telling the two apart often anyway, but that thing looks ridiculous. I've had enough of this "everything old is new again" business. I don't want to see every friggin' book, comic, TV series, or movie I ever watched last century "reimagined." Seriously, what's next, Enter the Dragon '09? A Joss Whedon remake of the Sergio Leone trilogy?

There's a clip in the trailer, where they're dodging rockets exploding around them. If someone told me it was from the new Unreal Tournament, I'd believe 'em.

Just watched Starship troopers 3. Was way better than it had any right to be.

I know SFA about GI Joe (I don't think the toon was ever on in Australia. Movie looks like it might be over the top cool.

There's really nothing on my new movie radar for this summer. GI Joe, Transformers 3, Land of the Lost and all the other dreck that's coming out just makes me painfully aware how little creativity is left in Hollywood. What other childhood memory of mine are they gong to rape next?

Instead of going to the movies this summer, I'm spending my entertainment $$ on ASL stuff and going to some tournaments/cons.


-Will

Mr Skeletor wrote:

Just watched Starship troopers 3. Was way better than it had any right to be.

I know SFA about GI Joe (I don't think the toon was ever on in Australia. Movie looks like it might be over the top cool.

Shit yeah ST3!

The budget was the only thing holding it back for me... and even then, not by much. All they needed was what they had in the first one. Dont know how much that really was, but c'mon - it couldnt have been THAT much, right?

It was the Scorpion bug that pushed it for me. It looked like someone dressed up a volkswagon beetle with papermache for a high school float or some shit. TERRIBLE. Especailly when compared to the concept art. Epic fail.

They shoulda sprung for CGI there. They did it with the mass of bugs. I didnt like that, but at least it was paletable.

NeonPeon wrote:

mjl1783 wrote:

G.I. JOE looks awful. Is it a or a movie or a video game? I have a hard time telling the two apart often anyway, but that thing looks ridiculous. I've had enough of this "everything old is new again" business. I don't want to see every friggin' book, comic, TV series, or movie I ever watched last century "reimagined." Seriously, what's next, Enter the Dragon '09? A Joss Whedon remake of the Sergio Leone trilogy?

There's a clip in the trailer, where they're dodging rockets exploding around them. If someone told me it was from the new Unreal Tournament, I'd believe 'em.

That is EXACTLY the scene that scares the shit out of me.

Tom

Yeah, that and the monument blow-y up-y scene. Why do they always have to blow up a monument in movies now? That was the best thing about Trek '09 if you ask me. That big drill was about to fall, then it shows the Golden Gate bridge, but the drill just falls into the water. Thank the fucking maker, because as soon as I saw the bridge I was so close to walking out.

mjl1783 wrote:

Yeah, that and the monument blow-y up-y scene. Why do they always have to blow up a monument in movies now? That was the best thing about Trek '09 if you ask me. That big drill was about to fall, then it shows the Golden Gate bridge, but the drill just falls into the water. Thank the fucking maker, because as soon as I saw the bridge I was so close to walking out.

Ha, yeah. When the drill started to fall I just knew it was going to fall on the bridge. Then the bit fell into the water and I just knew that some bit of the barbed wire that was holding it up would fall on the bridge. And then it didn't. I was so pleasantly surprised.

mjl1783 wrote:

Yeah, that and the monument blow-y up-y scene. Why do they always have to blow up a monument in movies now? That was the best thing about Trek '09 if you ask me. That big drill was about to fall, then it shows the Golden Gate bridge, but the drill just falls into the water. Thank the fucking maker, because as soon as I saw the bridge I was so close to walking out.

The Bridge has to survive. It's where they bring back the whales from the days of nuclear wessels.

Oh, and they are not the hell your whales.

Ska_baron wrote:

Shit yeah ST3!

The budget was the only thing holding it back for me... and even then, not by much. All they needed was what they had in the first one. Dont know how much that really was, but c'mon - it couldnt have been THAT much, right?

Are you serious?

Starship troopers (1997) - $100+ million.
Starship Troopers 2 (2004) - $7 million.
Starship Troopers 3 (2008) - $20 million.

The original was a big budget blockbuster made for cinema (100 million was very high budget in the 90's - as a comparison Terminator 2 (1991) was the first film to crack 100 million budget).
The sequels are direct to DVD cheapies.
There is NO WAY a direct to DVD flick is going to get $100 million - the cheapest budget a 'cinema' movie has is around $40 million.

Yeah, you can spot the budget in the flick, especially in the climax. But fuck it, I'd rather they overreach and go nuts then keep the film too contained like they did with ST2.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

Ska_baron wrote:

Shit yeah ST3!

The budget was the only thing holding it back for me... and even then, not by much. All they needed was what they had in the first one. Dont know how much that really was, but c'mon - it couldnt have been THAT much, right?

Are you serious?

Starship troopers (1997) - $100+ million.
Starship Troopers 2 (2004) - $7 million.
Starship Troopers 3 (2008) - $20 million.

The original was a big budget blockbuster made for cinema (100 million was very high budget in the 90's - as a comparison Terminator 2 (1991) was the first film to crack 100 million budget).
The sequels are direct to DVD cheapies.
There is NO WAY a direct to DVD flick is going to get $100 million - the cheapest budget a 'cinema' movie has is around $40 million.

Yeah, you can spot the budget in the flick, especially in the climax. But fuck it, I'd rather they overreach and go nuts then keep the film too contained like they did with ST2.

Wow. Now I kinda feel like 100 million was a LOT for what they produced with the first film. Not that I don't love it, but DAMN.

EDIT - maybe I just have a terrible concept of money, movies, and budgets.

Eh, the ending I could tolerate being low budget, but that friggin scorpion bug. Gah!