First image of Andrew Garfield from the upcoming Spider-Man film:
http://www.geekosystem.com/andrew-garfield-spiderman/
http://www.geekosystem.com/andrew-garfield-spiderman/
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Was it well directed? Yes. Was the actor good? Yes, but anyone who has seen The Green Mile already knows he's a great actor.COMPLETELY, 110% disagree with that assessment at all.
The movie, which was flawlessly directed by Duncan Jones, was a vehicle to get Sam Rockwell out there. He did the best job last year, and the fact it wasn't even nominated makes the Oscars mean nothing.
As interesting as that makes the film sound, the film doesn't hold that appeal very well. For examplePluvia, you're just putting words in the movie's mouth.Moon doesn't expect you to hold the revealing of the clone as a pivotal twist, it only marks the beginning of a unique development of drama between a man and himself, literally. They are two seperate living things, but as the same essential person, they have to swallow their reality and (so one of them can survive) begin to realize that what they thought was "ours" was, between both of them, "mine". It's not about the twist, it's about sacrifice.
at least, that's what I took
I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. One of your arguments is that the film is predictable, which, unless you're just very good at predicting movies, isn't the case. Movies should give clues before a twist, otherwise it would be an M. Night Shyamalan disaster. With the harvester incident, how was anybody suppossed to knowAs interesting as that makes the film sound, the film doesn't hold that appeal very well. For exampleThat's not how you'd react in a situation like that.upon waking up after the harvester crash and seeing what should be a truly life changing moment, he instead doesn't react very much. I don't even think they acknowledge that they're each other in that first scene, instead bearded him asks GERTY what's going on.
The whole plot of the film is him trying to figure out what's going on. Literally that is the plot of the film, but it is ruined by the fact that you know what's going on. My expectations were it was going to be one of the best films I've ever seen, a fantastic dark story and the questioning of what's actually going on during the film, and upon seeing the end I would be given a new light upon re-watching it. Instead I got a film that was not really dark, the answer to what was going on near the start, no new revelations by the end and characters that did not react very strongly to the life changing events. The film is so overhyped it is unbelievable.
Ghost World is a personal favorite of mine. I can relate to Buscemi's struggle against low-brow culture, even though I'm not quite as critical or sophisticated as him.Wow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_World_(film) This was an amazing movie. I can never seem to properly articulate my thoughts to the point where I can review a movie and be satisfied with what I said, but I'm tempted to try doing a relatively in-depth review of this film, because it deserves the endorsement. Some of you have probably seen it already, but if you haven't then you ought to.
Exactly. Film is not about the "what", but about the "how". As another example, both Citizen Kane and There Will Be Blood chronicle an entrepreneur's rise to tremendous wealth and in that process the loss of humanity that goes along with it. However, in terms of the presentation and the thematic elements, the films could not be more opposite from each other.Stories aren't just about what they "are". The story of Moon can be simplified to man runs moon station, the man figures out he's lied to, the man comes to grips about his life. There's a bunch of simplified movie renditions floating around the internet, such as this humorous one. http://www.indiemoviesonline.com/watch-movies/movie-in-a-minute-the-matrix Makes The Matrix seem quite banal, doesn't it? Stories are supposed to be looked at for what they present. This story presents a dystopia of bioengineering, with existential questions on what makes up a person's humanity. There's a bigger picture to it and has much more nuances than I see you giving credit for.
Yep, and there's so many other elements that add to a great movie and story; mise-en-scène, editing, camera movements, etc. Most of Ingmar Bergman's films are almost devoid of plot and dialogue, yet he's made some of the most powerful films of all time.Exactly. Film is not about the "what", but about the "how". As another example, both Citizen Kane and There Will Be Blood chronicle an entrepreneur's rise to tremendous wealth and in that process the loss of humanity that goes along with it. However, in terms of the presentation and the thematic elements, the films could not be more opposite from each other.
Bemoaning about "predictable twists" and getting hung up on minor workings of the plot is missing the forest for the trees.
Anne Hathaway as Catwoman
Tom Hardy as Bane
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/01/19/anne-hathaway-will-be-catwoman-in-the-dark-knight-rises/
though, I think Hathaway would make a better Harley Quinn.
I love Tom Hardy. I almost went gay for him in Inception.
Unless you expected the gathering of tons of resources on the moon to take 6 years, or the rather obvious blocking of Earth communications to be a simple technical fault, or the fact thatI'm not understanding what you're trying to say. One of your arguments is that the film is predictable, which, unless you're just very good at predicting movies, isn't the case. Movies should give clues before a twist, otherwise it would be an M. Night Shyamalan disaster. With the harvester incident, how was anybody suppossed to know?that the situation was much bigger than a mere clone, but rather a museum of themAlso, through out the movie, they were hinting at GERTY having evil intentions, sort of like the machine in 2001 A Space Odyssey, but in the end he turned out good.
About GERTY, through out the middle of the film he's simply suspicious, there isn't anything about him that would say otherwise. His emotions are given by generic faces, he's hiding information from Sam, and his tone is monotone, I don't know how else he could appear more suspicious. All those clues you've listed simply states that there are lies given to Sam, but the specifics of the lies are not revealed in the clues. Remember that he hallucinated a little girl, so it wasn't certain whether a clone was real or imaginary.Unless you expected the gathering of tons of resources on the moon to take 6 years, or the rather obvious blocking of Earth communications to be a simple technical fault, or the fact that, then yes it is insanely obvious. All of those clues appear in the film before the crash, apart from the two I've spoiler tagged, and both of those literally take seconds to piece together using the previous evidence. And what you said about GERTY just seems lazy to me, giving the fact that you have to watch Sam spending the rest of the film figuring out things that took you 5 minutes you hope that GERTY,he see's a clone appear on the screen briefly in the harvester, or that the company would pointlessly waste money when they've got free labourthe seemingly nice robot, will instead have previously unforeseen motives that has been subtly implied throughout the film. No, you start the film thinking he's nice, he spends the film being nice, and ends the film being nice. How exciting.
Even the trailer for the film makes it look like it'll be an exciting film that makes you question what's real and what isn't constantly throughout it, but the actual film doesn't do any of that, instead it gives you the answer near the start of the film and leaves you to watch him slowly catch up. That's definitely not 5 star entertainment in my eyes.
I agree, China-town didn't feel like anything special to me for being such a "classic". Maybe it's an era thing.I was kind of disappointed with Chinatown, but not for those reasons. It was just way overhyped for me. I came out of the film satisfied, but not ecstatic about what I'd just seen. I can't really even say what I didn't like specifically. It was all good, but nothing jumped out at me as true greatness.
LOVE the last line though.
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown"
I'd also like to point out that HAL in 2001 didn't "turn evil". It was such an advanced AI that it became self-aware, and its "evil" actions are all done for self-preservation. It doesn't turn on humanity like some misanthropic robot cliche, it did what it did in order to keep itself from getting terminated. I think looking at it that way makes it a much more interesting "character" dynamic.
I loved 12 monkeys. Brad Pitt is hilarious.I saw 12 Monkeys today. Takes that whole "questioning your reality" thing to a whole new level. I love Brad Pitt's craziness, though I'm wondering how he did the lazy eye. Thewas pretty great too.plot twist when it turns out its not the 12 Monkeys, and they're really just some douchebag wannabe eco-terrorists
There was also that creepy, really depressing sense of humor I sort of felt throughout the movie that I loved too, mostly with the Suite Punta del Este intro playing. Had a weird dark carnie vibe to it.
Overall, its a 5/5 for me. Even if it was a little confusing sometimes.
Well, the film is called Requiem for a Dream. The entire point is that any dreams and ambitions those people had are dead. Similar to Black Swan, their obsession/addiction led them to destroying themselves. It's depressing, but it's true to the novel and the base concept.My gripe is that I thought it ended too inconclusively....a style that isn't not expected of Arnofsky.Like, everyone has hit rock-bottom, but there is never any sign of the downward slope ending (whether it be from them picking themselves up or ceasing to live altogether). It may have just been my expectation from the others I mentioned because those endings are more bitter-sweet in that the characters at least ended themselves with something they wanted to do. Requiem seems to just discard its characters
Then again, from the perspective of just a commentary on drug abuse, I suppose the ending would be appropriate.
I disagree with your spoiler for one reason: Flashblood. Addiction can make people do some crazy things.I love Requiem, but I really do take issue with the overblown way it approaches its subject matter. It forgoes character depth and even simple rationality for the sake of a bigger emotional reaction. This isn't always a bad thing, and for the most part it works but sometimes it takes me out of the movie
One scene in particularwhen Jared Leto's character's arm is horribly infected, but he has to get high so bad that he injects heroin directly into the wound. This is a really effective scene until you think about it for half a second. It makes NO SENSE for someone to do that. Even the worst of junkies would find somewhere else to inject. You can inject wherever a vein is. It really takes me out of the movie because it's one part that you know they made just for shock value without even thinking about it.
However, it's still an amazing film just for the way it puts you into the mindframe of the characters. With the intense cinematography and editing, you can really feel the way they do. The end montage makes me sweat because it's so intense.
edit:
here's my Aronofsky tier list
Black Swan>Requiem>Wrestler>Pi>The Fountain
don't like Pi too much and really don't like Fountain at all
Funny thing. I was talking to my mom about this scene and she mentioned that one of our family members suffered the exact same fate for the same reasons. So apparently it isn't that unrealistic.I disagree with your spoiler for one reason: Flashblood. Addiction can make people do some crazy things.