Quake3World

Captain Mazda wrote: Did you watch the other two? Mother is also a pretty gripping murder mystery.

I haven't seen the others you've recommended yet, but I will at some point. I saw Mother. It's great.

menkent wrote:oooo, i might have to watch that. *checks netflix*

protip: it's on youtube

Aliens
There just is no end to all the stereotype characters in this movie. I actually liked it less than Alien, even though it was slightly easier to watch (mostly due to more conventional pacing I guess). When watching this movie, you really have to place it in a mid-80's frame of mind, otherwise it gets kind of corny. Back then, it was a pretty revolutionary movie I guess.

Blasphemy, it's only full of stereotypes because so many movies have tried to copy it.

Star Trek - Into Darkness

6.5/10

Cumberbatch saved that film

Eraser wrote:Aliens
There just is no end to all the stereotype characters in this movie. I actually liked it less than Alien, even though it was slightly easier to watch (mostly due to more conventional pacing I guess). When watching this movie, you really have to place it in a mid-80's frame of mind, otherwise it gets kind of corny. Back then, it was a pretty revolutionary movie I guess.

Moron.

Eraser wrote:Aliens
There just is no end to all the stereotype characters in this movie. I actually liked it less than Alien, even though it was slightly easier to watch (mostly due to more conventional pacing I guess). When watching this movie, you really have to place it in a mid-80's frame of mind, otherwise it gets kind of corny. Back then, it was a pretty revolutionary movie I guess.

lol, what?

Eraser wrote:Aliens
There just is no end to all the stereotype characters in this movie. I actually liked it less than Alien, even though it was slightly easier to watch (mostly due to more conventional pacing I guess). When watching this movie, you really have to place it in a mid-80's frame of mind, otherwise it gets kind of corny. Back then, it was a pretty revolutionary movie I guess.

You fucking dipshit

Eraser wrote:Aliens
There just is no end to all the stereotype characters in this movie. I actually liked it less than Alien, even though it was slightly easier to watch (mostly due to more conventional pacing I guess). When watching this movie, you really have to place it in a mid-80's frame of mind, otherwise it gets kind of corny. Back then, it was a pretty revolutionary movie I guess.

this movie invented those stereotypes you bellend

Waterloo - 5/10 - Christopher Plummer and Rod Steiger, cast of thousands (literally - the battle scenes are 100% extras, and they're fucking huge). the scrupulous avoidance of gore - a product of the time i guess - undermined the 'horror of war' theme that ran through it. when Uxbridge gets his leg shot off by a cannon ball we don't see anything, not even blood splatter. also, their depiction of cannon fire was nonsense; cannon balls don't explode - they get their effect from sheer kinetic energy, and they bounce along the ground, taking limbs and heads off on their way

Dirty Harry - 1/10

who is this clint eastwood faggot and why does he just copy bruce willis's character in "sin city"? derivative drivel.

lol, I see what you did there...

Haywire
some brutal fight scenes, overall a bit too convoluted

seremtan wrote:Waterloo - 5/10 - ... their depiction of cannon fire was nonsense; cannon balls don't explode - they get their effect from sheer kinetic energy, and they bounce along the ground, taking limbs and heads off on their way

They had exploding cannon balls aswell as the ones you are familliar with, FYI.

Extra FYI: They also had something they called "Shot"; lots of tiny cannon balls together so the cannon fired like a giant shotgun with the tiny cannon balls like giant versions of the pellets.

A historical expert on the matter said so on TV.

Lady Vengeance - 8/10

Not as good as Oldboy but still great.

DTS wrote:

seremtan wrote:Waterloo - 5/10 - ... their depiction of cannon fire was nonsense; cannon balls don't explode - they get their effect from sheer kinetic energy, and they bounce along the ground, taking limbs and heads off on their way

They had exploding cannon balls as well as the ones you are familliar with, FYI.

Extra FYI: They also had something they called "Shot"; lots of tiny cannon balls together so the cannon fired like a giant shotgun with the tiny cannon balls like giant versions of the pellets.

A historical expert on the matter said so on TV.

yes i am aware of canister shot, which is what you're referring to, thanks professor. however 'they' used roundshot at Waterloo, which is intended to ricochet along the ground at high speeds (and didn't work very well at Waterloo since the ground was too muddy) - this doesn't explode

Requiem for a Dream - 7/10

Pext wrote:Lady Vengeance - 8/10

Not as good as Oldboy but still great.

Couldn't even make it past 5 minutes.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

A quiet Monday afternoon here and I thought I'd catch up on some recorded movies. It is 35c outside and luckily I am high and by the (cooling) sea with a strong NW breeze

Now I'd heard of this movie a while ago, never viewed before and thought I'd view.

OK, yes, a war movie, Germans, Jews and all you'd expect but really, I did not expect to be entertained for two hours. Yes, I know; people will say Brad Pitt but trust me on this, given the chance you must view it!

Special (rare) mention here: Actor Christoph Waltz played Col. Hans Landa and very well IMO

8.5/10

IMDB

Captain Mazda wrote:Blasphemy, it's only full of stereotypes because so many movies have tried to copy it.

seremtan wrote:this movie invented those stereotypes you bellend

losCHUNK wrote: You fucking dipshit

xer0s wrote: lol, what?

LawL wrote: Moron.

Lol, bunch of fucking nerds getting their panties in a bunch.
Just because they were the first doesn't mean they aren't stereotypes today. I clearly state that one needs to realize this was a movie from the 80's and you have to watch it like a movie from the 80's, otherwise the immensely shallow characters really start working on your nerves.

PS: opinions people, opinions....

The issue being that no movie can come close to it since its release, the stereotypes were spot on, its an action / horror flick for entertainment not realism. That's not to mention the settings, models, sounds, the way they played on the scanner n shit... 'Theyre in the walls man'.

Even taken out of context from the 80s the film stacks up against the best of today.

I wasn't saying it was a bad movie. The whole design, atmosphere and premise is excellent. It's just a shame the acting is so eye wateringly bad.

You see, Alien (the 1st) had many of the same things, even though it was far less action oriented, yet had none of cheesy characters.

I realize the characters may have been regarded as not cheesy at all back in '86, but anno 2014 it requires some effort to not get distracted by that. In the same way we nowadays say [insert legendary retro game here] hasn't aged very well".

so your point is that a movie made in the 1980s looks like a movie made in the 1980s

outstanding. now all you need is a deck of cards

The Hunger Games (2012)

My first time watching and you've probably seen it.

I do enjoy sci-fi and this generally not too bad at all IMO. Just enough to keep you watching to the end and I did enjoy.
7.5/10

Katniss Everdeen voluntarily takes her younger sister's place in the Hunger Games, a televised fight to the death in which two teenagers from each of the twelve Districts of Panem are chosen at random to compete.

Source - IMDB

seremtan wrote:so your point is that a movie made in the 1980s looks like a movie made in the 1980s

outstanding. now all you need is a deck of cards

I'm saying it hasn't aged very well in certain aspects. The original Alien, or indeed many other '80s movies suffer less from this.