|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 4, 2014 2:36:52 GMT
Saw "Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones" today.
Absolutely wretched. It's as if the people behind the series just phoned something in so as to keep the cash cow rolling.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 11, 2014 1:21:46 GMT
Just saw "Lone Survivor" tonight.
Really, really, disappointed.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 11, 2014 1:48:33 GMT
Just saw "Lone Survivor" tonight. Really, really, disappointed. I bet Mrs TLW specifically requests it, then. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 11, 2014 4:18:11 GMT
Just saw "Lone Survivor" tonight. Really, really, disappointed. I bet Mrs TLW specifically requests it, then. The trailer sells the film as being all about Mark Luttrell's attempts to escape and evade the Taliban. Instead, 60+ minutes of the film's 121 minute run time are focused on the ambush and the loss of the first helicopter. Luttrell is on his own for just a few minutes, and the Afghanis who helped him are treated more like plot devices than actual human beings; the only one the film even tries to flesh out is a young boy. The film is far more graphic than it needs to be, including two extended sequences showing the men falling down cliffs and getting battered on the way down and a scene in which Luttrell removes the shrapnel from his own wounds. Between the vulgar language, the graphic content, and the misplaced focus on the violence, I can't recommend this film. It's really, really disappointing, especially since the people who did the film had everything they needed - including Luttrell himself - to make it come out right. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 15, 2014 22:56:16 GMT
Ender's Game might have broken even. Box Office Mojo ( movie's main page) is reporting that the film is now at $112.2m worldwide, giving the film a $2.2m profit over its $110m price tag. The domestic totals page indicates that it opened at 13 new theaters the week of December 27th - January 2nd, leading to a heroic surge. Even though the film lost 7 theaters last week, it's still in 249 theaters across the US, and took in $300,000 last week. As far as international numbers go, the film had an $11m opening weekend in China on the 7th, and South Korea is $200,000 away from surpassing the United Kingdom as the second most profitable international venue (both are over $4m in ticket sales). There are supposed to be a few more openings before the end of the month, and so the film will likely keep making money through the end of spring. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 16, 2014 4:09:30 GMT
Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters: a competent workmanlike sequel to an okay first movie. the highlight is the surprise guest star. (and of course that is only good for people who liked a particular 1 season show)
not worth paying theatre prices, and probably not worth paying extra for a new release rental.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 16, 2014 6:11:37 GMT
I'm looking to see the new Jack Ryan movie on Friday.
It's an early showing this time (11:40 AM as compared to 2:00+ for the past few weeks), and so hopefully that means the theater will be less crowded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 16, 2014 16:05:58 GMT
Ender's Game might have broken even. Box Office Mojo ( movie's main page) is reporting that the film is now at $112.2m worldwide, giving the film a $2.2m profit over its $110m price tag. The domestic totals page indicates that it opened at 13 new theaters the week of December 27th - January 2nd, leading to a heroic surge. Even though the film lost 7 theaters last week, it's still in 249 theaters across the US, and took in $300,000 last week. As far as international numbers go, the film had an $11m opening weekend in China on the 7th, and South Korea is $200,000 away from surpassing the United Kingdom as the second most profitable international venue (both are over $4m in ticket sales). There are supposed to be a few more openings before the end of the month, and so the film will likely keep making money through the end of spring. Keep in mind that the budget given for a film does not include marketing costs, which depending on the film could be half as much again as what it cost to make. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 16, 2014 17:52:42 GMT
Ender's Game might have broken even. Box Office Mojo ( movie's main page) is reporting that the film is now at $112.2m worldwide, giving the film a $2.2m profit over its $110m price tag. The domestic totals page indicates that it opened at 13 new theaters the week of December 27th - January 2nd, leading to a heroic surge. Even though the film lost 7 theaters last week, it's still in 249 theaters across the US, and took in $300,000 last week. As far as international numbers go, the film had an $11m opening weekend in China on the 7th, and South Korea is $200,000 away from surpassing the United Kingdom as the second most profitable international venue (both are over $4m in ticket sales). There are supposed to be a few more openings before the end of the month, and so the film will likely keep making money through the end of spring. Keep in mind that the budget given for a film does not include marketing costs, which depending on the film could be half as much again as what it cost to make. There were calls for a boycott of the film almost as soon as it was confirmed. Most of the people were demanding the boycott because of Orson Scott Card's political and social views. A few, however, were demanding the boycott simply because Card is Mormon. When the film's first few US weeks underwhelmed (it was sandwiched in between "Bad Grandpa" and "Thor", with both movies sucking away the target demographics), these people cheered. When I gave the film a positive review, I got flamed. Remember what happened on the old boards when the original Carlos Hathcock episode was broadcast? How bad that blow-up was? That's what I got for daring to say anything positive about the movie. It got worse when these people found out that I'm Mormon as well. When I mentioned in an online forum that "The Saratov Approach" was on a list of upcoming films that I was wanting to see, folks went into full-fledged conspiracy theory mode and accused me of having a hidden agenda. Then the gay-baiting started. That the film made back its production budget in and of itself is a massive "Take that!" pointed in the general direction of everyone who wanted the movie to fail. That the film is also, by and large, an international hit is just icing on the schadenfreude cake. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 17, 2014 0:18:18 GMT
Keep in mind that the budget given for a film does not include marketing costs, which depending on the film could be half as much again as what it cost to make. There were calls for a boycott of the film almost as soon as it was confirmed. Most of the people were demanding the boycott because of Orson Scott Card's political and social views. A few, however, were demanding the boycott simply because Card is Mormon. When the film's first few US weeks underwhelmed (it was sandwiched in between "Bad Grandpa" and "Thor", with both movies sucking away the target demographics), these people cheered. When I gave the film a positive review, I got flamed. Remember what happened on the old boards when the original Carlos Hathcock episode was broadcast? How bad that blow-up was? That's what I got for daring to say anything positive about the movie. It got worse when these people found out that I'm Mormon as well. When I mentioned in an online forum that "The Saratov Approach" was on a list of upcoming films that I was wanting to see, folks went into full-fledged conspiracy theory mode and accused me of having a hidden agenda. Then the gay-baiting started. That the film made back its production budget in and of itself is a massive "Take that!" pointed in the general direction of everyone who wanted the movie to fail. That the film is also, by and large, an international hit is just icing on the schadenfreude cake. I limit my politireligious activism to groups that are truly evil - like the westies. if THEY made a movie, I would probably decline to watch it. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 17, 2014 5:11:27 GMT
I'm required to do one movie a week.
If only one film shows up locally, then I don't have a choice.
But if at least two films show up, then I can take my pick.
If a "family" film is in the mix, then that takes priority due to a prior request to highlight said films. If not, then I go for whatever looks to be the most intelligent offering. If there isn't anything intelligent that week, then I go for what's the shortest.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 17, 2014 5:52:53 GMT
I'm required to do one movie a week. If only one film shows up locally, then I don't have a choice. But if at least two films show up, then I can take my pick. If a "family" film is in the mix, then that takes priority due to a prior request to highlight said films. If not, then I go for whatever looks to be the most intelligent offering. If there isn't anything intelligent that week, then I go for what's the shortest. I seek out a particular range of intelligence - I skip those that have too much or too little. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 19, 2014 5:14:53 GMT
the new Lone Ranger movie came home to visit tonight. Johnny Depp did not disappoint. it's certainly not classic Lone Ranger, but it was a lot of fun. the chemistry between the two was excellent, and the bad guy was spot-on, as well.
Certainly it was full of lapses from real world physics, including all the main characters carrying 60 shooters; but if I wanted to watch a documentary, I'd be pulling up 20 year old history channel stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jan 19, 2014 6:57:33 GMT
I've been thinking about boycotts lately.
I'm starting to think that, in most cases, it's hard to justify them.
But first, let me make it absolutely clear that this is not an attack on anyone posting here--or their opinions. In fact, it was triggered by events completely unrelated to this board, although I will confess that ideas presented here did influence my thinking.
I guess I've been running into too many cases where I seem to be expected to know the exact background of every writer, director, producer, and star of a film, and if any of them don't match someone else's standard of acceptability, I shouldn't enjoy the film.
Even if I'm watching an old film, I'm apparently supposed to be aware of (and disapprove of) all images/ideas/dialogue/symbols that are misogynist/racist/misandrist/sexist/etc. and express said disapproval publicly, or risk condemnation, regardless of the context and times in which the film was made.
I guess I'm just trying to enjoy the art of filmmaking--to judge the film by its own merits instead of some artificial standard and morals that have nothing to do with the film itself.
Sorry. Just venting, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 19, 2014 15:28:30 GMT
I've been thinking about boycotts lately. I'm starting to think that, in most cases, it's hard to justify them. But first, let me make it absolutely clear that this is not an attack on anyone posting here--or their opinions. In fact, it was triggered by events completely unrelated to this board, although I will confess that ideas presented here did influence my thinking. I guess I've been running into too many cases where I seem to be expected to know the exact background of every writer, director, producer, and star of a film, and if any of them don't match someone else's standard of acceptability, I shouldn't enjoy the film. Even if I'm watching an old film, I'm apparently supposed to be aware of (and disapprove of) all images/ideas/dialogue/symbols that are misogynist/racist/misandrist/sexist/etc. and express said disapproval publicly, or risk condemnation, regardless of the context and times in which the film was made. I guess I'm just trying to enjoy the art of filmmaking--to judge the film by its own merits instead of some artificial standard and morals that have nothing to do with the film itself. Sorry. Just venting, I suppose. the problem is the bandwagoning that goes on. it is people demanding to burn the works of Mark Twain because someone said "nigger" in Huckleberry Finn. it is people declaring the new Lone Ranger evil and racist despite the living Cherokee members saying they felt Johnny Depp's portrayal of Tonto was commendable. to demand to know what people see in a particular person because they seem like a nutbar to you seems reasonable to me. to refuse to watch a movie because you don't like the imagery in it seems perfectly reasonable to me. to decline to patronize the work of an individual because of your political or moral beliefs even seems reasonable to me. placing greater emphasis on the fact that Mel Gibson did a rant about Jews than the fact that he did it while being arrested for drunk driving makes the person judging seem a bit like a nutbar to me. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 20, 2014 2:26:23 GMT
For me, it's item-by-item and person-by-person if I decide not to see a film.
Ender's Game? One of my brothers is a big fan of Card's sci-fi work, as is his wife. I chose to review that particular movie that week as a nod to them, and also so that I could let them know if it was something that they could take their kids to. I only started to actively push it in order to spite the people who were so nasty towards me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jan 20, 2014 7:02:43 GMT
Someone smarter than me described the issue like this: A celebrity stating a political opinion is like a dog walking on its back legs. Cute, but meaningless.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 20, 2014 12:08:18 GMT
I'm more likely to 'grey list' something that 'black list' it.
Grey listing is when you wait for (impartial) reviews before deciding if you will spend money on that product.
I originally started doing this after Bioware/EA messed up Mass Effect 3*. A LOT of people at that point were so incensed at the way the mainstream media and games companies handled the situation** they decided to blacklist EA/BW games entirely. I however decided that while the expanded ending they released solved little it was at least a move in the right direction and worth not avoiding all of their products just because they had been involved.
This has stuck for films as well, with a handful of exceptions (the Marvel movieverse for example) most films are 'grey listed' in that I wait to see what people have to say about said films before deciding what I may or may not be willing to spend money on.
(*You can, however, thank this for indirectly giving you The Citadel. I set up a message board on Proboards just in case Bioware closed down the discussions on their own site. This was why I was able to set TC up so quickly...and as it turns out where the boards name comes from. So some good came out of the situation.)
(**Calling people 'fans' and 'entitled gamers' kind of misses the point that you are talking about paying customers. Not exactly what you could consider good business practice, or all that smart - ESPECIALLY for 'gaming journalists' who did more damage to their reputations than Bioware/EA did to theirs.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 20, 2014 14:58:34 GMT
I'm more likely to 'grey list' something that 'black list' it. Grey listing is when you wait for (impartial) reviews before deciding if you will spend money on that product. I originally started doing this after Bioware/EA messed up Mass Effect 3*. A LOT of people at that point were so incensed at the way the mainstream media and games companies handled the situation** they decided to blacklist EA/BW games entirely. I however decided that while the expanded ending they released solved little it was at least a move in the right direction and worth not avoiding all of their products just because they had been involved. This has stuck for films as well, with a handful of exceptions (the Marvel movieverse for example) most films are 'grey listed' in that I wait to see what people have to say about said films before deciding what I may or may not be willing to spend money on. (*You can, however, thank this for indirectly giving you The Citadel. I set up a message board on Proboards just in case Bioware closed down the discussions on their own site. This was why I was able to set TC up so quickly...and as it turns out where the boards name comes from. So some good came out of the situation.) (**Calling people 'fans' and 'entitled gamers' kind of misses the point that you are talking about paying customers. Not exactly what you could consider good business practice, or all that smart - ESPECIALLY for 'gaming journalists' who did more damage to their reputations than Bioware/EA did to theirs.) there are a few names in the entertainment industry I have blacklisted - but not for political reasons. they are blacklisted because they have a history of producing stuff I don't like. if the movie stars Jim Carrey, Sascha Baron Cohen, of Gilbert Gottfreid, I know I don't need to spend money on it. (there have been shows they played minor roles in that I did okay with) |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 20, 2014 15:49:52 GMT
I agree that there are some individuals I avoid in films, although they are exceptions since in most cases I'm willing to accept the possibility that they might produce something I will like. For example Michael Bay is a director I usually can't stand, but I will admit to having enjoyed the first Transformers film. So even 'bad' actors or directors can occasionally produce enjoyable films.
In regards actors the problem is usually in them being typecast - Jim Carrey is quite capable of doing a serious role well. It's just that after he made 'Mask' everyone saw him as a comedic actor. Likewise everyone sees Megan Fox as having no acting ability what-so-ever, and therefore little more than eye-candy, after Transformers. But she is in fact a decent actress when she is given a suitable role, and not being directed by someone she (apparently) doesn't like very much.
You could say this sort of thing about a lot of 'bad' actors, who tend to be surprisingly good when given a chance to do something different.
|
|
