What movie did you see today?

[Hazir]

X-men etc... I refer to what Aimless already wrote about it. Big mwaah.

[Ominous Gamer]

Maleficent

Way better than I was expecting. Figured it was going to be some sort of prequel, but it wasn't.

question:

serious spoiler:

not joking:

it will ruin the movie if you ain't seen it.:

When did I miss why Maleficent's attempt to revoke the curse failed?

[Lewkowski]

Maleficent

Way better than I was expecting. Figured it was going to be some sort of prequel, but it wasn't.

question:

serious spoiler:

not joking:

it will ruin the movie if you ain't seen it.:

When did I miss why Maleficent's attempt to revoke the curse failed?

Spoiler:

Eh for plot reasons? "No power on this earth..." It whispers it right as the attempt was made.

[Aimless]

Spoiler:

Isn't that basically a part of the curse as it was designed?

[Ominous Gamer]

.................................................. .................................................. ....................................

Spoiler:

I know she threw that in there when preforming the curse, its just odd that they would devote so much emotion and CGI to that scene in the cottage, then say nothing about it one way or the other, if it meant nothing.

[Aimless]

Edge of Tomorrow: Groundhog Day meets Starship Troopers in a well-directed and visually cool movie with a simple but solid script that takes the viewers on a journey in which their understanding develops alongside that of the main characters (portrayed competently by Cruise and Blunt). I really liked it!

[Timbuk2]

Heh. When I saw a trailer for Edge of Tomorrow on the Graham Norton Show when Tom Cruise appeared, my first thought was Groundhog Day.

Blatantly so.

But maybe worth a watch if ya say so.

[Hazir]

It is quite good actually, but is there anyone who can explain the end? It seems not quite logical to me.

[Loki]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_Code I thought the premise was identical to this. If anyone saw both movies, how similar are they?

[Hazir]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_Code I thought the premise was identical to this. If anyone saw both movies, how similar are they?

Not very much to be honest. But they are right there is the similarity of a person going over and over the same events while keeping the memories.

[Loki]

Any idea why it's doing so poorly at the box office despite pretty good reviews?

[Aimless]

A simple but incomplete explanation:

http://screenrant.com/edge-of-tomorr...s-time-travel/

A more complete explanation aka. fan-theory:

http://reappropriate.co/?p=5882

[Aimless]

Any idea why it's doing so poorly at the box office despite pretty good reviews?

Misfortune, fatigue, and strange audiences made up Lewkowski and teen girls not doing too shabby in the international box office

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-d...ow-bomb-2014-6

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...icle-1.1823029

[Loki]

Movies that have lots of explosions and killing always do well internationally, especially in Asia.

[Hazir]

Any idea why it's doing so poorly at the box office despite pretty good reviews?

No, I can't really. It was quite good, it holds all the ingredients for a blockbuster and after reading some possible explanations of the ending even the storyline seems quite solid, much better than what it seemed.

Maybe the lead actress isn't someone who pulls in people in huge crowds?

[Aimless]

Maybe if they'd called it "Edge of Tomorrow 2: The Beginning" it'd have been a hit

[Khendraja'aro]

No, I can't really. It was quite good, it holds all the ingredients for a blockbuster and after reading some possible explanations of the ending even the storyline seems quite solid, much better than what it seemed.

Maybe the lead actress isn't someone who pulls in people in huge crowds?

Sometimes there are simply flukes. While I wouldn't call it a masterpiece (or compare it to one), just think of movies like Bladerunner, Citizen Kane, Casablanca or 2001, who either failed or did only moderately in the box office.

[Hazir]

Transcendence; imagine the scenarios for independence day and lawnmower man mashed together, then taken to a 17 year old to do the re-write with orders to put some new age shit and the internet in. Logic was the first victim. The movie starts out ok but the plotholes successively get bigger, untill they are big enough to fly a passenger jet right through with room on both sides. 6.3 on IMDB is very generous.

[Khendraja'aro]

Yeah. A singularity which isn't and a trans-human being which isn't even clever enough to withstand a virus.

[GGT]

Has anyone seen "Lucy"? It hasn't been released in my area theaters yet, but it has a good cast, and the trailers looked interesting.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872732/

[Hazir]

Yeah. A singularity which isn't and a trans-human being which isn't even clever enough to withstand a virus.

Oh you missed something: the singularity outwits humanity by destroying all electronic networks and receding into that pretend cage in the garden 'that will keep everything out'. However the reason for this action is nullified by either the fact that he takes the source of the infection inside with him or that he could wash out the virus anyway and never really was at risk at all.

From a beneficial entity to destroyer of civilization because some people opposed him ineffectually. Probably that what fast processors get you.

Oh and how these Luddites built a tunnel on top of 5 stories of underground installations without ever getting noticed?

[Hazir]

Husband tricked me into watching a movie with Nicolas Cage in the lead. Surprisingly enough 'Joe' was quite good, but that was mostly due to the setting and the supporting actor Tye Sheridan and others.

I still think Nicolas Cage couldn't act if his life depended on it; even Joe's dog was giving a better performance.

[Timbuk2]

Iron Man 3



Oh dear / 10

[Lewkowski]

Misfortune, fatigue, and strange audiences made up Lewkowski and teen girls not doing too shabby in the international box office

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-d...ow-bomb-2014-6

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...icle-1.1823029

Pssh I haven't seen the movie but it has explosions so why wouldn't I like it?

[Timbuk2]

Misfortune, fatigue, and strange audiences made up Lewkowski and teen girls not doing too shabby in the international box office

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-d...ow-bomb-2014-6

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...icle-1.1823029

Pssh I haven't seen the movie but it has explosions so why wouldn't I like it?

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Minxie; take a bow.

[Ominous Gamer]

The Other Woman.

Don't ever piss off Cameron Diaz

[Wraith]

Guardians of the Galaxy.

I'm not sure it deserves all the praise the internet is heaping on it right now, but it was a pretty good movie. It was very funny when it wanted to be, good action scenes, and deliciously weird. The backstories don't hold up under scrutiny, and there are a couple cliches in the movie, but overall the movie was very solid. Gamora was kinda cardboard, but all the other characters were fantastic. I'm still really curious to see how mainstream audiences react to it. I'm guessing that everyone in my theater does not fall into that demographic, since not a single person got up before the stinger, and from what I overheard afterwards most of them seemed to know who the unnamed characters were. This is definitely the weirdest big budget movie released since the first Star Wars, and I hope it does well, if just so we can see more risky movies like this one.

[Aimless]

Mostly spoiler-free review of Guardians of the Galaxy, short version: Thor 3: Footloose meets The Expendables 4: Avengers, in Alliance-controlled space.

Longer version: enjoyable and very Different action-movie that repeatedly shoots itself in the foot--by taking too many cues from Avengers, while wasting the momentum of its plot at inopportune moments with poor direction and editing--but nevertheless succeeds thanks to inspired casting, goofiness and a freakin' awesome soundtrack. That it succeeds despite lacking the Avenger's characterization- and story-advantage--of having entire movies as backstories for all protagonists--and featuring one-too-many performances of "O-o-h Child" is testament to the strengths of the movie's unique character. I enjoyed it thoroughly, even in 3D, and am really looking forward to the sequel =)

The actors and their interpretations of the protagonists really carried the movie. I came in expecting to be mehed by most of their performances but was pleasantly surprised by all save for Diesel-Groot. Chris Pratt, striking a perfect balance between kickass pelvic sorcerer and sad intergalactic loser, was perfect for the role of Star Lord. I can almost forgive him for not being Nathan Fillion Zoe Saldana is an actress I usually don't like, partly because I usually see her in poorly written roles, partly because she always seems to have the same irritating expression of barely-suppressed hemorrhoid-induced rage. In this movie, she played a tormented and angry alien assassin, but she also gave Gamora a human dimension that made her character the most well-rounded of the protagonists. Rocket, whom I expected to be annoying, got uneven lines but was great overall, esp. when he was allowed to show some real emotions (Cooper's voice I coulda done without). Groot... well, as a CGI-character he was okay, and he was totally rad in his action scenes, but I think his awesomeness had been unjustifiably hyped and Diesel's voice-acting... well, it was what it was (which was Groot ). He redeemed himself towards the end, however.

The standout performances were by Nicole Alexandra Shipley as Pretty Xandarian, Michael Rooker as Yondu, and Dave Bautista as the ultimate straight (and insane and vengeful and muscular) man Drax the Destroyer. I was thrilled by Bautista's performance! I especially liked how, despite being metaphorically handicapped, nothing ever went over his head. He was also responsible for making something watchable and interesting out of Lee Pace's shortchanged Ronan the Accuser. What a shamefully wasted opportunity that one was, but I guess this movie was not really about the villain anyway. Thanos (come on, everyone knows he's in this movie) was cartoonish and kinda shit. I'm sorry but he really was and I don't look forward to seeing him in any future movies that aren't directed by Whedon.

This movie was often more plot than story, but I liked this first proper look at the MCU on a cosmic scale, esp. for the information about the overarching storyline that I presume will tie many of these movies together. I'm looking forward to seeing what Agents of SHIELD will make of it as well anyway, go see it.

[Lewkowski]

I enjoyed Hercules today. I found their take on the legend pretty damn entertaining and of course the battle scenes were fantastic. I was reminded of 300 a number of times during the movie.

[Aimless]

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that we saw Hercules the other day and enjoyed it immensely. It was what Conan could--and should--have been. And more! With a thousand elephants!!! Featuring buxom Amazons and exciting bondage

The story was simple but engaging, the plotting was competent and effectively leveraged familiar tropes but also offered a few surprises, the visuals--cgi, costumes, sets--were excellent up to and including the credits. The dialogue was sparse but well-crafted and suited to the actors who were in turn fairly well cast. The Rock is perfect for this sort of role but the standout performance was by Ian McShane as the fatalistic and probably insane Amphiarus, with Aksel Hennie's more overtly crazy Tydeus a close second. I saw it in 3D and it's one of very few 3D-movies I've seen where I don't feel a need to gripe about the 3D. It's better than 300