Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Mon May 07, 2012 1:23 am
Serenity09 wrote:
The problem i have with found footage movies is that the footage needs to be able to be found and a lot of movies make it so that recovering the camera or the video from the camera would be nearly impossible or impracticable This movie does that twice, but thinking back i cant think of any found footage movie other then maybe cloverfield that doesnt do that
Spoiler:
The first time is with that first camera he had, the big one, they said they left it in the hole and then the hole collapsed so in order for that footage to be found someone would have had to dig tons of dirt out to get to it, and the only people that would dig there would be government so that footage would be classified and not able to be edited as it was The 2nd time is at the end in tibet, he left it in way out in front of the monastery, the only people that might find it are the monks and i doubt they would send the footage to someone that would edit it
To be honest, I never thought of that, but I agree wholeheartedly.
Spoiler:
If he had robbed a bank it would have made his descent into evil too extreme, too fast. If you understand what I mean
Seren 2012
Last edited by marksoccer on Sat May 12, 2012 11:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
AmAzIn[G] Commander
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Mon May 07, 2012 4:16 pm
City of God 10/10 it's awesome
Anything made by Wes Anderson is at least a 8/10
From what I've seen so far in order of best to worst from him Rushmore The Royal Tenenbaums The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
And I'm going to be watching The Diving Bell and The Butterfly The Cabin in the Woods The Raid Redemption
Pat1487 Moderator
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Tue May 08, 2012 8:56 am
AmAzIn[G] wrote:
City of God 10/10 it's awesome
What makes you rate it so highly
marksoccer wrote:
Spoiler:
If he had robbed a bank it would have made his descent into evil too extreme, too fast. If you understand what I mean
Spoiler:
He killed the douchebags on his street and robbed the corpses, i dont think robbing a bank with some hostages would be too much of a stretch after that
AmAzIn[G] Commander
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Tue May 08, 2012 12:05 pm
Just watch it, any explanation I give about why it was a 10/10 won't live up to the movie, it's just really boss lol.
Pat1487 Moderator
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Tue May 08, 2012 4:34 pm
I know why it is highly rated I want to know why you rate it so highly
marksoccer Commander
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Thu May 10, 2012 1:26 am
O yea, I forgot about that part.
And I loved City of God. I went into it knowing nothing at all and it was a great surprise. Amaz is right, any explanation will not do the movie justice. And diving bell and the butterfly was such a well shot film. So amazing.
Seren 2012
Eat_bacon_daily Captain
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:59 pm
The Raid 8/10 A pretty damn badass action movie. Its kind of a mix between die hard 1 and Ong Bak. Excellent fight scenes. Unfortunatly its Indonesian and the only version out has subs, but sony pictures just bought the rights to this movie and are ganna make an english version eventually..
Pat1487 Moderator
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:26 pm
marksoccer wrote:
So whoever isn't looking forward to this, is a moron.
Im pretty sure i posted something somewhere on here that said my expectations for The Avengers was low
Its been awhile since i made a post going over movies
The Pact I went into this movie expecting it to be great, i was very disappointed None of it was scary, the story made little sense with giant plot holes, and it was incredibly predictable (not counting the plot holes that forced a twist)
Spoiler:
At the beginning you can clearly see that the first girl is pulled into the closet by a ghost, yet the ghost turns out to be a victim that wants justice, it makes no sense for the ghost to pull her into the closet unless she wants the killer to kill her, nothing the ghost does makes sense for what the ghost wants until she changes what she does toward the end
The Avengers I had low expectations for this because i didnt think they would be able to give each character the time they needed since there were so many but i was wrong This movie is pretty close to perfect for a superhero movie with this many characters I love what they did with Bruce Banner's character, i was afraid that character would drag the whole movie down but they changed it from the hulk movies so that character was enjoyable (i only saw 1 of the hulk movies so maybe the 2nd one was better) All the characters were great here My only complaint with the movie is that Loki never really felt that threatening as a villain
Spoiler:
The chitauri (the aliens he was working with) felt threatening, but there was never a point where i thought loki would win Although i think Loki wasnt trying to win, so it may have been intentional for Loki to be the way he seemed to me
The Hunger Games Theres a movie called Battle Royale made in 2000 based on a book that was written in 1999 In Battle Royale teenagers are sent into the wilderness with nothing and are told that only 1 person can return, if more theres more then 1 person after the allotted time then everyone remaining is killed, certain areas become inaccessible after a certain point The 2nd half of the hunger games is almost exactly the same as Battle Royale (even the ending to some extent), watching that part of the hunger games just made me want to watch Battle Royale
Spoiler:
The part where Rue died was pretty effective with the salute
The 1st half of The Hunger Games isnt bad
Spoiler:
This has been going for 74 years and not 1 volunteer to stand in for a family memeber until now, that just seems unlikely to me This whole world felt kind of unlikely to me, televising a survival game makes sense but the reason for doing it doesnt, its supposed to give them hope (but not too much) and keep them in check so they dont revolt, there are easier ways to give them hope or to keep them in check In fact what they are doing seems more likely to have them revolt then doing nothing (i.e. Rue's death)
This movie did give us the survival games mod for minecraft though, so its OK in my book
Men in Black 3 This was far better than i thought it would be I liked the first Men in Black, didnt like the 2nd one, so when i found out they were reviving the franchise for a 3rd i thought it was going to be terrible But it was surprisingly decent
Spoiler:
I really liked the character that could see 5th dimensionally, that character couldve been really annoying but i think it was played pretty well
I do have some complaints with the time travel though
Spoiler:
1. How does J remember K, they try to explain it by saying something like J was there, but it doesnt really make sense, he was there as a kid at the end, but O was there and so were a bunch of other agents, there wasnt a specific moment where he was there that was any different from any other time that anyone else was there so it doesnt make sense as to why J remembered 2. The first time J goes back in time he is physically transported there, as is the villain, meaning theres 2 of the same person in the 60's But the 2nd time he does it, during the fight on the rocket where he gets hit and memorizes the pattern so he wont get hit when he does it again, he isnt physically transported back, hes just in his body a few minutes earlier, the rules earlier set it up so that there should be a duplicate, 1 that gets hit and 1 that remembers getting hit 3. Also J was touching the villain (i cant remember his name) when he went back that 2nd time so it shouldve brought the villain back with him because he was falling too, since he didnt go back it makes me wonder what happened to him there, if theres a timeline where the villain just fell to his death, it really makes me question how time travel in the movie works because they arent following any rules they set up 4. This isnt really about the time travel mechanics but, the guy that invented the time machine that J uses is said to be locked up, but why was he locked up For inventing time travel? I dont see how thats a crime unless he intentionally used it/sold it to someone to do evil things
Dark Knight Rises 10/10 Ez Perfect trilogy right, had everything wrapped up just right. You guys should really watch it. There is nothing more to say.. just perfect movie and trilogy
Eat_bacon_daily Captain
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:01 am
I jsut saw Tweleve Monekys and it was AMAZZZZAH. I have no idea why i have never heard of this movie. It has Bruce Willis and Brad Pit. If you havent watched it YOU SHOULD!
marksoccer Commander
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:48 pm
Looper
This movie was awesome, I loved it. It's a sci-fi, I'll start with that. The movie take a realistic tone to it, no metallic jump suits no major sci-fi isms. It stars Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (with a crap ton of makeup, to make him look like a young/not bald Bruce Willis) The acting is amazing, everyone was on the A game. I believed that JGL was a younger more immature version of Willis. The make up doesn't look fake, I never doubted that it was his younger version.
It was a time travel movie but it didn't have any evident plot holes, I don't want to mention any details because this movie was full of surprises. The writing was great. The direction was amazing, he also wrote and directed Brick and The Brothers Bloom, I hear really good things about both of them. Did you guys see them? If so what you think. It's one of my favorites of the year for sure.
9.5/10
Pat1487 Moderator
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:34 pm
I saw looper last night It was pretty good
marksoccer wrote:
It's a sci-fi, I'll start with that. The movie take a realistic tone to it, no metallic jump suits no major sci-fi isms
Spoiler:
Yeah because it is completely possible and realistic that humans will evolve/mutate to the point of being able to use telekenetic powers in about 30 years from now lol
Why did you specifically put metallic jump suits as something from sci fi that is unrealistic Its a really oddly specific example
marksoccer wrote:
It was a time travel movie but it didn't have any evident plot holes, I don't want to mention any details because this movie was full of surprises
Spoiler:
It only avoids plot holes in the story because of the way they set up their time travel mechanic, since things/events for the future are an uncertainty until the present experiences that thing/event
But the fact that the future is so uncertain causes a plot hole with how time travel works in the movie because nothing in the future should be able to happen until the present experiences it, meaning that no one can travel back in time based on those mechanics because the present would have to experience the time traveler being in the present in order to make the event of time travel for the time traveler from the future coming back to the present a certain event to happen in the future Which makes the event, in the present, of the time traveler being in the present a requirement to cause the event, in the future, of the time traveler going back in time Which is event before cause, which goes against causality Which exists in the movie since its established by the whole events becoming certain as the present experiences them thing
I dont know how much sense that will make but it should make sense
Also sending people into the past to be murdered by someone because getting rid of the body in the future isnt really that good of an idea It would make much more sense to just kill them in the future, where its impossible to dispose of the body and then send the corpse into a volcano in the past, just cut out the loopers entirely Or if volcanoes are too dangerous, you could just send 1 guy on a one way trip to set up/maintain an incinerator in the past where you dump all the corpses you send back directly into instead of having unreliable loopers killing them You wouldnt even have to kill them in the future, just send the person directly into the incinerator in the past I like to think that something like that was part of what the Rainmaker was originally trying to accomplish when he took over and started closing all the loops
Speaking of the name Looper, I actually really dont like the name Looper, it implies there is a loop that needs closing or that they are in a loop, but they arent, the only reason they are killed in 30 years is because thats how the people running it want it, they dont have to die in 30 years And theres no loop that needs closing because time travel in the movie cant have loops
But overall it was enjoyable, as long as you dont overthink it The acting was good all around I really like the dark and serious tone it has It is more sci fi than mark said it is And while i did see the other twists coming, i didnt see the end coming, which happens very rarely, so that was good And its not the kind of ending that comes out of nowhere and makes absolutely no sense, so i was genuinely surprised at it
Eat_Bacon_Daily wrote:
I jsut saw Tweleve Monekys and it was AMAZZZZAH. I have no idea why i have never heard of this movie. It has Bruce Willis and Brad Pit. If you havent watched it YOU SHOULD!
I saw that movie so long ago I remember liking it though I cant remember any complaints i had with the time travel but im sure theres something I probably let it slide like i am for Looper since it was enjoyable overall
Im trying to think of a bad movie that Bruce Willis was in and i cant think of any Maybe Hudson Hawk, but he was still good in that
marksoccer Commander
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:51 am
Alright so here I go trying to make sense of that jumbled mess you call an explanation.
Spoiler:
Remember the part where we see JGL shoot willis? I just realized this yesterday. You first see willis fight back and knock out JGL. We know that's what happens in the present. However that scene is followed by another where we see JGL again but this time willis comes on time (not late like he did the first time) face covered and cuffed. JGL shoots then finds the gold signifying his loop is closed. Now this JGL grows old we see the really well done time skips turns into willis then they come to get him. He fights back and goes into time machine all ready to go then knocks out JGL. (and we see a different camera angle which was really funny to watch by the way)
K now hopefully I can convey what I mean. The second time when willis dies and loop is closed, followed by time skip, we can say that JGL is the future willis that will come to present. You with me?
K im just going to call the JGL that killed and closed loop young willis to make it easier. And willis with covered head old man.
So young willis kills old man, there was no problem he came on time he was covered everything went smoothly. Now assume this has been going on for multiple timelines. However, now young wills when he grows old, breaks that mold, knocks out thugs and going into time machine later then he should have, with out his head covered or cuffs. He then knocks out JGL and the rest of the movie continues.
On a different note (in the present time) the reason why the past effected the future so much was because JGL was re-writing the future. Willis had not experienced what is happening now. Because of the mold that he broke it was no-holds barred, anything that JGL did would affect his memory and change them.
Hope that made sense
Pat1487 Moderator
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:44 pm
Spoiler:
marksoccer wrote:
Alright so here I go trying to make sense of that jumbled mess you call an explanation.
Remember the part where we see JGL shoot willis? I just realized this yesterday. You first see willis fight back and knock out JGL. We know that's what happens in the present. However that scene is followed by another where we see JGL again but this time willis comes on time (not late like he did the first time) face covered and cuffed. JGL shoots then finds the gold signifying his loop is closed. Now this JGL grows old we see the really well done time skips turns into willis then they come to get him. He fights back and goes into time machine all ready to go then knocks out JGL. (and we see a different camera angle which was really funny to watch by the way)
K now hopefully I can convey what I mean. The second time when willis dies and loop is closed, followed by time skip, we can say that JGL is the future willis that will come to present. You with me?
K im just going to call the JGL that killed and closed loop young willis to make it easier. And willis with covered head old man.
So young willis kills old man, there was no problem he came on time he was covered everything went smoothly. Now assume this has been going on for multiple timelines. However, now young wills when he grows old, breaks that mold, knocks out thugs and going into time machine later then he should have, with out his head covered or cuffs. He then knocks out JGL and the rest of the movie continues.
I understand all of that mark The problem is that your putting it into an order that doesnt exist as if its a sequence of events that happened 1 right after another starting with the timeline you described happening before the timeline of the rest of the movie from where it continues and eventually ends The timeline you describe didnt happen before the timeline of the rest of the movie, because theres no way to measure a difference in time between those 2 things, it just makes more sense to order it like that because thats the most logical way to structure it in our minds (and its the way the movie presents it)
This wouldnt be a problem if the timelines were 2 separate things but...
marksoccer wrote:
On a different note (in the present time) the reason why the past effected the future so much was because JGL was re-writing the future. Willis had not experienced what is happening now. Because of the mold that he broke it was no-holds barred, anything that JGL did would affect his memory and change them.
Thats exactly what i was saying, and exactly what causes the problem i described As JGL experiences things Willis's body/mind is updated with the new experiences, he still has the old experiences (more or less) until JGL experiences something new Which means 2 things 1. The future's existence is entirely dependent on the present 2. There is only 1 timeline that exists since Willis is effected by JGL, even though Willis is technically in a new timeline
Now the 1st one is obvious, but because the 2nd one is there it causes a paradox The 2 of those things combined forces a situation in the timeline where the only way for Willis to be in the present is if Willis arrives in the present, which he cant do until he leaves in the future, but the future is only written as events happen, so he would need to arrive before he left, which the 1st thing says cant happen
I hope that makes more sense then the other post, since its more specific to the movie instead of the general concept
marksoccer Commander
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:06 pm
Yea I get what you mean, at the end of the day, it was a time travel movie without a blatant plot hole. The issue it does has is forgivable due to the sheer awesomeness of this movie and it's attempt to limit the plot wholes. I would love to watch a director commentary of this movie to see what he intended with it.
Eat_bacon_daily Captain
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:51 pm
Spoiler:
I saw that movie so long ago I remember liking it though I cant remember any complaints i had with the time travel but im sure theres something I probably let it slide like i am for Looper since it was enjoyable overall
U should rewatch it, you can never fully appreciate movies when you are too young
Spoiler:
Im trying to think of a bad movie that Bruce Willis was in and i cant think of any Maybe Hudson Hawk, but he was still good in that
I thought that The expendables was a pretty horrible movie. Every actor that was in it was just there to milk their legendary roles in other movies. (Oh god and don't get me started with chuck norris). The movie can be summarized as : YEEEEEEHAAAAAAA
This reminds me, i think they are making die hard 6
marksoccer Commander
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:57 pm
5* A Good Day to Dark Hard
Achilles.42 Commander
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:54 pm
I saw looper yesterday, and was worried i wasn't gonna be able to explain the issue i saw with its time travel mechanics, but luckily pat already expressed what i was only comprehending. But then again, i wanted to go through that process, so, fuck you! <3
But yeah, I really liked the movie, i liked the way it approached time travel more then anything else I've seen.
Spoiler:
My favorite part about the movie, though, was the fact that the protagonist played oppositional roles to himself/themselves, i always like it when writers explore how people can become so different when they're separated by time and/or experiences. And oh em fuck'n gee, that child/rainmaker (pretty sure he's actually just Satin) is one of the best things I've ever seen. The rest of the movie could have been awful, and i still would have enjoyed myself just for the scenes with that child and his facial expressions
Pat1487 Moderator
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:49 pm
Eat_bacon_daily wrote:
U should rewatch it, you can never fully appreciate movies when you are too young
It was only 6 years ago, i wasnt that young
Eat_bacon_daily wrote:
I thought that The expendables was a pretty horrible movie. Every actor that was in it was just there to milk their legendary roles in other movies. (Oh god and don't get me started with chuck norris). The movie can be summarized as : YEEEEEEHAAAAAAA
I didnt see the expendables but it didnt look that bad from the trailer I cant imagine it being worse then Hudson Hawk at least
Achilles.42 wrote:
Spoiler:
My favorite part about the movie, though, was the fact that the protagonist played oppositional roles to himself/themselves, i always like it when writers explore how people can become so different when they're separated by time and/or experiences.
Spoiler:
I like that too, except i would think that most people would trust their future self. and would blindly beleive whatever he/she said because they would assume he/she knows more than they do, if my future self started telling me things about the future that needed to be changed i would probably just beleive him and figure whatever plan he has to fix things would be better than whatever i was thinking of since i would think he wouldve already thought of what i was thinking and decided that it was a bad idea So the way Joe reacts to his future self is weird to me, but in that situation i guess it makes sense for Joe to react that way
Achilles.42 wrote:
Spoiler:
And oh em fuck'n gee, that child/rainmaker (pretty sure he's actually just Satin) is one of the best things I've ever seen. The rest of the movie could have been awful, and i still would have enjoyed myself just for the scenes with that child and his facial expressions
Spoiler:
That kid was a pretty good actor, i believed he could turn into the Rainmaker, i kind of wish they showed how that kid grew up over the 30 years during the timeline bruce willis is from, in that timeline he should have been with his mom like he was in the timeline we saw, but never wouldve met Joe, so seeing how he went from that kid to the Rainmaker would be interesting, they hinted at it, but they could make a whole other movie just about that character
marksoccer Commander
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:07 am
K so I haven't posted on this thread for a while but I've watched a lot of movies as on late.
Argo This is a movie about the Iranian hostage crisis. If you are unfamiliar, it's when the Iranian people stormed the US embassy and kidnapped the embassy workers. However, a few escaped (I forgot how many, too lazy to search it) and are taking refuge with the Canadian ambassador (woot woot). This movie was masterfully directed, and acted by Ben Affleck. He has proven that he's a great directer, with 3 great movies now under his belt. I personally never watched Gone Baby Gone but I hear it's great, and The Town was awesome. Ben Affleck was also great as the lead actor, with an amazing supporting cast consisting of Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, and John Goodman. The movie was great, with a realistic (or at least was seems to be realistic) recollection of a historic event 8.5/10
Seven Psychopaths Martin McDonagh's followup performance to his other amazing movie, In Bruges. This movie was magnificently directed and written. I loved it, I laughed all the way through. I'm too lazy to type but it reminded me much of a Tarantino flick. The acting was amazing, every one hit their notes, but what more can you expect from Colin Farrell, Woody Harrelson, Christopher Walken and Sam Rockwell. Great and hilarious movie. 8.5/10
Cloud Atlas This movie was unique to say the least. I can't really explain it via text, or I can't without spoiling (and I'm much too lazy). The acting was good, the concept great, but what stuck out the most was the way the movie looked, specifically in the makeup department . It as confusing, but I think I understood it. It's a big deal because it's the largest indi movie of all time. 7/10 I want to push it to a 7.5 just because of the sheer scoop of the movie but I'm going to stick to a 7
Wreck-It Ralph It was amazing, the perfect video game movie. If you're a retro gaming fan you will love this movie. If you're an animation fan you will love this movie. If you're a fan of good movies, you will love this movie. If you're a fan of bad movies, you won't like this movie. The direction was great, voice acting phenomenal, only Sarah Silverman was annoying in the beginning. I loved all the cameo and little references everywhere. The plot which seemed simple from the trailer is more deep and with many established layers. What surprised me the most was the most was the animated short before the movie. It was brilliant and gorgeous, it established a beautiful love story in 5 minuets. 10/10 for both the short and the movie
Skyfall Absolutely amazing. This movie was masterfully shot, the lightning was perfect, every shot was perfect. That can be accredited to Roger Deakins as cinematographer and Sam Mendes as director. It was a dark bond film, none of the campy stuff. It was up to the caliber of Casino Royal not Quantum of Solace. Daniel Craig was great as usual and the supporting cast was great with Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes and Javier Bardem playing one of the greatest villains I've seen in a while. It was action packed but kept the smart wit of a bond flick. Brilliant. 10/10
Achilles.42 Commander
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:15 am
So i wrote a long and disjointed review of the movie Life of Pi. I mostly tried to write fairly and calmly, but then i was like "fuck this" so you can read the long version in the spoiler if you want, there arn't actually much of any spoilers.
The book is a new favorite of mine.
Suffice to say of the movie though: It obliterated the core concepts of the book so they could make a pretty-looking-childrens-movie and it pisses me off to no end.
I've only seen clips of Saw, and heard people talk about it. But this book was probably on level with how graphic it was. Now imagine they made a childrens story of Saw. (Life of Pi is an insanely better story than Saw, though) I just cant believe someone thought this was a good idea. Im so angry i cant even finish any of my trains of thought. Hence why this entire post is turning into a giant train wreck.
Spoiler:
Life of Pi
So i just read this book and then two weeks later saw they had just made a movie of it, and i was like "zo my go, coincidencez"
Normally i wouldn't compare the movie to the book like im about to do when im talking about either one. because normally i think that the movie is really just an adaptation of the story underlining the book, so you should compare the movie to the story. But the problem was that the although the movie followed the story, it also mangled and destroyed it so that they could make a flashy PG kids movie, that had 0 deep spiritual content.
It follows the life of a very spiritual and intelligent boy that lives in a zoo, but he and his family have to sell the animals and move to Canada (of all god forsaken places) due to financial issues. However, something happens on the boat and the boy ends up on a boat with a number of animals from the zoo (which they had been transporting with them to future sellers [or something]). And the rest of the book deals with his hardship in survival.
Now, there were some really awesome dimensions to this book that I'm not even going to get into, which made it one of my favorites, and I'm just gonna talk about a couple things relevant to the movie.
1) one of the primary focuses of the book was making the reader, not just feel the boy's suffering, but also understand his thought process as things progressed. But in the movie, very little is done show this. If i hadn't read the book i could have easily thought that this was a well fed kid doing ridiculous things on a life boat in the ocean. Not someone stranded for months on end that clung to life on grams of food and water a week and eventually went blind from malnutrition.
2) If books had ratings, this was an R rated book, not just partially, but the whole fucking way though, but for some reason they made this a PG-13 movie for fucks sake, i just checked, they made it a PG rated movie. No wonder they couldn't portray the boys pain, how the hell do you portray a book about how much suffering the human mind can take in a PG way? You cant. it's ridiculous.
3) Pi in the movie is one of the worst characters ever. The adult version of him (the one you hear narrate parts of the story is fine, i might even say good) but the teenage version of him is played as if he was autistic, he says maybe a dozen words (0 that i can remember). And in the book we we're supposed to be experiencing his thought process, instead we just get shots of a awkward looking kid that lives at a zoo. There's no goddamn dialog when you're on the boat with a bunch of fucking animals, just have him narrate the story like you do with adult Pi in the cutaways to later life.
4) They made the story seem like it was about God. Now, i heard a criticism from someone else that went something like this "Pi [the boy] was trying to get me to believe in god by telling me his story in this movie. this story wasn't very compelling. i still dont believe in god. this was a stupid movie." Im'a get to this criticism in a second. 4) a) Pi is a Hindu, Christian, and Muslim, in the book you're taken through all his reasoning for why he follows all 3 religions, and as an atheist i understood why he chose such a path, and was even drawn to his thought process. In the movie hes just an odd kid that asks his parents for a prayer rug. 4) b) so the book isn't about God at all in the traditional sense. You should read it if you want to know what im talking about. But it struggles with very complex spiritual ideas in an excellent way in my opinion. But for whatever damn reason, the writers decided they should have the reporter (who is talking to the adult Pi) ask stupid questions about god every 5 seconds (okay maybe he only asks 3 questions in the whole movie). And they do this in such a way as to make it seem as if pi is trying to answer these questions, when in reality he is telling his story IN SPITE of the reporters inability to grasp the depth of what he is saying. so instead of getting a feeling for the deep spiritual questions that are at stake, we think the focus is on the incredibly stupid spiritual questions that the reporter is asking. Made. Me. So. Mad.
This was a really rambling rant. so good job if you actually read it all.
I really recommend the book "Life of Pi" one of the best books i've read in awhile.
marksoccer Commander
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:24 am
But if you were to watch it on merits of the movie alone how is it?
Achilles.42 Commander
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:39 am
marksoccer wrote:
But if you were to watch it on merits of the movie alone how is it?
It's a beautifully done movie with special effects. And has some funny parts. But it all comes at the expense of something much more meaningful
All i really expect from a movie is that it either represents the book accurately enough, or else, creates something different that stands on its similar merits. The hobbit, for instance, changed many important elements of the story from the book, but i felt like they were just creating a different story that would have been no worse if it had been the original hobbit, so i enjoy both book and movie. However, if you had put the story of the movie form of Pi in a book, it would probably fill 1 page, and still not be worth reading.
You're basically asking me if watching the Holocaust is an enjoyable way to examine human behavior, forgetting all the jews the suffered and died.
Okay maybe thats not a perfect analogy. But its the level im at right now.
Pat1487 Moderator
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:27 am
I havent read the book but i did see the movie, and i liked it Even though i havent read the book i can tell its watered down from the source material at times Im actually kindve surprised it got a PG rating with all the animal killing and the overall harsh dark tone of the whole thing I wouldnt call it a kids movie though
Quote :
I've only seen clips of Saw, and heard people talk about it. But this book was probably on level with how graphic it was. Now imagine they made a childrens story of Saw.
Spoiler:
i assume your referring to the story at the end, the one with the cook, his mother, and the sailor, because i dont see how any of the rest of the story could be that graphic I would think in the book its more detailed and not just Pi(teen) sitting in a bed telling the story to 2 insurance agents, if it is more detailed in the book then i agree, i really disliked how that whole scene was just him in the bed telling that story
However i like that there's 2 stories like that, 1 fantastical and 1 realistic, both containing the same basic elements, and either story is plausible (the island in the fantastical story is a stretch but still) The one you chose to beleive as the truth is like your outlook on the world
Quote :
Spoiler:
1) one of the primary focuses of the book was making the reader, not just feel the boy's suffering, but also understand his thought process as things progressed. But in the movie, very little is done show this. If i hadn't read the book i could have easily thought that this was a well fed kid doing ridiculous things on a life boat in the ocean. Not someone stranded for months on end that clung to life on grams of food and water a week and eventually went blind from malnutrition.
Spoiler:
I could see his thought process, trying to tame a tiger and the logic behind his actions with that goal, and reading the survival book trying to figure out how to survive and building a raft and an evaporation water chamber thing, and learning to catch fish to feed the tiger I agree with you about the suffering though, i didnt feel his suffering at all, i knew logically he must be suffering but the movie didnt convey that in any form of emotion during his time at sea
Quote :
Spoiler:
2) If books had ratings, this was an R rated book, not just partially, but the whole fucking way though, but for some reason they made this a PG-13 movie for fucks sake, i just checked, they made it a PG rated movie. No wonder they couldn't portray the boys pain, how the hell do you portray a book about how much suffering the human mind can take in a PG way? You cant. it's ridiculous.
I dont see how it could be R rated the whole way through, the part i mentioned above would be, but other then that it isnt really that bad
Spoiler:
Even his suffering, if i imagine it as being as bad as possible, i wouldnt consider to be R I could see him cursing a lot in that situation in the book, but again i wouldnt consider that R (even though it would be R)
Quote :
Spoiler:
3) Pi in the movie is one of the worst characters ever. The adult version of him (the one you hear narrate parts of the story is fine, i might even say good) but the teenage version of him is played as if he was autistic, he says maybe a dozen words (0 that i can remember). And in the book we we're supposed to be experiencing his thought process, instead we just get shots of a awkward looking kid that lives at a zoo. There's no goddamn dialog when you're on the boat with a bunch of fucking animals, just have him narrate the story like you do with adult Pi in the cutaways to later life.
Spoiler:
I didnt think he was autistic, he talked a decent amount before the ship sank And after the ship sank, when he was alone at sea, theres really no reason to talk out loud, he does talk sometimes, probably as much as i would if i was in that situation Saying stuff like "You got to see this" to the tiger was a bit retarded but i figured by that point he was going a bit crazy, so i didnt think much of it In fact, before he told the 2nd story near the end, i thought a lot of what he was seeing was in his head, the tooth on the island and the jellyfish, due to exhaustion and malnourishment
Quote :
Spoiler:
4) They made the story seem like it was about God. Now, i heard a criticism from someone else that went something like this "Pi [the boy] was trying to get me to believe in god by telling me his story in this movie. this story wasn't very compelling. i still dont believe in god. this was a stupid movie." Im'a get to this criticism in a second. 4) a) Pi is a Hindu, Christian, and Muslim, in the book you're taken through all his reasoning for why he follows all 3 religions, and as an atheist i understood why he chose such a path, and was even drawn to his thought process. In the movie hes just an odd kid that asks his parents for a prayer rug. 4) b) so the book isn't about God at all in the traditional sense. You should read it if you want to know what im talking about. But it struggles with very complex spiritual ideas in an excellent way in my opinion. But for whatever damn reason, the writers decided they should have the reporter (who is talking to the adult Pi) ask stupid questions about god every 5 seconds (okay maybe he only asks 3 questions in the whole movie). And they do this in such a way as to make it seem as if pi is trying to answer these questions, when in reality he is telling his story IN SPITE of the reporters inability to grasp the depth of what he is saying. so instead of getting a feeling for the deep spiritual questions that are at stake, we think the focus is on the incredibly stupid spiritual questions that the reporter is asking. Made. Me. So. Mad.
Spoiler:
I didnt think it was going to be about god, at first i did since at the beginning the reporter said something like "He told me that your going to tell me a story that will make me beleive in god" but Pi(adult) never actually said anything like "after you hear this you will beleive in god" the reporter just thought that And then Pi(kid) was into 3 religions, starting as a hindu so it has to be about religion and spirituality in general since god doesnt cover hinduism His reasons for being in 3 religions didnt really come through though, being a hindu made sense because thats how he was raised and he looked at the hindu gods as superheroes, catholic made sense because of christ and the whole conundrum of why god would allow suffering if he is good and all powerful, but muslim didnt, muslim came out of no where
The reporter didnt ask that many questions about god, i dont think he asked any specific questions about god at all, i remember him asking stuff like "why did get into 3 religions"
The movie isnt that bad on its own Realistically you are being too critical of the movie since you like the book so much, or the book really could be a fantastical 10000000000000000 times better than the movie I choose to beleive the realistic
Achilles.42 Commander
Subject: Re: Movies (Ratings, reviews) Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:22 pm
Pat1487 wrote:
The movie isnt that bad on its own Realistically you are being too critical of the movie since you like the book so much
Yeah, i deleted this post and then re posted twice, and then finally just left it up, cuz i did a bad job conveying my ideas and mainly conveyed my dissatisfaction.
I actually did enjoy the movie, and its good on its on, its only afterwords when i thought about what i wish i could have gotten it that i started realizing how much it made me angry.
Spoiler:
Pat1487 wrote:
I dont see how it could be R rated the whole way through, the part i mentioned above would be, but other then that it isnt really that bad
On multiple occasions (twice) he goes through the thought process for eating his own feces, and then for eating Richard Parker's. each takes up about 5 pages. (he dosn't keep it down, but he tries) But a lot of time is spent on the topic of eating, what you're willing to eat, how disgusting some things become, how tolerable others are. The scenario is R rated also, you're picturing yourself in a boat covered in piss, shit, blood, urine, and dead animal parts. The only time when he is ever able to clean it is when he gets to the island. All the animal scenes are graphic also, the initial one with Richard Parker, when Pi has to watch him rip art a goat. The zeebra on the boat is kept alive for days by the Hyena, (cook vs sailer) the entire boat is covered with blood and guts from it, and Pi has to listen to its/his screams for two+ days. Pi's a vegetarian and he's having to eat, gut, and dissect for bait, all sorts of animals. Also, on 2-3 occasions Pi decided he's going to die, and each occasion as the reader you're like "yeah, death is going to be a lot better than this" Also, when he's finally found on the beach, the people that find him dont want to carry him because of how badly he smells.
pat1487 wrote:
I wouldnt call it a kids movie though
thats fair. i probably wouldn't either. i said it was a kids movie because it was marketed in part as a kids movie. I.e. the trailers eluded as if there was no violence, and i read several angry reviews on the subject, cuz apparently 5 year olds are pussies and cant handle a goat getting mauled.
Pat1487 wrote:
I would think in the book its more detailed and not just Pi(teen) sitting in a bed telling the story to 2 insurance agents, if it is more detailed in the book then i agree, i really disliked how that whole scene was just him in the bed telling that story
It is the same scene, but its no longer just one scene, it takes up several chapters (and i believe multiple days) since Pi is too weak to walk in the book, you don't question the setting. It also doesn't style for dialog for most of it, large portions are Pi telling a story in the same manor as before, so the movie should have had scenes for those portions. But it would have been hard to hav a man having his leg cut off and then kept alive in agony for days. Eventually being gutted for fish bait, all while a mother and child watch. And than show a boy stabbing him to death, then later contemplating if he should have kept the body on board so that he could have eaten him; as a PG set of scenes.
Pat1487 wrote:
I didnt think he was autistic
Yeah, idk where i was going with that. i think part of my issue was that Pi was more of a child than a teenager, so to me a lot of his decisions (especially dancing on top of the boat in the storm in the middle of the night) didn't make sense like i thought they should, if they had kept him as a child it wouldn't have bothered me. Or else, this is one of the times they could have changed things for the better, if they needed to make him a teen/adult so they could have a good actor, then give him a different "script" that makes more sense for a teen/adult.
pat1487 wrote:
The reporter didnt ask that many questions about god, i dont think he asked any specific questions about god at all, i remember him asking stuff like "why did get into 3 religions"
Perhaps not, but i felt like for the number of times the reporter spoke, a high proportion included dumb things about god. Especially since all the commentary about spirituality was so intelligent in the book, they could have put some thought into those parts of the dialog.