DVD's and Films You Have Watched Recently

[Dazzer]

Well, like I said, I've not seen it so I can't judge. Going from your description however, it sounds as if there are several consistency errors. Which to me would imply bad or simply lazy writing.

 

Wolverrine lazy writing?

 

Have you seen Indiana Jones 4 or the Knowing. Aliens as an explanation at the end of a movie is the epitome of lazy writing .

[Dazzer]

Just watched Star Trek and I really liked it. Plently of Star Trek fans will sulk and create because things are different and don't follow the TV show timelines, but I think this will ensure that people who have no knowledge of any of the TV shows can enjoy this movie.

 

I certainly enjoyed it more than Star Wars episodes 1-3. A step in the right direction for Star Trek in my opinion.

[Au]

I've not seen Knowing but it looks utter gash anyway so really I wouldn't expect anymore.

 

Indy 4 may not have been great but you can't really blame the aliens thing on lazy writing, that's clearly where they were going with it from the start.

[LaGoosh]

Answers in bold:

 

Why the writing at the begining and eld of the film about his wife? It was pointless and added nothing extra to the film.

Clint's wife was essential to the character because it was she who changed him from being a feared alcoholic murderer into a father and a good man and the whole film is basically Clint trying not to revert back to who he is by remembering his wife.

 

The news coming from the whore was that she had been cut up, eyes poked out and tits cut off. Yet when they met her they didn't question any of the parts that were untruthfull.

It's the Wild West and stories no doubt were no doubt exagarrated when told from person to person so people were probably used to facts being incorrect.

 

Why did Ned lose his bottle?

Again this is the whole point of the film. Ned didn't want to murder, he left his old self behind and got married and only just remembered what it was like to murder a man.

 

Why didn't they just call Gene Hackmans Character Lex Luther, cus that's essentially who he was playing but with a slightly nastier side.

Gene's character and performance in this is genius. On one side he's the bad guy but he only uses violence in the goal of peace and safety. I can't remember the original Superman but I don't really think that's a fair criticism.

 

Sorry for shitting on a favourite of yours, I just found it a bit... well, shit.

Fair enough.

 

Talking about it has made me want to go back and rewatch it.

 

"I'm Will Munny and I've killed women and children. I've killed everything that walks or crawls at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill, for what you done to Ned."

 

Movie greatness.

[Keith Houchen]

Maybe I missed the point. But what niggled me was this.

 

Why the writing at the begining and eld of the film about his wife? It was pointless and added nothing extra to the film.

To me, it showed that he'd tried to leave his old life behind and his wife was the constant that stopped him being the killer he was, such as he'd given up drink, however with her not around to steady his ship, he returned to what he was but was sorry to her for what he did

 

The news coming from the whore was that she had been cut up, eyes poked out and tits cut off. Yet when they met her they didn't question any of the parts that were untruthfull.

They were after the money, will was a struggling farmer and saw the kids offer as a fix to his problems, he needed his old mate to help though...

 

Why did Ned lose his bottle?

To quote someone in The Wire (I'll avoid spoilers by not naming them), they were out of the game for so long, they just weren't part of it anymore

 

Why didn't they just call Gene Hackmans Character Lex Luther, cus that's essentially who he was playing but with a slightly nastier side.

Little Bill showed signs of being the only 'Good guy' in the whole film, he was a man who didn't want to run the world, just his part of it.

 

Sorry for shitting on a favourite of yours, I just found it a bit... well, shit.

That is fair enough, no one can dispute that but it does seem that the film wasn't for you.

 

EDIT - Fuck, LaGoosh made the points, I was happy to sing from the same sheet.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Keith Houchen

[Gwailofilms]

Just watched Star Trek and I really liked it. Plently of Star Trek fans will sulk and create because things are different and don't follow the TV show timelines,

Those people can shut their faces because it is made very clear why it doesn't follow the TV show/previous movies' continuity.

 

I'm seeing it again tonight on the IMAX Enormotron.

[JamesTyler]

Just watched Star Trek and I really liked it. Plently of Star Trek fans will sulk and create because things are different and don't follow the TV show timelines,

Those people can shut their faces because it is made very clear why it doesn't follow the TV show/previous movies' continuity.

 

To be honest, I'm on a geeky Trek board (a big geeky one at that, linked with ST.com) and the fans that are adamant to hate it are way, WAY in the minority - and some just do it to mock that minority.

 

I just got back from the studio and with 20 mins to prepare to review the film.. I think my love for it was all that came through. Brilliant opener, creates a film that the mainstream audience will enjoy, some pop culture moments (I'm a Doctor.. and such) and few gems for the geeks like me

 

The continuity stuff wasn't hidden in the slightest and it all worked really well from that point of view. Back on form, and breaking the 'odd numbered are shit' streak.

[Gwailofilms]

I just got back from the studio and with 20 mins to prepare to review the film..

Explain. Use words. Short ones...

 

...and the word "artichoke".

[Carbomb]

Just watched Star Trek and I really liked it. Plently of Star Trek fans will sulk and create because things are different and don't follow the TV show timelines,

Those people can shut their faces because it is made very clear why it doesn't follow the TV show/previous movies' continuity.

 

To be honest, I'm on a geeky Trek board (a big geeky one at that, linked with ST.com) and the fans that are adamant to hate it are way, WAY in the minority - and some just do it to mock that minority.

 

I just got back from the studio and with 20 mins to prepare to review the film.. I think my love for it was all that came through. Brilliant opener, creates a film that the mainstream audience will enjoy, some pop culture moments (I'm a Doctor.. and such) and few gems for the geeks like me

 

The continuity stuff wasn't hidden in the slightest and it all worked really well from that point of view. Back on form, and breaking the 'odd numbered are shit' streak.

 

Stop hating on Trekkers, you lot. I'm one, and I'm really looking forward to this film. Any Trek fan who complains about continuity is an idiot - all the series are festooned with them.

[JamesTyler]

Explain. Use words. Short ones...

 

...and the word "artichoke".

 

You know... next time I'm slipping in artichoke. I was just wowed more than I thought I would be. Hard to take it all in being as massive a fan as I am. And trying desperately not to sound too geeky...

 

I was on for something like six minutes, I could have filled the show with praise. I had way too much info in my head to leak out in little bits. Even stuff like the Engineering sets and the overall feel of the tech or the Ceti Eel or... well... lots of stuff I could fanwank over for hours.

 

It's that kind of nonsense that got me the gig in the first place, heh.

 

Stop hating on Trekkers, you lot. I'm one, and I'm really looking forward to this film. Any Trek fan who complains about continuity is an idiot - all the series are festooned with them.

 

Not to mention the TNG ep 'Parallels' which Ocri used as a way of saying 'up ye' to the obsessives types who complain about Kirks eyes being the wrong colour. An the Mirror Universe stuff that was used on three different shows.

 

I think people have a bad idea of Trek as it is, the previous films weren't terrible (well, some were) but this one looks and feel far more mainstream than before. Which, despite the minority of superfans that spoil the fun would say, is not a bad thing at all.

 

In the first few minutes you get the feel for the new film. Brilliant mix of old and new.

[Joe_the_Lion]

There are days when something so horrid happens that you have to completely re-evaluate your opinion of a person.

 

Today is one of those days Mr Justice.

[Mr. Seven]

"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."

 

Man, how someone not love Unforgiven?

[JamesTyler]

Those people can shut their faces because it is made very clear why it doesn't follow the TV show/previous movies' continuity.

 

Where and why?

 

When/if you see the film, you'll know. They don't gloss over or ignore the differences. There are scenes which address it, though the one where Kirk finds out is probably the best - the question he asks is quite revealing to the character.

 

Nemesis isn't good. It's a load of rehashed episode plots and a ton of Data shitness. Khan, Country and Contact are all ~! though.

 

Rather odd.... I just replied to a Trekkish email from my dad listing those as my top three.

 

I think you should watch some of the older Star Trek films if you think that's the stereotype. Most non-Trekkies love The Wrath Of Khan, The Undiscovered Country First Contact and Nemesis, because they're actually quite good films themselves. My particular favourite's First Contact, but Khan'll always be a classic, and Nemesis featured some of the best acting I've seen in any movie, let alone any sci-fi movie.

 

I agree with the comment about stereotypes. Khan is basically a revenge film with a Star Trek setting. Despite the fact that the actors were getting old (something that a lot of people like to take the piss out of) the aging of Kirk was a good point and the emotional climax was nicely done. First Contact's strongest (and most quoted) story thread is roughly also in the vengeance theme with some scary aliens and humour thrown in - also has to be one of the best scores. I understand thats not something people are generally interested in.... but it is And Undiscovered Country could be seen as a history lesson - it doesn't have the adrenaline pumping action, but a good story and a tense battle sequence.

 

People seem to see the brand name and think it's for geeks because of the image thats been thrown about or parodied. People take the parody of a fan way too seriously - which is always something I find odd here.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Evolution

[CW Saton]

Well, like I said, I've not seen it so I can't judge. Going from your description however, it sounds as if there are several consistency errors. Which to me would imply bad or simply lazy writing.

 

Wolverrine lazy writing?

 

Have you seen Indiana Jones 4 or the Knowing. Aliens as an explanation at the end of a movie is the epitome of lazy writing .

 

Firstly, what has the ending of Indiana Jones have to do with anything?

 

Secondly, how does Aliens at the end of a movie suggest lazy writing? Do you consider Close Encounters of the Third Kind lazily written then?

 

 

Also, if anyone who thinks The Unforgiven is a bad film is clearly lacking in, not only taste, but in mental capacity.

Edited May 7, 2009 by CW Saton

[Steve Justice]

Why the writing at the begining and eld of the film about his wife? It was pointless and added nothing extra to the film.

Clint's wife was essential to the character because it was she who changed him from being a feared alcoholic murderer into a father and a good man and the whole film is basically Clint trying not to revert back to who he is by remembering his wife.

 

I accept that and fully understand it, but I think it could have been done better. I've read that originally these bits were supposed to be narrated, that would have worked better. Or better still, integrate it into the story as the film progresses. This would throw an air of mystery around the character to begin with and learn more about him along the way.

 

The news coming from the whore was that she had been cut up, eyes poked out and tits cut off. Yet when they met her they didn't question any of the parts that were untruthfull.

It's the Wild West and stories no doubt were no doubt exagarrated when told from person to person so people were probably used to facts being incorrect.

 

That's just lazy story telling. A 10 second mention would have sufficed surely.

 

Why did Ned lose his bottle?

Again this is the whole point of the film. Ned didn't want to murder, he left his old self behind and got married and only just remembered what it was like to murder a man.

 

But at no point was that mentioned. I don't expect to be spoon fed a story, but I didn't fully understand the reasons why and I wanted to know. Also, if he didn't want to murder and was happy with his new life then why go in the first place?

 

Why didn't they just call Gene Hackmans Character Lex Luther, cus that's essentially who he was playing but with a slightly nastier side.

Gene's character and performance in this is genius. On one side he's the bad guy but he only uses violence in the goal of peace and safety. I can't remember the original Superman but I don't really think that's a fair criticism.

 

The good cop/bad cop thing was pretty good I have to admit. I wasn't really sure who to be rooting for at first and that particular part of the movie was played out well. But I still thought at some point he was going to start throwing Kryptonite at someone.

 

I'm not by any means trying to convince anyone that this is a shit film, I know it's not a shit film, I just think there were some shit parts that stopped me from enjoying it. I've never been into westerns really, but after watching The Good, The Bad & The Ugly a few weeks back and loving it I just thought that I would love this just as much but was left disappointed. Maybe I was spoilt with TGTB&TU? I won't let this put me off the likes of The Dollars films when I get around to catching them.