Movies

[irishjayhawk]

Yeah, so I saw a lot of movies this weekend.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age - Mediocre, at best. Slow and dragged on. Shorten it to 2 hours and it's golden. It's not, so it fails.

Michael Clayton - Amazing. Everything about it is awesome. However, it's VERY complex and mind bending. You have to think, so be prepared. I still feel like I'm missing key details of exactly what happened. Gotta see it again.

Across the Universe - Perfect is one word that comes to mind. It just works. And, contrary to many people I bet, the movie is best viewed sober. Trust me.

[Brock]

Extract was mildly funny.

[Reaper16]

Jesus Christ, people. Just put In the Loop at the very top of your Netflix queue already. I've seen it seven times since July and it cracks my shit up every time.

[DeepPurple]

3) There were some awful anachronisms. Xbox 360s and YouTube in 2004?
4) The sniper standoff was one of the most ridiculous scenes ever filmed

I saw Hurt Locker and thought it was great, gave it an 8. I don't get your complaints about the internet jargon. Maybe it's because I've never used a Play Station or XBox. I really don't remember when You Tube started, if that is the complaint, that it wasn't around in 2004?

As far as the sniper standoff, I'd have to see it again, because that film was so intense I have a hard time remembering one action sequence from another. I didn't find any of anything ridiculous, except maybe when the two sergeants got drunk and fought in the barracks and the one pulled a knife on the other. Seemed a little over-the-top, but it didn't ruin the film.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by DeepPurple

I saw Hurt Locker and thought it was great, gave it an 8. I don't get your complaints about the internet jargon. Maybe it's because I've never used a Play Station or XBox. I really don't remember when You Tube started, if that is the complaint, that it wasn't around in 2004?

As far as the sniper standoff, I'd have to see it again, because that film was so intense I have a hard time remembering one action sequence from another. I didn't find any of anything ridiculous, except maybe when the two sergeants got drunk and fought in the barracks and the one pulled a knife on the other. Seemed a little over-the-top, but it didn't ruin the film.

Spoiler!

An EOD trained soldier isn't going to be able to hit a guy in the head while running from 850 yards. No one on Earth is.

The 360 was released in November of '05, Gears of War came out a year later, and YouTube debuted in '05. I didn't have to research any of that. That's just lazy filmmaking

[KCChiefsMan]

I watched a few movies the past week

District 9 - I like that it was original. I get the point of the movie and how it's in South America and it had a hidden meaning. I should probably re-watch it, but I didn't think it was great or anything.

Redbelt - caught this on netflix instant watch, really good. I would recommend that you watch it. Written and directed by David Mamet, who is a really talented writer IMO. Good flick and I loved the ending because most writers would have went with something really cliche. Rent it or those of you with netflix and a 360, watch it instantly.

The Cove - a pretty solid documentary about the dolphin killing in Japan. I liked it and I think there was a thread about it a while back here.

A perfect getaway - fun movie, predictable but enjoyable. Don't expect a brilliant masterpiece and be in a mood to just be entertained and you might like it.

Push - meh

The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard - not great, but worth a rent for a few cheap laughs.

Taking Woodstock - boring, I was expecting a comedy with funnyman Dimitri Martin. But it was a boring ass drama and it wasn't very good at that. Avoid unless you feel like taking a nap.

Green Street Hooligans - it was pretty good. I loved the concept of their gangs, or firms as they call it. Decent acting, worth a watch.

Big Fan - wasn't quite what I was expecting, but it's on netflix instant watch and it was ok. A solid drama, I like those films that only require a few people to act in it. I liked the story, the writing was pretty good. Don't expect to laugh though because it stars a comedian.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Spoiler!

An EOD trained soldier isn't going to be able to hit a guy in the head while running from 850 yards. No one on Earth is.

The 360 was released in November of '05, Gears of War came out a year later, and YouTube debuted in '05. I didn't have to research any of that. That's just lazy filmmaking

regarding your spoiler - that is a makable shot. I watch a lot of sniper documentaries as it fascinates me. Just last night they had a show that showed a Marine in Iraq who made a killshot on a mujahadeen sprinting across an alley at 1000yds with an M24 rifle who's effective range is only 800yds. It happens, but at the edges of the effective range and beyond it really becomes more about luck than precision, as they are exceeding the capabilities of the sights and using their experience to guess where to shoot.


As for the above comment that the Hurt Locker sniper "dogfight" was ridiculous, you're wrong. The rifle being used was a Barrett M82 50 cal. It has an effective range of 1800 yards (over a mile). At that range it takes over 4 seconds for the round to hit target. The only questionable part was what weapon the mujahadeen was using, but I'm not familiar with their weaponry. It is quite plausible though that they had a capable weapon. For example Barrett 50 cal rifles can be bought civilians.

EOD teams have sniper training, as they may use the 50 cal rifle to detonate IEDs with incendiary and explosive armor piercing rounds. The 50 cal sniper rifles are used against soft targets at times, but their primary use to disable non and lightly armored vehicles. The so called Raufoss rounds have a round very much like an anti-armor missile, with an explosive core that drives a tungsten sabot through the armor where it becomes like molten shotgun pellet bouncing around the interior of an armored personnel carrier. Awesome stuff. These rounds are also effective through masonry walls.

[Rausch]

If you can tolerate indie flicks the best one I've seen in quite a while was Ink.

The first 20 minutes or so you think "this is cheesy and cheap, yet with better cgi etc. than a film of this low a quality should have."

Then, as the film goes on it grows on you. Once you figure out the "timeline" (think of movies like the Matrix, Primer, Momento) it makes a lot more sense.

It's the type of movie that makes you wish someone would have given the director about $10 mil just to get 1 big name actor. That in mind the acting was still above what I'd expected and had one of the few child performances that didn't drive me up a wall.

VERY original concept...

[KcMizzou]

Originally Posted by Rausch

If you can tolerate indie flicks the best one I've seen in quite a while was Ink.

The first 20 minutes or so you think "this is cheesy and cheap, yet with better cgi etc. than a film of this low a quality should have."

Then, as the film goes on it grows on you. Once you figure out the "timeline" (think of movies like the Matrix, Primer, Momento) it makes a lot more sense.

It's the type of movie that makes you wish someone would have given the director about $10 mil just to get 1 big name actor. That in mind the acting was still above what I'd expected and had one of the few child performances that didn't drive me up a wall.

VERY original concept...

Loved Ink.

[DeepPurple]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Spoiler!

An EOD trained soldier isn't going to be able to hit a guy in the head while running from 850 yards. No one on Earth is.

The 360 was released in November of '05, Gears of War came out a year later, and YouTube debuted in '05. I didn't have to research any of that. That's just lazy filmmaking

When I went into the Army I was 19 and had never fired a gun of any kind. Six weeks later in basic training in the hot and muggy middle of Lousiana, I had to hit a half human size target at 300 yards with an M-16. No scope, just a barrel sight, and that was to graduate with at least a Marksman badge. That's not easy, that's 900 feet, I remember aiming a good 3 or 4 feet above the target. Hitting a stationary target at 850 yards with a much more powerful rifle and a nice scope doesn't seem impossible, then again, it's the movies.

The XBox, Gears of War and You Tube being one year off, don't you think that is nick-picking? I wouldn't have a clue, in fact I would of thought they all much older. Then again I'm 59 and the last video game I played was Atari tabletop game with Space Invaders at a bar in Pensacola, Florida in 1981.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by DeepPurple

When I went into the Army I was 19 and had never fired a gun of any kind. Six weeks later in basic training in the hot and muggy middle of Lousiana, I had to hit a half human size target at 300 yards with an M-16. No scope, just a barrel sight, and that was to graduate with at least a Marksman badge. That's not easy, that's 900 feet, I remember aiming a good 3 or 4 feet above the target. Hitting a stationary target at 850 yards with a much more powerful rifle and a nice scope doesn't seem impossible, then again, it's the movies.

The XBox, Gears of War and You Tube being one year off, don't you think that is nick-picking? I wouldn't have a clue, in fact I would of thought they all much older. Then again I'm 59 and the last video game I played was Atari tabletop game with Space Invaders at a bar in Pensacola, Florida in 1981.

Spoiler!

What part of a running headshot don't you understand?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

regarding your spoiler - that is a makable shot. I watch a lot of sniper documentaries as it fascinates me. Just last night they had a show that showed a Marine in Iraq who made a killshot on a mujahadeen sprinting across an alley at 1000yds with an M24 rifle who's effective range is only 800yds. It happens, but at the edges of the effective range and beyond it really becomes more about luck than precision, as they are exceeding the capabilities of the sights and using their experience to guess where to shoot.


As for the above comment that the Hurt Locker sniper "dogfight" was ridiculous, you're wrong. The rifle being used was a Barrett M82 50 cal. It has an effective range of 1800 yards (over a mile). At that range it takes over 4 seconds for the round to hit target. The only questionable part was what weapon the mujahadeen was using, but I'm not familiar with their weaponry. It is quite plausible though that they had a capable weapon. For example Barrett 50 cal rifles can be bought civilians.

EOD teams have sniper training, as they may use the 50 cal rifle to detonate IEDs with incendiary and explosive armor piercing rounds. The 50 cal sniper rifles are used against soft targets at times, but their primary use to disable non and lightly armored vehicles. The so called Raufoss rounds have a round very much like an anti-armor missile, with an explosive core that drives a tungsten sabot through the armor where it becomes like molten shotgun pellet bouncing around the interior of an armored personnel carrier. Awesome stuff. These rounds are also effective through masonry walls.

Spoiler!

Explain to me how someone who is missing stationary targets by 5 feet, even when adjusting for windage and elevation, suddenly starts hitting moving targets from the same distance?

I know what a Barrett is capable of. In fact, people have made shots of over 2km in Afghanistan.

FWIW, they weren't using the Mk21 Raufoss round, which has a distinct paint marking, hits like a 20mm shell, and wouldn't be available to PMC's; they were using ball ammunition.

[Reaper16]

Took over a small theater my friend works at and watched some Oscar contenders: Precious, Up In the Air, and A Single Man.

Precious was pretty bad. It is the kind of heavy handed filmmaking that I so loathe. Mo'nique was pretty darn good playing the only character in the movie with even a hint of a second dimension. The lead actress, whatever her name is, wasn't good. I actually like a lot of movies with first time actors giving a naturalistic performance but director Lee Daniels doesn't lead his lead actress to one. The film goes all Dangerous Minds halfway in, which is annoying. There are also these terrible dream sequences that are jarring and don't do anything to further the character of Precious. Beyond all of that the film is offensive for its content. It takes the most extreme example of a hood life poverty story and tries to make it representative. Shameful. It takes all of the Reaganesque fear of welfare queenery and amps it up to ridiculous levels. Bad stuff.

Up in the Air was pretty damn nice. Best Picture-good? Nah, the pacing gets muddled in the third act along with some trite scenes. Overall though it is a delightful film propelled by Clooney's marvelous, charismatic performance. It gets kudos for being one of the few 2009 films to discuss the economic state of things.

A Single Man was perplexing. First time director Tom Ford (an ex-fashion designer!) has made a visually beautiful film though one with rookie mistakes. The film is gorgeously drab in a sort of sepia tone, except for moments where Colin Firth's George Falconer thinks about something happy. Then the colors get super saturated and bright. It is a stupidly obvious way to show emotion and it really gets to be grating the 40th time Ford uses it. George isn't a deep character but Firth acts his ass off in this movie. It is fine enough aside from the self-defeating ending. It will probably be one of the 10 nominees for the Best Picture Oscar.

[Reaper16]

And because I'm a movie-watching mother****er, I went home and watched Sin Nombre, a Spanish-language film that tackles the subject of illegal immigration while also dealing intently with gang culture (specifically MS-13). It was pretty damn good; a sparkling debut effort by writer/director Cary Fukunaga (Japanese father, Swedish mother).

On the docket for tomorrow: two foreign language films from '09 -- Summer Hours (France) and Still Walking (Japan).

[Jenson71]

Netflix has really opened up opportunities for exercising a global palette.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Netflix has really opened up opportunities for exercising a global palette.

Yup. That and I live in KC, so I can see good foreign films that come to the Tivoli.