hagren

New Tron trailer:

http://wdmp-7.vo.llnwd.net/d1/wdsmp/TRON/42Ent/1Trlr/Grid_1tlr_1920x800_1080p.mov

http://www.program-glitch-esc.net/

When I saw this in 3D at the movies I almost jizzed my pants.

As a HUUUUGE Burton nut (who even likes Planet of the Apes) wait for Alice in Wonderland to come on DVD/TV. The visual effects were great and a lot of fun to look at, Mia was surprisingly good as Alice (she looked dull and wack in the trailers), the cat and Crispin Glover stole the show imo. Nearly all the characters weren't too developed. Not much depth and story was rushed. Before you can get too much of a feel for characters, the plot moves on. There's little scenes where it seems we'd get some depth for the characters then on to the next one. At least the characters were fun in their own ways. I also loved the Doormouse. Kicking ass and stabbing eye balls with his tiny ass self!

 

Not a bad movie, just no where near Tim Burton's best.

I loved the march hare and the blackish-red castle interior, but that's about it. For the rest of my impressions, see the last page :P

Since I was dragged to the theater by my friends, I had to endure Alice in Wonderland, and to say it was a terrible disappointment would be a severe understatement.

I always thought that the source material was overrated, simply because I deemed it irritating to read and too thin for an intriguing plot, a viewpoint that got turned on its head with the second instalment, Through the Looking Glass, a book I find to be wildly imaginative, immersive and enjoyable, inspiring great "spin-offs" such as the video game "American McGee's Alice".

Thus I hoped that Burton will take a similar approach, combining both chapters into one, to thicken out the otherwise overlong run time, but alas, I was wrong- instead, he cut almost every chapter from the first book and combined it with small bits of the second, resulting in an uninspired, dull and average mess.

Now, this was my first 3D movie (11.5 per ticket, holy crap!) so it gets bonus points for some neato depth effects, but that, coupled with the March hare and the well-designed castle interior alone does not warrant the price of admission, given that the VFX and art design itself is nothing to write home about.

Of course, there's an upside with everything; they played the new Tron trailer before the main feature, and I was blown away, even got goosebumps all over my skin for the entire duration of said trailer. All my friends had an overwhelming nerdgasm as well even though its ages since we've seen the original film.

So save your money folks and wait for the Tron trailer's internet release :P

Yeah, I loved them both. Rossdale wasn't too bad either, but similarly to Weisz, he got a pretty clichéd role. Would have been cool to have a more visceral Midnite, too.

Imho Keanu acted the part well enough, in fact, it suited him pretty well.

What the guy absolutely cannot do is modulating his voice, ie. voice acting, but since I've seen Constantine more often than not in German, luckily I didn't have to listen to him too often.

Losing the sidekick is definitely a good idea. LaBoeuf's presence was aggravating, and I for one cheered when he was pulled up and down a room to his death. And a thicker plot with more thought-provoking content could not hurt either. Not to mention the weaponized relics and associated lame shooting galleries, bleh.

Yay! Interested what they'll do with it this time around.

I've just finished watching Inglorious Basterds, and I have to say that, expectedly, I'm mildly disappointed.

The writing, for the most part, wasn't as witty as Tarantinos previous offerings, often resulting in mind-numbingly dull dialogues you wouldn't watch to read or hear in any other movie, and the visuals, too, weren't always as stylized as in, say Kill Bill. There wasn't much plot either, which would be alright if it were a character piece, but many individuals of the supporting cast were forgettably executed.

Now, it's not all bad though. The film started out greatly with a menacing, thriller-like intro, with Waltz, one of the few brilliant characters in the film, chewing scenery as the ultimate badass.

He really did a great job of somewhat believingly switching from charming to funny until finally becoming frighteningly menacing, with very sharp characterization, constantly surprising the audience with a new layer of his role. Definitely deserves all praise.

Brad Pitt as leader of the Basterds was funny too, thanks to his outrageous accent, and I almost peed in my pants when his Italian skills were put to the test.

My heart goes to the two french characters in the film, they brought the class of the 40s into it, and I loved how authentic Tarantino tried to be when it came to languages, no Wolfensteinesque accents thank God.

Thankfully, the quota of amusing writing and gore was met with the brilliant closing chapter (The 4th I believe) which made the film go out with a bang and shake off the bored, disappointed expression that the middle section of the flick brought to my face.

They simply should have had us to witness more of the American Basterds as well as Waltz, then it would have been a great flick, this way it's, ultimately, merely between "Meh" and "Decent".

Yeah, I was at work, or rather, post-work, and had only a limited amount of time before my bus arrived :)

To answer your question, I did love the city. I have a thing for urban architecture, especially from the 15h to 20th century. The only thing that bothered me were the obvious green screens. Funny how long the technology is in existance, yet still offers rather underwhelming results.

Saw Sherlock Holmes the other day.

Probably the first digital transfer I've seen (Or at least, IIRC, the first time they added "Digital" as addendum to the title), and, having not been in cinema since TDK, I was impressed- since its digital, there were no damages to the individual images, no image displacement or fragments of any kind, only a barely noticeable film grain which may have been intentional. Mostly rather sharp image, and it's simply incomparable to home theater.

As for the film itself, I'd say it's quite the mixed bag- The performances of Law and especially Downey were excellent, with the film simply being a playground for Downey Jr. to be his nonchalant, badass self, which fit Holmes' character rather nicely.

The rest of the cast acted solidly as well, and both female cast members acted as intriguing balance point to these somewhat extreme characters (Not to mention being hot).

The fight scenes were mostly too immature for my tastes, with silly tunes and exaggerated facial and gestical movements, the slo-mo moments, particularly the two moments were Holmes calculated the hits beforehand were done in an incredibly satisfying manner however, reminding me of the good ol' days of turn-based RPGs such as Fallout.

Now to the bad stuff.

The plot. Thin, predictable, dull are the first adjectives that come to my mind, but "WTF were these occult tidbits in the mix for?" would describe it in a similarly adequate way. The same can be said about the antagonist and the finale, which both were laughably clichéd and unimaginative. That they backtracked just to show that Holmes was the beggar who asked money from the mysterious individual in the carriage made the meeting of my palm and my face the most intimate (Sooo apparent). And how Adler climbed the bridge by going down the sewers is beyond me.

Nonetheless, it was enjoyable for what it was, albeit too long, and, similarly to my thoughts about Iron Man, I'd like to see a sequel with an improved plot.

I should have made the disclaimer that I don't endorse his agressive Anti-American stance ;)

Just to point out that there was a script in existence that would have offered more than the pedestal-placing of the American soldier. The film was completely black-and-white.

You're right, there should not be an end to aid, be it military or humanitarian, because of some missteps. But these trials should be pure, not driven by outside interests. This is what I took from that article.

And that this might have not been the case to a 100% are shown by these quotes from Wikipedia (Concerning Aidid's precedessor who had allied with the US):

Control of Somalia was of great interest to both the Soviet Union and the United States due to the country's strategic location at the mouth of the Red Sea. After the Soviets broke with Barre in the late 1970s, he subsequently expelled all Soviet advisers, tore up his friendship treaty with the Soviet Union, and switched allegiance to the West. The United States stepped in and until 1989, was a strong supporter of the Barre government for whom it provided approximately US$100 million per year in economic and military aid.

Part of Barre's time in power was characterized by oppressive dictatorial rule, including the persecution, jailing and torture of political opponents and dissidents. The United Nations Development Program claimed that "The 21-year regime of Siyad Barre had one of the worst human rights records in Africa." [14] The Africa Watch Committee wrote in a report that "Both the urban population and nomads living in the countryside [were] subjected to summary killings, arbitrary arrest, detention in squalid conditions, torture, rape, crippling constraints on freedom of movement and expression and a pattern of psychological intimidation." [15] Amnesty International went on to report that torture methods committed by Barre's National Security Service (NSS) included executions and "beatings while tied in a contorted position, electric shocks, rape of woman prisoners, simulated executions and death threats." [16]

In September 1970, the government introduced the National Security Law No. 54, which granted the NSS the power to arrest and detain indefinitely those who expressed critical views of the government, without ever being brought to trial. It further gave the NSS the power to arrest without a warrant anyone suspected of a crime involving "national security". Article 1 of the law prohibited "acts against the independence, unity or security of the State", and capital punishment was mandatory for anyone convicted of such acts.[17]

From the late 1970s, and onwards Barre faced a shrinking popularity and increased domestic resistance. In response, Barre's elite unit, the Red Berets (Duub Cas), and the paramilitary unit called the Victory Pioneers carried out systematic terror against the Majeerteen, the Hawiye, and the Isaaq clans.[18] The Red Berets systematically smashed water reservoirs to deny water to the Majeerteen and Isaaq clans and their herds. More than 2,000 members of the Majeerteen clan died of thirst, and an estimated 5,000 Isaaq were killed by the government. Members of the Victory Pioneers also raped large numbers of Majeerteen and Isaaq women, and more than 300,000 Isaaq members fled to Ethiopia

Last but not least, a little tidbit which might explain the opposing stance of some Somali people:

On July 12, 1993, a United States-led operation was launched on what was believed to be a safe house in Mogadishu where members of Aidid's Habar Gidir clan were meeting.[8] In reality, elders of the clan, not gunmen, were meeting in the house.[9] According to U.N. officials, the agenda, advertised in the local newspaper,[citation needed] was to discuss ways to peacefully resolve the conflict between Aidid and the multinational task force in Somalia,[9] and perhaps even to remove Aidid as leader of the clan.[10]

During the 17-minute combat operation, U.S. Cobra attack helicopters fired 16 TOW missiles and thousands of 20-millimeter cannon rounds into the compound, killing 73 of the clan elders.[9][11] It would also lead to the deaths of four journalists, Dan Eldon, Hos Maina, Hansi Kraus and Anthony Macharia, who were killed by angry Somali mobs when they arrived to cover the incident.[12]

Some believe that this American attack was a turning point in unifying Somalis against the U.S. efforts in Somalia, including moderates and those opposed to the Habar Gidir.[13][14]

So, Mr. Article-writer had definitely an extremely one-sided and strong opinion about American intervention, which I, as you, reject, but there's most certainly a lick of truth in some of his words, which is the reason that to my mind, the film is not as strong as it could have been.

(I'm not denying that African people can be savages who don't give a dime about the gift of life, by the way. But giving the Pakistanis the credit they deserve would have been a good and truthful move. As questioning America's motive would have been.)

Black Hawk Down

As war movie, I felt it was quite potent- the focus on the actual firefight/conflict instead of the characters' personal lifes, respectively a central character was a refreshing new take, and the mindless killing, gore, grit and hopelessness was all there, but I took offense in how poorly it represented any other party besides the Americans- Africans were portrayed as poor, heartless savages without any motivation or merit (which, even if largely true does not explain why they were against the Americans and how this dictator wasn't any different than any other), and the Pakistani were reduced to mere servants, ignoring how without them, the Rangers would have slowly bled out, in contrast to the out-right saint-like Americans. At times, it almost felt like a video game, trying to glorify the efforts of the American soldiers, which kind of explains why most modern warfare shooters resemble the flick. Didn't really work out though.

Is it recommendable for someone who's never been in a 3D movie before? Because that's the only reason I'd like to see it, seems like a rather uninspired film from the trailers I've witnessed.

I've just seen the Hangover and I'm pleasantly surprised- even though it was revolting and/or moronic at times, at it's core it was a heartwarming situation comedy that made you laugh even if your brain told you not to. I loved how they actually showed the pics at the end instead of just rolling the credits. This flick also cements my belief that Heather Graham is hot. Not anything special by a longshot, but enjoyable for what it was.

I'm not a big fan of figurines and the like usually but this guy looks hawt!

Not a fan of the original trilogy? If so, how come?

Yesterday we watched Part 3 on the telly.

 

It's my second favourite after the 1st one.

But those animated fight scenes don't work for my brain as it is not familiar with your computer games.

Out of the prequel trilogy or generally?

Hellboy was aces.

While visually and contextually, it wasn't nearly as imaginative, varied and vivid as the second (Golden Army), and had a pretty limited colour palette along with a small creature count, it just felt more natural, honest and significant. There's actual character development, a clichéd, yet engaging plot, and it just generally felt more competently written and acted, which may be due to the introductory, down-to-earth atmosphere that encompasses the whole flick.

As if that would not be enough setting it apart from its sequel and other comicbook movies, the villain was incredibly brilliantly concepted, haunting, yet rad in an eery sort of way, John Hurt's tragic father role and Abe's voice-over represent just the icing on the cake. Not to mention that the music is by miles more suiting, evoking engagement in the viewer, with the Hellboy theme, most prominently, setting of a feeling that fits the character like a glove. Definitely enjoyed this more than the first two times, perhchance owing to the recent memory of its sequel and Pan's labyrinth, which is one of Del Toro's films that is even more excellent and enchanting, depressing as it may be.

The intro to Hellboy still kicks ass- wonderfully edited, splendidly presented and combined with a superb soundtrack. Nazis as villains rule! And John Hurt as narrator is great. Will watch the whole movie tomorrow, but seems I'm unchangedly going to love the hell out of it.

The hidden market scenes in particular give precisely the same frisson as you got from watching the cantina scene in Star Wars when your age was still in single figures.

I've just seen it on DVD and I thought the exact same thing when that scene unfolded :)

I didn't like it much as the first, in its entirety, even though it felt tighter than its precedessor, but you got to hand it to Del Toro, he's a master when it comes to art design, which is what redeemed the film for me, in combination with the few, characteristically Hellboyish teenage romance sequences that made the first one so charming. Krauss was a great addition to the cast as well, even with his clearly British German accent, but none of the them came even close to Kroenen, who's unchangedly, still the best villains of all time. Of all time!!! Selma Blair could still not act for shit, however, and I missed more scenes with John Hurt and the former voice actor of Sapien, respectively. This film also marks the first time that I was bored by an Elfman score, the loose, uninspired tunes just could not hold a candle to Del Toro's incredibly amazing creature designs (Especially the golden army suits and Hellboy's death blew me away). There was a distinct lack of substance, too, and many lines did not deliver in the humour department, but the visuals, some technical limitations aside, really were worth the time and dough.

On a side note, am I the only one who thought the prince looked uncannily reminiscent of Cruise's eldering Lestat?

Shutter Island and Inception both look and sound intriguing. And both feature DiCaprio, go figure!

The death scene wasn't bad or anything, it was well played and executed including the crash; and Tony's decision to get rid of him after Chrissy didn't give him the respect he craved for was audacious, I just really wanted to see his pulling together and becoming the head of the family after Tony's gone, since I liked his character. It was more of a personal disagreement than a professional one.

As for Johnny Sack, I was surprised that yet another mobster got cancer, that's all, it came all of a sudden after 6.1. He would have deserved the position more than that tard Leotardo.

So as I said, not a bad ending per se, but the scenes after Harris' joy of Phil's death weren't overly necessary (Ca. 15 min). Everything before that was satisfactory (especially the whole gang locking themselves in away from trouble), except the visit to Las Vegas and his Uncle, which both felt somehow out of place.

Excellent show all in all, sorry to see it go.

Well Abhi, I've completed 6.2, and I'm torn.

One the one hand, it was a pretty satisfactory end of conflict between the two rival families, and I was ecstatic that Leotardo has been finally put six feet under, but everything that followed his murder felt kind of redundant and abrupt. I understand that they didn't want to show yet another indictment and tried to end the series on a high note, but it could have been fleshed out more, characters such as Chrissy Moltisanti and Johnny Sack were handled off too quickly. I also found it a little bit too convenient that Tony's therapist has been confronted with that study right when they were in the climax of a mob extermination. Additionally, the future of some of the characters is still unclear. Not to mention the death of Bobby and perhaps fatal wounding of Sil. That Tony is in debt of Agent Harris was a great touch, on the other hand.

Apart from that, great show, it made sense that Phil's lackeys reached out to Tony to end the war that erupted before it was too late. I can't get enough of the style and characters though, so I'll greatly miss the Sopranos.

 

Well, I would prefer they would not end it at all :P Only 8 more episodes to go...we'll see how I'll rate the ending :)

 

I'm curious about your thoughts in that regard. The ending is notorious for splitting audiences. Most people hate it or love it. I quite love it, personally.

I watched episodes 4 and 5 (From 9)so far and liked both. Sure, they divert from the core issue between the two ruling families, but I was satisfied with hearing about Tony's gambling problem, Anthony's first taste of loss and bullying, not to mention Christopher's ever-growing loss of identity over his addiction issue. All of this was great, even if feeling more episodic than before.

Did someone just say Flight of the Conchords is better then the Sopranos? Even in jest? I died a little inside.

 

And I have to agree that the second season of Flight of the Conchords isn't anywhere near as good as the first, a few high points aside.

 

Hagren, don't listen to Slinker! The last few eps of The Sopranos were absolute genius and I, for one, will be forever grateful that they don't go the action violence mob war way in ending that amazing show. What they end up doing is so much more satisfying. The Sopranos is, in my book, pretty much flawless from beginning to end.

Well, I would prefer they would not end it at all :P Only 8 more episodes to go...we'll see how I'll rate the ending :)