Movie/TV recommendations

[ThunderPeel2001]

Fuckin' this. Star Trek may be Super-Camp Sci-fi, but damn if it isn't good.

03E68F6599Q

Heh. I'm surprised that less people make the same Star Wars connection with The Borg that I do:

Star Trek Writer #1: "How about a giant technological death machine floating through space?"

Star Trek Writer #2: "Brilliant! It could be a big mechanical planet!"

Star Trek Writer #1: "Yes! No, wait. That's the Death Star..."

Star Trek Writer #2: "Oh, yeah. Um. No, problem! We'll make ours a cube!"

Star Trek Writer #1: "Genius!"

[DanJW]

Star Trek Writer #1: "How about a giant technological death machine floating through space?"

Star Trek Writer #2: "Brilliant! It could be a big mechanical planet!"

Star Trek Writer #1: "Yes! No, wait. That's Unicron.."

Star Trek Writer #2: "Oh, yeah. Um. No, problem! We'll make ours a cube!"

Star Trek Writer #1: "Genius!"

Fixed

[Roderick]

I was so excited when the Autobots took back Cybertron in the distant year of 2006.

[Ben X]

Thor? Flawed bore more (like).

Nice production design, but the attempts at character-driven plot fail due to lack of characters.

[JonCole]

The second half of Season 2 was the same ("Scar" -- I hated that episode). The network finally gave up in Season 4, apparently, and let them go back to telling a larger story. Saying that, I LOVED New Caprica.

Shame it was all over so quickly.

God, I hated Scar too. Maybe they just intended for us to hate Kat more than anything, but when she finally died... ah, meh. They tried to redeem her character and I really could have none of it. Felt so cheap. Also, while New Caprica was short, they made it feel like a long time. Whether it was through the extended first episode of that season or the recurring flashbacks later through the season, I could feel the pain of the characters stemming from that whole ordeal.

[Gwardinen]

Thor? Flawed bore more (like).

Nice production design, but the attempts at character-driven plot fail due to lack of characters.

I just got home from watching Thor and I'm trying to figure out whether I agree or disagree with you and I'm encountering some difficulty. Maybe I'm just in a "whatever" mood, but I can't seem to summon any real feelings in either direction about Thor. If it's not just me, it's probably that the film is incredibly middle of the road at this point. Had it not been for the fact that there have been so many comic book films recently, it might have been considered a good, high budget comic film. But we're sort of used to that now.

It didn't really have the charm of Iron Man for me, so it was more along the lines of the Hulk films. Good action scenes and it's nice to see a property one knows brought to the big stage, but that's about it. Thor also had the advantage of, as you said, good design. It both profited and suffered from my love of Norse mythology, as it made me more willing to invest in their concepts but also made some of the interpretations a bit grating for me.

Maybe I'll think more of it later, or maybe it really is just too generic at this point to elicit strong opinions.

Edit: Remembered one thing I did love, the wide-angle shots. The way the sky in Asgard blends into space, and the actual shots of space, nebulae and the like were amazing. I adore that kind of stuff, so that was neat.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Thor - Another enjoyable Marvel romp at the same level as Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. Not bad at all.

[Ben X]

Scream (it all be)4. Not very good, especially because the original characters don't get much to do and the new ones are dull. The franchise just has nothing left to say or do.

Source Code was okay, but basically a Twilight Zone ep dragged out too long. Genius

casting on the voice of his father

, though.

Winnie The Pooh was nicely done but very slight. Could have been done for telly.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Source Code was okay, but basically a Twilight Zone ep dragged out too long.

You liked Limitless more than Source Code? Oh, man.

Also: Thor was better on second viewing. Quite a well constructed little super-hero film. Considering how little interest I have in a character called Thor, I was surprisingly involved. Not sure I'm about to rush out and buy Thor comics, but considering he comes from such a lame idea (he's Thor -- but a super-hero), I thought they did a great job.

[Kolzig]

We saw Scream 4 some days ago. It was quite a bad movie. The time for such horror movies has passed I think.

Though I was expecting them to be really ballzy and actually kill off some of the original three characters instead of the Heroes girl and bunch of others.

[Ben X]

You liked Limitless more than Source Code? Oh, man.

Also: Thor was better on second viewing. Quite a well constructed little super-hero film. Considering how little interest I have in a character called Thor, I was surprisingly involved. Not sure I'm about to rush out and buy Thor comics, but considering he comes from such a lame idea (he's Thor -- but a super-hero), I thought they did a great job.

You watched it TWICE? Oh, man. I'm surprised you even put it on-par with Iron Man - I thought everything about the latter was done better. Seriously, you could cut out all but five characters in Thor and not miss anything. Probably improve it a lot, actually. (Thinking about it, Iron Man pretty much did that already, maybe that's why I prefer it - it's a lot tighter.)

Not sure on Limitless vs Source Code. Source Code had more thought put into it, but Limitless was more fun.

[Gwardinen]

Considering how little interest I have in a character called Thor, I was surprisingly involved. Not sure I'm about to rush out and buy Thor comics, but considering he comes from such a lame idea (he's Thor -- but a super-hero), I thought they did a great job.

Actually that's something I didn't really consider. The concept of comic book Thor is almost appallingly bad, but the film didn't make me want to beat my own head in, and actually the lore they put behind it wasn't even particularly terrible. So maybe that's a triumph all its own.

You watched it TWICE? Oh, man. I'm surprised you even put it on-par with Iron Man - I thought everything about the latter was done better. Seriously, you could cut out all but five characters in Thor and not miss anything. Probably improve it a lot, actually. (Thinking about it, Iron Man pretty much did that already, maybe that's why I prefer it - it's a lot tighter.)

Above said, I do have to agree with this. Iron Man is just much more charming and slick. The characters are all there for a purpose and are all played well, plus Robert Downey Jr. is just so believable and charismatic in the role. By contrast the Thor character as defined by Marvel is boring to start with and the actor didn't really make it any more interesting (not placing blame, I don't know how he COULD have).

[ThunderPeel2001]

You watched it TWICE? Oh, man. I'm surprised you even put it on-par with Iron Man - I thought everything about the latter was done better. Seriously, you could cut out all but five characters in Thor and not miss anything. Probably improve it a lot, actually. (Thinking about it, Iron Man pretty much did that already, maybe that's why I prefer it - it's a lot tighter.)

Again, I agree with your criticisms of the movie, but they don't detract from the parts that worked well. I could criticize Iron Man to hell and back (take out Smug Downey Jr., and you don't really have much left), but it wouldn't change the bits that did work.

Not sure on Limitless vs Source Code. Source Code had more thought put into it, but Limitless was more fun.

I can see this, Limitless was "fun", but Source Code was just so much better in so many ways. Better story, better characters, better dialogue. But the main reason it was better was because I felt more emotionally engaged by main character's story. And the film actually had something to say about the human condition, too. Limitless was fun, but that's all it was.

[Ben X]

I could criticize Iron Man to hell and back (take out Smug Downey Jr., and you don't really have much left), but it wouldn't change the bits that did work.

I don't think that's a fair criticism - take out the main character and there's not a lot left? You could say that of a lot of films - they don't all have to be ensembles. Even something with loads of brilliant characters like The Big Lebowski - if you take out The Dude, all the other characters wouldn't really work.

I can see this, Limitless was "fun", but Source Code was just so much better in so many ways. Better story, better characters, better dialogue. But the main reason it was better was because I felt more emotionally engaged by main character's story. And the film actually had something to say about the human condition, too. Limitless was fun, but that's all it was.

Not sure about story - they're both pretty flimsy. Agreed on characters but only just - no one's really well-defined, but I found SC's protagonist less of a plot mechanism. I'd say dialogue was on a par. And, y'know, SC didn't have that much to say about the human condition. I think you could eke out a similarly deep thematic reading of either film just by dint of their plot devices. It gave it more of a go than Limitless, granted, but I don't think it said that much more.

I did enjoy both films (yeah, Limitless a lot more, now I think about it) - more than Thor, but less than Iron Man - but I'll never watch them again or recommend them.

[Ben X]

Oh, and additional on Winnie The Pooh:

A couple of nice songs by Zooey Deschanel!

[ThunderPeel2001]

I don't think that's a fair criticism - take out the main character and there's not a lot left? You could say that of a lot of films - they don't all have to be ensembles. Even something with loads of brilliant characters like The Big Lebowski - if you take out The Dude, all the other characters wouldn't really work.

No, I meant the actor, not the character. Downey Jr was essentially playing himself in Iron Man, and he definitely lifted the film. Like Johnny Depp in Pirates. If Tony Stark had been played by someone else (e.g. Matt Damon or Bradley Cooper), I don't think the rest of the film would have much left. With Thor the film still would have been good, as long as someone suitable played the lead. The Big Lebowski also had plenty going for it aside from Jeff Bridges's performance (although Bridges was perfect!).

And, y'know, SC didn't have that much to say about the human condition. I think you could eke out a similarly deep thematic reading of either film just by dint of their plot devices. It gave it more of a go than Limitless, granted, but I don't think it said that much more.

Limitless had nothing to say on a deeper level (and that was my primary issue with it). If it did and I missed it, I'd like to know, though. Source Code wasn't that profound, but it was marginally profound. It offered ways to deal with the challenges of life by making you see the world around you in a different way. The protagonist in Limitless just took a magic pill. It never bothered to answer the question, "But what if you're heartbroken, broke and blocked, and you DON'T have access to a magic pill. How do you find contentment then?"

Limitless was slick and fun escapism, but no more than that. Source Code was fun sci-fi with a sliver of depth. That said, I think it did the sci-fi better, too. And I definitely identified with the main character more, so maybe it just matched my tastes better. (I also loved Moon.)

Source Code would be in my favourite films of the year so far, and I saw it twice at the cinema, too (not just because I missed the first 10 mins ). I REALLY liked it.e

Edited April 29, 2011 by ThunderPeel2001

[JonCole]

I watched Limitless and had a pretty good time with it... honestly, I just view it as a superhero movie with a particularly shitty explanation for how the protagonist got the powers. If you divorce the movie from the pills as the explanation, I thought that the way Cooper's character had to grapple with the physical effects of his powers was pretty effective in the whole "you control your powers, don't let them control you" kinda way. De Niro was also great, curbing his shitshow performances in junk like Meet the Fockers part 21 "Focker-est" and bringing back in his mega-intimidating drawl and glance.

[Ben X]

You watched Thor AND Source Code twice? How come?

I've been drinking since ten, and am surrounded by girls talking about weddings, so I'll keep going with this debate even though we're not diametrically opposed here.

Limitless had nothing to say on a deeper level (and that was my primary issue with it). If it did and I missed it, I'd like to know, though. Source Code wasn't that profound, but it was marginally profound.

I agree.

No, not the character, the ACTOR.

I still think this is unfair. I think other actors could have played a reckless, charismatic millionaire just as well. It would have been a different film, and perhaps not as good, but I don't really see the point of your argument. Iron Man has this really good central performance in it. That's a positive. If you took Woody Allen out of Annie Hall it would be different. Thor has a lead that could be swapped out without affecting the film. I'd say that's a bad thing.

Oh, and I'm not sure I agree with you re. Big Lebowski either. For one thing, they wrote that role for Bridges.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Yeah, I just edited my message while you were writing your reply. It's not a totally fair criticism, that's true, but my point was that Iron Man didn't have that much going for it aside from a funny performance from Downey. And if you're feeling a little Downey fatigued, as I am, it's not all that much fun. That's what I was trying to say.

[Ben X]

Yeah, I just edited my message while you were writing your reply. I know it's not a totally fair criticism, but my point was that Iron Man didn't have that much going for it aside from a funny performance from Downey. And if you're feeling a little Downey fatigued, as I am, it's not all that much fun. That's what I was trying to say.

Yeah, we had this conversation straight after seeing Thor, didn't we? I think one only gets fatigue of a persona or repeated performance when it gets used in bad movies. So, RDJ doing the same shtick in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Zodiac and Iron Man (to be fair, he turned in a variety of performances before that) is fine. Trying to carry Sherlock Holmes with it immediately flipped my fatigue switch. Same thing happened with Jack Black, Owen Wilson, Woody Allen etc.

Also, I'd disagree on that being the only thing Iron Man had going for it. I liked the support players (including two genuinely likeable robotic sidekicks), the dialogue, effects, cinematography, a couple of the action scenes, the unashamed emotional streak (bad phrasing alert). It did have a bit of a dull climactic battle, though, and there are slow sections there (although those do get better on a second viewing!).

[ThunderPeel2001]

Aye, well I didn't say it was the only thing it had going for it, but I doubt I'd have recommended it to anyone if it hadn't had Downey's performance.

[Ben X]

And in that parallel universe you would have won this debate.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Winning!

In a parallel universe.

[ThunderPeel2001]

The Extraordinary Adventures of Adele Blanc-Sanc Highly enjoyable, child-like romp. Luc Besson's best film since Leon (or The Fifth Element, if you thought that was good).

Also, a question: My mum has just (to my amazement) become a huge Star Trek Voyager fan. She's never enjoyed a sci-fi show in her life. So weird, but I was wondering if someone could give me the skinny. Is it any good? Does it start off good and get worse? Is it one of the better Star Trek shows? What other shows might she now like?

Thanks! I'm totally ignorant of ST.

[Roderick]

Voyager is the series I saw most of, purely because it happened to be on television all the time when I grew up. It's a fun Star Trek with in many ways the classic vibe of a space ship full of people in uncharted waters. As far as I know, the series keeps building up over the seven or so seasons, and ends in a pretty satisfying finale.

Some people prefer the more serious and heavier Deep Space Nine, but that's really a matter of taste. Voyager captures the wonder of space exploration, it's a romantic soap with lots of adventure, Borg, and root-cooking cooks. Also a captain with a voice like a cheese grater

Be warned that it is a typical status quo show though: to our current tastes with all the giant arcs and throbbing mysteries in moderns series, that might be a little stale. Or it might not. You know.