Last HD Movie Watched

[ganthc]

Weeds: Season 3 (Blu-ray)

HD Video: 9/10
DTS-HDMA: 9/10

Happy Gilmore (HD DVD)

HD Video: 8.5/10
HD DD+: 8/10

Firewall (Blu-ray)

HD Video: 9/10
HD DD: 8/10

So I Married an Axe Murderer (Blu-ray)

HD Video: 8/10
HD TrueHD: 8/10

Ratatouille (Blu-ray)

HD Video: 10/10
HD LPCM: 10/10

[sub780lime]

The Phantom of the Opera

[Derb]

Cloverfield (2008) (Blu-Ray)

HD Video - 9/10
HD Audio Dolby TrueHD - 9/10

[buckster666]

Point Break (Blu-Ray)

HD Video - 9/10
HD Audio DTS HD - 9/10

This is the best I have ever seen or heard this movie.

[ganthc]

10,000 BC (Blu-ray)

HD Video: 9.5/10
HD TrueHD: 9/10

I thought that this movie wasn't as terrible as the critics made it out to be. I was half expecting a horrible movie, but I actually liked the story for what it was. The acting, while a bit overdone in some parts, was decent, and I liked the mythology of the whole thing. Some of the CGI looked a bit worse in high def, but overall, it didn't take me out of the movie.

[Derb]

Men in Black (1997) (Blu-Ray)

HD Video - 8/10
HD Audio Dolby TrueHD - 10/10

[sub780lime]

The Pianist


Why do the German's speak German, but the Polish speak English?

[plissken99]

Jumper

Video: 9/10
Audio: 10/10

Netflixed this one after all the bad things I'd heard. But I actually liked it, added to the buy list.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by plissken99

Jumper

Video: 9/10
Audio: 10/10

Netflixed this one after all the bad things I'd heard. But I actually liked it, added to the buy list.

Yeah, like 10,000 BC, the movie was not as bad as it was made out to be.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Yeah, like 10,000 BC, the movie was not as bad as it was made out to be.

He makes friends with a

Spoiler (Highlight or Triple Click to Read):

saber tooth tiger.

Awful.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Pirate

He makes friends with a

Spoiler (Highlight or Triple Click to Read):

Awful.

No, he

Spoiler (Highlight or Triple Click to Read):

upholds a prophecy according the mythology of that time.

. At worst, you could say that there was some borrowing from Apocalyto in that area...just a bit.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by ganthc

No, he

Spoiler (Highlight or Triple Click to Read):

. At worst, you could say that there was some borrowing from Apocalyto in that area...just a bit.

Well that makes it better.

I’ll never understand why filmmakers use historical settings to tell fantasies--especially fantasies that they want taken seriously. They could have easily set it in a fictional past and created their dunderheaded epic without worry of reproach. The script would have still been garbage ("some men draw bigger circles") but at least they wouldn’t have to contend with every reviewer calling their historical accuracy out.

Also, Nightcrawler's first 2 minutes in X2 was better than the entirety of Jumper.

[ganthc]

Heh, this coming from the guy that thinks that King Kong is a breathtaking movie. For me, 10,000 BC and Jumper are just fun movies to be taken as such. King Kong was totally intended to be some action drama, but became a trial of patience as the audience member had to wade through gobs of pointless CGI, and closeups of the ape and chick staring at each other. I half expected Smeagol to make a cameo saying, "Smeagol hates those apesesss. Gollum!"

[Pirate]

So, you don't really want to discuss the movie we're talking about then, huh? The ol' you like that other film so your opinion is null and void tactic. Gotcha.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Pirate

So, you don't really want to discuss the movie we're talking about then, huh? The ol' you like that other film so your opinion is null and void tactic. Gotcha.

I did discuss it. I gave my opinion on it. You were dismissive of both Jumper and 10,000 BC as being fun movies, instead expecting huge potential from them somehow. I contrasted that with a movie that did have potential for huge expectations, based on the director and familiar content, and how I felt it was a massive failure, yet you praise it as the second coming.

It's not to say that your opinion doesn't matter, but that you seem to hold all movies to the same standard of excellence, when there should obviously be a sliding scale based on genre. And maybe your view of excellence is different than mine, because I thought King Kong was terrible and its dialogue had something to be desired, but then suddenly for you BC seems to have terrible dialogue, and it's the worst movie since Ishtar.

I believe we have agreed on the horribleness of some movies (X Men 3, The Crappening, etc).

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by ganthc

You were dismissive of both Jumper and 10,000 BC as being fun movies, instead expecting huge potential from them somehow.

I like fun movies just as much as the next guy, but I always expect a modicum of intelligence. Neither of those films delivers in that area. And I liked Crank . . .

Originally Posted by ganthc

I contrasted that with a movie that did have potential for huge expectations, based on the director and familiar content, and how I felt it was a massive failure, yet you praise it as the second coming.

Yes . . . the second coming. Well done.

Originally Posted by ganthc

It's not to say that your opinion doesn't matter, but that you seem to hold all movies to the same standard of excellence, when there should obviously be a sliding scale based on genre. And maybe your view of excellence is different than mine, because I thought King Kong was terrible and its dialogue had something to be desired, but then suddenly for you BC seems to have terrible dialogue, and it's the worst movie since Ishtar.

I don’t post reviews here anymore, but I think anyone who has ever read one can tell you that I don’t hold every film to the same standards. No reputable student of film would. However, I know bad cinema when I see it, and BC and Jumper fall into that category. Whether you liked King Kong or not is irrelevant to your absurd comparison. Hell, based on pure technical filmmaking, Jackson’s Bad Taste is superior to BC in almost every way.

I feel the difference here is that the casual viewer allows "fun" to blind them. I take no issue with those that enjoy movies like BC, but have the decency to recognize it for what it is. If Emerrich set to make a comedy, I’d be praising his hilarious romp as the unofficial sequel to The Flintstones. And I’m sure that 9% on RT would shoot up, at least a little.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Pirate

I like a fun movies just as much as the next guy, but I always expect a modicum of intelligence. Neither of those films delver in that area. And I liked Crank . . .

While stimulating from a visual and aural perspective, I don't see the merits of Crank as even a story being told. For BC, and Jumper, I felt that they had stories that were relevant. A love story (hackneyed as it was) that followed a prophecy that led one man to free others from oppression, and a story about a guy that can teleport and has to fend off attacks on his loved one from those that are trying to kill him. Not to mention a pretty good twist in the story. Crank was just about a guy that was poisoned and goes around doing adrenaline stuff. Once again, visually stimulating, but not redeeming in any regard. I will say that I think King Kong is a much better movie than Crank.

I don’t post reviews here anymore, but I think anyone who has ever read one can tell you that I don’t hold every film to the same standards. No reputable student of film would. However, I know bad cinema when I see it, and BC and Jumper fall into that category. Whether you liked King Kong or not is irrelevant to your absurd comparison. Hell, based on pure technical filmmaking, Jackson’s Bad Taste is superior to BC in almost every way.

I feel the difference here is that the casual viewer allows "fun" to blind them. I take no issue with those that enjoy movies like BC, but have the decency to recognize it for what it is. If Emerrich set to make a comedy, I’d be praising his hilarious romp as the unofficial sequel to The Flintstones. And I’m sure that 9% on RT would shoot up, at least a little.

And all I'm saying is that it's an enjoyable film, along with Jumper. Trust me, PH, I have seen real terrible films. I mean bad, and not in the Michael Jackson sense. Shark Attack 3: Megalodon is terrible cinema. BC is just meant to be entertaining popcorn flick. It won't win Oscars, well maybe some technical ones, but none for acting or script. But most films don't win awards, and yet I wouldn't say that all of them are bad cinema.

Was Emmerich trying to make a historically accurate movie (as if that was possible)? I don't think so. I think he was just trying to tell a story using elements from that time period. I think he told an interesting tale. There was a nice cool theory on who pioneered the building of the pyramids, no more absurd than what Indy 4 put out as a possibility.

I just feel that sometimes a perspective is lost on what is truly horrible cinema, and what is meant to be mindless fluff entertainment, and what is meant to be serious and weighty movies. I'm not stating that BC and Jumper are the best movies ever, or even close. I just don't think they deserve the panning from critics that they got, or that the critics went into those movies with expectations that were not met. I, on the other hand, was entertained, which puts those movies in a category that is not bad cinema.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by Pirate

I feel the difference here is that the casual viewer allows "fun" to blind them

Man, do I know what you mean. GAHHH!!! WHERE AM I - I CANNOT SEEEEE!

(this commercial break brought to you by IgMan Productions)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by ganthc

While stimulating from a visual and aural perspective, I don't see the merits of Crank as even a story being told. For BC, and Jumper, I felt that they had stories that were relevant. A love story (hackneyed as it was) that followed a prophecy that led one man to free others from oppression, and a story about a guy that can teleport and has to fend off attacks on his loved one from those that are trying to kill him. Not to mention a pretty good twist in the story. Crank was just about a guy that was poisoned and goes around doing adrenaline stuff.

And that’s the problem. If you thought that Jumper and BC had decent stories, I’d hate to see the films you thought had bad stories. And I can't imagine what "twist" you fell for in Jumper.

And, just to be clear: to look for story in Crank is to miss the point of Crank.

Originally Posted by ganthc

Shark Attack 3: Megalodon is terrible cinema. BC is just meant to be entertaining popcorn flick. It won't win Oscars, well maybe some technical ones, but none for acting or script. But most films don't win awards, and yet I wouldn't say that all of them are bad cinema.

Sure, but why should we have to tolerate second rate garbage when it’s just as easy to make a decent-to-good popcorn film? Emmerich himself has made several watchable popcorn films (Stargate, ID4, etc.). So, why should I give any credit to a film that was riddled with cliches (Emmerich even bites from himself a few times), had an absolutely laughable script, and was poorly shot, edited, and acted. I’m sure that shark movie was far worse, but I assume that was a straight-to-video affair and its sole purpose was to prey upon the lowest common denominator groups who haunt video stores. BC and Jumper were major motion pictures that had millions invested in them. And one of them had Doug Liman behind the camera.

Originally Posted by ganthc

Was Emmerich trying to make a historically accurate movie (as if that was possible)? I don't think so. I think he was just trying to tell a story using elements from that time period. I think he told an interesting tale. There was a nice cool theory on who pioneered the building of the pyramids, no more absurd than what Indy 4 put out as a possibility.

Well, Crystal Skull sucked, so I don’t think we should add that into the discussion.

Honestly, I don’t know what Emmerich was going for here. However, I do think he wanted to makes something in the vein of his other films. And even by that low standard, he failed.

Originally Posted by ganthc

I just feel that sometimes a perspective is lost on what is truly horrible cinema, and what is meant to be mindless fluff entertainment, and what is meant to be serious and weighty movies.

Believe me, that’s not the case. I am able to differentiate. But do you really think Emmerich would agree that his film should be taken as mindless fluff?

[Pirate]

Nailed it again, Iggy.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Pirate

Believe me, that’s not the case. I am able to differentiate. But do you really think Emmerich would agree that his film should be taken as mindless fluff?

Okay, I do agree with you on that one. But what Emmerich intended as epic, I saw as entertaining.

Yes, Iggy nailed it. You're no fun, PH.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by ganthc

You're no fun, PH.

He's just got a different opinion like all of us. I know you meant well with the tongue smiley but if I was schmart like you film buffs, I'd look a little deeper into his words. I try. I fail. But you dudes? Hehehe...potential to see a whole new insight.

Blah blah blah...blah. WEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

Yeah, something like that.

[sambow87]

Iggy, you....damn you always make me laugh.

And on that note:

There Will Be Blood 4.5/5 PQ/AQ

I still need to rent Jumper. It's not the book at all (give it a chance, it is sort of cool, the book that is, not the movie).

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Pirate

I like a fun movies just as much as the next guy, but I always expect a modicum of intelligence. Neither of those films delver in that area. And I liked Crank . . .

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (2007) (Blu-Ray)

HD Video - 9/10
HD Audio Dolby Digital - 7/10
HD Audio dts-HDMA - 9/10

Short Circuit (1986) (Blu-Ray)

HD Video - 9/10
HD Audio Dolby Digital - 7/10
HD Audio dts-HDMA - 8/10