Be Excellent To Each Other

We just watched 21 jump street. Almost as funny as watching Joans make popcorn!

Interstellar was pure cinema.
Lots to debate, looked gorgeous, McConnoughey was class as always.

Gremlins reboot is coming, along with a Goonies sequel.

So I've been watching Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (nowhere near as good as the one before it) and there's been times when I simply couldn't tell what was CGI and what was actually there. It "must" have been a combination at times but if some of the scenes I thought were real were actually CGI then it was breathtaking.

Have you seen Gravity? That takes the cake for photo-real CGI for me.

Or Boardwalk Empire.

There's practically no set!

Went to see Interstellar in IMAX last night.

Didn't drag despite the run time and resisted the temptation to do a Dr Who ending. I really enjoyed it and it threw a few surprises at me.

I want a TARS though. Someone get me a TARS.

I thought they built pretty much the whole boardwalk?

Re: Boardwalk Empire: http://vimeo.com/34678075

I saw Interstellar the other day and it was alright. Looked and sounds lovely (the soundtrack is fucking awesome) and was very well acted but bits of it annoyed me.



I'm sure there was other stuff that bothered me but those are the main things. I mean I enjoyed it and everything, some of the sequences on the planets were incredibly impressive and to me it nailed the idea of time relativity very well, but I struggled to suspend my disbelief at times.

I would agree with a lot of that. Especially the exposition bit.

Would also add;



I am finding that these days, however, nobody really seems to bother about actually making a plot hang together properly. The visual spectacle is enough misdirection for you to not think too hard at the time. I blame Dr Who.

The Editing Room scripts are usually excellent for pointing out plot holes that you haven't even considered.

I'd agree with this; the majority of the time I come away from a film having enjoyed it for what it was but without any feeling of coherence. Most often it's less about plot holes and more about characters spending some amount of time acting in stupid or illogical ways just to move the plot forward rather than behaving in ways match their particular motivations/knowledge/personality. Coincidentally, given the film we're taking about here, the last time I remember thinking that something genuinely hung together well was The Dark Knight Rises.

Oh, and other Interstellar thing that annoyed me:

Hmmm, something else about Interstellar that someone's just mentioned at work that I don't understand the significance of:

Surely that's just to

Can you guys put the name of the film in your post when posting spoilers please (outside of the spoiler tag!)?

I was about to expand those last 2, then I remembered it was from a film I hadn't seen that I will probably want to watch in the future.

Thanks

Malc

Interstellar, maybe?

Those last two posts actually mentioned Interstellar in the clear text so I'm not sure what you want from us. Just engage your brain before clicking stuff maybe?

Wtf I'm an idiot

Sorry guys

Malc

I can only put it down to the reaaly stressful day at work I had today. So sorry once again

Malc

I appreciate I'm several years late to the party (yet again) but my word Chronicle is a bit good.

Loses it a little in the third act but yes it is good.

Akira with real people, innit?

I watched a peculiar little film called The Human Race last night. It's one of those films like Cube and Maze Runner where some people find themselves in a peculiar (and life threatening) situation and they've no idea why or how. This one finds 80 people in zapped into a 'race' where if they stray onto the grass, leave the racing line or try to escape their head explodes. It's partly a statement on how humans can be incredibly horrible to each other and partly just 'this is a cool idea for a film'.

It's pretty low budget but the director clearly has high ambitions and has remarkably found some unknown actors who are all actually capable of acting. It's interesting in that for significant lengths of the film deaf characters take all the screen time. One of the lead characters only has one leg too. Not sure if that was a faked thing or they happened to find an actor with just one leg to do the job.

There is an awful lot of exploding heads and you're kept guessing as to who will survive the whole ordeal throughout most of the film. The ending was possibly a little bit of a minus point, perhaps offering an explanation that we didn't really need but it doesn't detract too much. Overall I found it interesting and enjoyable for the 90 minutes it lasted. Which was quite a surprise really.

I paused it for three minutes.

32!

I've seen that, thought it was alright. Like you said, the ending was a bit pony.

Wot?

Metascore.

Oh! Is that out of 100?

I assume Gaywood was making the point that Derek liked it so naturally it would be a terrible film by review score.

Yes, and yes.

Watched The Rover last night. Starring Guy Pearce and Robert Pattinson it's set in Australia after some unspecific collapse of society. Someone takes Guy Pearce's car and he goes to get it back. Anyway it's an interesting film and much better than that synopsis probably makes it sound.

It's not actually terrible. The story is quite reasonable and the premise is good. It's very low budget though, and some of the acting is atrocious due to that. I imagine a lot of the bit characters were friends of the producers.

32 is very harsh when you take the budget into account, I think.

That was pretty good I thought.

Was his car a Rover, then?

Why most horror films are shit these days (sort of)...

I've become a big fan of this blokes video reviews (and his explanation videos of more challenging films like "Enemy") in recent months, despite him being American....

Anyway, here he talks about modern horror films. I was nodding my head A LOT while I watched it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz6KOsePEHs

I was viewing it from that perspective. It was a noble effort to do something interesting. Maybe it didn't fully work but it tried and that's the most important thing. And for the budget it achieved far more than it should have done. I think most of the acting was pretty good but yes not everyone was up to standard.

Quite enjoyed Fury, but at times it felt like the film wasn't sure whether it wanted to glorify war or condemn the horror.

I wouldn't say it was harrowing but some parts certainly made for uncomfortable viewing.

Interstellar is a bit good isn't it. Robots are awesome.

Also watched Snowpiercer today too. Thoroughly enjoyable train romp.

The East is a good watch too, I think I love Brit Marling especially after Another Earth too.

Off to see Interstellar tonight. It's in "4K" apparently. What resolution are films normally at in modern cinemas? I'd have thought they'd need to be that sort of size anyway for the big screen.

"It depends".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema

Obviously back when it was analogue film you couldn't measure in pixels, but digital projectors have been mostly 1080p up until very recently.

Speaking of, I gather that the imax in Manchester is going to be getting rid of their analogue projecting equipment once the run of Interstellar has concluded, which is a bit sad.

Surprising, for some reason I would have thought that would look a bit rubbish on a cinema screen.

It does a bit, doesn't it? Don't get up too close.

The bit rate is significantly higher in cinemas so there are no compression artifacts to spot

Also, you're sitting further away, so it doesn't matter so much, that the "pixels" (or whatever they are called when they are on a screen!) are so big.

Malc