Last Film You Watched

[navidson]

Is this the film where they threw sci-fi aside and made it into plotless languages lesson?

I suppose that's the problem - both Arrival and Interstellar are really dramas with sci-fi elements

If you want the chin stroking wankery of 'classic' sci-fi, stick with 2001 and Solaris

 

[chrismpw]

I suppose that's the problem - both Arrival and Interstellar are really dramas with sci-fi elements

If you want the chin stroking wankery of 'classic' sci-fi, stick with 2001 and Solaris

2001 was interesting, spectacular even, but with a bizaar ending i still haven't understood. Solaris ... I don't think I've got through more than half of without falling asleep.

Sunshine was a good film, in my view. It was non-hollywood, so for a refreshing change it had a functioning professional global crew, and novelly the Americans didn't save the day.

 

[Prevenger17]

Sunshine was a good film

Sunshine is effing great

 

[dholliday]

2001 was interesting, spectacular even, but with a bizaar ending i still haven't understood.

I was in the same boat until I read the book, which explained the sci-fi of what went on during that psychedelic trip...it's where the famous line comes from:

Spoiler

"my God, it's full of stars!", meaning the monoliths are sentient wormholes to other dimensions of space and time.‎

 

[chrismpw]

I was in the same boat until I read the book, which explained the sci-fi of what went on during that psychedelic trip...it's where the famous line comes from:

Spoiler

"my God, it's full of stars!", meaning the monoliths are sentient wormholes to other dimensions of space and time.‎

* Rummages through DVD collection for another watch!

 

[dholliday]

Incredibly harsh to have Arrival and Interstellar on that list - both wonderful films

I
felt betrayed by both films: emotional soapy family dramas with a side-order of aliens/space to maximise its potential audience.

I'm a hard sci-fi fan: characterisation is totally secondary to the big ideas and their realistic depiction. Interstellar & Arrival were sold as being of that ilk...so why so much emo-crying over family issues? That was the main focus.

In real-life, the great science stories aren't characterised by the emo dramas of the scientists involved, they are defined by the ideas they had, and the things they discovered/achieved.

Whereas novels focus on this really well, films often struggle. Even The Martian which ostensibly looks like a genuine hard sci-fi film ruined it by making Matt Damon really annoying: his character was the focus, not his extraordinary situation.

2001, my favourite film, gets a lot of stick from some because of its dry characters. "Hal is the only one showing emotion" they cry believing this to be a profound analysis. But it's misunderstood. 2001 has realistic characters: astronauts who don't panic or cry over family, they stoically get on with it. That's what astronauts are really like. It lets the viewer focus on what makes that film a classic: the ideas, the visuals, the amosphere, the science.

The astronauts' dry characterisation is the most under-appreciated aspect of that famous film.

When people keep saying such-and-such matches 2001, they're wrong. Contact, Interstellar, Arrival etc all failed due to their focus on human family drama (it took away focus from the big ideas they presented).‎

 

[dholliday]

* Rummages through DVD collection for another watch!

get the bluray! amazing‎

 

[LydiateLee]

American Pyscho - Disturbing.

 

[dholliday]

American Pyscho - Disturbing.

I haven't read the book, but my interpretation of the film was that:

Spoiler

the homeless man was the first and only person he actually killed, the rest were fantasy thoughts. He murdered that poor tramp in such a confused clumsy rage, very different to the polished acts of the rest of the kills.

 

[COYBL25]

American Pyscho - Disturbing.

The film is tame compared to the book mate.

They cut half of the bad stuff out for the film or it would never have got a certificate.

Christian Bale was perfectly cast as Patrick Bateman though.

I`ve never been able to listen to Huey Lewis`s " Hip to be Square " without thinking of what was going on in the film whilst that was playing !!

 

[COYBL25]

I haven't read the book, but my interpretation of the film was that:

Spoiler

the homeless man was the first and only person he actually killed, the rest were fantasy thoughts. He murdered that poor tramp in such a confused clumsy rage, very different to the polished acts of the rest of the kills.

Nope

 

[SiEdmo]

sorry if covered but has anyone seen the new Equaliser?

thought the first one was decent (not great but decent) and wondered if the 2nd will be worth a watch

 

[dholliday]

Nope

Yes. A film can have key differences to the source material, to the point where everything changes. The Shining, for example, was

Spoiler

not a supernatural film, it was a psychological thriller in that the hotel wasn't responsible for anything, just that Jack was going insane and it coincided with this stay in the hotel.

 

[COYBL25]

Yes. A film can have key differences to the source material, to the point where everything changes. The Shining, for example, was

Spoiler

not a supernatural film, it was a psychological thriller in that the hotel wasn't responsible for anything, just that Jack was going insane and it coincided with this stay in the hotel.

I was saying " nope " to that !

I was saying " nope ", to it wasn`t in his head.

 

[dholliday]

I was saying " nope ", to it wasn`t in his head.

eh? so you agree with my interpretation that

Spoiler

all the spectacular killings were all in his head?

we should maybe spoiler this, i bet a few haven't seen it yet.