At the Movies...

Discuss Movies, TV, Music and general entertainment here
Post Reply
User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 14801
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:25 pm

Re: At the Movies...

Post by Rorschach » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:58 am

Image
Star Trek Into Darkness trailer - The Wrath of John
* From: news.com.au
* December 18, 2012 9:56AM

Benedict Cumberbatch's villain is a one man weapon of mass destruction and a mystery.

Star Trek Into Darkness takes the series into darker territory.

THE full trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness is light on plot details but heavy on the Inception horn.

The visuals are stunning - punctuated by the now mandatory BRAAAMH - but like the teaser that went online a week ago, the trailer offers up few clues as to why Benedict Cumberbatch's character is intent bringing terror to the universe.

In between the explosions and threats, we hear the voice of Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) telling his protégé Captain James T. Kirk: "There's greatness in you but there's not an ounce of humility. You think that you can't make mistakes but there's going to come a moment when you realise you're wrong about that and you're going to get yourself and everyone under your command killed."

You can bet Kirk's lesson in humility will be at the heart of J. J. Abrams film, although you have to question whether the director would be insane enough to risk killing off one of the main characters just two films into the successfully rebooted series.

Although the second movie in the original Star Trek series surprised everyone by killing off Spock - that bit where two Starfleet members touch hands is a clever nod to the character's death in The Wrath of Khan - that only worked because Spock was by then an established character and the actor playing him wanted out.

It’s unlikely Zachary Quinto, who plays Spock in Abrams’ films, is keen to sever his contract so soon.

The trailer does nothing to reveal the identity of Benedict Cumberbatch's villain. Many fans are still holding out hope he's Khan, the genetically modified warrior memorably played by Ricardo Montalban in the original Star Trek TV series and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, but a publicity photo handed out by the studio last week has him down as John Harrison.

The official plot describes him as an "unstoppable force of terror from within Starfleet" and a "one man weapon of mass destruction".

Whoever he is, expect mayhem.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/mo ... z2FM85x5z1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
DOLT - A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time, like bwian. Oblivious to their own mental incapacity. On IGNORE - Warrior, mellie, Nom De Plume, FLEKTARD

User avatar
AiA in Atlanta
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:44 pm

Re: At the Movies...

Post by AiA in Atlanta » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:15 pm

I saw the Hobbit yesterday ... in 3D. 3 movies seems a bit excessive for the novel but I understand why Peter Jackson did it: because he could. The clarity of the image on the screen was such that I often was more interested in Bilbo's garden, the interior of his Hobbit Hole, Gandalf's dirty fingernails and the scenery of Rivendell than any of the characters and what they were saying.

User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 14801
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:25 pm

Re: At the Movies...

Post by Rorschach » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:30 pm

Love the book.
hope the movie does it justice.
hate 3d, gonna see it in 2d.
Could you pass on the message to your fellow Americans in the movie industry that people hate 3d.
(Well all my friends do) :roll:
DOLT - A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time, like bwian. Oblivious to their own mental incapacity. On IGNORE - Warrior, mellie, Nom De Plume, FLEKTARD

User avatar
AiA in Atlanta
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:44 pm

Re: At the Movies...

Post by AiA in Atlanta » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:36 pm

You probably know that The Hobbit was filmed at 48 frames per second, garnering much criticism.

User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 14801
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:25 pm

Re: At the Movies...

Post by Rorschach » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:21 am

Yes we know it was on the news, apparently people feeling queasy and like they'd been on a roller-coaster.

Did you enjoy the movie?
DOLT - A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time, like bwian. Oblivious to their own mental incapacity. On IGNORE - Warrior, mellie, Nom De Plume, FLEKTARD

User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 14801
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:25 pm

Re: At the Movies...

Post by Rorschach » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:29 am

Jack Reacher is supposed to be over 6' tall. Tom Cruise is a good actor, but I don't think he can act that. I'm hoping the movie makes me forget about that little plot change. Why didn't they just call it something else and base it on the book? I'm going to assume for now that this reviewer has a problem with the words ego and Cruise.
Cruise's egotistical Reacher proves a stretch
December 19, 2012 - 12:13AM
Craig Mathieson

In his new two-fisted film, Jack Reacher, Tom Cruise plays a righteous American fantasy: a military veteran-turned-loner of unimpeachable moral virtue who really knows how to hurt people.

Jack Reacher always does the right thing, even when it includes punching a man in the testicles, and for a movie where the title character is supposed to be taciturn, he goes out of his way to let everyone know that they are not as tough or as smart or as dedicated as Jack Reacher is.

It has been widely noted that on the page the character of Reacher - the protagonist of 17 novels by crime author Lee Child, including 2005's One Shot on which this film is based - is a force of nature; 195 centimetres tall and built like a missile frigate. Tom Cruise cannot duplicate any of these physical traits, but it doesn't matter. What Cruise and Reacher share is a sense of complete and unstinting commitment to whatever they're doing.

As a movie role, Jack Reacher verges on the ludicrous, but Cruise gives it his all. In fact, a better technical actor, such as Michael Fassbender, would founder in the part, whereas Cruise takes in his stride the wide-eyed double-takes from flustered women and deferential respect from men.

More than a decade ago, with Magnolia, director Paul Thomas Anderson used Cruise's unwavering focus to reveal a toxic form of masculinity; in Jack Reacher it reveals a man who headbutts a thug, then uses the thug's head to headbutt the next thug.

That's not progress, rather a pulpy kind of entertainment, but it's what American writer and director Christopher McQuarrie has targeted.

“You think?” sneers an entry-level hood at Reacher, trying to goad him. “All the time. You should try it,” comes the reply, and McQuarrie – the creator of Keyser Soze and 1995's The Usual Suspects – knows this macho banter back to front, keeping the rhythms bluntly simple for Cruise.

McQuarrie has an eye for inventively cutting exposition to visuals, so that information is communicated with dexterity. At the start of Jack Reacher, after a former soldier is framed for the cold-blooded execution by sniper fire of six Pittsburgh residents, his request for Reacher's presence allows the district attorney, Rodin (Richard Jenkins), and the investigating police detective, Emerson (David Oyelowo), to laud the mystery man while admitting they can't find him, even as a purposeful Reacher finds them.

Because Reacher has his own interest in the arrested man, Barr (Joseph Sikora), and is so naturally impressive, he swiftly becomes the lead investigator for the defence attorney, Rodin's daughter Helen (Rosamund Pike), allowing him to poke around and identify deficiencies in everyone else's work and stir the workings of conspiracy that is daftly excessive but most pleasurable because it's overseen by Werner Herzog.

A single rote sentence spoken by the German filmmaker - here improbably playing a criminal mastermind with the usual monstrous pathology - is enough to suggest his now trademark narration of his own documentaries.

When they're on screen together you forget about his bad-guy paraphernalia – a milky eye and a murderous sidekick played by Jai Courtney – and hope Herzog will simply start talking about Cruise as if he's a man who lives with bears.

McQuarrie's one previous effort at directing was 2000's The Way of the Gun, a modern day western, but Jack Reacher recalls the sometimes loopy, often overblown action films of the 1980s, such as the original Lethal Weapon.

When all the film's characters convene in a quarry for a shoot-out, the film is bathed in tough-guy nostalgia, and it's only exacerbated by Reacher dropping his gun so he can fight hand-to-hand with an adversary.

The film envisages murder as a cruel, cold act, with the uncertainty of the sniper attack genuinely terrifying, and that should translate to a lean, tough action movie that stays a step ahead of expectation. But several long scenes exist only to remind us of how gifted Reacher is, particularly a visit to a gun range run by Robert Duvall's grizzled Cash. The veteran's mercurial smile is welcome, but the further glorification of Reacher is unnecessary.

The problem isn't that Tom Cruise doesn't resemble Jack Reacher, it's that there's not enough in Jack Reacher to satisfy Tom Cruise. At the age of 50, the star's youthful cockiness has solidified into narcissism, but without the compensatory charm of a Robert Downey jnr. For a vigilante who travels light, Jack Reacher carries an awfully big ego.
DOLT - A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time, like bwian. Oblivious to their own mental incapacity. On IGNORE - Warrior, mellie, Nom De Plume, FLEKTARD

User avatar
Super Nova
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
Location: Overseas

Re: At the Movies...

Post by Super Nova » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:25 pm

AiA in Atlanta wrote:I saw the Hobbit yesterday ... in 3D. 3 movies seems a bit excessive for the novel but I understand why Peter Jackson did it: because he could. The clarity of the image on the screen was such that I often was more interested in Bilbo's garden, the interior of his Hobbit Hole, Gandalf's dirty fingernails and the scenery of Rivendell than any of the characters and what they were saying.
It got 2 stars here in the UK. Is it worth going to the movies to see. I normally would rush off but the poor reviews has me less excitedto watch it so I have no plans to see it. You views... is it worth goign to see?
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.

User avatar
Black Orchid
Posts: 25419
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:10 am

Re: At the Movies...

Post by Black Orchid » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:38 pm

I bought some Vitamin D at Priceline today and everyone who buys Vitamin D at Priceline til the end of January gets a free ticket to see The Hobbit. So, I guess I will go and see it after Christmas

I am an avid fan of Lee Child's Jack Reacher series and Tom Cruise is NOT Jack Reacher. Reacher is portrayed at 6'5" and 250 lbs. Sorry but I will never accept Cruise in that role so I probably won't bother with it. Childs copped a lot of flack for casting Cruise in that role. I believe Tommy boy bought the rights or something? Who knows. Bad choice though

User avatar
Neferti
Posts: 18113
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: At the Movies...

Post by Neferti » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:40 pm

Tom Cruise is a short-arse. Made lots of dough, spends a lot of it on Scientology. I would avoid ANY movie that he "acts" in. Ditto our "Nik", she is bloody hopeless.

User avatar
Black Orchid
Posts: 25419
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:10 am

Re: At the Movies...

Post by Black Orchid » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:43 pm

I met Nik at a party a thousand years ago when she was still freckly with frizzy orange hair and a flattish nose

She boasted all night that she would sleep her way to the top and get what she wanted. She did

Wouldn't watch a movie with her in it either :lol:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests