Movie Review thread.

[Dondrei]

Ed Wood was really good.

An unofficial sequel to The Da Vinci Code

No, it's an adaptation of the preceding book.

Which is to say, sort of like a prequel but not.

[Lazer LXXVII]

I hate to seem like a troll...but I can't seem to see why anyone likes the Godfather movies. I've tried watching The Godfather on four separate occasions and still have yet to watch even half of the movie. I'm not going to say it is bad, but I cannot see why people find the movie so gripping and why the series has such a rabid fan base. Just not my cup of whiskey, I suppose.

To each their own, doesnt matter to me if you dont like it.

Personally, i just think they are extremely well made movies. By that i mean the acting is perfect, the flow of the movie is great (which i have a huge problem with in many movies), they are all 3 hours or more and to me the 3 hours just fly by and i immediately want to see the sequel after its over, and its well directed, no pointless scenes, no pointless dialogue. Plus i think my favorite genre of movies is crime drama, so a crime drama thats just as epic as say Lord of the Rings or Star Wars is amazing to me.

I know a few people that said it was an average movie, that they werent too big on it. To each their own. Tons of people like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, personally i cant stand Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings was pretty good only one time through, every other time i watched the movies i was bored out of my mind.

[Lazer LXXVII]

Ed Wood was really good.



No, it's an adaptation of the preceding book.

Which is to say, sort of like a prequel but not.

Well obviously if you cant tell i never read the books lol. The way they make the Angels and Demons movie seem, is as if it takes place a while after the events of The Da Vinci Code.

[Dondrei]

Did they change the chronology? Lame.

I haven't read Angels & Demons, just read Da Vinci and saw the movie. Which was a terrible limp shell of a movie where people just go through the motions of the vastly superior source material (which was fun in a schlocky, fairly predictable way), it's like watching the Harry Potter movies but even worse.

[Krugar]

The way they make the Angels and Demons movie seem, is as if it takes place a while after the events of The Da Vinci Code.

Yup. It's confusing to say the least. The actual book is a prequel. But the screenwriters-slash-director decided to make it a sequel.

And what's the reason, you may ask? Because they felt viewers would be more comfortable with this notion because many read the the book only after they read The Da Vinci Code.

*sigh* Everyday I believe more that we are indeed moving towards an Idiocracy.

[Amra]

Star Trek

Overall entertaining enough I suppose. I was bothered by how much they changed history. Starfleet was not new and just getting it's feet wet in space. It was established with a fleet of ships and aliens galore.

Nero was a very boring villain.

Destroying both Romulus and Vulcan? Too over the top. Same with just transporting onto a ship going warp when it was never done before.

Way too much old Spock messing with the time line. The franchise needs to give that up altogether.

It was nice to see some character development though. But I felt that it was too rushed with the exception of Spock. McCoy was very well done.

The next movie will really have to build on things but I think it will be better. Klingon's are sure to show up.

STAR TREK

First, the epic factor. The villain was your typical cheese out to get revenge after decades of broiling in his own revenge juices, kind of like nine tenths of Star Trek villains. This character was very unmemorable.

Agreed.

Even his vessel was for mining purposes. I think a story to start it all, like this one, should have had an epic villain. Bald, dark clothes, has facial tattoos, craving revenge--reming you of anyone? That's right: the sith from The Phantom Menace.

He in no way reminded me of a sith or the phantom menace.

Now, the nostalga part. Call me selfish, but the Enterprise interior should have imo been made to look like it did in the original Star Trek series. The one in the movie looks far more like something out of The Next Generation. You will all think you are watching The Next Generation without a holodeck.

It looked nothing like TNG.

The old series looked like humans had just barely managed to get their feet into space; everything was clunky and primitive looking, and you felt like you were seeing a crew traped in a submarine rather than a space craft.

Agreed. While it did not look like TNG, it was a bit too crisp and clean.

That brings us to Kirk: he looks nothing at all like young William Shatner.

Again, . He looked very much like a young Kirk should.

They got some guy based on his acting.

For shame!

Some of the movie was predictable, but maybe I am getting old.

Some? I'd say most of it was.


[QUOTE=stillman;7123190]Now for the cheese: there is one of those CGI monsters that is chasing a character, then the monster is eaten by another much bigger monster...just like in The Phantom Menace. This whole chase scene should have been deleted from the movie as it was boring and predictable and no one wants to be reminded of The Phantom Menace./quote]
I agree the scene was not very well done. [Neither was Spock just booting him off the ship.] It didn't remind me of phantom menace but then I've not seen the movie in ages. But as a set up for Kirk meeting old Spock... it seemed a bit lame.

Kirk is mentioned as being 'genius-level' almost as an afterthought. Is this necessary? He never seemed like a genius in the 60 some old episodes I saw. No, he was more of a strong, charasmatic, and brave leader. He got Spock to do all the calculations for him. It's like they just decided to tack on 'genius' to his resume like he isn't a great enough character as it is. Seems like they were desperate to lift the character.

Yes, that was a bit unnecessary. He was never overly "book smart" (but not dumb either). Kirk was more intuitive and a risk taker.

Also, you will find that ALL the main characters are suddenly geniuses. Scotty, Uhura, Spock, Checkov, Kirk.

Somewhat agree. Especially Scotty.

Did they change the chronology? Lame.

Yes, the movies are out of sequence. Although really it doesn't matter that much since the stories are not related.

[SaroDarksbane]

*SPOILERS*

Destroying both Romulus and Vulcan? Too over the top.

Technically, they only destroyed Vulcan. Romulus still exists in this alternate reality (for now).

Agreed. While it did not look like TNG, it was a bit too crisp and clean.

I dunno, the engine room was, well, very much like an engine room.

Yes, that was a bit unnecessary. He was never overly "book smart" (but not dumb either). Kirk was more intuitive and a risk taker.

Which part of the movie made Kirk into a genius?

Somewhat agree. Especially Scotty.

Scotty was the only one I didn't really get a feel for. Odd casting and script all around, there.

[Krugar]

Scotty was the only one I didn't really get a feel for. Odd casting and script all around, there.

Really? I didn't get a feeling for any of them. This attempt at recreating a Star Trek franchise is just not for my generation anymore.

[Amra]

I dunno, the engine room was, well, very much like an engine room.

I agree. I was thinking only of the bridge.

Which part of the movie made Kirk into a genius?

Didn't Pike tell him how freaking smart he was? "Off the charts" or something like that. Or am I confusing myself.

Then, when Kirk was hiding behind the bed, Uhura was telling her green-skinned roommate about the transmission she picked up. Later on the Enterprise Kirk put it together and warned Pike that they were headed into a Romulan trap.

I suppose one could throw in the Kobayashi Maru test too but I didn't like that scene.

[stillman]

^ Pike does indeed say Kirk is 'genius level', hence, Starfleet coud really use someone of Kirk's capabilities. It's in the early part after the bar fight when Pike is trying to get Kirk to be like his father. Plus, the 'off the charts' comment is mentioned.

The movie describes an 'alternate reality' or new timeline occuring thanks to someone going back in time and tinkering with history. So I suppose that means all of the early Enterprise adventures from the original series have been wiped clean and the crew will do all different things this time around. I never understood why movie makers would do such a thing. Why erase something that was perfectly fine? Not to get into the Batman debate (this is just here for an example), but it's like how Batman Begins erases the old Batman with Jack Nicholson, which was a masterpiece. I can understand erasing some of the sequals, but the whole series? I feel like movie makers are overconfident when they do this sort of thing. It's like the STAR TREK movie makers said their ideas are better and more worthy than the classic stuff, so they should just erase it all. The movie was good, but it wasn't so good that it makes it better than the entire old series.

Although I was harsh on the nostalga part, I should mention that there was some great nostalga, especially with Bones.

There was a little interview clip I saw of Shatner talking about the new Enterprise look, and he said something like, 'It doesn't matter that there is a little light down here that was moved up here'. But man, did he see the movie? There's a lot more changed than little things! The whole interior looks too advanced. One thing I did like was at the beginning we see another starship firing these little turret type of guns which gave it a more primitive early-design look, but we only see a fraction of a second of this.