• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

After Earth

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Wow, whoever took over Roger Ebert's website gave the movie 3 1/2 stars out of 4.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Wow, whoever took over Roger Ebert's website gave the movie 3 1/2 stars out of 4.

ROFL!!!!!! Well, actually, there's a revolving panel of reviewers.

Matt Zoller Seitz. 'TV critic for New York Magazine and Vulture.com and a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in criticism.' He writes well.

I skimmed the review, and it sounds like the themes and ideas of the movie resonated more with him (he shares the values he could perceive within the story); he didn't focus on the actual craftsmanship and presentation like many others did. He also seemed to have different standards for the graphics, I think he's the only one I've seen so far who thought they were wonderful.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Now I'm curious. What's so bad about Highlander 2?

The wikipedia article gives you a pretty good general synopsis that contains much of the ridiculous ideas. The synopsis of course can't treat you to the horrible direction and acting, but film's concepts alone are astonishingly stupid.

Notable scenes include a horrible fight between McLeod and two hovering, cackling assassins with a horrible sense of style, and a scene where the bad guy somehow makes a train go super first which in turns some how flings a lot of passengers around and kills them.
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Now You See Me lost the coin toss, I'm waiting for this turd to start. And after the credits role on this steaming pile of turd, Will Smith should go back to making comedies again. Intentional comedies, I mean.
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Actually wasn't that bad. Still within the Syfy Channel original movie territory rather than an A-grade summer blockbuster, but still entirely watchable...except for some frighteningly bad CGI, including one horrible shot of a CG Jaden Smith stunt double jumping like a cartoon character, as well as cheap-ass green screen shots that make a weatherman's background graphics seem convincing. But unlike Star Trek Into Darkness, nothing about this movie genuinely pissed me off.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Actually wasn't that bad. Still within the Syfy Channel original movie territory rather than an A-grade summer blockbuster, but still entirely watchable...except for some frighteningly bad CGI, including one horrible shot of a CG Jaden Smith stunt double jumping like a cartoon character, as well as cheap-ass green screen shots that make a weatherman's background graphics seem convincing. But unlike Star Trek Into Darkness, nothing about this movie genuinely pissed me off.

Well, there was nothing of precedent for it to conflict with or capitalize directly on.

Still, thanks for the feedback. I'm still trying to figure out how much of the critical bitching stems from (1) the involvement of the Director Not To be Named, and (2) Will Smith cast against type.

I don't really have the money right now to justify seeing it in the theater, but probably Redbox. I have trouble watching SyFy channel movies, unfortunately; they just annoy me despite the sometimes interesting blurbs/trailers.
 

The Ü™

Permabanned
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
11,910
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Well, there was nothing of precedent for it to conflict with or capitalize directly on.

Still, thanks for the feedback. I'm still trying to figure out how much of the critical bitching stems from (1) the involvement of the Director Not To be Named, and (2) Will Smith cast against type.

I don't really have the money right now to justify seeing it in the theater, but probably Redbox. I have trouble watching SyFy channel movies, unfortunately; they just annoy me despite the sometimes interesting blurbs/trailers.

Will Smith didn't really do much in the movie, and he tends to be serious in the wrong movies. The movie was mostly trying to make Jaden Smith into an action hero or something, but he seems entirely too wimpy.

And keep in mind, I'm comparing this movie to The Happening, The Last Airbender, and yes, I also hated The Village. I would rank After Earth above those three, but we're still a long way from Unbreakable. Thankfully, however, M. Night didn't seem to try hammering in any kind of environmental message like I feared, which I guess you could consider a twist of sorts. I guess fear isn't real after all.

But looking back at his career, I thought the only redeeming quality of The Last Airbender were the vfx, except for the ones that were clearly meant to be a 3D gimmick, and it was a nice-looking movie. But it had some terrible acting and writing. On the other hand, I remember some "journalists" complaining about racism. In this case, it was the villains having darker skin color. Number 1, isn't that typical of nearly all movies? Number 2, isn't the director Indian? I was reading an article about the most offensive characters in movies, and naturally, Watto and Jar Jar Binks show up, but I think the persons making these associations are the ones who are racist and exploiting stereotypes. If Watto is "supposed" to be a Jew and Jar Jar is "supposed" to be a Rastafarian (and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the actor playing Jar Jar a black guy basing his performance on his Caribbean grandmother?), then why isn't Yoda "supposed" to be the wise Chinese guy? Point being, I think the allegations of racism in the movies are completely unfair and hypocritical, but for some reason, I notice this tendency to exploit racism when the rest of the movie is poorly received.

Then we have The Happening, which was just strange and very, very pretentious. That's really all I have to say. I find it hard to believe that this movie was even trying to be a horror movie, because every "horror" element seemed to be played for laughs. I suppose that certain elements could've been chilling, but it was all just totally run into the ground.

I actually didn't think Lady in the Water was that bad, except for the movie critic character, which was clearly M. Night's unsubtle jab at the critics' voices of his previous work (and frankly, Roland Emmerich's Godzilla was more clever at this). I did like the premise, but it became plainly obvious that Shyamalan was trying too hard to be quirky with his filmmaking style. Though to be fair, this already began with...

...The Village, where all of it just seemed too go to his head, whereas this movie's successor tried too hard with its overall sense of style, this one tried way too hard with the twist. In this case, it was a gimmick that just pissed me off.

Signs gets a lot of unfair criticism. I enjoyed it. I thought that the whole epic premise played at a small scale was effective, although the whole religious angle was over-the-top. Still, I think what people criticize the movie for is unjust, like how the aliens don't like water and yet land on a planet covered with water. Isn't it conceivable that the aliens didn't know what that liquid substance was until they came into contact with it? The aliens' technology is not explained at all, so who the hell knows? I will admit that their inability to open doors was a little bizarre, but I didn't think it was that big of a deal.

Unbreakable was his best movie, and I have very few complaints about it. I'd go as far as consider it a masterpiece. Why? Well, frankly, I'm getting tired of writing, so...next movie.

The Sixth Sense was good the first time I saw it, but it lost its appeal rather quickly. And yes, I was an avid watcher of Are You Afraid of the Dark? and yes, I was thinking about that particular episode that M. Night later revealed to be his inspiration. But I thought it was a well-told spin on that story. But it's nowhere near as thrilling after multiple views, Unbreakable, on the other hand, is.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
ROFL!!!!!! Well, actually, there's a revolving panel of reviewers.

Matt Zoller Seitz. 'TV critic for New York Magazine and Vulture.com and a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in criticism.' He writes well.

I skimmed the review, and it sounds like the themes and ideas of the movie resonated more with him (he shares the values he could perceive within the story); he didn't focus on the actual craftsmanship and presentation like many others did. He also seemed to have different standards for the graphics, I think he's the only one I've seen so far who thought they were wonderful.

Laughing -- I think Seitz only gave ST2 a 2.5/4, if that.

Pretty funny he panned ST for AE.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Okay. I'm a fair reviewer.

My son and I wanted to hit the dollar theater tonight, and the only palatable offering was After Earth, so we watched it. (He's also been on a Shyamalan kick, he only has The Happening yet to watch.)

Both of us thought this movie received an unfair shake by the bulk of the critics. No, it's not a top star movie, but it also wasn't nearly as bad as the reviewers trashed it to be. Yes the opening was pretty weak; yes, there's a problem with accents (the actors try to employ a stupid one, but each does it differently and inconsistently, until they give up); yes, the movie seems kind of sparsely populated even during the times multiple humans exist.

I think the writer(s) could be blamed for picking two character types that don't communicate well on film, making it hard to act. But the characters were valid -- a boy who blames himself for his sister's death, is trying to prove to himself and his dad he is not a coward, and who is still young so he doesn't articulate himself well. Meanwhile, a father who is all business, doesn't articulate emotions well, doesn't know how to interact with his son -- by premise the guy is able to "ghost" which means suppressing all fear, but did anyone bother to think that the ability to ignore such emotions might also come with some horrible side effects, such as not feeling and responding to the natural emotional current of a good relationship? I didn't have an issue with the characters as characters, the issue is that they're hard to play on the big screen especially when they aren't even in the same room together. Maybe Anthony Hopkins and Clint Eastwood -- mainly because of their own personalities -- are masters at those types of characters, but I'm not sure what else Will Smith could have done with the role. And Jaden, while not a genius of his generation, did well enough in his role that I could empathize with him.

Maybe that is what I am getting at here. Despite the flaws of the movie, I could still track and empathize with the characters, I understood where they were coming from, the threats were real enough, and I felt some pathos stirring. A bad movie, to me, is an inert movie where none of that happens; and this movie was not a bad movie. I'd probably give it a B-.

There were some trademarks movies by Shyamalan as well, in terms of sacrifices made by characters (not all of them human) out of sentiment for other characters. One I found unexpectedly touching. There's also a half-decent dream sequence between Kitai and his movie sib.

Anyway, since my son has seen almost all of Shyamalan's movies, he can definitely say it's not close to the worst. (That distinction belongs either to Last airbender or Lady in the WAter.) I think the critics can be pack animals at times, and this seems to be one of those situations.
 

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
I thought it had some . . . plot holes for lack of a better word, but I enjoyed it.



I was hoping for cooler scary animals.

I *hated* Lady in the Water and liked Unbreakable, but don't think I've seen the other movies by this director listed in this thread.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I was hoping for cooler scary animals.

yes, the film felt kind of underpopulated - -I think we saw eagles, pigs, and baboons + the ursa or whatever it was And lots of little birds and what looked like bison or something that we never saw up close. But it all felt kind of bare.

The cast list was not very long at all.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,429
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
close to the worst. (That distinction belongs either to Last airbender or Lady in the WAter.) I think the critics can be pack animals at times, and this seems to be one of those situations.

I listened to a detailed review of the movie, and honestly, there was a lot of stuff that sounded interesting.

Hell, I even like the idea of a "future accent."

This, combined with the fact that there's not the dumb twist I was expecting it to have, means it's worth a rental.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I listened to a detailed review of the movie, and honestly, there was a lot of stuff that sounded interesting.

Hell, I even like the idea of a "future accent."

This, combined with the fact that there's not the dumb twist I was expecting it to have, means it's worth a rental.

I think the problem with the accent was that it was (1) inconsistent not only among the humans but even among individuals and (2) it sounded half-assed. really, it sounded like what people in an amateur production would do after being coached, "Uh, talk with an accent during the movie, so that you sound like you're from some other place!"

I swear, one guy's accent sounded like Scottish brogue, but no one else's did.

This was actually a movie that could have used a small twist of some sort; it was actually a little too straight.

I think a rental would be worth it. I liked it better than Jack the Giant Slayer.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,429
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I think a rental would be worth it. I liked it better than Jack the Giant Slayer.

The whole "epic" fairy tale thing isn't something I can get into. Mostly because it seems like a trend that exist so that studios can use properties with "'name recognition"" without actually paying anyone, seeing as how they are public domain. It seems too marketing driven. Basically, all they do is take a fairytale and past some epic fantasy tropes on top of them, and maybe do some desaturation so that it seems really "dark and adult." without actually including anything "dark and adult."

Am I that far off in my assessment of these movies? That's the impression I got from the trailers.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The whole "epic" fairy tale thing isn't something I can get into. Mostly because it seems like a trend that exist so that studios can use properties with "'name recognition"" without actually paying anyone, seeing as how they are public domain. It seems too marketing driven. Basically, all they do is take a fairytale and past some epic fantasy tropes on top of them, and maybe do some desaturation so that it seems really "dark and adult." without actually including anything "dark and adult."

Am I that far off in my assessment of these movies? That's the impression I got from the trailers.

Jack wasn't much of an epic, it was pretty much just crap.

it couldn't decide whether it was an adult film or kid's film, for one.

stanley tucci and ewan mcgregor had some fun with their roles, but you could definitely see the distinction when they were in a frame and when they weren't. Ian McShane was totally wasted. (I mean, in the role, not high or drunk -- although if he WAS high or drunk, that might explain his performance a bit.) Bill Nighy, wasted as well. At least they could have let him chew up the scenery a bit like he did in Underworld.

The storyline was boring, and when the giants finally invaded earth (not much of a spoiler there) it didn't really last long. End result was pretty predictable too.

I honestly would have rather seen Tucci and McGregor ad'libbing the entire movie with the cameras rolling, vs what the actual script was and even not having any giants. It would have been funnier and more interesting.

I think epic tales can be interesting, but this was not it. I really don't know who greenlights this crap. Your assessment is mostly right on this one... and yes, fairy tales are a hot approach nowadays and like you said, the story is public domain, known by everyone, and free for the plundering.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,429
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Jack wasn't much of an epic, it was pretty much just crap.

it couldn't decide whether it was an adult film or kid's film, for one.

stanley tucci and ewan mcgregor had some fun with their roles, but you could definitely see the distinction when they were in a frame and when they weren't. Ian McShane was totally wasted. (I mean, in the role, not high or drunk -- although if he WAS high or drunk, that might explain his performance a bit.) Bill Nighy, wasted as well. At least they could have let him chew up the scenery a bit like he did in Underworld.

The storyline was boring, and when the giants finally invaded earth (not much of a spoiler there) it didn't really last long. End result was pretty predictable too.

I honestly would have rather seen Tucci and McGregor ad'libbing the entire movie with the cameras rolling, vs what the actual script was and even not having any giants. It would have been funnier and more interesting.

I think epic tales can be interesting, but this was not it. .

No, don't get me wrong, I love my epic tales. I just don't like some stuff that feels like it's thrown together by some dude while watching LOTR in a bar with the sound turned off while he's waiting for his BAC to go down enough so that he can drive home. Which is the vibe I get from the trailers for these kinds of movies.

Also, if the original story involved a princess in distress, they have to throw something in there about how she can "take of herself" (and usually include that exact line) even though she can't, because if she could, there wouldn't be anything for the male hero to do.

I saw a trailer for another movie, Seventh Sons, that looked somewhat more promising. (Apparently it's a book. I need to start reading speculative fiction before it becomes a movie or a TV series. )

I also find myself annoyed by "dark" becoming a marketing buzzword. Not that I don't like cynicism, moral ambiguity, or stuff that push buttons. My main objection is that it's a stupid marketing buzzword applied in places where it doesn't apply. I liked "Star Trek: Into Darkness", but it was still optimistic Star Trek. It wasn't really dark. Search for Spock was a darker movie, actually.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I also find myself annoyed by "dark" becoming a marketing buzzword. Not that I don't like cynicism, moral ambiguity, or stuff that push buttons. My main objection is that it's a stupid marketing buzzword applied in places where it doesn't apply. I liked "Star Trek: Into Darkness", but it was still optimistic Star Trek. It wasn't really dark. Search for Spock was a darker movie, actually.

Agreed. I have nothing against "darker" stories myself, in some ways they're more realistic, but I would agree definitely that American cinema is milking the idea for all its worth in the last year or two.

Moving past Star Trek, we now have Thor 2: The Dark World. *doh* I mean, I hated the first Thor, and this just looks to be more of the SSDD.

I feel in a minority here, but I really liked The Search for Spock. (And besides, it had someone actually playing Saavik like she was half-Vulcan, half-Romulan.) I saw that movie in the theater with a friend, and I remember just being stunned when the freakin' Enterprise blew up and left a death trail across the sky while Kirk said, "What have I done? Oh what have I done?" And I guess Bones says, "you've done what you do every time, Jim -- turn death into a fighting chance for life." (or something like that). The theater was dead silent.

if any movie with a "happy ending" still left me quiet and somber afterwards, it was that one. They saved Spock, yes, but the cost was SOOO high and not paid lightly.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,429
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Agreed. I have nothing against "darker" stories myself, in some ways they're more realistic, but I would agree definitely that American cinema is milking the idea for all its worth in the last year or two.

Moving past Star Trek, we now have Thor 2: The Dark World. *doh* I mean, I hated the first Thor, and this just looks to be more of the SSDD.

I feel in a minority here, but I really liked The Search for Spock. (And besides, it had someone actually playing Saavik like she was half-Vulcan, half-Romulan.) I saw that movie in the theater with a friend, and I remember just being stunned when the freakin' Enterprise blew up and left a death trail across the sky while Kirk said, "What have I done? Oh what have I done?" And I guess Bones says, "you've done what you do every time, Jim -- turn death into a fighting chance for life." (or something like that). The theater was dead silent.

I liked it, too, possibly more than Wrath of Khan. Destroying the Enterprise.... now that was ballsy. I found myself hating Chrstopher Lloyd, and in my book, if I have a strong reaction to the villain, they're doing something right.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I liked it, too, possibly more than Wrath of Khan. Destroying the Enterprise.... now that was ballsy. I found myself hating Chrstopher Lloyd, and in my book, if I have a strong reaction to the villain, they're doing something right.

What did you think of the scene where he blows up the informant ship with the Klingon spy on it? It was all pretty interesting stuff, considering that movie predates ST:TNG and so we hadn't yet been acquainted via Worf et al with Klingon tradition and honor. It's just that it the dialog was in Klingon, and I do not recall if there were subtitles in the theatrical presentation.

And Christopher Lloyd is so lovable in other contexts. It wouldn't be long until we saw him in Back to the Future.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,429
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
What did you think of the scene where he blows up the informant ship with the Klingon spy on it? It was all pretty interesting stuff, considering that movie predates ST:TNG and so we hadn't yet been acquainted via Worf et al with Klingon tradition and honor.

I liked that too. There's also the scene at the end where the surviving Klingon is miffed that he doesn't get to die a warrior's death. So far, it's the only Star Trek movie I've seen that focused on any of the aliens, really. (When I get to VI, I should be pleased. I think I'm gonna skip V, since I caught the end of that on TV along time ago as part of a prior attempt to get into Trek. Yeah, I don't think that's the best way to do that)

I'll probably watch IV next, then I (which seems like an odd prototype for the Next Generation, based on everything I've read about it.), then VI.

And Christopher Lloyd is so lovable in other contexts. It wouldn't be long until we saw him in Back to the Future.

He was Judge Doom, but Judge Doom was kind of a loveable villain.

Regarding Thor, apparently this is supposed to have a Game of Thrones feel, because Game of Thrones is DARK. In reality, I think all they are going to do is stick in more fantasy trappings and maybe kill off some characters people don't care about. I doubt they're going to fuck with the audience on the level that the show does, show someone doing "the right thing" and then not having it work out so well.

I really wanted to like the first movie, but if that's true to the comic, Thor sucks as a character, which made that difficult. He's everything people complain about when they complain about Superman, only it's actually true for him. He grew up as royalty, not an outsider, and is also, quite literally, a God. I rooted more for Loki, but he wasn't really that interesting, either.
 
Top