121
Movies and TV / Re: review: Valiant
« on: August 24, 2005, 08:40:31 PM »
It was probably my mistake to begin with, but thanks for taking the blame, buddy.
News:
A lot of people describe Scalzi’s Old Man's War novels as military science fiction, but I would classify its sequel Zoë’s Tale as a space opera. It’s a story about, well, Zoë, a teenage girl whose parents are invited to take leadership roles in building a colony on a new planet. Zoë is an enthusiastic member of the group sent to colonize Roanoke, despite the risks—and the risks are considerable even before the political machinations of greater powers boil to the surface. Continue reading Zoë’s Tale
Review by Silk
Discuss it in our forums.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
122
Movies and TV / Re: review: The Island
« on: August 19, 2005, 02:41:23 PM »
You know, Skar, I have to agree. I love the movie enough that I do own it, but it does stretch credibility at the end, leaving the realism of the rest of the movie for a more action oriented ending. it actually bothered me more the first time around than on repeat viewing, I guess just because I expect it now.
123
Movies and TV / Re: review: The Island
« on: August 18, 2005, 11:24:43 AM »
No, "Transformers" is in limbo. The producers are squabbling, the fans are in an uproar, and Bay is talking about walking off the project. At least that's the last i heard from CHUD and Ain't it Cool News. But admittedly, I am not following the movie that closely, sice I have no interest in it.
The tv show to movie genre has produced a lot of crap, but then there's "The Fugitive," which is a classic. I loved Jamie Foxx in "Ray" and and "Collaterall," and I am going to see "Miamai Vice" if for no other reason than to see him work with Mann again.
The tv show to movie genre has produced a lot of crap, but then there's "The Fugitive," which is a classic. I loved Jamie Foxx in "Ray" and and "Collaterall," and I am going to see "Miamai Vice" if for no other reason than to see him work with Mann again.
124
Movies and TV / Re: review: The Island
« on: August 17, 2005, 06:18:39 PM »
It is a bit repetive, with the main there by Trevor Jones being played about 92 times throughout the movie. But it's a great score, composed by both Jones and Randy Edleman. The theme played during the final chase/fight sequence, based upon a a peice of music called "the Gael" by Dougie McLean, is one of my favorites of all time. I love that movie! I love the fact that all of the characters are doing what they think is right, from their own perspective, and I love the dry sense of humor. There is a sense of nobility and tragedy to this movie that has always stuck with me, and the fight sequences influenced every single epic that has come sense then (I particularly like the way Hawkeye moves swiftly and easily through the battles, almost as if he is slowmotion but everyone else is not, taking out each opponent one by one, then moving and as he cuts a trail to his objective.). I think Michael Mann is a freaking genius.
The only thing that frustrates me about the score is that, in the DVD director's cut, Mann has removed the Clannad song "I Will Find You." Artistically, I see whay he did it it always felt like something tacked on by the studio - but it's a beautiful song.
Incidentally, back to the subject of Micahel Bay, there is a hysterical editorial, supposedly written by Bay, on this week's edition of theonion.com. If you are unfamiliar with The Onion, it is a newspaper parody, and while it often crosses the line into being too crude, much of it is very, very funny. Check it out.
The only thing that frustrates me about the score is that, in the DVD director's cut, Mann has removed the Clannad song "I Will Find You." Artistically, I see whay he did it it always felt like something tacked on by the studio - but it's a beautiful song.
Incidentally, back to the subject of Micahel Bay, there is a hysterical editorial, supposedly written by Bay, on this week's edition of theonion.com. If you are unfamiliar with The Onion, it is a newspaper parody, and while it often crosses the line into being too crude, much of it is very, very funny. Check it out.
125
Movies and TV / Re: review: The Island
« on: August 15, 2005, 10:10:09 PM »
Michael Bay is not doing "Miami Vice," nor did he have anything to do with the series. You're confusing a bad director with one of the best out there - Michael MANN, creator of "Miami Vice," as director of such films as "The Last of the Mohicans," "Heat," "The Insider," and most recently, "Collateral."
Mann is a brilliant film maker, and while I never watched "Miami Vice," I am eagerly awaiting the film.
Bay, on the other hand, might not even be doing "Transformers," which may not even happen at this point.
Mann is a brilliant film maker, and while I never watched "Miami Vice," I am eagerly awaiting the film.
Bay, on the other hand, might not even be doing "Transformers," which may not even happen at this point.
126
Movies and TV / Re: review: The Island
« on: August 10, 2005, 05:01:09 PM »
Okay, it's been WAY too long since I saw Pearl Harbor for me to comment on details, so I'll concede this point.
But I still think the "bomb P.O.V." shot was stupid and I wish Cuba Gooding, jr had been killed (not nescessarily in the movie, though.).
Does it strike anyone else as funny that there has hardly been anything on this thread that was actually about "The Island."?
But I still think the "bomb P.O.V." shot was stupid and I wish Cuba Gooding, jr had been killed (not nescessarily in the movie, though.).
Does it strike anyone else as funny that there has hardly been anything on this thread that was actually about "The Island."?
127
Movies and TV / Re: review: The Island
« on: August 09, 2005, 10:36:37 PM »
Exactly. They were not functioning as an official part of the U.S. Military.
128
Movies and TV / Re: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
« on: August 08, 2005, 06:26:22 PM »
Ookla -
I agree with your point that it wasn't "spot on" to the book. truth be told, no book adaption ever has been. Even "The Lord of Ther Rings" made changes. I freely admit to being a complete hypocrite about keeping true to the source material, in that if I like the movie, I'm okay with the change, usually, and I don't, I'm not. In the case of "Charlie," the family aspect was completley made up, but I loved the way it played out, so I was fine with it. On the other hand, I HATEd "The Count of Monte Cristo," because I hated the way they gave it this contrived happy ending, and in doing so took away the whole point of the story, which was supposed to be about vengeance not changing anything, and the fact that when he had accomplished everything he set out to do, he still felt empty and alone. The whole "wait . . . turns out he's YOUR son" thing, as well as the have your cake and kill it two ending with him deciding not to kill Mondego, but then doing so when he attacked him, still makes me angry just thinking about it.
Sorry if I got a bit off topic.
I agree with your point that it wasn't "spot on" to the book. truth be told, no book adaption ever has been. Even "The Lord of Ther Rings" made changes. I freely admit to being a complete hypocrite about keeping true to the source material, in that if I like the movie, I'm okay with the change, usually, and I don't, I'm not. In the case of "Charlie," the family aspect was completley made up, but I loved the way it played out, so I was fine with it. On the other hand, I HATEd "The Count of Monte Cristo," because I hated the way they gave it this contrived happy ending, and in doing so took away the whole point of the story, which was supposed to be about vengeance not changing anything, and the fact that when he had accomplished everything he set out to do, he still felt empty and alone. The whole "wait . . . turns out he's YOUR son" thing, as well as the have your cake and kill it two ending with him deciding not to kill Mondego, but then doing so when he attacked him, still makes me angry just thinking about it.
Sorry if I got a bit off topic.
129
Movies and TV / Re: review: The Island
« on: August 08, 2005, 06:21:42 PM »
Where does that quote come from? I'm not questioning it's truthfullness, I'd just like to know. At the time the film was released, it was widley publicised that the idea of The American military did not have any pilots fighting with the British at the time that the movie portrayed, and writer Randall Wallace and Director Michael Bay admitted that they were taking atristic license and mucking about with history for the purposes of the story.
130
Movies and TV / Re: review: The Island
« on: August 08, 2005, 05:25:19 PM »
Hmm. Good argument. As always, your perpective is both interesting and insightful. I concede that it was relevent to the story of Pearl Harbor, and the two events were most certainly connected in real life. But were they connected enough for the smae pilots to be at both? The movie had already strained credibility with the whole plot about Affleck's character flying with the british, which was a completely made up scenario that historian agreed was ridiculous.
I guess my problem is that the movie was so caught up in the incredibly dull soap opera story that the attack on Pearl seemed almost tacked on. They were going for the "Titanic" effect, where it's about the characters, and they just happened to be there when it happened. But then it kind of shifted gears into being more about the war, which, giving how dull the characters were, is not a bad thing, but I felt that it made the thing feel almost like "Star Wars," where the three people tend to figure into every event of the war, and it just strained credibility to me. More the anything, my feelings on "Pearl Harbor" the movie come down to this: I sat through two hours of a boring love story with bad acting, and when it finally got to the interesting part, I just sat there for an hour and fifteen minutes trying to ignore the fact that I really had to go to the bathroom, and I just wanted it to get over. I've thought about giving the movie a second chance on DVD, but I just don't think I could sit through it again.
I guess my problem is that the movie was so caught up in the incredibly dull soap opera story that the attack on Pearl seemed almost tacked on. They were going for the "Titanic" effect, where it's about the characters, and they just happened to be there when it happened. But then it kind of shifted gears into being more about the war, which, giving how dull the characters were, is not a bad thing, but I felt that it made the thing feel almost like "Star Wars," where the three people tend to figure into every event of the war, and it just strained credibility to me. More the anything, my feelings on "Pearl Harbor" the movie come down to this: I sat through two hours of a boring love story with bad acting, and when it finally got to the interesting part, I just sat there for an hour and fifteen minutes trying to ignore the fact that I really had to go to the bathroom, and I just wanted it to get over. I've thought about giving the movie a second chance on DVD, but I just don't think I could sit through it again.
131
Movies and TV / Re: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
« on: August 07, 2005, 01:46:25 AM »
Um . . . I'll have to read the book again before I can really agree or disagree with you on this one, but I understand your point, and I wasn't refering to your post, but rather other reviews that I've read that call it too dark.
132
Movies and TV / Re: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
« on: August 06, 2005, 11:31:17 AM »
I agree that it was a brilliant book from movie adaptation, Akeyata. I for one am getting really sick of hearing people talk about it being too dark, as opposed to the Gene Wilder version. For crying out loud, that one featured a shot of a live chicken getting it's head cut off. I love the new ending, and I left this movie feeling realy good, which is rare thing with movies anymore.
133
Movies and TV / Re: review: The Island
« on: August 05, 2005, 05:32:19 PM »
I see your point, Skar, and never having been in a war myself, so the best I have to go off of is my dad's Vietnam experience, which has it's lighter side (in fact, most of what I've heard is the lighter side - the other stuff he won't talk about.). When I mentioned portraying war as romantic, I was speaking in terms of "romanticism" than literal romance between people.
My perception of the movie was somewhat slanted by hearing people walking out of the movie making comments like: "Yeah, well, we sure showed those Japs when we dropped the bomb." A good friend of mine made an excellent documentary film called "Genbaku Shi (Killed by the Bomb) about his father, who was one of first American soldiers into Hiroshima after the bomb was dropped, and the horrors that he witnessed, and the imagery of that film will be burned into my mind forever. I'm not commenting on whether or not the dropping of atomic bomb was nescesary, but it was one of the worst events in the history of mankind.
I have no problem with movies that show lighter, even humorous moments in war. "M*A*S*H is one of my favorite tv shows of all time, and "Three Kings" is one of my favorite war films. In both cases I love the balance between humor and drama.
The attack on Pearl wasn't portrayed as a victory, but I just thought it had too much of a "Top Gun" thrill ride feel. It was tacked on attack on Tokyo that I really didn't feel was part of the story that I had such a problem with, because I felt like the film made it look like the Japanese killed people at Pearl, and the allied bombing of Tokyo was just fun and cool, and glossed over the fact that people were getting killed there, too. A war movie that I really admire is "We Were Soldiers," because of the way they portray both sides of the conflict.
Ultimately, I just didn't like "Pearl Harbor" the film because the acting and the dialogue were so silly.
My perception of the movie was somewhat slanted by hearing people walking out of the movie making comments like: "Yeah, well, we sure showed those Japs when we dropped the bomb." A good friend of mine made an excellent documentary film called "Genbaku Shi (Killed by the Bomb) about his father, who was one of first American soldiers into Hiroshima after the bomb was dropped, and the horrors that he witnessed, and the imagery of that film will be burned into my mind forever. I'm not commenting on whether or not the dropping of atomic bomb was nescesary, but it was one of the worst events in the history of mankind.
I have no problem with movies that show lighter, even humorous moments in war. "M*A*S*H is one of my favorite tv shows of all time, and "Three Kings" is one of my favorite war films. In both cases I love the balance between humor and drama.
The attack on Pearl wasn't portrayed as a victory, but I just thought it had too much of a "Top Gun" thrill ride feel. It was tacked on attack on Tokyo that I really didn't feel was part of the story that I had such a problem with, because I felt like the film made it look like the Japanese killed people at Pearl, and the allied bombing of Tokyo was just fun and cool, and glossed over the fact that people were getting killed there, too. A war movie that I really admire is "We Were Soldiers," because of the way they portray both sides of the conflict.
Ultimately, I just didn't like "Pearl Harbor" the film because the acting and the dialogue were so silly.
134
Books / Re: review: Half-Blood Prince
« on: July 31, 2005, 01:25:53 AM »
Yes, there are many things that Harry doesn't know that we don't - that is my point exactly, and that is the entire basis for the series - but this particular one just felt a little forced to me. That being said, I am LOVED the book. I am one the biggest fans the Harry Potter series has, so I am be no means belittling it. This particular plot point involved my favorite character, so it just felt a littel weird to me. By I am rereading the book right now, and I'm sure I will warm up to it.
Does that make everyone happy?
Does that make everyone happy?
135
Books / Re: review: Half-Blood Prince
« on: July 30, 2005, 11:47:55 AM »
I stand by my original phrasing. While only the one felt really forced, (and if Harry ddin't know about it, we didn't know about it, therefore it came out of nowhere to us, even if it had been building off the page), I still feel that she piled in a lot of them at once. But I see your point nonetheless.