Last movie watched...

[ThryllSeekyr]

Was Shrek a Pixar film?

I only enjoyed the first one of those, because it reminded me of what I saw in the Everquest MMO.

I don't really go in for their signature style though.

It's for family viewing , but not for me.

I saw How to Train Your Dragon as a freebie from problems I was having while seeing Avatar (More my kind of computer generated movie!) after I complained about some large guy sitting behind me pushing his legs up against the back of my chair and a small guy sitting in front of me kept turning around telling me to stop, because of what was happening behind me.  I eventually got up and left after yelling some random abuse at them as I was leaving.  I told the girl behind the counter and they offered to let my see the same film for free some other time. Yet, I didn't go to see Avatar again. 

I like films like that are almost photo real and use Mo-Capping to track the movement of characters for even more ......realism.

Like....

Polar Express (How about a nice up of Joe...)   

Beowulf

And some film about mothers being kidnapped by aliens. I'm sure it looked interesting.

As for those other films you like, I just don't like the candy coating.

[JudgeOiNK!]

Shrek was Dreamworks, yeah.  It was another series where I never liked the first sequel, but which got better again after it.  How to Train Your Dragon was great, very funny film and to me that's the most important part, the actual characters and story, rather than the animation.  By way of example The Polar Express didn't do it for me, yet the very simply animated (by comparison to Pixar and Dreamworks) Hoodwinked was a right hoot.

Wall-E was a film I chuckled to rather than laughing out loud, but I just adored the way so much communication was made with no words, it showed great skills to have such well written characters and to feel like you're getting to know them without them speaking.  Also was really surprised by the strong background narrative and think about it all the time when I see people buried in phones instead of communicating with the person they're physically with.  The film was like a warning about the future but hidden inside this cartoon.  Wonderful.

[von Boom]

Tomorrowland. No idea why this is getting hated on so much —
Jim

Agreed. I enjoyed Tomorrowland very much. It was fun and entertaining.

[Buttonman]

I saw an 'extended sneak peak' of Tomorrowland and it's didn't really appeal - seemed to be standard batting away lots of secret agents using gadgets. Mistake probably was having the whole preview before they got to the titular land.

Kept up my 'Full Fassbender' with Slow West which was a pretty good western with decent action and characters.

Sat through Into the Woods  with the wife last night. It was OK and looked nice but dragged on a bit and there wasn't a decent song in the whole thing.

Did enjoy Wolf Creek 2 on US Netflix - just enough gore and sadism without going OTT.

This morning I liked The Devil Thumbs a Ride starring Lawrence Tierney 50 odd years before he appeared in Reservoir Dogs.

[blackmocco]

Well, John Carter was originally supposed to be released under the Pixar banner ("Pixar's first live-action movie!"). Until Disney saw it and released it under their name instead to take the hit and keep Pixar's winning run.

Interesting take on it. Do you have any cites for that? I'm genuinely just curious because 1) your version assumes that John Carter is so bad that it's immediately identifiable as an irredeemable stinker on viewing, which I would dispute, and 2) the broad consensus I've heard/read is that JC lost a producer leaving no one to fight the movie's corner when Disney realised they could get their hands on Star Wars and didn't need two fantasy-SF franchises.

Cheers

Jim

Yeah, nothing concrete other than animation chatter (it's a small industry. I know a good bunch of people who work up at Pixar who were crowing about this being the first foray into live-action.) and the will-they won't-they chatter from the press back when it originally went into production. For example: http://www.slashfilm.com/john-carter-of-mars-to-be-pixars-first-live-action-film-bryan-cranston-joins-cast/

This is a pretty good article that touches upon the movie's not-inconsiderable difficulties to get made: http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html

Personally, I wouldn't say it was so bad. I just found it pretty dull in the end.

[Jim_Campbell]

This is a pretty good article that touches upon the movie's not-inconsiderable difficulties to get made: http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html

I've not read that one — it's a pretty damning account of Stanton's hubris bringing low his pet project. Much appreciated.

Cheers

Jim

[blackmocco]

This is a pretty good article that touches upon the movie's not-inconsiderable difficulties to get made: http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html

I've not read that one — it's a pretty damning account of Stanton's hubris bringing low his pet project. Much appreciated.

Cheers

Jim

Lot of pressure to follow in Brad Bird's footsteps. I've more sympathy than anything in the end. Can't imagine what an absolute horror it must be to try and make a huge budget live-action movie with a studio like Disney and Pixar breathing down your neck the whole time. "Don't fuck this up!" Oy.

Makes Fury Road look more and more like a beautiful oddity.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

John Carter was pretty good. Stanton's minor sin of not having any money shots for the first teaser probably didn't make any difference.

Several decent sci-fi action movies have bombed in the last few years (Serenity, that Karl Urban future cop thing, I forget what it was called), and what they all seem to have in common is a lack of either a big star or a recognizable brand for audiences to engage with.

Moral: if it's not a Star Trek / Star Wars / Mad Max sequel, hire Tom Cruise. Possibly.

[JudgeOiNK!]

John Carter was pretty good. Stanton's minor sin of not having any money shots for the first teaser probably didn't make any difference.

Several decent sci-fi action movies have bombed in the last few years (Serenity, that Karl Urban future cop thing, I forget what it was called), and what they all seem to have in common is a lack of either a big star or a recognizable brand for audiences to engage with.

Moral: if it's not a Star Trek / Star Wars / Mad Max sequel, hire Tom Cruise. Possibly.

Did that work for Jack Reacher though?

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

Did that work for Jack Reacher though?

Heh, I was more thinking of Oblivion and Edge of Tomorrow.

[blackmocco]

John Carter was pretty good. Stanton's minor sin of not having any money shots for the first teaser probably didn't make any difference.

Several decent sci-fi action movies have bombed in the last few years (Serenity, that Karl Urban future cop thing, I forget what it was called), and what they all seem to have in common is a lack of either a big star or a recognizable brand for audiences to engage with.

Moral: if it's not a Star Trek / Star Wars / Mad Max sequel, hire Tom Cruise. Possibly.

If that's the case, Guardians Of The Galaxy should have tanked. Marketing is key. You sell the idea properly, people will generally go see it. John Carter and Tomorrowland suffered from the same problem: The marketing seemed shapeless and didn't appeal to or interest the movie-going public. Go to youtube right now and watch their trailers up against GotG's or Fury Road's or JJ's Star Wars. If you can't grab people's interest in a trailer, you're pretty much fucked.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

If that's the case, Guardians Of The Galaxy should have tanked.

Good point, but Guardians did at least have Vin Diesel's star power the Marvel brand for people to latch onto.

[shaolin_monkey]

Whiplash - arrogant kid gets bullied by a teacher while playing drums. No likeable characters, very little story, lots of incredibly irritating drumming noises.

[ThryllSeekyr]

I saw an 'extended sneak peak' of Tomorrowland and it's didn't really appeal - seemed to be standard batting away lots of secret agents using gadgets. Mistake probably was having the whole preview before they got to the titular land.

Kept up my 'Full Fassbender' with Slow West which was a pretty good western with decent action and characters.

Sat through Into the Woods  with the wife last night. It was OK and looked nice but dragged on a bit and there wasn't a decent song in the whole thing.

Did enjoy Wolf Creek 2 on US Netflix - just enough gore and sadism without going OTT.

This morning I liked The Devil Thumbs a Ride starring Lawrence Tierney 50 odd years before he appeared in Reservoir Dogs.

I ordered that Into the Woods film weeks ago and never bothered to watch it properly, but have seen parts of it. Disappointed with the Johnny Depp-Wolf, but I guess his costume suited the fairy tale origins of this movie. Like how they wove the better known ones together.

[ThryllSeekyr]

John Carter was pretty good. Stanton's minor sin of not having any money shots for the first teaser probably didn't make any difference.

Several decent sci-fi action movies have bombed in the last few years (Serenity, that Karl Urban future cop thing, I forget what it was called), and what they all seem to have in common is a lack of either a big star or a recognizable brand for audiences to engage with.

Moral: if it's not a Star Trek / Star Wars / Mad Max sequel, hire Tom Cruise. Possibly.

I found the John Carter of Mars film entertaining and colourful, but ultimately forgettable. I think it seemed less epic because they shoved so much stuff into this one film instead of spreading it evenly over a trilogy and there is the over use of computer wizardry. I was looking forward to that one back in the day. Saw in in the city cinema  one evening after my daily attendance at computer course. The last time I was temporary student.  Would have love to have seen this treated with the same attention that given to the original Star Wars films and Conan the Barbarian.

You no what they say, not enough spit, too much polish.

Speaking of Karl Urban, I saw him in a pilot for a series (Last night/early this morning!) called Almost Human (If memory serves.) and in this, he is a plains clothes cop in a ever so slightly dystopian future. (Kind of like Continuum before Kiera got blown back to the past!) where is partnered with the latest version in line of synthetic (Human like Droid/Robots and possibly a nod to Alien) cops that strangely appears to be more robotic with each generation. He's doesn't like his partner and when it describes the bad taste in his mouth, care of it's heightened sense of smell. His unhuman syntax drives Urban to push him out of car they were patrolling on the busy highway to be completely wrecked by the traffic around them.  Then visits the Droid-Dealer (That freaky guy from Demons who got shot in the first episode. That was a show not worth watching either!) to get a replacement. Where we find out the early version Synthetics are more human. The latest ones are just too odd. I wouldn't be surprised if his new partner is just some dude pretending to be one of them. (Actually true behind the scenes ). Despite the intrigue, I switched the television off and went to sleep before it ended.

BTW, Happy-Birthday Karl Urban, your 43 now!