What MOVIE(s) have you been....seeing? watching?

craniac wrote:

Dan Lamb wrote: Watching Civil War I began to get the feeling that the Cap's face was CG for a lot of the film. Same with Spidey. Their normal unmasked faces. Anyone see it?

They didn't use CGI to make him skinny, they used it to bulk him up.

In the original CapAm, it was used to make him skinny. In Civil War, though, you mean? Could be. I thought the CG was a bit much, in general. Some of the fighting just looked too fake.

Are they using CGI over faces as a new way of filming stunt doubles for action sequences? That must be what's happening.

Grudunza wrote:

craniac wrote:

Dan Lamb wrote: Watching Civil War I began to get the feeling that the Cap's face was CG for a lot of the film. Same with Spidey. Their normal unmasked faces. Anyone see it?

They didn't use CGI to make him skinny, they used it to bulk him up.

In the original CapAm, it was used to make him skinny. In Civil War, though, you mean? Could be. I thought the CG was a bit much, in general. Some of the fighting just looked too fake.

I was just making a weak joke, because it would be funny to have an action hero who was 98 lbs. in real life. But not that funny.

Black Barney wrote: Are they using CGI over faces as a new way of filming stunt doubles for action sequences? That must be what's happening.

Maybe. Or they are letting us get accustomed to seeing the characters this way so they can include them in the future without having to ever shoot principle photography. Or show that the kid playing Spidey looks older before they want him to. Anyway it was the one distracting element of the film for me.

craniac wrote: I was just making a weak joke, because it would be funny to have an action hero who was 98 lbs. in real life. But not that funny.

Kinda like Michael Cera in Scott Pilgrim.

Sometimes movies digitally remove acne breakouts from actors faces.

Now, I'm not even going to sit here and try to defend Jupiter Ascending, y'all's minds are made up about it. And most of the criticism certainly isn't without a foundation, it is a deeply problematic film for sure.

BUT I LIKED IT.

Here's the thing that struck me the most about it. It is TOTALLY a Heavy Metal/Metal Hurlant style story, and it is the old "Earth person winds up inculcated in some kind of cosmic goings-on, is revealed to be the savior/chosen one/leader" story to the bone. But there is a HUGE difference that I think got overlooked by most audiences.

This is quite possibly the only big-budget space opera movie that is almost completely from a female point of view. More than that, she's really just kind of a regular, ordinary girl- not some kind of male fantasy warrior or whatever. John Carter winds up with Deja Thoris, Jupiter winds up with Channing Tatum. It's heavy on the romantic element, but the female perspective extends to other genre elements. Like the body horror bit with the aliens at the fertility clinic. And the themes of aging, beauty, eternal youth, and sacrificing things to achieve these. Things that in general resonate more with women than men.

Naturally, this probably didn't register so much with the boys, so to speak. But I am kind of surprised the film didn't find more traction with the post-Twilight/Hunger Games crowd or teenage/young adult girls in general who want to see more genre fare that isn't so damn boyish. This is totally a sci-fi chick flick, all the way. Maybe there needs to be more of them.

I also really liked how fucking TO THE HILT the whole thing was. This shit was AUDACIOUS. The Wachowskis are the only directors working with this kind of money (which is still runoff enabled by The Matrix) that are just completely fearless. They do not give a shit about compromise. Cloud Atlas and Speed Racer were like this too, just totally balls out, ride it 'til the wheels fall off stuff. The tradeoff for that kind of abandon is that it doesn't always work, and there is a lot in Jupiter Ascending that definitely doesn't work. But it's so singular, I find it hard to really fault them for trying. They aimed astronomically high with some of these concepts, and quite frankly I would rather see the Wachowskis fail spectacularly than watch another Transformers film. People say that they want "new ideas" and "new concepts" in genre film instead of rehash...well, here it is folks!j

It's total pulp, and if you take it too seriously (animal people, dragon people...I mean come on) you're going to completely check out. But really, this film by design has more in common with Flash Gordon than Star Wars. Or The Fifth Element for that matter. That film was grossly misunderstood when it came in 1997, and I wonder if time will reveal this to be a sort of cult item too. The camp value is THICK in this one. I mean, do you really think Eddie Redmayne's awesomely ham performance wasn't something that they were joking about between takes?

So I guess I am defending it, flying rollerblades and all. It's definitely a weird, awkward mess but it's also more fearless than just about any other SF movie released in recent years.

Go back and read my review in this thread (way back, saw in theaters). I had similar feelings. It is a serious piece of shit but I enjoyed it because the visual style was original and the universe was dumb but also pretty creative. Not super derivative. It's the same reason why Chronicles of Riddivk is shitty but still good.

It is the exact, polar opposite of the marvel films and I would rather watch it every day of the week over the avengers/iron man stuff.

Edit: fuck, why not, here was my post a year and a half ago:

"I saw Jupiter Ascending last night. I'll just get it out of the way before I say some nice things about it. It's a bad movie in the way that all the Wachowski movies have been. In particular, the script is beyond wooden and the characters barely appear to relate to each other onscreen. There is no chemistry between any of the actors. The main characters are horribly cast and aren't great actors in the first place.

But... it has its positive traits. The movie it most reminded me of was Chronicles of Riddick, though I liked that movie a bit better. In particular, Jupiter Ascending is a totally sincere movie without a shred of irony or wink wink in it. It's probably the least self aware film I've seen in years. Earnest. It is straight ahead sci fi in a world of the writer/director's imagination. And there's something cool about that. The visuals are excellent and the worldbuilding is fun. In a lot of ways it reminds me of all the sci-fi movies I used to watch that weren't top tier Star Wars material. It's a genre film with a big budget. So it sucks, but there are a lot of reasons to go see it if you like genre sci fi.

And it has dinosaurs in it."

Yeah, that is right on the money. And it does remind me in a lot of ways of Chronicles of Riddick.

The sincerity is really a big deal, and it's part of how this movie comes across as ambitious and gutsy even when it's struggling. The Wachowskis LOVE high concept material- lots of BIG ideas- but they don't always deliver. But the result is that it doesn't feel as safe as a Marvel film. It's wilder and more unpredictable. And there is actually NEW stuff in it, even if it is working off a couple of archetypes/antecedents that are familiar. Even the bit with the dinosaurs...I was like "WTF!?" but it was so committed to ideas like that without ONCE jabbing you in the ribs and saying "heh heh, we know this is crap". It's honest and never smug about having animal people in it.

I've actually really been wanting to watch this. I tend to favor genre flicks that are honest labors of love by their creators, but seem to fail to find a big audience. John Carter, Automata and Doomsday come to mind.

Is it on Netflix? Good for a nine year old?

Been awhile, but I remember it being shockingly wholesome (but strange).

No. My memory of it was that it was fine and I have a 9 year old who likes weird stuff like this, so had been thinking she could watch it. Then one night it was on tv and we flipped over to it in the middle of it to give her a taste and it was in the middle of an orgy sequence that was not appropriate for her.

The difference between CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK and JUPITER ASCENDING is that one is a good movie, well-paced; and the other is a cringey thrown together mess of a film. Mila Kunis is a good actress, but she frigging sucked in this. I don't know if it was the material or direction, but she was awwwwwfulllll. Awful. Everything was a beat too slow, except for the action scenes, which were too fast. I couldn't tell what was going on in any ship-flying scene, all the motion blur made it impossible to tell. Not that I had enuogh invested in anyone to care.

Two issues at work here:

1. Sci-Fi movies get a pass. This needs to stop.
2. Wachowskis can't be edited anymore. When edited? BOUND. THE MATRIX. When not, the sequels. This turd.

Yeah, what the hell is going on here ?? Maybe it's the booze talking but you guys sound fucking retarded.

Mikes point is that movie is clearly fearless but that’s not always a good thing, in fact it rarely is. I think with a bit more conventional thinking and vetting of ideas, it could have been way better. I don't want a movie that plays it too safe either but this one just feels like they didn’t give s shit able anything. M. Night Shyamalan type of Arrogance

Just keep checking rotten tomatoes for the "best" movies, then, I guess.