Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Apr 1, 2015 21:17:35 GMT -5
I doubt many have.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,647
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Apr 1, 2015 21:18:57 GMT -5
Wooo! Sci-Fi talk with Jibbs is back! Also DOFP rules.
|
|
Deexan
CS! Silver
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,196
Likes: 2,995
Location:
Last Online Nov 13, 2021 19:23:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Deexan on Apr 2, 2015 3:56:04 GMT -5
Ex Machina?
|
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Apr 2, 2015 17:26:38 GMT -5
|
|
Deexan
CS! Silver
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,196
Likes: 2,995
Location:
Last Online Nov 13, 2021 19:23:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Deexan on Apr 10, 2015 20:20:32 GMT -5
Looking forward to your verdict.
|
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Apr 16, 2015 18:35:35 GMT -5
I Origins
Directed by: Mike Cahill Written by: Mike Cahill Starring: Michael Pitt, Steven Yeun, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey
I Origins is a film directed by Mike Cahill, director of Another Earth from 2011. Actually, it's about as much science fiction as Another Earth was, in that there are definite sci-fi happenings, but it doesn't usually feel like sci-fi. It's much more drama, romance, and fantasy. It's about a couple scientists who are trying to trace the lineage of eyesight among species. One of the larger arguments against evolution is that "there is no way the eyeball couldn't be intelligent design," so these two are trying to find a species without eyesight that has the gene for the first "level" of eyesight, hence "eye origins." But this is a mere backstory to a strong theme of science verses spirituality, and reincarnation. As the film progresses, there starts to be evidence for reincarnation that can be found by unique eye scans between individuals across the world. This whole aspect of it really interested me because I'm always a fan of heavy, seemingly-impossible, subjects being given scientific consideration.
It's a pretty great trip and I like how they handled the ending. Also, be SURE to stay after the credits if you watch it.
***/****
Sci-fi talk with Jibbs
This is one of those movies that reminds me of the amusing line between science fiction and fantasy. You stick a ghost in a movie and it’s supernatural. You explain it with futuristic soul catchers and higher dimensions, suddenly it’s science fiction. And even more, if you’re like me, suddenly it’s PLAUSIBLE.
Now this film doesn’t use technology to have us consider reincarnation, but it does use it in a realistic and relatable setting that probes those same neurons in my head that make me ask “what if?” And I really enjoy that. There shouldn’t be any limit to science fiction.
|
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Apr 16, 2015 18:40:13 GMT -5
Edge of Tomorrow
Directed by: Doug Liman Written by: Christopher McQuarrie and Jez Butterworth & John-Henry Butterworth Based on a novel by: Hiroshi Sakurazaka ("All You Need Is Kill")
Starring: Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, Brendan Gleeson
Edge of Tomorrow is a thrill ride of a movie with just the right amount of setting change, action, and science fiction. It's also a pretty funny film, but perhaps too much. That's not to say the jokes aren't good, they are, but I personally would have gone for a darker tone with a movie about an appending apocalypse. While the amount of science fiction is refreshingly sparse (some people don't like to be talked at for a whole movie like Inception, though I do), at the end of the day this is where the plot holes are the largest. If minor-to-medium time travel plot holes don't bother you, than don't worry about it.
The action is top of the line without the oversaturation of CG invading action scenes and superfluous technological displays and consoles. The aliens themselves are a bit "busy," think Transformers, but their design and motions are still pretty cool.
The thing this movie does the best though is the structure of the complicated plot. Just like with Groundhog Day, you have to know just how much to show on that first day, the second day, and how little you can get away with showing once Cage (Tom Cruise) starts to get a hang of this time loop business. Because it's not just the main plot this movie has to deal with, but characters arcs as well.
This movie never reaches the level of brilliance I'm always hoping for in a highly anticipated science fiction film, but besides the cock-up, super-happy ending, there are no major problems with the movie.
***.5/****
Sci-fi talk with Jibbs
It probably sounds like nitpicking, but seriously, a movie CAN involve time travel and make sense. This movie fudges up the ending and hopes we don’t notice. Why does sharing the blood send him back in time after death? And at the end, why does it send him back further, but at the same time bring him to a world where the mimics are strategically impotent? They forced a happy ending is why.
Speaking of nitpicking, why did so many people chastise this movie right off the bat for having a similar plot as Groundhog Day? This movie is nothing like Groundhog Day, but most of all: Who the fuck cares? You don’t get brownie points for recognizing the Groundhog Day plot or that Hunger Games and Battle Royale have kids fighting to the death without someone telling you.
|
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Apr 16, 2015 18:45:52 GMT -5
The Congress
Directed by: Ari Folman Written by: Ari Folman Based on the novel by: Stanislaw Lem Starring: Robin Wright, Harvey Keitel, Jon Hamm
I knew very little about this movie going into it, so this movie took me for quite a ride. I had even forgotten that half the movie is animated. I don't want to give away just how deep this movie goes, so I'll explain the premise. Robin Wright plays "herself," an actress who is reaching the end of her disappointing career, a career of missed chances that is now being cut short because she's "not pretty enough." So, she takes a deal that allows her digital image to be bought by Miramount (heh heh) so she can be used in movies forever, forever young. The catch is, she has to stay out of the limelight for the rest of her life. In this first act alone the movie is already touching on some interesting themes about women in film and the direction technology is taking cinema. But then twenty years go by and suddenly, the world is a very different place. And that's when it gets very sci-fi. New themes emerge about the limits of human expression and social media. The movie is fresh and rich with ideas, but it never seems like they're being crammed in. I've heard complaints about this film that it's wish-washy and too avant-garde to make any sense, but it's not, the movie takes a very definable path, and it's amazing.
***.5/****
Sci-fi talk with Jibbs
For me, the film’s intellectual peak is the film’s examination of a virtual world and where, hypothetically, something like Facebook could take us to way in the future. Everywhere Robin goes she is surrounded by decadence or soapboxing or hedonism. Traits we attribute to the internet or its first-world users; certainly a world we could reach if our laziness at our computers merged with our online personas in a virtual playground. All of this leads to an amazingly powerful ending where, without a change in cinematography, the film goes from animation back to the real world. All of the people in tuxedos and dresses in the ball look like bums following a nuclear war. They’re just walking by without a care in the world as they live their glamorous life online. Keep in mind this juxtaposition is after about a full hour or more of trippy animation.
|
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Apr 16, 2015 18:56:35 GMT -5
The Stan Lee Award
Some people in the past have seemed disappointed that there was no award for superhero movies, so here you go. A pretty great year for it, too.
The 3rd runner up is...
Guardians of the Galaxy
A great and re-watchable film, and yet it only reaches fourth in the list.
The 2nd runner up is...
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
I liked this movie when it came out, but then I really liked it when I saw it again. More lazy finales, but just about everything else in this film is top notch.
The 1st runner up is...
Big Hero 6
Holy shocker, Batman!
Yes, I hold this movie in that high of regard. I've seen it four or five times, and it keeps coming out looking stronger.
And the winner of the Stan Lee award is...
X-Men: Days of Future Past
Holy shocker, Batman! [Sarcastic, this time]
And quiet frankly, one of my favorite comic book movies to date. The action, adventure, characters and epicnicity all shine brightly in this one.
|
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Apr 16, 2015 18:59:19 GMT -5
Seriously, what's wrong with this site? Now it's adding false hyperlinks to some of my ratings. And no, I can't even get rid of them.
|
|