irish_angel Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 (edited) My Bloody Valentine (2009 version) and Push Edited May 9, 2009 by irish_angel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmasi Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 I called my friend and asked her if she wanted to see Star Trek with me tonight. (Yes, I know, I'm ... I'm... becoming a Trekkie!! ) She said she's going with her mum for mother's day tomorrow. (Her' mum's a fan.) Then she asked me, "Who does Karl Urban play? Spock?" and I said, "Uh... no. Karl Urban plays Dr McCoy. Zachery Quinto plays Spock." And then... she said something very hurtful. She said... "Oh, I don't care about Spock then." And I, once I could find the words, said: "But... but he's Sylar!" "...Who?" "... !" Then I told her that I was deeply wounded, and didn't know what else to say. It's official. I'll have to cut her out of my life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmasi Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 I... Star Trek Thirteen of my dollars - gone! I don't think I'm going to stop at seeing it twice either. I will have to wait until I have some more cash... but... It's okay, I don't need to eat for a while... Kim looks so hot when he's holding the lives of 800 people in his hands... (It's okay, I can say that, it's on the ads.) *Sigh.* Sylar looks so hot when he's crushing the life out of Kim's son... Not sure if that's in the ads, but... hot. Yes, I have problems. Many, varied, disturbing problems... Sylar should use the Xena Pinch more often. (Yes, I know the Vulcan's had it first. Don't panic, I'm making a joke due to the close proximity of Karl Urban, aka Cupid, aka Caesar, aka Xena's mortal nemesis.) I know Uhura's supposed to be black but, seriously, Lucy Lawless so could have played that... Think of the Spock/Uhura shenanigans! *Quivers with excitement.* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traceve Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 My Bloody Valentine (2009 version) I'm thinking about seeing that when it's out here, was it any good? The last movie I saw was Loving Annabelle, just for something different. But in my defense I hadn't seen it in 3 weeks. I need to stop watching it twice a month. But it's so good!! Before that I watched The Lizze McGuire movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Known as FKAJ Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 It did not escape my notice either that Jim is one letter away from Kim. Literally one letter. J precedes K in the alphabet. Think about it. You do know that Kirk's father was George, right? I SO want to see this. I have to be in Hamilton, (where it isn't showing thanks to Wolverine) recovering from orthodontal surgery the weekend it comes out. If you are becoming a Trekkie, I feel obliged to recommend some movies: Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan (If possible, watch the episode Space Seed first) Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Star Trek: First Contact (Watch the Best of Both Worlds first) And possibly: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (Both work best after watching the Wrath of Khan) Star Trek Generations Star Trek Nemesis (A lot of people hate it but I think it's among the better stories. Feel free to avoid: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Overlong and boring) Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (William Shatner ego-trip) Star Trek: Insurrection (Picard-Data HMS Pinafore duet in the middle of a space battle. I am not making this up) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish_angel Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 My Bloody Valentine (2009 version) I'm thinking about seeing that when it's out here, was it any good? I actually enjoyed it which isn't like me as i usually hate remakes. You should definitley give it a go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmasi Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 It did not escape my notice either that Jim is one letter away from Kim. Literally one letter. J precedes K in the alphabet. Think about it. You do know that Kirk's father was George, right? Yes, I was referring to Jim Kirk... Kim's son... Anyway... As far as becoming a Trekkie goes, I have a loose plan to borrow the original series from a friend. I'm not looking to get into all the various incarnations (maybe Next Generation for Patrick Stewart, but I doubt it), and unless the movies slot in with the series, I probably won't go looking for them either. I'm sure they're good, but I don't have a lot of commitment to pure technological, alien/space-based sci-fi. I prefer Earth-based, mutation and magic-based sci-fi. I'd only be giving the TV series of Star Trek a go based on four actors who I've seen and enjoyed in other things since: William Shatner, George Takei, Leonard Nimoy, and Nichelle Nichols. Two of whom were in Heroes, just like that delightful Zachary Quinto. Of course, it could all be a spell that the movie has cast on me, and it may well be that the movie alone will truly hold my interest. There are just so many people in it that I love. It's like a miracle that's exists just for me, and I don't know what magical thing I could have done to deserve it. Perhaps backtracking the series would be like looking a gift-horse in the mouth. Besides which, if I do end up liking the series, I'll only want to discuss it on the internet, and that's like... like... um... uhhh.... watching an episode of Scrubs, and then walking into a hospital and trying to diagnose the patients...? In short, I'd have no business there, and would get my lungs ripped out for making jokes of the "Kim and Jim" variety. That is not my world. I should stay away from it. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to think this through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmasi Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 (edited) Wolf Creek. Now, maybe it was heavily, HEAVILY edited for TV, but that was the first time I'd seen it, and I can't say I was impressed with it at all. The characters were inane, the script (if there was one) was pointless, and the horror, after taking an hour to get going, made no sense whatsoever. I hate movies like that, where it's just blood for the sake of blood. Bad things like that happen in the real world, sure, but presenting them without any sense of motivation or insight - only being interested in creating knee-jerk prejudices and largely ungrounded fear in an audience - is what the news is for. If you're going to make a character who kills people for fun, tell me why he thinks it's fun. Tell me why he would chase a girl down, shoot out her tires, and then shoot her in the back, instead of taking her back to his place and raping her some more like he apparently planned to do in the first place. Ongoing sexual gratification is a legitimate, biological/psychological motive. Killing an easy source of it, after going to so much trouble to seek it out, makes no logical sense at all. Unless it all comes back to the line of, "I'm doing people a favour, getting rid of the kangaroos. There's too many of them out here, just like tourists." Okay, wow, so I found his one-dimensional motive. Woo-hoo! He could have done that without raping and torturing them, but then, where would all the "cool" blood come from ? I'm ashamed as an Australian to realise that this is one of our "greatest" theatrical exports. Thank god we were responsible for the original Saw movie. We have SOME well-earned street-cred in the Horror genre there. Wolf Creek... apart from the overtly realistic acting - meaning that it was so well acted, I felt like I actually was watching a group of pointless, irritating, idiotic d***heads who had no business wasting other people's oxygen, let alone expecting me to care whether they live or die, when they don't even care enough themselves about that to put on a seat belt, or stop chain-smoking and binge-drinking, or insulting weird strangers... apart from that, and the fact that the cinematography was nice... It has to be creeping up towards Texas Chainsaw Massacre territory. Not really as bad, because the circumstances of Wolf Creek are at least believable, even if no-one involved with the movie thought it was necessary explain why it was believable, or why I should care if d***heads are the only victims of outback serial killers these days... but... Jesus, I wasted two hours of my life watching it, and another twenty minutes ranting about how bad it was. Terrible. Just terrible. I can't believe it ever rated with anyone. EDIT: And another thing! The whole point of the story was revealed in the last minute or so, through post-script summaries! NONE of that was actually explored in the action or dialogue of the movie! So the story actually was there, but they chose to ignore it in favour of, you guessed it, blood for blood's sake. Man I could take that movie back to the editing room and get a half-decent story out of it. As is, it's barely an 8th-decent... So frustrating, since it was all there, they just chose to handle it like... well like John Jarrett with a tied up victim. Hacking and prodding, saying nothing of consequence and getting nowhere interesting in the process. Just a whole lot of blood and nothing else to show for it. And not seeming to care about that one bit... People should need a license before inflicting these sorts of movies upon the world. A license and a professional guidance-counselor to make sure that the movie has a point, and that that point is realised by all involved. It hurts to think that money was wasted on that movie, and that cinematographer, when both could have been used so much more wisely. Edited May 9, 2009 by emmasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Lynd~ Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 (edited) Wolf Creek. Now, maybe it was heavily, HEAVILY edited for TV, but that was the first time I'd seen it, and I can't say I was impressed with it at all. The characters were inane, the script (if there was one) was pointless, and the horror, after taking an hour to get going, made no sense whatsoever. I hate movies like that, where it's just blood for the sake of blood. Bad things like that happen in the real world, sure, but presenting them without any sense of motivation or insight - only being interested in creating knee-jerk prejudices and largely ungrounded fear in an audience - is what the news is for. If you're going to make a character who kills people for fun, tell me why he thinks it's fun. Tell me why he would chase a girl down, shoot out her tires, and then shoot her in the back, instead of taking her back to his place and raping her some more like he apparently planned to do in the first place. Ongoing sexual gratification is a legitimate, biological/psychological motive. Killing an easy source of it, after going to so much trouble to seek it out, makes no logical sense at all. Unless it all comes back to the line of, "I'm doing people a favour, getting rid of the kangaroos. There's too many of them out here, just like tourists." Okay, wow, so I found his one-dimensional motive. Woo-hoo! He could have done that without raping and torturing them, but then, where would all the "cool" blood come from ? I'm ashamed as an Australian to realise that this is one of our "greatest" theatrical exports. Thank god we were responsible for the original Saw movie. We have SOME well-earned street-cred in the Horror genre there. Wolf Creek... apart from the overtly realistic acting - meaning that it was so well acted, I felt like I actually was watching a group of pointless, irritating, idiotic d***heads who had no business wasting other people's oxygen, let alone expecting me to care whether they live or die, when they don't even care enough themselves about that to put on a seat belt, or stop chain-smoking and binge-drinking, or insulting weird strangers... apart from that, and the fact that the cinematography was nice... It has to be creeping up towards Texas Chainsaw Massacre territory. Not really as bad, because the circumstances of Wolf Creek are at least believable, even if no-one involved with the movie thought it was necessary explain why it was believable, or why I should care if d***heads are the only victims of outback serial killers these days... but... Jesus, I wasted two hours of my life watching it, and another twenty minutes ranting about how bad it was. Terrible. Just terrible. I can't believe it ever rated with anyone. EDIT: And another thing! The whole point of the story was revealed in the last minute or so, through post-script summaries! NONE of that was actually explored in the action or dialogue of the movie! So the story actually was there, but they chose to ignore it in favour of, you guessed it, blood for blood's sake. Man I could take that movie back to the editing room and get a half-decent story out of it. As is, it's barely an 8th-decent... So frustrating, since it was all there, they just chose to handle it like... well like John Jarrett with a tied up victim. Hacking and prodding, saying nothing of consequence and getting nowhere interesting in the process. Just a whole lot of blood and nothing else to show for it. And not seeming to care about that one bit... People should need a license before inflicting these sorts of movies upon the world. A license and a professional guidance-counselor to make sure that the movie has a point, and that that point is realised by all involved. It hurts to think that money was wasted on that movie, and that cinematographer, when both could have been used so much more wisely. I watched it to and while i wouldn't put it as strongly you i do agree with parts of what you've said.It took forever to start yet by the end i was wanting it to finish.I would've thought it was much better if we had some kind of insight as to why he did what he did.He just seemed to aimlessly terrorise them for an hour before finally killing them.It was supposed to be based on a true story but i think they shoul've left it alone.The bodies were never found so we don't know for sure what happened to them.They had to let their one suspect go due to lack of evidence and the survivors mental state.It was a huge injustice to the families,all for something that didn't make much sence. Edited May 10, 2009 by ~Lynd~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmasi Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 ^Yeah, I think I overreacted a bit. I have seen a lot worse movies. I'm struggling to think of one with less of a plot though. It's just that after listening to the hype for years, thinking that I've missed out on something important, and then finding out that it really is nothing, I felt pretty cheated. I suppose that's not really the movie's fault, but the promoters and an inexplicably positive audience response. *Shrug.* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.