What's the last movie you watched (2011)?

[Fung Koo]

Starship Troopers, not Storm Troopers! Getting your SF mixed up

You aren't alone with your observations of the film, but I can assure you that the logical gaps are actually there for a purpose (I wrote a thesis on the movie... I know agonizingly more about it than anyone alive aught to...).

Notice that the movie opens and closes with "commercials" -- all of which are geared toward propaganda. In fact, many scenes of the movie are shot-for-shot reproductions of Frank Capra's Why We Fight and Leni Riefenstahls Triumph of the Will propaganda films, American and Nazi respectively. Notice the commercial for the "planetary defense system" and then think back to original Reagon star wars missile defense system videos (Cold War era propaganda is also spattered throughout the flick).... The film is meant to be understood as an after-school-special kind of a propaganda piece for the society it depicts -- which makes it a pretty oblique kind of satire, but it's a satire nonetheless.

The logical gaps are meant to highlight the elision of crucial information and use of disinformation in media to promote war. The bug meteors are like the Iraqi WMD's, in other words. A bugbear.

Specifically, the meteor attack is most closely a reference to Pearl Harbor, and the Bugs, similarly, are a reference to the then-common (and still, largely) view of Asian cultures as a mindless, collective mass of low-tech, uneducated workers (the Arachnids from the film -- who you'll also note only have 6 legs).

For the meteor itself, notice that the film never shows how it's actually launched. It just "comes from that region space" -- the MI then lands at fort Joe Smith, which is a reference to the founder of the Golden Tablets, another specious piece of "information." From there you notice how the bugs live underground, and you get a reference to the Mound Builders, which is part of the whole Mormon pseudohistory of the peoples of the American continent that the film is using as a backdrop about colonialism -- the original residents living in the place where the American settlers were busily trying to occupy, leading to a whole raft of strange beliefs amongst Frontier settlers that in places continue to this day about the natives.

Simply put, the point is, the meteor is the justification for war. It isn't real. The references that make that apparent are a little oblique, hence the generally negative reaction to the film. Like they say, a joke ain't fuunny if you have to explain it.

But it was all on purpose.

---

Anyway...

Just watched "There Will Be Blood" tonight. Like all PTA movies, it suffers from a bit of pointlessness, but brilliant, immaculate pointlessness.

[NickeeCoco]

Has anyone seen The Eagle? If so,what's your take? I'm interested, but I don't want to waste my money on another Alexander.

[MattNY]

Starship Troopers, not Storm Troopers! Getting your SF mixed up

You aren't alone with your observations of the film, but I can assure you that the logical gaps are actually there for a purpose (I wrote a thesis on the movie... I know agonizingly more about it than anyone alive aught to...).

Notice that the movie opens and closes with "commercials" -- all of which are geared toward propaganda. In fact, many scenes of the movie are shot-for-shot reproductions of Frank Capra's Why We Fight and Leni Riefenstahls Triumph of the Will propaganda films, American and Nazi respectively. Notice the commercial for the "planetary defense system" and then think back to original Reagon star wars missile defense system videos (Cold War era propaganda is also spattered throughout the flick).... The film is meant to be understood as an after-school-special kind of a propaganda piece for the society it depicts -- which makes it a pretty oblique kind of satire, but it's a satire nonetheless.

The logical gaps are meant to highlight the elision of crucial information and use of disinformation in media to promote war. The bug meteors are like the Iraqi WMD's, in other words. A bugbear.

Specifically, the meteor attack is most closely a reference to Pearl Harbor, and the Bugs, similarly, are a reference to the then-common (and still, largely) view of Asian cultures as a mindless, collective mass of low-tech, uneducated workers (the Arachnids from the film -- who you'll also note only have 6 legs).

For the meteor itself, notice that the film never shows how it's actually launched. It just "comes from that region space" -- the MI then lands at fort Joe Smith, which is a reference to the founder of the Golden Tablets, another specious piece of "information." From there you notice how the bugs live underground, and you get a reference to the Mound Builders, which is part of the whole Mormon pseudohistory of the peoples of the American continent that the film is using as a backdrop about colonialism -- the original residents living in the place where the American settlers were busily trying to occupy, leading to a whole raft of strange beliefs amongst Frontier settlers that in places continue to this day about the natives.

Simply put, the point is, the meteor is the justification for war. It isn't real. The references that make that apparent are a little oblique, hence the generally negative reaction to the film. Like they say, a joke ain't fuunny if you have to explain it.

But it was all on purpose.

---

Anyway...

Just watched "There Will Be Blood" tonight. Like all PTA movies, it suffers from a bit of pointlessness, but brilliant, immaculate pointlessness.

Awesome insight man, thanks for sharing that.

[Chuffalump]

Megamind

Brilliant in every way!

[Hobbit]

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (and, I guess they forgot to mention, 1 gal!).

I really shouldn't like anything about this movie. Really. And there's a lot I don't, it defies logic and sense. And it's not a patch on the graphic novel.

But having seen it a couple of times now, I must be having a weak moment: there are parts I quite liked....

Mark

[Seak]

Finally saw The Other Guys. I don't know why this got such terrible reviews. I loved it. So hilarious and so many good quotes. Will Farrell's a genius and Mark Wahlberg was pretty funny himself.

[Loerwyn]

Megamind

Brilliant in every way!

Aww I wanted to see that for my birthday but we saw Monsters instead.

I'll have to buy it when I get chance, then!

[JunkMonkey]

Murder Party (2007) - I'm not a great modern horror fan so quite why I was watching a movie with someone holding two chainsaws on the front cover I'm not quite sure. Murder Party is a low/no budget horror/comedy that is almost funny in places. The plot is simple: a traffic warden finds an invitation to a Hallowe'en 'Murder Party' and decides to go. As soon as he arrives he is pounced upon by all the other guests who turn out to be an art collective in need of a victim for an artwork. It's a neat reversal of the usual low/no budget horror formula (take a bunch of teenagers to a deserted place and kill them off one by one). Here we have one victim and lots of killers. Things start to go wrong for our hero's captors when one of them has an allergic reaction to the non-organic raisins in his pumpkin cake and dies. Over the course of the evening the other 'artists', and several bystanders get themselves bumped off, in a variety of gory ways leaving our hero to go home. It almost works.

[Corporal Blues]

Saw True Grit last weekend. Solid western. Jeff Bridges is brilliant, and the young girl was also great. Matt Damon left a bit to be desired, but overall I liked the film a lot.

[saintjon]

Same here. I really liked Matt Damon too he was much better than the guy who played Mr. LeBeef in the older version. I liked the ending too which I felt was most likely closer to the book than the older version. That wilderness doctor was one of the most eerie characters I've seen in a long time.

[JunkMonkey]

Star Trek TNG: The Best of Both Worlds (1990) - every now and then I like to torture myself with a Star Trek movie. I've no idea why; I know they're tedious predictable **** even before I open the box, and, unlike most bad movies which are all unpredictably bad in their own special ways, Star Trek movies are all bad in the same ways. All so tediously predictable and uninvolving that it's like watching furniture being rearranged in someone else's house. Every now and then your hosts will stop and ask, "What do you think?" and you just have to be honest and say you can't tell the difference from the last time - though you suspect maybe they swapped the sofas around.
Star Trek TNG: The Best of Both Worlds was even more shittierly predictable and tedious than usual because it turned out to be a 'made for TV movie' cobbled together out of two regular episodes. That'll teach me to read the small print a little more closely in future. In this one the Enterprise meets the Borg again and Jean Luc P is captured and Borgified and everyone gets to recalibrate everything from the warp containment core to the kitchen toaster, and Jonathan Frakes (Ryker) gets more slow dolly shots looking stern and decisive than any man in the history of episodic TV. And as most of these shots were done from a low angle to make him look heroic, we spent an awful lot of the 'movie's' running time staring up his nostrils. At least it made a change from watching him looking smug which is Frakes' other stock in trade pose.
At one point Patrick Stewart made a weird noise just before he spoke a line which had all the hallmarks of a bit of real acting escaping onto the screen. It was very lonely.

[3rdI]

Prince of Persia...wow it was bad. The only thing that got my attention was the stunningly gorgeous Gemma Arterton.

[DurzoBlint]

Prince of Persia...wow it was bad. The only thing that got my attention was the stunningly gorgeous Gemma Arterton.

It was an entertaining 2 hours. No where near an Academy award but considering it was a video game first it was one of the better of the video game movies I have seen.

I consider it a popcorn flick. It kept me entertained for two hours but going into it I knew it wasn't winning any awards.

[3rdI]

It was an entertaining 2 hours. No where near an Academy award but considering it was a video game first it was one of the better of the video game movies I have seen.

I consider it a popcorn flick. It kept me entertained for two hours but going into it I knew it wasn't winning any awards.

I could watch Gemma Arterton do anything for two hours so I can't say I disagree with you

[DurzoBlint]

I could watch Gemma Arterton do anything for two hours so I can't say I disagree with you

She is easy on the eyes.