Last Movie You Watched.

[Hicks]

I don't see how you'd miss the Animals references.

uhhh, I didn't.  I want to see it again because it kicked ass.

[gimmetela]

chasing amy.  classic.

[rowjimmy]

uhhh, I didn't.  I want to see it again because it kicked ass.

oh, then... uh, I didn't mean you..?

  :oops:

I meant that other person.

you know...

that guy.

who missed it.

yeah.


him.






:oops:

[August]

Throat Yogurt #17.

It was ok.
Definitely nowhere near TY #12, but still a good yank.
The plot sucked, from the very start, you realized that she was gonna get it in the end, in the end.
a

[mattstick]

 :-D

I thought Children of Men was pretty mediocre, the plot felt unoriginal while the execution was brilliant.

[cactusfan]

Children of Man

wow. Terrific film.
The allusions to Pink Floyd's "Animals" were pretty exciting to see. We watched half the film on Friday Night and finished it Saturday after I played the album...

children of men is awesome.
best thing to come out in years, i thought.

[OctopusRider]

children of men is awesome.
best thing to come out in years, i thought.

I thought the trailer made it look boring as hell. I guess I'll have to rent it.

[Hicks]

oh, then... uh, I didn't mean you..?

  :oops:

I meant that other person.

you know...

that guy.

who missed it.

yeah.


him.






:oops:

:lol:  The single shot warzone scene at the end alone made it one of the best movies I've seen in recent years.  Throw in solid performances by Owen, Caine, and Moore and some poignant political/social commentary and you've got a great movie.  Although I am a big sci-fi dork.  Also I thought The Beach sucked, so what do I know?  Don't answer that.   :wink:

[rowjimmy]

That was hardly a sci-fi movie although it takes place in the future.

that tracking shot was thoroughly mind-blowing.

[OctopusRider]

Children Of Men was OK...

I got a kick out of the Animals references. The sheep at the end kind of pulled it all together. The Battersea Power Staion is always cool to see. Something about those 4 big smoke stacks. When I saw them up close a few years ago I started getting light headed. There wasn't even a pig in sight.

Freeda People (John Lennon) fit nicely too.

It was sort of Mad Maxish in a way. I wish they would have followed that genre a little more closely though and had less unnecessary dialogue. It seemed like there was a lot of rubbish lines. It could have been more surreal if they hadn't tried to reveal so much.

Still, it was OK. I'll probably watch it again sometime.

[cactusfan]

Children Of Men was OK...

It was sort of Mad Maxish in a way. I wish they would have followed that genre a little more closely though and had less unnecessary dialogue. It seemed like there was a lot of rubbish lines. It could have been more surreal if they hadn't tried to reveal so much.

that's odd. i thought one of its strengths was in a lack of needless expository dialogue. very little is overtly explained. but it's all laid out so well that you understand what's going on. or so i thought.

That was hardly a sci-fi movie although it takes place in the future.

what, then, is a sci-fi movie? spaceships and laser beams? seems like taking the present, extrapolating, and setting your story in that extrapolated future time is exactly what science fiction is. how does your definition differ?

[OctopusRider]

that's odd. i thought one of its strengths was in a lack of needless expository dialogue. very little is overtly explained. but it's all laid out so well that you understand what's going on. or so i thought.

I was just thinking while all the news men were sort of narrating the beginning it might have been more enjoyable and surreal if they left us guessing a little as to what was going on instead of laying it all on the table up front in the beginning of the film. While I was watching this I was thinking about Mad Max or 12 Monkeys and thinking how cool those were in that you were figuring it out as it went along. This movie brought the story to you on a TV dinner tray table and didn't leave any room for interpretation. At least that's the way I saw it.

what, then, is a sci-fi movie? spaceships and laser beams? seems like taking the present, extrapolating, and setting your story in that extrapolated future time is exactly what science fiction is. how does your definition differ?

I'll butt in here...

Star Wars is in the past. Is that not Science Fiction?  :wink: I don't think setting a story in the future has anything to do with the definition of science fiction. This might be too generic but I think science fiction simply means that it is untrue events or technology that can not be explained or possible by modern science (ie laser beams, spaceships, time machines, beaming...and...oh yes...the schwartz).

As a genre I guess this would go in with Futuristic/Apocalyptic. Is that a real title? I don't know but I guess it fits.

[cactusfan]

I was just thinking while all the news men were sort of narrating the beginning it might have been more enjoyable and surreal if they left us guessing a little as to what was going on instead of laying it all on the table up front in the beginning of the film. While I was watching this I was thinking about Mad Max or 12 Monkeys and thinking how cool those were in that you were figuring it out as it went along. This movie brought the story to you on a TV dinner tray table and didn't leave any room for interpretation. At least that's the way I saw it.

I'll butt in here...

Star Wars is in the past. Is that not Science Fiction?  :wink: I don't think setting a story in the future has anything to do with the definition of science fiction. This might be too generic but I think science fiction simply means that it is untrue events or technology that can not be explained or possible by modern science (ie laser beams, spaceships, time machines, beaming...and...oh yes...the schwartz).

As a genre I guess this would go in with Futuristic/Apocalyptic. Is that a real title? I don't know but I guess it fits.

well we agree to disagree on the first point, i guess. i thought the intro to Children of Men did a nice job setting up the future world realistically and briefly in discussing the youngest person on earth having died. and the point of making that clear is to show the hero's total indifference to it, whereas everyone else is in tears. the world is ending, and he doesn't give a shit.

as for sci-fi, no, star wars isn't science fiction. it's a western dressed up with a bunch of spaceships!
by your definition, the road warrior isn't sf? because there's no futuristic technology? i would say that it is sf, because it's set in a future extrapolated from our present. it's an educated guess, or a fantastical leap. either way, that's science fiction.

star wars could best be shelved under 'fantasy' in that it has no connection to anything in the here and now, aside from being about people.

same with setting sf-like movies in the past, ala jules verne. i'd call those fantasy as well. in such cases, we KNOW that stuff didn't happen. sf presents possible futures, however out there or seemingly unlikely that future might be. or however mundane it might be.

[OctopusRider]

hmmm  :|

Maybe I got it all wrong.

[rowjimmy]

Once you start calling star wars a western which is really a samurai movie then you may as well wipe Science Fiction off the genre list altogether.

From wikipedia:
"Science fiction is a broad genre of fiction that often involves speculations based on current science or technology. It is commonly abbreviated as SF or sci-fi. Science fiction is found in books, art, television, movies, games, theater, and other media."