Robocop Remake

It is just bad - bad script, bad directing and mostly bad acting.

Yet it has some fun parts.

Like Chinese factory scene :-)

And Michael Keaton who actually portrayed Steve Jobs better than anyone did it before on screen :-)

P.S. Small tip. If you want to read reviews on IMDB on any big budget movies, do it after week or so as it is in cinema and start with 3-5th pages. Of course you must understand that if studios spend huge money they have some to pay special firms to make proper reviews and push them to the top, aren't you?

Wow to this thread.

A few personal opinions I want to share, though nobody will care about: Snow-piercer was a good concept in some ways, had some pretty reasonable acting... and it started off strong. I watched. I was engaged. But somewhere along the way (around the time the piano playing teacher whips out a skorpian) it just fell flat on its arse. I watched to the end, because I felt compelled to. When Ed Harris shows up (someone I consider to be a high caliber actor, when he sinks his teeth into the right role) and gave this shameful performance... I lost all fascination with the film. If you have to watch it... watch it as an example of how to start off a great idea, and how to kill it within 20 minutes. How to make half a decent film, and half a shitty cliche ridden pile of awful.

Saving Mr. Banks was a good film, I enjoyed it (even teared up in some parts)... but I was well aware (even not knowing the film's characters backgrounds) that they embellished on those characters a bit. Disney was not that passionate about story, I can garan-damn-tee it. He saw the dollarsigns in Mary Poppin's eyes the moment he read the book... and chased it down. That being said, Mary Poppins was a great film... even without her creator's involvement in the final film... but it made everybody rich... which was it's intention.

Anything Soderbergh makes (there are exceptions)... these are movies I cannot get into. I've read reviews and threads galore telling me how awesome "The Limey" was... and in my second and third viewings (I have a lot of time to waste apparently) I still fail to see it's "awesomeness". The editing must have been done either by Soderbergh himself while he was jerking off... or it was given to a 10 year old. Intercutting completely useless footage that has nothing to do with the scene/story being told... it threw me right out of the movie. Moving on to some of his good films though: The Ocean's trilogy... which was a fun ride. I'll be honest... I cared none about any of the characters involved, I just wanted to see how they fooled the next guy. It was great. Che PT1 and PT2 are very very good films, a fine mix of story and cinematography. Soderbergh attempts to throw his choppy-editing hat in the ring here but it manages not to screw with the viewing. It's a very good insight into Che, and they cast the actor playing him very well. There isn't much else I've watched from Soderbergh that I quite enjoyed as much as these films.

The whole discussion here about films needing heroes is bullshit. In the modern day, people are tired of seeing heroes. We get bored of it. There are some movies that throw us a hero or two, but for the most part we cop an anti-hero.

And Vitaly, throw this film on your list:

Standard Nick Cage fare, complete with over the top screaming and acting. A score that makes you laugh at times, and some cliche-riddled dialog. But, it's one of those films with a character that deserves to die...

Dom Hemingway

Saving Mr. Banks

This is special case, as movie is not very bad.

But, as usual scenarists completely fucked reality making quite unusual character into strange bitch and making very cynic businessman into some cheesy stuff.

Suggested read

• http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/19/051219fa_fact1?currentPage=all
• http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/saving-mr-banks.php

And very good quote:

The real P.L. Travers had never been a fan of Walt Disney. In her review of Disney's first full-length animated feature film, 1937's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, she wrote, "Oh, he's clever, this Disney! ... The very pith of his secret is the enlargement of the animal world and a corresponding deflation of all human values. There is a profound cynicism at the root of his, as of all, sentimentality."

"without proper people to see after them"

Yeah. @Vitaliy_Kiselev - I love all the camera gazing and the new sony, panasonic, and the 4k stuff. It's all really fun. But I REALLY love this thread, and what Vitaliy is saying because it's a comment on responsibility - ours as filmmakers and even wannabe ones.

As the world becomes less and less gentle, we, who put our creative efforts into something could read between the lines in this discussion and experience some "choice therapy".

I say to myself: The process of making the film or video is so hard, why not look deep inside and see what it is that i want to be doing EVERY DAY?! What am I conveying? But really, do you want to get up at six am and film 20+ tales of a man being kicked in the dink, or a girl slapped silly by a "protagonist". It's a puzzle.

I'm a long-toothed dop and I can say that I'd love to see things change a little bit towards the good, so I can tell people what my job was for the majority of my life.

Again, this discussion is very valid. Another on video games would be great but it's just triggers me too badly.

Thanks for all of the posts here!

Next in company

Films slightly more than totally consist of all WWII related stupid stamps that ever existed:

1. Hitler is one stupid fool knowing nothing and living in the dream world
2. Generals are all good, wise, think about democracy and good for Germany
3. They so love democracy that they want (very much!) to surrender to US/UK even before they make invasion.
   • I hope we'll be UK colony like Canada ... - direct Rommel words
4. It is absolutely clear that all is lost (they are wise, remember), so any treason is ok and good
5. Every few minutes they talk about how much they care for jews (jews seem to be main victims in this war as far as this film go).

In other words, it is politically correct (in current terms) bullshit.

Some new addition to company

Another crapshit two entries

do not waste your time on this shit despite inflated ratings (HW is very good at it now), better watch

@TheNewDeal along those lines sits the success of Breaking Bad. Already considered one of TV's greatest ever shows. The good versus evil thing can get sticky and confused when you watch a show like that.

I guess films should only have characters you like?

Obviously not, but what I found distasteful about Nebraska was ...these characters weren't written to be distasteful, and I'm speaking of the core family around Dern. They were written to be "heroic" ....as standing for some lost value system etc. , when, in effect, they were just as distasteful as the supporting cast, or more so. To me, that's a failure, in not only the concept, but ethics in general.

Gravity was great at the iMax. It provoked a visceral reaction in me - the movement, weightlessness, inertia, acceleration and flying debris. I don't care if it didn't conform to correct physics. I have no interest watching it again though. I hated the Matrix sequels for their effects much more as they felt like watching a video game. Gravity had heft

The last film to suck me into the world it built so completely was Twin Peaks - Fire Walk With Me. Mind blown for weeks after.

And the film before that was Dumbo - the first film I ever saw.

Either I'm just weird or the ways films affect the viewer are mysterious. Maybe a little of both ;)