I was just wondering how the Starfleet officers shave. Do they step into the transporter and just have their facial hair, or underarm, chest, or leg hair, as the case may be, transported off them? I never see them in the barber shop either. :suspicious:
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
Yes, one of the reasons the movie is so stupid is because these people who have mastered interstellar spaceflight insist on fighting large carnivorous beasts -- beasts that have been genetically engineered specifically to track and kill humans -- with what are basically just fancy swords and spears.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
The basic premise is that humans have wrecked the Earth so thoroughly that it can no longer support us. So, they leave the ruined Earth, find a new planet, and settle there.
Only it turns out that the planet is already claimed, and the aliens aren't happy about the humans settling there.
So they engineer creatures to hunt and kill humans. These creatures are blind (that's a big plot point), and apparently deaf, too (Will Smith's character was seen to be able to literally walk right up to one and attack it without it knowing he was there until he struck it).
They hunt by tracking humans' scents. Oh, okay. But not in any sensible way. They don't track the way dogs do; they track humans by the pheromones they release when frightened.
Yes, you read that correctly. The movie makes a big point of showing us that the creature can only track you if you're frightened of it -- if you aren't afraid of the thing, it can't sense you at all.
So, this big, bad predator can't see; can't hear either, apparently; and in fact, can only sense you at all if you're scared. Again, the movie makes a point of showing this; even when the creature is literally inches from our hero, it can't find him if he keeps calm.
So, the aliens who designed this "Ultimate Human Killer" were really, really stupid.
Nonetheless, for some reason, these critters (called "Ursas") seem to be a real threat to the human population.
So naturally, the humans have an elite group of "Rangers" whose function is to hunt down and kill these Ursas. Do the Rangers use guns? Or perhaps something more exotic, like lasers? Projectile weapons of any kind at all? No. They use bladed weapons. Why? It's anybody's guess. Maybe they feel it's more sporting that way.
So anyway, Will Smith is playing a character who has so little personality that he actually has a negative charisma score. He and his son are traveling on a spacecraft which crashes, killing everyone on board except the two of them. Oh, and of course, they were carrying a captured Ursa for "training purposes."
Naturally, the Ursa escapes during the crash. Meanwhile, our heroes find that they've crashed on Earth. Somehow, in only 1,000 years, a vibrant ecosystem has evolved from essentially nothing. And naturally, practically everything -- from slugs to gigantic, couldn't-possibly-fly birds -- is out to kill any human that shows up.
Anyway, Will Smith's character was injured in the crash, and is going to die without medical help. So his son must travel many kilometers through this beautiful but very hostile landscape in order to recover the ship's distress beacon. (Why don't those things go off automatically in the event of a crash? Who knows?)
Oh, did I mention that the whole planet freezes overnight, and in the space of about 30 seconds, gets so cold that lakes and rivers freeze and even large endotherms die of hypothermia? Yeah.
Honestly, I think it was about there that my brain shut off as a defense mechanism.
Suffice it to say that the movie really doesn't make much sense.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
Watched My Neighbor Totoro (となりのトトロ, Tonari no Totoro) with Inara and Mrs. KA last Sunday.
Not enough death in it for Mrs. KA (or any death really, except for a single soot sprite that gets accidentally squished), but me and the kid thought it was pretty good.
One thing that we noticed that I thought was a refreshing change from the typical Disney faire: NO PARENTS WERE KILLED OR DIED BEFORE OR DURING THE FILMING OF THIS MOVIE. I also thought the ubiquitous of nature throughout was well done too.
Rewatched Starship Troopers. I enjoy the movie even though it is absolutely not like the book--indeed, it's almost the exact opposite*.
*The Federation of the novel isn't fascistic, nor unduly militaristic. Military service is but one of many avenues to obtaining Citizenship, and anyone in the military can drop out at any time during their tour of duty for any reason, except in active combat situations. That's a better deal than in real life. Heinlein is on the record as despising the military draft of his day.
The Klendathu Pseudo-Arachnids are not only intelligent, but technological. They have guns and spaceships.
Funnily enough, the military uses tactics while fighting.
My only gripe with the novel is it's pretty dull, thanks to its protagonist who is concentrated-boring.
Not enough death in it for Mrs. KA (or any death really, except for a single soot sprite that gets accidentally squished), but me and the kid thought it was pretty good.
If she likes death in Japanese animated features, you should definitely rent Grave of the Fireflies. That's a movie that will rip your heart out and then stomp on it for good measure. And then jump up and down on the mangled remains, just to be sure.
And yes, you'll love it for doing so.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
Even though there was no official death in Totorro it affected me far more than the Disney movies.
When I was a little girl, my mother was terminally ill and had long trips to the hospital. It wasn't feasible for us to visit every day. My brother and I missed her terribly.
So much of that movie is just so well done. So real from a child's perspective. The brave faces, the trying to be helpful for their dad, the little one's inability to do so. Most of the memories I have were around that age. I even had a habit of sneaking off and taking naps in hidden places, though never a spirit's furry belly. The anxiety that runs under the surface, snatching joy through imagination and play. It spoke to me on a personal level, which no other kids' movie has.
The whole movie is hysterical, but of course, "the pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon," and the magnetic armor are the highlight of the film.
It's strange to see people from sixty years past who are still alive. Angela Lansbury was quite a looker. And it's sad to know that most have passed away.
That's pretty close to the feeling I had during the big finale fight scene.
But as much goodness as there is to have, there are some flaws. I can't go into them because of how tightly related to the plot they are. I can say that one annoyance of mine was that some of the wants I had for the family relationship at play wasn't quite as resonant as I'd hoped it would be. The other really big flaw from my point of view is a pretty major change to the Superman mythos.
And now let me tell you about something great about the movie. Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Now, I think we can all agree that Amy Adams is a very good actress. And she acts her face off. So much so that I could have seriously seen them changing the name and focus of the movie and still walking away with a very successful film. And I have to give credit where it's due. She didn't act in a vacuum. The whole part she played was just fantastic. Seriously. My favorite part about this Lois Lane? Oh, I can't tell you but it is game changing.
Lois Adams aside, there wasn't a bad performance in the bunch. Even if I think the story had weaknesses, the characters and actors were very well drawn.
Don't worry about staying for the credits unless you're really into that sort of thing as there isn't a stinger after it's all done.
World of cardboard! World of cardboard! WORLD OF CARDBOARD!
OK, I can now officially not wait to see this film.
__________________
"freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette
It would be too repetitive to say it anyway. Have to admit, it's such a high point in JLA that I knew it was going to be that without even clicking the link. But I did it anyway, because I wanted to watch again.
__________________
"freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette
I liked Man of Steel; I didn't love it, but I did like it.
I must agree that there are some changes to the Superman mythos that some people won't like. I also felt that Amy Adams' Lois Lane was the best part of the movie. I couldn't help but think: "At last! A Lois who's smart, likable, and who has a perfectly legitimate reason to be in this dangerous situation!" And I'm not just saying that because I Amy Adams. (Though I do Amy Adams.)
And unlike previous movies, this one shows just how massive would be the collateral damage in a fight between super-powered individuals.
I liked this movie's version of Jor-El, who's more proactive than we're used to seeing. It's also nice that Lara was given a bit more to do other than simply standing around and wringing her hands at the fate of her world and her son. Similarly, it's good that they gave Zod a real reason for behaving as he does, rather than just a generalized love of power.
It wasn't a perfect movie, but most of its flaws have to do with presentation (which is a very subjective thing, so YMMV), rather than errors or inconsistencies.
This version of Clark/Superman really doesn't have much personality. That's understandable, because he has spent his entire life trying to blend in and avoid notice. Still, I hope we get to see him open up a bit in the next movie.
On that line of thought, I felt like they took the whole "Humans are mostly unreasoning brutes who instinctively hate and fear anything they don't understand" line to almost ridiculous lengths. Now, I do agree that people would surely be very wary of someone with Superman's god-like abilities, and there would be some (e.g. Lex Luthor) who would never be able to accept that his intentions are entirely benevolent.
So the Kents were entirely justified in trying to keep Clark's abilities secret. But their justifiable concern went well beyond reasonable and into paranoia, it seemed.
With that in mind, what I really felt the movie lacked was any real attempt to show the Kents making any effort to guide Clark and shape his moral development. Yes, we're told that they helped him learn to cope with sensory overload -- but what about his morals? Jonathan tells young Clark that he will someday change the world, for good or evil -- but he must always hide his abilities and avoid doing anything that will draw any attention to himself. Well, make up your mind, Jonathan.
And given Clark's growing abilities, wouldn't it have been a really good idea for the movie to have made some effort to show the Kents making a deliberate effort to shape young Clark's morals, rather than just telling him that "someday you'll have to choose whether you'll be good man or a bad one, and that choice will change the world -- so good luck with that and let us know how it turns out"?
And the response of Pete Ross' mother to Clark saving the lives of her son and everyone else on the school bus was to -- berate the Kents for having raised a "freak"? Really, lady? That is how you respond to Clark saving your son's life?
Given how the movie goes to some effort to establish that apparently everyone that Clark met before he reached adulthood was an outright bastard (the Kents more or less excepted), it's amazing that he turned out as well as he did. Seriously, were there any decent people in Smallville other than the Kents?
In fairness, the movie does show that Pete apparently comes to understand that Clark's a good person. With that in mind, I was waiting for the scene in which adult Pete tells Lois some variation of "There's no way in hell that I'm going to rat on my buddy Clark." Just one brief scene like that would have gone a long way toward establishing that people aren't quite as hopeless as the movie had been implying, and that they can learn to accept Clark and his abilities.
As it is, the movie makes it look like Lois is the first person Clark meets who is capable of accepting him for who he is.
Something else I wish the movie had explained is the inconsistency with which Kryptonians and their powers were portrayed. A big plot point was that when Clark was exposed to a Kryptonian atmosphere, he became as weak and as vulnerable as a human. So why were the Kryptonian villains performing super feats then, given that they were breathing Kryptonian air? Maybe that has something to do with how Clark's physiology has adapted to Earth's atmosphere, but it was never really explained.
Similarly, it was repeatedly stated that Clark's so strong because he has spent decades soaking up solar energy. So why are the Kryptonian villains anywhere near his power level?
Along those lines, the movie established that it took Clark decades to learn about and master his powers -- heck, he didn't discover his full power set until he was well into his 30s. So how is it that Zod was able to more or less master the full power set after meditating for 5 minutes or so?
Oh, and Clark? -- for future reference, don't explain to the villain exactly how he can overcome his limitations and fight you on equal terms!
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
Re: Seen Any Good Movies...?
Amy Adams. (Though I do 
Linear Mode
