Posts by Jessica Gonzalez

I guess the discussion is going exactly how you'd expect.

The only thing those two movies really have in common is that they both take place in space. I guess you could say *Odyssey* is an auteur film that isn't exactly trying to please everyone. If it were, maybe all those unanswered questions would have been explained away so clearly that even the simplest Asian person could follow them. But *Odyssey* isn't some big Hollywood blockbuster; it’s more of a film about silence, using that quietness to highlight the sheer scale of the universe and the mysteries surrounding us. There aren't any forced romance subplots, and since the computer is the only real character, there's nothing particularly "relatable" there—but I suppose that's not really the point. You don't see the usual tropes like kids or tear-jerker moments just for the sake of it, nor does it feel like it's checking boxes for diversity only to kill characters off immediately. There isn't even a Matt Damon losing his mind just because he needs a standout role. It doesn't try to be a social commentary either. Maybe those things are just trivial distractions when you're trying to tell a story about space and evolution.

I guess *Interstellar* feels like one of those modern movies that tries way too hard to please everyone while being fundamentally hollow. I never really felt like anything about it was serious or even remotely plausible. From the plot beats to the characters, nothing seemed grounded in reality. For me, once they stumbled into that hangar and he somehow became the mission leader to another star by the very next day, the whole thing just fell apart. It honestly felt like the people making the movie were just being lazy and didn't really care.

Matthew Anderson4 said:The Odyssey is famous for its technical perfection, not its plot. To me, it's one of the best-executed films ever, but even with Kubrick, I can find movies I personally think are better.

The story is probably the strongest part, but it feels much more fleshed out in the book. In the movie, I guess a lot of things are left up to the audience to interpret however they want.

Samuel Scott54 said:Well, he was making movies for fifty years straight. He started way back during the silent era and wrapped things up in the 70s. But the biggest thing is, his best stuff just isn't boring to watch, even now.

I guess it's hard to call him boring when he's such a timeless creator. Maybe it's like how Mozart's compositions stay classic forever; his films seem to feel the same way.

Walter Grant5 said:Of course they're blowing this out of proportion. I was just pointing out that they revoked his lifetime pass, which the guy paid good money for.

I agree, they really aren't being fair here.

I was just reading up on him. It doesn't actually list his total flight count, just the mileage. Apparently, he clocked in at over 30 million miles.
http://alumni.brown.edu/classes/1972...Rothstein.html

Walter Grant5 said:

If this turns out to be true, they deserve to be packed into one first-class jet and tossed out at whatever altitude keeps them breathing until they hit the pavement. No parachutes, obviously.

I'm not so sure. That would mean he averaged over one flight every single day for more than 27 years.
It seems possible, I suppose, though it feels like anyone would eventually get tired of that routine.

I feel like this German series leans a bit too hard into the melodrama. You have these five friends who are all struggling with massive moral dilemmas over everything happening around them, while everyone else seems totally unbothered. It makes me think of what Velimir Zajec might say: "Yeah, sure..."

That German series about World War II is actually pretty decent too. "Our Fathers, Our Mothers." Those damn Nazis.

I guess Alfred Hitchcock was on a whole different level back in his day. Honestly, he probably holds up just as well by today's standards, too.

James Anderson5 said:I wouldn't say that, though I'm not totally obsessed with the movie myself. It's fun and pretty solid, and definitely makes you think, but it isn't exactly a masterpiece in my eyes. That said, they actually had a scientist from Caltech consulting on it, so they put quite a bit of thought into the plot and certain details...

http://news.sciencemag.org/people/ev...cene-makes-him

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar#Scientific_accuracy

I guess it's all just part of the marketing, but I didn't really dwell on it. It's a sci-fi flick, so obviously everything is made up. The stuff about the inside of the black hole was so bad I almost felt bad for them, but if Mike Tyson says they can do whatever they want—well, I suppose they have that right; there's no business like show business. My main issue is that the movie feels a bit disjointed, like the scenes are just thrown together, and the characters' motivations for certain actions feel a little unclear or illogical. Maybe the filmmakers just weren't too worried about it, since they probably figured the big marketing push and the Indian crowd on IMDb would handle most of the heavy lifting.

It feels like people spend way too much energy overanalyzing scenes and theories that probably didn't take the writers more than a few minutes to come up with.

I guess you could say *2001: A Space Odyssey* is really a film defined by its silence. There’s hardly any narration, and you don't have characters just standing around delivering monologues to explain the plot to the audience. Because of that, a lot of things feel left hanging, even though the book goes into much more detail. But maybe that’s actually a strength; the fact that the audience stays a bit confused or even unsettled by this superior, unknown intelligence at the end might be exactly what makes it work. I suppose some people won't care for that, though—it seems like plenty of folks find the movie a bit slow. While the books give you a glimpse into the perspective of that intelligence, the film keeps us completely distanced through those intimidating monoliths.

Walter Grant5 said:Look, limbo is its own concept. It doesn't belong to those movies.

True, but I guess they both just use it as a plot device because they ran out of better ideas.

It would be just fine if they fell right off the edge into a canyon.

Noah Roberts46 said:Honestly, I thought his emotional range in John Wick was incredible. He absolutely deserved an Oscar for that look on his face right after his dog died. It’s a total must-win. ☕

Alright, let's be real—has there actually been anything worth watching in the last two years? Because if you ask me, the answer is a resounding yes.

That’s not quite right. The guy used to do this professionally, so it’s obvious he isn't just some random amateur. He knows exactly what he's doing—he's hunting those drones or whatever they are.

Yeah, I guess he did. But out of billions of people, he's the only one who's ever flown a plane. And then, of course, he just happens to stumble upon the headquarters in a basement a few hours before launch. It's almost too convenient, isn't it? Maybe it's just a coincidence, I suppose.

Matthew Anderson4 said:The Odyssey isn't even an adaptation.

I suppose it both is and isn't, since they worked on the book and the film at the same time.

I guess I’m wondering if anyone else watched Interstellar and realized how wild it is that a farmer and his daughter just stumbled upon this massive underground facility—roughly the size of New York City—hidden in some random cornfield out in the middle of nowhere. They basically just hit a fence with their truck and decided to go see what was on the other side. And then, they just sent him into space the very next morning because he was already there, which seems like a pretty convenient way to pick a pilot, I suppose. To me, the plot logic feels a bit like Independence Day or The Day After Tomorrow, where things like an ice age seem to move way faster than a standard baseball game.

Walter Grant5 said:Robbie is a total classic. Honestly, just an extremist in every single thing he’s ever touched.

I guess I don't mind being called an extremist if it means I get to call almost every recent movie garbage. You can tell me I'm conservative or some kind of generational chauvinist, maybe, but please don't compare me to AJ or people like him.

James Anderson5 said:Hey, since we're talking about Stanley Kubrick, there's this one movie that honestly beats 90% of what's been mentioned over the last few pages, and it's already 60 years old

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050825/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_10

Anyone who gives this a watch won't be disappointed...

Yeah, it really is good. It deals with real-world dilemmas and that gritty sort of fate you find in a messy world.