Posts by Richard Howard2

Look, I didn't say he lost his touch or that the quality dropped. Personally, I think Alien Resurrection is great. My only gripe is that there isn't any real indication that we're actually dealing with the same person. I don't know about you, but that's how I saw it...

slyrider16: That JMJ track is called Oxygene (though I can't quite recall which number)... If my memory serves, it appeared twice in the movie.

Yes, we are talking about Oxygen, likely part III, though I can't say for certain. On another note, I recently picked up a compilation featuring numbers IV-XIII released back in 1997. Actually, don't bother listening to that one! It’s just the first Oxygen track reworked into some techno version...🤮

I find myself most drawn to films featuring music by Vangelis—it provides such an incredible atmosphere.

Has anyone else actually sat down to watch anything by Steven Spielberg? I have to say, I am genuinely impressed. There was some mention here earlier regarding Delicatessen.

Now, you might find this hard to believe if you weren't aware, but he also directed Alien Resurrection.

lonemarlin40, of course the characters are intentionally stylized, which is something I value quite highly. Animated people rendered with photorealistic detail feel utterly pointless, unless your goal is simply to digitally resurrect someone who isn't even acting anymore...

FF ended on a rather pathetic note, and frankly, it’s all because they tried too hard to make something "profound." That was their fatal mistake. As for the plot and the movie as a whole, it could have been absolutely anything.

The blunder lies in taking a mediocre, uninspired sci-fi concept and wrapping it in 3D animation, essentially using the technology just to show off visuals that wouldn't have looked out of place in a standard feature.

Had they actually integrated the unique strengths of 3D animation into the core essence of the film, rather than treating it like mere packaging, they might have actually pulled it off.

My point is, nothing about this film is so egregious that I would dismiss it as complete garbage. It certainly isn't that. At the very least, it's a decent attempt...

Vidocq remains one of my favorite films from last year, not because of the hollow plot—which isn't particularly vital anyway (especially when dealing with Pitof)—but precisely because the entire production is built upon those stunning visual effects. If we are going to treat a film as a showcase for a visual seminar, why bother trying to camouflage it with a simulated narrative and characters? Let’s be honest... sure, there is a plot, but it’s really just a historical theme that’s been tweaked slightly, if at all...

lonemarlin40 said:I was actually worried you were going to start trashing legendary characters, like Lucifer the cat from Cinderella.😁

Yeah, right.😘 🙂

lonemarlin40 said:Hold on just a second, because this is getting seriously pretentious now.👎
Look, Disney and his corporation built the animation industry from the ground up! Disney himself was a massive visionary, a genuine genius, and his successors have simply been trying to preserve his legacy.
If things aren't what they used to be, why would anyone be an idiot enough to keep chasing the standard that Disney originally set?
Personally, I haven't sat through many of the recent films from Disney's studio—they just don't grab me (despite being an animation fan)—but I will always remain loyal to the name Disney.

I am not talking about the "real" Disney animations, which I absolutely adore; I’m talking about all this new stuff coming out since The Lion King, along with those mindless, suburbanized "kid-trap" movies that flood the market every single day without anyone even noticing them...

Melissa Moore32 said:Believe me, you aren't alone in feeling this way.

Ever since I watched the FF : TSW animation on Cartoon Network, my perspective shifted entirely. Now, I find myself judging things solely on the mechanics of the plot—specifically, how skillfully the animation serves the narrative rather than just whether the visuals look good. (And honestly, I haven't seen anything quite that well-executed yet.)

I suppose I’ll keep looking at it this way until someone manages to produce animation that actually surpasses it, naturally.

The real tragedy is that the movie offers nothing beyond those visuals. As a massive fan of FF, that realization hits particularly hard.

Why? Personally, I think FF is a very solid film, both in terms of its story and everything else. It's impressive in several aspects and perfectly decent in most others. Hardly a disappointment, if you ask me.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:It’s got a mediocre rating.

but I was honestly hoping for much better 3D animation—you know, more fluid movement and better textures. It feels like FF : TSW spoiled me...

Facts!👍

It strikes me as an absolute marvel that anyone actually still consumes Disney products, or rather, spends their precious time even caring about what kind of movies they’re putting out lately.

Brian Edwards78 said:It's because you just stun them with those eyes, leaving them completely unable to focus...😛

Who exactly is telling me this...😁>

If you’d just take a moment to actually look at what I wrote above, I clearly stated that I’m grouping those two movies into the same category based on their Energy. (Honestly, why does nobody ever read the posts...?)

Have you guys seen this?

Easily one of the funniest and most high-energy movies I've ever sat through. Honestly, based on the sheer Energy, I’d put it right up there with Speed.

It's like The Matrix, if it were abandoned and everyone was tripping on Ecstasy.

Pure gold, I swear!

Bryan Fisher7 :
In my humble opinion, that applies at least when discussing the original Odyssey.

Well, I suppose that’s one way to look at it...

Anyway, the truth of the matter is that odyssey 2010 would have been a perfectly fine, solid piece of SF if it weren't a sequel to Odyssey.

However, the SF universe it's built upon must be tethered to Odyssey. It is better to view it as a standalone SF film set within Clarke's world of monoliths—much like how Kevin Smith's films work; certain characters or elements might recur, but the movie itself is an entirely different concept. This would just be a more extreme version of that.

You know what I actually appreciate most about 2010? The restraint. At no point is there any of that naive exaggeration we inevitably see in modern SF. There simply aren't movies anymore that "realistically" depict space, space travel, and exploration. Those scenes in decompression chambers, the cockpits, all those technical procedures—it feels remarkably similar to how a real situation might actually unfold. In today's films, everything goes far too smoothly, often appearing foolishly simplistic and naive. That is precisely what modern SF lacks.

What is the actual essence of SF? I believe the core lies in something happening that is utterly unimaginable to us, yet we describe it through our senses as something entirely real.

Garbage like Mission to Mars is the total opposite: when some poorly rendered creature sheds a tear at the end—honestly, it isn't even worth commenting on—that is SF that doesn't just depict the impossible, but simultaneously lets us know that it *is* impossible, because we can't take it seriously at all. We take the underwater aliens in The Abyss much more seriously...

Bryan Fisher7 :
I respect where you're coming from, but I still maintain that film inherently places boundaries on the imagination. Sure, in the case of lost world 2001, those limits are pushed to the absolute edge, but once we see and hear something through a lens, we accept it as an objective reality. When reading a book, however, if you let your mind wander, the internal imagery and soundscapes can—and almost always do—surpass whatever a camera or a computer can render. Not to mention the subjective experience, which varies wildly from reader to reader. Even if you find an author's description of a setting or a character unappealing, you have the freedom to simply ignore it and visualize it your own way. With film, that luxury doesn't exist.

Let me reiterate my stance from our previous discussions:

What you're saying is absolutely valid, EXCEPT in the specific instance of Odyssey!

The movie is great, though I was honestly hoping for some sharper, more sophisticated wit—something along the lines of Shrek, you know, those jokes meant for the adults in the room. It felt a bit underwhelming when I realized it was geared toward kids. Still, as far as standalone films go, it’s excellent. The humor is well-balanced; they really hit all the right notes here.

That final scene where the squirrel nearly bursts out laughing from pure irony? That isn't just the highlight of the film; I’d argue it stands as one of the finest uses of irony in all of American cinema.

It’s true, there is a midsection that drags quite heavily, but the opening—that whole space opera vibe and the moon sequence—along with the finale, are genuinely captivating.

I’ve heard rumors that back in the seventies, hippies would go see the film just when they couldn't get their hands on any LSD, seeking out a similar sort of trip.

Try this: kill all the lights, find total silence in an empty room, put on some headphones, and pop in the Odyssey DVD—then attempt to watch those travel sequences. You know what happens? Something wonderful!🙂

I reached out to Mickey Mouse and requested that both my posts and his be deleted, as I am the one responsible for the lack of decorum here. I offer my apologies for that behavior. Mickey Mouse informed me that he will not be deleting them, so this apology is the only recourse I have left.

Correction accepted...😁

driftingeagle27 said:Odyssey 2061 and 3010 are decent enough.

I don't personally subscribe to the idea that 2001 is the greatest cinematic achievement ever made.

I actually read 3001 (not 3010!), and frankly, it’s nothing special. It feels forced, overly stretched out, and the most disappointing part is how it strips away the charm and mystery surrounding the monoliths. They turn out to be nothing more than mere computers following programmed commands. The whole point of the first Odyssey was that sense of mystery—much like the mystery of life itself—but here, everything is laid bare, and the impact is completely lost.

In my view, the Odyssey represents one of those rare instances where the film actually surpasses the book, primarily due to its audiovisual superiority.

That central mystery, which serves as the very soul of the Odyssey, is incredibly difficult to convey through prose alone; it turns out that imagery and sound are far more effective mediums for such things.