Movie Critics Thread

[M-bot]

I’m not usually at all worried about spoilers, in fact I often seek them out, but in the instance of Infinity War, I think that going in as blind as possible is best. If you’ve seen it, don’t spoil it and if you haven’t, avoid them like the plague.

[GoktimusPrime]

For those who don't know how to spoiler tag, just change your text colour to white.

[colour="white"]Spoilers blah blah Luke is Vader's father blah[/colour]
↑Just Americanise the spelling of "colour" to "color."

Yeah, nah... that explanation doesn't make sense to me. :/

And there's also a critical part about Thanos' plan that seems quite flawed. If you wipe out 50% of life in the universe then that's actually going to be really devastating! e.g. on Earth it would mean wiping out 50% of plants and other microorganisms -- this would end up altering the composition of the Earth's atmosphere which in turn would also affect its climate. While Earth has experienced an extinction level event, population numbers would recover and life would evolve to cope with the new environment on the planet. Or possibly all life would be wiped out. Either outcome would disrupt Thanos' precious balance, and the same would likely happen in other worlds. We know that this has happened in Earth's past. One reason why giant insects don't exist anymore is because our atmosphere isn't nearly as rich in oxygen as it used to be, and insects are limited in size according to how much oxygen is in the atmosphere since they don't actively breathe. Note that the film always explicitly says "half of all life in the universe," not just animal life or sentient life or sapient life. Half of all life in the entire freaking universe. Wiping out half the bee population on Earth would have a huuuge impact on our environment and may very well spell extinction for humans and many other species as so many flowering plants rely on bees for pollination.

[Meister]

Yeah that all seems to difficult.

Spoiler thread has been created

[SuspectimusPrime]

Best to add several extra lines after your spoiler alerts. Text that is coloured white does not appear as white on email notifications.

[Trent]

So when Interstellar first came out, it was probably the highest on my must watch list.

I finally got to watch it last night

Great movie. Nolan at his best.

TARS is awesome.

[M-bot]

So when Interstellar first came out, it was probably the highest on my must watch list.

I finally got to watch it last night

Great movie. Nolan at his best.

TARS is awesome.

Nolan is often criticised (as he was with Interstellar) as being cold and emotionless. I didn’t get that at all from Interstellar. I agree, great movie.

Despite being a Nolan fan, I still haven’t seen Dunkirk. I suspect for similar reasons that you’ve only just caught Interstellar.

[GoktimusPrime]

The really interesting thing about Dunkirk is that it has a 'counter intuitive appeal' because it's not a character-driven story but it still happens to be really interesting. That's not to say that character development doesn't happen, it does -- but it's sparse and certainly isn't the engine that drives the story. What happens instead is that the events themselves drives the story. The narrative itself is what the audience becomes emotionally invested in.

I say it's counter-intuitive because typically a good story is one that's character driven and usually character-less plots that are just driven by a series of events are dull. Just look at Bayformers -- bugger all characters and the films are just driven by a series of events. Stuff happens. In Nolan's Batman Trilogy and Interstellar, Nolan takes the more classical approach of driving the stories with good characters. Solid protagonists that you can care about. But we don't really get this with Dunkirk per se. You can watch through this entire film and not even remember half of the character's names, that's how much the film plays them down. The characters are more avatars for the audience to experience these events.

But it's such a brilliant film. It defies the conventions of story telling, which is what Michael Bay does, only that Nolan does it well. And on top of all that, it's also a pretty historical accurate movie. There are a few inaccuracies here and there, but it gets a lot more right than it gets wrong, and most of the inaccuracies are done for story-telling purposes (because this is a movie, not a documentary).