Dubstepforum.com

In other words, WHOOOOSH

Have you seen John Dies at the End parson?
I know you've read it.

Naw

Pick it up it's a quality adaptation.
It follows the book to a tee and it is directed by the guy who did Bubba Ho Tep
Honestly watching it is like a tab of acid.

Looks good. I am into it.

naw, 2001 is a layman's sci-fi movie. Kubrick has produced at least two if not three better movies.

Star Wars is layman's sci fi, close second is Blade Runner or Lynch's Dune.

Blade Runner is not a layman's sci-fi movie. Neither is Dune. I rate both higher than 2001.

Star wars: touché.

lol, ok bit of a reactionary reaction. I don't rate dune higher. But 2001 doesn't even touch blade runner.

watched funny, ha ha last night.

it was pleasantly enjoyable despite nothing actually going on.

joeki wrote:Blade Runner is not a layman's sci-fi movie. Neither is Dune. I rate both higher than 2001.

Star wars: touché.

Film wise they are, novels not so much even though Blade Runner is based on a short as hell story from Phillip K Dick.
I mean come on Lynch's Dune is the worst version and meant for a popcorn audience compared to the miniseries.

parson wrote:Looks good. I am into it.

Where we're going we won't need eyes...
Enjoy the soy sauce bro.

I'm not sure my choosing of the word Layman was correct.

Let's forget about Dune for a second (though I loved the movie but I suppose it was more in a it's so bad that it is good sort of sense).
Blade Runner was indeed supposed to be a summer blockbuster movie. 2001 was a lot more art oriented I suppose. However, BR never achieved that blockbuster status. Everyone always blamed E.T. for that, but the movie is simply not blockbuster material, because when you take it at face value, it is just a neo-noir that isn't a neo-noir (especially after removing voice-over's) or a boring detective story. The real strength of the movie is the fact that there is a deeper movie buried within and that is asks both big and little questions.

2001 is a deeper movie in its own right, but doesn't work on a deeper level for me. It is arguably visually the most stunning sci-fi movie. It has a couple of legendary scene's (have to say that moment when they Unearth the monolith on the Moon has stuck with me forever). I think 2001 asks big questions, but sort of forgets the humane dimension and like many I don't particularly rate its finale other than again for the visual aspect of it.

2001 is Kubrick being Kubrick.
Moon is the only modern movie I can think of that compares to it.

Oh and Sci Fi is a damn hard genre to do as a thinking man's film like novels.

I think Moon was a charming movie. Low budget, nice look and a contemporary story/script. But it was a little bit confused: the humour side added to its charm but gave the movie a confused feel.

Agree that it is one of the better sci-fi movies since +/- 2000. After that period, the genre really went down the drain as a whole.

replying to deadly and that other guy who mentioned red state. i really liked clerks and thought it had really clever dialogue

joeki wrote:I think Moon was a charming movie. Low budget, nice look and a contemporary story/script. But it was a little bit confused: the humour side added to its charm but gave the movie a confused feel.

Agree that it is one of the better sci-fi movies since +/- 2000. After that period, the genre really went down the drain as a whole.

Primer is my fave to date, low budget confusing as fuck and encourages you to watch it multiple times.

'The skin I live in' is a really good film, wouldn't want to explain too much about it- but it's unsettling and well worth watching.

Hypefiend wrote:replying to deadly and that other guy who mentioned red state. i really liked clerks and thought it had really clever dialogue

Oh no doubt Kevin Smith comedies have some of the best dialogue period, it's a good blend with the fart joke humor.
Red State was just kinda weird, like everyone expected him to make a new comedy and he made a hard slasher horror movie that was an homage to old 80s flicks...