I was watching some of the Trasporter 3 on TV the other day. So the guy is a professional driver; all he does is fight and drive around in a car. But then when he needs to chase a car down on a bicycle it turns out he’s an expert bike rider too. He must do BMX racing on the weekends or something.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]DJHT wrote:
Well I have to finally say the medical issues fucking kill me. Recently in Wolverine when the General is telling Wolverine that they faked the chicks death with Hydrochlorothiazide which is HCTZ a common blood pressure medication that half the country is on. Or a guy with a nasal cannula in his nose giving him O2 but next to him is a ventilator running. How much would it cost to get an actual Nurse or MD to consult?[/quote]
I feel the same way when it comes to any sort of a military movie.
You see guys hiding behind a car/wall and it deflecting bullets. You’ll see someone get shot once or twice in the stomach and die instantly. You see people doing the most have assed room clearances while all sweeping eachother… stuff like that gets annoying but I’ve learned to just ignore it since it happens in EVERY movie.[/quote]
What, you’re saying rounds don’t actually skip off car windows leaving only a scratch or visible spark as they “hit”?
On a similar note, kind of annoying how in every movie advanced robots will fire hundreds of rounds at someone and always seem to miss.
That particular camera trick where the camera pulls back yet the lens zooms in.
Way overdone, predictable, and no longer effective.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
That particular camera trick where the camera pulls back yet the lens zooms in.
Way overdone, predictable, and no longer effective. [/quote]
That’s called a reverse tracking shot and was pioneered by Alfred Hitchcock during the filming of “Vertigo”. It is achieved by zooming in on an object while physically pulling the camera away from the object at the same time, creating a look of disorientation and confusion.
I don’t really see it a whole lot anymore, not the way it was done in “Vertigo” (a personal favorite). What film(s) are you talking about that overuse it?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
That particular camera trick where the camera pulls back yet the lens zooms in.
Way overdone, predictable, and no longer effective. [/quote]
That’s called a reverse tracking shot and was pioneered by Alfred Hitchcock during the filming of “Vertigo”. It is achieved by zooming in on an object while physically pulling the camera away from the object at the same time, creating a look of disorientation and confusion.
I don’t really see it a whole lot anymore, not the way it was done in “Vertigo” (a personal favorite). What film(s) are you talking about that overuse it?[/quote]
Off the top of my head… none. But I see it has made its way into TV commercials as well.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
That particular camera trick where the camera pulls back yet the lens zooms in.
Way overdone, predictable, and no longer effective. [/quote]
That’s called a reverse tracking shot and was pioneered by Alfred Hitchcock during the filming of “Vertigo”. It is achieved by zooming in on an object while physically pulling the camera away from the object at the same time, creating a look of disorientation and confusion.
I don’t really see it a whole lot anymore, not the way it was done in “Vertigo” (a personal favorite). What film(s) are you talking about that overuse it?[/quote]
It was way overused in this pumpkin movie I watched. Pretty much the whole thing was reverse tracking. It was terrible.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
When a character needs to have some sort of on-the-spot surgery done so he takes a shot of whiskey and he’s ready…I think most people would need about 8 to kill the pain.
Any period movie will have everyone on all the streets driving brand new cars from that time. I mean like a movie will be set in 1957 and all the cars are from 1955 or 1956 or thereabouts…with no one driving 20 year-old cars.[/quote]
I also love how you’ll only see one brand of car throughout the whole movie. This seems to mostly be with Ford.[/quote]
Not just with Ford. Watch the matrix (whichever of the three, or all, I don’t remember) and you’ll see that GM is almost the only vehicle in there. Audi just dominated I, Robot as well.
It’s just product placement though. GM donated 300 cars to the matrix, and most likely paid them a LOT of money to recoup filming costs.
[quote]Tyrant wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
When a character needs to have some sort of on-the-spot surgery done so he takes a shot of whiskey and he’s ready…I think most people would need about 8 to kill the pain.
Any period movie will have everyone on all the streets driving brand new cars from that time. I mean like a movie will be set in 1957 and all the cars are from 1955 or 1956 or thereabouts…with no one driving 20 year-old cars.[/quote]
I also love how you’ll only see one brand of car throughout the whole movie. This seems to mostly be with Ford.[/quote]
Not just with Ford. Watch the matrix (whichever of the three, or all, I don’t remember) and you’ll see that GM is almost the only vehicle in there. Audi just dominated I, Robot as well.
It’s just product placement though. GM donated 300 cars to the matrix, and most likely paid them a LOT of money to recoup filming costs. [/quote]
Same thing happened with a movie called Super Size Me. There was McDonald’s stuff throughout the whole film. Ridiculous.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
That particular camera trick where the camera pulls back yet the lens zooms in.
Way overdone, predictable, and no longer effective. [/quote]
That’s called a reverse tracking shot and was pioneered by Alfred Hitchcock during the filming of “Vertigo”. It is achieved by zooming in on an object while physically pulling the camera away from the object at the same time, creating a look of disorientation and confusion.
I don’t really see it a whole lot anymore, not the way it was done in “Vertigo” (a personal favorite). What film(s) are you talking about that overuse it?[/quote]
Off the top of my head… none. But I see it has made its way into TV commercials as well.
[/quote]
“Limitless” uses it ad nauseum to show that the protagonist is having side effects from the drug he’s taking. Gets old after 10 seconds…and then goes on for minutes at a time. Good film though.
I’m annoyed by movies with completely illogical plots. Somebody mentioned Transporter 3. That series is a good example: why would any criminal mastermind pay someone he doesn’t even know and probably can’t trust to drive something somewhere? And yet this same criminal has at least a dozen henchman in his employ who are all loyal enough to get their asses repeatedly kicked by an expert martial artist just to defend their boss. Couldn’t the mastermind just order one of these guys to drive for him in the first place?
Another example is the Bond movies, much as I like the old ones. How does Blofeld keep getting people to agree to work for SPECTRE when he kills any employee who makes even the slightest mistake? If I witnessed one of my coworkers get electrocuted during the weekly staff meeting, I would not be at work the next day.
[quote]RTJenforcer wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
That particular camera trick where the camera pulls back yet the lens zooms in.
Way overdone, predictable, and no longer effective. [/quote]
That’s called a reverse tracking shot and was pioneered by Alfred Hitchcock during the filming of “Vertigo”. It is achieved by zooming in on an object while physically pulling the camera away from the object at the same time, creating a look of disorientation and confusion.
I don’t really see it a whole lot anymore, not the way it was done in “Vertigo” (a personal favorite). What film(s) are you talking about that overuse it?[/quote]
Off the top of my head… none. But I see it has made its way into TV commercials as well.
[/quote]
“Limitless” uses it ad nauseum to show that the protagonist is having side effects from the drug he’s taking. Gets old after 10 seconds…and then goes on for minutes at a time. Good film though.[/quote]
I remember seeing it in jaws.
-The Prestige, that movie made no sense.
- Christian Bale invents a trick with his twin, lies and tells Hugh Jackman that Tesla made it for him
- Hugh Jackman goes to Tesla and not only does nobody explain that Christian bale has never had such a machine built but he never had contact with Tesla at all.
- Tesla despite all of this builds a machine that can actually clone and teleport Hugh Jackman.
Am I just an idiot or is there a massive plot hole, it is like it got to the end of a work day and the writer was like, “nah I don’t think anybbody will notice.”
-Camera following the bullet when a sniper makes a shot
[quote]Dr_Doom88 wrote:
-The Prestige, that movie made no sense.
- Christian Bale invents a trick with his twin, lies and tells Hugh Jackman that Tesla made it for him
- Hugh Jackman goes to Tesla and not only does nobody explain that Christian bale has never had such a machine built but he never had contact with Tesla at all.
- Tesla despite all of this builds a machine that can actually clone and teleport Hugh Jackman.
Am I just an idiot or is there a massive plot hole, it is like it got to the end of a work day and the writer was like, “nah I don’t think anybbody will notice.”
-Camera following the bullet when a sniper makes a shot
[/quote]
Actually, there is a much bigger plot hole in “the prestige”. The part that makes absolutely no sense and cannot be explained in any way is, why he kills the clone and why he clones himself night after night. After he used the machine once and cloned himself, he could have done the trick the same way bale did. There was no need for him to keep killing himself.
Hell, he could have taken 3 or 4 clones and done an even better version of the trick.
I hate that movie because of that.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Dr_Doom88 wrote:
-The Prestige, that movie made no sense.
- Christian Bale invents a trick with his twin, lies and tells Hugh Jackman that Tesla made it for him
- Hugh Jackman goes to Tesla and not only does nobody explain that Christian bale has never had such a machine built but he never had contact with Tesla at all.
- Tesla despite all of this builds a machine that can actually clone and teleport Hugh Jackman.
Am I just an idiot or is there a massive plot hole, it is like it got to the end of a work day and the writer was like, “nah I don’t think anybbody will notice.”
-Camera following the bullet when a sniper makes a shot
[/quote]
Actually, there is a much bigger plot hole in “the prestige”. The part that makes absolutely no sense and cannot be explained in any way is, why he kills the clone and why he clones himself night after night. After he used the machine once and cloned himself, he could have done the trick the same way bale did. There was no need for him to keep killing himself.
Hell, he could have taken 3 or 4 clones and done an even better version of the trick.
I hate that movie because of that.
[/quote]
Speaking of clones, it bugs me in any movie where someone’s clone is the exact same age as the original. If you cloned yourself at age 25 and implanted the resulting embryo, obviously when your clone is born it would be 25 years and nine months YOUNGER than you.
About the only movie I can recall that got it right was the Boys from Brazil with Gregory Peck. Peck plays the Nazi Dr. Mengele, who has escaped to South America and hatched a plot to clone Hitler in hopes of restarting the Third Reich. At one point, the Hitler clone answers the door and he’s just a normal 10-year kid.
Killer rings doorbell in the dead of the night.
Seksy coed fresh from the shower walks ten yards outside/down the hall in a towel - leaving the door wide open - to investigate after seeing nothing through the peephole.
At least I get to see dem tittays when the shit hits the fan.
and
Suspenseful buildup of someone creeping up on our protagonist… slow, slow walk on the tippy toes to make NO SOUND and canned ‘oh noez’ music while out hero/heroine is busy either investigating the doorbell (above) or researching past crimes of the killer on the public computer.
inb4 pet cat or crazy librarian gives them a fearful start.
and
The secondary cheap scare that occasionally happens directly after the above (the killer THEN strikes or the best friend springs outta left field to see what our protagonist has discovered).
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]RTJenforcer wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
That particular camera trick where the camera pulls back yet the lens zooms in.
Way overdone, predictable, and no longer effective. [/quote]
That’s called a reverse tracking shot and was pioneered by Alfred Hitchcock during the filming of “Vertigo”. It is achieved by zooming in on an object while physically pulling the camera away from the object at the same time, creating a look of disorientation and confusion.
I don’t really see it a whole lot anymore, not the way it was done in “Vertigo” (a personal favorite). What film(s) are you talking about that overuse it?[/quote]
Off the top of my head… none. But I see it has made its way into TV commercials as well.
[/quote]
“Limitless” uses it ad nauseum to show that the protagonist is having side effects from the drug he’s taking. Gets old after 10 seconds…and then goes on for minutes at a time. Good film though.[/quote]
I remember seeing it in jaws.[/quote]
Yeah, I remember that scene on the beach when the little kid gets eaten. When done with restraint it’s a cool little trick. I think even in “Vertigo” it’s only used a couple times, and to great effect. I can see how it would get old if it was overused.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]RTJenforcer wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
That particular camera trick where the camera pulls back yet the lens zooms in.
Way overdone, predictable, and no longer effective. [/quote]
That’s called a reverse tracking shot and was pioneered by Alfred Hitchcock during the filming of “Vertigo”. It is achieved by zooming in on an object while physically pulling the camera away from the object at the same time, creating a look of disorientation and confusion.
I don’t really see it a whole lot anymore, not the way it was done in “Vertigo” (a personal favorite). What film(s) are you talking about that overuse it?[/quote]
Off the top of my head… none. But I see it has made its way into TV commercials as well.
[/quote]
“Limitless” uses it ad nauseum to show that the protagonist is having side effects from the drug he’s taking. Gets old after 10 seconds…and then goes on for minutes at a time. Good film though.[/quote]
I remember seeing it in jaws.[/quote]
Yeah, I remember that scene on the beach when the little kid gets eaten. When done with restraint it’s a cool little trick. I think even in “Vertigo” it’s only used a couple times, and to great effect. I can see how it would get old if it was overused.[/quote]
Every cool little movie trick gets annoying when overused. I think the shower scene in Hitchcock’s Psycho was among the first where the soundtrack used screeching violins in rhythm with the killer’s knife. Then every psycho killer movie made since then did it or a variation of it and turned that into a cliche.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Dr_Doom88 wrote:
-The Prestige, that movie made no sense.
- Christian Bale invents a trick with his twin, lies and tells Hugh Jackman that Tesla made it for him
- Hugh Jackman goes to Tesla and not only does nobody explain that Christian bale has never had such a machine built but he never had contact with Tesla at all.
- Tesla despite all of this builds a machine that can actually clone and teleport Hugh Jackman.
Am I just an idiot or is there a massive plot hole, it is like it got to the end of a work day and the writer was like, “nah I don’t think anybbody will notice.”
-Camera following the bullet when a sniper makes a shot
[/quote]
Actually, there is a much bigger plot hole in “the prestige”. The part that makes absolutely no sense and cannot be explained in any way is, why he kills the clone and why he clones himself night after night. After he used the machine once and cloned himself, he could have done the trick the same way bale did. There was no need for him to keep killing himself.
Hell, he could have taken 3 or 4 clones and done an even better version of the trick.
I hate that movie because of that.
[/quote]
That has made me twice as angry with whoever wrote that movie
Some lines I hate:
“We got company!”
"Let’s rock and roll!
“You look like shit.”
[quote]anonym wrote:
The secondary cheap scare that occasionally happens directly after the above (the killer THEN strikes or the best friend springs outta left field to see what our protagonist has discovered).[/quote]
Ah I HATE that. It’s like half the characters are actually deaf and have absolutely no peripheral vision at all.