Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Ag3ma]

Lucy (2014) Peacock Network

Fun sci fi action movie based upon I thought discredited concept that humans use only 5% of our brain

Yes, it is discredited. In fact, I used to play the trailer for Lucy in one of my lectures just to discuss how wrong it is.

Where it comes from is unclear. Possibly it's that the brain consists of two types of cells, neurones and glia. Glia conventionally were not believed to be involved in brain communication (this is now an issue of controversy, where I favour the theory that they do contribute), and that they were once thought to be about 90% of brain cells - this has since been revised to around 50%. Although there are other theories. Human brains have a lot of "spare" neurones - we start with far more than we need and they gradually die off (I think about 0.5-1% a year) throughout our lifespan because of a "use it or lose it" basis of survival. However, this doesn't mean the "spares" are not doing anything at all, or that there's some way to drag them into action.

Anyway, you can assume your brain is working to capacity. I would argue that some people have brains that occasionally operate beyond normal capacity, and the medical term for that is "epilepsy". The sort of activity Lucy's brain would have (according to the film) would require massive cellular energy requirements far beyond the brain's metabolic ability to support, so she'd really just keep collapsing into unconsciousness, plus almost certainly experiencing progressive brain damage. I accept, however, that would be far less fun as a film.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

The Menu

It's alright. It's the better version of a Shyamalan movie: ominous high concept, small cast of assholes in forced isolation and heavy-handed social commentary... but the performances are actually good, and there're no weird camera moves or setups. It's produced and directed by the team behind HBO's Succession so I expected something a bit funnier and/or sadder.

 

[Dalisclock]

Yes, it is discredited. In fact, I used to play the trailer for Lucy in one of my lectures just to discuss how wrong it is.

Where it comes from is unclear. Possibly it's that the brain consists of two types of cells, neurones and glia. Glia conventionally were not believed to be involved in brain communication (this is now an issue of controversy, where I favour the theory that they do contribute), and that they were once thought to be about 90% of brain cells - this has since been revised to around 50%. Although there are other theories. Human brains have a lot of "spare" neurones - we start with far more than we need and they gradually die off (I think about 0.5-1% a year) throughout our lifespan because of a "use it or lose it" basis of survival. However, this doesn't mean the "spares" are not doing anything at all, or that there's some way to drag them into action.

Anyway, you can assume your brain is working to capacity. I would argue that some people have brains that occasionally operate beyond normal capacity, and the medical term for that is "epilepsy". The sort of activity Lucy's brain would have (according to the film) would require massive cellular energy requirements far beyond the brain's metabolic ability to support, so she'd really just keep collapsing into unconsciousness, plus almost certainly experiencing progressive brain damage. I accept, however, that would be far less fun as a film.

My favorite rejoinder to the "You only use 10% of your brain" myth is "So which 90% can be removed that wouldn't be noticed?"

 

[thebobmaster]

Yes, it is discredited. In fact, I used to play the trailer for Lucy in one of my lectures just to discuss how wrong it is.

Where it comes from is unclear. Possibly it's that the brain consists of two types of cells, neurones and glia. Glia conventionally were not believed to be involved in brain communication (this is now an issue of controversy, where I favour the theory that they do contribute), and that they were once thought to be about 90% of brain cells - this has since been revised to around 50%. Although there are other theories. Human brains have a lot of "spare" neurones - we start with far more than we need and they gradually die off (I think about 0.5-1% a year) throughout our lifespan because of a "use it or lose it" basis of survival. However, this doesn't mean the "spares" are not doing anything at all, or that there's some way to drag them into action.

Anyway, you can assume your brain is working to capacity. I would argue that some people have brains that occasionally operate beyond normal capacity, and the medical term for that is "epilepsy". The sort of activity Lucy's brain would have (according to the film) would require massive cellular energy requirements far beyond the brain's metabolic ability to support, so she'd really just keep collapsing into unconsciousness, plus almost certainly experiencing progressive brain damage. I accept, however, that would be far less fun as a film.

One theory I've heard for where the misconception comes from is a misunderstanding of how the brain works. Basically, we use all of our brain, but not all at the same time. So, the theory is that someone somewhere misheard "We only use 10% of our brain at a time" and it got corrupted to forget the last three words.

 

[Thaluikhain]

IIRC, it was discredited long before the film came out. I mean, they had years and years to make that film, then they wait until after the science doesn't back it up anymore. Like they had years and years to make a Battleships movie, and they wait til after everyone has decommissioned there.

(The Asylum mockbuster, American Warships, was quite decent, though).

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Watched Knives Out again because I was curious how I would feel after Glass Onion.

Good lord was this so much better. I enjoyed Glass Onion, but I thought Knives Out was superior in pretty much every aspect.

But the most surprising difference was the visuals. Knives Out just looks better, the colors popped, the sets felt real and exotic. Glass Onion seemed washed out, I guess? I also found myself appreciating the lack of eye rolling cameos and celebrity references in Knives Out.

Both movies suffer from somewhat abrupt and anticlimactic conclusions to their mysteries, but I thought the twist in Knives Out was much more fun.

 

[Ag3ma]

One theory I've heard for where the misconception comes from is a misunderstanding of how the brain works. Basically, we use all of our brain, but not all at the same time. So, the theory is that someone somewhere misheard "We only use 10% of our brain at a time" and it got corrupted to forget the last three words.

Mmm. I think this is extremely dubious. I'm not sure any part of your brain is ever not doing anything: the cells are always ticking over with activity. What happens is that, depending on what's required of them, the type of activity changes, because to a certain extent brain output is determined by patterns of activity, not just activity itself. These also create limits: there are not just metabolic limits, but also activity cannot just be ramped up because it is unlikely to maintain these patterns that probably support proper function.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Puss in Boots The Last Wish

Heard a lot about this being good. It's gorgeously animated at times, but besides a great fucking villain, this was a pretty big disappointment. I think I enjoyed the first movie more.

The character I expected to hate the most was just as bad as I thought he would be. With so much effort and creativity put into the rest of the movie, it's confusing why he was left in. Really did bring the whole movie down.

I fucking love that more and more studios are taking cues from Spider-verse, but so far none have managed to keep their stories as good as their animation.

 

[BrawlMan]

I fucking love that more and more studios are taking cues from Spider-verse, but so far none have managed to keep their stories as good as their animation.

That's what happens when you play follow the leader. Looks like Across the Spider-Verse is going to make everyone else trip over the feet even more so.

 

[gorfias]

Mmm. I think this is extremely dubious. I'm not sure any part of your brain is ever not doing anything: the cells are always ticking over with activity. What happens is that, depending on what's required of them, the type of activity changes, because to a certain extent brain output is determined by patterns of activity, not just activity itself. These also create limits: there are not just metabolic limits, but also activity cannot just be ramped up because it is unlikely to maintain these patterns that probably support proper function.

I just keep thinking of Scar Jo having the seizures you describe rather than getting super powers and the Yakkuza standing over her asking each other, "do you think this will effect the drug's marketability?"

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think this counts as a movie, though it's only 17 min long (though the very end is missing), it would have been considered a full length film in 1911, when it was made:


A group of pirates attack a ship from their dirigible, and then go kidnap the girlfriend of an officer (named "Jack Manley"). Surprisingly few films seem to have been made about the adventures of dirigible pirates and the like (though in 1971 they made a film about WW1 Germans trying to steal the Magna Carta).

I particular like that when they steal boxes of treasure they were either heavy or they were acting like they were, gold is very dense.

Some very early style over-acting and the editing could have been better, but the story, such as it is, is decent enough.

 

[Ag3ma]

I just keep thinking of Scar Jo having the seizures you describe rather than getting super powers and the Yakkuza standing over her asking each other, "do you think this will effect the drug's marketability?"

I'd have to say, that backpacker was already lucky enough to look just like Scarlett Johanssen. Chancing onto a drug that gives her superpowers as well seems just unfair: why can't we ordinary people get that sort of break?

 

[gorfias]

I'd have to say, that backpacker was already lucky enough to look just like Scarlett Johanssen. Chancing onto a drug that gives her superpowers as well seems just unfair: why can't we ordinary people get that sort of break?

LOL, my son asked that very question when we saw "Chronicle" at the theater in 2012. He was legit upset about it!

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Just saw this on HBO-Max and really enjoyed it. My daughter gives it an A-. She thinks it the movie Glass Onion wanted to be. Me? A B+, the missus a C.
It is very well made and acted, suspenseful, interesting and there's nothing cookie cutter about it. There are a lot of little mysteries in it that become understandable as the movie goes on and is very satisfying.

A major quibble,

Spoiler

There is some gallows humor in it that isn't really humor when things are all said and done.

Yeah, I can see how The Menu is what Glass Onion wanted to be as the characters in The Menu don't feel like any specific real people but their own fictional takes on those types of people.

Everything, Everywhere, All At Once

I think this was good but someone needed to come in with the an edit button. Some of the scenes dragged out to the determient of the dramatic tension.

Otherwise this is utterly bonkers and I appreciate the creativity even though I didn't like all of it. I'm always going to push for creativity even if it isn't for me.

Don't know if I am going to watch it ever again but still 8/10

I agree the movie needed to edited down a bit; most of the bits were a bit overdone and revisited a few too many times and there was too much explanation in the beginning about the multiverses to where I bet rewatching it, you'd want to skip past those scenes; it probably would've worked if it was just explained as a pop culture reference like the character asking if Michele Yeoh's character seen any number of multiverse movies and her saying I saw that one and the guy was like "well, you're basically in that movie" and the movie itself just carrying on. On the other hand, this movie should definitely win the Oscar for editing because it's pretty insane in the technical aspects.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Men (2022)

British folk horror. Jessie Buckley plays a wife who decides to recover from a recent domestic trauma by escaping to a remote rural village where she meets a load of men, all played by Rory Kinnear. Things do not pan out as she hoped.

I gather this film really, really annoyed and upset a lot of people. It undeniably has a certain message about the male gender that will go down very poorly with the MRA sympathisers of this world, not least because it is neither subtle nor ameliorated. But it's not without a point to be made. Leaving aside whatever feelings you may have about that, it's a pretty good folk horror. The horror element is sufficiently creepy (it's not "jump scare" horror), with that right tinge of rural, supernatural weirdness, helped by super-saturated colour. The actors do a good job... all 5 of them (unless you count voice only and body motion). The plot is thin - but it is a horror movie and consistent with much of the genre. It's not great, but it did the job and I liked it.

What does an MRA stand for?
Listen to pronunciation. (mag-NEH-tik REH-zuh-nunts an-jee-AH-gruh-fee) A procedure that uses radio waves and a powerful magnet linked to a computer to create detailed pictures of the blood vessels and blood flow inside the body.

Umm…that can’t be it, but it’s all Google had.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Isn't that just adding more sci-fi trappings to 'The Stepford Wives' anyway?

Pretty much.

 

[Chimpzy]

What does an MRA stand for?
Listen to pronunciation. (mag-NEH-tik REH-zuh-nunts an-jee-AH-gruh-fee) A procedure that uses radio waves and a powerful magnet linked to a computer to create detailed pictures of the blood vessels and blood flow inside the body.

Umm…that can’t be it, but it’s all Google had.

Men's Right Activists. Ostensibly what the name implies. Should be raising awareness and support for real men's problems like depression and suicide rates or often getting the short end of the stick in divorce/custody battles, etc. In practice most of them spend inordinate amounts of time and effort complaining about teh womenz instead.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Men's Right Activists. Ostensibly what the name implies. Should be raising awareness and support for real men's problems like depression and suicide rates or often getting the short end of the stick in divorce/custody battles, etc. In practice most of them spend inordinate amounts of time and effort complaining about teh womenz instead.

Plus if the former was the case, they might even break into google’s top fifty or so search results.

 

[Chimpzy]

Plus if the former was the case, they might even break into google’s top fifty or so search results.

Probably, but nah, gotta do dumb shit. Like I remember a case where some MRA dipshits were raging because a domestic abuse shelter was women only, or something like that. The question was raised why these groups then don't create their a shelter for men themselves, if it's so important to them. Deathly silence. And when someone actually tries doing something to help, you'd always have a bunch of MRA types come down on it, saying that the men seeking help should just man up or somesuch manosphere tripe.

 

[Ag3ma]

Probably, but nah, gotta do dumb shit. Like I remember a case where some MRA dipshits were raging because a domestic abuse shelter was women only, or something like that. The question was raised why these groups then don't create their a shelter for men themselves, if it's so important to them. Deathly silence. And when someone actually tries doing something to help, you'd always have a bunch of MRA types come down on it, saying that the men seeking help should just man up or somesuch manosphere tripe.

Once when I was arguing with MRAs, they didn't seem able to compute that I also gave a substantial amount of my charity donations to a group who help prevent male suicide. I'm not sure whether it was that they couldn't comprehend that I could both support men and yet reject MRA antifeminism, or whether the idea of stumping up money and effort rather than just whining on the internet was too revolutionary a concept.