This is where you can talk about movies you've just seen in theaters, for the first time, for the millionth time, or whatever.
I just came back from Black Swan, and boy what a trip that was. Either Natalie Portman's character was a complete schizo who makes up some really crazy stuff throughout or everyone was completely crazy, including her. I think it's probably the former, since a lot of signs pointed to that.
There's a sex scene between her and Mila Kunis that is more than worth the price of admission, though. Just saying. :sly:
The King's Speech.
Inception.
It was a good film, and entertaining to watch, though its not something which I feel lived up to its hype, at least not on my first time watching the film. I also don't see why people found this film to be so complex to follow. There are probably some deeper things that you might not get until watching the film through multiple more times, but I got all of the main stuff that was going on in the film just fine. I thought it was pretty straightforward.
Yeah, I thought Inception was a great action movie with a cool concept, but I didn't find it "deep" or "hard to follow." :zonk:
Last night I felt like watching some film noir, so I watched Laura on Netflix.
Damn fine film. Like most traditional noir films from the era, it's a little messed up, which is part of the movie's charm. The writing and acting are top-notch, which just add to it. The newspaper character especially has some choice lines and was usually the most entertaining character in the movie.
There isn't much talk about film noir here, which kind of saddens me.
Finally caved in and saw Hannibal Rising. This movie makes Hannibal and Red Dragon look like Silence of the Lambs. Yeah, I'll admit that I was a tad interested in seeing how Lecter became Lecter, but this was fucking stupid. It is so painful, that I feel like I'm gonna throw up and cry for the next few hours. Especially the beginning, where it shows little Hannibal playing with his sister while together with his loving family... then soldiers come and kill the lot. Oh, and more soldiers come and bind Hannibal and his sister, burn his photo albums to keep warm, and then eat his sister because there aren't any squirrels. God, this makes Clannad looks believable and emotionally-balanced.
Red Dragon looks like Silence of the Lambs no matter what as long as you read the book. ;)
I saw Black Swan. I like how sex was basically just groping crotches in that movie. And the, uh, scene Avaitor's referring to. (That one scene where her mother ended up being there the whole time was awkward as hell.)
But as for the movie itself, I loved it. I'm a bit of a ballet geek, and I'm a huge fan of mindfucks. And that movie definitely delivered.
Though I can't say I'm a fan of the shaky cam. I don't think it added anything to it.
I forgot to mention this, but I saw a couple of movies on Friday.
I saw Country Strong in theaters with my family. It's a decently well made movie. Gwyneth Paltrow, Tim McGraw, and everyone else gave pretty good performances and the story, while nothing too original, was told fine. It gets really depressing near the end though, so don't go in expecting a lot of fun.
I guess it's a good movie, but I've seen better films based on falling from stardom. I'd probably like it more if I was more into country, though. My sister, who loves it, enjoyed it a lot.
Later we rented Get Him to the Greek on demand, and that was more up my alley. I loved Russell Brand's character in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and he didn't disappoint again (Sarah even made a cameo!). It's a dumb, funny movie which is what I was expecting and what I got. You'll probably like it more if you're into music, but the characters are likable enough to make it enjoyable if you're not.
When I couldn't go to sleep, I then watched The Passion of Joan of Arc on Netflix. I went into more detail on tz, but yeah, if you think you're a big fan of film, you need to see this movie, but it might be hard to watch more than once.
I got home late the other night due to work and my dad turned on the tv to this digital sub channel for spanish viewers. They have this movie showcase every night for action movies, and they were airing one called Action Jackson.
Its a pretty generic 80s action movie, complete with a loose cannon cop and a business tycoon as the bad guy. As such, it was the perfect film for me because I could just eat those up completely. Best part was the number of cheesy lines in the film, such as when Jackson roasted a grunt alive and made a joke about having a BBQ, and the ridiculous scene at the end where he drove a car into a mansion and drove up stairs that turned at a rigid 90 degree angle. Fuck logistics, the hero must always make it in time.
Grown Ups. For some reason, I can't find myself to hate this film. I mean, it looked like Adam Sandler and the rest of the gang had fun making this film, and it did feel like something Sandler did for fun rather than money. While the plot was somewhat generic, I still enjoyed it.
Tropic Thunder...uh what was the point of that movie?
To be a grown up version of Heavyweights, I'd assume.
Finished the first Iron Man two minutes ago.
Re-watched Mario Bava's hip, stylish (for 1969, this was most likely the pinnacle of chic) slasher film, Hatchet for the Honeymoon. It was 88 minutes long and felt like it was 45 minutes. Great film! I still need to see Blood and Black Lace, Kill Baby Kill, and Black Sabbath, but I say this is still (until I see those) the best thing he put his name on.
So after reading the original pulp novel, I decided to rewatch The Big Sleep last night.
I enjoyed it more than I did last time, but I'm still not sold on the movie. I think the problem with it is that it's a Disneyfied version of the original novel, and it seems like Howard Hawks missed a couple of details from it. Granted the original book was also pretty damn confusing (even the author, Raymond Chandler, doesn't know who kiled Owen Taylor), but it gets even more convulted at the end. You can blame that on the film having two different screenwriters making different parts of the screenplay separately with no contact from each other.
That said, Bogie IS Philip Marlowe, and despite the problems I have with the film, I wish they made more Chandler adaptations of Bogart playing Marlowe. Sadly different studios and production staffs had access to different Chandler stories so that obviously wasn't possible. On top of that, the movie was made in the first place as a vehicle for Bogart and Bacall, and making sequels with other women would have ruined that, unless they hired Lauren to play some of them as well, which would just be weird.
I have Murder, My Sweet, another Chandler adaptation, from Netflix. I'm going to watch that soon as well.
Also, while editing my Netflix queue per request of my Maiden voyage, I'm adding Children of the Damned (as well as the original Village of the Damned) and Damien: Omen II to my queue. Here's hoping that they don't suck.
"You will order the princess to marry me!"
"I...will order...the princess to- but you're so old!"
Good stuff. Now onto It's Kind of a Funny Story.
Quote from: SNES Chalmers on February 13, 2011, 10:11:17 PM
Good stuff. Now onto It's Kind of a Funny Story.
Good call.
Everyone needs to see this scene. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmWijEbozWI)
Just watched the movie Empire Records today. It's not a great film by any means, but it's still a lot of fun, and it features some pretty good 90s tunes to boot. Also, it's kind of funny to see the kid who played Slater, a total stoner, in Dazed and Confused play a vastly different role in this film.
Despite my love of 90s culture, music, and movies that feature both, I have yet to see this one. I should rectify that soon.
Clueless was 110% even better because the Mighty Mighty Bosstones were in it.
Watched The Day the Earth Stood Still earlier. The original, not the Keanu Reeves remake.
I can't believe I haven't seen this before. It's like a feature-length Twilight Zone episode. Really good, and not even as dated as I was expecting.
Well, I'd argue that certain aspects of the film are dated, and it does come off as a bit too preachy at times. But on the whole its a true classic, and yes it does have that Twilight Zone sort of vibe to it, but it does actually predate TZ, and in fact if I'm not mistaken I recall reading somewhere that Rod Sterling himself drew some inspiration from this film in creating TZ as well as other classic science-fiction films, as well as some old horror movies as well.
Well of course parts of it are dated. All of the little kid's dialogue sounds like the type you would hear on sitcoms from that era, but I thought the movie was a little fresher than I was expecting.
And yeah, I know that it predates TZ, but it feels like it's predecessor. I was expecting Rod Sterling to come out a few times during the film. That's a good thing.
I just saw The Social Network. I thought it was OK. I wasn't really a fan of the hyper-active speaking monologues, though, in that its one of those films where the actors seem to think that just talking a lot and speaking really fast will make them seem intelligent (well, I suppose that it DOES give off that illusion to a lot of people). It was still an enjoyable flick for what it was, but its yet another one of those films that I feel people overrate if only because, well....I guess to be fair, its because there just wasn't much competition last year. I have yet to see a single 2010 film which I consider to be truly great and memorable. I'm sure there must be some great films from last year, but if they are they must be more obscure, independent titles that I didn't hear about, since none of the big releases really impressed me all that much.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on March 09, 2011, 07:17:11 PM
I wasn't really a fan of the hyper-active speaking monologues, though, in that its one of those films where the actors seem to think that just talking a lot and speaking really fast will make them seem intelligent (well, I suppose that it DOES give off that illusion to a lot of people).
No, it's because Aaron Sorkin scripts are so thick, that it basically requires the actors to talk twice as fast in order to make sure the movie doesn't go for too long.
Ah! So then its the writer's fault! Well, I suppose I should probably give the actors more credit for being able to talk so fast without sounding incredibly ridiculous doing it. It didn't really make me buy them as intelligent figures based on their performances, but I did at least find their performances to be relatively believable, for the most part.
Saw Skyline on the plane. It's some mix of Cloverfield and Independence Day but without the A-list actors and replace shaky camera with telescope. Ugh, don't know if that was worth wasting the hours instead of reading. Actually I skipped the first half of the movie since that was mostly dialogue and they did a decent opening scene followed by a completely pointless "X hours earlier" storyline.
I also saw Tangled. That's good another time around.
Been watching Brick. While the dialogue's a tad awkward, it's a pretty good throwback to the noir genre.
Dirty Harry was just watched, am now watching Magnum Force. :thumbup:
Eastwood, nice.
I have Witness for the Prosecution sitting here from Netflix, but I haven't got around to watching it yet. One of the few big Wilder flicks I still haven't seen, but getting the time to sit down and watch it is hard. I'll try to soon, though.
Dick Tracy. God its cheesy as hell.
I haven't seen that in ages... I should get on that.
Just came back from seeing Limitless with a few friends. It was a wholly interesting idea for a film, but not so much a great one. The concept itself lead to a good idea and I especially like how it turned out. I don't want to spoil it, so I'm not going to say what I mean there for now.
I think my major problem with it is that there were some pretty good ideas that were beginning to be explored in the film, but they never really went far with a lot of them. And Bradley Cooper was very ineffective emotionally throughout.
And I also got to watch Witness for the Prosecution. Now that is a good movie. Especially that ending. Oh man, that ending.
I watched Source Code with my friends last Friday. I honestly don't get how this movie got reception as good as it did. It took a good idea and riddled with cliches, and badly done romance sub-plot that didn't work in the least and really made no sense, and the characters themselves made a lot of dumb mistakes that just seemed so obvious to have avoided. Worst of all this movie was completely predictable, which automatically killed any potential entertainment value in it for me, since a movie of this short should definitely avoid being predictable above all else. The performances themselves by the cast were also pretty bland. The nicest thing that I can think to say about this film is that at times it reminded me of Inception, except then I just realized how superior that film was (and believe me, I'm certainly not one of those people who found Inception to be perfect, and I had my problems with that movie as well, as good as it was), and then I only got further disappointed by this film.
Basically, this is a film that has a good concept but completely lacked the writing, acting, and directing talent to execute it properly, and overall I found the final product to be a rather bland film. Its not even really bad or terrible, but its certainly not good either (at least IMO). Its one of those movies that's sort of just, there.
At any rate, perhaps you shouldn't take my word for it, since to my surprise I seem to be in the minority, being that a lot of people have given this movie surprisingly positive reviews. Honestly, though, I think 90% of the reviews that I check out from critics and random users are crap, especially when it comes to Rotten Tomatoes (I absolutely hate it when people try to use RT to argue the quality of a movie, as to whether its good or bad).
Is Source Code one of those movies that's intended to be somewhat intelligent or is it mindless action crap that rides mostly on special effects and not much else?
Saw Insidious last week. It's from the creators of Saw and Paranormal Activity so I already assumed it would have a twist ending. Also, the directors for this film are Saw's Leigh Whannell and James Wan and this movie did decent in the box office. The last non-Saw movie they worked on was Dead Silence, which was a good, fresh supernatural flick, but did terrible in the box office. So it's nice to see a non-Saw horror movie do well. One other thing to mention, this movie is PG-13 and looking at other modern PG-13 movies....they weren't good. Insidious, however, took it to a whole other level and used the rating to it's advantage.
I loved how the movie transitioned from being all happy to just intense. Insidious wasn't predictable(like other horror films), therefore I had plenty of jump scares during the ride. The ending was crazy...if you want a horror movie with a twist ending and not just a "happily ever after" ending, this is for you. All in all, I loved it and will purchase it whenever it comes to DVD.
I just re-watched Alien. This is easily one of my favorite horror movies from the 70's (yeah, I know everyone thinks of it primarily as a sci-fi film, but its a hybrid in terms of being both sci-fi and horror, and I do count it as a horror film when taking them into consideration). Its basically your typical monster movie type of plot on the outset, with certain elements of the slasher genre mixed in, mainly regarding the whole characters splitting up and getting killed off one-by-one. However, this movie executes it all so well that it feels like its own unique story in many ways. I think what Ridley Scott succeeded in with this film was the element of build-up. Most moviegoers these days may find it too slow, but I like how the film takes time to build up an atmosphere and when things do finally start happening it feels all the more interesting for it.
Now, of course I much prefer the 2nd film which admittedly drops the horror aspect for the most part and orients itself to be more like an action film in many regards, but I would attribute that to James Cameron's own talents as a director, and in all fairness it also takes the time and care to build up an atmosphere and also rackets up the tension without feeling as slow-paced as the first film (though, also to be fair to that film, it was meant to be played out much slower for the type of story that it was telling).
Overall, though, I really love both films. Its a shame that it was actually continued beyond Aliens, though. Aliens had a great ending that left the series off at a perfect spot, but then the 3rd movie was made and it killed everything that the 2nd movie got right (and I mean, literally....it killed off all of the main characters that people actually came to care about....yeah, don't know which dumb-ass writer came up with that idea....), and don't even get me started on the atrocity that was Resurrection.
I really need to rewatch Alien. I've given Aliens a few viewings and love it to death, but it doesn't have the atmosphere that the original did. They're both great films, though.
David Fincher is responsible for letting that shitfest 3 out. As far as I'm concerned there are only two movies, one from Ridley Scott that is one of the best horror movies ever made and one from James Cameron that is one of the best action movies ever made. That's it.
Its the same problem I have with Terminator 3, in that it makes no sense in the context of the previous films and were written by some dickhead that doesn't understand why these movies resonated with people.
Yes, I actually hate 3 more than Resurrection, because Resurrection is at least standalone and doesn't shit all over someone's work like they know so much better than them. Resurrection is just another shitty revival, Alien 3 killed the fucking franchise and turned it into a joke.
Quote from: Desensitized on May 08, 2011, 10:51:08 PM
David Fincher is responsible for letting that shitfest 3 out. As far as I'm concerned there are only two movies, one from Ridley Scott that is one of the best horror movies ever made and one from James Cameron that is one of the best action movies ever made. That's it.
This statement is truth. That is all. :)
QuoteYes, I actually hate 3 more than Resurrection, because Resurrection is at least standalone and doesn't shit all over someone's work like they know so much better than them. Resurrection is just another shitty revival, Alien 3 killed the fucking franchise and turned it into a joke.
You pretty much nailed mine (and EVERYONE else's) problem with 3. Remember how the 2nd film really went all out building up the characters and making you care about them, and even though a few survived they went through hell to stay alive, and also how Ripley put her life at great risk for a large chunk of the end of the movie to rescue Newt? Yeah, literally within the first minute of Alien 3 it says fuck that and everyone except for Ripley gets killed off and apparently an Alien snuck on board their ship without ANYONE fucking noticing it. I mean, it was plausible in the first film to have an Alien roaming around without anyone knowing where it was because it was more like a giant fucking station, but nobody could notice it on a small escape pod ship (not that it was ever even there to begin with, because some half-assed writer thought it would be OK to just add it in there).
Just like Desensitized, as far as I'm concerned, Aliens was the 2nd and last part of the films. It was a direct sequel to the first part while also being a stand-alone story of its own, and its ending brought a satisfactory conclusion that simply left no room for a sequel. Just because some dumb-ass decided to make one after that doesn't mean that anyone has to consider it canon, and I certainly don't.
I saw Predators a few days ago, and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. It got the Predator feeling down perfectly, while also using an expanded cast of characters that actually do see to develop as it goes on. So yeah, there is a bit of Alien > Aliens influence here, but it stays firmly in the Predator mold.
The acting was really good, the action was well defined, and the plot was original enough from the first.
If you guys liked the original or the first two Alien movies, check this one out. Something tells me it's going to be forgotten about in a few years.
I heard very mixed opinions on this film and decided not to spend a whole lot of money to see it when it was in theaters. However now that its out on DVD I can probably either rent it off of Netflix if I can convince my brother to get it, or I can just pick it up from a Red Box for a dollar, so I'll check it out when I get a chance to.
As for me, I just saw The Town. Its better than I expected given how much I hate Ben Affleck, but I still don't get all the hype and praise that this movie got. It was an alright movie, and a hell of a lot better than that piece of shit "Gone, Baby, Gone" as well as almost anything else that Affleck has been involved with, but overall it wasn't much more than an OK film, IMO.
Blood Simple
The Cohen Brothers' debut is an excellent neo-noir (I believe that's the term), featuring great atmosphere and some really tense moments, especially towards the end. M. Emmet Walsh delivers an outstanding performance as the movie's villain: A sleazy private-detective named Loren Visser. Highly recommended.
Watching The Apartment right now. Haven't been able to get myself into any of Billy Wilder's films, so I hope this'll be an exception.
And what did you think of it?
Pretty funny. Probably should give it a rewatch once I can center myself more since my attention span's been shot in the last few days.
I love how well it balances comedy and tragedy throughout the entire film. The first half or so is a sharp romp while it becomes very dark after a certain point with Fran's character. If the writing wasn't so sharp and the actors weren't so good (Fred MacMurray pulled off a strangely likable asshole well in it), the film may not have worked, and went too far to one side or the other, but I think Wilder nailed it.
Rewatched it again with a clearer mind. Poor Fran.
True. Very true.
I saw 2 movies with a group of friends yesterday- The Hangover 2 in theaters, and Super Mario Bros. at one of their houses.
Hangover was more of the same. If you found the first one funny like I did, you'll probably enjoy 2 as well, even if it's nothing earth shattering. As for SMB, it's as bad as the Critic made it out to be. Maybe even worse, since he left a lot of stuff ripe for mocking out of it. Yoshi's an ugly little raptor.
SMB live-action? Is it better than the SMB Super Show (still my little pup's favorite show on Netflix)
It's on that level, I'll say that much.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
Really great movie, loved Depp's portrayal of Duke. Might check out the book as well.
Clearing some more of the horror films out of my Netflix Queue-
The Crazies remake
The Funhouse (1981)
Mario Bava's Black Sabbath
and then I re-watched Roman Polanski's Repulsion. Still a fascinating movie. And I still thought the rape scenes were a little much and the ending was a little blah-ze.
Call me crazy, but I enjoyed Beneath the Planet of the Apes. :-o The reasons the film is hated for the Underground mutants, The Heston carbon copy Brent, the bleak ending, the planet destroying missile. Loved it!
Empire Records is on VH1 right now, and I've never seen it so I thought I'd give it a watch.
It's pretty boring so far. Nothing's really happening.
Quote from: Desensitized on June 02, 2011, 08:37:36 PM
Empire Records is on VH1 right now, and I've never seen it so I thought I'd give it a watch.
It's pretty boring so far. Nothing's really happening.
Yeah, that was boring. I'm still not even quite sure who the audience of the movie was supposed to be.
I still haven't seen that.
Today I watched Persona on Netflix, which was good! Then I watched Leprechaun at my friend's house, which was not! But that was the point.
I might watch something else on Netflix after I try to sleep. Perhaps Charade. I could use more Hepburn in my life.
Was that the 1960s musical Finian's Rainbow or the horror movie?
The horror movie starring a pre-Friends Jennifer Aniston.
The cameraman sure loved getting shots of her ass in. Especially during chase scenes.
I just got back from an afternoon showing of X-Men: First Class (since its considerably cheaper than an evening show). I don't have a lot of time to share my thoughts right now, but to sum up my feelings on the movie, I thought it was great. While I got some guilty pleasure entertainment out of Wolverine, I can admit it was a bad movie and overall a disappointment, and the same could be said for X3, but for me this film finally stepped things back up. I REALLY loved the way that Magneto was portrayed in this movie. I haven't read the comics so I don't know how he stacks up to how Magneto is portrayed in the comics, but in this movie his role is brilliantly acted and I just can't take my eyes away from a scene every time that he's on-screen. I think the movie nailed the whole early relationship between him and Professor X. The supporting cast was all good, but none of them got too much characterization aside from Mystique, but that's the way that I prefer things since I was happy to see Professor X and Magneto get more focus in the film. Keven Bacon also did a pretty good job as the main villain of the movie, Shaw.
Overall I really, really enjoyed this film. My only complaints upon my first viewing of it is that a certain freak-out scene in the beginning is way too over-the-top (IMO), and I also felt that the movie got off to a bit of a slow start, but it really picks up after the first 15 minutes or so and just about everything after that is great material. Its definitely a return to form for the franchise, at least for me. I recommend it to anyone who at least liked the first 2 X-Men movies.
BTW, Unless you have a thing for watching the end credit sequences of all films, don't bother waiting past the end credits in this film if you're expecting a little post-teaser sort of thing like in some of the previous Marvel films released, because there aren't any for this film, which is a little bit disappointing but at least its better than having a completely pointless scene like after the credits for Wolverine.
While Emma Frost's actress was lacking, I definitely loved watching the movie. Felt kind of like a 007 film but with superheroes.
X-men First Class. Well made and entertaining if somewhat emotionally hollow.
I'm amazed that Pirates had lines out the door the first two weekends, but last Friday it was just four people in the entire theater.
Movie was alright; wonder if that Doctor Who episode snagged the idea from the film. Best part was that they filmed in Hawaii and lots of characters get to do pirate talk again...arrr.
Add me to the list of people who liked X-Men. Definitely a step up from the last two, and was quite enjoyable to watch.
Arsenic and Old Lace. I have found my favorite Golden Age movie.
Watched Green Lantern the other day. One word and two syllables: Aw-ful. It's hard to believe Warner Bros was payed extra money to improve designs. There were chuckle moments where they shouldn't be. Hated the way how the lanterns moved, all of them looked like no-bone humans.
Almost the entire theater laughed at the guardians. I couldn't blame em, especially when they had jellyfish heads. Enough ranting on the designs though, the plot was great. If only the execution was better then I wouldn't have to post a rant. Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan was a horrible choice. It got to the point where it wasn't Hal Jordan on the screen, but plain ol' Ryan. Go back to being Deadpool and wear a mask next time.
Tried not to spoil it. I give it a 2/5, partly because I care for the franchise and anticipated the movie. Save your lives, read the comics, or wait for the animated series.
Replay value: Zero.
Poor DC, they just don't seem to get it.
I could already pretty much guess how this movie would turn out based on its extremely poor quality trailers. Usually trailers show off the best parts of a movie and get you pumped for it, even if you know its going to be a bad movie when you see the full product, but the trailer itself almost made me want to throw up a little. It was really that bad. I can't imagine actually being able to sit through the full movie just based on the trailers alone (to be fair, I have seen shit trailers for great movies, but there are times when I can already tell that nothing about the movie will be good, and this was one of those times).
I'd love to see a great Green Lantern film. As someone who has never read any of the comic books and barely knows anything about the character or his history, I have always been interested in him as a superhero and wanted to learn more about him, but unfortunately this movie just turned me away from getting into GL for the time-being. Perhaps on a day that I can actually afford to buy stuff again, I'll pick up some recommended comic books relating to the character if I can.
On a positive note, the 2nd Captain America trailer is a huge improvement over the first, and while it doesn't look great, it at least has me interested enough in wanting to see the movie. I still have to admit that the costume looks completely ridiculous in live-action no matter how much they try to make it look cool and bad-ass, but considering that other movies have had ridiculous looking costumes yet made me completely overlook that with some extremely well-done writing, story, and character development, it certainly isn't impossible for this movie to do the same for me if it turns out to be good (and just for the record, the movie that surprised me like that in the past was The Dark Knight....come on, you all know that the Batman costume in that movie looks completely ridiculous if you just stop to picture it by itself without all of the other great things happening in the film....).
Transformers 3. The epitome of lifeless and dull cinema.
How bad can it be? Don't things blow up well?
The big invasion scene is represented by a few seconds of footage interspersed with lengthy stretches of black frames.
That's something you'd find in a trailer, not the actual film.
Eh, By now I learned not to care all that much about how shitty a movie is. I feel that people go out of their way to hate on something, even if it is garbage, just for the sake of doing so. As for me, I think the Transformers movies are shit, but I won't feel ashamed to admit that I get a guilty pleasure out of seeing them for the over-the-top action scenes and my friends and I get a kick out of making fun of the terrible action, writing, and crappy dialogue. Its one of those movies that I just have fun watching because its so bad (keep note that I haven't seen the new film yet, so I can't comment on that). What I don't get is why people who already decided that they hate the franchise and already know that the next movie will be bad waste their time and money to see it just so they can bash it. I mean, in that case just bash it since you know its bad, since that seems like it would be a lot easier to me. As for me, I think the whole hate for Michael Bay thing goes a bit overboard at times. The guy just makes big-budget movies with crappy writing and almost no attempt at story for the most part (his older films are ironically is best since he actually had some story and real acting going on in those back before he had the resources to make the entire movie out of almost nothing but special effects and explosions), but its not like he's the only director ever guilty of doing this, its just that his movies happen to make the most money. Honestly, though, I've seen my plethora of shit out there, and while Transformers definitely ranks in the shit, its far from the worst I've seen, and I've seen far more dull movies, personally.
I still don't know what the fuck happened in Transformers 2. I saw it, but I don't remember anything about it all other than it didn't make a lot of sense.
Nobody goes to those movies because they want a story that make sense, or a story at all. Even Michael Bay gladly admits that its a pile of shit thrown together that blows off a huge amount of money on special effects rather than any characterization. To be honest, I think that the original Transformers cartoon is shit too when I look back on it, so I can't say I'm pissed about the films fucking with source material, and in general anyone who sees them just goes there for a bunch of random action scenes. Its basically the highest calibur of idiocy in film in terms of bad writing, acting, directing, and so on, but I just watch them if I want to turn off my brain for a bit and be entertained by the over-the-top action and cheesiness of it all.
So is it worth watching even after seeing the commercial trailers? And is it meant to be watched in 3D?
I might be the only person who got bored of Transformers 1 and gave up after 20 minutes.
Then again, I've been watching airplane quality movies like Sucker Punch.
Son of Rambow. Better than the original Rambo, actually.
I don't know, the original Rambo was a pretty good movie. :thinkin:
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on July 04, 2011, 12:11:47 AM
I don't know, the original Rambo was a pretty good movie. :thinkin:
Well, it's funnier at least.
Super 8 is super great!
Sorry! :happytime:
This was seriously the type of movie it feels like I've been waiting to see for a long ass time, and it didn't disappoint.
Quote from: Desensitized on July 04, 2011, 08:02:29 PM
Super 8 is super great!
Sorry! :happytime:
This was seriously the type of movie it feels like I've been waiting to see for a long ass time, and it didn't disappoint.
It really is terrific. Definitely my favorite film so far this summer.
Quote from: Lord Dalek on July 04, 2011, 08:26:42 PM
Quote from: Desensitized on July 04, 2011, 08:02:29 PM
Super 8 is super great!
Sorry! :happytime:
This was seriously the type of movie it feels like I've been waiting to see for a long ass time, and it didn't disappoint.
It really is terrific. Definitely my favorite film so far this summer.
The thing that got me was just how well they nailed everything. Not too slow, not too fast, just the right amount of character development and action, good suspense and scares, and it really did feel like a mix of both Abrams' and Spielberg's strengths to give us exactly the type of film we've been missing lately.
I'm not really sure what's coming out this summer that could top it. Not to spoil it for anyone here, but if you haven't seen it, I suggest you do it while it's in theaters.
Quote from: Desensitized on July 04, 2011, 08:02:29 PM
Super 8 is super great!
Sorry! :happytime:
This was seriously the type of movie it feels like I've been waiting to see for a long ass time, and it didn't disappoint.
Saw it a couple weeks ago, really good. It's my favorite movie this summer. Loved how the kids actually acted like kids. What did you think about the score by Michael Giacchino? Beautiful, right?
Just came back from Transformers 3, visuals were good, story was good. All I can say is that it was a whole, lot better from the second movie.
Just finished watching Layer Cake. Excellent movie! Absolutely brilliant.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on July 04, 2011, 12:18:24 AM
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on July 04, 2011, 12:11:47 AM
I don't know, the original Rambo was a pretty good movie. :thinkin:
Well, it's funnier at least.
First Blood or the 4th Rambo movie named Rambo?
Quote from: ToonFaithful on July 04, 2011, 09:15:41 PM
Quote from: Desensitized on July 04, 2011, 08:02:29 PM
Super 8 is super great!
Sorry! :happytime:
This was seriously the type of movie it feels like I've been waiting to see for a long ass time, and it didn't disappoint.
Saw it a couple weeks ago, really good. It's my favorite movie this summer. Loved how the kids actually acted like kids. What did you think about the score by Michael Giacchino? Beautiful, right?
Just came back from Transformers 3, visuals were good, story was good. All I can say is that it was a whole, lot better from the second movie.
The score was excellent. Normally scores don't always catch my attention unless they're really good because it honestly isn't my genre of music, but this one hit all the right notes at all the right moments. I even found myself taken aback by it at times.
Great stuff.
Michael Giacchino is our greatest living film composer. They should give him an Oscar every year.
Green Lantern. Last week, to be exact.
Bawwwwwwwwww, I was sucked into that. Buddy of mine wanted to see it for whatever reason, and I had nothing better to do that day (figuring I could also use some good camp in my diet as well), so... yeah, went and seen it, and that's all she wrote.
Awful. Simply awful. Is there really anything I can say, at this point, that hasn't already been said? I could make some dumb joke about Ryan Reynolds career crashing down in flames, but I'd probably just be kicking the already dead and beaten horse with that. It's just... bad. So, so bad. And to think, all that wasted money. Take out the glam and glitz, and you can feed a third-world country for an entire decade on the money they spent here.
Unfortunately, the bad movie streak looks to continue this week; I've got Bayformers 3 on my plate tomorrow. And at some point, either this week or next, Cars 2 (which sounds quite awful, if Mater really does have as big a role as the critics bemoan). Guess I'm a masochist now or something. :zonk:
I still don't think Cars 2 was that bad. It was at least as good as the first one, if not a little better, and personally I'd rather watch either one of them again before watching any of the Transformers movies.
The Transformers movies are shit but if I had to pick I'd easily watch that over Green Lantern. At least that one is probably a bit more entertaining with its mindless CG and bad acting.
I'm sure Cars 2 is the best of those 3 movies by default since its still Pixar, but I don't care, the first Cars was godawfully boring. I wouldn't even call the film bad or shit since there was clearly still a lot of effort put into making it and writing it, and it has some great voice acting going for it but....I honestly would prefer a shitty but somewhat mindlessly entertaining Transformers movie to something like Cars, which is undeniably better but....honestly puts me to sleep. That's just me, though.
If you guys haven't seen it and want a good movie, go see Super 8.
Most of the season outside of X-Men has been kinda crappy, but Super 8 was awesome.
For whatever reason, that reminds me; I still haven't seen Thor yet. 0_o
It's playing at the cheap shows this weekend, and I was considering seeing it. What's the general consensus from you guys? Good? Bad? Anything in between?
It was all right.
I didn't see Thor either, but a friend of mine said it sucked, which was kind of disheartening because I did actually want to see it.
Personally I thought it was OK. Among comic book movies, its certainly not great by any stretch but its hardly a bad movie either. Then again, seeing how touchy people can get with that genre I suppose it depends on how seriously you take these movies. I'll be honest, when it comes to live-action movies I am rarely ever able to take movies about costumed heroes all that seriously. I mean I can respect them if they have great characters and great story-lines, but very few films in the genre have really achieved that from my standpoint, so as it stands I just watch most of them for the sake of entertainment and in the hopes of getting at least a little bit of characterization and depth thrown into the mix. Thor delivers on the entertainment side of things, IMO, and at least for Loki I feel that we get some decent amount of characterization, though Thor himself is pretty unconvincing in his character transformation of an arrogant warrior to a more humble hero (his transition feels like it comes way too easy and suddenly, to be honest).
So, if you want a seriously good film that can rival something like The Dark Knight or the first Iron Man movie, then I can't really recommend Thor. However if you just want to have some fun at a film that has some fairly good laughs and can just be taken seriously enough that you do get at least a little bit of good characterization, then Thor is worth checking out. Just don't ever see it in 3D unless you just love to waste your money for getting the glasses alone even if you'll never end up needing to use them.
Nah, I wouldn't see it in 3D even if that were still available (far as I know, the cheap theaters don't do 3D showings... which is just as well).
Sounds good. For $3, I probably couldn't go wrong anyway, but I just wanted to get a few opinions of it before I went. Thanks guys!
The Social Network. Really, REALLY good.
Also I thought Thor was the most entertaining of this year's comic book flicks so far.
I did indeed like the Social Network, but I also had a few big annoyances with the movie. I gave my thoughts on that a few months back but one of my main issues was how the director somehow thought it was a good idea for the actors to rush out all their lines (everyone seemed to be talking at least twice as fast as a normal person would). There were a few other issues that I had with the film, but otherwise it was a really enjoyable movie with a good amount of intelligent dialogue. I do like the fact that the movie delivers things straight and doesn't try to throw in any bull-shit Hollywood cliches or make the main character out to be a better or worse person than he really is. I guess I just like the fact that nothing in this movie is particularly glorified which works well for a movie that's essentially all about the business world.
I really liked Thor, but then again, I really like the character.
Cars 2 DID put my better half to sleep in the theater, that my little pups had to wake her up for the races.
Carpenter's Thing.
I wish horror was still this good.
Ah, my 2nd favorite horror movie next to The Shining.
The King's Speech. A very good movie with superb acting all around, though its one of those slow-paced character relationship stories that you really have to be in a very specific mood and the right mindset to watch (at least for me).
Quote from: Desensitized on July 06, 2011, 06:03:14 PM
If you guys haven't seen it and want a good movie, go see Super 8.
Most of the season outside of X-Men has been kinda crappy, but Super 8 was awesome.
This one's fun, although there are a hell of a lot of crashes. And it has the Space Shuttle poster!
I guess I'll go see Cars 2 today and then Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 next week. Thoughts on the movie will be posted later today.
Seeing a movie tonight. But it's not Harry Potter. Or Winnie the Pooh. Or Horrible Bosses. Or even some crap I don't want to see.
Going to a midnight showing of E.T. with one of my my friend and his girlfriend, who somehow hasn't seen it yet.
This is the first time I've seen it in years, so this is going to be a treat. Oh, and I'm pretty sure it's the original version.
Sounds sweet. Especially if it's actually the original unaltered version.
I've seen Raiders and Temple of Doom theatrical but never the original non-walkietalkie E.T.
I've seen the original, or at least the non-walkietalkie version, though it's been years. My grandmother had the VHS release from the 80s, and I watched it several times as a kid upon visits to her house. It has been a while since I've actually seen the tape in her possession, but she did still have it as recently as a few years ago.
Ok let me rephrase that. I've seen the non-walkietalkie E.T. a zillion times. Just not in theaters.
I've seen the non-walkie talkie E.T. a bunch, and the walkie talkie version in theaters when it came out. Even when I was like 10 I knew it was bull, though.
And I sure hope that this isn't going to be the 20th anniversary this time. I double checked with the theaters, and they're not sure either.
If its not the old MCA logo in reverse at the start you can walk out.
Unfortunately, it was the 20th anniversary. Worse still, the print looked as worn out as the original should, and started having serious audio problems around the part of the movie where the house got interrogated. Got REALLY fuzzy and it even died out a few times.
But it was nice seeing the movie in theaters again, even with the walkie talkie guns and audio issues. Still a classic.
Just finished watching Toy Story 3. Quite an ending for the toys, but they're always live on with happiness.
Tremors.
"You just broke into the wrong goddamn rec room."
Great creature movie. Funny when it wants to be, too.
Tremors was a really fun movie. It had an interesting movie monster that traveled through the ground and people had to be clever and find unique and inventive ways to stay off the ground, which made for a really interesting film overall. The characters were also pretty fun and likable for what they were. All of the sequels are garbage, though.
Yeah, it was really unique in that aspect. Because of the way it was set up it forsook most of those cheesy lame scares from most horror movies and actually made you wonder how and when something would happen, especially when the creatures were getting smarter throughout the story. I also liked that it didn't follow the common trope and tell you where these things came from, it gave them a bit more mystique to their ferocity.
I never saw the sequels, but I can guess how bad they were. This is kind of a one shot concept.
Tremors 2 was tolerable. Not nearly as fun or imaginative as the first (the new gimmick in 2 being that the Graboids evolve, and now resemble small dinosaur-like creatures that no longer tunnel underground, and walk on the surface), but still OK. Fred Ward returns, which is good. Michael Gross is still fun... it's an alright sequel IMO, given its small budget and DTV status.
The less said about 3 and 4 the better, though. 3 is pretty bad, and 4 (a prequel) is just fucking terrible. The gimmick in 3 is that the Graboids evolve once more, and gain the ability to fly; it's not as much fun as you'd think, and the CGI-graphics used for the "assblasters" (nickname they give to the newly evolved Graboids) look pretty tacky. I don't really remember much about 4; what I do recall is that it's basically a prequel, set back in the 1900's or something, and it tells the story of how the Graboids came to be. It was also a really awful movie, and not nearly as charming as the first two.
Perhaps the only saving grace for the last two movies is that Michael Gross (Burt Gummer) returns for both movies. He makes due with very little 3, but he's pretty forgettable in 4 (he plays a different character, obviously, since Burt wasn't alive in the 1900's). Again, though; the less said about those last two, the better.
I'd check out 2 just for the hell of it, but 3 and 4 were wastes. The original was a super fun monster movie, and the sequel, while lacking some of the original's spark, holds up on its own to it.
If you hate the sequels, you'll just "love" the tv series. :devil:
I still refuse to ever watch that series.
Also, a random question I've been wanting to ask, but what do you guys think are your favorite endings in a film? A couple of Disney ones come close for nostalgia's sake, but I think I might side with this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_vqnySNhQ0). It's one of the closest I've ever come to crying for a movie ("Baby Mine" from Dumbo is also up there), and the perfect sentimental ending. The whole film is made of brilliance, but that final encounter is what makes the whole experience.
And for the opposite side of the spectrum, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA9lFsiut2Q) is how to end a tragedy. Check out the expressions on everyone here, from the beginning right down to that chilling final recital. And the delivering of that speech, my god. This movie is one of the few times I've been down-right haunted by a film, and her performance, especially this scene and her negligence towards the ordeals which occurred earlier on by her actions, is just how.
If you haven't seen either film yet, don't watch these! They'll spoil them for you, and I won't watch any links to movies I haven't seen yet either. But these are both up there for me.
Aliens.
A 2 hour plus long movie where the first Alien doesn't even show up until over an hour into the film. Building suspense, what a novel concept. But seriously, I love this movie.
Aliens:
My favorite Sci-Fi movie
My favorite Monster movie (if you count it as one)
My favorite action movie
My favorite sequel of any movie
EASILY my favorite movie by James Cameron
Hell, its one of my top 10 favorite movies of all time.
Ten reasons I love Aliens:
1- "How do I get out of this chickenshit outfit?"
2- "You secure that shit, Hudson!"
3- "Hey, Hicks. Man, you look just like I feel."
4- "All right, sweethearts, what are you waiting for? Breakfast in bed? Another glorious day in the Corps! A day in the Marine Corps is like a day on the farm. Every meal's a banquet! Every paycheck a fortune! Every formation a parade! I LOVE the Corps!"
5- "Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?"
"No. Have you?"
6- "Why do they tell little kids that?"
"Most of the time it's true."
7- "That's it man, game over man, game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?"
"Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? Why don't we try that?"
8- "Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?"
Oh, and 9- "Knock it off, Hudson!". There's one line I was going to use for #10, but I can't really recall it. Get something something something you bitch, I think.
The film really is on the level of Casablanca and BTTF in terms of instant quotability. Even those who prefer the original can't say that about it.
"Get away from her, you bitch!"
Though I'm also partial to "They're coming out of the goddamn walls!"
"You secure that shit, Hudson!"
Classic.
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.
Porn doesn't really work well in a big group, especially with a couple of girls.
The Graduate.
Its a really well-made film, and I can relate to this movie in some ways as I was at a stage where I didn't know what the hell to do with my life after I would graduate from High School (though in this case Dustin Hoffman's character graduated from college, but its the same general concept). Of course then I got forced into going to a Pharmacy school, so that phase of mine didn't last too long.
The whole plot about the affair was written, directed, and acted extremely well. Dustin Hoffman really shines in this movie, and I'd probably say that its the 2nd best performance I've seen him in (with his best being in Rain Man, IMO).
Ah yes, this one. I've seen this movie countless times, but I still adore it.
Two questions I gotta ask you, EK-
1- What did you think of the soundtrack? I love Simon & Garfunkel and think that their songs greatly contribute to the climate of the film. Since you seem to appreciate music more when it's used to enhance something you can relate to, like a video game or movie, I was wondering what you thought of the songs from what you remember.
2- Did you like seeing Mr. Feeny as Benjamin's dad? :sly:
They should have left in Hazy Shade of Winter if you ask me.
The Boondock Saints
I'd really like a count on how times they say "fuck" in this movie. Does such data exist? It must... it must.
"You know, Burke, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage. "
I need to move all my old Alien talkbacks over here don't I?
Well, the series only consists of two movies, so it isn't that much work, really.
Well, you can also add Predator and maybe even Predators in as well.
Good thing they never crossed those two franchises over aside from the games and comics, right?
Quote from: Avaitor on August 06, 2011, 03:19:54 PM
1- What did you think of the soundtrack? I love Simon & Garfunkel and think that their songs greatly contribute to the climate of the film. Since you seem to appreciate music more when it's used to enhance something you can relate to, like a video game or movie, I was wondering what you thought of the songs from what you remember.p
All of these songs are classics that I was aware of well before actually watching the film yesterday, and to see them used in the movie only added to their quality for me. They all really fit the themes of the film and were used expertly at the perfect moments. I can actually appreciate them even more now that I have seen the film. I'll have to track down more music from Simon & Garfunkel when I get the chance. ;)
Quote2- Did you like seeing Mr. Feeny as Benjamin's dad? :sly:
FUCK! I knew I recognized that voice from somewhere! And I've been watching a shit-ton of Boy Meets World recently, so I don't know how I didn't make that connection. :butbut:
Quote from: Lord Dalek on August 07, 2011, 06:57:56 AM
I need to move all my old Alien talkbacks over here don't I?
Yes.
You could also do the AvP movies as well. I mean, yeah, those suck... but hey, it'd give us something extra to talk about. :sweat:
Quote from: Lord Dalek on July 29, 2011, 11:54:27 PM
If you hate the sequels, you'll just "love" the tv series. :devil:
I liked the TV series but it was Bert Gummer silliness that carried the show. The sequel movies were direct-to-video quality. Found it kind of interesting how Chang would speak Mandarin and then translate to English on one of them. Not bad for Sci-Fi channel back in the day, but hard to compete against the likes of Stargate SG-1, Babylon 5, or BSG.
Anchorman
Guilty pleasure, I'll admit. Feels like every time I watch this, I stumble upon some new quote that I missed the last time around. "Brian, I'm gonna be honest with you... that smells like pure gasoline."
I love Anchorman. One of the great things about it is how the silliness ramps up as the movie goes on. Before manchild movies took over adult comedies, I thought this was one of the best comedies around and was a breath of fresh air.
I still think it makes for a great combo of 80s silliness with modern sensibilities.
Crazy, Stupid, Love
A lot better than I thought it'd be. I was relatively unimpressed with the trailers, but after being sorta dragged out to see it, I actually like it. It was a surprisingly sweet and touching movie, and overall a lot funnier than I initially gave it credit for. Probably one of the better romcoms that I've seen, especially lately.
Quote from: Desensitized on August 10, 2011, 05:43:07 PM
I love Anchorman. One of the great things about it is how the silliness ramps up as the movie goes on. Before manchild movies took over adult comedies, I thought this was one of the best comedies around and was a breath of fresh air.
I still think it makes for a great combo of 80s silliness with modern sensibilities.
Agreed.
I call it a guilty pleasure because I know how a lot of people feel about Will Ferrell (really, I'm not a huge fan either), but Anchorman is an excellent movie. It's so quotable, too; I can carry on an entire 20-minute conversation with a total stranger just from quoting this film.
"I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science."
Classic.
Just finished watching Noriko's Dinner Table. A very well-done, emotional piece; one that ended up being a lot more subtle and heartfelt than I expected going in. Sion Sono is clearly a skilled writer/director, and I will definitely check out more of his works in the near future.
On a related note, one of his most recent pictures -- Cold Fish -- is currently playing in select theaters. Unfortunately, it is only showing at one theater in Austin, and it's a 20 minute drive from where I live. While this would not normally be an issue, its only showtime is at 10:00 PM and the film is 2 and a half hours long! I'd rather not be driving around a part of town I'm unfamiliar with after midnight, if I can help it. :(
Just got done with 13 Assassins. A badass samurai action movie directed by Takashi Miike? No way I could miss that! Some very interesting back-story and an ultra-long final battle scene made this film totally awesome and quite exciting to watch. I recommend it to everyone!
Quote from: Desensitized on July 09, 2011, 05:02:32 PM
Carpenter's Thing.
I wish horror was still this good.
It's the best
You Again is a decent watch for Kristen Bell fans.
Caught Rifftrax Live!: Jack the Giant Killer last night. Those MST3K guys still got it.
Gremlins.
You know, I can't help but wonder, when is the cap-off time to not feed the Gremlins? I know the rule is after midnight, but does that mean that Gizmo couldn't be fed the midnight after the main guy got him, or if there's a time in the day it can be fed. My friends and I were wondering that too, since it never really got explained.
Besides that and a couple of other questionable plot points, it's still a fun movie, if too silly at times.
Iron Man 2
Watched it again last night. I believe the words "wasted potential" were certainly batted around a few times in my head. It's decent in the sense that Robert Downey Jr. plays the role of suave douchebag to a tee once again, and he certainly made me laugh... but I dunno. The whole "Tony is dying" bit is so ridiculous and annoying, it really ruined a lot of this film for me.
Preaching to many a choir here, it's a definite step down from the original. Hopefully 3 fixes upon 2's glaring flaws.
Quote from: Kiddington on August 19, 2011, 02:26:44 PM
Iron Man 2
Watched it again last night. I believe the words "wasted potential" were certainly batted around a few times in my head. It's decent in the sense that Robert Downey Jr. plays the role of suave douchebag to a tee once again, and he certainly made me laugh... but I dunno. The whole "Tony is dying" bit is so ridiculous and annoying, it really ruined a lot of this film for me.
Preaching to many a choir here, it's a definite step down from the original. Hopefully 3 fixes upon 2's glaring flaws.
2 isn't that good because not enough happens. I remember some idiot said too much happened in that movie.
Saturday, at a friends party I watched:
Unthinkable- What the hell at the last two scenes.
Pelham 123- Looks like Tony Scott has stopped making complete shit after Enemy Of The State. Complete shit like Domino is UNWATCHABLE. I hate his overstylized approach. Complete shit. Unwatchable. Anyway, good Denzel movie. I have a thing for hostage films. I didn't care for Travolta's performance though.
The Fighter- Good boxing movie. Couldn't take Christian Bale seriously at all.
My Name Is Bruce- Bruce Campbell is GOD
Sunday-
Blow- Finally watched all of this. Well the end of a part before this was too scratched up to watch but I've already seen the very end. The part with the tape and his Dad is so sad.
Percy Jackson & The Lightning Thief. I liked it. :)
Watched 4 different movies in the past few days-
Crimes and Misdemeanors- A recent thread on tz/At the Movies repeat made me realize that I've seen shockingly few Woody Allen films (I can't recall anything but Annie Hall on the top of my head). I've heard good things about this one, and decided to check it out. Good call. It's pretty nice overall, even if it's a little dry for the most part. Love the use of irony for humor, and Allen did a great job in his part.
Control- The ending scene always haunts me whenever I watch it (not spoiling it if you're unfamiliar with Joy Division's history). Starts off a little slow, but is still one of the best rock biopics out there.
Brief Encounter- Saw that this is one of the few Criterion films left on Netflix, and since I've always wanted to see it, I decided to try it out. I appreciate the storytelling effects, but I couldn't really get into it. Something just didn't click for me. I guess I might just prefer Lean's epics.
Notorious- Classic Hitch. Not one of my huge favorites, but easily in the top 10. Grant, Bergman, Claude Rains, what's not to love?
Saw The Guard on Friday with some friends. Fucking hilarious; excellent script and great performances from everyone involved. Not quite as good as In Bruges, but still brilliant.
I saw 30 Minutes or Less. Fun movie, laughed a lot, enjoyed the interactions between Nick and Chet, the heist, and enjoyed it very much. Still rank Horrible Bosses as my comedy pick for the summer. Also, when I went to the theater, I was carded to see this. Strange, I don't get carded when I go here nor when I go to buy Lotto Tickets. I feel young.
Quote from: Daxdiv on August 22, 2011, 11:15:04 PM
I saw 30 Minutes or Less. Fun movie, laughed a lot, enjoyed the interactions between Nick and Chet, the heist, and enjoyed it very much. Still rank Horrible Bosses as my comedy pick for the summer. Also, when I went to the theater, I was carded to see this. Strange, I don't get carded when I go here nor when I go to buy Lotto Tickets. I feel young.
I liked 30 Minutes Or Less, but I can't say I'd consider it a good movie.
As far as new comedies I've seen this year go... The Guard > Horrible Bosses > 30 Minutes Or Less >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Hangover Part 2
Hangover Part 2 really sounds like a mixed bag. Half of the people I talk to seem to love it, while the other half basically say it's nothing more than a two-hour long dick joke.
Was it that bad?
I haven't seen either of the Hangover movies, but my older brother who loves the first movie hates the 2nd one and the reason that he gave was that it just badly recycles a lot of the same basic jokes from the first movie and doesn't even try to mask that its doing that. As for me, I still have yet to even see the first one, so I have no idea whether its worth seeing or not.
I kind of liked the second one, but it isn't very good in hindsight. It definitely repeats a little too much of the first movie for its own good, and it's way more crass than the original.
The chemistry between the main three guys is as solid as ever though, which makes up for that a little. But there are still a lot of better ways to spend your time than by watching it.
I enjoyed Hangover 2 as well, despite it's major flaw of being the same movie as the first, but in Bangkok. I just loved the misadventures of Phil, Stu, and Alan so much that I didn't mind it as much when I first saw it. I just hope when Hangover 3 is made, it tries to be original.
Hangover 2 lacked the wit and charm of the first film while simultaneously being completely unoriginal. Basically, it rehashed the plot and all of the bad jokes from the first one. It was crude and vulgar for the sake of being crude and vulgar whereas the first one actually had proper comedic timing and a good sense of humor.
John Huston's Moby Dick
Christ, the direction is all over the place here. It especially gets shaky on the sea. The African Queen had its fair share of problems with that itself, but this one makes that seem silky smooth in comparison.
That said, I quite enjoyed the narrative. I haven't read the book, so I don't know how the under-2 hour movie length compares to it, but I got into it pretty well for the most part. Maybe I'll finally read the whole damn thing soon now.
I rewatched Roman Holiday yesterday, Audrey Hepburn's first and best film.
I dunno, I really like Charade and Love in the Afternoon. She has a lot of classics, though.
Wish I had that reading interest when I was younger, but oh well :)
Quote from: Avaitor on August 25, 2011, 11:53:19 AM
I dunno, I really like Charade and Love in the Afternoon. She has a lot of classics, though.
Of course she does!
Charade would probably be #2 or 3 for me out of her films.
The Great Escape.
I can see why its a classic. I most love the chemistry between the main characters in films like this. Its really all about the characters in movies like this, more than the actual escape itself and how they set it all up. You really want to see each character successfully make it out of everything alive even if you know that most of them will die in the process.
Its definitely a great movie, though I'd have to say that The Dirty Dozen is still my favorite of the WWII movies from the 1960's.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on August 28, 2011, 08:34:57 PM
The Great Escape.
I can see why its a classic. I most love the chemistry between the main characters in films like this. Its really all about the characters in movies like this, more than the actual escape itself and how they set it all up. You really want to see each character successfully make it out of everything alive even if you know that most of them will die in the process.
Its definitely a great movie, though I'd have to say that The Dirty Dozen is still my favorite of the WWII movies from the 1960's.
Will check out
Has anyone ever seen Play Misty for Me? I swear that film has one of the scariest villains ever!
Gran Torino
Clint Eastwood > everybody else. 'Nuff said, really. Brilliant, brilliant performance.
I hope The Great Escape was better than The Great Race.
Watched a lot of random movies the past few days:
High Sierra
Follow the Fleet
The Wild Bunch
Cinema Paradiso
Planes, Trains, and Automobiles
I liked all of them to varying degrees.
Planes, Trains, and Automobiles is a pretty good comedy. Its not one of my favorites but it is probably the best thing that I've seen Steve Martin in (and being that I rarely ever find Steve Martin to be that funny in any films that he stars in, its a complement that I actually like him in this one). I think what makes this film work, though, is the chemistry between the 2 main characters and how they interact with each other. The whole movie basically builds itself around that and that's ultimately what holds it together (it'd just be another dull, forgettable movie without the chemistry and dialogue between them being so witty and humorous).
On the other hand, I like John Candy in about anything he's in, so it sort of levels out. ;D
I remember watching Cinema Paradiso back in Italian class. Definitely the kind of flick that makes you appreciate what movies are all about.
And then the Director's Cut crushes all hope you previously had for the cinema.
Quote from: Lord Dalek on September 11, 2011, 09:24:02 PM
And then the Director's Cut crushes all hope you previously had for the cinema.
Huh, how so?
Saw the Fright Night remake. It was okay, had some pretty funny parts. Colin Farrell and David Tennant are ace, so that was definitely a plus.
Got another set of random movies that I've just seen:
Repo Man
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (the original)
The Producers (again, the original, although I saw the one based off the Broadway version before)
Suspicion
The Circus
Paths of Glory
Mulholland Drive
And just like the last set, I liked all of these to a certain existent, TCSM aside. Although I really wish that Hitch was allowed to go with the original ending in Suspicion.
Eh, it's just torture porn as far as I'm concerned.
Well, it can't be as bad as the shitty 2003 remake at least (which is unfortunately the only version of TTCM that I've seen).
That was pretty awful. And yet it still wasn't the worst horror movie of the year.
The genre is really bad off.
Haven't seen the remake, but I can only assume that the original is tons better.
The Thing is honestly one of the few horror remakes I can think of that not only holds up to but surpasses the original.
Who knows, maybe the new one will surpass it?
....Right? *misses smiles*
Yeah, while I have high respect for the original, John Carpenter's interpretation of the story (which to be fair is closer to the original book than the original film, anyways, even if its still not really accurate to the source material) simply just has a bigger impact on me in general. I'm not just talking about how amazing the effects are (even if they are pretty grotesque) even by today's standards, but it holds up in all departments: The writing/dialogue, the acting, the scary and isolated atmosphere, the tension building up as characters start disappearing and people start losing trust between one another, and the fittingly eerie and ominous music that plays in the background. This is hands down one of the only few remakes of anything that is not only great and a classic itself, but to me also surpasses its original inspiration (the movie, at least, as I can't comment on the book being that I've never read it, myself). Its also one of my all-time favorite horror movies in general (probably coming in 2nd only to The Shining).
The last movie I watched was Rififi, which is widely regarded as one of the greatest (if not the greatest), heist-films ever done. Having watched it, it's easy to see why: Rififi is one of those movies that does everything right. Everything, from the acting to the cinematography is splendid. The absolute high-light of the movie though is the heist-scene itself, which takes about thirty minutes, contains no music or dialogue and is one of the most intense scenes I've seen in a movie. Highly recommended.
Some more movies I've caught:
The Red Shoes
Seven Days in May
Network
Ball of Fire
Life is Beautiful
Another good haul.
Uh... I just watched UHF...
It's hard to compare to you guys sometime. ;P
Another set, and this time, I'll try to add a little commentary to each film:
Carrie
This is a really tight horror movie. Completely well done in just about every aspect. I can see what Dalek means when he says that De Palma takes a lot from Hitchcock, though, if only in the music. The soundtrack takes so many cues from Psycho.
Escape From New York
Fucking Kurt Russell. Perfect as Snake Pissken. My only complaint about the film is I feel that it could be a little longer, but otherwise, it's a classic sci-fi/action flick.
Sullivan's Travels
This one loses me a little near the end, when Sullivan gets arrested, but redeems itself with the finale. It's a great screwball comedy that does just about everything it sets out to do.
Gunga Din
Takes a decent Rudyard Kipling poem and turns it into a thrilling adventure piece. For it's time, this is a perfect adventure movie, and one of Cary Grant's first great leading roles. I think it might be my favorite film from 1939.
Four different movies, each very good in their class of film.
Hmmmm....Carrie. Its been a while since I've seen that movie. The funny thing is that I don't really consider it a horror movie until the last 15-20 minutes or so (it has creepy elements to it, but it feels more like a high-school drama with supernatural elements most of the time). Also, while Carrie is basically the "killer" in the film at the end, she's also the one that you probably sympathize with at least a little bit, as of course Chris and her friends are pretty much the real "villains" of the movie (of course they get killed off by Carrie as well).
I should mention that the very last scene of the movie really freaked me out as a kid. I usually find jump scares to be cheap but that's one of the rare instances in which I find it to be pretty well-done, personally.
I went up going to see the remake of The Thing tonight with a bunch of friends.
It was a lot better than I was expecting, and if I hadn't seen Carpenter's take on the story, I probably would have enjoyed it more. I mean, the characters were fine enough, some of the action scenes were rightfully intense, and there were a couple of good twists here or there. But it couldn't match the tension and craft of said film, and the effects were a little lame. There's also a couple of weird plotholes that we pulled out of it right after we saw it, but it's too late for me to recall any of them.
I guess if you're really a fan of the original story and the previous two adaptations, this is worth a look. I wouldn't recommend it to all of you guys though, since it isn't that special at what it does.
Interesting. I still don't think that I'll like it very much, especially since there's no way that it can either compare to the original or John Carpenter's remake (which I personaly consider to be the better interpretation of the story, myself), but maybe if its not as bad as I expected it to be (or at least not as crappy as most other remakes these days), then I will possibly give it a shot when it comes out on DVD.
Hey guys, I'm thinking of starting up a Film Club on here, where we get assigned various different movies to watch, one at a time, and talk about and reflect on them. If you guys are interested, I'll think of a couple of choices, and we can see what we want to do.
I'll try to pick choices that are easily available for us to (re)watch, and the first is definitely going to be Halloween-appropriate.
I'd be all for that!....Except my brother cancelled his NetFlix subscription so the movies I could write about would mostly be limited to stuff that I've either already seen or stuff that I can plan to see in advance. Still, if there's anything you think I can do a write-up for I'd be totally for it. :thumbup:
Just saw Tombstone for the first time in ages, so I barely remembered the movie. Great western. I love the whole classic feel of the film and the whole experience is basically just really entertaining from start to finish. The beginning is mostly about building up the main characters while the last quarter of the movie is an awesome montage of the Cowboys getting shot-down like crazy, which is really satisfying after all the shit they did and got away with during the rest of the film. REally, the movie just has a classic feel to it. Its a highly glorified Western and obviously not really realistic or historically accurate in the least, but I don't care about that sort of stuff when the movie is made to be so enjoyable.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on September 27, 2011, 07:46:19 PM
Yeah, while I have high respect for the original, John Carpenter's interpretation of the story (which to be fair is closer to the original book than the original film, anyways, even if its still not really accurate to the source material) simply just has a bigger impact on me in general. I'm not just talking about how amazing the effects are (even if they are pretty grotesque) even by today's standards, but it holds up in all departments: The writing/dialogue, the acting, the scary and isolated atmosphere, the tension building up as characters start disappearing and people start losing trust between one another, and the fittingly eerie and ominous music that plays in the background. This is hands down one of the only few remakes of anything that is not only great and a classic itself, but to me also surpasses its original inspiration (the movie, at least, as I can't comment on the book being that I've never read it, myself). Its also one of my all-time favorite horror movies in general (probably coming in 2nd only to The Shining).
Such a beautiful post. The Thing is my favorite horror movie, the movie I consider to have the most replay value, the only film that scares me and one of my top 5, if not top 3 favorite movies of all time. It has stayed in my top 5 while almost all of my favorites have changed.
Okay, over the last two weeks I've watched:
Jurassic Park- Haven't seen this in its entirety since I was a kid so it was good to do so.
Black Dynamite- Some of the funniest shit I've seen in a long time and of course Michael Jai White is one of the only Hollywood actors that can do screenfighting right.
Blood And Bone- Another Michael Jai White movie except it's not that good. Even with the bad editing and choreography, MJW's kungfu still looked good.
Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers- The original. I've been trying to watch it for years. Like Death Wish, it's a movie that's been ripped off multiple times and it's ending is different from all the ripoff that do the same damn kind of ending.
The Losers- Decent action flcik with decent comedy. Extra credit for giving all the heroes a good personality though.
Justice League Crisis On Two Earths- 2nd time I've watched all of this movie. The replay value is so high. Not deep at all but this film is so entertaining. I also felt stupid that I didn't notice the president was Deathstroke The Terminator the first time around so I had to see it again.
Eagle Eye- Solid action/suspense movie. To me, it was like Enemy Of The State with a scifi twist.
Yesterday night I watched Inglourious Basterds for the first time. Two things:
Tarantino loves writing scenes where a character leaves behind irrefutable evidence that they were at a massacre.
Once I thought about it after the movie, it made perfect sense why Landa killed a certain character.
Watched Planet Terror for Halloween. That film is lots of fun.
What do you get when you cross an owl with a bungee cord?
MY ASS!
You know, I should really take advantage of the university's foreign film library. They have a pretty sizable collection of Kurosawa, for starters. Someone give me a list of foreign stuff to watch.
Do John Woo's Cantonese films count, or are those too mainstream for you (that is to say: mainstream among foreign films)?
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on November 06, 2011, 05:29:18 PM
Do John Woo's Cantonese films count, or are those too mainstream for you (that is to say: mainstream among foreign films)?
Yeah, did a search, and they don't have a film of his.
Ah, well I do know a few other Chinese films that might be good, but those are comedies and I'm not really sure if they'd fit your sense of humor. God of Cookery was pretty funny for me, though, and its the only one that I could think of off the top of my head (its a Stephen Chow film).
Ip Man is a really good martial arts film (I never got to finish the movie, but I saw most of it and thought it was great). Its only a few years old and is good in terms of both action scenes and telling a genuinely interesting story with great acting. Its not over-the-top silly like a more comedy-oriented Jackie Chan film, but its still very professionally shot and actually has complex characters. For reference its based on the life of Bruce Lee's master, though its not exactly historically accurate (that's not really the point, though). I'd recommend that film if it sounds interesting to you at all and if your library happens to have it.
mmm, Kurosawa. Some of his most essential:
Seven Samurai
Rashomon
Ran
Ikiru
Yojimbo
Red Beard
Kagemusha
Well, I saw Throne of Blood. Wish I could've seen this during English class instead of reading it. Thought cutting out the MacDuff subplot was a good move to distill the story. Also, the woman playing the Lady MacBeth analogue, Asaji, was magnificent at being creepy.
Ip Man ;D Ithink I had a sig here for that film. Such a great movie. Donnie Yen is the best at martial arts movies these days. My friend is supposed to let me borrow his friend's copy of the sequel, which is easily at the top of my most wanted movies list.
I watched the Blind Side last week.
Quote from: gunswordfist on November 08, 2011, 08:24:53 AM
Ip Man ;D Ithink I had a sig here for that film. Such a great movie. Donnie Yen is the best at martial arts movies these days. My friend is supposed to let me borrow his friend's copy of the sequel, which is easily at the top of my most wanted movies list.
Ip Man is fucking awesome. The sequel's good, too... can't really decide which one I like more.
Quote from: Foggle on November 08, 2011, 08:42:58 AM
Quote from: gunswordfist on November 08, 2011, 08:24:53 AM
Ip Man ;D Ithink I had a sig here for that film. Such a great movie. Donnie Yen is the best at martial arts movies these days. My friend is supposed to let me borrow his friend's copy of the sequel, which is easily at the top of my most wanted movies list.
Ip Man is fucking awesome. The sequel's good, too... can't really decide which one I like more.
I'll have to see for myself. Damn library doesn't have it which is where I get all my movies.
I'm recording 3 different movies from TCM this weekend- The Thing From Another World, To Have and Have Not, and My Fair Lady.
Besides the first two being directed by Howard Hawks, none of these films have anything in common, but I'm about equally as curious to see each of them. We'll see how they all go.
The Saragossa Manuscript
Great movie that's now one of my personal favorites. I loved the whole "story within story" approach, which I don't think I've seen in a movie before. At least no movie that comes to mind at the moment
.
Quote from: gunswordfist on November 08, 2011, 08:58:16 AM
Quote from: Foggle on November 08, 2011, 08:42:58 AM
Quote from: gunswordfist on November 08, 2011, 08:24:53 AM
Ip Man ;D Ithink I had a sig here for that film. Such a great movie. Donnie Yen is the best at martial arts movies these days. My friend is supposed to let me borrow his friend's copy of the sequel, which is easily at the top of my most wanted movies list.
Ip Man is fucking awesome. The sequel's good, too... can't really decide which one I like more.
I'll have to see for myself. Damn library doesn't have it which is where I get all my movies.
It should be on Netflix; saw it floating on their broadband service a month or two but haven't checked it out yet.
Twilight
...no, not that Twilight; I'm talking about the 1998 film starring Paul Newman and Gene Hackman, of course.
It's... not bad. Pretty atypical cop movie, all things considered, but I was fairly entertained.
I watched City Of Violence yesterday. Meh, it was okay. They should have just focused on the fighting instead of trying to be all cool and gritty and "deep".
I think I'll watch Not Another Teen Movie later today. After recently watching The Breakfast Club and 10 Things I Hate About You for the first time, as well as watching Nostalgia Chick's review of She's All That, I'm in the mood.
It's easily the best spoof movie made in the past 15 years. Because it's actually a spoof movie.
I just re-watched An American Werewolf in London last night. Terrific movie, and while I don't consider it to be a full horror movie as most of the horror elements are only contained in some jump-scare scenes at the very beginning and towards the end of the film, it is a genuinely unique and interesting movie. It successfully combines elements of humor and comedy, and a little bit of romance in with some horror-themed elements. I like the characters and atmosphere and I think its a genuinely great movie.
I think I may create a talkback for it later on.
I decided to watch City Lights instead.
Is it an unpopular opinion to say that I love silent pictures? Because I do. Especially Chaplin.
I saw Puss In Boots yesterday.
LOVED it. I've been waiting for this since Shrek 2.
Quote from: Avaitor on November 24, 2011, 02:37:48 PM
I decided to watch City Lights instead.
Is it an unpopular opinion to say that I love silent pictures? Because I do. Especially Chaplin.
Some of my favorite movies are silent pictures:
The Man Who Laughs for example, or
Dr Mabuse.
Rushmore
I was enjoying it when it was on, until I got around the halfway mark, and I started to wonder, "what's the point"? Like, there really doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to why this film exists or if it's trying to prove anything, which would be fine if it didn't seem like it was supposed to say something.
I dunno, I might be reading too much into it, but I feel underwhelmed overall.
Ten years LTTP, but I finally watched Jackass The Movie. Aside from a few funny moments, God what an amazing amount of stupidity(I know it's supposed to be dumb, but still). And to think there are people who hold this series in high regard.
The highlight of that movie is when they played "Angel of Death".
Otherwise all things Jackass blow.
So yeah, Tintin. I quite adored it, if only for Haddock. More movies need a Captain Haddock.
On Thursday I watched Thor (irony!) and Aliens for the first time. Thor is probably the best Marvel film I've ever seen. Not perfect thanks to how boring it is to watch Thor stranded in the middle of nowhere but besides that, it was good.
I watched Aliens Director's Cut. I finally watched the Colonial Marines game videos because I wanted to watch the film 1st to avoid spoilers. It's criminal that the automated guns scene was not in the theater version which it wasn't according to the Gearbox president. I saw no scenes that seemed out of place. One of the best director's cuts I've ever seen.
Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows. A huge disappointment after the first one (think Dead Man's Chest to it's Curse of the Black Pearl)
Quote from: gunswordfist on December 27, 2011, 09:09:14 AM
I watched Aliens Director's Cut. I finally watched the Colonial Marines game videos because I wanted to watch the film 1st to avoid spoilers. It's criminal that the automated guns scene was not in the theater version which it wasn't according to the Gearbox president. I saw no scenes that seemed out of place. One of the best director's cuts I've ever seen.
Yeah the automatic smart gun turrets got cut because Aliens was released just before the advent of multiplexes when films only ran on one screen in the whole building. Therefore you couldn't make the film longer than two hours to keep audiences coming and going and turn a profit.
I think it says a lot that it and The Abyss appear to be the only extended cuts of James Cameron films that he seems to prefer.
Shit, multiplexes didn't come around until the 80s? I had no fucking clue.
Also, Terminator 2's deleted scenes were horribly out of place in its extended cut. I love Biehn but it made sense that he was completely cut out of the movie.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on December 22, 2011, 06:03:19 AM
So yeah, Tintin. I quite adored it, if only for Haddock. More movies need a Captain Haddock.
He's definitely one of my favorite sidekicks in comics. I haven't seen the new
Tintin yet, but I hope it's a success, because maybe then, it will encourage more film-makers to make movies based on European comics. I want my
Blake & Mortimer movie, damn it!
That reminds me the first live-action
Tintin from the 60's was pretty entertaining. I especially loved that whenever the bad guys' symbol (a red crocodile, I think) showed up on-screen, sinister music would play.
I just rewatched Homeward Bound and it's every bit as good as it was when it came out. But is it just me or was this the first proper "talking animal" movie? I mean, it has the animals talking to each other and all but it manages to not really follow the annoying things most other similar movies do and have done since it came out, which tends to make me think that it must have been one of the first ones.
Quote from: Desensitized on December 31, 2011, 05:43:01 PM
I just rewatched Homeward Bound and it's every bit as good as it was when it came out. But is it just me or was this the first proper "talking animal" movie? I mean, it has the animals talking to each other and all but it manages to not really follow the annoying things most other similar movies do and have done since it came out, which tends to make me think that it must have been one of the first ones.
Reminds me of how in Death Wish, there was no part where Bronson conveniently found his family's tormentors and killed them and how his daughter never got better. They water down so much these days.
Just finished WFRR. Another new year, still a classic.
The Adventures of Tintin. Best animated feature I've seen in a long time, by far. In fact its easily the best movie that I've seen from 2011, though to be fair I didn't watch too many movies from last year to begin with.
So I may or may not be seeing The Iron Lady with my mom today. I'll be at campus until around 4:30 and I have plans tonight, but if there's enough time in between, we might make it happen.
Also, is anyone interested in the film club idea I brought up a while ago? I'd like to give it a try soon if there's enough interest.
So here are this year's nominess for Best Picture:
The Artist
The Descendants
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
The Help
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
The Tree of Life
War Horse
The only one I've seen here is Hugo, which I think is amazing. I've heard good things about The Help, Midnight in Paris and War Horse from my friends, and I'll try to get to those eventually. The Artist too, which I'm trying to go see this week, since it's finally at a local theater.
... Was Moneyball that good? I heard it was just decent.
Anyway, no real surprises. I bet The Artist walks away with it.
I just....can't get interested in the Oscars any more. I almost never agree with any of their award winner choices or even any of their nominations, and most of the time I find that they severely overrate many of the movies that they nominate, as very rarely do any of their best-picture nominees ever really come across to me as being something truly exceptional, and the few that do never actually seem to have a chance of really winning the award and just seem to be nominated to please the general public more than anything else.
Still, I might give it a watch if I actually have the time to watch it when it airs, though that's doubtful given how much I have to study for this semester.
EK, are you not interested in The Artist or Hugo at all?
Also, I'm going to the movies on Saturday with some friends. What I'm seeing: Underworld.
... not my first choice. By a long shot.
Hugo has certainly peeked my interest, but I never got around to seeing it when it was out in theaters, but I'll check it out on DVD whenever I get a chance to go back home and get some free-time from studying.
I haven't really given much thought to The Artist. I heard about it, but haven't looked into it. If you say its good I may give that one a watch as well, but for now I'm indifferent to most movies that have been nominated for Best Picture this year (that is to say that I haven't seen them, and while I'm sure they are good, few of them really interest me).
Hugo reminds me of when live-action kids movie actually had effort and heart put into them, instead of just a bunch of shit and puke jokes. Think E.T., Willy Wonka, and a bunch of Walt-era live-action Disney films.
And I still haven't seen The Artist, but I've been interested in it for a while, and I think it'll be really cool that after all these years, this might be the second silent film to win Best Picture (third if you count Sunrise) and the first film since The Apartment over 50 years ago to win that was shot entirely in black and white (not counting Schindler's List, since the last scene was done in color). I'll come back to you with what I think about it later, but there's plenty that looks good about it to me.
I was just watching Starman. John Carpenter is great outside of horror, too.
It's such a unique film.
On an impulse I decided to watch Leafie, A Hen into the Wild. Great movie, had some touching moments, nice character development from Leafie, Greenie, the Weasel and a few other character. Any movie that managed to make me sad at various points deserves to be a favorite film of mine. The ending in particular was really touching with Greenine parting way with his mother and Leafie making a sacrifice. If any form of media can make me do a 180 turn from a character I hate to love near the end deserves to be watched, Weasel, I'm talking about you.
Got to see The Artist tonight. Absolutely loved it.
I'm still torn between it or Hugo for Best Picture, but they're both really good movies.
Watching Blue Velvet right now. Not as surreal as I was expecting.
Okay, is it wrong that I like Frank Booth the most out of the cast?
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on February 04, 2012, 11:02:49 PM
Watching Blue Velvet right now. Not as surreal as I was expecting.
Okay, is it wrong that I like Frank Booth the most out of the cast?
One of my all time favorite movies. :thumbup:
And no, you're supposed to, I think.
I was just watching Paul.
If it didn't rely so heavily on references and casual swearing it might be far better but as it is it's a pretty dull film that never manages to catch fire because there just isn't much there. A waste of good talent.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on February 15, 2012, 08:40:37 PM
I was just watching Paul.
If it didn't rely so heavily on references and casual swearing it might be far better but as it is it's a pretty dull film that never manages to catch fire because there just isn't much there. A waste of good talent.
Yeah, you can tell who's pulling the real weight in Pegg/Frost films.
http://www.fathomevents.com/upcoming/alllocations.aspx?eventid=1067
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgifsoup.com%2Fwebroot%2Fanimatedgifs%2F897267_o.gif&hash=6e38378e753b219ada8ad2787c0b41aabed674d9)
Sweet, Lynnhaven is showing it. If we are in port then, I'll probably check it out.
TCM has been experimenting with rereleases a little lately. They pulled out Casablanca already at a couple of theater palaces with a full symphonic back-up, and they did the same thing they're doing here for West Side Story last year. I hope that if these do well, they'll consider doing more, and hopefully make these releases wider and last longer.
I also hope they do it for Singin' in the Rain, since that's also celebrating it's anniversary this year and is getting a new restoration.
But wait, there's more! (http://www.tcm.com/2012/roadtohollywood/)
Unless the movie that they'll announce for Miami is worth the trip, I'll probably have to pass on that. It's way too far away from me to normally hit that up. But if you live in any of these areas, go for them.
Tonight's Oscar tallies, for those who care
* The Artist- 5 (costume design, original score, director, best actor, best picture)
* Hugo- 5 (cinematography, art direction, sound editing, sound mixing, visual effects)
* The Iron Lady- 2 (make-up, best actress)
* Beginners- 1 (supporting actor/Christopher Plummer)
* The Descendants- 1 (adapted screenplay)
* The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (editing)
* The Help- 1 (supporting actress/Octavia Spencer)
* Midnight in Paris (original screenplay)
* The Muppets- 1 (original song/?Man or Muppet?)
* Rango (animated feature)
* A Separation- 1 (foreign film)
* Undefeated- 1 (documentary)
Watched The Muppets earlier tonight, and just finished Puss in Boots a minute ago. I don't know what's Ed Liu's problem (http://www.toonzone.net/news/articles/41798/puss-in-boots-blu-ray-doesnt-try-hard-enough), but I thought it was pretty good. He was pretty much the best character from the Shrek movies after all, and really the only thing that made Shrek 2 tolerable.
I notice a lot of negative opinions on stuff from quite a few TZ reviews in general. Usually if I happen to have an opinion on it myself, I just find those guys to be way too pessimistic and over-analytic about things that they are reviewing for me to take their reviews seriously. Well, IDK, but I just find critics of anything to be kind of drag to pay much mind to. I just like to enjoy things for what they are, and if they are fun to watch, then I can let some little flaws and nit-picks slide. I don't really see the point in trying to pick something apart for every detail in it that you don't like, rather than just trying to watch something and enjoy it for what it does right.
He's crazy, the movie was a great comedy adventure flick. The movie has no pacing problems, has great characters (unlike most Shrek films), good action, and is just fun to watch. There wasn't really anything they could have done to make it better than it was.
But I rarely agree with Ed Liu anyway.
So I just found out that Criterion offers a handful of movies for free on Hulu.
Totally gonna watch Playtime and Monsieur Verdoux this weekend.
I just saw Super 8 with my dad a couple of nights ago. It was pretty good for the most part, though I can't help but feel the way they handled the whole "government and army are evil and stupidly do everything in their power to piss off the super strong alien life form and make it hate humans" feels a little bit too much like a bad 80's trend. I know that the movie takes a lot of inspiration from films like E.T. and the like, but I just get kind of ticked off with 1-dimensional bad villains like that. That said, the rest of the movie was great and the kids did a surprisingly good job of acting out their roles (I mean for the movie itself, rather than the short film that they were making within the movie :D ).
at the beginning of dazed and confused, when sweet emotion is playing and that pontiac gto is coming around the corner, that has got to be the greatest opening in film everer.
yeah-uh,netflix totes has dazed and confused! gonna watch nowz!
this movie is getting ole i wanna get back to plaing tony hake. bam mergares so much funz\\
my mum calz me tony even thoi my name is anthony
Quote from: Comeau on March 10, 2012, 08:09:34 PM
my mum calz me tony even thoi my name is anthony
Maybe your mom watches too much Skins.
Have you ever done a kickflip, chalmy?
is that a drug
it sounds lik somthing i should know about
looks like o banyun finally got hiz paynt job
moar lyke blow job haha.
imagine how many people out ther are fucking man just going at it
Quote from: Comeau on March 10, 2012, 08:13:07 PM
is that a drug
it sounds lik somthing i should know about
Oh man. I love drunk Chalmy.
netflicks recommends go
yeah tha t one movbie over
Any particular genres that they recommending you? I hate when they do that.
uh waht i havent got past the movie over secren
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on March 10, 2012, 08:56:04 PM
Any particular genres that they recommending you? I hate when they do that.
Cerebral Comedies You Might Like: Dracula - Dead And Loving It
Seriously. This actually happened.
Quote from: Foggle on March 10, 2012, 09:11:10 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on March 10, 2012, 08:56:04 PM
Any particular genres that they recommending you? I hate when they do that.
Cerebral Comedies You Might Like: Dracula - Dead And Loving It
Seriously. This actually happened.
I watched Fried Green Tomatoes and got:
Gay & Lesbian Movies You Might Like: Naked Lunch
Not even close, Netflix. in ANY way.
The Human Centipede 2. The uncut version.
God, I felt like throwing up during and after watching that shit (no pun intended). The first one was kind of gross, but at least it was an actual horror movie. Kind of. This was just outright disgusting and vile. I'm kind of depressed that someone funded this movie... let alone that it was thought up and written in the first place. Worthless, revolting schlock.
Personally, I thought it was one of the best comedies of the year.
The script was certainly brilliant.
Sandpaper masturbation. Anal rape with barbed wire. Copious amounts of shit eating. Truly, Tom Six was channeling Kubrick when he wrote this excellent masterpiece.
Everyone who's seen it says that it's way more vile than the first. Since I thought that was pretty tame compared to the hype, I'm not sure what I'll think about it. Does sound interesting though.
Granted, I thought Precious was a ridiculously funny black comedy, so I'm probably just fucked up in general.
Quote from: Avaitor on March 14, 2012, 11:34:44 PM
Granted, I thought Precious was a ridiculously funny black comedy, so I'm probably just fucked up in general.
I said this on Twitter, but the label has no effect on what the genre is. Some sitcoms just happen to be effective dramas, and vice-versa.
I mean who doesn't find it hilarious when the mom yells "PRECIOUS, THIS PIGS FEET IS COLD! FIX THAT NASTY SHIT UP" or when Precious runs away with the fried chicken she ordered at that greasy diner?
The first movie is exceedingly tame. Cringed once, thought two scenes were kind of gross.
The second one is sickening. Everything from the acting to the way it was filmed to the sound production to the close-ups of a morbidly obese man's penis to (of course) the special effects... very hard to watch. Though it's nothing compared to some other "films" (and I use that term loosely) I've seen.
Precious (Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire)... god I hate that title... was unintentionally funny the whole way through. Easily a better comedy than The Help (is that a comedy? it was advertised as one).
I just couldn't take it seriously at all, even if it was based on true events. It just seems like some chick got high while watching The Color Purple on TV and thought it'd make for a good story if she modernized that with elements of her own ghetto lifestyle, and wrote at least half of it stoned.
But yeah, idk if I'm going to see Human Centipede 2. Even though the first one didn't really shock me, watching it was hardly what I'd call a good time.
See it with some friends. That's the only reason I committed to watching either of them. ;)
Well, we do have bad movie night, although I supply most of the movies.
Highlights included Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Troll 2, Birdemic (which wouldn't even finish for us!), Garbage Pail Kids, and yes, The Room.
GARBAGE DAY
Oh, I tried Trash Humpers on them, but they couldn't even sit through 5 minutes of it.
Quote from: Avaitor on March 14, 2012, 11:52:46 PM
Oh, I tried Trash Humpers on them, but they couldn't even sit through 5 minutes of it.
Aw, why not? Trash Humpers is fucking art.
What's Trash Humpers? It's not... what it sounds like... right?
I don't even know how you guys can watch these outside of something like MST3K. If I had to watch Space Mutiny without commentary, I'd probably OD on whatever pills I could find long before getting to the end.
Quote from: Foggle on March 14, 2012, 11:59:12 PM
What's Trash Humpers? It's not... what it sounds like... right?
It is, sir. Oh, it is.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on March 14, 2012, 11:59:21 PM
I don't even know how you guys can watch these outside of something like MST3K. If I had to watch Space Mutiny without commentary, I'd probably OD on whatever pills I could find long before getting to the end.
That's why you watch them with other people! So you can make fun of them. ;D
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on March 14, 2012, 11:59:50 PM
Quote from: Foggle on March 14, 2012, 11:59:12 PM
What's Trash Humpers? It's not... what it sounds like... right?
It is, sir. Oh, it is.
:whuh:
Sometimes I love imdb. :lol:
QuoteMartin had a dream......a dream to make a 12 person human centipede.
Most of us with a similar dream would write it off as too hard and go back to our mundane lives.
But not Martin. This man applied himself, showed ingenuity and endeavour, overcame considerable odds and with determination, was able to accomplish his goal.
And sure, he fell two people short. Who among us can say we are perfect? But while brutally raping the back end of the centipede with barbed wire wrapped around his penis, Martin lived. He truly lived, if but for a few moments. How many of us can say that?
So next time you want to degrade the efforts and lifestyle of a person like Martin, think to yourself - what have I done with my life? Am I the type of person that would inject laxatives into 10 people stapled together arse to mouth to encourage the onset of diarrhea? I personally think there is a little bit of Martin in all of us. You just gotta believe.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on March 14, 2012, 11:56:42 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on March 14, 2012, 11:52:46 PM
Oh, I tried Trash Humpers on them, but they couldn't even sit through 5 minutes of it.
Aw, why not? Trash Humpers is fucking art.
My friends have no patience. I barely got them to sit through all of Grizzly Man.
Just saw 21 Jump Street, and it was surprisingly good. Favourite moment was when it turns out that it's actually a sequel instead of a remake.
I was thinking of going to go see that. It's been getting some good word of mouth.
I've never seen the TV show.
I'm surprised at how good the reviews are, but then again, the show wasn't exactly a well-revered piece of work, so it's easy to take liberty to it and make something fun and original out of the idea.
I'm interested in seeing it primarily for Ron Swanson, so chances are I might get to see it soon.
My group and I just came back from The Hunger Games as it was a free movie. I have not read the books, so here are my comments:
1. ENOUGH WITH THE SHAKY CAM, HOLLYWOOD. I can't see anything during the action sequences because the camera's flopping all over like a fish out of water, and even in still scenes some times the camera just wobbles. I know this is a lot to ask, but I like being able to see the movies I watch. Several others in the theater kept leaving due to motion sickness.
2. The plot suffered for only centering on Katniss. Peeta seemed like he had a good story but we never really delved into it because it didn't have anything to do with her. Thresh, the same. Rue's development was rushed, and Cato seemed like he had an interesting side to him we never saw because he disappeared after the tracker incident. To be honest, other than Cato's cronies Katniss was probably the least interesting character in the whole story.
3. The ending was too vague. Apparently according to my friends there are things explained and shown in the book that aren't even touched upon here. Considering the amount of time they used building up to the games, they didn't do enough with the denouement, and it just sort of stops.
4. That leads me to another thing. Too much time was wasted on the pre-Game parts to the point that it took away time from the actual games and potential development and lead into the ending feeling too rushed.
5. If a "Team Peeta" and "Team Gale" comes out of this movie, I'm going to firebomb the world.
All in all, it was okay. Not perfect, and not highly original (it felt like a much safer Battle Royale at times), but some good characters and acting and an interesting story kept me engaged.
If this is the new Twilight, at least it's bearable.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on March 23, 2012, 06:41:48 PM
5. If a "Team Peeta" and "Team Gale" comes out of this movie, I'm going to firebomb the world.
Too late.
Also, I'm interested in seeing how Woody Harrelson plays Haymitch. He was my favorite character in the books and it's hard to hate Tallahassee.
Quote from: Avaitor on March 23, 2012, 06:44:11 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on March 23, 2012, 06:41:48 PM
5. If a "Team Peeta" and "Team Gale" comes out of this movie, I'm going to firebomb the world.
Too late.
Also, I'm interested in seeing how Woody Harrelson plays Haymitch. He was my favorite character in the books and it's hard to hate Tallahassee.
He was really good, in my opinion. He made the character likable and clever, yet really shabby and rundown.
Freaking love triangles, man.
Its funny because apparently....
(SPOILERS FOLLOW AND THE USUAL SPOILER TAG DON'T WORK)
in Mockingjay, Gale turns into a crazy psychopath who kills Primrose in order to manipulate Katniss to overthrow the government....or something. THESE BOOKS ARE WHACK MAN! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!
Oh and I surprisingly liked the movie, considering I've been actively avoiding these books and only became somewhat interested because the Tomatometer's at 86%.
I'll look into fixing the spoiler tag one of these days...
Eh, half of that shit doesn't even happen in the books anyway.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on March 24, 2012, 12:44:34 AM
Eh, half of that shit doesn't even happen in the books anyway.
Off-
screenpage plot and character development? I hate that shit.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on March 24, 2012, 12:44:34 AM
Eh, half of that shit doesn't even happen in the books anyway.
Oh, so you did read them? :happytime:
Honestly, I've been trying to avoid this movie as much as possible, because quite frankly I'm finding the hype to be borderline unbearable at this point (Team Peeta and Team Gale
is already gaining some steam unfortunately, and that's just for starters). That, and I have no actual experience with the books myself, so the interest to compare and contrast just isn't there.
Although, there is that part of me that is undoubtedly curious, particularly because it does seem to be getting pretty good reviews. I may still end up seeing it yet, but I dunno. We'll see.
I'm just not understanding the praise for Katniss.
She's a very one note character with two emotions being anger and remorse. She doesn't actually show any other emotions at all.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on March 24, 2012, 02:29:19 PM
I'm just not understanding the praise for Katniss.
She's a very one note character with two emotions being anger and remorse. She doesn't actually show any other emotions at all.
Dude, if you don't like her, you're sexist and an awful person.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi40.tinypic.com%2F2s0xzc8.png&hash=9b7c1214bd2aeaf7965615b0f5c93dbc32199d8c)
Ugh. The only scene where she isn't angry or remorseful is her time with Rue which is cut short before Katniss actually does anything with her.
This is like those people who thought the Bride in Kill Bill was a step forward for female characters because she was tough. No, she was boring and one note.
From what I can tell, the praise comes from her being a "strong" Action Girl in a leading role, has her own motivations, and generally being better than Bella Swan.
Which isn't really saying all that much tbh. Being a badass female character who has her own goals and motivations is nice and all, but the thing is, the character still needs the charisma and personality to carry the story. Far too many people forget that.
Just saw this quote in someone's imdb signature: "I am not pretty. I am not beautiful. I am as radiant as the sun."
Absolutely groan-worthy. Do people seriously consider that to be good dialogue?
Peeta is the fucking Mary Sue, not Katniss.
Quote from: Lord Dalek on March 24, 2012, 03:48:12 PM
Peeta is the fucking Mary Sue, not Katniss.
He becomes one, yes. I would really liked to have seen what the heck he was doing with Cato's group instead of seeing Katniss dodge treesplosions. It would have been a heck of a lot more interesting, for sure.
There's really no compelling reason that we had to be glued to her POV the whole time when so much else was going on we didn't get to see.
Eh, at least Katniss isn't as much of a cunt as Hermione or a useless plot device like Ginny.
I'm not denying that. I just found her flat.
Oh, she definitely is, I won't deny that either. I still think that Katniss is more interesting than just about any of the contestants, since we actually get an idea of how she thinks and reacts, but there isn't much to her at all.
Watching Fear and Loathing. Johnny Depp was born to play Hunter S. Thompson. Him at his absolute finest.
Dr. Seuss' The Lorax was entertaining for the little pups.
Tried to grind through The Ghost Writer, it's done by Roman Polanski, so everything's quiet and investigative slow like in The Ninth Gate. How Kim Cattrall got top billing when she didn't play the main woman boggles me.
I just saw Midnight In Paris. A pretty cute little movie.
I did feel more than a bit sorry for the detective at the end, though. :sweat:
21 Jump Street was fucking awesome. Go see it if you haven't.
How funny that you mentioned that. I literally just got back from seeing the movie with a few friends after having just completed the toughest Therapeutics exam of the semester, and seeing that movie pretty much took off all of the stress that I had built up while preparing for that exam. I laughed a lot more than I expected and I pretty much have to 2nd your opinion. Its easily one of the better comedies that I've seen so far this year. It gets a definite recommendation from me.
The one girl was bugging me throughout the whole movie, because I knew I recognized her from something. It didn't hit me until the very last scene she was in, she was Envy Adams.
His Girl Friday
One of the fastest screwball comedies out here, with dozens of jokes per minute... and not one of them funny. Yet it's one of the most revered comedies of all time. Go figure.
Danton:
Excellent historical drama set during the Reign of Terror and the last days of Georges Danton. While Gerard Depardieu was great as the titular character, I must give special mention to Wojciech Pszoniak; whose portrayal of Robespierre was one of the high-lights of the movie.
so i heard like the last two lines of "you could be mine" on the radio today, and naturally i got a hankering to watch terminator 2, and i just finished it up. it's funny though, while t2 remains one of my favorite films and i've seen it many times, i don't think i've watched the original terminator in a number of years. well, it is on my hard drive, so here we go...
oh my god look at how young arnold and sarah are, damn and sarah wears a jetsons shirt haha
Terminator 1 is such a creepy movie. I mean that genuinely. While I would struggle to call it a horror movie, it is actually pretty scary.
Well, the movie certainly does pay a lot of tribute to horror movies if nothing else. I think the most common theme pointed out is how the Terminator in that movie is very much like a traditional slasher villain. He doesn't talk, can't be reasoned with, and is there for plenty of jump scares.
In many ways I feel like the difference between Terminator 1 and 2 is pretty similar to the difference between Alien and Aliens, in that the first movies of each respective series were much slower and more creepy in tone, whereas the 2nd of each were far more action focused.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on May 05, 2012, 11:06:22 PMIn many ways I feel like the difference between Terminator 1 and 2 is pretty similar to the difference between Alien and Aliens, in that the first movies of each respect series were much slower and more creepy in tone, whereas the 2nd of each were far more action focused.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
While the villain in Terminator 2 is pretty hardcore and far more dangerous than the original, I still find the original one creepier in how... utterly mechanical he is when reacting to the environment. You just get the feeling that this thing is a real monster. I never really get that feeling from a slasher villain, but the Terminator is pretty much the robotic embodiment of evil. This thing is not supposed to exist. And it's genuinely unsettling.
That said, they both are great at what they do. It's also great that both movies ended at the second installment.
eh, the chase scenes were much better done in t2 than t1. also t1 has an unbelievable 80s cheese feel to it, which is probably not it's fault, but still.
the 80s were such a cheesy decade, everything from sarahs hair to the dialogue is so dated. to be fair though t2 has a scene in which edward furlong is trying to teach arnold some normal human lingo, and that was so dated that it made me cringe.
Eh, I can't say I agree with you about that. Maybe in terms of the special effects, and maybe during that one scene at "tech-noir" (if you even know what I'm referring to ;) ), but other than that I don't see how it feels like other 80's movies. It honestly feels pretty unique, even today. I mean, it feels like its own thing, and personally I found the chase scene with the mechanical Terminator to be pretty creepy, myself, even though I know its just an effect.
I do agree that the chase scenes in T2 are awesome in general, though. Hell, the whole movie is awesome, but for much different reasons than what made the first film great, IMO.
I dunno, I don't really see cheese as a bad thing. Especially when considering that there's much cheesier fare than this done worse. (Heck, Aliens is considered cheesy by a lot of people) It's the hint of cheese that keeps it feeling realistic which gives it that edge when it gets dark. I don't know about you guys but I find that eye scene quite disturbing even now.
But it was made in the 1980s. Of course it's dated. Even Hitchcock films have dated, and they're still amazing. ;)
oh, there's nothing wrong with the film, it's just that the 80s were such a terrible time for pop culture. i dont know if i want to blame ronald reagan trying to take the country back to the 1950s attitude of optimism, but nearly everything that the 80s produced feels so damned fake these days. even things i like, like diver down or 1984(van halen albums, for those uneducated) or films like back to the future or the now featured terminator. these are all objectionally good things, in a decade that also had family ties and look what the cat dragged in, but i still feel a sense of that 80s cheese to it, it's just a testament to how much that decade sucked balls.
i guess what im trying to say is that despite cameron's efforts to make the film seem different from other 80s fare, it still has that 80s feel to it. maybe i'm biased a little because i know that it came out in the 80s and therefore can't view it outside of that mindset, but that's the way it is.
and they just wrecked that bomb ass chevy truck. man i wish i had that truck.
and for no inexplicable reason i'm now watching south park: bigger longer and uncut. it has been awhile.
don't kick the baby.
I love how mrs. brovlovski says "if it's war they want, then it's war they shall have!" then holds up the peace sign on both hands. that makes no god damned sense.
I think that was the idea.
But anyways, now that you mention it, I'm up for re-watching the movie myself. I'll have to dig through the huge pile of DVDs I have stored up just to find it, though. :D
Quote from: Comeau on May 05, 2012, 11:36:19 PM
oh, there's nothing wrong with the film, it's just that the 80s were such a terrible time for pop culture. i dont know if i want to blame ronald reagan trying to take the country back to the 1950s attitude of optimism, but nearly everything that the 80s produced feels so damned fake these days. even things i like, like diver down or 1984(van halen albums, for those uneducated) or films like back to the future or the now featured terminator. these are all objectionally good things, in a decade that also had family ties and look what the cat dragged in, but i still feel a sense of that 80s cheese to it, it's just a testament to how much that decade sucked balls.
i guess what im trying to say is that despite cameron's efforts to make the film seem different from other 80s fare, it still has that 80s feel to it. maybe i'm biased a little because i know that it came out in the 80s and therefore can't view it outside of that mindset, but that's the way it is.
It's just the way it is, I guess. No matter what they do it will always be a product of its time, its jst up to you whether or not you can get passed it or not.
And I don't know about you but, when I listen to "Hot For Teacher" it doesn't sound like the 1980s to me. ;D
I don't mind the 1980s movies that were actually made in the 1980s; the retro ones and remakes can get annoying though.
I saw The Raid last night. The martial arts doesn't kick in until the second half of the movie, but wow, that's some good fight choreography.
Recently rewatched Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, in preparation for The Dark Knight Rises.
I just wtached ABC Family's back to back runs of The Princess & The Frog and Beauty & The Beast. (Oddly, they were played in that order)
The former definitely hangs with the latter to the extent that it's sad to realize how far their classics had dropped in quality between the two releases over the years. It feels almost as if they hadn't lost a beat.
Now that you mention it, my mom recorded that airing of the movie on DVR so that my little sister and I can watch it tomorrow. I'll give my own thoughts on it after I finally get to see it.
I greatly prefer PATF to Tangled, and I think it does a lot of things right compared to other princess movies. There's some pretty gaping flaws otherwise, but I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it yet.
I'd see it just to see Keith David (aka Goliath) singing. ;)
Oh, and I watched Drive earlier.
It had a really cool concept, some great actors, and some sick action, but there was some serious audio problems with the dialogue that set it back for me a little, and I didn't get as invested as I was hoping to. I'd still recommend it out of curiosity though.
Heh, I was checking Netflix out earlier and found that it had both of the Addams Family movies.
I loved those things but haven't seen them in forever. I might have to watch one or both of them later, before or after I rewatch Kickass.
I just saw Lucas.
Great movie. :)
I just re-watched Ghostbusters 2 on Netflix. I still don't get the dislike for this movie. Is it as good as the first film? No. But is it still enjoyable and entertaining? I certainly think so. Plus I have to give credit to them actually coming up with a genuinely creepy villain this time. Yeah, the special effects are cheesy and he looks ridiculous in person, but he does look genuinely creepy in his painting form.
Criterion's having a Japanese crime special this week. The following movies (http://www.criterion.com/hulu_special) based on Japanese crime can be seen on Hulu for free or bought on Amazon half-priced.
Any interest in these, Foggle? I know this is up your alley.
Exciting! Thanks for the heads up. :joy:
Watching Rock n Roll High School. Featuring The Ramones!
You know what, I actually watched Ted and you know what... I enjoyed it. There I fucking said it. Sure it has the rapid fire joke Seth MacFarlane products are known for, but the story was pretty enjoyable and I found myself laughing at the jokes presented in it. I did enjoy the characters in it like Ted, John, and Lori being the main 3. Of course, I was actually surprised to see a lot of American Dad and Family Guy alumni being in this movie, even if most of them were cameos. I think my favorite part in the movie was near the end where John and Lori were saving Ted from this creepy stalker dad and his son that were the films antagonist in a way.
It probably won't be the most funniest movie of the summer, but I'd say it's worth watching
Just watched The Great Silence and I have to say that out of all the spaghetti-westerns I've seen so far (which admittedly aren't that many), this one was definitely the bleakest. OK, so The Dollar Trilogy and Once Upon A Time In the West weren't exactly lighthearted films either, but Silence really went the extra mile. The movie was also beautifully shot and had a great, haunting soundtrack that added to it's atmosphere. Great movie and Kinski was awesome as the villain.
I watched Kick Ass for the first time since it initially came out on DVD/Blu today. I can't believe I haven't noticed this before, but this is basically psychology 101. Kick-Ass is the ego, the realistic part of the film that screws up easily and doesn't have the tools that everyone else has; Red Mist is the id, that can afford the big toys he needs to do the job and who skews the line between good and bad throughout the entire film; leaving Hit Girl and Big Daddy to be the super ego, as they have all the weapons and skills that Kick-Ass and Red Mist want but enough experience to pull everything off. This is basically a psychological view of the super hero mythology, which I find very interesting.
It's far from perfect though. The movie became super dated on arrival with its reliance on using MySpace instead of Facebook, the jokes aren't as funny after another go, some of the music choices really seemed off, especially the usage of "Bad Reputation" by Joan Jett during Hit Girl's fight scene against the crew near the end, and the final act really requires you to use your suspension of disbelief. The use of bazookas and jetpacks so casually there does seem out of place considering the realism they strived for during the rest of the film. But it's still a good movie IMO, and the layers I found which I mentioned in the first paragraph make for solid reviewings.
It's still as funny to me as it ever was tbh.
Well it's still pretty funny. The opening scene will always be great. A couple of the lines aren't too funny though IMO.
Just don't read the comic. It gets pretty cringe-worthy.
As a movie it's decent, but at least not as dumb as it gets in comic form.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 03, 2012, 09:45:01 PM
Just don't read the comic. It gets pretty cringe-worthy.
As a movie it's decent, but at least not as dumb as it gets in comic form.
The comic is godawful and Kick-Ass 2 is even worse. Not just cringe-worthy, vomit-worthy.
I think the movie is absolutely hilarious, though the first act does kind of drag until he suits up for the first time.
I don't know what happens in Kick-Ass 2, but I do know that I don't want them to adapt it and make the movie a one-off. I'd like to think that Hit Girl/Mindy lives a normal life after all of this, or as normal as she can.
I don't think there will be a sequel. They already salvaged a bad comic into a solid movie, adapting an even worse comic would really be a lot of work for not a lot of pay off.
If they do make a sequel to the movie, they need to change it as much as they did the original. Really don't want to see Red Mist raping Katie and killing her dad on screen kthnx.
Quote from: Foggle on July 03, 2012, 09:55:56 PMRed Mist raping Katie and killing her dad on screen.
The worst writer in comics, folks.
Kick-Ass was a fun movie, but I had some problems with it (Avaitor pretty much mentioned most of them). I haven't read the comics, and given that I've heard bad things about them, I have no plans to. That said, I do have to wonder just why the hell we even got this movie adaptation of the comics were so poorly received in the first place?
The comic is horrifying and also somewhat racist. Don't know how they turned that shit into a good comedy. Definitely don't know why some people actually prefer the comic. The sequel is literally disgusting at times, and has more than one scene like the one I just described.
Also, Red Mist's villain name is The Motherfucker instead of Orange Lightning. Seriously? That name change was so obvious! Get with the program, Millar.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 03, 2012, 09:57:05 PM
Quote from: Foggle on July 03, 2012, 09:55:56 PMRed Mist raping Katie and killing her dad on screen.
The worst writer in comics, folks.
Mark miller worse than Jeph Loeb or modern day Frank Miller? Hmm.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on July 03, 2012, 10:00:12 PM
Kick-Ass was a fun movie, but I had some problems with it (Avaitor pretty much mentioned most of them). I haven't read the comics, and given that I've heard bad things about them, I have no plans to. That said, I do have to wonder just why the hell we even got this movie adaptation of the comics were so poorly received in the first place?
Because the writer (I'm not going to mention his name, I'm not giving him credit) gets a lot of praise for coming up with original ideas for stories to the point where his books always get good buzz when they first come out. If I'm not mistaken, this one was bought when it was still in concept form so it was in production before the comic was over. Hence how everything that was terrible in the comic was basically removed in the movie. The movie still isn't perfect (the concept limits itself a lot), but compared to the source material it's a masterpiece.
Nonetheless, if you want a similarly interesting idea with horrid execution check out the old man Logan comic. Sick stuff. And yes worse than those two, Avaitor.
By leagues.
QuoteYou can't write a graphic novel thinking about a future movie because that way leads to madness or Mark Millar.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 03, 2012, 10:05:35 PMIf I'm not mistaken, this one was bought when it was still in concept form so it was in production before the comic was over. Hence how everything that was terrible in the comic was basically removed in the movie. The movie still isn't perfect (the concept limits itself a lot), but compared to the source material it's a masterpiece.
Pretty much this the movie deal was made sometime during the production of the comic. Kind of like the Scott Pilgrim movie where Bryan Lee O'Malley didn't even have anything but rough ideas past his 3rd book when the movie was in production, which is why the Twins were merely reduced to a non-speaking parts and why we probably didn't have Mr. Chau helping Scott with his fight against Roxie.
He's currently doing a Hit-Girl Spin-off right now that's taking place in between Kick-Ass 1 and 2. Which basically shows her trying to fit in with the normal life her dad deprived her of.
Independence Day is on. Not really that great of a movie, but hey it's the 4th.
Happy birthday America! Celebrating with my flag decorated Budweiser!
If Kick Ass is Psychology 101, what does that make Fight Club?
I don't know, I've only seen it once.
I still like it better than American Psycho though.
American Psycho is hilarious. 8)
I saw Amazing Spider-Man yesterday. It was pretty good. Loved the new take on Peter Parker, yet it was more true to the comics than the Raimi movies. Peter was a wise cracker as always, and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was enjoyable. Damn I love that woman. Well at least with Peter seeing Ben's death this time means we won't get something as stupid as Sandman orign. I thought the Lizard/Connors as a character was handled well. He could have looked more lizard like since his form almost reminded me of the Goomba's from the Super Mario Bros movie.
Also since I went to AMC, they gave me and my brother 2 of those little pins.
i've been hearing mostly good things about ASM, but I'm still on the fence about it. I'm still that way with TDKR too, but that's still just law of averages over anything.
I'm mildly interested in seeing TASM. I'm one of those few people who actually liked Raimi's Spider-Man movies for the most part (yes, that includes 3, and ironically 2 was my least favorite of them), and it feels really awkward to have a complete reboot for the movie franchise only 5 years after the last Raimi Spider-Man film. That said, some of my friends might be seeing it next week, so I may just tag along with them. Also, while I'm honestly not that interested in a new Spider-Man film itself, I've got to give credit to Marvel for having had a pretty good track record with their movies for the past couple of years (the only bad one I can think of is probably Ghost Rider 2, but everyone knew that would be bad from the get-go), and this movie has been getting positive reception just like most of their films have in the past few years, so I may check it out if its a decent movie in general.
I thought the Sandman plot was the best part of 3.
But I'm still not sold on ASM. I just don't really see the point. Also, is it true that all the scenes from the early trailers were cut from the movie? That's weird if so.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 05, 2012, 07:13:25 PM
I thought the Sandman plot was the best part of 3.
Same here, honestly. I know it totally ignores the character from the comics and is generally just a product of the film series, but judging the film series by itself, I thought that plot was handled rather well. It didn't seem stupid or contrived to me, and I actually like having an enemy to Spider-Man that you could sympathize with and who wasn't really a villain. The only part of the film that I can really get the criticism behind is the inclusion of Venom. I admit myself that Eddie Brock's development felt way too rushed, but that's just because it was forcefully shoehorned into the film at the last minute. Its worth nothing that Sam Raimi had never planned to put Venom in SM3 in the first place, but was forced to by the meddling of the studio, so I at least think that he should be spared the blame for that part of the film, which really isn't his fault, even if you guys think the film is garbage in general. At any rate, I still like the movie for what it is. It still entertains me and I don't even consider it a guilty pleasure, either.
QuoteBut I'm still not sold on ASM. I just don't really see the point. Also, is it true that all the scenes from the early trailers were cut from the movie? That's weird if so.
I actually kind of like if scenes from the trailer don't appear in the movie. That leaves more surprises for the movie itself.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 05, 2012, 07:13:25 PM
But I'm still not sold on ASM. I just don't really see the point. Also, is it true that all the scenes from the early trailers were cut from the movie? That's weird if so.
Given that Sony released over 25 minutes of footage, it'd be quite odd to see all of that cut.
I forgot to mention that Netflix just got the Rugrats movie so I watched that. Not a bad flick, but that number with all the newborn babies at the beginning of the movie is still bizarre to me now.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on July 05, 2012, 08:36:09 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 05, 2012, 07:13:25 PM
But I'm still not sold on ASM. I just don't really see the point. Also, is it true that all the scenes from the early trailers were cut from the movie? That's weird if so.
Given that Sony released over 25 minutes of footage, it'd be quite odd to see all of that cut.
Dunno, it's just what I heard.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 05, 2012, 09:00:33 PM
I forgot to mention that Netflix just got the Rugrats movie so I watched that. Not a bad flick, but that number with all the newborn babies at the beginning of the movie is still bizarre to me now.
Yeah, that's a weird as fuck scene. I always thought so, even when I first saw it. It doesn't fit the show or movie at all really, and there's no real joke behind it.
The Thing remake. The recent one. The ending goes into the beginning of the old movie apparently.
Too many "modern horror" annoyances for me. Oh no the plot device didn't work for the split second we needed it, why don't we help that guy instead of just standing there watching him get killed, hey lets all constantly separate for no particular reason, and of course it ends with the modern trope of the female surviving.
I don't think I'll be watching this genre anymore. It doesn't seem to try very much.
I was never interested in seeing the recent take on "The Thing," myself. The original black and white film did its own thing and is a classic B monster movie in its own right, whereas John Carpenter gave his spin on the story and as far as I'm concerned created the definitive movie adaptation of the novel its based off of. When one film already pretty much nailed things as close to perfectly as possible, I automatically have no interest in seeing the same story told over again, though going by Desensitized's description, its just as bad as I expected it would be.
There's one particular scene near the end that is so ridiculous in how dumb it is where almost every character is killed point blank in the same room while everyone stands around either fumbling with the flamethrower (that was just being used literally two seconds prior) or letting other people get killed while they stared at it happening.
I was tired of those contrivances ten years ago, now I have absolutely no tolerance for them.
Get a new bag of cliches, Hollywood.
So, a bunch of my friends are going in a group together tonight to see The Amazing Spider-Man (I know, on a Monday night, that's crazy, isn't it? :D ). I'm still on the fence about whether I care enough to go or not, but I may just end up going at the last minute since all of my other friends from back at home seem to be going. If I do end up seeing the movie I'll share my thoughts on it, but don't expect me to go around bashing Raimi's SM movies in comparison to this one like how other people have been doing, since I actually like Raimi's Spider-Man movies.
Sounds like a fun diversion until The Dark Knight Rises occupies people's minds.
Barnes & Noble's annual Criterion sale is up, and I FINALLY got a copy of Seven Samurai. I wish I had more money since I'd love to get the following as well:
Yojimbo
The Gold Rush
Modern Times
M
The 400 Blows
Black Narcissus
The Lady Vanishes
The 39 Steps
8 1/2
Ace in the Hole
Masculine Feminine
Island of Lost Souls
Last night I saw The Amazing Spider-Man with my friends. I'm a bit too lazy to get really descriptive about it, but I'll do just that, anyways. I will say that putting my own bias for a reboot aside (which I still think was pretty unnecessary so soon after Raimi's SM films), the film was solid. It wasn't great by any stretch, but I could definitely say that at the very least people who didn't like Raimi's films would appreciate this one more, though I don't know if they'd still find it to be good enough or not since I don't know how fans of the comics think about what a good SM adaptation should be. I've heard 2 complaints about this movie that I can say are complete bull-shit: the complaint that it rips off Sam Raimi's SM movies, and the complaint that it rips off The Dark Knight. For the first complaint, that's just retarded. This film is just adapting the source material starting from Peter Parker's high school years, so of course there will be some overlap with the origin story as it was adapted in Raimi's first SM movie. That said it doesn't rip off Raimi's take on the story, and if you watch it events unfold quite differently in this film (plus, everything after the origin is complete different from anything in Raimi's SM films). The second complaint is idiotic beyond belief. People think that just because this SM film is a bit darker and more serious than the older ones that its now trying to be dark like The Dark Knight. Spider-Man still cracks one-liners, there is still humor in the film, and it never gets anywhere close to as dark or psychotic as The Dark Knight, so people are just being anal with that complaint.
That said, I had some problems with the film. For one thing, I think it took way too long to tell the origin story. Lets face it, almost everybody knows Spider-Man's origin by this point, so taking so long on the origin story just made the first half of the film feel ridiculously slow. In this regard its very much like Batman Begins. I know that they were building up Peter's character, but they could still do that after he became Spider-Man as well. The other problem I had with this film was that The Lizard was just a pretty uninteresting villain. Actually, to be specific, I found Curt Connors to be a very interesting character in this film....until he became The Lizard, in which case he just became a generic bad guy in my eyes. I will say that a certain part about the ending redeemed the character a bit in my eyes, but I won't spoil it for anyone.
Anyways, those are my general thoughts on the film. While I still like Raimi's Spider-Man movies just fine and think that that this reboot wasn't really needed, I will admit that I did actually like it well enough. The best way I can describe it is that its very much like the Batman Begins of the Spider-Man movie franchise. Its more serious and probably more respectful of its source material than the earlier adaptations, but it also feels like too much of a retread of old ground at some points (like taking too long with the origin story), and its got some other issues pegging it down. Yet at the same time, it has the potential to be really good if the sequel improves on this movie, just like how The Dark Knight improved on Batman Begins in every possible way, especially with the villain and pacing.
I still don't think that Desensitized would be interested in this movie, and I have no idea what fans of the comics like Avaitor and Foggle would think of it, so I can't really recommend or not recommend it. I guess just see it if you're interested enough and feel like spending the money for a movie ticket.
Oh yeah, I also took my little sister to see Brave today, for her birthday. I think she enjoyed it just fine, which I'm glad about, but I found it....underwhelming....which is pretty much more or less what I expected, so I can't say that I'm disappointed. Its definitely one of Pixar's weaker films in my eyes, but its definitely not bad. I'd say its probably a decent rental, but I wouldn't really recommend seeing it in theaters unless you REALLY love everything Pixar.
Someone actually thinks that The Devil's Rejects is one of the best made films of our generation.
lol
I saw American Reunion on the ship last week when we were underway*, and it's really a pretty boring film. There's a few funny moments sure, and the scene with the boobs(wouldn't be an American Pie movie without one) was pretty good, but they couldn't even make Stifler interesting. Not a bad movie, just incredibly boring.
*The thing about the ship is when we are in port we have cable, so the TVs in the cafeteria or whatever are always tuned to CNN or ESPN or something, but out to sea we don't get that, so the movie studios send us movies, and usually they are pretty recent, although there are some classics mixed in; the newest batch had The Goonies mixed in with The Avengers(this played about a dozen times last week), The Dictator, and yes American Reunion.
Got another Criterion set before the sale ended- this time I went with The Gold Rush.
Always love having some Chaplin!
Forrest Gump was on TV the other night so I watched it. I dunno, I think it's still pretty good.
Quote from: Comeau on July 28, 2012, 04:44:45 PM
I saw American Reunion on the ship last week when we were underway*, and it's really a pretty boring film. There's a few funny moments sure, and the scene with the boobs(wouldn't be an American Pie movie without one) was pretty good, but they couldn't even make Stifler interesting. Not a bad movie, just incredibly boring.
*The thing about the ship is when we are in port we have cable, so the TVs in the cafeteria or whatever are always tuned to CNN or ESPN or something, but out to sea we don't get that, so the movie studios send us movies, and usually they are pretty recent, although there are some classics mixed in; the newest batch had The Goonies mixed in with The Avengers(this played about a dozen times last week), The Dictator, and yes American Reunion.
Sounds like American Wedding.
I... don't really remember American Wedding. Seriously, aside from the two strippers, I'm drawing a complete blank in regards to the film's story, or any other scenes.
If it weren't for the pie-fucking, Stifler's mom, or the band camp quote, American Pie as a whole would've been forgotten a year after it was made. There's a reason all but one of the cast haven't had any good roles in the last few years.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 31, 2012, 08:10:08 PM
Forrest Gump was on TV the other night so I watched it. I dunno, I think it's still pretty good.
Was there someone on this board who implied that it wasn't? Because if so, I totally disagree with them.
Anyways, you all know that I hold this film up pretty high on a personal regard, and its one of my favorites, so that's that.
I don't like it much, but it's undoubtedly an amazing film.
If you guys ever watch The Gold Rush, don't watch the 1942 version. It's Chaplin and his estate's preferred take, but he cuts out a lot of stuff and just narrates EVERYTHING. The remnants of the 1925 original is the only way to see it IMO.
That was the version I watched in film class a few years ago. Needless to say, while the brevity helped, it felt odd in places.
Boom. (http://www.toonzone.net/forums/showthread.php?296912-toonzone-Film-Club&p=4028699#post4028699)
I wasn't even aware The Lorax was out in theaters let alone coming to DVD next week. Did it do all that well?
According to various websites, critical reception was mixed. It mostly had to do with people saying that the movie and it's marketing betrayed the idea of the book. I do recall an ad that was advertising a new car and yeah people weren't happy about that. Then you had nutjobs thinking that this movie was indoctrinating kids into being tree-hugging hippies and having an environmentalist message. Heaven forbid the Lorax has a message about the environment in it. Plus this story being more than 40+ years old, where was the complaints about that before?
As for money it did make like $214 Million, so it did make it's budget back, since it had a budget of $70 Million.
I didn't see the film in theaters. If it's ever in Redbox, I'll probably give it a shot.
I think it was particularly bad timing since we recently had WALL*E in the last few years with the same basic message. They would have had to do a perfect adaption to compete with that.
But I was a big fan of the Lorax cartoon short, because it managed to have a good message without being condescending or forceful about it. In this age of "LETS YELL EVERYTHING SO KIDS KNOW ITS FUNNY" made me worry about how it would turn out.
Kazaam
Steel
Both movies are terrible. Knew this before even seeing them... But man are they entertaining. Saw them down the shore with friends and laughed harder than I have in a while.
Saw Killer Joe last night with some friends. Brilliant, hilarious comedy! The writing was excellent (actually smart) and the acting was fantastic - especially McConaughey, who was deliciously creepy. Would definitely recommend this movie to anyone.
So I watched Flash Gordon instead of sleep. Other than being the most unashamed example of camp that I've ever seen, it was quite good. If only Hollywood had the balls to make a movie this garish nowadays.
Started watching Sherlock Holmes The Sign of Four, made in the 1980s; it was alright; it tried to be close to the main story, although it got rid of that whole cocaine/heroine opening chapter.
Quick, people, name your favorite Cary Grant movie.
Arsenic and Old Lace.
I forgot to send my own answer, but it's North by Northwest. Charade and Bringing Up Baby are also high up there.
Also, apparently Tony Scott killed himself. He was a fairly decent director, so it sucks to see him go. RIP
Oh, oh, TCM is doing more limited rerelases. O the 19th, they'll put The Birds out for one night, while in October, they're doing a double feature of the original Frankenstein along with Bride of, and they're putting out To Kill a Mockingbird in November. All for Universal's centennial.
Some really cool stuff. I'm setting up plans for The Birds now.
Just got back from The Expendables 2. It was great! I liked the first one just fine, but it did have problems like some of the camerawork and CGI blood. Here they've been improved, and there's a lot more character moments in this one. I loved them playing that Western theme (you know the one) when Norris' guy Booker walked in. Then they followed with a play on a Chuck Norris fact. Some good lines I can remember:
"I now pronounce you Man and Knife!"
"Rest in pieces!"
"Are you afraid of me?"
"NO!"
"You should be!"
"We make things light, then we make it dark, and then it all goes pitch black."
"I'll be back!"
"You've been back enough, I'LL be back!"
"Yippee-Kai-aye!"
One thing I didn't like is the cliche with the young sniper dying after stating he has a girlfriend in France, but overall it was a great action flick. About time we got see The Terminator, Rambo, and John McClain together for real this time! :thumbup:
I wasn't big on the first one since yeah, the CG blood looked weak and I thought that the random swearing they added into the script at the last minute just subtracted from the dialogue. Why they ever thought that the movie should be PG-13 is beyond me. Kids and teens aren't really going to see this. This movie is meant for people who grew up on Stallone's and everyone else's movies, which would be in the older audience.
I hear that the sequel is an improvement, which I'd like to believe. I'll probably just rent it when it comes out on home video.
I saw the first movie and was lukewarm to it. Its not a well-made movie, and by that I mean that I know that its intentionally meant to be cliche and be a big throwback (and maybe even a slight parody of) to the big blockbuster action movies of the 1970's, 80's, and early 90's, but IMO it didn't do a very good job of capturing either the epicness or fun cheese factor of those movies that made them so entertaining to watch and memorable in the first place. That said, it did come close to doing that at certain instances, and I can't say that I was ever completely bored by the movie, either, so I think its just a very mediocre film in what it sets out to do.
I want to believe that the 2nd movie does right what the first should have done, but like Avaitor I'd rather just wait until it comes out on Netflix of something of that sort since I don't feel like paying a movie ticket price and take the chance of being let down again. Besides, I've always enjoyed these sorts of movies more on home video than in the theaters for some odd reason, so that'll make the movie like a more authentic cheesy action movie experience if I watch it in that format. :P
It got 65% on Rotten Tomatoes, so yeah even the critics liked this one better. If anyone does want to go see it in theaters, go ahead and see it. Chances are you'll like this one better too. ;)
Just got back from seeing Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai. It was excellent, but I fucking HATE this stupid 3D fad. My head was throbbing something awful by the halfway point (woo for white subtitles on a separate layer from the video!) and literally the only worthwhile effect in the entire film was some snow near the end. I don't even see why a slow-paced samurai film made for adults would be shot in 3D, as I'm 90% sure that that shit only appeals to young children chomping popcorn to action movies (though please correct me if I'm wrong).
Regardless, I am NEVER spending money on another 3D movie. That's four extra dollars down the drain and naught but a headache to show for it. Fuck.
And now you know why Avatar was the last 3D movie I ever watched.
So what are everyone's favorite comedies? You don't have to rank them or anything, I'm just always on the look out for more funny stuff to watch. Mine are (in no particular order):
In Bruges
Cemetery Man
American Psycho
Underground
Bud Abbott & Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein
Hot Fuzz
Arsenic and Old Lace
Duck Soup
Army Of Darkness
The Sting
My fav comedy is... name a Billy Wilder movie. y'no, besides the more serious ones.
Also, Michael Clark Duncan died (http://www.tmz.com/2012/09/03/michael-clarke-duncan-dead/). Another shame, really. While the Daredevil movie was far from perfect, I still think his performance as Kingpin was easily the highlight.
RIP, Mr. Duncan was fantastic.
Quote from: Foggle on September 02, 2012, 06:01:43 PM
So what are everyone's favorite comedies? You don't have to rank them or anything, I'm just always on the look out for more funny stuff to watch. Mine are (in no particular order):
In Bruges
Cemetery Man
American Psycho
Underground
Bud Abbott & Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein
Hot Fuzz
Arsenic and Old Lace
Duck Soup
Army Of Darkness
The Sting
Have you still not watched An American Werewolf In London?
I dunno what my favorite would be anymore, my tastes seem to be drifting more towards family comedies these days as I'm getting more and more tired of gross-out and satire.
The Human Centipede 2 was one of my favorite comedies recently.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 04, 2012, 03:47:00 PM
Have you still not watched An American Werewolf In London?
I keep forgetting to. If it's on Netflix then I'll probably give it a look this weekend...
QuoteI dunno what my favorite would be anymore, my tastes seem to be drifting more towards family comedies these days as I'm getting more and more tired of gross-out and satire.
What do you mean by "gross-out" comedy? Shit like Mr. Meaty and Date Movie? That stuff's the worst. My favorite comedies emphasize witty writing and well-done performances over other elements... except for Army of Darkness. But I can't not love that movie.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on September 04, 2012, 03:50:07 PM
The Human Centipede 2 was one of my favorite comedies recently.
I thought that was a porno?
Quote from: Foggle on September 04, 2012, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 04, 2012, 03:47:00 PM
Have you still not watched An American Werewolf In London?
I keep forgetting to. If it's on Netflix then I'll probably give it a look this weekend...
It is. I recently re-watched it yet again via streaming on Netflix and the film still holds up remarkably well.
Army Of Darkness is probably the best Evil Dead movie. It sure is the funniest either way.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 05, 2012, 03:56:30 PM
Army Of Darkness is probably the best Evil Dead movie. It sure is the funniest either way.
Agreed. Evil Dead 2 is nearly as good, though.
An American Werewolf in London is one of my favorite "horror" movies. It's definitely my favorite werewolf movie, even over The Wolf Man.
Have you guys who haven't seen Seven Samurai yet still want a chance to check it out?
Because Hulu has it streaming for free this week as a part of Criterion's weekly freebies.
I'm totally hitting that up tomorrow! :thumbup:
:thinkin:
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 09, 2012, 09:17:57 PM
:thinkin:
Why do you always have doubts about watching good things? Do you hate feeling enjoyment? :shit:
No, I mean I don't have Hulu! :D
Poor Canada.
At least you have your free health care and legalized gay marriage.
As someone who is neither gay nor ever gets sick.... yay?
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 09, 2012, 09:48:12 PM
As someone who is neither gay nor ever gets sick.... yay?
Well, at least you have Degrassi. .3.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on September 09, 2012, 09:48:52 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 09, 2012, 09:48:12 PM
As someone who is neither gay nor ever gets sick.... yay?
Well, at least you have Degrassi. .3.
I actually do have the original on Netflix... :sweat:
But Degrassi is really bad(really really bad) these days. I still like the original series and the first few seasons of TNG(I think i watched up until season 6), but man is it bad now.
I couldn't find a good version of this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wazSP4UK8xEYep%20yep.%5B/url)
Thank God I just watch Skins instead.
Oh, another movie Hulu and Criterion have for free this week is Three Colors: White. I watched Blue in the film class I took at campus last term, so I was excited to see the next part of the Colors trilogy up. this was more comedic and a little faster paced than Blue, but I think that was still a better film, since Blue had a stronger execution and more depth.
And now Red is up in my queue to complete the trilogy.
Never heard of this Colors Trilogy. What's it about? :o
Quote from: Foggle on September 11, 2012, 12:37:00 AM
Never heard of this Colors Trilogy. What's it about? :o
The Three Colors trilogy was made by Krzysztof Kieślowski as an attempt to make loosely similar stories based off of the 3 ideals from the French Republic, liberty, equality and fraternity. That's about all I can say right now on them though.
Rewatched Vertigo recently. 3rd time I've seen it, I think. I remembered how awesome it is, but because of the nature of the movie, it feels new again every time I see it again. It's just a masterpiece, and I'm not using that term lightly.
Disney's Bride of Boogedy.
"The Avengers" on Blu-ray.
I finally got to watch Cabin in the Woods the other day, and... I'm honestly not sure of how I liked it.
I'm not a fan of meta for the sake of meta horror flicks like the Scream movies, but this actually did get some laughs out of me and works better as a send-up to horror cliches. At the same time, the script is probably Whedon at his most smug and irritating. The library scenes in Buffy were cute a minute or two at a time, when used sparingly in comparison to the action and plot, but imagine a movie consisting almost entirely of them, with bits of action sprinkled in here or there. That doesn't sound as fun, does it?
But it also has some legitimately spooky moments, and the actors were solid, so there was good in this film. But I can't say I'd recommend it to people who aren't big on Whedon, like Desen.
I thought it was supposed to be just a straight-up comedy. Laughed my way through the whole thing.
Quote from: Avaitor on September 25, 2012, 02:07:27 PM
I finally got to watch Cabin in the Woods the other day, and... I'm honestly not sure of how I liked it.
I'm not a fan of meta for the sake of meta horror flicks like the Scream movies, but this actually did get some laughs out of me and works better as a send-up to horror cliches. At the same time, the script is probably Whedon at his most smug and irritating. The library scenes in Buffy were cute a minute or two at a time, when used sparingly in comparison to the action and plot, but imagine a movie consisting almost entirely of them, with bits of action sprinkled in here or there. That doesn't sound as fun, does it?
But it also has some legitimately spooky moments, and the actors were solid, so there was good in this film. But I can't say I'd recommend it to people who aren't big on Whedon, like Desen.
Thanks for the short review, judging by your description I'm pretty sure I wouldn't dig it.
That movie poster for the movie was awesome, though. I miss posters like that.
It's only an alternate poster. I went with it over the more accessible and basic one you probably would've seen at theaters, because yeah, it kicks ass.
Looper was love.
So it wasn't convoluted? That was my one concern with it.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 28, 2012, 05:45:48 PM
So it wasn't convoluted? That was my one concern with it.
No, what made you think it was convoluted?
But I just realized, if murder is impossible to do in the future without getting caught, then why did one of the hitmen kill Joe's wife and leave her there?
Surrogates kind of ruined my taste for Bruce Willis flicks for a while, but Looper does have me intrigued. I may have to get a group out for that.
Quote from: Avaitor on September 28, 2012, 05:48:30 PM
Surrogates kind of ruined my taste for Bruce Willis flicks for a while, but Looper does have me intrigued. I may have to get a group out for that.
It's nothing like Surrogates. And besides, JGL cancels out his aftertaste.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on September 28, 2012, 05:47:28 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 28, 2012, 05:45:48 PM
So it wasn't convoluted? That was my one concern with it.
No, what made you think it was convoluted?
But I just realized, if murder is impossible to do in the future without getting caught, then why did one of the hitmen kill Joe's wife and leave her there?
Well, time travel and dealing with yourself could easily lead into convolution which is why I was asking. Nice to hear that isn't the case, though!
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on September 28, 2012, 05:49:27 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on September 28, 2012, 05:48:30 PM
Surrogates kind of ruined my taste for Bruce Willis flicks for a while, but Looper does have me intrigued. I may have to get a group out for that.
It's nothing like Surrogates. And besides, JGL cancels out his aftertaste.
Ehhhh, Levitt seems like a gigantic tool to me. Even when he's in movies that I otherwise like, such as (500) Days of Summer and Inception.
Quote from: Avaitor on September 28, 2012, 05:52:44 PM
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on September 28, 2012, 05:49:27 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on September 28, 2012, 05:48:30 PM
Surrogates kind of ruined my taste for Bruce Willis flicks for a while, but Looper does have me intrigued. I may have to get a group out for that.
It's nothing like Surrogates. And besides, JGL cancels out his aftertaste.
Ehhhh, Levitt seems like a gigantic tool to me. Even when he's in movies that I otherwise like, such as (500) Days of Summer and Inception.
Well, it's by Rian Johnson. And don't pull an excuse about how Brick sucked. A mainstream movie that gets over 90% on RT is hard to come by.
Why would I say that Brick sucked, when I haven't seen it?
I am interested in Looper, BTW, in case I didn't make that clear.
Eh, the previous posts just made you come off as resistant to the film.
I'm not big on Bruce Willis' career as of late or JGL in general, but that doesn't mean that I'm not open.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on September 29, 2012, 12:48:05 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on September 28, 2012, 05:52:44 PM
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on September 28, 2012, 05:49:27 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on September 28, 2012, 05:48:30 PM
Surrogates kind of ruined my taste for Bruce Willis flicks for a while, but Looper does have me intrigued. I may have to get a group out for that.
It's nothing like Surrogates. And besides, JGL cancels out his aftertaste.
Ehhhh, Levitt seems like a gigantic tool to me. Even when he's in movies that I otherwise like, such as (500) Days of Summer and Inception.
Well, it's by Rian Johnson. And don't pull an excuse about how Brick sucked. A mainstream movie that gets over 90% on RT is hard to come by.
This.
He directed two of the best episodes that Breaking Bad has to offer ("Fly" and "Fifty-One"). That's good enough for me.
Don't have plans to see it this weekend, but I'll try and get down there sometime during the week. It looks quite good.
While Universal and Paramount are celebrating their 100th anniversaries this year, Warner has a big set planned to celebrate their 90th. They have a game to guess some of the movies that will be on this huge-ass set, and here's what I found:
The Public Enemy
Mutiny on the Bounty
A Night at the Opera
The Adventures of Robin Hood
Gone With the Wind
The Wizard of Oz
The Philadelphia Story
The Maltese Falcon
Inception
The Big Sleep
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
An American in Paris
A Streetcar Named Desire
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers
Singin' in the Rain
A Star is Born
East of Eden
Rebel Without a Cause
The Searchers
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Ben-Hur
North by Northwest
How the West Was Won
Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?
Doctor Zhivago
Cool Hand Luke
The Dirty Dozen
2001: A Space Odyssey
Bullitt
The Wild Bunch
Dirty Harry
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
A Clockwork Orange
The Exorcist
Enter the Dragon
Dog Day Afternoon
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
All the President's Men
Superman
The Shining
Caddyshack
Clash of the Titans
The Right Stuff
Casablanca
The Color Purple
The Goonies
Full Metal Jacket
Lethal Weapon
Batman
Goodfellas
The Bodyguard
Unforgiven
The Fugitive
Interview With the Vampire
Natural Born Killers
L.A. Confidential
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
300
The Dark Knight
The Hangover
Very few duds in here, and there might be even more. Amadeus didn't show up, but it was an answerable question in a couple of the sets, and there was a brief clip of Paul Ruebens talking about him shooting Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, so these might make it in too.
Even if you don't plan on getting the set (I probably won't either), you gotta admit that there's a lot to check out here.
Wow.
Like, looking over the list again, the only movies I really don't like are 300 and Wizard of Oz (sorry), and I'm not too interested in The Bodyguard or Interview With the Vampire either.
But everything else is a great selection of classic and contemporary. Even the few most recent choices they have are strong.
It's an insanely impressive collection, no doubt. Easily the best one out there not focused on a specific set of films of a series/actor/director or whatever.
Unfortunately, that means Lethal Weapon 1 without 2. The original is fantastic, but the sequel is almost as great (some consider it better).
Yeah, it's kind of odd how so few sequels are here. Only TDK made it, it seems.
My belief is that first impressions are typically the most impactful, but I don't know how many people would consider Sorcerer's Stone the best HP film or book.
Edit: I will say though, that I do have a soft spot for the first 2 books and movies, before the franchise became too needlessly dark and continuity heavy. While there are still plenty of highs in the whole series, I kind of prefer when HP was just a well-written kids story instead of a mediocre fantasy saga.
I guess that makes sense, if I had to choose between a sequel and more more entries in set like this, I would give the nod to more individual entries.
More variety that way.
Quote from: Avaitor on October 03, 2012, 05:42:27 PM
and Wizard of Oz (sorry),
I've found the lone person in the world who thinks this.
I just never got the big deal over it, then or now. I hate every song besides "Over the Rainbow", but primarily, it just depresses me to watch anything with Judy Garland in it, after learning about what they did to her behind the scenes.
A Star is Born is my exception to that rule, mostly for James Mason.
So the other night, I saw the original Ring. Tonight I saw the original The Grudge.
Any thoughts on these movies?
The original Japanese versions? I haven't seen either, but I have seen and like the American Ring.
My friend also gave me the manga version of The Ring when cleaning house, which I haven't read.
Quote from: Avaitor on October 03, 2012, 11:06:47 PM
The original Japanese versions? I haven't seen either, but I have seen and like the American Ring.
My friend also gave me the manga version of The Ring when cleaning house, which I haven't read.
I saw the American Ring many years ago, probably when it was still new. I do think it's was a pretty good movie, especially for a remake. I remember when I first saw the remake years ago, there was a certain scene... I won't say much about this scene (I'll just say, it's a death that takes place in the late part of the movie, hopefully you know what I mean). Now this was a part that I had always remembered, moreso than most other parts of the movie... And having seen the original now, I can confirm my opinion: this is one of the scariest scenes in any horror movie I've ever seen.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/579761_4725627465717_2115493873_n.jpg)
Got to make this on their site, haha.
And as you can tell by the quote, Amadeus will indeed be a part of this set as well. Pretty sweet.
Saw Frankenweenie. Feels just like a Tim Burton movies from the late 80s. The townsfolk painted as stupid strawmen, casual racial stereotyping, random references to Hammer movies that don't add anything to the film, and bit character with more personality than half the cast.
So it's good?
It sounds like a rental, if nothing else. I never liked Burton's orignal Frankenweenie short, but this sounds like a step in the right direction for him, at least somewhat.
Considering his last few films that's much better than I was expecting.
Princess and the Frog is on TV. Still just as good as ever.
Unfortunately I have no cable at my house so....:(
And I've been wanting to see this movie for a long time, now. I suppose I'll just have to wait until it comes on Netflix, but I'm pretty sure that my Mom will be canceling my family's Netflix subscription after this month since I'm the only person in my family that uses it, and even I don't use it that frequently now that my summer's over and I'm in my most critical year of college.
I'm pretty sure that it was on Netflix at one point, but that only lasted a year or so.
Yeah, Disney films come and go from the service all the time. I remember being disappointed when I discovered Toy Story 3 had disappeared from it.
Oh wow, it did? Lameeee.
Is Cars 2 on it yet? I've been willing to give it a chance by now, as long as I don't have to pay for it or anything.
Not that I can see.
But holy shit, they have Bobby's World on Netflix. Haven't seen that shit in years.
Oh God, Bobby's World. Back when Howie Mandel had hair.
"Bobby Generic"
"That's Genric."
They have Dinosaurs too, which I'm also interested in seeing again.
TCM's hosting another showing, this time not a nation-wide thing done by Fathom- they're licensing out a print of Forbidden Planet to be shown at Kennedy Space Center on Saturday. One of the astronauts still working there is going to introduce it from space, and I believe Ben Mankiewicz is gonna be there too.
That's about as far of a drive for me as Orlando, so I'm totally up for it. Especially since I haven't actually seen Forbidden Planet, so this would totally be new for me.
Just saw The Haunting for the first time. Excellent film.
So I've just started rating movies on a site. The list is here. It's not that big yet since I just started, so more movies will be added over time.
http://www.criticker.com/?fl&view=prs
Let me know if that link actually works. If you click on the movies in it, you'll find short reviews I wrote on each of them.
It doesn't work. :thinkin:
Goddammit.
http://www.criticker.com/?fl&user=talonmalon
That one should work.
Just saw Seven Psychopaths. Not anywhere near the level of In Bruges, but still damn good.
Watched That's My Boy. Just one question, why is it in every one of his movies Adam Sandler has some stupid voice/accent? Why can't he talk like a normal slacker piece of shit, I don't think it's that hard.
Quote from: Foggle on October 12, 2012, 10:51:22 PM
Just saw Seven Psychopaths.
Just saw that. T'was quite good.
Quote from: Comeau on October 16, 2012, 09:53:43 PM
Watched That's My Boy. Just one question, why is it in every one of his movies Adam Sandler has some stupid voice/accent? Why can't he talk like a normal slacker piece of shit, I don't think it's that hard.
Didn't he not do one in that 9/11 movie?
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on October 17, 2012, 12:17:46 AM
Quote from: Comeau on October 16, 2012, 09:53:43 PM
Watched That's My Boy. Just one question, why is it in every one of his movies Adam Sandler has some stupid voice/accent? Why can't he talk like a normal slacker piece of shit, I don't think it's that hard.
Didn't he not do one in that 9/11 movie?
Don't think he did it in Click, either.
Speaking of, that is still one of the weirdest movie viewing experiences I've ever had. Starts off as a standard Sandler romp, quickly disintegrates into a depressing, grimdark tale of being a bad father. Strange, strange movie.
I don't think he did it in Punch-Drunk Love.
Another strange flick.
I just watched Return of the Living Dead. This is easily the funniest horror/comedy I've seen since Evil Dead II and An American Werewolf in London.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on October 17, 2012, 12:36:10 AM
I just watched Return of the Living Dead. This is easily the funniest horror/comedy I've seen since Evil Dead II and An American Werewolf in London.
The ambulance part is hysterical.
I just saw The Host, which was a bit of an odd experience for me. I couldn't tell if it was trying to be a comedic take on a monster movie or a mostly straight-up serious, modern take on the genre. There are parts that are so ridiculous that they seem like they are meant to be funny, but then there are plenty of parts where they play things out straight-up serious, especially at the end of the film. I guess I'm going to have to assume that its an unintentionally over-the-top monster movie that is still entertaining but also unintentionally funny in a lot of places (at least to me).
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on October 17, 2012, 12:37:12 AM
The ambulance part is hysterical.
Which ambulance scene are you referring to in particular? Do you mean the whole series of events in which one ambulance came after another (which soon turned into police cars), with each new pair of paramedics or cops getting butchered by zombies, and then having one of the zombies get on the radio to request for more back-up? Because if so, then I totally agree, that shit had me laughing out loud.
I really do love Evil Dead 2 as a horror comedy, I thought Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were great too (well, I wouldn't call Shaun great but it was entertaining, though I really enjoyed Hot Fuzz), and American Werewolf was always my favorite of this particular genre (although, admittedly I haven't seen a lot of this particular breed of horror movies so I don't have the best of judgement), but this movie may have just surpassed all of these films for me in terms of being balls-out hilarious from start to finish.
I always thought The Host was a throwback to those cheesy Showa Godzilla movies though.
Well, at times it certainly seems that way, but there are also a lot of scenes that play things out straight up serious and it feels like the movie has completely changed tone and turned into a different sort of film altogether. Its a really hard film for me to classify, but I can't deny that it managed to keep me entertained and interested the whole time, either way. Truth be told, though, it has more cheesy elements that serious ones, so intentional or not it works as a good throwback to old-school Toho monster movies.
I just found out that the hot chick from Pitch Perfect was Scott Pilgrim's sister. She was really good as her, but I'm still not interested in that movie.
Well, Scott Pilgrim's sister was also Bella's friend from Twilight, so it's not like her agent is good with choices.
True.
Also she was in ParaNorman, which I'm reminded that I really need to stop delaying that.
Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC7PtQh4gA8
Nightmares tonight are a safe bet.
Recently I've seen 2 horror movies, one that made No-Personality's list, the other that hasn't as of yet.
The latter was Creepshow, an anthology of EC Comics adaptations. Since I'm yet to read any of the fabled horror comics they made due to licensing issues and insane price ranges for the originals (Gemstone briefly had rights to reprint their work, but only got to make a couple of volumes before losing said rights, barely scratching the surface), this was a good introduction to some of these tales. Most of the stories were campy, but fun to watch nonetheless. I especially enjoyed seeing a pre-Cheers Ted Danson be buried alive by a post-Airplane! Leslie Nielsen.
The other was Hellraiser, which was pretty brutal. It's somewhat typical of an 80's horror flick, but that's not a bad thing. I'd say more, but hell, NP does a much better job than I ever could.
Watched The Man Who Laughs yesterday, along with Vampyr right now.
Watched Marathon Man recently and thought it was a well-made and interesting thriller. I knew about the "is it safe?" scene going into the movie, but damn if it still wasn't tough watching it.
Argo really lived up to the hype.
Had to watch High Noon for my American West history class. Sheriff Kane is a man's man.
Well, without offering spoilers, a scene in Skyfall made me really sad.
L.A. Confidential... which is a movie I really need to do transplant here for.
The original novel is next on my to-read list.
I bet you five bucks its a better Mickey Cohen movie then the one that's coming out in January.
I just found out that Kelly from Cheers was Gwyneth Paltrow's body double in Contagion.
That's pretty weird.
Watched Lincoln with the family. Really good movie.
Quote from: Avaitor on November 15, 2012, 08:03:45 PM
The original novel is next on my to-read list.
Good man. Is it your first Ellroy, Avaitor?
From what I can remember, the plot in
L.A. Confidential is quite byzantine and involves various subplots that were dropped from the movie. Understandably so, since the movie would've been even longer if they were in it. It's been awhile since I read it, but I think thinly veiled version of Walt Disney figured into the whole thing somehow.
It's also the third book in a quartet. I don't think it's necessary to have read the previous two novels before reading
L.A. but if you're interested they're titled:
The Black Dahlia and
The Big Nowhere respectively.
As for me, I saw
Collateral a few days ago. Good movie, solid performances from all actors. I was especially impressed by Tom Cruise, the guy should play stone-cold sociopaths more often.
Quote from: Pharass on November 20, 2012, 03:19:32 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on November 15, 2012, 08:03:45 PM
The original novel is next on my to-read list.
Good man. Is it your first Ellroy, Avaitor?
Yes, it is. I'm about 50 pages in thus far and I'm enjoying it, but I am reminded that I haven't seen the film in a longggg time. I'll rectify that when I finish reading the novel.
Quote from: Comeau on November 17, 2012, 08:26:07 PM
Watched Lincoln with the family. Really good movie.
I did this as well and I agree. Considering that my dad is one big history buff, we saw it on those grounds since the showing of Flight was sold out. His comment and opinion as we walked out matched mine, which is that the film focused more on the backdoor politics of the 13th Amendment. That's what it felt like for me.
I watched the first fifteen minutes of Burton's Alice and it was utterly awful. I hope no one is going to chime in and tell me it gets better because the beginning was too awful for me to consider watching it over again.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on November 25, 2012, 08:13:22 PM
I watched the first fifteen minutes of Burton's Alice and it was utterly awful. I hope no one is going to chime in and tell me it gets better because the beginning was too awful for me to consider watching it over again.
You missed the Mad Hatter and Alice do the Charleston... about 50 years before the dance existed.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on November 25, 2012, 08:13:22 PM
I watched the first fifteen minutes of Burton's Alice and it was utterly awful. I hope no one is going to chime in and tell me it gets better because the beginning was too awful for me to consider watching it over again.
It has Johnny Depp breakdancing.
Seriously though, Alice does not get better. In any conceivable way.
The only redeeming qualities it seems to have are Alan Rickman as the caterpillar, and a decent March Hare. Everything else epitomizes the worst of Burton.
I'm already not the biggest fan of Burton, but man did that feel so stereotypically Burton. It's like he's trying to undo things he did like Big Fish.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on November 25, 2012, 08:20:47 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on November 25, 2012, 08:13:22 PM
I watched the first fifteen minutes of Burton's Alice and it was utterly awful. I hope no one is going to chime in and tell me it gets better because the beginning was too awful for me to consider watching it over again.
It has Johnny Depp breakdancing.
...
Okay
maybe that would have been worth it.
I've seen the movie three times, only because the film was popular on airline flights a year or so ago(although it can't be worse than the Katy Perry movie that was screened on my flight yesterday). It's not a bad film, but I don't particularly care for it either.
Mean Girls - 5.5/10
The cast was excellent, it was fast-paced and stylish, and... it looked expensive. It was also in extremely poor taste, the ideas were lame, all the characters were shallow, neither the set-ups or revenges packed any punch, I'm not sure whether I laughed (no points for being memorable as a comedy), important issues were glanced over, and the dialogue didn't make you believe anything. Which, frankly, barely makes the film an improvement over Jawbreaker or Sugar & Spice. Which it is, but mainly in how the film is shot. And, technically, the sequence of events could be interpreted as an idealistic view of reality rather than a realistic view. Like "Regina" being hit by a bus (ala- Final Destination) so you get the enjoyment of watching "your worst enemy" being hit horribly, yet you see her later and she's okay. She even makes a full recovery and becomes a decent person. Not realistic (I think even buses have horns). Nearly every character relationship is underdeveloped. For the sake of keeping the movie light and airy, which does nothing for the comedy and makes it more of a "Legally Blonde with more bitchiness" formula. Which doesn't make it bitchy at all, it makes it tarty. However, again it has that style benefit. Camera angles, dissolves, editing are where the movie tries to inject intelligence that the story can't exactly claim to have. Anyway, I've said enough. Mean Girls is better than Jawbreaker, Teaching Mrs. Tingle, The In-Crowd, and Sugar & Spice, but Heathers is still the best clique movie, Drop Dead Gorgeous (the 90's film with Kirsten Dunst, Denise Richards, and Brittany Murphy) is still the superior and funniest bitchy modern high school comedy, and The Craft more interesting, respectful with characters, and raw.
Swimming with Sharks - 4.5/10
The movie business is really scummy. Did you know that? People are mean to each other over there. Isn't that terrible? They say one thing and mean another. How scandalous! Bosses are total dicks. I don't want to hear this. And, people sleep with other people to get what they want. I'm not listening, lalalala!!! Hollywood is corrupt and people smoke a lot and get stressed out and they take credit for your work and manipulate you for their own amusement and throw folders and pens at you... Well! Consider my tiny, soft, addicted-to-comfort and totally-afraid-of-cinematic-conflict mind completely blown. I could be wrong, but I think this movie actually believed it was revealing, biting, nasty, compelling, and confrontational... it is not. It's not dark, original, interesting in the slightest, surprising in the slightest, or entertaining. The visual look is bland, the characters are dull, the dialogue is coasting on really overcooked and overused cliches, the cast (with possible exception of Benicio Del Toro) seem tired (and not because you believe they've actually been through something) or come off as underwhelming, and they kinda think that by throwing in some very unconvincing torture scenes (that's right- the assistant ties the boss to a chair, cuts up his face and tongue, and pours all sorts of salt, spicy, tangy condiments on his wounds) somehow it really is a dark film. Or maybe that's what was supposed to be funny about it (in that case, Michael Madsen and Reservoir Dogs did it better). I would hate to think that what we were supposed to laugh at was Frank Whaley wanting to pee and Kevin Spacey pouring water into and out of a glass. Whaley is a bad choice to be the messenger of the "hard truth" that the movie business is so rough that it makes you jaded. Spacey is a disaster. He tries and maybe I'm being too hard. The dialogue sucks, so maybe he just did all he could with it. But his insults couldn't be more childish (while thinking he's being so clever and tough), and physically he couldn't be less imposing or intimidating, whether you buy him as a genuine mean jerk (let's see him size-up against any NYC cab driver) or a self-important prick with a big mouth. The ending sucks, the middle drags, and the beginning isn't great either. Benicio was a surprise, everyone else was a chore.
The House of Yes - 6.5/10
The premise is really gimmicky (for a long time, everything in the film refers back to Jackie O and the Kennedy assassination), the fact that the story involves a whopping dose of incest is bound to leave a bad taste in your mouth (or that we're meant to in any way like a character whose motivations are driven mostly by jealousy... over said incestual love affair- and she is really obsessive and clingy about it too), and for too much screentime, the dialogue mainly consists of characters repeating what the previous character said but in a different tone or inflection. It's filmed like a play (so, obviously it was based on one) with entire 20 minute stretches taking place in the same room. But, after awhile the film evolves and it has some excellent stylish moments (when the electricity goes out and they arm themselves with candles- and slow mo). The cast is excellent. Which should be the same as saying "Parker Posey," but she was by far my least favorite person in the cast/film. The real surprises here are Tori Spelling (whose oddly baby-doll-like giggling is honestly the most annoying thing about her, and she gets over that pretty quickly), who shares the funniest moment in the movie with Posey (they have a hilarious Q&A session about her childhood struggles in a poor family having to eat mostly pancakes), and Freddie Prinze Jr. Seeing them on the same screen as Genevieve Bujold and Parker Posey is a shock, but then considering how likable their characters are in opposition to what intrusive, controlling, zealous nuts Posey and Bujold are evens things up. Fun movie.
Flirting with Disaster - 6/10
I'm actually getting sick of hearing myself say "the cast is excellent." And, especially with this movie (Patricia Arquette, Mary Tyler Moore, Alan Alda, Lily Tomlin, Josh Brolin, Ben Stiller, George Segal, Tea Leoni), you already know that. It's also a seriously funny movie. Every now and then. Unfortunately, it's also a "quirky" comedy. Where situations are unutterably insane past the point of relatability and characters are far more antagonistic than they'd be in reality yet the filmmakers find them to be charming instead of so annoying, they want to punch their lights out (I shouldn't say that since The Old B&B Lady is kinda top on my list, but this is one bitch I hope the reindeer saw in half this Christmas Eve)- hopefully mirroring what the audience would like to do to them. It's one of those comedies where characters start off normal and then talk themselves as a group around in so many circles that they slowly unhinge and then you find yourself "laughing" (in my case, the dialogue is sharp and amusing but the effect of actually watching so many characters say and do so many shocking things becomes extremely unpleasent) at the fact that this group of people (including all the sets of parents, both blood and surrogate) start reminding you of the backwoods rednecks from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Yet, I think I'd say everyone had an understandable, defendable, relatable, and 100% fair motivation for what they did. Well, everyone but Ben Stiller. And I think I mean everyone- including the butch volleyball bimbettes. But, considering how awful Reality Bites was and how he was the best thing in that, it's like a trade-off. You just don't cheat on 90's Patricia Arquette. I don't care if she has a kid or not; if you're straight- you will do no better. (I suppose I could complain about Brolin's bisexual character but, pairing him with Richard Jenkins was a red flag from minute-1).
Stop trying to make fetch happen.
Quote from: Avaitor on November 27, 2012, 12:07:34 PMStop trying to make fetch happen.
Sad old drug pusher.
Mulholland Dr. (2001) -
3/10I hate David Lynch. I don't know why I bother watching his movies. Time again, it's the same goddamn thing. Quirky, goofy characters impossible to take seriously filling idiotic scenes that refuse to play drama as drama, mystery as mystery, action as action, etc. So, you end up with a 2 and a half-hour, ugly, insulting movie with a few moments you actually enjoyed. He tries to make Empiric, King-Sized movies that incorporate everything he'd like to see in a movie. Problem is, most of what he likes is fucking shit. And none of it connects to anything in the story. What it connects to is his own movie map. Made up of puzzle pieces he felt like gluing together so it looks like a Picaso statue made by Lady Gaga. Car parts stuck to ripped paintings fastened onto a record player with sculpture bits hanging off interpretive dancers. See what I mean. When someone throws a punch- that's because it happened in a toughguy movie, not because it means something here. And so it doesn't mean anything. When you see an actor playing a movie director, it's because you saw one in some other movie (I'm guessing
Sunset Boulevard). A cowboy, a waitress, thugs in suits, an opera scene, limo ride of doom- I was willing to follow them were they weaved into a story rather than a pathetic visual theme. Whether I understood it or not is pointless, half the performances were fucking hammy. And it doesn't matter how much "this is only in your mind" stuff he tries to pull, Tiny Old People in a Paper Bag would have ruined the film just by itself. I've paid attention to a few Lynch fans, they really do just like him because he's "weird." Masturbatory is a better word for his sense of style. (Both figuratively and literally, in the case of this movie.)
But what about Blue Velvet? :shit:
Quote from: No-Personality on November 29, 2012, 06:22:40 PM
Mulholland Dr. (2001) - 3/10
I hate David Lynch. ... I've paid attention to a few Lynch fans, they really do just like him because he's "weird." Masturbatory is a better word for his sense of style. (Both figuratively and literally, in the case of this movie.)
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
But, but, Billy Ray.
That's fine, I don't like David Cronenberg.
But I do see your points and they are very valid to Lynch's weaknesses.
I do admit that after acquainting myself with Bunuel, I find Lynch's work to be inferior, but I still like his stuff.
I honestly can't remember.
I think it was Skyfall with Foggle.
Which was ahmashzing by the way if you haven't seen it go see it right now.
Before that, Frankenweenie. Which wasn't that bad, to be honest. If a bit racist. :blush:
Quote from: Avaitor on November 29, 2012, 06:26:05 PMBut, but, Billy Ray.
Just forget you ever saw it, it's better that way.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on November 29, 2012, 06:24:21 PMBut what about Blue Velvet? :shit:
Netflix only uploaded that once and it was in fullscreen. I passed.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on November 29, 2012, 06:41:14 PMThat's fine, I don't like David Cronenberg.
But I do see your points and they are very valid to Lynch's weaknesses.
(Thank you.) I understand Cronenberg changed quite a bit after
The Fly.
Naked Lunch took a few years, but it's grown on me. The same will likely never be true for
Dead Ringers. It's far too stiff. Never caught
Crash or
eXistenZ (which I see has been retired from Netflix: Watch Instant- I really intended to see that) and have zero interest in
Spider.
And, I have 12 movies to watch on Watch Instant before 3AM Saturday morning when they take down the listings of the movies up next for retirement. So, prepare for a landslide tonight and tomorrow:
The Tomb (1986) -
3.5/10Couldn't be any slower to start with cripplingly boring "characters," pointlessly dull "dialogue," and in the interest of trying to show he has some legit cinematic-artistic cred, sleaze guru Fred Olen Ray (the director) shoots, paces, and edits all the movie's scenes leisurely. Being a Trans-World production, I do believe this got some play in theaters. If so, let me be the one to apologize to the audience's butts. MGM owns the rights and decided Netflix WI patrons deserved a pretty spiffy looking widescreen 1.85:1 transfer. The obligatory Egyptian ceremony scene definitely looks a little better than
Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers' (though that one had a fire-eater). Anyway, it's still an awful movie but it hits a comfortable point of mediocrity when Michelle Bauer (sometimes McClennan) takes over. She's always fun. And there's no question that the men are competing against the women for eye candy. Though none of them can compare with Bauer, David O'Hara (sometimes Pearson) fills his wife-beater (among other things- this boy is big) pretty well and Richard Hench is a likable enough Zach Galligan/William Ragsdale/Bruce Abbott-esque leading guy. The rest of the cast are remarkably transparent. Ray definitely moved up with his direct-to-video features.
New Year's Evil -
3/10Empty-headed, big-mouthed, conservative-leaning and incredibly sexist early 80's slasher. With plenty of sleaze but no real gore, therefore it's all up to the music and potentially over-the-top performances to pony up something in the way of entertainment value. Nil on both counts. The music is terrible and everyone plays this garbage straight. The plot pretty much says it all: sassy redheaded woman is 1980 pre-Mtv VJ celebrity host of punk-type rock TV show and psycho killer calls her warning he will murder someone at midnight, Detective Guy shows up and tells her that she shouldn't be surprised by this because she is responsible for all crime in the country thanks to the kind of music she promotes. Anyway, killer kills someone 4 hours early and calls Blaze (sassy redhead) to tell her that his plan is actually to kill 4 people- 1 at midnight for every time zone in America. So, while Blaze is doing her "so give it up for Random Band and their new hit: Blonde Girls Are Dumb," the movie cuts to the killer in a car driving a booby blonde girl they've written to be very stupid talking about entirely random things. It just goes on like this. The killer puts on a Priest costume and bikers act like bulls who just saw the color red around him. Leading to a drive-in where a guy practically OFFERS the killer his car and his girlfriend to do whatever he wants with if he doesn't kill him. He drives away and she of course says, "we can have it off if you want" (some equivalent of that). Cut to 3 midnights have passed, 3 victims dead, and the killer goes after Blaze and has a long-winded speech about killing her to prove that all women are born bad as well as to avenge her son because she allegedly didn't pay enough attention to him. He then ties her up with rope, handcuffs her, chains her into the elevator shaft- everything but gag her mouth and we watch this thing for almost 2 minutes screentime, every detail of her being tied up and then the elevator "will it or won't it" crush her. She's treated like an object, he gets all the "character development" (which as you can imagine is pretty odious), and we end the movie with him totally being in charge of how he dies and he even gets some final words in. And... then Blaze's son sees this and is touched by the killer's deed and hops into the ambulance, kills the driver, puts on a freaky mask (the early 80's was the time for Every Killer in Some Kind of Mask), and clearly plans to kill his unconscious, trapped in a gourney mother. Poor Men: the only way to right a wrong done to a man is to fuck a woman up. Great message.
Soapdish -
5.5/10This one's interesting. Because it's actually somewhat entertaining. As in: I enjoyed nearly the entire thing. But... I can't really pinpoint a reason. I mean, Kevin Kline was excellent. As was Cathy Moriarty. Well, for most of the movie. They kind of realized she sounds "funny" when she screech-yells and had her overdo that a lot. And Whoopi looks great. Even though she does practically nothing, she gets a lot of screentime. Elizabeth Shue is a serious presence onscreen, and her character is very likable and sympathetic for awhile. Then she turns into a giant spoiled brat and you stop paying attention to the movie and wonder, "what's her problem?" Garry Marshall says little but I remember being impressed... until he insists all the ad-libbing is what the soap needed all along, then it appears he's off his rocker. Carrie Fischer gets a great "and I'm a bitch" moment. Teri Hatcher looks like a nightmare. Not a good moment for her, though it's easily her biggest part until the
Superman series. Robert Downey Jr... let's forget he was ever here. I don't have a problem with him but it's another example of- lots of screentime, nothing to do. And, then, there's Sally Field... she is miscast something awful. They mock her for her age, and it fails to be either witty, insightful, dramatic, or something she turns around to empower her character (which it could have been- she looks wonderful in the movie). Her character is all over the place- neurotic and jittery to... I think it was supposed to be funny. It's not. She goes on these unbelievably annoying fake sobbing jags (you'll know them when you hear them- she does them again and again). She apparently doesn't have the range of Faye Dunaway, even though they go for the same "don't you ACT for me" effect of
Mommie Dearest. She can't decide whether she wants to be a likable mess or an interesting-to-watch mess. Her character does a lot of bitchy things, which again I think is supposed to be funny, but she just doesn't have it in her. I buy both her and Meryl Streep as being incredibly sweet people in real life, but look at what Streep was able to do in
She-Devil and
Death Becomes Her. Sally Field is easily the most failed element in the film. And, yet... I had a great time from start to finish. Not sure why.
Masquerade (1988) -
5/10Another fun one. If a little conspiratorially homophobic (it's definitely a tad implied that the Most Evil Man in the Movie - which is a real contest it seems - is an actual "cocksucker," who seductively strokes and manhandles Rob Lowe after revealing his plot to frame him, later he tells Lowe his entire masterplan while strutting around in nothing but very tight, very skimpy underwear) and with a generally low opinion of women (Kim Cattrall is catty, Dana Delaney is bitchy, and Meg Tilly is extremely naive). But to be fair, no one is really a complex character here. There are about a dozen backstabs, seedy trysts, and secret pacts going on- it's almost hard to keep up. It's pretty well-written, in terms of dialogue at least. And solidly acted, by everyone. None of the characters are likable, the music score is literally ATROCIOUS, and visually- it's a "passion of sailing" movie that doesn't make its' coastal, ocean-side setting look ideal. Instead, it focuses so much on the fancy, well-to-do people who live there. But, it makes up for nearly all of this with a mountain of male onscreen partial nudity. Many movies have beef, but this movie is stocked with A+ quality cuts. No other way to say it. Lots of Rob Lowe ass, lovingly photographed by the camera. Doug Savant in tighty-whities and nice upper body. And... John Glover in speedos. Hotter than it sounds. I thoroughly enjoyed myself. And, the ending should have set off a red-flag with some very surprising (blink and you'll've missed it) brutality; Savant starts beating the crap out of Tilly, but, she throws his fucking ass out the window. It's a sight to see. Before you have a chance to utter the words "was that necessary?", she's already taken out the trash.
Final Combination -
4/10Detective Movie. About catching a killer (shocker). A serial killer who kills women and rapes them after they're dead. Your Detective Movie Usual, your main plot. "Hard boiled" / no-nonsense "hero" sleeps with lots of women but hasn't found the right one yet. There's the subplot. All old reliable standards. Secondary surrogate detective disguised as reporter shows up with secret intention to avenge her sister's death, becomes love interest. What makes it watchable are Michael Madsen, who's very charming (despite his silly bleach-blond hair) and engaging (always sexy) so he isn't playing the pretentious "anti-hero" b.s., and Lisa Bonet, the best thing in the movie though the writing doesn't give her much. What makes the movie unwatchable is its' remarkable predictability, the downright painful supporting characters (especially the hotel manager), another unbelievably awful music score (there isn't a single scene in the movie paired with appropriate or even acceptable music), and the killer, who fits every single stereotype of the rape-movie serial killer in the book (I'm starting to
really miss D.W. Moffett, who actually surprised me in
Lisa).
Network -
8/10Well, obviously everything it was saying about the state of the world, who's running it, and how people really feel about it are extremely relevant and freakishly "why isn't this movie referenced in the media every single day"... so, it's extremely smart and wise. About that. But, as a viewing experience, it's... not truly entertainment. Nor is it infotainment- it's trying very hard to be funny. It's not. It's depressing. Which isn't a problem except that I think it lacks power. It has the tools to construct a hard-hitting experience but it takes what feels like a certain safe distance with the truth. It doesn't feel like an angry movie. It's too long, too wide, and then gets gummy with a love plot that I don't care very much about. Thanks to hanging this all on robotic Faye Dunaway, doing another plot with her where she isn't human like the person she's taking advantage of, and frankly it seems like it might be taking liberties with the idea of "this is what happens to any woman." But... damn it, it's smart. And is one of the most honest movies I've ever seen. Thereby assuring that historical importance. It is historically important. But... it just might be the kind of movie you only need to watch once. Not because of what it chose to say but the way it chose to say it.
Eddie and the Cruisers II: Eddie Lives -
2.5/10Been over 15 years since I saw the first film, so I don't know whether that had a serious bone in its' body- but this thing is a freaking joke. Somewhere along the line here (probably when "On the Dark Side" played for the 3rd time before the 20-minute mark), it occured to me that Eddie and the Cruisers aren't very 60's. At all. They're more... 80's era Bruce Springsteen's band, had he freshly escaped from
The Outsiders gang and they been formed at
Dirty Dancing's summer camp for rich losers. But, since it's the 1980's, it's now been 20 years since the first movie and there's been some epic car crash thing from wence Eddie mysteriously vanished (which doesn't reek of "the day the music died" at all) which has made The Movie Plot public insatiable for The Cruiser's music and Eddie a new "he's not really dead" Elvis myth. And, boy is the music industry eeeeevil: they drag one of The Cruiser's founding members into their huge media publicity circus to have him confirm that his dead best friend is performing on a "long lost demo" tape for some old song that they imply (directly after he leaves the room) they hired some Eddie copycat to sing over. Drudging up all those old memories of struggling to make it, only for Eddie to die. But... Eddie really is alive and working on a construction team in Canada. Watching the new Cruisers Mania unfold on TV and over the radio, with ultra-intense look on his face. Eventually we learn that what really made him feel he had to hide out wasn't the car accident as much as one of the band members dying of a drug overdose. Because not watching someone every minute to keep them from killing themselves is easily as irresponsible as being a bad driver. And he spends The. Entire. Movie, in this unbelievably funny smoldering, brooding funk. So much so that he violently lashes out at everyone he knows and throws temper tantrums, destroying guitars, stereos, song pages, etc. Meanwhile, everything is cliched (except for a Roller Skating Scene break- at Eddie's insistance), limp conflicts are thrown in with no point to them whatsoever and resolved in under 3 minutes, and most of the movie plays like a friggin' music video. With actual music video breakdowns comprised of shots from scenes we don't see play out, the New Band members we don't really get to know as characters doing things like having snowball fights (signalling comraderie you otherwise barely felt they had), and flashback clips. The story is stupid, the "drama" is laughable, 99% of the cast have zero charisma, and the movie thinks the music quality will lend some credibility to the severity of the situations in the script. Frankly: the music blows. The movie's only mildly watchable for the first 35 or so minutes for Michael Pare, who should probably have had a career as big as Tom Cruise's. (I'm so not above this: Tom and the Cruisers. Ha...)
Rockula -
5/10I knew from the moment I clicked Netflix's "Play" button that this movie would be an underdog. But I didn't know what kind. Would this take itself a tad seriously, like
My Best Friend is a Vampire, or be a total parodic blowout of
Airplane! proportions, like
Transylvania Twist? I think the best way to describe it would be to say it's closer to
Mannequin 2: On the Move. But with a vampire rock-rap novelty band, which forms by default so a guy can impress a girl, and Thomas Dolby (who you hadn't seen for 8 years, since "She Blinded Me with Science" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p6fTDGLHGQ)) in the Terry Kiser silly villain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUErCsxD2iA) role, and Toni Basil (the infamous "Mickey" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgiCvavYWCg)) trying to pull a Debbie Harry in
Hairspray and respark interest in her non-existent career. And... the results are about what you'd expect. It's not painful but it's not really entertaining either. And doesn't come close to
Mannequin 2 levels of hysterical badness. Though it earns its' share of awful moments. Thanks to the director being so clumsy a filmmaker. Like the music video sequence where Rockula gets hit by a car. Again. This time, he gets stuck to the window and pulled along for a minute in closeup... and he just sings and kicks his sneakers up a little. There's no momentum to the attempted humor (especially where the director would have to execute a little skill with cutting), so it's just the cast mugging for attention. All of them successful in getting it, but none successful in turning it into true comedy. Or even remote entertainment. It's generally likable because none of the cast are aggressively unlikable. Dean Cameron is adorable (especially in the rap sequence) and instantly sympathetic, but... he talks to a mirrored twin of himself throughout the entire movie. A slightly more obnoxious, infinitely one-liner spewing, and not nearly as likable twin in the literal mirror. As replacement for the reflection he doesn't have since he's a real vampire. Thomas Dolby is extremely sloppy. Nothing he does is funny but you can tell he's trying. And if he weren't acting so goofy, I think he could have been a plus for the movie. Instead he's a huge con. The rest of the cast (including Susan Tyrell, who died this year) are entirely forgettable. Toni Basil is the best thing here. Surprisingly less campy than you'd expect. To my chagrin.
I love Network, even if, yeah, it isn't a typically entertaining film.
Oh, so TCM has special guest programmers every month, to pick a few movies to air and talk about them with Robert Osborne. Usually they're celebrities or people in the industry, and some of the guests they've had range from Danny Devito to Anthony Bourdain to James L. Brooks. This month, they picked a couple of people from the channel's Movie Morlocks blog, which you can access on their site and app.
In typical blogger fashion, they each picked non-conventional choices for movies, but I only ended up seeing one of their choices- Dracula's Daughter. It's a non-conventional sequel to Universal's take on the count, based off of a post-humous story by Stoker and written by the playwright responsible for the stage version, which the movie was based off of. And even though Lugosi made more in publicity photos with the titular daughter than he did working for the first movie, he didn't reprise his role. It doe has similar atmosphere and pacing to the first movie, though, which is a good thing. Gloria Holden also does a good job as the daughter, alternating between camp macabre and serious. The rest of the cast does leave a little to be desired though, as does the set design. But it turned out to be better than I was expecting.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on November 25, 2012, 08:13:22 PM
I watched the first fifteen minutes of Burton's Alice and it was utterly awful. I hope no one is going to chime in and tell me it gets better because the beginning was too awful for me to consider watching it over again.
Well now it looks like you have an excuse to try it again. (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118063318)
Ugh.
AFI's top 10 films of the year:
Argo
Beast of the Southern Wild
The Dark Knight Rises
Django Unchained
Les Miserables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Moonrise Kingdom
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty
I'll never get the appeal of Les Mis. And what's TDKR doing on here?
Quote from: Avaitor on December 10, 2012, 07:42:32 PM
AFI's top 10 films of the year:
Argo
Beast of the Southern Wild
The Dark Knight Rises
Django Unchained
Les Miserables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Moonrise Kingdom
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty
I'll never get the appeal of Les Mis. And what's TDKR doing on here?
Bitch, you best be playin'.
I mean, was it really that good?
Quote from: Avaitor on December 10, 2012, 07:46:53 PM
I mean, was it really that good?
Better than the Avengers. :sly:
And why the hell aren't Looper and The Master on here?
I didn't find a whole lot of interesting films this year. But who knows, maybe I'll discover something on Netflix later or something.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on December 10, 2012, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on December 10, 2012, 07:46:53 PM
I mean, was it really that good?
Better than the Avengers. :sly:
Yeah, I'm gonna have to call bs on that until I actually get to see it.
But I still haven't, so who knows.
TDKR is second only to TDK as the best live action superhero film I've ever seen (unless you count Kick-Ass, then it's third). It absolutely deserves its placement on that list. Granted, I haven't seen The Avengers yet.
Seven Psychopaths and Killer Joe should also be on that list.
It's crazy how I haven't seen any of these yet, and since TDKR doesn't available to rent on Netflix until Christmas Eve, I won't be able to watch it for a bit.
Besides TDKR and obviously Django, the ones that interest me the most from here are Moonrise Kingdom and SLP.
Les Mis is one of the greatest musicals of all time, if not the best. I haven't seen the movie yet, but if there's any musical that'll ever get a good film adaptation yet (at least these days), hopefully it's that.
I'm going to see the midnight showing of The Hobbit with a couple of my friends from college now that finals are done. I'll let you guys know what I think of it tomorrow morning.
I just came back from the midnight showing. I'm not gonna go into detail about it now, I will say this much: fuck the critics, I enjoyed this movie. It is a bit slow-paced and long-winded in parts much like Fellowship of the Ring was, but being that I love the book I admire how much detail was put into this movie and how accurate it was to the story. My only gripe is that, as you would expect, it feels like just a piece of the story rather than something that works as a stand-alone film. It does leave me anticipating the next film eagerly, but the story lacks any sense of a clear ending from this film alone since its simply just adapting the first third or so of the story.
At any rate, I'll write a bit more detail about my thoughts on it later.
I'm gonna try to go this week.
I'm the only person on earth who decided to not see the LOTR movies until the Hobbit came out, aren't I?
I suppose so. Keep in mind that the film takes a lot of mythos from The Silmarillion and the Middle Earth Universe in general. So you'll get a lot of exposition about shit that was only briefly mentioned in the book, and that can slow down the pace of the movie at times. I still enjoyed it, but be warned that it is a really long movie at close to 3 hours. It kind of feels more geared towards fans of the book than the mainstream viewer for all of the detail it crammed into the film, which could potentially work against it since LOTR made sensible changes for film without bastardizing the original source material. The Hobbit really does its best to stick as close to the original story as possible, which as I said I really appreciate as someone who loves the book, but even I have to admit that it leads to some really slow moments for the film.
Well yeah, I'm totally familiar with the books, and I actually am among the apparent minority who's excited to see parts from the Simarillion added into the movies.
The movie to me seems to be geared more towards hardcore fans of Tolkien's lore and mythos rather than the more casual, mainstream viewers like the LOTR films, but if that's the case then I think you should enjoy this film, at least as much as I did. I still think that The Two Towers and Return of the King are far superior films, though, but much like Fellowship of the Ring this is a good start to the movie trilogy. I'm just hoping that the sequels follow suit with the LOTR trilogy in terms of increasing the quality as it goes along.
Quote from: Avaitor on December 14, 2012, 10:15:56 AM
I'm gonna try to go this week.
I'm the only person on earth who decided to not see the LOTR movies until the Hobbit came out, aren't I?
Something's fucking wrong with you.
Quote from: gunswordfist on December 14, 2012, 06:44:18 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on December 14, 2012, 10:15:56 AM
I'm gonna try to go this week.
I'm the only person on earth who decided to not see the LOTR movies until the Hobbit came out, aren't I?
Something's fucking wrong with you.
Because I want to see the origin first?
Yep, the Hobbit was great. I haven't read the book since I was a kid, but it all came back as I was watching events unfold. I'm still not so sure about making it into three movies (I still think two would have been enough), but I was perfectly fine with the pacing and never got bored once. Too bad critics seem to be turning on this one, but they're wrong. It's a great movie.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on December 14, 2012, 10:51:18 PM
Yep, the Hobbit was great. I haven't read the book since I was a kid, but it all came back as I was watching events unfold.
Yeah, I also haven't read the book in over half a decade, yet I was surprised at how much of the book I could remember and call back upon while watching this movie. It really brought back some fond memories, especially with the scene where Bilbo and Gollum (Smeagol) were playing a game of riddles. I swear I was able to to recite the next riddle each one would ask before they said it, and I even annoyed my friends by giving away the answer before the characters' themselves got them (to be fair, though they were pretty damn easy riddles). That scene also played out almost exactly how I imagined it back when I read the book.
QuoteI'm still not so sure about making it into three movies (I still think two would have been enough)
Agreed.
Quotebut I was perfectly fine with the pacing and never got bored once.
Honestly, I had no problem with the beginning of the movie, as drawn out as it may have seemed. I do think that the main slow point of the movie for me was in Rivendell, though, which for whatever reason I found to be kind of boring. Everything before and after that was paced just fine for me, though.
QuoteToo bad critics seem to be turning on this one, but they're wrong. It's a great movie.
Once again, agreed.
Just watched the Swedish version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. It's pretty good, but I do like the American version better. For one thing, Rooney Mara is a much better Lisbeth then the Swedish actress(who reminds me of purplehairedwonder, lol). I did buy the other two Swedish movies as well, and all three books.
I've only seen the American version of the film, which I enjoyed, but I may hit up the Swedish version whenever I get the chance to re-subscribe to Netflix (assuming that its still on their site for online streaming).
Oh, I didn't know it was on Netflix, oops. I just bought all three movies on Blu-Ray at MovieStop when I was out today.
Well, it was definitely available for streaming back when I was subscribed to that service from Netflix. Knowing Netflix, though, its entirely possible that they would've already removed it by now since they change their movie line-ups rather frequently. If it is still there, though, then I'd definitely check it out the next time I'm subscribed to the service.
I've still only read the novels. There are some things I don't want to see portrayed on screen, y'no?
Home Alone and Home Alone 2. Christmas! Also the only Home Alones that have any right to exist.
Despite recycling a lot from the first film, I fully admit to loving Home Alone 2 since it was my first Home Alone movie. I don't care if its just nostalgia, I watch that movie every Christmas. There, I said it. And in all honesty, I think it has some of the funniest moments in any Home Alone movie, and I mean genuinely funny. You can't go wrong with Tim Curry as the hotel manager. I don't really get why everyone else seems to hate it, but I quite frankly don't care. I enjoy the hell out of it.
I prefer the first film (and I don't care what certain people think 'us kids' preferred at the time, I always liked it more) for feeling fresher and having a bit more heart to it, but I like the second one. The other two were terrible, though.
Other three now. ABC Family premiered a fifth film last month. I haven't seen any since the second one, nor do I want to.
Oh yeah, I saw that one. It's not really a Home Alone film being that the kid is never actually alone in the entire film. It's really just an average Christmas special that has the usual burglar foiling plot. At the very least the kid isn't a pale rewrite of Kevin (again) and it isn't as awful as the other two, but it isn't particularly good as a whole. You're not missing anything, though.
I watched the 2nd film first so I prefer that one. I'd probably agree that the first film was better since the 2nd film mainly just recycled a lot of the same gimmicks from the first film, but honestly since the 2nd film was the one I was introduced to first, I found the props and physical humor to be to a higher extreme than the first film so that was more entertaining for me, and it has the best scene with the TV playing in the background and Tim Curry's performance there is just hilarious. The 2nd film also had plenty of heart to it. That's my favorite one, personally, though the first one is good as well.
But yeah, 3 and 4 can just go to hell.
I had a conversation about this with some of my friends the other day, and we agree that while the first is definitely better, the second is at least better than the others and has some good stuff in it too.
Too bad I can't convince my friends to think the same about the Hangover movies, since they think the second is about as good as the first.
Meant to post here sooner. But late on Christmas night I rewatched Black Christmas. I have to say that, being the only high quality slasher alongside Halloween, Black Christmas is its equal and, in some ways, actually better. I just love how completely effed up the killer in the movie is, and the Christmas atmosphere is perfect. Shame that it got criticized when it was new. It's a lot less marketable than Halloween (which had a role model heroine, a clear villain, etc), but it really is another great piece of work... That's not to say it's better. Halloween is just rather straightforward in comparison. Overall the two films are mostly equal in quality, and I personally think I'll always come back to Halloween as my preferred one. Both are worth watching though, specifically in their themed seasons.
Just finished my ninth viewing of Hot Fuzz. Still just as funny as the first time five and a half years ago.
So, I went with my cousin and my older brother to see Django Unchained last night. As someone who typically doesn't care for most Quentin Tarantino movies (yet for some reason I've seen all of them except for Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown), I surprisingly enjoyed this one. It did drag a bit in the middle for me, though, but I think I like this more just because I like westerns. To be fair, you can't just label this movie as a western as its also just as much about slavery, but its a good combination of the 2 and may be the only QT film that I have seen where I personally actually find the main characters likable.
Its no The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly by a long shot, but its certainly an entertaining film, which is something that is something I wasn't expecting to find much of given my personal distaste or uninterest in most of what Tarantino has put out in the past.
I thought you said that you've seen Reservoir Dogs.
But I still really need to see Django. One thing that really interests me about it is that Tarantino actually ripped the songs used in the soundtracks from his vinyl collection. Cracks, skips and all.
Quote from: Avaitor on December 30, 2012, 09:24:31 PM
I thought you said that you've seen Reservoir Dogs.
Did I? I must have confused it with another film if/when I said that, and if not then maybe I did see it but can barely even remember it. Either way, I don't think I've seen it, so I was mistaken if I said that before.
The recent movie I've watched was Breaking Dawn part 2.
And most recent would be Naked Gun 2 1/2: The Smell of Fear.
Wow, I do have interest on old movies :sly:
Quote from: Hime on December 31, 2012, 12:17:29 PM
The recent movie I've watched was Breaking Dawn part 2.
How was it?
Quote from: Avaitor on December 31, 2012, 12:21:02 PM
Quote from: Hime on December 31, 2012, 12:17:29 PM
The recent movie I've watched was Breaking Dawn part 2.
How was it?
The movie's okay, except at the end part making Alice like trolling about the fight :P
Still, it's pretty good to watch when the part where Jacob nicknames Renesmee :sweat:
Just got back from Django Unchained.
BEST FUCKING MOVIE EVER HOLY SHIT :joy: :joy: :joy: :joy:
So yeah, if you like action movies, you owe it to yourself to see Django.
Quote from: Avaitor on January 03, 2013, 04:14:11 PM
So yeah, if you like action movies, you owe it to yourself to see Django.
Best movie of 2012, if not the decade so far, IMO.
Its the best Quentin Tarantino movie at the very least (yeah I'm biased, so fuck off).
But all of his movies are amazing... :(
Quote from: Foggle on January 03, 2013, 05:46:43 PM
But all of his movies are amazing... :(
No. No they are not. :srs:
I think the best way to sell Django to someone is this question-
Did you like the theater scene in Inglourious Basterds? If so, you'll love this movie.
Well, I like to describe Django more as a combined homage to both classic Western films as well as blaxsploitation films, with lots of violence to go around. I think what sets Django apart from other Tarantino films for me, in a good way, is that the main characters in this movie are actually likable. I know that the characters in other Tarantino films are intentionally written to be ass-holes, but for me I kind of need to have at least some character in the film that I can sympathize with in some way for me to really be interested in it.
I actually find almost all of the characters in all the QT movies I've seen to be likable, even the villains. :??:
I think EK means that in DU, we get to learn about the characters through more than just dialogue and subtleties in the actor's motions.
Which isn't to say that his previous methods in character development were weak or even too original, but Tarantino tried to go another route with teaching us about his characters and in writing their arcs in general, which I definitely saw myself.
I just saw Jack Reacher yesterday with my dad.
The trailer doesn't quite reflect the movie accurately. I was expecting an action movie, but it came out as more of a murder-mystery.
It's still a damn good murder-mystery, though. What makes this unique is that the mystery isn't about the killer--at the start of the film, the shooter is comatose and he remains hospitalized throughout the film. Instead, the mystery is about the victims. I'd highly recommend seeing it.
This year's Best Picture nominees:
Amour
Argo
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Django Unchained
Les Miserables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty
The bolded are the most likely wins.
No Master or Psychopaths, wtf!? :unimpressed:
Django should win!
It's gotta be Lincoln, really.
Double-checking all the nominations, Spielberg is the only filmmaker nominated for Best Director of the 3 I listed.
As many awards as ZDT and Argo have been winning, that pretty much seals the deal for Lincoln.
Django Unchained is the only best picture nominee that I've seen.
Somehow I doubt that a Quentin Tarantino movie will ever win the Oscar. I mean, if Pulp Fiction, his most famous and well-loved film (even if I'm not a fan of it, I can see that much) didn't get it, then I don't know what will. Inglorious Basterds didn't do it either despite getting the nomination, as well.
At any rate, I can't say that Django Unchained is the best of these nominees as I haven't even seen any of the other nominees, though. That said, based on what I've heard about these movies, I'd say that the top 3 candidates for Best Picture are most likely Argo, Lincoln, and Zero Dark Thirty.
Tarantino is the new Scorsese. His year will come, but this is not it.
It does seem a little doubtful that it'll happen though, since he's been sticking to genre/exploitation tribute films lately, which the Academy normally has a serious aversion to. But he keeps on getting nominated, so who knows.
If the Hurt Locker won, then I'd bet on Zero Dark Thirty.
Though Lincoln seems like the most obvious one, you never really know these days.
Quote from: Avaitor on January 10, 2013, 02:24:55 PM
Tarantino is the new Scorsese.
:butbut:
His movies are not exactly the type of films the academy typically likes.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on January 10, 2013, 07:32:12 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on January 10, 2013, 02:24:55 PM
Tarantino is the new Scorsese.
:butbut:
His movies are not exactly the type of films the academy typically likes.
Yet they keep on getting nominations.
Quote from: Avaitor on January 10, 2013, 07:33:12 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on January 10, 2013, 07:32:12 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on January 10, 2013, 02:24:55 PM
Tarantino is the new Scorsese.
:butbut:
His movies are not exactly the type of films the academy typically likes.
Yet they keep on getting nominations.
How many times has he been nominated?
QuoteHow many times has he been nominated?
21 total nominations across his entire career, including 2 wins.
Quote from: Foggle on January 10, 2013, 07:40:16 PM
QuoteHow many times has he been nominated?
21 total nominations across his entire career, including 2 wins.
I mean for best picture.
Quote from: Foggle on January 10, 2013, 07:40:16 PM21 total nominations across his entire career, including 2 wins.
I think he's specifically referring to Best Picture nominations, though.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on January 10, 2013, 07:41:15 PM
Quote from: Foggle on January 10, 2013, 07:40:16 PM
QuoteHow many times has he been nominated?
21 total nominations across his entire career, including 2 wins.
I mean for best picture.
Oh. 3.
Maybe I'm over exaggerating a little, but considering the type of movies Tarantino tends to make, he films have earned a surprising amount of buzz over the years.
Quote from: Avaitor on January 10, 2013, 07:49:47 PM
Maybe I'm over exaggerating a little, but considering the type of movies Tarantino tends to make, he films have earned a surprising amount of buzz over the years.
Yeah, but usually he's up against some pretty stiff competition. This year isn't all that strong, though, so I could see a dark horse win. But I doubt it.
It's irrelevant anyway because one year someone will make a mediocre musical and he won't win a single award. Because that's how they roll.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on January 10, 2013, 07:52:58 PM
It's irrelevant anyway because one year someone will make a mediocre musical and he won't win a single award. Because that's how they roll.
Well, Les Mis is nominated, so...
Quote from: Avaitor on January 10, 2013, 07:58:53 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on January 10, 2013, 07:52:58 PM
It's irrelevant anyway because one year someone will make a mediocre musical and he won't win a single award. Because that's how they roll.
Well, Les Mis is nominated, so...
Oh yeah, I forgot about that.
Well, there's your winner, folks!
Speaking of mediocre musicals....I think The Two Towers was a better movie than Chicago. I was actually pretty pissed that year that it didn't win Best Picture. Hell, I would've actually gone for any of the other nominees over Chicago, really.
That's not to say that I think Chicago is a bad film, but after watching it at least twice, I don't get what all of the hype was about.
Then again, I'm probably not the best judge of musicals to begin with. I'm hardly an expert in the genre.
I also think Fellowship is better than A Beautiful Mind.
But then, Juno was actually nominated for best picture, too. Sometimes you just have to remember that they're tastes are weird.
Stage adaptations hardly make for good movie musicals. As opposed to adaptations of plays, where you're able to add more to the scope of your world or use the original's limited settings as a strength towards powerful claustrophobia, with musicals, you tend to lose everything if you go too far in one direction or the other, depending on which route you take.
Not to mention that most of the time, the studios that adapt these musicals want to hire big names to gather attention towards their products, and that seldom ever works. See: Renee Zellweger in Chicago, Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady, Russell Crowe in Les Mis.
That's why the best movie musicals are the MGM and Astaire/Rogers classics. These were made directly for film, and use the power of cinema to their advantage.
The thing about making musicals into movies is that they seem to want to put big stars in the lead roles rather than legit singers, which has led to subpar results like Sweeny Todd and Phantom of the Opera. They also frequently make these changes that ultimately hurt it. Still, there are some that have worked. Jesus Christ Superstar was great, as it had basically the same cast as the stage version, and it was filmed in a beautiful location. And I don't need to speak for classics like The Sound of Music.
In the end, movie adaptations will never be as good as the original musical. They just won't. Even putting aside the stronger casts that they typically have, there's nothing like seeing a stage show in front of you and hearing it that close. Seeing Les Miserables live is, to put it lightly, out of this world. It really is amazing. There's just no way a film can do that any justice. With that said, I haven't seen the movie version of Les Mis yet (my friends and I are waiting till the rest of the musical crowd has already seen it), but it does sound like an adequate adaptation.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on January 10, 2013, 10:57:49 PM
The thing about making musicals into movies is that they seem to want to put big stars in the lead roles rather than legit singers, which has led to subpar results like Sweeny Todd and Phantom of the Opera.
I liked Sweeney Todd. The singing in that matched up to the tone of the characters, and the movie actually took advantage of the fact that it was a movie and used terrific art design to make the settings feel believable in terms of selling this world's version of London. Sweeney Todd did its job as a movie adaptation of a musical just fine.
The ones that suck are the ones that don't take advantage of the things that can be accomplished with cinema and lazily adapt the play into movie format. Chicago did this by having such bland and uninspired settings that you could see in a regular play, anyways, except with better singers and dancers. Nothing in that movie felt like something that I could only see in the movies, whereas something like Sweeney Todd felt, at the very least, specifically tuned to work as a film.
Yeah, I would actually see more musicals if they weren't intentionally camp and nodding to the audience (Hairspray) or cookie cutter musicals that have been done a million times (Chicago)... You know, a legitimate outright and original musical.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on January 10, 2013, 11:50:58 PM
I liked Sweeney Todd. The singing in that matched up to the tone of the characters, and the movie actually took advantage of the fact that it was a movie and used terrific art design to make the settings feel believable in terms of selling this world's version of London. Sweeney Todd did its job as a movie adaptation of a musical just fine.
The ones that suck are the ones that don't take advantage of the things that can be accomplished with cinema and lazily adapt the play into movie format. Chicago did this by having such bland and uninspired settings that you could see in a regular play, anyways, except with better singers and dancers. Nothing in that movie felt like something that I could only see in the movies, whereas something like Sweeney Todd felt, at the very least, specifically tuned to work as a film.
I probably shouldn't have called Sweeny Todd bad. I do think that Depp and Helena Carter's voices are kind of average, and it cut some of my favorite songs from the musical. But the main reason I'm not a fan of the movie is a big subjective thing. The original Broadway musical is very much a black comedy. Helena Carter's part, for example, was played by Angela Lansbury, who is just booming with energy. Another example is a cut song sung by the characters Johanna and Anthony (the young couple, as you may remember) which is just crazy in such a funny way. Tim Burton basically made it far more serious, which is fine, and the movie does do a fair job at that. It just wasn't as entertaining for me. But I'll take back calling it bad... And yes, tonight I'm on a role with saying things and then taking them back right away. :sweat:
Sweeney Todd may technically be a bad adaptation, but I do like it a lot for one. Burton's direction actually fit the story and tone quite well, and while their vocals left a bit to be desired for, Depp and Carter's acting was spot-on.
Really though, aside from some animated films, I can't think of the last original non-jukebox musical made for film. And that just saddens me.
Personally I liked the dark tone of the movie. It may be more serious than the play, but as a stand-alone film it works fine.
Phantom of the Opera is the worst offender. Unlike Sweeny Todd which does work as its own thing, Phantom is just a bad adaptation and nothing more. I just don't know how they thought it would be a good idea to take one of the biggest male singing roles in musical theater, and give it to a guy who doesn't sing, Gerard Butler, and is frankly a pretty bad singer anyway. That, and there's little chemistry between him and Christine, some of the directing decisions are just poor, and all of this makes the movie just boring sometimes. Then again, you really shouldn't expect much better from the guy who directed Batman & Robin.
Anyway, the best movie musicals are-
Mary Poppins
Singin' in the Rain
An American in Paris
Meet Me in St. Louis
Easter Parade
Top Hat
Funny Face
Any Marx Bros movie (cheating here, but whatever)
Welp, Argo and Les Mis for sure aren't winning the Oscar, since they took home the Golden Globes tonight.
I just saw Argo earlier this afternoon with my dad. It was great. The pacing was perfect and the movie did a great job of ratcheting up the tension until the very end, even if you already knew how everything would end based on history.
I'd say that this is just as worthy of a contender for Best Picture as Django Unchained, but of course neither of them are going to win it, with the Academy being biased against Tarantino movies (they probably only nominated it just so that they wouldn't get a lot of heat from the critics) and as Avaitor already said, the fact that Argo got it for the Golden Globes significantly reduces its chances of winning the Oscar for Best Picture as well.
I'd say that the Best Picture award will be a toss-up between Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty.
Silver Linings Playbook has a surprisingly high chance of winning as well. It's no one's favorite film of the year, but still has a solid enough reception among those whose opinions matter for the award, and the Academy likes the occasional rom-com. Not to mention unlike Ben Affleck and Bigelow, David O. Russell is nominated for Best Director, and Jennifer Lawrence is a total shoe-in for Best Actress.
Plus it won its Critics Choice Award, which is pretty much dedicated to guessing the Oscar winners. And Argo was the other winner that night, which as know isn't going to happen now.
So I just got back from seeing Les Mis. And I very much enjoyed it. Definitely one of the better movie adaptations of a musical. I struggled a bit to not quietly sing along to every single song. They were all performed well and I can't think of any casting that I actually didn't like. I'm sure they casted Hugh Jackman because he's a known name, I went in knowing that. But I thought he did well. Now, the best was Anne Hathaway, with very little contest. Especially her big solo, "I Dreamed a Dream". You could hear a pin drop in the audience from the start to the finish of that song.
Inevitably, people will compare it with the musical it's based on. And honestly, the movie can't help but be shit in comparison. The original musical is one of the greatest pieces of entertainment... ever, in anything. But for what it is, the movie is good. Give it a break, critics. I was sold on it.
Also, the Bishop was played by Colm Wilkinson, the original stage Jean Valjean, and still by far the best person ever to play that part. :P
So Avaitor, why don't you like Les Mis? Watching a bit of an adaptation right now on YouTube, and it has quite a charm.
I just don't like 80's musicals, or Victor Hugo in general, Disney's take on Hunchback aside. It's better than Phantom, but I don't get the big deal behind Les Mis.
I actually really liked the Les Mis movie. It wasn't a perfect adaption, but the stage show is flawed, anyway. I think it works because it manages to caputure the essence of the stage show: the way the show manages to capture the essence of Hugo's original novel. And a some of the film's flaws come from the original show, but they seem magnified on the big screen. My biggest complaint would be Crowe though. He seemed to struggle to emote and sing at the same time.
And as far as Sweeney Todd goes, it's probably one of the worst stage-to-screen adaptions, in my opinion. Not only is the singing subpart, but the cut the score almost in half.
You know, I didn't really like True Romance much the first time I watched it some 4-5 years ago, but after seeing it again, I'd say it's become one of my favorites. :)
"Zero Dark Thirty" ... it was excellent. If I were a voting member of the Academy, Best Picture. Definitely.
Did you like it more than Django, Greg?
Quote from: Avaitor on January 15, 2013, 09:57:26 PM
Did you like it more than Django, Greg?
A friend asked me this last night. They were both terrific for what they were, but so different I can't make the comparison.
Has anybody here seen The Good, the Bad, the Weird? I just read about it, and it sounds really cool.
It especially seems like something Foggle would like.
Yeah, I've seen it! It's great if you love strange Korean action/comedies and westerns. :D
Yeah, it was sold as the perfect companion to Django for a double-feature, which peaked my interest. I put it on my instant queue.
I've been wanting to get more into the recent Korean genre picture craze. Oldboy was a great start, and I wanna see what the rest of the country is up to.
Moonrise Kingdom is Wes Anderson's best movie, and easily one of the best of the year.
Sure wish it could've had more love at the Oscars.
Djaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnngoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Quote from: Lord Dalek on January 21, 2013, 07:10:55 PM
Djaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnngoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
GOOD.
What did you think?
Quote from: Foggle on January 21, 2013, 07:23:25 PM
Quote from: Lord Dalek on January 21, 2013, 07:10:55 PM
Djaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnngoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
GOOD.
What did you think?
Fun but it does seem like QT is starting to recycle himself a bit. Some moments seem to have come out of Kill Bill.
Quote from: Lord Dalek on January 21, 2013, 07:31:26 PM
Quote from: Foggle on January 21, 2013, 07:23:25 PM
Quote from: Lord Dalek on January 21, 2013, 07:10:55 PM
Djaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnngoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
GOOD.
What did you think?
Fun but it does seem like QT is starting to recycle himself a bit. Some moments seem to have come out of Kill Bill.
I can see that, but it is better paced and written than KB.
In hindsight, there are some serious editing problems in Django, though. Which is to be expected since it's Tarantino's first film without Sally Menke.
The main difference for me between Kill Bill and Django Unchained is that the latter actually has likable characters and is watchable.
Just watched From Dusk Till Dawn. Now that was some great schlock!
For what it's worth, Spark, I think you made the right decision.
I saw The Good, The Bad, The Weird recently. It was fun, that's really all I can think of to say about it. Oh, yes, the surprise towards the end actually took me by surprise. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some moments earlier in the film that hinted on such reveal that I were simply too obtuse to pick up on.
And Argo just won the SAG award.
Is it possible for it to make an upset and take the Oscar home? Anything's possible at this point.
So, I just saw John Carpenter's They Live. The best way I can describe it is that it feels very much like a long episode of The Twilight Zone....a completely fucking bad-ass episode of the Twilight Zone. This may also be the only good movie in existence (or at least that I know of) to star a (former) professional wrestler, so there's always that as well.
While its certainly not his best movie (IMO, that'd either go to Halloween or The Thing), its probably the last genuinely good movie that he ever made. Its a shame that his quality totally went to shit in the 90's, but I am glad that I finally got to see this film, as I've been wanting to watch it for a while, and personally I really enjoyed it.
Theatrical musicals will never be this good again. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4UUkui545I)
This isn't even one of my favorites, but you'll never see any with this much talent again.
...meh.
Well, what do you consider a good musical?
Quote from: Avaitor on January 30, 2013, 02:48:47 PM
Well, what do you consider a good musical?
The one where Neil Patrick Harris tried to date Codex, but got cockblocked by Mal.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on January 30, 2013, 03:45:39 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on January 30, 2013, 02:48:47 PM
Well, what do you consider a good musical?
The one where Neil Patrick Harris tried to date Codex, but got cockblocked by Mal.
Okay, yeah.
Musicals need more hammers.
Just watched Frankenweenie with my parents. My family also watched Hotel Transylvania, but I wasn't interested.
It was...okay. Its not bad, but nothing really stood out to me. I loved the whole homage to 50s sci-fi, going so far as to make the whole thing black and white, but the story just didn't get me.
I do know my dad hated it, but he hates just about every movie I've watched with him. :sweat:
Spending my day not watching the Superbowl by watching Tarantino flicks instead. Just watched "True Romance" and am now watching "Reservoir Dogs". "Pulp Fiction" is next.
The original Conan the Barbarian.
Still awesome. Still confused as to why the Critic thought this needed to be reviewed.
Quote from: Avaitor on February 10, 2013, 12:35:06 AM
The original Conan the Barbarian.
Still awesome. Still confused as to why the Critic thought this needed to be reviewed.
I think he just wanted to do it because he was doing a whole month on Arnold, anyways. He actually stated that he likes the first Conan movie, though in his case he says its a guilty pleasure. He legitimately doesn't like the sequel, though, and he gave that film a genuinely bad review.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on February 10, 2013, 12:39:19 AM
Quote from: Avaitor on February 10, 2013, 12:35:06 AM
The original Conan the Barbarian.
Still awesome. Still confused as to why the Critic thought this needed to be reviewed.
I think he just wanted to do it because he was doing a whole month on Arnold, anyways. He actually stated that he likes the first Conan movie, though in his case he says its a guilty pleasure. He legitimately doesn't like the sequel, though, and he gave that film a genuinely bad review.
The second sucks, but it's enough to do a review on. The review for the first one, as imperfect as the film is, felt unnecessary.
I just saw Ed Wood for the first time ever. Brilliant film. Its jarring to think that Tim Burton actually used to direct some really good stuff on this caliber. His output over the last decade has been mostly a drastic drop in quality. I mean, I actually liked films like Big Fish, Corpse Bride, and even Sweeney Todd, but those films were the exceptions rather than the standard.
Now, the film itself doesn't exactly compel me to check out Ed Wood's entire body of work, but I may give Plan 9 from Outer Space a look someday. I do however now have a desire to check out more of Bela Lugosi's classics after watching this film. Speaking of which, Martin Landau did an amazing job in his performance as Lugosi. He definitely deserved his Oscar win for that part.
I think Ed Wood combines Burton's two strongest and most prominent themes better than any of his films- his love of the occult, and his appreciation for the quirky little guy.
You could make an argument for some of his other films to be better, but I'd say this is his rounded-out masterpiece.
Quote from: Avaitor on February 11, 2013, 12:56:42 AM
I think Ed Wood combines Burton's two strongest and most prominent themes better than any of his films- his love of the occult, and his appreciation for the quirky little guy.
I'd add to that his distinct sense of humor as well. This film has a lot of legitimately funny moments even if its not really a comedy, and a lot of Burton's older films did a great job of showcasing his humorous side. The guy can be hilarious when he wants to be.
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVYPHx59JfA) scene in particular is just gold.
Ed Wood is Burton's masterpiece IMO. It's also the only film of his that I truly enjoy, Batman aside.
Ed Wood is by far my favorite Burton film, and one of my favorite movies of all time. I also might think it's Depp's best role. However, for me, the one who really steals the show is Martin Landau as Bela Lugosi. Possibly one of my favorite screen performances ever.
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/521862_438760886195118_1108290028_n.jpg)
Want.
Ash, that is, not Jigsaw or whatever.
The Tree of Life was.... something.
I loved it.
A lot, actually. I wish I saw it in theaters.
Oh God, I can't choose. (http://www.hulu.com/#!movies/criterion)
I;m watch Au Hasard Balthazar later, myself.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on February 14, 2013, 04:50:54 PM
Oh God, I can't choose. (http://www.hulu.com/#!movies/criterion)
Ooooooh.
I really need to get around to watching Quadrophenia.
The Blob and House are the only choices tbh.
Quote from: Foggle on February 15, 2013, 12:49:26 AM
The Blob and House are the only choices tbh.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toonpool.com%2Fuser%2F974%2Ffiles%2Fakira_kurosawa_305195.jpg&hash=d61e30c4ca0bcdd1233a7ec3af7bb7443eaef9b1)
Quote from: Karamazova on February 15, 2013, 12:24:52 AM
I really need to get around to watching Quadrophenia.
Yeah, it's not great, but definitely worth watching.
Quote from: Foggle on February 15, 2013, 12:49:26 AM
The Blob and House are the only choices tbh.
Wait, you mean Armageddon isn't up? :cry: :cry: :cry:
Quote from: Avaitor on February 15, 2013, 12:56:34 AM
Wait, you mean Armageddon isn't up? :cry: :cry: :cry:
I did not see it listed, unfortunately. A truly underrated work of classic cinema from one of the finest auteurs in the industry.
Quote from: Avaitor on February 15, 2013, 12:56:34 AM
Quote from: Karamazova on February 15, 2013, 12:24:52 AM
I really need to get around to watching Quadrophenia.
Yeah, it's not great, but definitely worth watching.
It's by far my favourite Who album but I've been avoiding the movie.
(I haven't seen the Tommy movie either, though)
Quote from: Karamazova on February 15, 2013, 01:16:17 AM
(I haven't seen the Tommy movie either, though)
That's... not so good. But worth watching for the novelty. :awesome:
Quadrophenia is my favorite Who album, too.
While taking advantage of Criterion's freebies, I keep on seeing the trailer for the Killing Lincoln TV movie.
Man that looks stupid.
I saw Die Hard 5 this weekend. It was pretty good, even if it felt a bit short.
Apparently it made #1 so I hope it's enough to make the final film Bruce wanted to make.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on February 18, 2013, 01:28:24 PM
I saw Die Hard 5 this weekend. It was pretty good
I heard... otherwise.
Quote from: Foggle on February 18, 2013, 01:29:47 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on February 18, 2013, 01:28:24 PM
I saw Die Hard 5 this weekend. It was pretty good
I heard... otherwise.
It was better than 2. About the only issue was that it was too fast and the chase scene near the beginning had too much shaky cam. It wasn't as good as 1 and 3 and wasn't quite up to 4's revival but it was fun enough.
But then most people tried to tell me that 4 wasn't any good, and they were wrong. Short of a Lethal Weapon 5 (yeah right), I think Die Hard is still at the top of modern action movies.
Though I still need to see The Expendables 2.
The reception for it is insanely bad. I still want to see it just for the sake of it, though.
IIRC, the only Die Hard movie to get two thumbs up from Siskel & Ebert was 2.
It isn't one of the best action movies ever made or anything, but I didn't expect it to be. It isn't better than 1 or 3, and 4 was the better "modernization", but it was decent. It was just way too fast.
I really hope he gets to make that last film, though. The ending of this one really sets it up.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on February 18, 2013, 02:39:12 PM
IIRC, the only Die Hard movie to get two thumbs up from Siskel & Ebert was 2.
There are more than 2 movie critics though.
Anyway, I liked it.
I also watched The Outsiders: The Complete Novel. I always enjoyed that adaption of the novel.
So I was watching The Story of Film: An Odyssey a week or two ago, and a scene of Avatar was played. Maybe it just wasn't meant to be seen on a non-HD TV, but the effects in that movie already look dated, and even faker than when I first saw it.
Not a good sign for Cameron.
My film professor showed Tree of Life this week. On the second day, only half the class showed up.
People really seem to hate this one.
The Birds.
Jesus...
Still one of the most disturbingly mesmerizing scenes I've witnessed in film. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_b0-mMtp8Y)
OMG! Its the dad from Boy Meets World! I never knew he was in this movie....
Yeah, but this is still another one I have to see.
I also did not know that he was in that.
Anyway, I didn't plan to see the new Oz movie, but DMR is making sure that it's worth a lot of extra points if you see it this weekend, and my mom does have interest in it, so we might go either tonight or tomorrow, depending on if my sister would want to or not.
Just saw Natural Born Killers. Pretty good movie, and probably even more relevant today than it was in the 90's, though I can't help but feel that a more subtle script and less art house direction/editing would have made its satire on modern tabloid culture far better. I now find myself wondering what Tarantino's original script was like.
Yeah, apparently much of the dialogue in Tarantino's script was retained for the movie, but Stone mostly changed the events and perspective points in the film. For some reason, according to the WGA, this is enough to give Tarantino only a "Story" credit, even though it's the story that was changed the most from his script. Go figure.
I'm not sure how the movie would have been made if stuck to the original script, but I do know that Tarantino is considerably more subtle than Stone.
And when Tarantino is more subtle than you, well... :lol:
Quote from: Avaitor on March 09, 2013, 05:22:09 PM
Yeah, apparently much of the dialogue in Tarantino's script was retained for the movie, but Stone mostly changed the events and perspective points in the film. For some reason, according to the WGA, this is enough to give Tarantino only a "Story" credit, even though it's the story that was changed the most from his script. Go figure.
Ah, so it was the same thing basically, but a lot less weird. Strange that they gave him a story credit instead of a writing credit then, sounds like it should have been the other way around.
Quote from: Foggle on March 09, 2013, 05:38:58 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on March 09, 2013, 05:22:09 PM
Yeah, apparently much of the dialogue in Tarantino's script was retained for the movie, but Stone mostly changed the events and perspective points in the film. For some reason, according to the WGA, this is enough to give Tarantino only a "Story" credit, even though it's the story that was changed the most from his script. Go figure.
Ah, so it was the same thing basically, but a lot less weird. Strange that they gave him a story credit instead of a writing credit then, sounds like it should have been the other way around.
Yeah, the guilds are weird like that. The story behind NBK isn't as weird as what happened to Kevin Smith's draft of Coyote Ugly, though.
It was Stone's idea to turn the film into a critique of the media's affect on society, while Tarantino wanted to focus more on the love story aspect. They had very different ideas, and while I'm glad that we have the version that's out today, I do want to see QT's original take. I'm sure the screenplay is out there somewhere.
I'm re-starting my Netflix career with a passion. Just watched 2 movies in a row and am more than 50% awake enough to watch a 3rd but I guess I'm calling it a night because I like to give these things my full attention.
There's a real theme cropping up for the next 6 or so lined up after these in my Queue but, I started my current marathon with:
Casual Sex? (1988) and Modern Girls (1986). I used to spill my guts on Ultimate Disney but I think the future is in bite-sized reviews. I already wrote mine up on Letterboxd (http://letterboxd.com/nopersonality/films/reviews/by/added) (yes, I'm giving them another chance), if you're curious to see what I might have said about these movies (and Frank Zappa's 1971 film, 200 Motels), check it out sometime.
Read QT's NBK script last night. I made a post about it, but for some reason it never showed up (or maybe I forgot to submit it...). Overall, I'd say about 75% of the dialogue is the same across both versions, but the finished film uses much of it in different contexts. The opening and ending scenes are almost 100% accurate to the screenplay, though.
Tarantino's script is fairly low-key and a lot more subtle than Stone's movie, but it's still definitely satire. Aside from the obvious difference of not being intended as an art film, the actual story is quite different. For one thing, Mickey and Mallory were not written as somewhat sympathetic anti-heroes; they're clearly depicted as bad people. They also weren't really main characters in the original version - the movie centered around Wayne Gale instead. Also, QT apparently had nothing to do with most of the really sick shit (implied incest rape, prison guard death/torture scenes, etc.).
The whole thing was funnier, more believable, and almost entirely dialogue-based. I still enjoy the finished film, but I think I would have liked this version more.
Yep, that's what I was expecting.
Could you send me the screenplay? I'd love to read it.
Quote from: Avaitor on March 10, 2013, 02:29:37 PM
Could you send me the screenplay? I'd love to read it.
http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/Natural_Born_Killers.PDF
So I flip past Happy Gilmore on Family and watch a scene where Adam Sandler throws Ben Stiller out of the window of the nursing home. This is not on my DVD copy and I've never seen this scene before.
Crazy.
That wasn't in the deleted scenes? I know that sometimes channels will add in certain deleted scenes into movies if there's too much risque material to cut. I remember seeing the "Elvis or Beatles" scene once while watching Pulp Fiction on AMC a long time ago.
Oh, and I caught the season premiere of TCM's Essentials on Saturday. Drew Barrymore's back, and they seem to air two movies every time they start a season off- one at the usual 8 PM timeslot (Grand Hotel) and another one later at night that's a bit edgier than their typical fair (The Big Chill). I caught them both.
Grand Hotel was probably a big deal at its release, since this is the first time you had as many viable stars in one film like you see here (including two Barrymores, hint hint). And the interlocking storylines that you see in The Wire and Robert Altman's films? This did it before them. Unfortunately, the writing's very contrived and the characters, despite some fine acting, are flat. This is a better early Best Picture winner than most (probably the best between Wings and It Happened One Night), but it just doesn't hold up.
The Big Chill is a little similar in that it has a fairly big cast, but while a lot seems to be going on in Grand Hotel, nothing really happens here. It's just a small group of friends catching up after losing another member of their old clan. The best part of the film is easily the soundtrack, which contains nearly every 60's great, from Marvin Gaye to Beach Boys to the Temptations to CCR. And that's just a starting point.
Looking at their planned schedule for the month, I see one film I hate (Tootsie), one I've always wanted to see (Gun Crazy), and one I like a good deal (The Lady Eve). Even if I don't have interest in watching the movies Robert and Drew introduce, I end up watching their opening and closing comments for all of their choices. But I'll catch at least watching a few of their choices this year.
Wreck It Ralph.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2F9a9d9ed21764d9edc9bc21c121ba3f82%2Ftumblr_inline_mjo7ywOPNH1rzp6qy.gif&hash=d0677de9a5246387feae108dbf7085080f042a5e)
Why is NPH fucking Elmo in the ass? :butbut:
Quote from: Foggle on March 14, 2013, 09:07:59 PM
Why is NPH fucking Elmo in the ass? :butbut:
More importantly, why is that the first idea your mind went to? :shit:
Quote from: talonmalon333 on March 14, 2013, 10:27:15 PM
Quote from: Foggle on March 14, 2013, 09:07:59 PM
Why is NPH fucking Elmo in the ass? :butbut:
More importantly, why is that the first idea your mind went to? :shit:
...you homophobes.
Let's not turn this into a tz political thread.
Quote from: Avaitor on March 14, 2013, 10:35:33 PM
Let's not turn this into a tz political thread.
...you anatidaephobe.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on March 14, 2013, 10:54:15 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on March 14, 2013, 10:35:33 PM
Let's not turn this into a tz political thread.
...you anatidaephobe.
Well what do you expect when you sleep with a plush Daffy?
I finally got to see ParaNorman last night, and I liked it. The movie started off with too much gross-out humor for my tastes, but when it picked up on the psychological side and raised the comedy up a little, I totally got into it. I also adored the animation, and how varied the character designs were.
If I had to rank it in with the film's fellow Oscar nominees and the other movies the studio made, it wasn't nearly as good as Wreck-It Ralph or Coraline, but much better than Brave and 9. So I would recommend it, but not above the former two.
Zero Dark Thirty
Fantastic movie. Definitely deserved the nomination.
Still have to see Argo, though.
Argo
I have no idea whether or not it deserved to win, but hey, I liked it.
I've been writing down every movie that I've seen since the new year started. I guess since I don't have much better to do with his information, I'll share what I've seen every three months. Some of these I've talked about seeing on here, some I have not.
A Matter of Life and Death
Django Unchained
Dumbo
Cinderella
The Dark Knight Rises
Citizen Kane
Raising Arizona
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
The Pride of the Yankees
Spellbound
Aladdin
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Moonrise Kingdom
The Court Jester
Tampopo
The Lady Vanishes
The Conformist
Pinocchio
Sabotage
Punch-Drunk Love
Beauty and the Beast
Marnie
I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang
The Music Man
Death Race 2000
Natural Born Killers
The Life of Oharu
Peter Pan
Conan the Barbarian
In Search of the Castaways
Europa
RoboCop
Au Hasard Balthazar
I Was Born, But?
Woman of the Year
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers
The Navigator
Stardust Memories
Bad Santa
A Place in the Sun
Drugstore Cowboy
Gold Diggers of 1933
The Red Badge of Courage
The Last of the Mohicans
The Jungle Book
Limelight
The Tree of Life
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Picnic
Wreck-It Ralph
Grand Hotel
The Big Chill
Return of the Living Dead
Avanti!
Brick
Evangelion 1.11: You Are (Not) Alone
The Field
The Muppets Christmas Carol
The Letter
Yankee Doodle Dandy
ParaNorman
Barbarella
Gun Crazy
Jimi Hendrix
Sunrise at Campobello
Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker
Fantasia
Thunder Road
Melody Time
Quiz Show
The Good, the Bad, the Weird
Feel free to discuss any of these. I'll do this again on the first of July!
Reviews have been good for the Evil Dead remake. Does that actually mean that it's good, though?
So I FINALLY watched The Hobbit, and I thought it was really great! Don't understand the general distaste I've seen for it at all.
People who are fans of the book complain about all of the added scenes and some of the minor story changes, as well as the fact that Peter Jackson tried to make the story a little bit darker than it actually is in the book. Personally, as someone who loved the book very much (its one of my favorite stories from my childhood), I had absolutely no problem with the extended material and slightly darker tone. And to be fair, most of it comes from Tolkien's own source material of the extended Middle Earth Universe (The addition of the Necromancer was the only thing I can think of that came out of nowhere, though that was only in one brief scene of the movie, anyways). Casual audiences probably don't like the fact that this movie is long and takes time to build up its main characters, as a lot of people were probably mislead into expecting lots of big epic battles like in The Lord of the Rings movies. Though, to be fair, Fellowship of the Ring barely had any of those things, and The Hobbit is much more along the lines of Fellowship as its primarily an adventure story.
Honestly, I really liked the movie. I still think that stretching this story out into a trilogy is overkill, but if the other 2 movies were on the same level of quality as An Unexpected Journey, I'd honestly be satisfied.
Also, as usual, I absolutely love the soundtrack.
It's been a while since I read the book, so I don't remember it too well. I liked the added stuff, though. The Necromancer storyline seems interesting to me, and the added darkness was fine since there were still a lot of fun, goofy moments.
I also didn't think the movie dragged at all, which seems to be a common complaint for some reason. And the music was amazing, of course.
Quote from: Foggle on April 13, 2013, 03:37:35 PM
I also didn't think the movie dragged at all, which seems to be a common complaint for some reason.
I actually thought it kind of did. I still liked it though. Just not nearly on the same level as any of the Lord of the Rings movies.
I dunno, I was really immersed in the story/adventure so it didn't seem slow to me at all. Meanwhile, Evangelion 3.0 was only half that length, but it felt even longer to me. Now that shit was draggy.
I felt that it dragged only somewhat in the 2nd act of the movie (mostly with the whole Rivendell scene, but I'm only talking about 10-15 minutes of time out of a nearly 3 hour film. Personally the time flew by for me throughout the rest of the movie. And, I still can't wait to see the 2nd part later this year. Peter Jackson showing Smaug's eye opening at the end was way too much of a tease, but its the kind of thing that immediately got me pumped for the next installment. I can't wait to see Smaug revealed in full, and hopefully his voice actor does a good job playing him.
Oh, another complaint about the movie was the 48 FPS looking really wonky at times. Honestly, I can't comment on this, because I myself only saw the movie at a standard 24 FPS, and the whole thing looked beautiful to me.
I watched Ghostbusters 1 and 2 today from this morning up until the afternoon. This might be the first time I watched either movie in its entirety. I do remember Stay Puff and how fucking creepy the Vigo painting is from mywhen I was a kid though.
Pulp Fiction.
...eh.
You mean ehhhhxellent?
Quote from: Avaitor on April 23, 2013, 12:03:34 AM
You mean ehhhhxellent?
Suuuuuure?
I guess its a good movie, but it really does nothing for me.
I forgot how smooth Dirty Harry's soundtrack is. Damn.
Quote from: Avaitor on April 23, 2013, 04:26:15 PM
I forgot how smooth Dirty Harry's soundtrack is. Damn.
Before they got overly campy and niche, cop movies had awesome soundtracks. Though they did seem to pick up again around Lethal Weapon.
I just watched Platoon again, and man, it's easy to forget how many surprising names are in here. Besides Charlie Sheen, there's Keith David pre-Goliath, John C. McGinley pre-Dr. Cox, and even fucking Johnny Depp is in there.
Kinda crazy.
Watching Beasts of the Southern Wild for class. I've been told that this is kind of like a live-action Miyazaki movie.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on April 30, 2013, 09:44:34 PM
Watching Beasts of the Southern Wild for class. I've been told that this is kind of like a live-action Miyazaki movie.
Sounds like a movie that doesn't feature cars driving faster than jet planes or a fascist alien regime attempting to derail an interplanetary death race with laser cannons.
Do yourself a favor and watch Redline instead.
Quote from: Foggle on April 30, 2013, 10:17:01 PM
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on April 30, 2013, 09:44:34 PM
Watching Beasts of the Southern Wild for class. I've been told that this is kind of like a live-action Miyazaki movie.
Sounds like a movie that doesn't feature cars driving faster than jet planes or a fascist alien regime attempting to derail an interplanetary death race with laser cannons.
Do yourself a favor and watch Redline instead.
But Redline's not on the final. :shit:
I was supposed to watch Elvira Madigan for my final, but I got in an accident before I could go to my class to see the second half. >_>
I watched Wrath Of Khan for the first time.
Okay, now I 'get' Star Trek.
That really is the best of the movies.
Be sure to at least watch III and IV while you're at it.
The problem might have been that I started with the first movie so long ago. That doesn't leave the best impression on someone unfamiliar with the series.
If anyone here hasn't seen the first movie, I don't recommend watching it.
You know its bad when even hardcore Star Trek fans say it sucks (well, most of them, anyways).
I saw Wrath of Khan a LONG time ago, like when I was a kid (I also saw Insurrection, which is best left forgotten, anyways). I don't remember anything about the movie, but I'll definitely get around to re-watching it one of these days.
Speaking of Star Trek, I'll probably end up seeing Into Darkness next weekend if I get the chance. I didn't think that the first movie in the reboot was anything great by any stretch, but I did think it was a solid, "fun" movie, so the sequel is pretty much one of the only few summer blockbusters this season that I'm somewhat interested in seeing (aside from the typical Marvel-movie fare which I always see without question).
Yeah, I'd go as far as to say that I is the worst of the TOS movies. I actually don't have V as much as most people.
As for TNG, the best one by far is First Contact, and that repeated Wrath of Khan's best parts in a weaker way. Which tells you just how appealing those movies are.
I just came back from seeing Iron Man 3, and overall, I really enjoyed it. I can immediately say that its a much better and far more coherently directed film than Iron Man 2, and while I wouldn't say that I personally like it more than Iron Man 1, I would say that it was good enough to the point where I liked it as much as I liked Thor (though keep in mind, all of you guys seem to like that movie to varying degrees). What I'm trying to say is that its another solid entry in the Marvel movie line-up, and to give it a little more credit its an above average entry.
That said, I'm going to give a semi-spoiler-ish warning to any of you who are probably hardcore comic book fans (don't worry, I'm not outright revealing any plot-points)....
Spoiler
If you are a big fan of the Mandarin as a villain in the comic books, you guys are going to be disappointed with his interpretation here. Being that I hardly ever read any comics, it didn't bother me, but I saw first-hand a group of comic book fans who were really peeved at how they handled that character in this movie. I just figured I'd give you guys so fair warning. As for me, I don't know what I'm missing out on in the comics, so in this case maybe my ignorance allowed me to enjoy the movie more than I would otherwise.
Man, whatever happened to our talkbacks? I'll do one tomorrow.
As for me, Iron Man 3 was definitely a step-up over 2. I'll get more into it tomorrow, but I will say this
Spoiler
while the ending didn't necessarily set up anything for the upcoming movies, it's totally worth seeing, especially for fans of a certain character.
Yeah, the scene after the end-credits was a good bit of comic relief, and it was nice to see the cameo. ;)
As for the movie's actual ending:
Spoiler
To me it felt like it was the perfect way to close out the film. Within the Iron Man movies, it comes off like a solid conclusion to the trilogy that we have so far, and it makes sense in that regard since Robert Downey Jr. had expressed that he wasn't too interested in doing any more Iron Man movies past this one. Having said that, though, the ending leaves things just open enough so that you know Tony Stark will be making a return in The Avengers 2, despite the fact that he destroyed most of his Iron Man suits.
Watched two Kurosawa movies recently: Throne of Blood and High and Low: Great movies, both of them. That said, although Throne of Blood was an excellent Shakespeare-adaption, I thought that High and Low was the more interesting movie. Of course, a part of that could be the fact that I'm unfamiliar with the source material and thus had no idea what was going to happen. Toshiro Mifune did a stellar job portraying the lead characters in both movies.
High and Low i such an oddity in Kurosawa's range that it makes for entertainment values based off of curiosity alone. The fact that it's also an incredibly tight thriller elevates it to one of his best.
Taking a break halfway through Lincoln. This must be one of the most boring movies I've seen in recent memory, and I'm a guy who loves three and a half hour foreign art films.
I mean, it's definitely a good movie, and Lincoln is probably my favorite president, but it's putting me to sleep.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2F941024d361927eefab0bbaf3ab3a4d1f%2Ftumblr_mir5t6liL61s5k0eto1_500.jpg&hash=3931ce1a6ec737e22578db076e4561a4fd6767ec)
I love Tarantino's screenplays.
I would have bought it if "25 minutes" wasn't cut down.
Some exceptional writing, right there.
Look daddy, I'm a farmer!
Well, this thread is now insanitary. Goddamn Tom Green quotes pollutin' the environment.
No sausages for you?
Quote from: Avaitor on May 10, 2013, 12:59:25 AM
Look daddy, I'm a farmer!
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAD5aeZX.jpg&hash=16739fd36efaab6ce5c4328fc03ceac66013af94)
This is why Tom Green is not around anymore.
Quote from: Foggle on April 30, 2013, 10:17:01 PM
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on April 30, 2013, 09:44:34 PM
Watching Beasts of the Southern Wild for class. I've been told that this is kind of like a live-action Miyazaki movie.
Sounds like a movie that doesn't feature cars driving faster than jet planes or a fascist alien regime attempting to derail an interplanetary death race with laser cannons.
Do yourself a favor and watch Redline instead.
Why am I not watching Redline?
I watched Cowboys & Aliens for the 1st time on Thursday. I liked how it started out as a fun western and turned a fun scifi movie.
Quote from: Avaitor on May 07, 2013, 06:27:14 PM
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2F941024d361927eefab0bbaf3ab3a4d1f%2Ftumblr_mir5t6liL61s5k0eto1_500.jpg&hash=3931ce1a6ec737e22578db076e4561a4fd6767ec)
I love Tarantino's screenplays.
:lol: Well that's one way to not fall asleep while writing a script. I'm still chuckling over the fact that he named someone WHITE GUY.
Just watched Silver Linings Playbook with my mom.
It's a fine movie, very funny in some points, but I'm not so sure if Jennifer Lawrence's performance was award worthy.
Blues Brothers. What a classic.
Deployment blows though. It's so hard to surf the internet and see talk of much-anticipated movies(at least for me) like Iron Man 3 and Fast and Furious 6 and know I won't be able to see them for months. Blah.
Neil Gaiman showed me a movie called Drowning by Numbers. It involves drowning fat people and young boys circumcising themselves.
Quote from: Avaitor on May 12, 2013, 09:38:06 PM
Just watched Silver Linings Playbook with my mom.
It's a fine movie, very funny in some points, but I'm not so sure if Jennifer Lawrence's performance was award worthy.
They gave her the Oscar for Katniss Everdeen more or less.
Quote from: Comeau on May 13, 2013, 08:53:24 PM
Blues Brothers. What a classic.
Deployment blows though. It's so hard to surf the internet and see talk of much-anticipated movies(at least for me) like Iron Man 3 and Fast and Furious 6 and know I won't be able to see them for months. Blah.
I need to catch up on the post-Fast/Furious 3 movies. (Hell, I've barely seen 3...but that might not be a bad thing) I thought I was the only one here who liked those movies at all
The more I see of Lars von Trier, the less I want to get inside his head.
Okay, so I'm going to see Hangover 3 tonight. I still love the first one, but after 2, I'm not exactly pumped. Still, it'll give me something to do besides staying at home on another Thursday night.
Edit: didn't happen, due to rain, so I had other plans instead. It doesn't seem like I missed much though.
Here's a continuity error that I always felt the Evil Dead franchise had. But tell me if I'm wrong. SPOILER WARNING.
All three films are about the book... But wasn't the book destroyed at the end of the first movie, despite appearing in later ones?
Evil Dead 2 starts the story off from scratch, so the events of the 1st movie are retold rather than the 2nd movie just continuing on from where it left off, hence why the book exists in that movie. I still haven't seen Army of Darkness, but it involves Ash being sent back in time, so I always just assumed that they used the Book of the Dead from that timeline, being that it would have existed back then and wouldn't have been destroyed yet.
Evil Dead 2 is part reboot. It retcons a lot of the stuff from the original.
But the thing is, I vaguely remember the creators stating that it's all just meant to totally be a 3-part story, specifically saying that you could watch the movies all together back-to-back for a consistent story... But you'd have a plothole in the process. :P
You should know better, though. Whoever said that was wrong, either because they hadn't seen the movie they created in a long-ass time, or they were just blowing smoke out their ass for the hell of it. No matter what anyone else says, the book existing in all 3 movies is not a plot-hole. The first movie is a stand-alone film. The 2nd movie starts the story off from scratch and changes many key elements of the first film, so no matter what anyone else says, they just factually cannot exist in the same canon. The 3rd movie involves Ash going back in time and picking up an earlier version of the book, hundreds of years before he would have burned it in the present. It all makes sense to me, so I don't see how that's a plot-hole.
Funny enough, the beginning of Army Of Darkness retcons the end of Evil Dead 2.
Quote from: gunswordfist on May 30, 2013, 10:22:31 PM
Funny enough, the beginning of Army Of Darkness retcons the end of Evil Dead 2.
I believe the retcons were all because Raimi was unable to secure footage from the previous movie each time to insert into the newer film.
Though I could be wrong, I don't really remember.
I still think Army Of Darkness is by far the best one, anyway.
I thought he was just being creative or something. I'll have to look up the real reason.
I think it show how much of a die0hard fan that I am when I refuse to see World War Z if they don't use "The Trooper" like they did in the book.
Started a Monthly Movie-Watching Challenge group: http://letterboxd.com/nopersonality/list/my-entry-for-cinebros-100-movies-in-30-days
Just yesterday, because I'm convinced I can down 100 movies in 24 days. 4 down since yesterday night. Not... too bad a start.
I just re-watched Aliens. Yep, this is still my 3rd favorite movie of all-time, and my favorite science-fiction movie ever. Yes, I know that its more of an action movie, and that Alien is technically a better film, but damn this movie is just way too damn entertaining to not be one of my absolute favorites. Sure, this movie does have a lot of 1-dimensional characters much like Avatar (sans Ripley), but unlike Avatar it has other elements like a great atmosphere and an interesting plot that doesn't feel like such a blatant rip-off of Dances with Wolves. It also has WAY more appealing special effects despite its age, and you actually at least care about whether most of the characters live or die.
Have you guys been keeping up with Criterion's daily Hulu picks? Every day, they've been putting some good stuff up to watch without a Plus account.
Definitely worth checking out if you have an hour or two to kill. Just go to Hulu's Criterion page, and see what they have up.
Over the past few nights, I got around to rewatching Star Wars, and The Empire Strikes Back. I think what makes Star Wars so good, and one of the best movies ever made, is that it's such a joy to watch. I mean it has its sad moments, and obviously, it's an important part of film history. But really, it's not an extremely deep film in the slightest. It's just that, as a whole, it's an incredibly fun and well-meaning space adventure, with likable characters and special effects that are still impressive to this day.
As for Empire Strikes Back, I tend to feel like this one is a bit of a downer. It's definitely the most "mature" and the most emotional of the original trilogy. But all that drama is really what makes this movie so phenomenal. This is the one that deals the most with darkness, characters facing difficult choices, heroes being defeated, and the introduction of plot elements such as Luke's heritage. I'd also like to note that, of all the changes Lucas made to these movies (you've all heard them, and most of them suck), this film got the only change I like. That's the replacement of Elaine Baker with Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor. You can see the update in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRsDLIPVsic). The 2nd and 3rd updates shown in this video are the ones I like, the third in particular. Of course, Lucas had to change it again though; in the 4th version, he added this really unnecessary dialogue that actually somewhat clashes with the story a bit.
Still, incredible movies. As you can see, I'm in a bit of a Star Wars mood lately, and will get around to rewatching Return of the Jedi in a few days.
EDIT: Do we have any Star Wars Talkback threads?
I think Dalek did one for A New Hope, but never got around to the sequels.
I watched all six movies a month or so back, pretty much for the sole reason that I hadn't seen any of them in full since about 2009.
I dunno, I've never really enjoyed the Star Wars movies all that much aside from admiring how they used special effects and the directing and such. Mainly I think the problem is I can't get into the characters except for Han Solo.. Everyone else I find to be pretty dull, especially Luke and Leia, and none of the villains aside from Vader can I take seriously, and even Vader is kinda dull outside of a few moments. I don't think the original trilogy are bad movies in the slightest, but I've just never really gotten into them, not even as a kid, but I guess I'm an anomaly that way.
Well, the first movie is kind of straightforward and doesn't offer up much in the way of true characterization (everyone except for Han Solo is basically just an archetype). However The Empire Strikes back is FULL of character. Its in fact a character-driven film more than a story-driven one. Every choice that these characters make bring consequences, and each of them has strong development in some way. Its easily the pinnacle of the entire Star Wars franchise, IMO.
As for Return of the Jedi, you could say that it was a step down again, but I still feel that it had its good moments.
That's true about Empire, but the film still didn't make me care about Luke or Leia. Although, I guess a lot of the problem lies in the fairly wooden (to me at least) acting of their characters that prevents me from really getting invested in them. But like I said, plot-wise, I've never thought the original trilogy were bad films (okay, I did find Return of the Jedi's second Death Star plot and the Ewoks kinda stupid, but they weren't that bad), only that I personally have never been able to get into them very much.
I can understand that. Its sort of like how I find most of the FMA characters (in either version) to be really flat and uninteresting. I think the story is fine and the series is overall well-written, but it just doesn't click with me very much. I'm guessing you feel the same way about the Star Wars films, which makes sense, but I suppose different characters can mean different things to different people. As for me, there was a lot going on with Luke in Empire and he never came off as bland to me mostly thanks to the internal struggle he had to go through. I will say that he was kind of bland in A New Hope and Return of the Jedi, however, but I always felt that the supporting cast of the original trilogy was its strongest element.
Episode IV wasn't particularly deep. But I think it was just incredible simply because it was a really fun space adventure movie.
And I really like Luke and Leia. Lucas was clearly quite good at making female characters. This can be seen in Star Wars and Indiana Jones
"Much Ado About Nothing" which is terrific.
My god, how have I not seen Jackie Brown before?
So I finally got around to rewatching Return of the Jedi. I think one of the most remarkable things that a movie can do, which Return of the Jedi accomplishes in spades, is give a villain 15 minutes of screentime, and yet give him such a massive presence. Of course, in this case, I'm referring to the Emperor. I've always found him to be a pretty underrated character. He's really one of my favorites in the series. And I think, as a whole, the scenes involving Luke with Vader and the Emperor are the best parts of the entire trilogy, heck some of my favorite movie moments ever.
Despite the hiccup of featuring teddy bears swinging on vines beating up Storm Troopers, Return of the Jedi was a decent way to wrap up the original Star Wars trilogy.
Yeah, the Ewoks were a little silly. But at the very least, their fight was far outweighed by Luke's confrontation with Vader and the Emperor.
Now you See Me was pretty good. Not many movies can surprise me like this one did.
I don't know, maybe I went into that movie with the wrong expectations, but it just had way too many stretches of disbelief for me to really enjoy it. I was going in expecting a clever heist movie like Ocean's Eleven. What I got was certainly a heist movie, but I really wouldn't call it clever. That said, a lot of people outside of the critics seemed to really like this one, including most of my friends, so I suppose it has its appeal. Its just not for me, though.
I saw Predators and X-Men Origins: Wolverine on FX today. Thought both were pretty awful.
Really? I didn't think Predators was that bad.
I still haven't seen Predators, but its really a shame to know that the original movie hasn't gotten any worthy sequels. Unlike Alien, Predator to me always felt like it could work really great as a series, whereas Alien seemed like it should have only ever been a stand-alone film and had no real opening for a sequel. Yet Aliens was an amazing sequel, to everyone's surprise, and Predator 2 blew monkey balls. :-\
X-Men Origins: Wolverine was indeed a terrible movie, but its also a guilty pleasure for me.
Just like I did at the end of March, here's a list of all of the movies I've seen in the last 3 months.
Dracula
How Green Was My Valley
Rope
Spine Tingler! The William Castle Story
The Terminator
Gangs of New York
Dead Man
Unfaithfully Yours
Roman Holiday
A King in New York
Umbrellas of Cherbourg
Carousel
Gimme Shelter
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Fort Apache
Dirty Harry
The Last Emperor
Lady and the Tramp
The Incredible Shrinking Man
Platoon
No Country for Old Men
Iron Man 3 (x2)
Taxi Driver
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
The Nightmare Before Christmas
Redline
Little Shop of Horrors (?86)
Freddy Got Fingered
Carrie
Bambi
Annie Hall
Silver Linings Playbook
Margaret
The Trial
Forbidden Planet
Rome, Open City
3 Women
Holy Motors
Rebel Without a Cause
Dancer in the Dark
Winchester ?73
Night Must Fall
In the Loop
White Heat
Safety Last!
Thor
The War of the Roses
Shane
Bullitt
Twentieth Century
The Natural
Libeled Lady
Mary Poppins
The Lion King
Peter Pan
The Kid Brother
The Master
Walkabout
Cinderella
Batman: SubZero
Stolen Kisses
The Lavender Hill Mob
Switchblade Sisters
Predator
La Haine
The Bad and the Beautiful
Shoot the Piano Player
Imitation of Life (?59)
Night of the Creeps
Glengarry Glen Ross
The Searchers
The Pirate
Christine
Jackie Brown
They Died With Their Boots On
Magnolia
A Tree Grows in Brooklyn
So having finished rewatching the original trilogy, my brother and I decided to take the plunge and go back to the prequel trilogy. And tonight we just rewatched The Phantom Menace... Where to begin?
To start, I have to say that it's a little hard for me to fully judge the movie, honestly. It's really not bad. But it's just forgettable. I mean, as of writing this post, I only just got done rewatching the movie 10-15 minutes ago, but the story is already a blur to me. Jar-Jar is incredibly annoying and adds nothing, but enough people have gone on about that so I won't say more. But man, the CGI really does look awful. Just compare puppet Yoda from the originals, to CGI Yoda.
As for the stuff that works, I think most of it are the things that take you back to the original trilogy. Of course, the Emperor is always awesome. R2-D2, C-3PO, and Yoda are also great of course. And I actually like Padme. I like how she takes charge in the action sequences of this movie. It's very much something like her daughter Leia would do. I even like the style of the transition into the credits. They kept it very much like the originals... Also, I actually think the light saber duel with Darth Maul was pretty cool.
At the end of the credits, this image showed up. As soon as we saw it, man, my brother and I just started laughing hysterically. Hopefully you think of the same thing upon seeing it. :P
Spoiler
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi519.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu359%2Ftalonmalon333%2FPhantomMenace.jpg&hash=ad0ed2ca73358ef4cedbd00edfa1df92a0054806)
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 29, 2013, 12:09:00 AM
So I finally got around to rewatching Return of the Jedi. I think one of the most remarkable things that a movie can do, which Return of the Jedi accomplishes in spades, is give a villain 15 minutes of screentime, and yet give him such a massive presence. Of course, in this case, I'm referring to the Emperor. I've always found him to be a pretty underrated character. He's really one of my favorites in the series. And I think, as a whole, the scenes involving Luke with Vader and the Emperor are the best parts of the entire trilogy, heck some of my favorite movie moments ever.
His leitmotif certainly helps. The Emperor's Theme is miles better than The Imperial March, imo.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on July 01, 2013, 01:28:49 AM
As for the stuff that works, I think most of it are the things that take you back to the original trilogy. Of course, the Emperor is always awesome. R2-D2, C-3PO, and Yoda are also great of course. And I actually like Padme. I like how she takes charge in the action sequences of this movie. It's very much something like her daughter Leia would do. I even like the style of the transition into the credits. They kept it very much like the originals... Also, I actually think the light saber duel with Darth Maul was pretty cool.
The fights are one of the Prequel Trilogy's redeeming qualities.
QuoteAt the end of the credits, this image showed up. As soon as we saw it, man, my brother and I just started laughing hysterically. Hopefully you think of the same thing upon seeing it. :P
Spoiler
(https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/?ui=2&ik=6e3990f125&view=att&th=13f98ab49a9e68c3&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=f_hil7wd3z0&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P-0OID6lZDQNlJGMpN3DCa4&sadet=1372655968922&sads=cwsKjB2DHiiU4Knmw-l-stMXKaQ&sadssc=1)
Nothing's showing up. ???
Fixed the image in that post. You should be able to see it now.
http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/talonmalon333/PhantomMenace.jpg
Pitch Perfect is a great movie. It's like Glee if Glee wasn't so stupid.
And I just love Anna Kendrick and Britney Snow.
Really? I think it's nearly as dumb as Glee.
Quote from: Avaitor on June 29, 2013, 08:35:25 PM
Really? I didn't think Predators was that bad.
Adrian Brody and Generic Female Actress are boring, Laurence Fishburne's only there for a few minutes, and Topher Grace outlives the samurai dude. Topher. Fucking. Grace.
Though I did like samurai vs. Predator. That scene was just awesome in how ridiculous it was.
And Hudson outlives Drake in Aliens. It's not really out of the ordinary for the snake to live longer than others.
Quote from: Avaitor on July 02, 2013, 10:58:48 AM
Really? I think it's nearly as dumb as Glee.
The jokes are probably worse and that's saying something.
Almost forgot to post about this. Last night we rewatched Attack of the Clones... And I'm going to be honest. I think this one's alright. The story is still weak and the CGI is still overkill. But the action does make this one entertaining, and Christopher Lee is great as usual.
Will get to Episode III later tonight.
Almost forgot to write about this. The other night, I got around to rewatching Episode III.
And to be honest, this one is a good movie. It's far from perfect. But it's good, and I really think it justifies the existence of the previous two movies. Course, one of the reasons why it works is that it's the movie that's closest to the original trilogy and the one that merges them together. But I was honestly surprised by how much I cared about what was going on. You really care about Anakin, Padme, and Obe-Wan. Speaking of Anakin, Hayden Christensen is still a bad actor. But he feels more natural here than he did in Episode II largely because he's silent for a good portion of it, and he legitimately looks pretty cool with the hood (he's in that ugly middle state between the good hero, and the polished dark lord). And of course, the Emperor gives another phenomenal performance. And this is the movie that cements the fact that he truly is the most powerful (it's interesting seeing Yoda being unable to win a fight). His fight with Yoda has to be one of the best fights in the prequel trilogy, probably second to Anakin's with Obe-Wan. And when Anakin is burning alive, I like how they don't pull any cliches, like having him beg or play to Obe-Wan's former love. Instead, he just screams his undying hate toward him. Overall, I just enjoy how dark, ugly, and despicable this movie gets.
Rewatched the 2002 Spider-Man movie, which has to have been one of the first superhero movies I saw when it first hit theaters. Honestly, it's just as great as I remember.
The movie was always pretty cheesy in a lot of places, but it also had a lot of heart to it. Personally I still really enjoy it.
Yeah, it is pretty cheesy, but I just think it's such a fun movie
Also, just got done rewatching Spider-Man 2. I do think it's just as good if not better than the first movie.
So, I finally got Netflix back (at least for now), and they FINALLY have Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan available for streaming online, as well as the original Star Trek TV series. I think tomorrow I'll go ahead and watch Space Seed and then immediately follow it up with The Wrath of Khan.
All of the series are up, as well as Insurrection.
You don't need to watch that though.
Quote from: Avaitor on July 11, 2013, 10:48:38 PMAll of the series are up, as well as Insurrection.You don't need to watch that though.
The funny thing is that Insurrection is the very 1st Star Trek film that I ever watched, and I saw it as a kid way back when it first came out in theaters. Needless to say, it wasn't exactly a very enticing introduction to the series, which may explain why the franchise has eluded me for the most part, up to this point in my life. I'm slowly trying to remedy that, now, but the damage was already done. I haven't seen Insurrection since I was a kid, but I remember hating it back then, and I don't exactly have reason to believe that my opinion would change if I saw it now, other than maybe finding it worse than I originally did.
Yeah, I watched all of the movie last year after I got into the franchise. You only really need to do II-IV, VI, and maybe First Contact.
Also, word of warning- the TOS episodes up on Netflix are the remasters, which replaced all of the original special effects with newer, shiner ones. Some are integrated into the show better than others. You'll probably see what I mean in no time.
Quote from: Avaitor on July 11, 2013, 10:57:03 PM
Yeah, I watched all of the movie last year after I got into the franchise. You only really need to do II-IV, VI, and maybe First Contact.
Do you have any episodes of TOS to recommend on top of those films (other than Space Seed, of course)?
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on July 11, 2013, 11:02:04 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on July 11, 2013, 10:57:03 PM
Yeah, I watched all of the movie last year after I got into the franchise. You only really need to do II-IV, VI, and maybe First Contact.
Do you have any episodes of TOS to recommend on top of those films (other than Space Seed, of course)?
Really, a lot of episodes from the first 2 seasons hold up pretty well. Some are sillier than others, but the actors' chemistry between each other, Shatner's hammy acting and all, as well as some strong storylines make the show worth checking out. However, you might as well just forget that there was a third season.
Also, word of warning- the TOS episodes up on Netflix are the remasters, which replaced all of the original special effects with newer, shiner ones. Some are integrated into the show better than others. You'll probably see what I mean in no time.
Quote from: Avaitor on July 11, 2013, 11:05:32 PM
Really, a lot of episodes from the first 2 seasons hold up pretty well. Some are sillier than others, but the actors' chemistry between each other, Shatner's hammy acting and all, as well as some strong storylines make the show worth checking out. However, you might as well just forget that there was a third season.
Also, word of warning- the TOS episodes up on Netflix are the remasters, which replaced all of the original special effects with newer, shiner ones. Some are integrated into the show better than others. You'll probably see what I mean in no time.
So, basically Star Trek pulled a Lucas? :srs:
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on July 11, 2013, 11:08:29 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on July 11, 2013, 11:05:32 PM
Really, a lot of episodes from the first 2 seasons hold up pretty well. Some are sillier than others, but the actors' chemistry between each other, Shatner's hammy acting and all, as well as some strong storylines make the show worth checking out. However, you might as well just forget that there was a third season.
Also, word of warning- the TOS episodes up on Netflix are the remasters, which replaced all of the original special effects with newer, shiner ones. Some are integrated into the show better than others. You'll probably see what I mean in no time.
So, basically Star Trek pulled a Lucas? :srs:
haha, yeah, but I don't think they were THAT bad of an edition. If you find the original episodes, the effects do like pretty cheesy by today's standards.
The Blu-Rays, where the remasters come from, give you the option to watch either those or the original episodes, which I believe are also restored as much as they could be, but Netflix doesn't give you that option.
I'm sure they were cheesy, but I always thought that was part of the charm of the original series when viewed by modern standards. Also, having modernized effects that are not well-integrated into an older series and stick out like a sore thumb can look just as cheesy, if not worse, than dated effects that at least fit within the standards of their respective production for its time.
But, if the new effects do fit in relatively well for the most part, then it shouldn't bother me too much.
Oh, BTW, I forgot to mention that I re-watched The Avengers the other day on Netflix. It was still as awesome as ever, but I also still strongly maintain my opinion that Captain America was a better movie, overall.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on July 11, 2013, 11:19:53 PM
I'm sure they were cheesy, but I always thought that was part of the charm of the original series when viewed by modern standards. Also, having modernized effects that are not well-integrated into an older series and stick out like a sore thumb can look just as cheesy, if not worse, than dated effects that at least fit within the standards of their respective production for its time.
But, if the new effects do fit in relatively well for the most part, then it shouldn't bother me too much.
Yeah, I get what you mean. Like I said, some of the new effects are integrated in the show better than others, but it's really a case by case thing.
Oh, and I'd give you a list of episodes to watch, but honestly, I've only cherry-picked a handful of episodes. I generally like what I've seen, but I'm no ST expert. I might end up giving the whole series a watch for my eventual video series, though.
For now, I'd say check this article out. (http://www.avclub.com/articles/10-mustsee-episodes-of-star-trek,83853/) I agree with a lot of it, myself.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on July 10, 2013, 01:56:39 AM
Yeah, it is pretty cheesy, but I just think it's such a fun movie
Also, just got done rewatching Spider-Man 2. I do think it's just as good if not better than the first movie.
And now I just got done rewatching Spider-Man 3, the hated step son of the trilogy. It still baffles me that this one is called the "worst superhero movie ever made" by some. It's not as good as the first two movies, but I think it's alright.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on July 12, 2013, 02:10:13 AM
And now I just got done rewatching Spider-Man 3, the hated step son of the trilogy. It still baffles me that this one is called the "worst superhero movie ever made" by some. It's not as good as the first two movies, but I think it's alright.
I think it's pretty bad, but it's nowhere close to the worst superhero movie ever made. It's pretty middle-of-the-road as far as superhero movies go.
Quote from: Foggle on July 12, 2013, 09:21:21 AM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on July 12, 2013, 02:10:13 AM
And now I just got done rewatching Spider-Man 3, the hated step son of the trilogy. It still baffles me that this one is called the "worst superhero movie ever made" by some. It's not as good as the first two movies, but I think it's alright.
I think it's pretty bad, but it's nowhere close to the worst superhero movie ever made. It's pretty middle-of-the-road as far as superhero movies go.
My problem is that it's a rather unhappy film, not nearly as fun as the last two movies. And it's kind of unsatisfying. Peter and Mary Jane's story arc ends on a bittersweet but grim note.
Spider-Man 3 would be a lot better if they didn't shoehorn Venom in. The Sandman and Harry are more than enough to carry a story.
I also don't think that they needed to add Gwen in.
Edit: I said Norman? God I'm dumb.
Also, I forgot to ask, Foggle. Why do you think it's outright bad?
Quote from: Avaitor on July 12, 2013, 11:47:12 AM
Spider-Man 3 would be a lot better if they didn't shoehorn Venom in. The Sandman and Norman are more than enough to carry a story.
I also don't think that they needed to add Gwen in.
Yeah, it's definitely a movie that tried to do a little more than it could handle, which resulted in three villains, none of which came close to Doc Ock.
It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I still cringe whenever I think of literally any scene featuring MJ or Harry. Especially the bit with The Twist. I almost left the theatre at that point, no joke. Venom was also awful. I didn't have a problem with Sandman's storyline though, like some people did. And the "emo" moments, while ridiculously stupid, didn't bother me much.
I like the movie. I also think a lot of people are hypocritical idiots who just bash a movie when its popular to do so and don't think for themselves in some cases. Why is it that Spider-Man 3 is considered the dud of the franchise when the first 2 films had just as many stupid moments? And why is Iron Man 2 still generally accepted as a decent film in its own right when, IMO, it also has just as many stupid moments as Spider-Man 3 does (and on top of that its fucking boring)? Honestly, I would take SM3 over IM2 any day.
As for SM3, it has plenty of flaws, but I didn't hate it by any means. Venom was obviously shoehorned in their, but the poor handling of his character didn't kill the movie for me. I still found Sandman and Harry's plots to be engaging, especially since Harry's part of the story was actually built up to with the first 2 films. Most of the stuff that I see people complain about with this movie, aside from Venom being poorly handled and a bit too much going on in the plot, really falls more into nit-picky problems rather than stuff that affects the film as a whole. Like, that whole "emo" segment with Peter (which isn't even "emo" given how he's acting ridiculous rather than overtly-emotional) is a 5-minute segment in the whole movie, NOT the whole movie itself. And that right there is the biggest thing that people complain about over anything else. That hardly kills the rest of the movie for me. As for other stuff, like Spider-Man posing in front of the American flag (for all of like....1 second), and other small stuff like that is as nit-picky as you can get.
Why does nobody ever mention the good stuff from the movie? The scene where Sandman first arises is one of the best scenes in the entire original trilogy. Am I the only one who thought it was freaking brilliant? The fight scenes in this movie were also great, and once again much better than in the first 2 films. And honestly I thought Harry's part of the story was handled very well, for the most part, with just a few missteps. I like that he lost his memory for some time since it had him remain friends with Peter, so that when he got his memories back late into the movie and back-stabbed Peter, it actually meant something.
If people don't like SM3, though, then fine, but don't go saying that its the worst superhero movie of all time, because that's fucking stupid. Hell, its not even the worst Marvel movie of all time. The original Captain America film, Elektra, both Ghost Rider movies, both Fantastic Four movies, The Hulk (2003), X-Men 3, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine are all far worse, IMO.
I think SM3's negative reception came from a combination of disappointment and circumstance. Disappointment in that a lot of Venom fans were hoping for his inclusion to be epic, and not a last minute resort. Circumstance in that it seemed like there was super hero fatigue going on around the time, since most of the movies to come out during the comic book boom that Blade, X-Men and Spider-Man started out weren't on the level of those franchises, and fans tend to consider their third installments to be major steps down. while Blade Trinity and Last Stand deserve their poor reception, I can agree that Spider-Man 3's faults get magnified, even if I can't say I'm a big fan of the trilogy.
Obviously the fatigue didn't really last, as Iron Man and The Dark Knight seemed to rejuvenate the way comic book adaptations were being made and received shortly after, but SM3 never really seemed to recover from its less-than-stellar reception. That's how I'd take it, at least.
I haaaaaate the scene where Sandman becomes Sandman. He just happens to waltz on into a science experiment while running from the law? Ugggh. Aggh. Stupid. Just... stupid.
Quote from: Nel_Annette on July 12, 2013, 06:33:55 PM
I haaaaaate the scene where Sandman becomes Sandman. He just happens to waltz on into a science experiment while running from the law? Ugggh. Aggh. Stupid. Just... stupid.
First of all, you're not even referring to the same scene that I was. I'm specifically talking about the scene where he emerges as Sandman for the first time. Not where he gets into the experimentation field.
Second of all, he doesn't just happen to waltz in there. He is clearly on the run from the cops and obviously has no place to go and ends up doesn't exactly have the time to check where he's going in the middle of hot pursuit, so he ends up somewhere that he assumes is an empty, abandoned field. Its not exactly the best way to do a super villain's origin, I'll give you that, but stupid shit like this happened in the other Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies. Why is JUST this scene the stand-out?
And if people want to talk about stupid, The Lizard's origin in The Amazing Spider-Man was idiotic movie-nonsense as well. I know that Dr. Connor was desperate to try and perfect his formula to regenerate his arm and was in a hurry since he was being shut down, but no scientist I know (and I know plenty) would ever just inject any chemical untested on humans into themselves in such a circumstances. That might work if it was shown that Dr. Connor was downright crazy before that point (and you'd have to be to do that), but he was shown to be perfectly sane and calm-minded, if a bit obsessive and overambitious, so that origin IMO was every bit as stupid any of the dumb stuff from Sam Raimi's SM movies, but you don't see anyone complaining about those because somehow those are supposed to be smarter? Yeah, I don't get people at all.
Also, on that note, why does the security in Oscorp suck so bad in that film? Peter barely has to try to make his way into a completely restricted room where he gets his radioactive spider-bite.
I don't hate Spider-Man 3 at all. I think it's decent, which admittedly is a contrast to my opinions on Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2, which I find to be great.
I have to admit, while I don't particularly care for the trilogy, I don't really have much interest to watch Amazing, either. I wouldn't be surprised if I never do.
Personally, putting nostalgia aside, I don't find any of Raimi's SM movies to be truly great. I do find them to be good for what they are, though, and they are mostly silly, somewhat dumb superhero flicks that do still have a lot of heart and emotion to them to make them feel like a bit more than just stupid fun. I think that SM3 is undeniably the most flawed of these movies, but I hate it when people bash SM3 WHILE acting like the other 2 SM movies are perfect in comparison, which is something that just baffles me.
I just find a strange oddity in how people like to pick that one particular movie apart, yet seem to completely ignore the faults of many other Marvel movies that are considered to be better. For example, why does nobody ever criticize that scene from Iron Man 2 in which Tony Stark gets drunk off his ass and then starts blasting the shit out of his own property only to get interrupted by Rhodes who just somehow manages to put on one of his suits (DESPITE having no arc reactor of his own to even mobilize one of them; and its also hilarious that Tony has absolutely no security for these insanely expensive and dangerous "weapons"); this scene is followed up by a really ridiculous fight scene that I guess is supposed to be funny but just....isn't. I remember my dad turning to me in the theater when we were watching this scene and telling me: "I don't know what the director was thinking, but this is just....stupid." And he's right, it was stupid. Just as stupid as the dance scene from Spider-Man 3, but while everybody understandably complains about that scene, almost nobody ever seems to mention that stupid shit from IM2. I just don't get the varying standards that people seem to have with these types of films, I suppose.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on July 12, 2013, 10:40:15 PM
Personally, putting nostalgia aside, I don't find any of Raimi's SM movies to be truly great. I do find them to be good for what they are, though, and they are mostly silly, somewhat dumb superhero flicks that do still have a lot of heart and emotion to them to make them feel like a bit more than just stupid fun. I think that SM3 is undeniably the most flawed of these movies, but I hate it when people bash SM3 WHILE acting like the other 2 SM movies are perfect in comparison, which is something that just baffles me.
I just find a strange oddity in how people like to pick that one particular movie apart, yet seem to completely ignore the faults of many other Marvel movies that are considered to be better. For example, why does nobody ever criticize that scene from Iron Man 2 in which Tony Stark gets drunk off his ass and then starts blasting the shit out of his own property only to get interrupted by Rhodes who just somehow manages to put on one of his suits (DESPITE having no arc reactor of his own to even mobilize one of them; and its also hilarious that Tony has absolutely no security for these insanely expensive and dangerous "weapons"); this scene is followed up by a really ridiculous fight scene that I guess is supposed to be funny but just....isn't. I remember my dad turning to me in the theater when we were watching this scene and telling me: "I don't know what the director was thinking, but this is just....stupid." And he's right, it was stupid. Just as stupid as the dance scene from Spider-Man 3, but while everybody understandably complains about that scene, almost nobody ever seems to mention that stupid shit from IM2. I just don't get the varying standards that people seem to have with these types of films, I suppose.
Well to be fair, don't people generally agree that Iron Man 2 was rather weak as well, and had plenty of silly parts (like the one you mentioned)?
Most people agree that its the weakest movie of the trilogy, but a lot of people surprisingly say that they considered it to still be a good movie, which I just flat-out don't agree with that. Also, I've hardly seen anyone criticize that scene for some reason. I've actually even seen people say that they liked it. I have no idea what they were smoking when they watched that part of the movie.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I saw Pacific Rim tonight. Now that movie is pretty much the definition of stupid fun. Its incredibly dumb in so many parts....but its a movie about giant robots fighting giant monsters, so what the fuck were you really expecting? Its pretty fun just to see the ridiculously over-the-top action scenes, though, of which there are plenty.
I always baffle at some people that get angry over 'Emo Peter' of all things when the same director made a film with a guy that had a chainsaw for a hand. It's in the same ballpark of ridiculousness.
It's not even close to the worst thing about the movie (which would Venom's useless inclusion), and is in fact hilarious.
Oh yeah, I also finally saw Monster's University. I quite enjoyed it and thought it worked really well as a prequel, focusing it on Mike (when Inc. was about Sully) was a nice touch.
I have to say that the hate it's getting from some circles seems pretty overblown. It's not Cars 2 or Finding Dory levels of unneeded, it's a fun little film that works pretty well. That said, other than an Incredibles sequel I have no interest in any other potential Pixar sequel.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on July 12, 2013, 11:13:14 PM
Also, I've hardly seen anyone criticize that scene for some reason. I've actually even seen people say that they liked it. I have no idea what they were smoking when they watched that part of the movie.
Well then, you're right. People can be hypocritical. :P
Also, I liked Iron Man 2 (but it's the worst Marvel movie canon film).
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 12, 2013, 11:22:10 PMThat said, other than an Incredibles sequel I have no interest in any other potential Pixar sequel.
They recently said they want to tone down on the sequels, so hopefully you won't have to worry about that.
I can only hope that they won't go back to the sequel well any time soon.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on July 12, 2013, 10:40:15 PMI just find a strange oddity in how people like to pick that one particular movie apart, yet seem to completely ignore the faults of many other Marvel movies that are considered to be better. For example, why does nobody ever criticize that scene from Iron Man 2 in which Tony Stark gets drunk off his ass and then starts blasting the shit out of his own property only to get interrupted by Rhodes who just somehow manages to put on one of his suits (DESPITE having no arc reactor of his own to even mobilize one of them; and its also hilarious that Tony has absolutely no security for these insanely expensive and dangerous "weapons"); this scene is followed up by a really ridiculous fight scene that I guess is supposed to be funny but just....isn't. I remember my dad turning to me in the theater when we were watching this scene and telling me: "I don't know what the director was thinking, but this is just....stupid." And he's right, it was stupid. Just as stupid as the dance scene from Spider-Man 3, but while everybody understandably complains about that scene, almost nobody ever seems to mention that stupid shit from IM2. I just don't get the varying standards that people seem to have with these types of films, I suppose.
And I find the dance scene hilarious because it's meant to be dumb and works with how hard Peter's trying to be cool.
The party scene in Iron Man 2 was just awful. But then it kind of goes with the fact that nothing in Iron Man 2 really adds up to anything. The only part of the story worth telling was his potential background with his dad but that was deemed less important than Tony sitting in a giant doughnut.
In the end, I just found Iron Man 2 entertaining. And I liked seeing how being Iron Man effects Tony Stark, a concept that was taken further in Iron Man 3 (which admittedly was way better).
Quote from: talonmalon333 on July 12, 2013, 11:23:26 PM
They recently said they want to tone down on the sequels, so hopefully you won't have to worry about that.
By "toning down" the sequels, they're simply not planning as much of an overload as we've been getting in the past couple of years. There still will very likely be at least one or two more sequels in development now.
Oh, forgot to comment on the Spider-Man reboot.
It was... decent, particularly for a reboot that was beyond unnecessary. It's a bit familiar, and I found it hard not to miss the characters and actors from the original trilogy. But I thought it was enjoyable, if somewhat forgettable and, in my opinion, far behind the likes of Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2.
In regard to the reboot, I think forgettable is also the way I'd choose to describe it. I mean, it was a decent movie for the most part, and I enjoyed watching it, but ultimately its one of those movies I keep forgetting even exists, and really I have no desire to re-watch it beyond my initial viewing. I'd say its worth checking out if you have the time, but that's really all I can say about it. Nothing about it really left any sort of lasting impression on me. The performances are good, but not great, the writing is good, but not great, and the whole damn movie can be summed up as good, but....yeah, I think you all know where I'm going with this.
Now, to be fair, as I stated before, I don't consider Raimi's SM movies to be great, either, but they do at least feel more memorable to me. I'm not sure what it is, but something about those movies made them feel like a "big deal," whereas I just didn't get that sort of feeling from TASM, but once again in all fairness, I did see that movie just about a month or so after The Avengers, so compared to that it was bound to pale in comparison in terms of scope and weight. But, even then, I still just feel that, compared to Raimi's SM movies, this one just came off as a bit darker in tone (and far less cheesy, of course), but also with a bit less heart to it, which is a trade-off that I'm not the most fond of.
Admittedly, I do think Spider-Man 1 and 2 were great films. In fact, Spider-Man 2 is kind of one of my favorite superhero movies. And Spider-Man 3 was decent. I like all three of them more than Amazing Spider-Man. And it's definitely the worst superhero movie that hit theaters last summer, which I think puts it in comparison with The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises (I feel like nearly everyone here can agree that Amazing Spider-Man isn't as good as those two movies).
I never saw it and I probably won't. I'm just completely uninterested in origin movies if they've already been filmed, I want to see a new story.
Avaitor, yes you are dumb
Evil Dead movies are expected to be that silly, Spark. That was a silly comparison. Peter Linkin Parker deserves the hate he gets
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 16, 2013, 07:13:51 PM
Evil Dead movies are expected to be that silly, Spark. That was a silly comparison. Peter Linkin Parker deserves the hate he gets
Watch Darkman sometime.
All of his movies have goofy segments that are obviously played for laughs. This is the exact kind of thing Sam Raimi always does. The dancing segment is not as out of place as anything else he has ever done.
The problem with SM3 is its ridiculous compared to the other movies in its own series.
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 16, 2013, 07:47:42 PM
The problem with SM3 is its ridiculous compared to the other movies in its own series.
I guess I can see that, but I think the whole idea of Peter trying to act cool and tough and that being as far down the hole as he can get rather hilarious.
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 16, 2013, 07:47:42 PM
The problem with SM3 is its ridiculous compared to the other movies in its own series.
The other movies are just as ridiculous and you're the only idiot on this board who takes them completely seriously. Go back to watching mindless bouts of the old FUNimation dub of DBZ. Its clear that you don't have the means to hold an intelligent argument against anyone on this board. It would burn your petty brain out.
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 16, 2013, 07:01:41 PM
Avaitor, yes you are dumb
I know I am, but in what context aam I dumb?
No, thinking the Sonic Adventure games have good controls would be something an idiot would think :sly: Name one thing in the first two films that's more ridiculous than alien goop and living sand.
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 16, 2013, 08:02:23 PM
No, thinking the Sonic Adventure games have good controls would be something an idiot would think :sly: Name one thing in the first two films that's more ridiculous than alien goop and living sand.
Sam Raimi didn't invent the symbiote or Sandman.
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 16, 2013, 08:02:23 PM
No, thinking the Sonic Adventure games have good controls would be something an idiot would think :sly:
If you can play a game with skill and not fuck up at it then you can't blame the controls. Of course, it doesn't surprise me that this is coming from a guy who considers the DMC games to be among his favorites despite the fact that he utterly sucks at them (and since you are so mentally challenged, "he" means you in this case, if you didn't catch on, shit-for-brains). Basically, its not my fault that you utterly suck at video games in general. :sly:
QuoteName one thing in the first two films that's more ridiculous than alien goop and living sand.
Spider-Man 1:
-The Green Goblin pretending to be an old woman stuck in a fire before turning around with an over-the-top scream. Did you honestly take that seriously? Is that what you consider to be Oscar-worthy acting? Yeah, you're more far-gone than I thought.
-Hell, The Green Goblin in the first movie is insanely over-the-top the whole way through.
-The line "It's you who's out 'Gobby,' out of your mind."
-All of the special effects look cheesy as hell in that movie, and the action scenes suck.
Spider-Man 2:
-All of the crappy extras ("Go, Spidey, go!")
-The fact that Dr. Octavius's transformation into the Doc Ock is more hilarious than it is tragic.
-Peter's "Raindrops Falling On My Head" mini-music-video segment. I mean, seriously GSF? Seriously? Did you just fall asleep during all of these parts? How do you not consider this shit entirely silly and stupid?
So, yeah, I gave you more than one stupid thing about each of the first 2 movies, and I could easily list a lot more. The bottom-line is that you're the only idiot on the planet who apparently took them 100% seriously to begin with. So yeah, go fuck yourself.
That music video was stupid
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on July 16, 2013, 08:18:51 PM
QuoteName one thing in the first two films that's more ridiculous than alien goop and living sand.
Spider-Man 1:
-The Green Goblin pretending to be an old woman stuck in a fire before turning around with an over-the-top scream. Did you honestly take that seriously? Is that what you consider to be Oscar-worthy acting? Yeah, you're more far-gone than I thought.
-Hell, The Green Goblin in the first movie is insanely over-the-top the whole way through.
-The line "It's you who's out 'Gobby,' out of your mind."
-All of the special effects look cheesy as hell in that movie, and the action scenes suck.
Spider-Man 2:
-All of the crappy extras ("Go, Spidey, go!")
-The fact that Dr. Octavius's transformation into the Doc Ock is more hilarious than it is tragic.
-Peter's "Raindrops Falling On My Head" mini-music-video segment. I mean, seriously GSF? Seriously? Did you just fall asleep during all of these parts? How do you not consider this shit entirely silly and stupid?
So, yeah, I gave you more than one stupid thing about each of the first 2 movies, and I could easily list a lot more. The bottom-line is that you're the only idiot on the planet who apparently took them 100% seriously to begin with. So yeah, go fuck yourself.
Yeah, those were insanely cheesy moments and I thought they were all hilarious. Sam Raimi movies always have moments like that, I've just never understood why it's Emo Peter that suddenly crosses the line and that makes Spider-Man 3 suddenly unrealistic compared to the other films.
All of Sam Raimi's films are like this. Every single one of them.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 16, 2013, 08:45:24 PM
All of Sam Raimi's films are like this. Every single one of them.
Even The Evil Dead has that... tree rape scene.
Quote from: Foggle on July 16, 2013, 08:50:32 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 16, 2013, 08:45:24 PM
All of Sam Raimi's films are like this. Every single one of them.
Even The Evil Dead has that... tree rape scene.
If he made that now I bet a one-liner would have come with it.
Since I have some free time this week, I've decided watch various random movies for the hell of it. Watch Little Caesar and Hitchcock today, and though they were both great.
If you haven't seen it yet, I recommend In Bruges. My favorite movie of all time.
GSF-
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/29737-the-top-11-dumbest-spiderman-moments
There were these two fellars standin' on a bridge, a-goin' to the bathroom. One fellar said, "The water's cold" and the other fellar said, "The water's deep". I believe one fella come from Arkansas. Get it?
What do you guys think of the first two Superman movies?
I forgot to mention, recently I rewatched an underrated classic from my childhood, Never Ending Story. It held up really well, might've been even better than I remembered because it's more sophisticated than most children films. I think it's especially interesting when the movie breaks, like, several walls. And those character designs and sets, man, are so creative.
I still watch that from time to time. It's easy to see why it has so many fans.
I just saw The Wolverine today. It was....pretty mediocre, to be honest. Its certainly not a bad movie like the last Wolverine movie was, but nothing about the film really ever stood out to me. I'm kind of starting to realize that Wolverine is best as a character when he interacts with the other X-Men. That's why I prefer the team-movies as opposed to these solo-ones. Honestly, the best thing I can say about this movie is that the lead-in scene to the upcoming "Days of Future Past" movie was freaking awesome, and totally got me hyped for that movie, which will hopefully be better than this one.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 24, 2013, 09:00:04 PM
I still watch that from time to time. It's easy to see why it has so many fans.
It's a decent movie. That said, I always preferred the book; especially the second half of it in which Bastian ends up in Fantastica and gradually gets more and more corrupted by the power and importance he wields in that world. The book also featured plenty of characters that didn't make it into the movie, such as the giant spider made up of thousands of smaller bugs or the lion who creates a desert around him wherever he goes. Good stuff.
Never saw any of the sequels, from what I heard they weren't very good.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on July 23, 2013, 07:40:10 PM
What do you guys think of the first two Superman movies?
I thought they were great, even if
Superman 1 was far too long (3 hours!) and each contained some out-there elements (likes Supey tossing a giant transparent S-shield from his chest at someone.)
Quote from: Ensatsu-kenI just saw The Wolverine today. It was....pretty mediocre, to be honest. Its certainly not a bad movie like the last Wolverine movie was, but nothing about the film really ever stood out to me. I'm kind of starting to realize that Wolverine is best as a character when he interacts with the other X-Men. That's why I prefer the team-movies as opposed to these solo-ones.
Funny, I basically said that very thing a day or so ago in the Unpopular Opinions thread. That's why I've always considered Wolverine, as awesome as he is, to be highly overhyped, since IMO he works best when presented in contrast to the more 'conventional' personalities of his X-teammates. Alone Logan's shtick just gets old and repetitive very quickly.
Wow, Casino is great. It really is a perfect companion piece to Goodfellas. If you like one, you gotta check the other out.
Quote from: Pharass on July 30, 2013, 06:38:42 AM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 24, 2013, 09:00:04 PM
I still watch that from time to time. It's easy to see why it has so many fans.
It's a decent movie. That said, I always preferred the book; especially the second half of it in which Bastian ends up in Fantastica and gradually gets more and more corrupted by the power and importance he wields in that world. The book also featured plenty of characters that didn't make it into the movie, such as the giant spider made up of thousands of smaller bugs or the lion who creates a desert around him wherever he goes. Good stuff.
Never saw any of the sequels, from what I heard they weren't very good.
The second one isn't all too good, it probably would have been better if they made it right after the first one. It's watchable, however. The third one's garbage, though. Don't go near that one.
I still haven't gotten around to the book yet, but probably will sooner or later.
Quote from: Avaitor on July 30, 2013, 04:35:36 PM
Wow, Casino is great. It really is a perfect companion piece to Goodfellas. If you like one, you gotta check the other out.
Casino is my 2nd favorite movie from Martin Scorsese. That said, I still have yet to see Hugo, which I know is available for streaming on Netflix, so I'll be getting around to that one soon enough.
I honestly think that Hugo is my favorite Scorsese movie. It's very much worth watching.
Check out this festival. (http://housecorehorrorfilmfestival.com/) Full of goodies for both horror and metal fans alike!
If only I lived in Texas. :oo:
So Edgar Wright listed some of his favorite movies that he thinks nobody else has seen. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrA2BLcLApA)
Phase IV
Who Can Kill a Child?
Born to Fight
Four Flies on Grey Velvet
Live Like a Cop Die Like a Man
The Apple
Windy City Heat
Point Blank
Apaches
Fistful of Fingers
Time to start searching.
I saw The Apple when I was a kid. Don't remember much about it now; it was a weird fantasy musical from 1980 set in the 'future' world of 1994.
Who Can Kill a Child? has been on my queue for a while now.
Isn't Born To Fight a muay thai movie?
Uh, why did von Trier put a dedication to Tarkovsky at the end of Antichrist? I know that Andrei wasn't a very hopeful director himself, but I don't think he would have made an ending where a woman's clit gets cut off by scissors or a guy's junk gets smattered by a block of wood.
I also want to know why von Trier made a movie where a bunch of assholes get killed by a planet. And why he made the Dogme movement only to abandon it after realizing it was kind of dumb. And why he seems like a douche in interviews. And why...
Like I said before, the more of his movies I see, the less I want to get into his mind.
He's better than Harmony Korine. That's all I can really say.
I watched Tim Burton's Batman for the first time in years last night, and you know what? It holds up. Very well!
I like the cinematography. I like Danny Elfman's score. I like the nods to old police movies. I like Michael Keaton. I like Jack Nicholson, even if he's no Heath. Hell, I even dig some of Prince's soundtrack. I won't bother to compare the movie to Nolan's in any way, even with that reference, because why should I? They're both well-made endeavors into the Batman mythos.
I'll try to get to Returns in the next few days. But I won't be watching Schumacher's movies.
Quote from: Avaitor on August 25, 2013, 12:43:38 PM
I watched Tim Burton's Batman for the first time in years last night, and you know what? It holds up. Very well!
I like the cinematography. I like Danny Elfman's score. I like the nods to old police movies. I like Michael Keaton. I like Jack Nicholson, even if he's no Heath. Hell, I even dig some of Prince's soundtrack. I won't bother to compare the movie to Nolan's in any way, even with that reference, because why should I? They're both well-made endeavors into the Batman mythos.
Thank you! This is exactly how I feel about the film, and I'm tired of people always comparing it to Nolan's Batman films.
I mean, these are 2 VERY different interpretations of the character, and while some comparisons are inevitable, you can't really judge the films by the same standards. Tim Burton's Batman is still plenty dark, but it also has a very self-aware silliness to it that it plays up just right so as not to take away form the more serious aspects of the movie, but to still have a little bit of fun with the caped crusader and his psychotic nemesis.
Nolan's Batman is straight-up dark and gritty crime noir, and it's good crime noir at that, but it's nothing like Burton's take on Batman to begin with, and that was the point. Nolan wisely wanted to distance himself from what was at the time the most popular iteration of Batman, and instead wanted to give people his own unique spin on the character, which he did.
Now, what ticks me off is the people who find that they like one or the other better, and then act like snobbish ass-holes and insist that the other style is a piece of shit that shouldn't exist. And that's pretty much what always annoys the hell out of me.
For what it's worth, The Dark Knight is my favorite Batman movie, but Tim Burton's Batman (1989) is easily my 2nd favorite for just how damn well everything is put together, from the 1940's style streets of Gotham to the excellent score by Danny Elfman (even Nolan lovers have to admit that his Batman films have nothing on that), and I generally just enjoy how the entire movie does pretty much feel like a live-action comic book, rather than a realistic interpretation of a comic book. On that note, I like this film better than Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises, personally.
QuoteI'll try to get to Returns in the next few days. But I won't be watching Schumacher's movies.
Man, Returns was a really strange one. It's a guilty pleasure of mine, but I do still think it can be genuinely enjoyable in some places. I just feel that it's biggest problem is that Tim Burton may have been given TOO MUCH creative control with this movie.
The Tim Burton Batman movies are great! I hope you enjoy Returns as much as I do.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on August 25, 2013, 02:00:35 PM
I mean, these are 2 VERY different interpretations of the character, and while some comparisons are inevitable, you can't really judge the films by the same standards. Tim Burton's Batman is still plenty dark, but it also has a very self-aware silliness to it that it plays up just right so as not to take away form the more serious aspects of the movie, but to still have a little bit of fun with the caped crusader and his psychotic nemesis.
Nolan's Batman is straight-up dark and gritty crime noir, and it's good crime noir at that, but it's nothing like Burton's take on Batman to begin with, and that was the point. Nolan wisely wanted to distance himself from what was at the time the most popular iteration of Batman, and instead wanted to give people his own unique spin on the character, which he did.
Very true. Burton's able to have fun with the material and himself, while Nolan gets right to the point and only occasionally adds in comic relief, otherwise focusing primarily on action, tension and drama. Both styles are completely different from each other, but they both work well. All I have to say.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on August 25, 2013, 02:00:35 PM
(even Nolan lovers have to admit that his Batman films have nothing on that)
y'no, I'd argue that Hans Zimmer's only good score is The Lion King. Can't say his work does much for me at all.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on August 25, 2013, 02:00:35 PM
QuoteI'll try to get to Returns in the next few days. But I won't be watching Schumacher's movies.
Man, Returns was a really strange one. It's a guilty pleasure of mine, but I do still think it can be genuinely enjoyable in some places. I just feel that it's biggest problem is that Tim Burton may have been given TOO MUCH creative control with this movie.
I think I've revealed before that my two least favorite main villains of Batman are the Penguin and Catwoman, which makes me feel kind of iffy about checking it out again. But I know that Foggle's very partial to Returns, and I have good memories of it as a kid, so I'll go for it anyway.
Aw, Catwoman's cool (but only when a good writer's at the helm). I've never much liked Penguin either, but Danny DeVito's performance as him is too hilarious to not love.
Really, just look at Returns as Tim Burton directing an episode of the 1960's Batman TV series, and you'll find a lot to like.
Quote from: Foggle on August 25, 2013, 02:19:31 PM
Really, just look at Returns as Tim Burton directing an episode of the 1960's Batman TV series, and you'll find a lot to like.
Sold!
I will say that I thought Anne Hathaway kicked ass. And who doesn't like Burgess Meredith or Eartha Kitt?
Quote from: Avaitor on August 25, 2013, 02:31:38 PM
And who doesn't like Burgess Meredith or Eartha Kitt?
The villain actors in the Batman show were perfect. I will never not love Cesar Romero's Joker.
I'm a bit in the middle. I think Burton's Batman holds up pretty well. I just can't really understand when people say that the first Batman is still an excellent or particularly great film, but then say that The Spider-Man and Superman movies are merely good but silly/aged films. I personally think those two are much better (I also think that Nolan's three Batman movies are better), than either of Burton's Batman movies. On that note, I don't even see what makes Batman Returns so much worse than the first movie (I just think Returns is a bit too much typical Burton style).
I think my favorites parts of the two movies are the Joker and Catwoman (who I think are Batman's best villains), the music, and the art direction.
Like I've said before, I'd like Superman more if Gene Hackman was not Lex. I'm sorry, but he's horrible in the role.
Granted, I still haven't seen 2.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on August 25, 2013, 02:49:32 PM
On that note, I don't even see what makes Batman Returns so much worse than the first movie (I just think Returns is a bit too much typical Burton style).
I'm probably the only person in the whole world who prefers Returns to Batman (I still like the first one, of course). As for the Spider-Man and Superman films, I dunno. The former don't appeal to me much anymore, and the latter never appealed to me at all.
Quote from: Avaitor on August 25, 2013, 02:54:18 PM
Like I've said before, I'd like Superman more if Gene Hackman was not Lex. I'm sorry, but he's horrible in the role.
Granted, I still haven't seen 2.
Quote from: Foggle on August 25, 2013, 02:56:24 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on August 25, 2013, 02:49:32 PM
On that note, I don't even see what makes Batman Returns so much worse than the first movie (I just think Returns is a bit too much typical Burton style).
I'm probably the only person in the whole world who prefers Returns to Batman (I still like the first one, of course). As for the Spider-Man and Superman films, I dunno. The former don't appeal to me much anymore, and the latter never appealed to me at all.
I don't think gene is horrible here. I just think the direction to play him up for laughs was a bit lame. If they kept the part serious I have a feeling he would've been fine.
Spider-Man and Superman might be corny movies, but I just think they are so much stronger in the story department, actually building up the characters and developing the relationship between the heroes and their love interests. I never really saw any chemistry with Batman and that girl (who I can't even be bothered to remember the name of :P).
You don't remember Vicki Vale's name? You must not have read All-Star Batman & Robin.
Quote from: Avaitor on August 25, 2013, 04:45:52 PM
You don't remember Vicki Vale's name? You must not have read All-Star Batman & Robin.
This is something I've been really wanting to do, but I need to catch up on my Batman reading. :sweat:
Quote from: talonmalon333 on August 25, 2013, 05:10:19 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on August 25, 2013, 04:45:52 PM
You don't remember Vicki Vale's name? You must not have read All-Star Batman & Robin.
This is something I've been really wanting to do, but I need to catch up on my Batman reading. :sweat:
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FToTG5HR.jpg&hash=bad1331e71a12ed763f44c350647ece7b84e990c)
What did I just read?
Quote from: Avaitor on August 25, 2013, 02:31:38 PM
Quote from: Foggle on August 25, 2013, 02:19:31 PM
Really, just look at Returns as Tim Burton directing an episode of the 1960's Batman TV series, and you'll find a lot to like.
Sold!
I will say that I thought Anne Hathaway kicked ass. And who doesn't like Burgess Meredith or Eartha Kitt?
Anne Hathaway succeeded at shear hotness. But I don't remember Nolan doing much with her character at all.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on August 25, 2013, 11:08:12 PM
What did I just read?
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5257%2F5538350322_90e587e0b2.jpg&hash=9c72ea112031bf8b7137387dfbd1c1c5d26c0e8f)
I've seen that one before. "I'm the goddamn Batman" is so un-Batman like. :lol:
The only thing I didn't like in Batman was that they made The Joker the one to kill Batman's parents. I never liked the idea of making one of the rogues gallery the one to kill his parents.
As for Returns, I still don't care for it. But then, I've never been one for Tim Burton outside of a handful of movies.
I think Burton's best movie is Ed Wood by far.
I was going to mention this somewhere else, but Corpse Bride is underrated as fuck.
Quote from: Avaitor on August 26, 2013, 03:43:32 PM
I was going to mention this somewhere else, but Corpse Bride is underrated as fuck.
This.
In all honestly, I like Corpse Bride just as much as A Nightmare Before Christmas.
Just watched 30 minutes of Van Hellsing... I'm still a loss for words as to how I thought this movie was cool when I was a kid. The only redeeming feature is Hugh Jackman giving a good performance. Everything else is just horrid.
My stepmom's ex-son-in-law was Frankenstein in that movie.
I will forever hate that movie with a burning passion for pretty much ruining one of the most classic lines in cinema history from my favorite movie ever made.
Welp, I just saw the Wolverine. I honestly enjoyed it a lot. Granted, if you're sick of super hero movies, this won't blow you away or make you change your mind. But I had enough fun with it to not feel like I wasted my time.
Oh, I forgot to mention that I saw it two weeks ago. It was a fun action movie.
Better than the first in any case.
I posted my thoughts on it a few weeks ago, but yeah, it didn't do much for me, personally.
Also, speaking of movies that we saw a while back and never talked about, I saw The Conjuring on the weekend of its release. Honestly, it's probably the best horror movie that I've seen from the past decade or so, which isn't necessarily saying too much considering how much garbage we got out of the last 10 - 15 years of horror flicks, but suffice it to say that I found the movie to be legitimately good. It didn't actually scare me, but the atmosphere was great, there was way less reliance on blood, gore, and shock value than you would expect, and the movie had a lot of legitimately tense and creepy moments to it. I also found the characters likable, so that's a big plus. It's certainly nothing groundbreaking, but it really made me feel relieved to see a really well-made modern horror movie after so many years.
Just now finally got the chance to watch G.I. Joe: Retaliation with my mom. It wasn't one of the best actions ever, but it was decent. I liked that there was more character development in this one. Some of the action scenes were good, but jumping camera made others a bit bland. I really liked whoever played Firefly, he stole the show in this for me. My mom said she liked it. I didn't hate the first one, but this one was better.
It looks like TCM got the rights back to Hitch's Universal films, as they're airing a bunch of his movies basically all of Sunday. No Vertigo, but they are putting on Psycho, The Birds, Shadow of a Doubt, and some other great ones. Even a couple of his silent films later at night.
If you've got nothing to do on Sunday, bam.
I'm almost done with Batman Returns.
What a strange little movie. I enjoyed it, but I honestly couldn't tell you how much.
I've watched three movies in the last week, and I might as well talk about 'em.
Last Friday I finally got around to watching Urusei Yatsura: The Final Chapter. It's an adaption of the final 11 chapters of the manga, so it's not like the plot was anything new to me, but dammit, I still got feels from the film. The emotional core centers around Lum and Ataru's relationship, and tests how much they really feel for each other, and also the relationship and friendships of everyone in the cast as well. And really, that was the perfect way to cap off the series. Ataru and Lum's relationship wasn't supposed to go to any concrete conclusion, but the film ended things at an obvious resolution to how strongly they do care about each other, and even if some call it a "non-ending," I think it's probably one of the best endings that could have been written for the series. And it was really funny in classic Urusei Yatsura style, too, so I thoroughly enjoyed it, and because I'm pretty biased when it comes to stuff I really like, the movie has a pretty inflated place on my favorite movies list. Still, any Urusei Yatsura fan would and is probably pleased with the movie, and even if it isn't as inventive as Beautiful Dreamer it's still one of the best shonen manga-based anime movies I've ever seen, and as a whole the entire Urusei Yatsura film series is composed of great anime movies that, while to best enjoy them you need to be familiar with and like the series, stand far above your typical shonen anime movie quality and are simply legitimately good films. Now that I'm done with the movies I'll try to go through the entire anime as well, mostly because this really is one of my favorite mangas and the films stand as some of the best anime films I've seen, so I'll can't rest until I've seen all the franchise has to offer. ;D
Last Thursday I saw Lee Daniels' The Butler. I think the usage of a man's, or rather - a family's, experiences through life living through the civil rights struggle under several presidential administrations was effectively developed and portrayed, and I found it an interesting story overall. I think the core of the movie, a man's developing understanding of what it takes to achieve equality and his relationship with his son through trying times, was quite well done and emotional, so I was satisfied with the journey by the end. I think it's a good film that's worth checking out if you wan't something different from the typical action flick or raunchy comedy.
...And speaking of comedies, today I watched The World's End, which was a riot. I enjoy smart, witty comedies and this was a breath of fresh air after a summer devoid of them. It's twist is completely out of left field, but the movie succeeds in suspending your disbelief of it by tying the twist in with Gary's struggle to move on in his life and past his idealized youth, and because of the connection and chemistry he has with his old friends. The twist also succeeds by being developed interestingly and explained somewhat reasonably, and in the big climax lead to an absolutely hilarious, and subversive, sequence, with a great ending I didn't even think they'd go for. Overall this was one of the highlights of my movie-watching experience this summer, Urusei Yatsura 4: Lum the Forever and Urusei Yatsura 5: The Final Chapter being the other strongest ones, and I'm glad I finally got to watch a nice, over the top but sincere comedy like this after a long, long time. :)
Ghost Rider.
A movie about a bounty hunter biker-demon with a flaming skull head should not be that boring.
Sounds like Nicolas Cage at work to me.
I couldn't feel Cage as Ghost Rider at all, and I'm not even that familiar with the character or his history.
Fun Fact: Ghost Rider is my most hated comic-book film ever. Now, to be clear, there are much worse comic-book movies out there, but the difference here is that I actually paid money to see Ghost Rider in theaters. I actively wasted my time and money on this piece of shit, and absolutely hated every second of it, so I have a personal grudge against this film. I mean, even other bad films like X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Transformers didn't actually bore me to near death since they were at least bad in a way that was kind of amusing to make fun of (and the former had some admittedly cool action scenes), but Ghost Rider just failed on every single level. Believe it or not, I heard that the sequel's even worse, but obviously I never bothered watching it (honestly, I can't even believe the movie even got a sequel to begin with).
So, what does everyone think about the second one?
With GR's premise, I was expecting a campy, over-the-top, fast-paced action/horror movie. Instead I got a movie with erratic pacing, half-assed fight scenes, boring romantic drama with shallow characters, and a crappy climax and ending(why they didn't have Carter Slide fight alongside Johnny against Blackheart is anyone's guess). Also, fuck them for not using Blackheart's comic design.
If any Marvel movie franchise needed a reboot, it's this stinker.
Quote from: Avaitor on September 02, 2013, 01:55:35 PM
So, what does everyone think about the second one?
One word:
Bile. Calling it garbage would be too kind.
The first Ghost Rider was just a so-so watch for me. It was... interesting that they had both the bike and Peter Fonda along from Easy Rider in this movie. The only scene that still gives me goosebumps to this day (and there is hardly anything that does this!) was the first detailed motorcycle transformation scene. That was actually badass.
The second movie shouldn't have ever been released. It was a boring, unlikable snorefest. Possibly the first movie I've seen in the theater where I wanted my money back. :il_rope:
I almost went to The Birds 50th anniversary festival for Labor Day weekend, but ended up just settling with watching the movie. It starts really slowly but once they attack it gets fun.
Can I watch the second Ghost Rider without having seen the first one?
Just watched Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance. Overall, while it's not a good movie, I thought it was way more entertaining than the first one. There are quite a few bad scenes, but at least they were hilariously bad as opposed to boring as fuck. Cage wasn't quite as a bore, and I thought Idris Elba was good too. About the only things I think the first movie did better was the motorcycle, and the jacket. The fact that it has GR setting more people on fire also helps heighten my overall opinion.
As for watching it without seeing the original: the only characters from Ghost Rider 1 that appear in the sequel are Johnny Blaze and Mephisto, if that helps any, and there's a recap at the beginning explaining GR's origin.
I watched Pan's Labyrinth, End of Evangelion, and the Seventh Seal today.
Yup.
Quote from: ShadowGentleman on September 22, 2013, 10:03:26 PM
I watched Pan's Labyrinth, End of Evangelion, and the Seventh Seal today.
Yup.
How are you still sane? :o
Quote from: Foggle on September 22, 2013, 10:13:05 PM
Quote from: ShadowGentleman on September 22, 2013, 10:03:26 PM
I watched Pan's Labyrinth, End of Evangelion, and the Seventh Seal today.
Yup.
How are you still sane? :o
Sometime after enduring After After Story, I just stopped caring.
Quote from: ShadowGentleman on September 22, 2013, 10:23:37 PM
Quote from: Foggle on September 22, 2013, 10:13:05 PM
Quote from: ShadowGentleman on September 22, 2013, 10:03:26 PM
I watched Pan's Labyrinth, End of Evangelion, and the Seventh Seal today.
Yup.
How are you still sane? :o
Sometime after enduring After After Story, I just stopped caring.
Life is beautiful. It's a wonderful life.
Quote from: Foggle on September 22, 2013, 10:27:02 PM
Quote from: ShadowGentleman on September 22, 2013, 10:23:37 PM
Quote from: Foggle on September 22, 2013, 10:13:05 PM
Quote from: ShadowGentleman on September 22, 2013, 10:03:26 PM
I watched Pan's Labyrinth, End of Evangelion, and the Seventh Seal today.
Yup.
How are you still sane? :o
Sometime after enduring After After Story, I just stopped caring.
Life is beautiful. It's a wonderful life.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2F7dfe3f5c4e23ce55177a10aa9d2c416b%2Ftumblr_mjf1wt8ku11rjfi2yo1_500.gif&hash=3e6da20963f31d8a960db9234115632cf128cfca)
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2F97fb01ade3aff8b9dd1e17e1637bb305%2Ftumblr_mjf1wt8ku11rjfi2yo2_500.gif&hash=d94c96ca01870f3b4eaf741b4596bd9678ecebbb)
Another 3 months, another list of every movie I've seen since my last spam.
Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
Wreck-It Ralph
Mean Streets
Bedknobs and Broomsticks
Lars and the Real Girl
Key Largo
Waiting for Guffman
Something Wicked This Way Comes
Fantasia
Monsters, Inc.
Monsters University
The Bride Wore Black
Intacto
Love Her Madly
Volver
Fun and Fancy Free
The Virgin Spring
Bright Lights, Big City
The Dream Team
The Sin of Harold Diddlebock
The Manchurian Candidate
A Bug?s Life
Sling Blade
An American Werewolf in London
Short Cuts
Old Yeller
Dumbo
One Flew Over the Cuckoo?s Nest
Casino
Casablanca
Midnight Cowboy
Tarzan
The Baron of Arizona
Ruggles of Red Gap
The Lion King
Alice in Wonderland
Greenberg
Betty Blue
Mister Roberts
Hyde Park on Hudson
Seven Samurai
The Sword in the Stone
Dark Victory
Blood Simple
Antichrist
The Bridge on the River Kwai
Time
Batman
Wet Hot American Summer
Sleeping Beauty
The Parent Trap
The Wolverine
Elmer Gantry
My Dinner With Andre
The Purple Rose of Cairo
Batman Returns
Evangelion 2.22: You Can (Not) Advance
The Birds
Psycho
The Lodger
Slaughterhouse-Five
Diner
Sexy Beast
The Thin Red Line
The Wrong Man
Swiss Family Robinson
Aladdin
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
The Darjeeling Limited
Who Can Kill a Child?
White Fang
State and Maine
Don?t Look Now
Lifeboat
Easy Rider
The Big Parade
Day for Night
The Time Machine
Flash Gordon
Scrooged
Machete Kills was everything I was expecting and more.
Yesterday I watched 2 horror movies.
One was Re-Animator, which I found to be a lot of campy fun. It's not nearly as good as Return of the Living Dead in that regard, but it has enough of its moments to still be a really entertaining watch.
The other film I watched was Universal's 1931 version of Dracula. While I still hold a lot of respect for the film as a big part of cinema history, I do have to admit that it just hasn't aged well at all. As one of the earlier films to feature sound and actual voices, it felt rather clumsy. I do feel that the lack of music throughout the picture actually did help to make it feel a tad creepier, but it still mostly came off as pretty goofy in this day and age, and there were a lot of scenes where nobody was talking or making any noise, and the silence came off as feeling awkward rather than doing anything to enhance the atmosphere. Also, Dracula's death in this movie was an utter joke in how completely anticlimactic it was. Van Helsing Just stabs him with stake while he's in his coffin....and that's pretty much it. The end. Yeah, I had to roll my eyes at that a little bit. It doesn't have to be the most over-dramatic death scene to be good, but I have to admit that I much prefer the way that Nosferatu was off'ed, myself. Still, if you're in the right mood for this kind of thing, it can be a fairly entertaining watch for what it is.
Yeah, Universal's Dracula is based off of the stage version, which shares some of the same problems in the film version. And like you said, being an earlier talkie definitely shows its limitations. I still give the film props for Lugosi and the cinematography, however.
And it's funny, I was planning to watch Re-Animator soon, myself. I'll tell you what I think about it.
I love Re-Animator. :D
In my opinion, Bela Lugosi is what makes the 1931 Universal Dracula movie work. Any scene without him is just kind of boring to me. I even think Dwight Frye as Renfield (a performance that people seem to love) is just bad. Last year I checked out the Spanish version, and as James Rolfe said, it's better than the American version. The acting is better, the cinematography is better, and there are minor story differences in it that are just more interesting. The guy who plays Dracula isn't quite as good as Lugosi though, but he's still great and he at least didn't make me constantly wish I was watching Lugosi instead.
Quote from: Avaitor on October 13, 2013, 02:29:44 PMYeah, Universal's Dracula is based off of the stage version, which shares some of the same problems in the film version. And like you said, being an earlier talkie definitely shows its limitations. I still give the film props for Lugosi and the cinematography, however.
The funny thing is, while watching this film, I could see how it would work better as a stage show. As a movie, though, it feels very clumsy in quite a few places. But, yeah, the cinematography is definitely ahead of its time hear, especially given the limited sets that they had to work with on this movie. And, of course, Lugosi is really captivating in whatever scenes he's in. That said, I do feel that they really overused that shot of his eyes glaring down at the screen. It was memorable the first time that they did it, and each time after that it got less and less effective.
QuoteAnd it's funny, I was planning to watch Re-Animator soon, myself. I'll tell you what I think about it.
It's and 80's film that has a fair share of its own stupid moments that you would expect to find in 80's horror flicks, but it gets away with most of them since they come off as completely intentional, and the film is obviously self-aware that it's ridiculous.
Quote from: Foggle on October 13, 2013, 02:34:07 PMI love Re-Animator. :D
Just out of curiosity, have you seen Return of the Living Dead?
Personally, I think it stands alongside Evil Dead 2 as probably the best of the "intentionally campy horror movie" genre. ;D
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on October 13, 2013, 02:39:00 PM
Just out of curiosity, have you seen Return of the Living Dead?
No, but I've really been meaning to. Should try to sit down and watch it soon, since it's October and all.
My favorite horror comedy might be An American Werewolf in London.
Oh Foggle, you've got to see Return of the Living Dead.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on October 13, 2013, 03:03:43 PMMy favorite horror comedy might be An American Werewolf in London.
I agree, but it's legitimately good comedy AND legitimately good horror, which is why I don't actually consider it to be a campy movie in the same vein as Return of the Living Dead or Re-Animator, hence why I didn't mention it with those movies. But yeah, it is basically my favorite combination of horror and comedy put to film. I guess if I were to do a top 6 list, it would be:
1. An American Werewolf in London
2. Return of the Living Dead
3. Hot Fuzz
4. Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn
5. The Host
6. They Live
You could argue that I'm kind of cheating with The Host, since it's more of a monster movie than a horror movie, but fuck it, I just count that as a sub-genre of horror, myself. If I had seen enough horror comedies to make a top 10 list, than Re-Animator would probably on there, but there are still a bunch that I need to see, including Zombieland (which, unfortunately, I don't think is ever going on Netflix).
Oh, and before anyone mentions it, I personally don't count the Ghostbusters movies as horror comedies. To me, they are clearly just comedy movies with a lot of special effects. They don't ever skew the line down the middle like the other movies on my list. That said, if I were ever to do a top 10 list of my top 10 favorite comedy movies in general, both of them would be on there (and yes, I mean BOTH of them).
Come to think of it, it's also been way too long since I've seen either Gremlins or its sequel. In fact, let me just check....
**Leaves Momentarily**
**Returns**
....Yeah, fuck you, Netflix! :anger:
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on October 13, 2013, 03:24:37 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on October 13, 2013, 03:03:43 PMMy favorite horror comedy might be An American Werewolf in London.
I agree, but it's legitimately good comedy AND legitimately good horror, which is why I don't actually consider it to be a campy movie in the same vein as Return of the Living Dead or Re-Animator, hence why I didn't mention it with those movies. But yeah, it is basically my favorite combination of horror and comedy put to film. I guess if I were to do a top 6 list, it would be:
1. An American Werewolf in London
2. Return of the Living Dead
3. Hot Fuzz
4. Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn
5. The Host
6. They Live
You could argue that I'm kind of cheating with The Host, since it's more of a monster movie than a horror movie, but fuck it, I just count that as a sub-genre of horror, myself. If I had seen enough horror comedies to make a top 10 list, than Re-Animator would probably on there, but there are still a bunch that I need to see, including Zombieland (which, unfortunately, I don't think is ever going on Netflix).
I tend to not think of Hot Fuzz as a horror comedy. It would've been #1 if I counted it though. It actually might be my favorite comedy overall. :P
Most seem to prefer Shaun of the Dead, though. I highly disagree with them.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on October 13, 2013, 03:40:41 PMI tend to not think of Hot Fuzz as a horror comedy. It would've been #1 if I counted it though. It actually might be my favorite comedy overall. :P
Why wouldn't it, though? Despite the fact that the movie is partly a parody of cop-based action films (and maybe just action films in general), it is also a parody of horror films. In fact, the horror/mystery plot takes up way more time than any of the stuff parodying action movies, so to me it fits the bill for a horror comedy. You could argue that just like Ghostbusters its more of a straight-up comedy, and I certainly would agree that it isn't scary in the least (though, most of these movies really aren't scary in the first place), but I would argue back that it still gets some really grotesque imagery in there that's more associated with horror films than comedy, and on top of that a lot of the atmosphere is made to be like that of a horror movie, even if it's the perfect set-up for some great jokes, so overall I think that Hot Fuzz qualifies as a horror comedy. If anything is a bit of a stretch it's probably They Live, but I just had to include that one since I find it to be such an underrated film.
QuoteMost seem to prefer Shaun of the Dead, though. I highly disagree with them.
I thought SotD was OK, myself. Perhaps I need to re-watch it someday, but the first time I saw it, I thought it was amusing and entertaining, but it just didn't make me laugh that much. A lot of the jokes felt a bit too obvious and predictable for me. I thought the comedy writing in Hot Fuzz was a big improvement, personally.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on October 13, 2013, 03:47:59 PM
Why wouldn't it, though? Despite the fact that the movie is partly a parody of cop-based action films (and maybe just action films in general), it is also a parody of horror films. In fact, the horror/mystery plot takes up way more time than any of the stuff parodying action movies, so to me it fits the bill for a horror comedy. You could argue that just like Ghostbusters its more of a straight-up comedy, and I certainly would agree that it isn't scary in the least (though, most of these movies really aren't scary in the first place), but I would argue back that it still gets some really grotesque imagery in there that's more associated with horror films than comedy, and on top of that a lot of the atmosphere is made to be like that of a horror movie, even if it's the perfect set-up for some great jokes, so overall I think that Hot Fuzz qualifies as a horror comedy. If anything is a bit of a stretch it's probably They Live, but I just had to include that one since I find it to be such an underrated film.
You might be right. It does have more horror elements than I remembered when making that post. A lot of the imagery and that cult stuff is horror-like.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on October 13, 2013, 03:47:59 PM
I thought SotD was OK, myself. Perhaps I need to re-watch it someday, but the first time I saw it, I thought it was amusing and entertaining, but it just didn't make me laugh that much. A lot of the jokes felt a bit too obvious and predictable for me. I thought the comedy writing in Hot Fuzz was a big improvement, personally.
I do like Shaun of the Dead, likely more than you did (rewatched it a week or two ago and had a lot of fun), but it wouldn't be in a top 10 comedy list. Definitely not as funny or clever as Hot Fuzz.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on October 13, 2013, 03:40:41 PM
I tend to not think of Hot Fuzz as a horror comedy. It would've been #1 if I counted it though. It actually might be my favorite comedy overall. :P
Most seem to prefer Shaun of the Dead, though. I highly disagree with them.
Same. :D
I LOVE Shaun of the Dead, but Hot Fuzz is clearly the superior film.
I really need to see The World's End, btw.
Also, any of the movies on my list that any of you guys haven't seen are basically perfect recommendations for Halloween season. :thumbup:
Foggle: That means you need to get onto watching An American Werewolf in London and Return of the Living Dead, ASAP.
By the way, I find it funny that Night of the Living Dead branches off into three different continuities.
On one hand, it leads into Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, and so on.
But in another universe, it leads into the events of Return of the Living Dead.
However, there is also a sequel to the "extended" version of Night of the Living Dead that has new (and awful) scenes filmed decades after its release.
Well, that's not technically the case.
In Return of the Living Dead, Night of the Living Dead is referenced to as an actual film that happens to be based off of a real event, but obviously in that case the real event wouldn't have had the same characters from the film, so it wouldn't really be a case of NotLD branching into RotLD. Instead, RotLD just takes place in its own separate Universe in which something similar to NotLD happened, but not that exact same story.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on October 13, 2013, 05:16:18 PM
Well, that's not technically the case.
In Return of the Living Dead, Night of the Living Dead is referenced to as an actual film that happens to be based off of a real event, but obviously in that case the real event wouldn't have had the same characters from the film, so it wouldn't really be a case of NotLD branching into RotLD. Instead, RotLD just takes place in its own separate Universe in which something similar to NotLD happened, but not that exact same story.
True. At the very least though, an event at least
based on Night of the Living Dead leads into three different story branches. :P
I just saw Insidious. Overall, it's not as good as The Conjuring, and it wasn't even really that scary, but at the same time I liked the unique twist it had half-way through, and it certainly was a very interesting film to watch, so count it as one of the better horror movies that I've seen come out of the past few years. Of course, that alone isn't saying much, but considering how many flops this genre has had, its refreshing to see some genuinely good movies come out of it.
Next time I get a chance, I'll look into Sinister.
And coincidentally, my family chose to watch Dracula tonight. I still think it's an all time classic. Lugosi is just perfect. It's just that the acting of everyone else is stiff, with the exception of Renfield who's just chewing the scenery non-stop. I also wonder how Dracula bit Renfield in the first place when he was wearing that dangling cross. Also, I remember E-K mentioned earlier that the shot of Dracula glaring at the screen became less effective the more they did it. I actually kind of think the opposite. The first few times they use it, I don't like it. He uses that glare way too early on in the film. But once he gets his proper introduction in the castle 10 minutes in, I like it from that point on. The Spanish version avoids this issue very well.
I always love seeing it, but as far as Universal horror films go, I certainly like Frankenstein more, as well as Bride of Frankenstein which is my favorite of them. I might even like The Wolf Man more. However, Dracula definitely beats The Mummy.
Every time you see the glair you get more used to it. And it works best at the beginning when Dracula is a more mysterious character. Once you learn everything about him, he just seems more human than he should.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on October 13, 2013, 11:23:07 PM
Every time you see the glair you get more used to it. And it works best at the beginning when Dracula is a more mysterious character. Once you learn everything about him, he just seems more human than he should.
There's one part in particular where he uses the glare at the beginning that I don't like. It's right before he drives Renfield to his castle. I always thought he was using it too early right there and made it too obvious to the viewer who he is.
My favorite Universal monster movie is Bud Abbott & Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein. :blush:
That film is comedic perfection.
I don't like all of the time he uses it later on. There's nothing special to the audience about something you've already seen too much before. We already know that it gives off a hypnotic effect when he does it, and it makes sense for him to use it on Renfield, who he needs to bend to his will for plot based reasons. Later on it just feels like recycled footage, though....mostly because it is the same shot just used over again, so saying that it somehow looks better later on doesn't make sense since there's nothing different about it, literally.
I'm not saying it's better later on. I just think it's better kept till once he's properly introduced in the castle, when he uses it on Renfield. Anytime after that whole scene though, I can certainly see where you're coming from.
But seriously, if you guys haven't seen Machete or Machete Kills yet, you have to fix that. Immediately.
Last saturday I saw Gravity. Visually, it was fantastic, but the story was a little contrived at parts, although it was genuinely intense and emotional as well. I'd say it deserves the 97% ratings it has on Rotten Tomatoes, overall.
Aside from The Host, Godzilla: Final Wars is another great blend of monster movie mayhem with some great campy-ass fun (that is obviously intentional in this case). It got plenty of laughs out of me, and the bad-ass moments felt legitimately bad-ass, despite how over-the-top and cheesy they were (which was pretty much intentional, anyways).
Speaking of Godzilla, I'm really bummed that Netflix doesn't have the original film. I watched the edited American version when I was a little kid and barely remember it, but I really want to watch the classic itself in its original, unaltered form.
I'm also interested in seeing both Godzilla: Destroy All Monsters (which I heard was basically the "original" Final Wars type scenario) and Godzilla 1985 (which I heard was a great reboot that brought the series back to its darker roots).
I just watched "Gojira" today. Aside from the obviously crude and dated special effects, as well as some cheesy overacting from some of the supporting cast, the film holds up quite well. I find Serizawa to be a particularly interesting character with the whole moral dilemma that he brings up in wanting to avoid the use of his Oxygen Destroyer. Really, that's this films major strength: Its about the characters and how they react to the horror unfolding before them. In this first film, at least, Godzilla is merely just a metphor to sum up the issues of nuclear warfare that were very relevant to Japan (and arguably the rest of the world) at the time.
Anyways, now to watch the bastardized (but still admittedly entertaining) American version of the film, which I pretty much consider to be a completely different movie for just how freaking different it feels.
Also, I watched the Japanese version on Hulu, whereas Netflix has King of the Monsters, so it figures that one source would have what the other one was missing, and vice versa.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on October 18, 2013, 10:01:06 PM
I just watched "Gojira" today. Aside from the obviously crude and dated special effects, as well as some cheesy overacting from some of the supporting cast, the film holds up quite well. I find Serizawa to be a particularly interesting character with the whole moral dilemma that he brings up in wanting to avoid the use of his Oxygen Destroyer. Really, that's this films major strength: Its about the characters and how they react to the horror unfolding before them. In this first film, at least, Godzilla is merely just a metphor to sum up the issues of nuclear warfare that were very relevant to Japan (and arguably the rest of the world) at the time.
I don't remember all of the special effects. But I do think Godzilla himself looks great still (not saying that's what you're referring to though, I don't know). I really like how the movie treats itself completely seriously and acts like it's a real disaster. I think that's one of the reasons I'm a bit resentful of watching many of the sequels. They present Godzilla as some type of hero who fights
other bad monsters, and many of the movies seem to do so in a really cheesy manner. Course, I haven't seen any of these sequels. But from watching James Rolfe's Godzillathon, I do get a vibe from them that doesn't interest me as Godzilla films.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on October 19, 2013, 12:50:27 PMI don't remember all of the special effects. But I do think Godzilla himself looks great still (not saying that's what you're referring to though, I don't know). I really like how the movie treats itself completely seriously and acts like it's a real disaster. I think that's one of the reasons I'm a bit resentful of watching many of the sequels. They present Godzilla as some type of hero who fights other bad monsters, and many of the movies seem to do so in a really cheesy manner. Course, I haven't seen any of these sequels. But from watching James Rolfe's Godzillathon, I do get a vibe from them that doesn't interest me as Godzilla films.
The shots of his silhouette look great, and when you only seep parts of his body up close, the crude design of the costume actually helps make him look legitimately more intimidating. That said, whenever you see close-ups of his full body, or specifically his face, in the film, it just looks rather goofy. Thankfully that doesn't happen a lot, though, as I'm sure the producers and director were well aware that they really could only show limited amounts of the monster in order to keep it legitimately terrifying for audiences at the time, otherwise people would be able to scrutinize the costume if it was exposed too much in the film, and then they would be able to pick apart all of its problems.
As or the sequels, I've only ever seen a few of them, but most of them are intentionally campy, and were more marketed towards kids. I can't pretend like I'd enjoy most of those, but I did enjoy the last Godzilla film to be made, Final Wars, and I'd like to watch Destroy All Monsters someday, as I've heard that film is incredibly entertaining.
Also, have you seen Godzilla 1985, Talon? It's a reboot of the franchise which was meant to take the series back to its darker routes, even though its own sequels got campy again, and I've heard from some people that it's a pretty good entry in the franchise for those who preferred the style of the original film.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on October 19, 2013, 01:04:56 PM
The shots of his silhouette look great, and when you only seep parts of his body up close, the crude design of the costume actually helps make him look legitimately more intimidating. That said, whenever you see close-ups of his full body, or specifically his face, in the film, it just looks rather goofy. Thankfully that doesn't happen a lot, though, as I'm sure the producers and director were well aware that they really could only show limited amounts of the monster in order to keep it legitimately terrifying for audiences at the time, otherwise people would be able to scrutinize the costume if it was exposed too much in the film, and then they would be able to pick apart all of its problems.
It's been a while since I've seen it, so you're probably right about those certain shots. I hear the sequels didn't do as well a job of making him look fierce, though, and that he looks more cheap in them.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on October 19, 2013, 01:04:56 PMAs or the sequels, I've only ever seen a few of them, but most of them are intentionally campy, and were more marketed towards kids. I can't pretend like I'd enjoy most of those, but I did enjoy the last Godzilla film to be made, Final Wars, and I'd like to watch Destroy All Monsters someday, as I've heard that film is incredibly entertaining.
Those are the movies where all of the monsters come together, right (for Destroy All Monsters' sake, all of the monsters as of that movie's release)? If so, then I do agree that they actually look very entertaining.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on October 19, 2013, 01:04:56 PMAlso, have you seen Godzilla 1985, Talon? It's a reboot of the franchise which was meant to take the series back to its darker routes, even though its own sequels got campy again, and I've heard from some people that it's a pretty good entry in the franchise for those who preferred the style of the original film.
I haven't seen that one yet but I am interested in it. In my last post, I made a careful effort to say I'm resenting of seeing "many" of the sequels, rather than saying I want to avoid all of them. The 1985 movie is definitely not one of those sequels I'd avoid. ;)
Well, the 1985 movie isn't a sequel to begin with, as far as I know. It's a complete series reboot. ;)
And, yes, Destroy All Monsters is where all of the Toho giant monsters come together, and eventually end up kicking alien ass. If you stop to think about it, this movie is essentially The Avengers of giant monster movies, what with it taking different giant monsters who own had their own movie series' and having them all team up together in one feature-film. Hell, both movies even involve an alien attack of some sort! :thumbup:
They added Gone Baby Gone to Netflix here so I'm watching it again.
I still think it's phenomenal.
Eh, I saw the movie in theaters and was bored out of my mind. I never really got the appeal, but I'm in the minority on that, anyways.
As far as Ben Affleck directed movies go, I found The Town to be an improvement, and I thought that Argo was amazing, so I can acknowledge that the guy has talent as a director.
Finished it up and I still like it as much as the first time I've seen it. I still need to see 'The Town', but from this I'd have to say he's pretty underrated as a director.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on October 22, 2013, 08:43:48 PMFinished it up and I still like it as much as the first time I've seen it. I still need to see 'The Town', but from this I'd have to say he's pretty underrated as a director.
Underrated? All 3 of his films so far (unless he's directed more that I don't know about) have gotten positive reviews from critics, and Argo won Best Picture during this year's Academy Awards. I'd say he gets plenty of recognition, myself.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on October 22, 2013, 09:02:31 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on October 22, 2013, 08:43:48 PMFinished it up and I still like it as much as the first time I've seen it. I still need to see 'The Town', but from this I'd have to say he's pretty underrated as a director.
Underrated? All 3 of his films so far (unless he's directed more that I don't know about) have gotten positive reviews from critics, and Argo won Best Picture during this year's Academy Awards. I'd say he gets plenty of recognition, myself.
I've heard quite a few people toss him off because of his reputation as an actor and refuse to give his films a chance. It's more of a perception thing, in my opinion.
Anyway, my friend might have a copy of The Town so I'll try to borrow it from him.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on October 22, 2013, 09:05:44 PMI've heard quite a few people toss him off because of his reputation as an actor and refuse to give his films a chance. It's more of a perception thing, in my opinion.
I'm pretty sure that those people are in the vocal minority, though. I know plenty of people who have seen and loved all of his films. As for me, the only one I didn't like was Gone, Baby, Gone, his first foray into directing a feature-length film, but I think The Town managed to warm me up to his film-making a bit, and Argo just hit it out of the ball park. I certainly wouldn't say that I'm a fan of the guy as a director (and I sure as hell don't care for him as an actor), but I've seen enough good out of those 2 movies to genuinely want to give the next film he happens to direct a viewing.
QuoteAnyway, my friend might have a copy of The Town so I'll try to borrow it from him.
Have you also seen Argo, yet?
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on October 22, 2013, 09:10:10 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on October 22, 2013, 09:05:44 PMI've heard quite a few people toss him off because of his reputation as an actor and refuse to give his films a chance. It's more of a perception thing, in my opinion.
I'm pretty sure that those people are in the vocal minority, though. I know plenty of people who have seen and loved all of his films. As for me, the only one I didn't like was Gone, Baby, Gone, his first foray into directing a feature-length film, but I think The Town managed to warm me up to his film-making a bit, and Argo just hit it out of the ball park. I certainly wouldn't say that I'm a fan of movies that he directs (and I sure as hell don't care for him as an actor), but I've seen enough good out of those 2 movies to genuinely want to give the next film he happens to direct a viewing.
Quite possibly you're right. Though I really did like his first outing quite a bit I'm really eager to see what he did after it since I also heard good things about it. It's just hard to get around to getting films around here and seeing as Netflix JUST got Gone Baby Gone, it'll probably be a long time until it gets either of his follow ups.
QuoteQuoteAnyway, my friend might have a copy of The Town so I'll try to borrow it from him.
Have you also seen Argo, yet?
Pieces, but not the whole thing. From what I saw it looked really good and I enjoyed what I saw. I'll probably watch it the whole way through after I see The Town. I'm definitely interested in seeing him direct more.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on October 22, 2013, 09:19:06 PMThough I really did like his first outing quite a bit
Well, most people would agree with you, anyways. Pretty much everyone else I know loves that movie.
But, I do know that those same people find his other 2 films to be at least as good, if not better, than GBG. Knowing you, I think you'd like them. The main difference is that in both of those films, Ben Affleck stars (in addition to directing) rather than his brother, Casey. While I'm not a fan of the guy as an actor, I guess you could say that he as a director clearly knows how to best utilize himself as an actor in each scene. In The Town, he comes off as a morally gray but also really likable character whose willing to put his life at risk for someone he cares about. In Argo, he's just a really good guy who means well but is scared out of his mind at what he has to do, yet he's the one who takes the initiative to do what no one else is willing to in order to save other people.
Hal Needham has also passed on from this world. Can we talk about how sick Smokey and the Bandit is?
Best of the Best 2
I'm a big martial arts film buff. Probably the main movies I'll watch. The 1st movie is the best in the series, but this one has some nice stuff as well, although, story wise, if that's what you're looking for I'd look elsewhere.
Demolition Man
It's been so long since I've seen this movie, and I don't care what folks say about Wesley Snipes. The man make some great movies, and had some cheesy/awesome lines.
So last night I rewatched Carpenter's The Thing. Still an excellent movie. The special effects are out of this world, but the movie doesn't crutch on them. It's great at suspense.
Also, I noticed something about the ending, that I'm not sure how well known it is.
Spoiler
When MacReady and Childs are sitting at the end, the movie draws a lot of attention to MacReady's breath. Being that it's in a cold location, of course his breath would be really foggy whenever he talks. However, the same can't be said for Childs. When he talks, you don't see anything like that. Very interesting...
Just watched The Cabin in the Woods. I thought it was quite a funny subversion of horror movie tropes myself, but it was definitely more of a comedy than a horror movie, so if it was supposed to be that, it succeeded, but if not, it ended up being enjoyable to me anyways. I also appreciated how it wasn't needlessly and pointlessly gore heavy and the characters didn't act stupid for no good reason, which already made it a better horror movie film than most of the crap that comes out these days, imo. :awesome:
Tonight I decided to watch the first sequel to the Omen again. It's nowhere near as good as the original, but it does have some rather good ideas and its own share of sick imagery.
It's also worth noting that the film was partly responsible for the creation of this little song here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsmcDLDw9iw).
I watched Night of the Living Dead, and then watched James Rolfe's Monster Madness commentary on it. It was hokey in places, but I think the film still holds up. Now I need to rewatch Dawn of the Dead.
Despite what I said, I actually skipped re-watching Dawn of the Dead and went straight to Day of the Dead, which aside from bits and pieces of it, I had never sat down to watch in full before now. Overall, I thought it was really good, and held up to the expected quality set by the other 2 films in the trilogy. I felt that the acting became a bit too hammy, much like Night of the Living Dead, but this movie still had memorable characters, and it easily had the best special effects of the trilogy, including the best looking zombies. Dawn of the Dead, by contrast, had the worst looking zombies, with their biggest defining characteristic mostly being that they were blue, which looked weird more than anything else.
Having said that, though, going in terms of story, writing, and characters, Dawn of the Dead still remains to be my favorite movie on the trilogy. Of course, I do still need to re-watch it, but I remember it having the most likable characters and the mall setting is my favorite set-piece of any zombie movie that I have ever seen.
Next up I'll re-watch Dawn of the Dead, and then finally move onto Land of the Dead, which I honestly haven't seen yet.
Finally saw Star Trek Into Darkness, and... huh. I was on board with the first one, but how did this get bette reviews than Iron Man 3 and Thor 2?
I liked it better than Thor 2, myself. That movie was fun, but more so for the action than anything else. I also wasn't a big fan of Into Darkness, but that movie at least attempted to have a plot and character development. In some regards it worked, but in other aspects it fell really flat. Overall it was an OK movie that got really overhyped by people.
As for Iron Man 3, it was definitely a solid watch, but I still wouldn't call it great. Personally, as far as the MCU phase 2 movies go, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the one that I've been the most interested in seeing. As far as the movies go, he's by far my favorite character.
I just watched Land of the Dead. While I liked the idea of zombies learning and evolving into a sort of society, it's clear that Romero lost his touch after 20 years since Dawn of the Dead. He relied on way to many horror movie cliches, including jump scares. And, while the strength of the original trilogy was in its strong characters, this movie's characters felt mostly forgettable (except for Dennis Hopper's laughably over the top villain). That said, I still found the movie to be entertaining for what it was, but it certainly didn't feel as cleverly written or as tightly paced as the first 3 films, IMO.
Here's how I would rank/rate them:
1. Dawn of the Dead - 10/10
2. Day of the Dead - 9/10
3. Night of the Living Dead - 8/10
4. Land of the Dead - 5/10
Apparently, I feel I must watch that Beatles Anthology documentary. Maybe this should count as television, but I'm doing it for Letterboxd.com and they dictate titles by Video Release... I've only gotten part 1 down. 78 minutes. There are a good 8 more hours to go, in 7 further installments. (Obviously, I'm fascinated but... it's SO long.)
Beetlejuice 2 is happening. (http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/michael-keaton-says-beetlejuice-2-is-happening/325390)
Strangely enough, I'm interested. Michael Keaton coming back is a plus, and Burton seems to be able to come back to his roots decently when he tries. Just keep Johnny and Helena away for once. Danny can stay, though.
I haven't seen Beetlejuice since I was a kid, wonder if it still holds up?
Saw The Lives of Others recently. Great movie, definitely one of the best movies of the past 6-7 years. It works equally well as a character study, about a man who begins to doubt the system he has believed in and as a very suspenseful thriller. Oh, and did I mention that the ending was one of the best I've seen for a movie? Easily up there with the endings of say The Third Man or even (dare I say it?) Casablanca.
Basically, check this movie out. That is, if you haven't already.
Quote from: Pharass on November 26, 2013, 08:56:57 AMI haven't seen Beetlejuice since I was a kid, wonder if it still holds up?
It's pre-
Ed Wood Tim Burton. That just stands for "it will hold up forever."
I wouldnt count Hot Fuzz or They Live myself. I like Fuzz more than Shaun myself. A rewatch made me really appreciate the movie.
edit
I finally caught up in this thread. I will see if Netflix on Xbox has...
Best Of The Best I and II
Both Machetes
An American Werewolf In London
Reanimator
The Host
Cemetary Man
and I should rewatch Day and maybe the of the Dead prequels. I really should rewatch The Thing too. That might soldify it as my absolute favorite film.
12 Years A Slave made me depressed about the cruel evils that human beings are capable of. Great film, though.
After complaining about the Beatles Anthology part 1, guess what? Finished 2-8 In One Day. 75 minutes a piece, 7 parts, one day. (This was 2 weeks ago, for info's sake.)
I'm posting this in the movie section because... Terrence Malick (good an excuse as any). I'd rather watch this again right now than 1 hour of a TM flick. Anyway, now I want to go borrow all my roommate's Beatles CD's and browse their discography. For some reason (even though I really don't care for stuff like "She Loves You" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand").
Just saw Snow Angels. Solid, but emotionally draining for sure.
A film blog I follow posted a top 5 list for newbies into film to check out. (http://theartofmoviestills.tumblr.com/post/69541213671/top-five-films-youd-recomend-to-someone-who-is-just)
What do ya'll think about it? I think it's a great list.
Looking further into this guy's work, (http://theartofmoviestills.tumblr.com/post/45093574601/harmony-korine) and I'm raising some eyebrows. (http://freeteawithpurchase.com/post/28470564317/the-dark-knight) I like his Blurry of Movie Stills though.
He's a bit of a snob, yeah(okay, more like a lot of a snob), but I like reading through his blog more often then not.
Totally agree with him on Only God Forgives, too.
Quote from: Avaitor on December 09, 2013, 10:18:36 PM
A film blog I follow posted a top 5 list for newbies into film to check out. (http://theartofmoviestills.tumblr.com/post/69541213671/top-five-films-youd-recomend-to-someone-who-is-just)
Looks like I know where I should start, then.
Quote from: Cartoon X on December 09, 2013, 10:37:09 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on December 09, 2013, 10:18:36 PM
A film blog I follow posted a top 5 list for newbies into film to check out. (http://theartofmoviestills.tumblr.com/post/69541213671/top-five-films-youd-recomend-to-someone-who-is-just)
Looks like I know where I should start, then.
Oh, they're all really great films, each for varied reasons. :)
North by Northwest is perfectly paced to the point that it feels as fresh as any blockbuster you can see in theaters, but with a sharper script and tighter direction than you'll usually see. You can't really go wrong with anything Hitch did from this era, but here's a great introduction to the golden age of Hollywood.
The Graduate, meanwhile, has ideals that are uniquely 60's, but most everything feels as relevant today as the film did back in its release. Mike Nichols' vivid direction, the dialogue which adds layers to each of its characters, Simon & Garfunkel's classic contributions. For an idea of how American cinema changed in the late 60's into today's offerings, this is certainly recommended.
The 400 Blows is basically the French New Wave encompassed into one film. All I really need to say.
Honestly, I need to watch Sherlock, Jr. again, but I have great memories of it. Keaton and Chaplin are always good beginners for silent cinema though.
And Boogie Nights is just awesome sauce in a film. P.T. Anderson is one of the best we have out there, but I don't think he topped this one. It also has one of the best soundtracks used in a film on the top of my head.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on December 09, 2013, 10:33:28 PM
Looking further into this guy's work, (http://theartofmoviestills.tumblr.com/post/45093574601/harmony-korine) and I'm raising some eyebrows. (http://freeteawithpurchase.com/post/28470564317/the-dark-knight)
"Hopefully, some will become interested in arthouse film and will have Spring Breakers as their gateway film into deeper film criticism."
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yeah, that's the kind of talk that further widens the gap between arthouse fans and everyone else.
Okay, yeah, no.
Harmony Korine.
No.
Harmony Korine is why people hate hipsters.
So we tested out the new Blu-Ray today, and since the new Mary Poppins release came out today, that was the first Blu we watched on there.
Looks as good as ever.
I just re-watched The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Overall, I still hold my opinion that it was a good movie. That said, there were certainly a few scenes that could have been cut from the movie entirely. Anyways, I'm really excited for The Desolation of Smaug, which I plan to see sometime this weekend.
I liked The Hobbit, too. I just didn't like it on the same level as the LotR trilogy, and I agree there are scenes that could've been cut.
That said, I feel like one of the only people who liked the "Lord of the Rings fanservice". You know, the scenes with Frodo, Saruman, etc. Maybe they weren't entirely necessary. But for me, it was just nice seeing those things again.
I'd like to rewatch it before seeing the next movie.
From what I can tell, critics are still going kind of hard on TDOS, but most also seem to like it better than AUJ, and seeing as how I really liked AUJ, it looks like I'll enjoy this one at least as much. Still, I have no idea what Jackson will do to flesh out a third film. The Battle of Five Armies would be the only major event left from the book after this movie is done, and that alone certainly doesn't contain enough plot to sustain an entire movie.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on December 12, 2013, 01:19:23 PM
From what I can tell, critics are still going kind of hard on TDOS, but most also seem to like it better than AUJ, and seeing as how I really liked AUJ, it looks like I'll enjoy this one at least as much. Still, I have no idea what Jackson will do to flesh out a third film. The Battle of Five Armies would be the only major event left from the book after this movie is done, and that alone certainly doesn't contain enough plot to sustain an entire movie.
My prediction is that he will come up with some sort of way to really bridge the gap between the Hobbit trilogy and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I personally can't imagine how that will be done. He might have to
really flesh out some of Tolkien's material.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on December 12, 2013, 01:27:55 PM
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on December 12, 2013, 01:19:23 PM
From what I can tell, critics are still going kind of hard on TDOS, but most also seem to like it better than AUJ, and seeing as how I really liked AUJ, it looks like I'll enjoy this one at least as much. Still, I have no idea what Jackson will do to flesh out a third film. The Battle of Five Armies would be the only major event left from the book after this movie is done, and that alone certainly doesn't contain enough plot to sustain an entire movie.
My prediction is that he will come up with some sort of way to really bridge the gap between the Hobbit trilogy and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I personally can't imagine how that will be done. He might have to really flesh out some of Tolkien's material.
I guess making the final battle have more parts and strategy and adding many more events and scenes, though that's still not going to fill out three hours.
I still stick by my opinion that two 2 hour movies would have been fine.
I saw TDOS today. Overall, I really enjoyed it. My problems with this one were the same as with the first movie, in that I found the scenes foreshadowing Sauron's return to be unecessary, and they felt like padding to me. Everything that was actually adapted from the book itself was great though, IMO. While its been a long while since I last read the book, I definitely noticed that Jackson made some changes, most notably by giving Bard a lot more character moments than I remember him getting in the book, and adding Legolas into the story (who I don't even remember being in the book; though if he was then his role must have been expanded for the film), but I'm personally OK with stiff like that. My only major gripe with the film is where it chose to leave off.
Spoiler
It's where Smaug leaves the mountain and is just about to attack the Lake Town
I hate it when movies leave off in what's clearly the middle of an ordeal that should have either been concluded in this film or completely saved for the next one. That said, I will say that Smaug in this movie was AWESOME! They really nailed him down, from his deep and intimidating voice to how well they animated his incredibly forceful and vicious style of motion. Smaug by far had the best visual effects that I've seen in any film in this series. It even manages to put the animation and effects of the Fellbeast from the Rings trilogy to shame. I won't spoil anything, but there is a chase scene with Smaug that some could argue is too drawn out, but I honestly loved every minute of seeing him animated on screen, so I personally can't complain about it.
Overall, I'd say that this movie was a little better than the first one, which I already rather enjoyed. It's still far off from being on par with the Rings trilogy, but it's also one of the better movies that I've seen this year, personally.
How would you rank all the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit films, E-K?
Legolas wasn't in the Hobbit, I assume they added him to try to hook the LOTR crowd even though it is a very different story from that.
Nice impressions. I hope to see it soon.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on December 13, 2013, 11:03:49 PMLegolas wasn't in the Hobbit, I assume they added him to try to hook the LOTR crowd even though it is a very different story from that.
Yeah, I read the book about a decade or so ago and I certainly don't remember him being in it. He really didn't have much purpose in this movie anyways, which is how you could tell, but he did admittedly have some really cool action scenes that were pretty impressively choreographed. I didn't mind him being in the sequence involving the Wood Elves, but having that whole scene where orcs attack the Lake Town and he helps fight them off was a bit much. I think Jackson could've done without that whole sequence entirely, especially since I don't remember that being in the book, either.
QuoteNice impressions. I hope to see it soon.
I think that you'll enjoy this one if you liked the last one, but conversely anyone who didn't care for the last one won't feel any different about this one either. A lot of it depends on how well you can accept the liberties that Jackson has taken with the source material, which personally I'm mostly fine with (and it's not as though we didn't already see him take a TON of liberties with the Rings trilogy as well).
Quote from: talonmalon333 on December 13, 2013, 10:30:28 PM
How would you rank all the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit films, E-K?
I like both Hobbit films about close to as much as Fellowship of the Ring (which is great, but also my least favorite film in the Rings trilogy), and I like both The Two Towers and The Return of the King the best, with the latter being my favorite film in the series.
I don't believe the orcs directly attack Lake Town in the book. Lake Town is mostly a Smaug thing.
Then again, I'm not looking for 100% faithfulness when I could just read the book. I'm sure there's much more with Gandalf and the Necromancer in these movies, for instance, when it is only casually referred to in the boo kbut if it serves the film medium then I'm okay with it as long as it's well done. The only thing that gets to be a bit much is trying to recapture the LOTR-lightning-in-a-bottle when the Hobbit has always been a more whimsical and light story compared to LOTR when everything is far more dire and serious.
Thanks to other spirited opinions (https://twitter.com/ANNZac/status/411711173369683968), I'll probably see the movie next week instead of wait for all the movies to come out as planned. If it managed to piss off that guy by that much, then I'll be bound to have an interesting watch.
Is he a hardcore Tolkien fan by any chance? Those types can't seem to stand any of these movies.
Peter O'Toole is dead :(
RIP. From what I heard he was a good man.
Im watching Airheads now, and it's good!
But I just can't believe this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZtT5Fr-Meg) exists.
I watched 2 horror movies within the past few days, one classic and one relatively recent one.
Rosemarry's Baby is the classic, and it definitely deserves to be called that. However, I can't say that it's a movie that necessarily appeals to me on a personal level, so while I can recognize it as a great film, I can't really call it a favorite of mine, and I doubt I'd want to watch it a second time, though in a way that may just be testament to how successful it is at being incredibly disturbing.
The more recent movie I watched was Sinister, which came out last year. I honestly quite liked it a great deal more than I expected to. It's a film that got pretty mixed reception, but I found the acting to be quite good for the genre, and I like how it takes genre tropes and cliches and mixes them together to make something that, while not feeling entirely original, feels very well-crafted and appropriately suspenseful. It's also one of the few movies with a twist ending that actually works for me in that it makes sense of things, rather than just being a twist for the sake of having one. I wouldn't say it's quite as good as The Conjuring, as far as recent horror movies go, but I'd put it a rating above Insidious, making it one of the 3 horror movies that I've seen from the past few years that is actually watchable (and IMO, good).
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on December 22, 2013, 05:07:10 PM
Rosemarry's Baby is the classic, and it definitely deserves to be called that. However, I can't say that it's a movie that necessarily appeals to me on a personal level, so while I can recognize it as a great film, I can't really call it a favorite of mine, and I doubt I'd want to watch it a second time, though in a way that may just be testament to how successful it is at being incredibly disturbing.
That's actually one of my all time favorites. In fact, it was probably 3rd when I make a top movie list some time ago. I would recommend watching it again someday, as seeing it fully knowing how it ends makes for quite an experience, and you also notice things you didn't before. For me it's like Vertigo where it truly gets better and better the more I watch it.
I just saw Saving Mr. Banks. I know the film has a bit of controversy behind it due to particular facts about P.L. Travers' life which are glossed over or ignored completely, and yes, there are some inaccuracies, but as a drama, I very much liked it. The acting is great all around, and there's a strong story set behind it.
I'm glad I went.
A few nights ago, I rewatched the first Hobbit. I do think it's still a good, but heavily flawed, movie. And I do think it's a shame that this franchise will never reach the heights of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. That's something I feel confident on.
In keeping with my Christmas tradition, I just got done rewatching Black Christmas. It's certainly one of the best slashers, one of the few I'd truly call a "very good" film. Though I will say that it's not elevated to that status until after you see it for the first time. I won't say why, but until it after you see it, it's only a good film.
Anchorman 2
Not quite as good or quotable as the first, but still a lot of fun. Glad I went.
You know, it's weird. I'm usually the pickiest person in my groups of friends when it comes to modern comedies, because, well, most of them suck, but I don't think I have any friends who are fans of Anchorman. At least not as much as I am.
I don't get it. But yeah, that's why I still haven't seen 2.
I watched The World's End again with my family. The film's message really speaks to me, and Gary King is probably the best character Simon Pegg's ever played. It really is an amazing movie.
I saw Desolation of Smaug tonight. As someone who wasn't too fond of the first movie (I liked it, but nothing more), to me, they got it right this time. It's still no where near the level of Fellowship or the other two originals. But this is kind of what I hoped the first Hobbit was going to be like last year, in terms of quality. If I had two complaints, it would be that the romance between Kate and the dwarf wasn't handled particularly well, and I started to feel the length as the movie neared its end (Jackson just handled the pace of 3-4.5 hour movies better with the original trilogy). One nitpick is that I didn't see the point of showing Sauron appear as that big knight in the center of the eye. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point that Sauron can appear in any form, and that the knight form was just a form he took in battle? Again though, just a nitpick.
Now that that's out of the way, I'll get onto the good. First of all, Smaug was great in this movie. His voice and design were perfect. And I think it's like the first movie where Bilbo's confrontation with Gollum was the best part of the film. In this one, it's his confrontation with Smaug. I also think the dwarves felt more like real characters in this movie. And one of the most important things is that it had a consistently serious tone. I found it frustrating how the first movie had no consistent tone, and I thought the humor got tiring quickly. This movie is serious from start to finish. Overall, it was just more enjoyable for me. And it definitely leaves me looking forward to seeing the next movie.
In that regard, though, the first movie was closer in tone to the book, which was more of a fun adventure story than a dark and moody piece. It was Jackson's doing to try and make this feel more epic like the Rings trilogy, but just being darker for the sake of it doesn't make a story feel more epic.
And as for the pacing, the reason is simple. The Rings trilogy had better pacing because Jackson had a wealth of source material to draw from, and if anything, he had to rush through the story by cutting out significant chunks from the books. The Hobbit trilogy, on the other hand, is based on comparatively limited source material, so it REALLY has to be stretched to make 3 films. That of course means long, drawn-out scenes along with a whole-lot of filler. Yes, Jackson just pulled a Dragon Ball Z with this adaptation.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on December 29, 2013, 01:21:43 AM
In that regard, though, the first movie was closer in tone to the book, which was more of a fun adventure story than a dark and moody piece. It was Jackson's doing to try and make this feel more epic like the Rings trilogy, but just being darker for the sake of it doesn't make a story feel more epic.
True, but I think it just came off as a bit too childish with the dwarf belching and the "Three Stooges" style orcs. I might just not remember perfectly some of the stuff in the book. Perhaps it was just less noticeable there because, as you say, in the movie Jackson tried to mix it in with the more serious style of the Lord of the Rings films.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on December 29, 2013, 01:21:43 AMAnd as for the pacing, the reason is simple. The Rings trilogy had better pacing because Jackson had a wealth of source material to draw from, and if anything, he had to rush through the story by cutting out significant chunks from the books. The Hobbit trilogy, on the other hand, is based on comparatively limited source material, so it REALLY has to be stretched to make 3 films. That of course means long, drawn-out scenes along with a whole-lot of filler. Yes, Jackson just pulled a Dragon Ball Z with this adaptation.
That's about right, but someone could also make the argument that this wouldn't be an issue if he just made The Hobbit into a single, 2 hour film (which I imagine could be done, or 2.5 hour at most). Personally, I do welcome him fleshing it out into a trilogy by taking things from all over Tolkien's Middle Earth universe (maybe it's just because I really love this world). But in the process, by doing that you're bound to get some things that drag.
Also, one thing I noticed was that the dwarf theme, which was very prominent in the first movie, wasn't in this movie much, if at all (I don't remember hearing it at any point). I don't mean that as a positive or negative. It's just something I noticed.
EDIT: Looking at him again... Smaug looks so good, he actually looks like a practical effect.
Spoiler
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F7%2F75%2FSmaugmoviestill.jpg&hash=09aa0191fd7a112d3a772a672bc9e210a0518a73)
It probably felt childish because it was a children's book. It was written long before LOTR and for an entirely different audience.
The story simply takes place over a large amount of time which is why one film probably wouldn't have been enough, but the whole thing could have been fit into two 2 and a half hour films and no one would have been the wiser.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on December 29, 2013, 09:03:56 PMIt probably felt childish because it was a children's book. It was written long before LOTR and for an entirely different audience.
Pretty much this. The Hobbit is NOT TLOTR, and it was never meant to be. It was always meant to be an enjoyable children's tale, and keep in mind that when it was written, Tolkien hadn't quite formulated that much of Middle Earth and its mythology, so any relation it had to the rest of his Universe was only really retconned in later on.
The bottom-line is that those more "childish" moments were the closest in tone to being like the original book, and IMO had Jackson just stuck with that tone throuought the entire adaptation, it would've been better (as in more fun) for it. As it stands, I do enjoy Jackson's darker take on the story, but it's definitely an inferior product to the original novel.
That's essentially the issue. Jackson is trying to make it just like LOTR in tone and direction, but it's not the same type of story at all. Heck, even Tolkien himself revised the original story after publication to make Gollum match who he was in LOTR because when the book was written he wasn't thinking about the trilogy at all.
People expecting a LOTR epic are not going to get what they want because it's not LOTR and was never written to be that way. It's a children's adventure story that's highly whimsical and extremely fun with some touching themes. Unfortunately, to me, those are the aspects Jackson seems to be having the most problems with and instead beefs up the action and darker aspects which were never heavy parts of the original story.
But like I was getting at earlier, the novel of The Hobbit was still a mature children's fantasy story, in the same way that Disney films are mature children's films. With the first Hobbit film, I found some of the childish moments to honestly be immature, like the dwarves belching.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on December 29, 2013, 09:11:50 PM
The bottom-line is that those more "childish" moments were the closest in tone to being like the original book, and IMO had Jackson just stuck with that tone throuought the entire adaptation, it would've been better (as in more fun) for it. As it stands, I do enjoy Jackson's darker take on the story, but it's definitely an inferior product to the original novel.
Just the same, I would've
also preferred if he just made the adventure serious in the same vein as the Lord of the Rings film. I think Jackson could've pulled it off. Basically, I can agree that maybe it'd be better to keep it consistent with the novel's tone, but I prefer both ideas more than the "compromise" they tried with the film.
Either make it consistent with the original trilogy, or make it consistent with the novel. That's what I think. But ultimately, Desolation of Smaug picked a single tone and I think it was all the better for it.
And what did I watch during these last three months?
What?s Up, Doc?
Black Sunday
Carnival of Souls
Bride of Frankenstein
The Beastmaster
The Innocents
The Three Caballeros
Summer Stock
Time Bandits
Machete Kills
Dead of Night
High Society
Before Sunrise
The Usual Suspects
The Stuff
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
Flesh for Frankenstein
Mark of the Vampire
Knife in the Water
Arthur
Re-Animator
House of Wax
The Tingler
House on Haunted Hill
Suspiria
The Mummy (?32)
The Little Mermaid
McCabe & Mrs. Miller
Cabaret
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad
Damien: Omen II
The Abominable Dr. Phibes
Black Sabbath
Hocus Pocus
Nothing Sacred
We Need to Talk About Kevin
The French Connection
High Noon
Buffalo ?66
The Nightmare Before Christmas (x2)
101 Dalmatians
Humpday
The In-Laws
Gigi
Planet of the Apes
Star Trek Into Darkness
Beauty and the Beast
Pinocchio
Soylent Green
The Celebration
You Can?t Take It With You
The Big Store
Only God Forgives
The Muppets Take Manhattan
The Princess and the Frog
Frozen
When a Stranger Calls
Flying Down to Rio
The Gay Divorcee
Brave
The Parent Trap
Emmet Otter?s Jug Band Christmas
Toy Story
Mary Poppins
Pi
El Topo
The Girl Who Leapt Through Time
Pale Rider
A Christmas Story
The Great Muppet Caper
On the Town
Empire of the Sun
Royal Wedding
Wagon Master
Les Enfents Terribles
Muppet Treasure Island
Airheads
Ben-Hur (1925)
Belle de Jour
Saving Mr. Banks
The Prince of Egypt
Little Women (1949)
Miller?s Crossing
Peter Pan
Swing Time
Hollywood Boulevard
The Young Girls of Rochefort
Jason and the Argonauts
Songs from the Second Floor
My Favorite Year
Before Sunset
Computer Chess
Damn. This is what happens when you have nothing to do during the holidays. :P
Oh hey, The Apartment was added onto Netflix. If you haven't seen it and want something to watch and/or a good introduction to classic Hollywood, I can't recommend it enough.
Tonight I saw Vertigo for the fourth or fifth time. This movie really does get better over time, and I have no trouble calling it a masterpiece and one of my all time favorites.
I started a letterboxd. (http://letterboxd.com/avaitor/) I'm only listing up which movies I've seen since the year started(although I might make a favorites list soon), but if anyone wants to add me or is interested, there you go.
Ladies and gentlemen, this year's Best Picture selection.
12 Years a Slave
American Hustle
Captain Phillips
Dallas Buyers Club
Gravity
Her
Nebraska
Philomena
The Wolf of Wall Street
And I've seen... none. Wow, I was behind this year.
And in case you wanted more of an idea of what might win, here's the selections for Best Director.
Alfonso Cuaron- Gravity
Steve McQueen- 12 Years a Slave
Alexander Payne- Nebraska
David O. Russell- American Hustle
Martin Scorsese- The Wolf of Wall Street
Quote from: Avaitor on January 16, 2014, 10:17:00 AM
And I've seen... none. Wow, I was behind this year.
Same, damn. But I really want to see most of them. (I'm always behind on movies, though. :P)
The Wolf of Wall Street must be at least 500 times better than the trailer for it to get a nomination. Seriously, music aside, that was one of the worst previews I saw this year.
I've heard mixed things, although the more negative stuff in relation to the film tends to come with people who aren't typically fans of Marty or watch movies of that length, which aren't great indicators of its quality. Otherwise I hear that it's one of his better ones in recent years.
But man, I can't believe we live in a world where Jonah Hill is a twice-Academy Award-nominated actor. Same with Bradley Cooper.
Wow, I've only seen Captain Phillips on that list.
How good was Gravity? I didn't see it yet.
And yes, Avaitor, Disney movies aren't the only movies I'm slow on. :P
I've seen Gravity, Captain Philips, and Wolf of Wall Street off that list. They were all pretty good movies, but I liked Wolf of Wall Street the best.
I can't remember many 2013 films I saw this year. Off the top of my mind, I can name Iron Man 3 and Desolation of Smaug. Neither was particularly incredible. So I'm sure they both wouldn't fit on that list.
I haven't seen ANYONE dislike Gravity yet. That's pretty rare, man.
That, 12 Years a Slave, and American Hustle seem like the most likely candidates to win.
So tonight I saw Desolation of Smaug again in the theaters, this time went with my dad who loves this franchise just as much as I do (lucky we did because our theater isn't showing it anymore after tonight, apparently). I do think it's noticeable how much better this movie is than the first one. And I do stand by my opinion that it's good they went with a more dark and serious tone akin to the LotR franchise, rather than trying to find some sort of serious/light hearted compromise like the first movie did. One thing I've taken note of, seeing it again, was that it's implied that Sauron isn't a literal eye. But rather, all that time in the LotR movie trilogy, that was actually his spiritual form standing atop Mordor, engulfed in flame as if to appear as an eye. We just didn't know it back then.
Wait...Steve McQueen is still alive?
Quote from: gunswordfist on January 17, 2014, 12:34:08 PM
Wait...Steve McQueen is still alive?
Not THAT Steve McQueen. There's a director with the same name.
Quote from: Avaitor on January 17, 2014, 01:10:38 PM
Quote from: gunswordfist on January 17, 2014, 12:34:08 PM
Wait...Steve McQueen is still alive?
Not THAT Steve McQueen. There's a director with the same name.
So Steve McQueen is dead? :'(
Tonight I saw Steel for the second time... yeah, the movie with Shaq.
I still love that movie. It's undeniably entertaining. Also, Annabeth Gish gives a legitimately good performance as the character Sparky, who happens to be a well done character with some awesome superhero abilities.
Shaq's two bad movies, Steel and Kazaam, are some of my all time favorite bad movies.
Want a free screening of Casablanca to make it to your hometown? Check here. (http://20voting.tcm.com/)
Very cool! Hopefully it ends up showing here, my dad would love to go.
Tonight I took the time to watch Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings.
I think my life has officially jumped the shark.
So Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Yes, I can't believe it. A sad way to go and far too young.
Speaking of Hoffman, I was going to add Capote to my Netflix queue, but I saw that it will be streaming next month, so I'll wait for that instead.
R.I.P. One of the best actors of all time. :(
Quote from: talonmalon333 on January 30, 2014, 01:50:33 AM
Tonight I took the time to watch Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings.
I think my life has officially jumped the shark.
I fell asleep watching it. The second time I tried, I fell asleep yet again. :e_embarrassed: Thing is, I really wanted to give this an honest watch and couldn't do it. Bakshi's stuff tends to be paced a little on the slow side. And..... probably my bad for trying to watch it on late evenings.
A few nights ago I finally got around to seeing The Maltese Falcon.
What can I say? Humphrey Bogart is such a natural. I feel like there are many actors who you hear good things about, and then when I see them I don't think they quite live up the the hype. Humphrey Bogart lives up to and even surpasses the hype whenever I see him.
Quote from: Lord Il on February 03, 2014, 06:55:39 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on January 30, 2014, 01:50:33 AM
Tonight I took the time to watch Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings.
I think my life has officially jumped the shark.
I fell asleep watching it. The second time I tried, I fell asleep yet again. :e_embarrassed: Thing is, I really wanted to give this an honest watch and couldn't do it. Bakshi's stuff tends to be paced a little on the slow side. And..... probably my bad for trying to watch it on late evenings.
I try to be easy on this movie because I know there was a lot of trouble making it. But it really didn't work. I can't think of any individual elements of the movie that works, except maybe Gandalf and some of the animation. The experimental animation can be interesting, but at other times it came off as rather jarring. As for the characters besides Gandalf... Frodo was just okay, Sam was a disaster, Aragorn had no presence and had nothing interesting to say, Legolas and Gimly were forgettable, Merry and Pippin were so bland that I never even figured out which was which, Boromir made no impression until the last five minutes of his life, Saruman apparently didn't even have a concrete name pronunciation (How unprofessional can a movie get?), and everyone else was just... there. Especially Eowyne, who literally did nothing.
Overall, the fact that they had to contain two huge novels in one movie (which is substantially shorter than any of the individual Jackson films, I might add), makes the whole movie collapse on itself. That's really why the characters fail. And there is really no pacing, too. It just feels like it's here, and then they suddenly jump somewhere else, and then the next scene pops up before you know it, throughout the whole thing. I remember them talking about going to Lothlorien (where Galadriel lives), and then they are immediately there a split second later. I also thought, because of this pacing, there was no time to establish the power and danger of the Ring, and anything that had to do with Sauron was really forgettable.
So I have finally gotten around to seeing The Graduate. It's really one of those movies that lives up to its reputation, at least for me. Also, the ending was perfect...
Spoiler
Seeing Elaine finally slap her mother was one of the most satisfying things ever. And I think it's especially interesting how the ending really isn't a "happily ever after" type. You have that moment of victory when Benjamin and Elaine escape the chapel. But then when they are sitting on the bus together, there is just that moment of silence where the excitement ends and they just look solemnly, like the thing they just did is sinking in, and there's a feeling of "what now?".
So I have a friend who is essentially making it a goal to see as many movies from AFI's top 100 movies (which is why I've watched The Maltese Falcon and The Graduate in such a short time apart), and I'm trying to see as many movies as I can with him, as there are a lot I still need to see. Tonight we watched The General, a silent comedy film. And it's a really fun silent movie, one of the best I've seen.
I'm more of a Chaplin fan, but I have nothing but love for The General and Steamboat Bill Jr.
Right now, I'm working on catching up with some missed horror films. Things I probably should have seen in prep for my Top 100, although nothing yet has cracked the bar. What I've watched so far:
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) - last 30 minutes slowly sunk it. Otherwise, it was a near-masterpiece. Of course, it didn't scare me. But, visually... way ahead of its time. Or, going by European standards, firmly of its time. The music, pacing, editing, camerawork, cinematography... it didn't take me 20 to understand why so many people rave about it. But, unfortunately, it got really predictable really fast and I don't think thematically it made me feel anything foreboding. Which is always crippling: if you can't scare or creep me out, you have to at least make me feel something bad will happen. Anyway, still good: 7/10
Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) - some beautiful locations, excellent camerawork, and heady hallucinatory moments. But, ultimately, I thought it was a bit dull. It never intrigued me. Then... it started getting a bit preachy. I think we all hate that. But, seriously, this didn't even make sense: Lucy just lays down for Dracula to bite her (even though this turns her husband into "The New Dracula"), she dies, and practically calls Van Helsing a coward for not believing in demonic evil in a vampire movie. It quickly devolves into "science = dumb / wrong, religion = smart / right." (Um... writers, if you write a vampire movie, you're the ones making the rules- don't criticize other people for not buying your mythology when you're the one who wrote them to be cynical!) I'm never down with that: 5/10
Raw Meat (1973) - the opening credits are frickin' amazing. The rest, however... ugh. It's 65% dialogue with not-great-actors and almost uniformly lousy, boring characters and 35% unbelievably long camera pans over gored-up disem-bodies dripping with fake blood like that's revolutionary (well, it's not anymore) only to stop on a pair of mutant cannibals who can't speak but mumble in caveman-speak. Also for unbelievably long periods of time. As though this is either character development or social / class commentary. Visually, it's not interesting. Music's not great either. Lighting almost makes a couple scenes into something but, not really. The rest is Donald Pleasance having fun being an asshole- and he's the only semi-redeeming thing in the movie. Oh, and Christopher Lee is there for 2 minutes basically so Don can have someone to say "fuck you" to. Which he does. 4/10
Sssssss (1973) - more watchable than Raw Meat but suffers from a brand new problem: pretentiousness. Not every last mad scientist story on Earth has to turn their proto-Doc Brown into an "I'm God"-crazy nutjob. You wouldn't know that from this silly thing. But what's worse is that this doesn't even make any damn sense. What he's doing is trying to create a successful human-snake hybrid because he's just a worshipper of snakes. For biblical reasons (oh, brother!). Most writers would think they had their hands full with the phallic implications of doing "a snake movie" alone. He does this by performing tests on his male assistants. He procures 2. The first one turns into a Swamp Thing-esque abomination. Literally half-man/half-snake. Okay, so this is not what he's going for. Cut to: almost an hour later, #2 is starting to look like the same thing. So, we're actually about to figure out what the fuck went wrong with #1- right? Nope. According to the Doc, everything's going according to schedule. What good does this do for anyone? We never find out. UGH! He does however complete the experiment, and he turns assistant #2 into... a snake. His great super goddamn plan was to turn people into snakes. Even though he's been blithering on and on about creating something new and wondrous... he turns people into snakes. Why? The second he does it, his pet mongoose literally attacks and starts killing Snake "with human brain." He's got a whole fucking laboratory full of snakes! Dozens! (Well, less than 3 dozen.) So, he achieves his life's goal, goes into his back yard and is killed by a real snake. Thanks a lot, movie. 4/10
The Doctor and the Devils (1985) - visually dull, writing sucks. Basically, Twiggy saves it. Only in the scenes she's in. Another great opening credits sequence gets your expectations too high. I'm pretty sure this will bore 99% of viewers into a coma but I thought it was pretty watchable. Hollow as it gets, but generally watchable. If you riff on it the whole time. 5/10
So, no winners here. But I have several more I'm checking out later. Including... FINALLY, The Wicker Man. After long last, I blind-bought it. (Can't rely on goddamn Netflix or YouTube.)
Oh yeah, I've seen some of these on your letterboxd, which is a treat to check out.
But here's a question for you all- what do you think will take home the Oscar this year? Pre-Oscar award shows point to 12 Years a Slave being the most likely candidate, with Gravity the runner-up and American Hustle an "underdog" choice. I know that Slave won the Golden Globe, but I think the curse is mostly bs at this point, since the past 2 Best Picture winners also won their respective Globe with no problem taking home the big one.
It's tough to say. Both 12 Years A Slave and Gravity have near-universal critical acclaim and both seem like the kind of choices the committee would go for. It's a tough guess, but I might side with Slave since, like you said, pre-Oscar award shows are pointing to it having the edge.
I want to watch every Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I saw the original and the Sutherland version (that one's ending is hilarious, imo). I LOVE movies like that. John Carpenter's The Thing is perhaps my favorite movie of all time. I'd love some recommendation of all the versions of IotBS and "body horror", as I believe you called them.
Ew. (http://www.deadline.com/2014/02/lebron-james-space-jam-sequel-dick-ebersol/So%20this%20is%20happening.%5B/url)
So today I rewatched Schindler's List. It had been years since I first saw it back when I was in high school. Still, today, words aren't needed.
We showed Percy Jackson Sea of Monsters at the library Friday. It was decent. It must have been lots better than the first one, because I can barely remember anything about The Lightning Thief.
Today, it was Sunset Boulevard.
Maybe I need to look at the list of movies from its year, and take into account movies I still have yet to see. But for now, I'm left with the question... How did Norma Desmond not win the award for Best Actress?
Phenomenal movie, but I expected nothing less.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on February 23, 2014, 03:49:56 PM
How did Norma Desmond not win the award for Best Actress?
Simple, voters cancelled out Gloria Swanson and Bette Davis for both being so great that year that the award went to Judy Holliday instead.
I haven't seen Born Yesterday, so I can't say if she deserved it or not.
I didn't even take Bette Davis with All About Eve into account. But yeah, I can see how she'd create competition.
Anne Baxter was also nominated for Best Actress that year, also for All About Eve. Nowadays, she would have had to settle for Supporting Actress.
Next on today's lineup was To Kill a Mockingbird.
Honestly, what can I even say?
The book was better. Just say'n....
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on February 23, 2014, 10:27:20 PM
The book was better. Just say'n....
I guess that's what I can say, although I haven't read it. :sweat:
I do really like the movie. I just felt like being a smart-ass for no particular reason. :P
I have to agree that I prefer the book, but I think the movie is excellent too. I really should re-watch it one of these days.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on February 23, 2014, 10:51:44 PM
I do really like the movie. I just felt like being a smart-ass for no particular reason. :P
I know. I just thought it worked as a follow-up to my "What can I say?" post. :P
But in how many instances are movies better than the books?
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is a rare exception, though.
I don't remember the novel that Hitchcock's The Birds was based on being anything special. Perhaps that's another exception. Been a long time since I read it, though.
I never did read The Birds. I did read Strangers on a Train though, and Hitch made a couple of changes from the book to the movie's ultimate detriment, yet I can't call it an inferior film.
Also, RIP Harold Ramis.
R.I.P.
He will definitely be missed.
I know we're talking about Ramis in the Ghostbusters thread, but I wanted to post this (http://www.avclub.com/article/rip-harold-ramis-201412)
Quote from: gunswordfist on February 19, 2014, 03:53:30 PMI want to watch every Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I saw the original and the Sutherland version (that one's ending is hilarious, imo). I LOVE movies like that. John Carpenter's The Thing is perhaps my favorite movie of all time. I'd love some recommendation of all the versions of IotBS and "body horror", as I believe you called them.
The pioneers of the subgenre are Cronenberg (all his films), Henenlotter (all again), and mid-to-late 80's Carpenter, with important footnotes by Larry Cohen (
It's Alive, God Told Me To, The Stuff) and Jeff Lieberman (
Blue Sunshine). Start there and, for the hell of it, check out
The Dark Backward (as I haven't seen it since I was a kid). May or may not be horrific enough but I remember being shocked by it (as a kid).
Anyway, I'm still working on beefing up my horror lists. And... holy moly have things changed my update last week!!! For starters, I've found 2 films that went right to my Top 50 in my 100 Greatest Horror Films list (which, one day, will definitely be redone for AR). For that info, you'll have to visit me on Letterboxd. I purchased some movies in mid-January, some blind buys and this time, almost all of my blinders paid off:
Phantasm III, Return to Salem's Lot, The Wicker Man- all utterly fantastic watches. Also watched
Lair of the White Worm on Netflix and immediately had to buy it right after (though it's currently waiting in MovieMars' processing limbo, 5 days now). Also (finally) watched
Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat, which was alright,
Link which has blah,
Remote Control which was bad, and Tobe Hooper's
Lifeforce which is bad for the first 50 minutes but the last hour was okay.
:worship: Thank, Np. Good luck on the list. :)
EK, what Godzilla movies should I watch and in what order?
Is that going to be a new topic next October, No-Personality?
Quote from: gunswordfist on February 25, 2014, 05:17:09 PM:worship: Thank, Np. Good luck on the list. :)
Thanks. :thumbup:
Quote from: talonmalon333 on February 25, 2014, 05:41:44 PMIs that going to be a new topic next October, No-Personality?
If I can get my hands on
Cube, Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, Damien: Omen II, and
Ravenous before the fall, I might be ready to re-launch by summertime.
And, will it be a new thread? I don't think so. Most of my choices will still be in this new one, so I think I'm just going to restructure the posts I have already (finally add text to the top 50).
Although, I do want to start a new thread now with general horror film reviews. I've spent the last year accumulating a fuckton more films for research purposes. I'd like to do something constructive with them.
Oops: forgot something. I hate to double-post but, you asked...
Quote from: gunswordfist on February 19, 2014, 03:53:30 PMI'd love some recommendation of all the versions of IotBS and "body horror", as I believe you called them.
Oh yeah, and, if you can track down
Society (which can be a slippery bugger... and I'm not just talking about the mutant-orgy scenes), you might like to let that one blow your mind.
As for
Body Snatchers, the only version I think I've caught to date was the 1978 film. Abel Ferrera's 1993 remake was on Netflix (Watch Instant) for awhile but I missed it.
Thanks! ;D
On the Waterfront was tonight.
Marlon Brando is great. All the casting in this movie is, really.
Well I finally saw a BP nominee for this year- Dallas Buyers Club
Maybe it's because he's owning it each week on True Detective, but I honestly don't see Matthew McConaughey's performance as award-worthy. Jared Leto's is another story, although I do agree that it would have been better if they got an actual trans person for the role.
I'm currently chewing on Are You Lonesome Tonight? A 1992 made-for-TV "erotic" thriller which I've been utterly fascinated by since I was a kid. And which I'll probably watch a full once more before attempting to review it (I can't think of anything I can say which will do it justice: it's golden cheese with a little something beautiful as a cherry on top in the last 15-20 minutes).
We haven't done many movies within the last week or so. But we got back to it yesterday with Apocalypse Now.
I think I'll need to give this movie a rewatch sometime. There's a lot to take in from it. But how good it is goes without saying.
I'm guessing your joke is as horrible as the movie is.
Quote from: gunswordfist on March 10, 2014, 03:28:23 AM
I'm guessing your joke is as horrible as the movie is.
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/6c2c1ddad1fc07922b0f566a5cd8865d/tumblr_inline_n1zm0laVQr1rv31ra.gif)
I watched Romancing the Stone and it's sequel.
Fun stuff. :thumbup:
Quote from: Homura Akemi on March 10, 2014, 04:27:33 PM
Quote from: gunswordfist on March 10, 2014, 03:28:23 AM
I'm guessing your joke is as horrible as the movie is.
That stings. But yeah, Carrie was pretty bland. It got to the point where I completely forgot she even had supernatural powers because the film itself forgets about it at times.
To be honest, of Stephen King's early stuff it has always been my least favorite.
It's also the only one that has received three movies.
Go figure.
The book is a very fascinating by the facts story, while the original film succeeds at straight horror, but what I've heard about the new movie isn't good.
I can see why. Chloe Moretz is too strong-minded of an actress to pull off a character like Carrie, and it's too obvious to take the story into a modern anti-bullying tale.
The Treasure of Sierra Madre was tonight's movie.
The three guys, especially Humphrey Bogart, act their parts perfectly. And I think it really works that, in the end, the gold...
Spoiler
Is recklessly tossed into the wind as if it never meant anything, by people who didn't know any better.
I think Sierra Madre's my favorite Bogie movie besides Casablanca and maybe In a Lonely Place.
Besides Godzilla movies, what are the best monster movies?
The Host, because Koreans.
I don't know that much about the genre outside of obvious stuff like King Kong. However, The Host was a really entertaining (and also somewhat humorous) Korean monster movie that's worth checking out.
Quote from: gunswordfist on March 11, 2014, 09:46:10 PM
Besides Godzilla movies, what are the best monster movies?
What's your definition of monster movie?
For example, I'd put King Kong above Godzilla.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on March 11, 2014, 09:49:26 PM
The Host, because Koreans.
Ah, you beat me to it, you ass! :srs:
Super 8 is a good one.
Oh yeah, I forgot that Super 8 was even (technically) a Monster movie. It doesn't actually show you the monster in question until the very end, but it's a movie that's entertaining to watch for the characters rather than the monster itself.
I saw The Host like 10 years ago. :D Decent movie. And I've been meaning to watch Super 8. talon, you're referring to the original King Kong, right? I've never seen any version of the film.
Quote from: gunswordfist on March 11, 2014, 10:54:05 PM
talon, you're referring to the original King Kong, right? I've never seen any version of the film.
Of course.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on March 11, 2014, 09:49:26 PMThe Host, because Koreans.
I despised that film. The CGI was a pretty big reason. The wanton mass death not treated seriously or milked for any potential dark humor is also a bad idea, post 9/11. (They tried to play it as horrifying... then forgot what CGI looks like: fake.)
I'd say it was an utter fail of tone, which makes me not care about the story or the characters. Literally: watching the mourners flail around on the ground like fish like being hounded by the media killed the film, then and there. The ending also fucks up on much the same level with the gas bombing of the crowds of citizens. Too stupid to make a point. The movie continually refused to give the characters any dignity. Or those preying on them any intelligent menace.
Oh, and: closeup on a guy picking his nose. Vital to the text. Oh, wait, it's just stupid.
It's obviously not going to have the budget of a Hollywood blockbuster, so I kind of expected the CGI to be bad, but I've seen worse with the Godzilla films, so it didn't bother me that much.
Oddly enough I thought the tone was that of dark humor (or at least that's how it came off to me). The movie wasn't taking itself that seriously, yet still had some dark subject material. I know that it was controversial, and people hated how it took a stab at the U.S. for that real-life Eco-incident that the film was clearly a partial metaphor of, but while I can understand that, I'm not really that easy to offend, myself, so on a base level I still enjoyed the film itself.
But, while we're on the subject of monster movies that we despise, does anyone else think that Cloverfield is a POS? I know a lot of people liked that movie, buti could never stand any of the characters, the dramatic moments felt forced, and the movie hardly used the "found-footage shtick" to any real advantage. And it all just built up to a completely disappointing climax that made me realize that, at the end of the day, it really want worth it to stick around and see the monster....which I really have a hard time believing could have been THAT much of a threat.
Super 8 was basically everything I wanted Cloverfield to be. Cloverfield was just not very good and relied more on gimmicks than any actual plot.
A lot like Blair Witch, actually.
I actually liked Blair Witch, though. It set up an atmosphere. Cloverfield couldn't even do that much.
Fuck you, EK. Cloverfield was good. (I promised that I would be nice to Spark. :bleh:)
Blair Witch as in Blair Witch Project? That was a very good horror film. Watcha talkin bout, Sparky?
Also, I hear the new Captain America is out in theaters. Or, at least it will be tomorrow.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on March 13, 2014, 09:30:25 PM
Also, I hear the new Captain America is out in theaters. Or, at least it will be tomorrow.
Uh, no.
It had its premiere at the El Capitan tonight, but we still have a few weeks before the movie comes out.
I wish it was out tomorrow. I've been waiting to see an action film in theater again.
I heard it from a friend who said he wanted to see it tomorrow. If you're right, there are only two possibilities.
1. My friend was just wrong.
2. When he said he wanted to go see it tomorrow, he actually meant he wanted to rewatch the first movie.
It's not too far off. Just about another 2 weeks until it releases.
As for me, I'm pumped. The trailers look awesome, and I don't care what anyone else says, since this is basically the long-awaited sequel to my favorite superhero movie ever (yes, I like it even more than The Dark Knight and The Avengers on a personal level).
Actually, this year looks pretty good for Marvel. Aside from TASM2 (which looks like it could be a mess), the rest of their line-up for this year looks like they all have the potential to be great, going by the trailers. I'm genuinely excited for Captain America and X-Men already, and GOTG looks like it might be a really fun action/adventure space opera type movie in the vein of something like classic Star Wars.
Captain America was like superheroes meets Raiders of the Lost Ark, so I also obviously thought it was excellent. So far it looks like they might just carry the feel over into the second movie in a more modern tone.
But yeah, it was my favorite Marvel movie on a personal level, too. Avengers was great, but it was different.
Big Hero 6
I'm still an Iron Man guy.
I have to be honest, of the big 3 Avengers, Iron Man has always been my least favorite by a significant margin. I've always been way more into Thor and Cap, which probably explains why I prefer their movies to Tony's.
Quote from: Avaitor on March 13, 2014, 09:57:38 PM
I have to be honest, of the big 3 Avengers, Iron Man has always been my least favorite by a significant margin. I've always been way more into Thor and Cap, which probably explains why I prefer their movies to Tony's.
It says a lot that Downey was the first time I've ever actually enjoyed the character and the movie was surprisingly great on top of it but it still wasn't enough to beat the others for me.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on March 13, 2014, 10:02:44 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on March 13, 2014, 09:57:38 PM
I have to be honest, of the big 3 Avengers, Iron Man has always been my least favorite by a significant margin. I've always been way more into Thor and Cap, which probably explains why I prefer their movies to Tony's.
It says a lot that Downey was the first time I've ever actually enjoyed the character and the movie was surprisingly great on top of it but it still wasn't enough to beat the others for me.
Yeah, that's what really got me into his movie, the performance. That and just how fresh it felt at the time. It wasn't as dark as Nolan's Batflicks but Favreau got a good balance of serious and funny compared to the Spider-Mans, and added in some better humor than the X-Mens. It really was something new.
Then 2 happened, and yeah. The third was a step-up, but in hindsight, it felt a bit too similar to the first 2. I actually thought that Thor 2 was a better sequel in terms of shaping things up from the first in a logical way.
To be honest, I don't actually love Thor. I think it's a good film, but not a great one.
Robert Downey Jr. of course makes Iron Man, but I think it's just a really interesting film. I also find it interesting how the Marvel movie universe started with a movie centered around militaristic stuff and super weapons in a way that almost, almost seems like it could one day be a real thing in our world... That universe ended up becoming one with thunder gods and giant space whales. I don't mean that as a criticism in the slightest. It's just funny and, if it weren't for Iron Man's post-credits sequence, would make me think this whole crossover Avengers series wasn't originally intended back when Iron Man was first released.
That's what I think helped them work so well together. Iron Man was sci-fi, Thor was fantasy, and Captain America was historical adventure, and they brought them together in one film and all their individual elements worked amazingly well together.
I can agree with that.
Man, talking about these movies reminds me of how the DC movie universe is probably going to badly fail at competing with these movies.
Oh, but do NOT look up the soundtrack for Winter Solider. I hear that there's a really big spoiler which is revealed as one of the titles.
My name is GSF and I like to wear women's clothing
Dammit, that makes me wonder about the spoiler now... :-\
Best Buy had the last Muppets movie for $10, and the Disney Movie Rewards code gave me a free admission to the new one this week!
Good day all in all.
So today was another movie day. This time it was a rewatch though, and the movie was E.T. Still a lovely family film. I remember, when i was young, the last 40 minutes of the movie used to scare me, like when E.T. gets really sick and turns white, and all those government agents come into the house in hazmat suites. That whole section is still emotional.
Might do another movie tonight.
Muppets Most Wanted was even better than the last one! I van't recommend it enough.
And the Monsters University short beforehand was great.
I watched Bicycle Thieves. It was good. The film just kind of ends though.
Has anyone here seen any of the Terminator movies after the first two?
There aren't any.
^Yep.
Although Rise of the Machines is alright on it's own, it still doesn't hold a candle to the Cameron movies. Salvation blows, skip it.
I never plan on watching either movie after the first two. The event of Judgement Day was entirely prevented therefore making any further sequel impossible, non-canon, and downright pointless.
But Emilia Clarke is gonna be Sarah Connor in the new one. I have interest in that.
But we already have a Sarah Connor, and she was in the only two movies required.
The thing is, a movie that takes place in the future before Kyle Reese is sent back would have been a great idea for a movie (In fact, it is the only Terminator "sequel" that would work). But they messed it up.
Now I just ignore anything to do with it.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on March 31, 2014, 05:08:35 PM
The thing is, a movie that takes place in the future before Kyle Reese is sent back would have been a great idea for a movie (In fact, it is the only Terminator "sequel" that would work). But they messed it up.
Now I just ignore anything to do with it.
I spent two minutes trying to decide how to respond to this post, but the time travel mechanics of Terminator confused me too much to come up with an adequate response, being that the future Kyle Reese comes from can't exactly take place anymore now that the war was prevented (even though that future did happen... before it was stopped), making it hard to imagine how a movie could be made out of it.
I actually found 3 to be worse than Salvation, but that's like comparing Alien 3 to Resurrection, or Ninja Gaiden 3 to Z (just because I'll reference the NG series wherever possible, even in a completely unrelated medium). At the end of the day, it's a moot point, because neither are worth your time nor have any justification to exist.
Terminator 3 has a lot in common with Alien 3, actually. They both have absolutely no respect for the story that came before and attempt to write a story that invalidates the entire point of it in order to justify its existence.
Suffice to say, the Alien series also ends with Aliens.
As an unpopular opinion, I still like Prometheus, and I don't have a problem considering it as part of Alien canon.
Similarly, the Halloween series ends with the original Halloween. Continuing the series, humanizing Michael Myers, and ultimately killing him completely misses the point of the first movie because Michael Myers is not human. He is the Shape, or rather, the Boogeyman. And you can't kill the boogieman. Therefore, any movie that misses these important story and thematic points cannot be canon.
Just like there shouldn't have been another Men in Black after Agent K retired at the end of the first.
I've still never seen a Men In Black sequel. I guess I really have no interest in them.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on March 31, 2014, 05:34:53 PM
Similarly, the Halloween series ends with the original Halloween. Continuing the series, humanizing Michael Myers, and ultimately killing him completely misses the point of the first movie because Michael Myers is not human. He is the Shape, or rather, the Boogeyman. And you can't kill the boogieman. Therefore, any movie that misses these important story and thematic points cannot be canon.
Like giving him a past in the Rob Zombie movies. That was a dumb move.
Not like I've seen them or anything. Rob Zombie does gore, not horror.
Rob Zombie's style is great for his music videos, but he is not a good film director.
He's also only an average musician to begin with. But I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry King prefers Zombie's Halloween movies to the original. He has pretty weak taste when it comes to horror movies. (http://www.avclub.com/article/24-hours-of-horror-with-slayers-kerry-king-104840) Or anything, really. He's the one who wants to keep Slayer going without Jeff.
Quote from: Comeau on March 31, 2014, 05:01:05 PM
^Yep.
Although Rise of the Machines is alright on it's own, it still doesn't hold a candle to the Cameron movies. Salvation blows, skip it.
There's no fucking way 4 is worse than 3. T3 has a rail cannon for an arm and could control all machines including Arnold and could still not kill Connor or destroy Arnold. What a stupid movie.
Quote from: Avaitor on March 31, 2014, 05:03:10 PM
But Emilia Clarke is gonna be Sarah Connor in the new one. I have interest in that.
...there's going to be a new one? The only post T2 anything I like is the early episodes I've seen of Sarah Connor Chronicles. I like Queen Gorgo as Sarah.
Hobo with a Shotgun:
See. This. Movie. NOW!
?!! I've honestly been thinking about that movie today and for awhile before that. I haven't seen it yet but I heard about it in the comments about music from Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon (Power Glove did the music for both) and it was mentioning in an article about the TMNT remake trailer. :D I hope Netflix has it.
I Googled the song on the end credits, "Run with Us," because I know I've heard it somewhere... but I'll be damned if I have a clue where that may be. It's got to be an 80's classic of some kind.
I guess it's like with me and that band that does "The Warrior," Scandal? I thought I knew all the major 80's touchstones and, yet, not.
Watching First Blood.
Still like it.
That's the only Rambo movie that I care about. It's a shame that people remember the series more for its generic action sequel. The first film is still a classic, though.
They just added the first three Rambo movies to Netflix here, but First Blood has always been far and away the best one. One of Stallone's best with Rocky, Copland, and Rocky Balboa.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on April 09, 2014, 08:24:42 PM
That's the only Rambo movie that I care about. It's a shame that people remember the series more for its generic action sequel. The first film is still a classic, though.
I should have known someone here would hate it. I don't care what anyone says, I love both films equally.
What do you guys think is the best Indiana Jones movie?
The first one. I'm going to have to rewatch all of them though.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on April 09, 2014, 08:42:41 PM
They just added the first three Rambo movies to Netflix here, but First Blood has always been far and away the best one. One of Stallone's best with Rocky, Copland, and Rocky Balboa.
I haven't seen Balboa (or anything past Rocky II, for that matter), but I love both Rocky and Copland. Though, this also reminds me to bring up the point that Ashita no Joe was Rocky (with a bit of Raging Bull thrown in for good measure) before Rocky even existed (and by that I mean even before the guy who inspired Stallone to write Rocky had a shot at the world champion). Rocky is basically the American Joe Yabuki, 'cept Joe is way more bad-ass. :sly:
Raiders > Last Crusade > Temple of Doom > Crystal Skull
Quote from: talonmalon333 on April 09, 2014, 09:06:43 PM
What do you guys think is the best Indiana Jones movie?
1. Raiders of the Lost Ark
2. Last Crusade
3. Temple of Doom
4. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
This ranking is pretty much indisputable fact.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on April 09, 2014, 09:13:35 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on April 09, 2014, 08:42:41 PM
They just added the first three Rambo movies to Netflix here, but First Blood has always been far and away the best one. One of Stallone's best with Rocky, Copland, and Rocky Balboa.
I haven't seen Balboa (or anything past Rocky II, for that matter), but I love both Rocky and Copland. Though, this also reminds me to bring up the point that Ashita no Joe was Rocky (with a bit of Raging Bull thrown in for good measure) before Rocky even existed (and by that I mean even before the guy who inspired Stallone to write Rocky had a shot at the world champion). Rocky is basically the American Joe Yabuki, 'cept Joe is way more bad-ass. :sly:
I thought Rocky Balboa was a good end to the series. I haven't seen any of the other sequels, but as a follow up to the original it bookends the original really good. I see the series as the same as Rambo in that way, except Rambo never got a proper final film to follow the themes from the original to the end.
What's Ashita no Joe? Is that Japanimation?
Some Chinese cartoon or something I think.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on April 09, 2014, 10:11:35 PM
Some Chinese cartoon or something I think.
(https://24.media.tumblr.com/62b3f77ea0d358ed679aa683c6911170/tumblr_n070txsN0B1ruup1zo2_250.gif)
I actually skipped all of the other sequels and went straight to Balboa.
I don't regret that decision.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on April 09, 2014, 08:24:42 PMThat's the only Rambo movie that I care about. It's a shame that people remember the series more for its generic action sequel. The first film is still a classic, though.
Well,
First Blood is a generic title. Though, admittedly,
Rambo sounds like a generic premise / character. But it
is what made him iconic.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on April 09, 2014, 09:06:43 PMWhat do you guys think is the best Indiana Jones movie?
Not much of a contest. That's like asking what the best
Back to the Future movie is.
Last Crusade is actually my favorite Indiana Jones movie, but really both it and Raiders are pretty close in quality to me.
I remember liking The Last Crusade.
Netflix has Hobo With A Shotgun. ;D I'm not too sure what it's about but I like it that way. I'll check it out soon.
Quote from: No-Personality on April 10, 2014, 08:22:49 AM
Not much of a contest. That's like asking what the best Back to the Future movie is.
So... Raiders, or Last Crusade? Either will do.
I just re-watched The Avengers for the 4th time. As an action movie, the film is just as fun as ever. As a stand-alone film, it's shallow, yes, but here's the thing about the film that people should realize: it's not meant to be viewed as a stand-alone film. The whole point of the MCU, and what made The Avengers such a cool concept in the first place, was that you get to watch all of these movies to grow attachment to these characters individually, which makes it that much more awesome when a film teams all of them up. The Avengers is really essentially the culmination of what all of the phase 1 films had lead up to. It should be viewed as a big event taking place in a much grander story, in the same vein as you would view the climax to a story arc in something like Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. After all, that's what Joss Whedon excels at.
Whenever someone tells me that The Avengers is overrated, yet admit that they only saw one or two (or none) of the phase 1 movies, I have to shake my head a little because that's like seeing Serenity without having watched Firefly (which I did, and still thought was awesome as fuck to the point of going back to watch Firefly just because of it, but my friends' reaction to the movie proved that everyone else just weren't as awesome as me :>). Sure, the movie works fine as a stand-alone film, but you aren't really going to care about the characters unless you've already seen them grow and develop on the show. You need that attachment to them.
And on that end, while shallow as a stand-alone, as a piece of a larger Universe, The Avengers has a lot more going on in it than what some people give it credit for. Every character has a character arc going on. This includes Stark, Cap, Banner, Thor, and even Loki. It's just that all of these arcs are continuations of their character development from their previous films, so if you haven't seen this em you wouldn't get what's going on with them. For instance, at the end of Captain America, you see him finally re-awaken in the modern world. In The Avengers, his character arc deals with him struggling to adapt to this very different and bizarre time which he feels so alien to, and if you've seen Captain America and got a hold of the values that his character had become accustomed to from his own timeline, you'd appreciate his conflict in The Avengers. This is especially displayed in his disputes with Iron Man, who is very much his polar opposite in every way, in that he represents technology and the future and is far more arrogant and flashy than what Cap would define as a hero. Their initial controversy with one another is a high point of the film for me as it is a catalyst for both of their character arcs. In the scenes where they are finally working together, it represents how Cap has finally come to accept this new time that he has emerged in as well as his role in it. It's great stuff that, once again, means absolutely zilch if you didn't watch his movie.
With the exception of maybe The Hulk, this holds true for every other major character in the film. On that end, The Avengers works as a great film within the context of the MCU in the grand scheme of things. On it's own, it's still fun as hell, but I can see why people would think it's overrated, though I also would never have recommended them to watch it without having seen all of the ore phase 1 movies in the first place.
To be fair, I loved Serenity the first time I watched it, and I'd never even heard of Firefly before seeing it.
That said, I don't actually think The Avengers is overrated; it just wasn't really my kind of film. Though I probably would have enjoyed it more if I'd ever gotten around to checking out the other Marvel movies. Iron Man 1 aside, it seems like I've only seen the underwhelming and/or non-canon films.
On a related note, I'll be seeing the Captain America sequel tomorrow! I was going to try to watch the first one beforehand, but unfortunately I just don't have the time to. I'll be sure to give The First Avenger a watch sometime later this week, though!
The first is still on Netflix I believe, so it shouldn't be hard to watch.
I do think you should see it first though. There are a couple of characters whose relation to Steve will make more sense if you've seen TFA, since they aren't present in Avengers at all (mainly Peggy and especially Bucky).
I don't have time to watch it today or tomorrow, nor can I cancel my plans to see the sequel tomorrow, so it'll have to wait. :(
I just re-watched The Conjuring. Still by far the best horror movie that has come out in the past few years, IMO. What it lacks in originality it more than makes up for in its ability to maintain a haunting atmosphere and effectively dial up the tension in just about any given scene.
Quote from: Avaitor on April 12, 2014, 08:36:05 PM
The first is still on Netflix I believe, so it shouldn't be hard to watch.
Actually it's not. I just checked. I know they had it last year because I re-watched it before IM3, but it looks like they took it down.
As for The Winter Soldier, while it would undeniably be better after seeing the first film, I still think you'd enjoy it as a stand-alone film if you like the idea of a good political thriller with superheroes in it. ;)
Quote from: Foggle on April 12, 2014, 07:54:51 PMTo be fair, I loved Serenity the first time I watched it, and I'd never even heard of Firefly before seeing it.
So did I, but I know plenty of people who weren't as enthusiastic about it and who also hadn't seen Firefly before. The movie was awesome enough for me without having seen the show, though, and is in fact what piqued my interest in it. When I watched the show and came back to the movie, I found an already awesome movie to be even better. It just enhanced the experience so much to understand where all of the characters came from.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on April 12, 2014, 09:01:54 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on April 12, 2014, 08:36:05 PM
The first is still on Netflix I believe, so it shouldn't be hard to watch.
Actually it's not. I just checked. I know they had it last year because I re-watched it before IM3, but it looks like they took it down.
Damn, that sucks.
I guess I should try to save up for the Phase 1 box set a little more than I have been.
The First Avenger is off here, too. I just watched my DVD instead. I also watched The Avengers this weekend and have to admit it works far better if you've seen the phase 1 movies since, well, it really is the culmination of them all. That said, it's still a fun action movie at the very least.
But, I still think the Cap movies are the best. :)
Since they added Copland to Netflix, I decided to watch it again for the first time in ages.
Still holds up.
I should give it a re-watch as well when I have the time. I think that Stallone has done some really good films outside of just Rocky and First Blood, despite how much he gets ragged on for his admittedly hokey acting. Cop Land is one of those films.
Anastasia (1997)
$2 at Walmart..........and that's a shame, this deserves a better fate. But anyway, I like it a lot more than I used to. I think as a kid I got kinda bored with it, but watching it now it's a pretty interesting movie. I mean c'mon, who doesn't love Bartok?
I haven't even seen that since I was a kid.
I watched Carrie (1976) lately in story class, and boy, was that depressing. Naturally, I loved it.
Quote from: Comeau on April 19, 2014, 03:57:28 AM
I haven't even seen that since I was a kid.
It's a decent movie. It does seem to try overly hard to mimic Disney, but I wouldn't say that necessarily works against it. As far as musicals go, you could certainly do worse.
I've got a lot of nostalgia for Cyber Chase, because I watched it so much as a kid. I liked it as much as Zombie Island, honestly. Don't know how I'd feel about it if I watched it now.
I doubt you would Zombie Island is Scooby-Doo perfection personified.
I'd argue Mystery Incorporated is the single best thing to come out of the Scooby Doo franchise to date, actually. Zombie Island is still the second best thing, of course.
I just couldn't get into MI. I still wish it was like Zombie Island and had real monsters (assuming they didn't move onto to actually doing that, even then, I don't care enough for the show's version of the gang to go back.)
I'm going to flip a coin to see whether I should give MI or Adventure Time more of a chance while they'e still on Netflix. I'll watch them on a day or so basis, one or two eps at a time, but while I can, why not try them again, y'no?
I saw Zombie Island again a few years ago ,and I think it holds up fine. It's no masterpiece, but pretty much everything I liked about it as a kid (actual scary villains, hints of atmosphere, slightly fresher humor) are still there.
Interesting enough, both MI and Adventure Time were shows that I said I could kind of understand why others like them but I can't get into them.
I'd say Zombie Island is a masterpiece. :thinkin:
Quote from: gunswordfist on April 19, 2014, 10:07:12 PM
I'd say Zombie Island is a masterpiece. :thinkin:
When I think "masterpiece", I think of something like a top tier Hitchcock picture. Not Scooby-Doo. :P
I remember liking Witch's Ghost too, actually. The only one I owned was Zombie Island, but I ended up renting all of those up to Cyber Chase, and eventually caught some of them on CN here or there.
I dunno, maybe if they're on in the near future, I'll give some of these movies a chance again. But my Scooby tolerance isn't too high these days.
Quote from: Homura Akemi on April 20, 2014, 07:30:07 AM
Zombie Island is probably the only Direct-to-DVD Scooby-Doo film that holds up as a good picture - Witch's Ghost if you wanted to stretch it. I could argue that Alien Invaders does hold up as well, but that's nostalgia getting in the way and I'm incredibly biased towards that film. And Mystery Incorporated is a very good show. I liked it a lot.
I think I was high off of Zombie Island when I thought Witch's Ghost and Alien Invaders were about as good as ZI. I'll likely change my mind on that if I watched them today. I wouldn't mind seeing them again though.
I remember that period of Scooby movies right before "What's New, Scooby Doo?" came out and threw away everything that was enjoyable about the movies. I still watch them if they're on, they're my favorite SD material.
In other news, I watched both The Town and Muppet Treasure Island this weekend. Thought they were both great. The Town makes me even more disappointed that he passed up directing The Stand, and Muppet Treasure Island had me wondering how I missed out on it for so long. I also watched The Great Muppet Caper, but I didn't like it as much as I was hoping to. Some good moments and songs, but as a whole it was fairly boring.
Muppet Treasure Island was a different experience. Robert Louis Stevenson done by The Muppets? Tim Curry as Long John Silver? Gonzo and Rizzo as Jim's best friends? Too good. I honestly think it's one of the best Muppet movies by far. Great stuff.
The Town was a great heist movie, another great job by Affleck and another movie I'm puzzled that I missed. Jeremy Renner really impressed as did Jon Hamm, but my favorite part was the ending as it was not what I was expecting to happen from similar heist movies. As a whole I would definitely like to see Affleck direct more movies, he's definitely got overlooked talent.
I'm not so hot on Muppet Treasure Island. I like the source material, but it's too straight of an adaptation for me, with not enough Muppet fun. Granted, Muppet Christmas Carol is kind of the same thing, but that story works much better in the Muppet format.
It's not really that straight of an adaption, though. I mean, they change a lot to condense it into one movie including tweaking Jim's background, cutting out most of the first part, changing the squire totally (which works here since its a comedy), and cutting out everything to do with Israel Hands (which is, admittedly, too dark for a kids movie), but it all works for the pace of the film and makes it quite fun overall. I also thought it was really funny, which I didn't really find GMC was outside of certain parts.
Maybe I'm just too big of a RLS fan, but this movie managed to capture much of his spirit of adventure where more serious adaptions have tried and failed, and maybe that's why I liked it so much. RLS material is hard to adapt without losing the spark of adventure and I was pleasantly surprised that the movie managed to keep so much of it.
That's fair. I like Stevenson's work, but I'm more of a fan of Disney's earlier Treasure Island adaptation. There was obvious effort in MTI, but it just wasn't as strong to me.
The Great Muppet Caper isn't much better, yeah. I do kind of dig it, but it's the weakest of Jim's 3 Muppet movies.
As far as Affleck directed movies go, I can't stand Gone, Baby, Gone. But, I really like The Town and I love Argo, so he's definitely improved with each new film he's put out.
Oh yeah, my copy of SSM came with movie money to see Amazing 2. Now's as good of a time as ever to finally watch the first, huh?
I heard Amazing 2 is lousy. Any other opinions?
SSM?
Quote from: talonmalon333 on April 24, 2014, 03:33:50 PM
SSM?
Spectacular Spider-Man. The complete series blu ray set came out on Tuesday.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on April 24, 2014, 03:23:16 PM
I heard Amazing 2 is lousy. Any other opinions?
I have a friend from Australia go see it, and she says that it's way better than the first, which she really liked.
I dunno, but with a free ticket, I'll give it a chance.
Yeah, I haven't heard the greatest of things about ASM2. If I get a free ticket with my copy of SSM (once I manage to get it), I might see it for the heck of it, but otherwise I'm not sure I'll pay money to see it in theaters.
Where did you guys even hear this? The reviews up on RT so far are luke-warm to the movie, for the most part, but I haven't seen that many reviews that say it's downright bad.
Mean Girls is on Netflix. I know what I'm watching tonight.
The 10th anniversary is in 3 days, y'no.
Oh, and I watched The Jerk today. That is so not a PC movie. I love it.
The Jerk is great. Steve Martin used to be amazing.
I'm watching TASM now, and it's okay. Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben is perfect casting, though.
Steve Martin is still really funny. The problem is that he gets no projects anymore.
A lot like Eddie Murphy.
Amazing Spider-Man was okay, technically better than the Raimi movies, technically not. Which is kind of what I was expecting.
I'll probably go to see the sequel with my freebie this weekend, but the Australian who already saw it spoiled it for me. :P Accidentally, but still.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on April 30, 2014, 07:13:31 PM
Steve Martin is still really funny. The problem is that he gets no projects anymore.
A lot like Eddie Murphy.
Beverly Hills Cop 4, man.
I just saw TASM2, and despite the harsh reviews, I honestly really liked it. Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who still feels to this day that people ridiculously overreact to the problems with SM3, and still feel that it's a good movie beneath its flaws, which people blow out of proportion.
This film definitely has flaws of its own, but honestly it has it's high points as well. The first TASM was consistent, but on that end it was consistently "alright," without ever having anything memorable about it. This movie has some stupid moments, to be sure, but it also has parts that I really found to be exciting and made the film worth watching. I'm not a hardcore comic book fan so I don't know if it did some of its iconic scene adaptations any justice from that perspective, but quite frankly I don't care, because they were well-done scenes from my perspective.
Anyways, I'm sure I'll be alone on this opinion, but I just don't get the critical backlash against this movie, myself.
Yeah, I just saw it myself, and it wasn't that bad, but I also wasn't in love with it. It sucks that they haven't been able to make a great Spider-Man movie though. Each of the films have had elements of greatness, but none of them have ever gone beyond being pretty good, while Batman, Superman and the X-Men have been able to make some fantastic movies of their own.
I still say there has never been a fantastic X-Men movie, unless Days Of The Future Past is great. My favorite is still the first film.
My X-Men movie order:
1. X-Men 1
2. X-Men 3: The Last Stand
3. Wolverine: X-Men Origins
4. X-Men 2: X2
GSF, have you seen First Class, yet?
Here's mine:
1. X2: X-Men United
2. X-Men: First Class
3. X-Men
4. The Wolverine
5. X-Men Origins: Wolverine
6. X-Men 3: The Last Stand
I only consider the top 3 to be good movies. The Wolverine was mediocre and Origins and 3 were pretty terrible, though I can at least fine Origins to be a guilty pleasure for it's admittedly good action scenes.
Oh, sorry. I have and I liked it. Hmm...I need to rewatch X-Men 1. I probably like First Class more but who knows. I say X-Men 3 was a decent movie that made some horrible story decisions. I guess you can say it's like Spider-Man 3 for me, where I think it's better than most people say it is.
I think what bugged me about that movie was that big things were going down but it's like the characters didn't care enough. Jean being killed off in X-Men 2 was a big deal in that movie, but then she just shows up "alive" in front of Scott and rather than a WTF reaction, he just starts making out with her and then she kills him in the most uneventful way possible....and pretty much nobody cares. We literally see Wolverine casually say "I think she killed Scott" and then he's never mentioned again. Aside from the shoved in funeral scene at the end, nobody even takes so much as a moment to mourn the death of a guy they spent two full movies with. When the professor dies, it's pretty much the same problem. When Mystique is turned human, Magneto just dumps her like it's nothing and we never hear from her again (and she was essentially his right-hand woman for all 3 movies). A lot of the plot points also didn't make that much sense to me. Much like Spider-Man 3, the movie is an undeniable mess in terms of its story and characters. I suppose the reason I could still find enjoyment in SM3 is because I still enjoyed the main conflict between Peter and Harry, and if nothing else the movie did still feel like everything happening was genuinely a big deal. With X3, it felt like big things were happening, but I had a harder time caring about any of it.
I did like the conflict between Harry and Peter. Harry was pretty much the most well cast character in all of the movies imo.
And that's a lot of good points about the X-Men movies. I'll rewatch 2 and 3 sometime not soon.
My rankings are probably the same as EK's (maybe I'd swap First Class and 1, but I like them about the same), although I think the Wolverine is better than mediocre.
Quote from: Avaitor on May 10, 2014, 03:44:46 PMIt sucks that they haven't been able to make a great Spider-Man movie though. Each of the films have had elements of greatness, but none of them have ever gone beyond being pretty good, while Batman, Superman and the X-Men have been able to make some fantastic movies of their own.
I still am a big fan of the first two Spider-Man movies, and consider Spider-Man 2 one of the better superhero movies in general. Also, if it means anything, I do genuinely like Spider-Man 3.
I personally have a fondness for 3 Dev Adam, myself. That's the closest we'll ever get to seeing Spider-Man in an Avengers movie.
Quote from: gunswordfist on May 10, 2014, 04:45:00 PM
Harry was pretty much the most well cast character in all of the movies imo.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F6%2F6f%2FJ.K._Simmons_as_Jameson.gif&hash=a2be4988dc9cc938786b5d409b2c7a475115bb99)
Quote from: talonmalon333 on May 11, 2014, 11:18:31 AM
Quote from: gunswordfist on May 10, 2014, 04:45:00 PM
Harry was pretty much the most well cast character in all of the movies imo.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F6%2F6f%2FJ.K._Simmons_as_Jameson.gif&hash=a2be4988dc9cc938786b5d409b2c7a475115bb99)
Yeah, I'd like to believe that the reason we didn't Jameson in Amazing 2 is that they're waiting for the right moment to reveal that Simmons is reprising the role.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on May 11, 2014, 11:18:31 AM
Quote from: gunswordfist on May 10, 2014, 04:45:00 PM
Harry was pretty much the most well cast character in all of the movies imo.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F6%2F6f%2FJ.K._Simmons_as_Jameson.gif&hash=a2be4988dc9cc938786b5d409b2c7a475115bb99)
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fps4.mess-hall.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2Fdefgif7.gif&hash=0f616748a1d8f7f2a278e7721964f0c48e40b239)
The best part about Origins for me was that they introduced Gambit (finally) and Deadpool, and that Sabretooth was pretty good. That's about it, unfortunately. It was a mess.
I actually would have rathered X-Men have gotten a reboot over Spider-Man, frankly.
First Class was like a partial reboot of sorts, in that it essentially wrote X-Men 3 and Origins out of canon.
I don't care what anyone says, I love Hugh Jackman as Wolverine but yeah, a reboot is in serious need.
I finally got around to watching Man of Steel. While I don't hate it with the burning passion of some folk, I just didn't care for it. It felt like it was trying too hard to be dark and meaningful that it forgot to actually be any fun. That, and it had plenty of plot-holes and stupid moments which plenty of reviewers have already pointed out. Both Captain America movies show how you can adapt a "boy-scout" type character the right way.
Interestingly, I think this movie's faults can be blamed on Nolan just as much as Snyder. While I love his Batman movies, one of my biggest complaints about all of them is how unnatural the dialogue sounds. I mean, more than half of the time you're listening to speeches rather than actual conversations. MOS ratcheted up this problem by at least ten-fold.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on May 13, 2014, 02:32:56 PM
I finally got around to watching Man of Steel. While I don't hate it with the burning passion of some folk, I just didn't care for it. It felt like it was trying too hard to be dark and meaningful that it forgot to actually be any fun. That, and it had plenty of plot-holes and stupid moments which plenty of reviewers have already pointed out. Both Captain America movies show how you can adapt a "boy-scout" type character the right way.
Interestingly, I think this movie's faults can be blamed on Nolan just as much as Snyder. While I love his Batman movies, one of my biggest complaints about all of them is how unnatural the dialogue sounds. I mean, more than half of the time you're listening to speeches rather than actual conversations. MOS ratcheted up this problem by at least ten-fold.
"Not actually any fun" is pretty much how I'd best describe it. They took a colorful and joyful superhero and made a dull and unhappy movie out of him. And it's attempt to be so serious just failed largely due to no character development (Superman being forced to kill Zod meant nothing to me because they didn't establish Superman as someone who totally refuses to kill). Some might say "Well we already know the characters as they've been told various times in other movies and comic books", but this is supposed to be an adaptation. I
want to see how a movie will interpret the characters.
I also disliked how over the top the action was. I mean, some might say "well the action was still exciting, if nothing else", but for me, it was too catastrophic, especially for the first movie in this supposed DC universe. I mean, they pretty much destroyed the entire city.
The action itself I didn't have a problem with. It's Superman, of course it's going to be over the top. My problem is that the action showed no regard for human life, which basically goes against everything that Superman stands for. Also, I hated the over-use of shaky-cam. That's one film trope that seriously needs to die.
A Superman movie should not be this hard to make. Seriously.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on May 13, 2014, 03:37:03 PMAlso, I hated the over-use of shaky-cam. That's one film trope that seriously needs to die.
There goes my last bit of interest in the film.
At least we'll always have Superman I and II. True classics.
Also, I just saw this on Yahoo, and figured that with the Man of Steel talk, it's a decent time to post this.
https://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-news/first-official--man-of-steel--sequel-photo-shows-ben-affleck-as-batman-and-his-batmobile-164749941.html
And here is a direct link to the image of Ben Affleck's Batman (image is a little too big to post here). https://s.yimg.com/os/publish-images/movies/2014-05-13/e7eb52c0-dabd-11e3-928d-790595b088b3_batmobile.jpg
It's interesting that the suit looks more like classic Batman, rather than the more armored suit in the Nolan movies. But the ears are kind of small. Better when they are just a little bit longer.
I hate how he is hunched over. He looks chubby like that.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.vox-cdn.com%2Fimported_assets%2F2196281%2FCq0hluh_medium.jpg&hash=028306967e3663a5ced2319c7228761352d69469)
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn1.vox-cdn.com%2Fimported_assets%2F2196275%2FWqNYmXZ_medium.jpg&hash=c6c5de5065f7bc89826674f43025db24257009b3)
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.vox-cdn.com%2Fimported_assets%2F2196359%2FmNVsgpo_medium.jpg&hash=5d525766bef36d6c8b17d357f4c35a099b144d05)
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn0.vox-cdn.com%2Fassets%2F4449047%2Fbatswing.gif&hash=2aa9eecde181bbaa02d24243f8c3175e68b678ce)
I think the costume designers had Gloomy Sunday playing nonstop while working on the suit.
Watched Serenity again (after revisiting Firefly, of course) for the first time in maybe 5 years. I think it's still my favorite sci-fi action/adventure movie. :joy:
It's a great genre film if you haven't seen the series, but it's a masterpiece to anyone who has seen the show. For a series that was cut down way too short, this film was the perfect send-off for it. I'd like to point out that I still feel the same concept applies to The Avengers, though, which was also directed by Whedon.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on May 14, 2014, 07:48:06 PM
It's a great genre film if you haven't seen the series, but it's a masterpiece to anyone who has seen the show. For a series that was cut down way too short, this film was the perfect send-off for it.
I support this notion 100%. :D
QuoteI'd like to point out that I still fell the same concept applies to The Avengers, though, which was also directed by Whedon.
I am sloooowly working my way through the MCU films in release order right now. (A lot more slowly than I'd like to.) I'm sure I'll appreciate The Avengers a lot more upon doing so. That, and I'm less depressed and more jovial now, so I'd probably like it more during a re-watch regardless.
I wonder if Netflix has Iron Man 3 yet. except for Winter Soldier, IM3 is still the only MCU film I've yet to see
Heads up- the recent Bill Watterson documentary, Dear Mr. Watterson, is available for both streaming and rental on Netflix come Sunday. :thumbup:
So what's with people suddenly praising Michael Bay as an auteur? I've seen people unironically claim that Transformers 2 was a satire on modern racism, while also saying that Bay's films are more emotionally honest than any Marvel flick.
So, X-Men DOFP has gotten really good reviews so far. I haven't been this pumped to see an X-Men film since the second film.
Quote from: Ensatsu-ken on May 21, 2014, 04:11:18 PM
So, X-Men DOFP has gotten really good reviews so far. I haven't been this pumped to see an X-Men film since the second film.
I sure hope it's good. First Class gave me new hope for the franchise.
I loved First Class and the first 2 X-Men films. It seems that this movie combines the best elements (and cast) of those movies, while simultaneously writing the shifty ones out of continuity.
I forgot to mention this, but I watched Fargo again the other day, and I still don't really like it.
I was hoping that giving it a second chance would let me appreciate it more, but I liked it about the same as I did the first time I saw it, which isn't that much at all. I also had the same experience when I tried No Country again a while ago. The Coens just aren't for me.
I can't get into the Coen Brothers films, either. I actually haven't seen Fargo in ages, so I can't comment on that film, but No Country For Old Men, Burn After Reading, and True Grit just didn't do anything for me, personally.
I have a friend who was in love with that movie. Then he grew to have mixed opinions of it. Then one day, years later, he watched it again and hated it.
Personally, I have a really hard time with the Coens. Burn After Reading was one of those movies I actually felt like I wasted money on seeing. Of their stuff, I enjoyed Lebowski (not to the extent the internet does, though) and O Brother, but that's really about it.
They cater to a specific set, really.
I rather like The Big Lebowski (but it took another viewing for me to really appreciate it, which is also why I've been willing to give more of their movies second chances), but everything else that I've seen of theirs ranges from interesting yet not especially captivating to tedious.
I just got back from seeing X-Men: Days of Future Past. This....may honestly be my new favorite X-Men film. For the longest time my favorite has been X2 (and First Class was a close second), and I'll need to see both films again to confirm, but I loved just about every second of this film, and it's the first time since X2 that I actually cared about the characters and their outcomes this much. It's easily one of the best X-Men films put to screen so far, IMO.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 23, 2014, 03:08:53 PM
I just got back from seeing X-Men: Days of Future Past. This....may honestly be my new favorite X-Men film. For the longest time my favorite has been X2 (and First Class was a close second), and I'll need to see both films again to confirm, but I loved just about every second of this film, and it's the first time since X2 that I actually cared about the characters and their outcomes this much. It's easily one of the best X-Men films put to screen so far, IMO.
Seeing it tomorrow... now hyped up.
Bryan Singer needs to stay on X-Men. Somebody get the man a contract or something. I never want to see an X3 ever again.
This is a huge spoiler so don't read it until after you've seen the film, but....
Spoiler
This film is pretty much the reboot that you wanted. The ending effectively writes most of the other films out of the series timeline of events, including X3. On the one hand it sets things up for a fresh new start, but on the other hand I'm not sure how I feel about great movies like X2 never having happened anymore (seeing as how both Jean and Scott are alive at the end).
I'm pretty likely going to see it on Sunday, and I'm pretty excited!
Saw X-Men: Days of Future Past, and even though I haven't seen any of the X-Men movies since X3 7 years ago, I thought it was a pretty damn great film. The movie made me want to finally check out First Class, which I'll probably do, along with a rewatch of the first two X-Men films.
Those are the only good ones, anyways.
First Class is also great. The supporting cast is a bit lacking, but the main focus of the movie is Xavier's and Magneto's friendship and eventual falling out, which is tremendously well-done thanks to a combination of strong-writing for both characters matched by equally strong performances. That pretty much makes the movie for me.
So I remembered something. Why did they break Magneto out? Even though Future Magneto suggested it, Wolverine still had enough experience to know the guy would play the villain. And we don't really see him help Charles and the gang much if at all.
They probably figured that they may need them both to stop Raven/Mystique, since she would no longer listen to Charles. Either that, or since he knew they would change the future anyways, old Magneto was being crafty while trying to seem genuinely helpful by convincing Logan to free him. It could be any number of reasons, but I'd have to watch the film again.
Here's a bigger plot-hole that I just realized, though: Since it's confirmed that the events of X3 are indeed canon before the alterations of the timeline, then how the fuck is Charles still alive? He was clearly killed off at the end of X3, and I figured that after they showed him in the post-credits scene of The Wolverine, that his revival would be explained in this film, but it never was, or somehow I completely missed it.
Wolverine probably thought he could take him because he had no adamantium in him if he betrayed them. There's also the fact that they were allies for so long in the future he probably thought he understood him better than he did. Of course, by the end he realizes that he didn't. "So much for being survivors".
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 27, 2014, 11:20:03 AMHere's a bigger plot-hole that I just realized, though: Since it's confirmed that the events of X3 are indeed canon before the alterations of the timeline, then how the fuck is Charles still alive? He was clearly killed off at the end of X3, and I figured that after they showed him in the post-credits scene of The Wolverine, that his revival would be explained in this film, but it never was, or somehow I completely missed it.
He was back at the end of The Wolverine, too. It's not really an DOFP plot-hole, but one never explained from X3.
I just chalk it up to everything else that movie screwed up.
It's a series plot-hole, really. Since X3 is acknowledged as canon, they could have at least explained how Charles came back. It's a comic book movie, so they could have made up whatever reason they wanted without having to worry too much about logic, but at least it still should be explained. It's a minor gripe on my part, but it is still worth mentioning.
There's a few of them, like that Senator Kelly line from X1 that Magneto had ("Are you sure you saw what you think you saw?") that were never explained in sequels which makes Magneto's plan in X1 poorly thought out on his behalf which is, well, out of character.
Hopefully now that there's a new start we can avoid such things in the future.
I hope to see Edge of Tomorrow tomorrow (lol). I haven't gotten to read the original All You Need Is Kill light novel yet, but I quite enjoyed Takeshi Obata's manga adaption, and from what I heard the movie is even better than that, so I'm pretty excited.
Saw Edge of Tomorrow. Excellent sci-fi action flick, and though it was completely different from it's source material outside of some names and the basic concept, I think in many aspects I liked it even better. The ending is not one of those aspects, though. Too convenient for my tastes. I find the original's ending was superior, but I can see why they changed it for the film (a Hollywood blockbuster film always needs a "happy ending," don't it?). Still, it was a really fun film with strong action scenes and a surprisingly great sense of humor, and I'd encourage everyone who enjoys a good action movie to go check it out.
I watched about half of The Matrix on tape a few weeks ago and on man did the nostalgia hit me hard. I'm going to check if Netflix has that and a few other movies so I can have a "dark" movie night, among other things.
Last night I finally saw Aliens. I don't need to say how good it is.
I saw it for the first time about two years ago. I need to watch it a second time.
I watched American Graffiti last night, which is about as different from Star Wars as you can get. While there are definitely some uncomfortable early 60's mannerisms in there, it's a good flick.
60s Fast & Furious?
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 09, 2014, 01:41:44 PM
60s Fast & Furious?
Heh, kinda maybe sorta, but it was made in the 70's. ;)
I love American Graffiti, haven't watched it in forever though. Isn't it set in the early 60s, like 1963?
Should be '62, since "Surfin' Safari" just came out.
Just got that 2-DVD Crystal Lake Memories documentary in the mail today (the definitive documentary on the Friday the 13th franchise)... I didn't read up on it to know what to expect. I'm 2 hours, 30 minutes into it...and they've only started talking about Part V. To present a year timeline, we have traveled from 1979-1984. There are 25 more years of the franchise left to talk about.
So far I've learned that:
Greg Nicotero of KNB Effects (they're best-known for Evil Dead 2) actually saw the uncut version of the spear impalement from Part II. Even though the footage has been lost forever, he saw a copy of it before the footage got lost.
Judie Aronson got hypothermia after her naked scene in the raft on Part IV.
Tracie Savage was actually really excited to work on a horror film, when they revealed that the film she auditioned for wasn't called Crystal Japan (which sounds like an anime / Sailor Moon thing to me).
Bill Randolph (Part II) who played Jeff, the blond guy with the cap on his head who was speared in the bed, came back for a cameo later in the movie as someone running into the bar Paul and Ginny were running out of.
I do not like Corey Feldman anymore. At all.
Lawrence Monoson (Ted, Part IV) was actually high during his death scene. He secretly toked up in his trailer before they called him onto set.
The "one" responsible for putting Jason in the hockey mask were a trio of people behind-the-scenes. More specifically, they were the team supervising the 3-D effects on Part III.
I'm glad Ted White only played Jason on one film (Part IV). Very glad. But what he did for Judie Aronson was very cool.
Adrienne King's (Alice from the first film) stalker actually held her at gunpoint once, before he was caught.
I had heard about Estelle Parsons (the grandmother on Roseanne... oh yeah, and she was in Bonnie and Clyde too) was offered Mrs. Voorhees in the first film. But I did not know that she accepted the role. Eventually, she was unable to play her because they rescheduled her shooting days and she had another commitment. So they had to get someone else, fast.
Lauren-Marie Taylor (Vicky) from Part II looks like barely a day has passed since the 80's. So far, she's aged the best out of the returning cast members being interviewed (along with Gloria Charles from Part III, who played Fox the biker). She also played her actual corpse dragging down the stairs in that scene right as Paul and Ginny's car pulls into the driveway.
I am still disappointed that Steve Miner (director of parts II and III) will not do any interviews. What... happened to him? He's not dead. Is he really that bitter about people hating his remake of Day of the Dead? What is his problem?
The press for Part III has only shaved pictures of David Katims (the actor playing Chuck). In the movie, he has a thick beard and mustache.
People love to make fun of Paul Kratka's (Rick from Part III) age in the film... Not only is he younger than my father (and I'm 31), he isn't even 60 yet and still looks dymanite with his shirt off!! (I Googled him... there are freakin' 20 year olds who are jealous of that body!) (http://bonfirehealth.com/dr-paul)
Frank Mancuso Jr., who watched over the franchise and made the most decisions to keep it going, actually wanted it to be over sooner than anyone else. He intended for it to end with Part III. Then Part IV. Then he acts like it was all out of his hands after that. Yet he offers no explanation for why he did keep it going. He just explains what he did when the decision was already made.
I am really unhappy with the way they don't explain why Greg Cannom eventually didn't work on Part IV's special effects. They allude to their being a huge falling out of sorts, but they do it in a very insulting way that leaves out all details. Greg of course did the effects for The Howling, The Lost Boys, Nightmare on Elm Street 3, Fright Night Part 2, The Exorcist III, Vamp, and Brian De Palma's The Fury. Oh, and, Cocoon, Mrs. Doubtfire, Titanic, Michael Jackson's Thriller, Blade, Hook, Passion of the Christ, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, A Beautiful Mind, the first Pirates of the Caribbean, and Francis Ford Coppola's version of Dracula. So... yeah, I'd like to know what the problem there was.
Almost every set seems to have burned down, including the bar from Part II and the lodge-house from Part III, though the fireplace was standing at the time this doc was filmed.
A lot of super-religious people worked on this franchise. Yippee... I actually knew about Dana Kimmell, John Shepherd, Laurie Bartram, and Shavar Ross. Didn't know Lauren-Marie Taylor was also in that club.
Hearing about how harmonious production was on every film (Frank Mancuso Jr.'s words, not mine) makes me really excited to hear about the friction us fans know went on behind Part VII with Associate Producer Barbara Sachs' laundry list of complaints with what John Beuchler wanted.
No mention yet about several deleted scenes on Part IV that Paramount still hasn't included on any of the DVD's. I'd like to hear about that.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on July 09, 2014, 12:18:06 PM
Last night I finally saw Aliens. I don't need to say how good it is.
It works doubly well since it's so unlike the original while still keeping much of the atmosphere and style. Such a shame they couldn't pull off a trilogy. Those two movies deserved it.
A duology would have been fine. Speaking of watch, Drunken Master is my favorite duology.
How about a Tetralogy (Quadrilogy)?
I would say Lethal Weapon, but I really don't care for 3 much at all.
I've been thinking about 3. It's basically a generic corrupt cop story.
Edit: I'd pick Police Story/Supercop if the 2nd and 4th movie is good.
Yeah, Lethal Weapon 1 was a really good character story and 2 really built on its base while adding characters like Leo, but 3 didn't have much of anything going for it except giving Riggs a love interest and actually having the cliche of killing the rookie cop on his birthday. Not to mention the comedy wasn't nearly as good as the first two. 4 was a definite improvement.
I was considering Die Hard until I remembered 5 came out and wasn't all too hot, and that I've never really liked 2 all that much. But 1, 3, and 4, are all really good.
Live Free or Die Hard is really good? I expected to hear it was average. I need to watch that and all of 3.
I know Lethal Weapon 1 is my favorite but I can't pick out of 2 and 4.
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 10, 2014, 06:57:08 PM
Live Free or Die Hard is really good? I expected to hear it was average. I need to watch that and all of 3.
Most people who don't seem to like Live Free seem to think 2 is really good, I find. But as a whole, Live Free is very enjoyable and very reminiscent of old school cop movies with a modern twist. I personally was surprised that I liked it so much.
I really liked Live Free or Die Hard. It's MUCH better than 2, and I never got the people who treat it like the Die Hard equivalent of KOTCS. It's a fun action movie, just like any good Die Hard movie should be.
I like all five Die Hard movies, but for me there's a clear tier of 1, 3, and 4, and then the other two. Neither of them are awful or anything, though.
I still have yet to see the 5th one. Despite all of the negative reviews for it, I still plan to see it eventually with an open mind.
It's alright. Nothing amazing or anything, but it's a pretty decent action movie.
I was THIS close to getting the Blu-Ray set with all of them, until I saw that my wallet was thinner than I recalled. If my pawn shop guy still has it and I can find a thing or two to trade in, I might finally hit that up and see 5 for myself.
I think that they have 5 streaming on HBO GO for the time being, if you have that.
I do not.
I am interested in owning the set anyway, since 1 and 3, y'no? I also like LFODH, but I don't really recall 2.
He stabs a guy in the eye with an icicle and blows up a plane with his lighter. It's the only Die Hard film to get a thumbs up from BOTH Siskel & Ebert... for some reason.
I still have to pick up a copy of 5, but I would say if you like 2 you should like 5. They're both good action movies.
This is pretty interesting. (http://thedissolve.com/news/2596-charts-graphs-hollywoods-20-favorite-movies-accord/)
I'm honestly surprised that Gone With the Wind is so low though- people still seem to love that flick. And I honestly do prefer it to a lot of the list, myself.
I just checked out the top 100, and overall it's a pretty decent list, but is The Seven Samurai seriously the only foreign film on that list? And at that, it's only just barely on there, ranked at the #100 spot.
The list also lacks any Sergio Leone movie, which I consider folly, but I guess his films were never critical darlings to begin with, especially among the Hollywood crowd.
I'll just say that we're never going to see a foreign language film win Best Picture, because let's be real, one never will.
And for some reason, to most "serious" people in the business, John Ford is the only western director in town. While I really do like his style, I can't agree with that at all. Leone, Peckinpah, and Anthony Mann are equal to greater in comparison.
Maybe they just hold it against Leone that A Fistful of Dollars was essentially a rip-off of Yojimbo (as if that was the only Western to rip-off a Kurosawa film). That still doesn't make The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, Once Upon a Time in the West, or Once Upon a Time in a America to be any less of masterpieces.
I certainly can't see how anyone could justify Avatar being on this list at all and those films not (not to mention that it's essentially ahead of the only Kurosawa film on that list, on top of everything else ranked before it). I could have easily picked any other film to take its place. Speaking of which, I noticed that The Dirty Dozen nor The Great Escape made this list. I'm not utterly shocked at that or anything, but as far as WWII films go, it seems that one of their main representatives is Saving Private Ryan. Now, I do actually like that movie, but I've always felt that critics kind of overrated it. It also has the dishonor of starting that whole goddamn shaky cam trend, so I'm a bit biased towards it, but I don't mind it being on the list. Still, there are far better war films out there, IMO.
Nobody even talks about Avatar anymore. It was the definition of flash in the pan.
I didn't even think the special effects were that great, anyway, never mind how lackluster and predictable everything else was.
I like to pretend that James Cameron never made this movie. I mean, seriously, you'd think that the guy who made fucking Sci-Fi classics like the first 2 Terminator films and Aliens would know a thing or two about good story-telling beyond just presenting you with an inferior version of Dances With Wolves or The Last Samurai.
The best WWII movie is The Thin Red Line.
And Avatar isn't the first hyper derivative film Cameron made- Titanic is literally just Gone With the Wind on a boat. Nothing more, nothing less.
At least Titanic had some good writing and directing, as well as something legitimately worth caring about. Plus, the special effects in it are actually real, and they're pretty interesting to learn about. Avatar is basically just special effects, and the effects just CGI and have that really polished, slightly unnatural look to them.
Avatar was also apparently something he had been planning since the mid 90s. He could've come up with something better.
At least that film didn't get by on visuals alone. It had good acting and a decent script, if nothing else. I swear, the only decent performance in Avatar was from Zoe Saldana, and even that wasn't as great as Cameron claims it was (though I still do look forward to seeing her in GOTG).
Also, I still need to actually watch The Thin Red Line.
Oh yeah, and Where Eagles Dare is another WWII movie that I'd personally rank above SPR.
and didn't kurosawa "ripoff" westerns? if i remember correctly, in an interview, he said he liked the back and forth influence between them.
I'm going to be perfectly honest and say... I don't think The Dark Knight should necessarily be considered one of the top 100 movies ever made. I mean, even on that list alone, there are many movies below it that deserve to be higher. Here's a few that I gather merely from skimming.
Sunset Boulevard
North by Northwest
Raging Bull
The Lion King
Vertigo
Young Frankenstein
Wall-E
On the Waterfront
Any Lord of the Rings film
Beauty and the Beast
The Deer Hunter
Pan's Labyrinth
Seven Samurai
There's never gonna be a perfect top 100 film list. As long as they don't choose stinkers like Avatar for their list, I don't find much need to argue with them.
Last night I saw Alien 3. Yeah, seriously. I didn't have my expectations set high. But... Let me just say I'm left with a few questions.
1. How was that alien able to get on the ship at the beginning when the queen was killed in Aliens?
2. What were they thinking when they killed off the characters from Aliens, when they were all likable?
3. Why replace said characters with all new ones that aren't memorable?
4. What was the point of all those religious themes?
5. Why was the script so bad?
6. Why was Ripley's death and buildup handled in a corney way?
7. What was the point of making an otherwise mediocre rehash of the first film?
That and more.
Because, according to some people, David Fincher wasn't making a meathead action movie for idiots. Those aren't plotholes and detracting factors, you're just not part of the audience and are probably mentally deficient.
::)
Yes, that movie has defenders.
From what I've heard, Alien 3 was one of those films that went through production hell, with numerous script re-writes and tons of studio meddling.
It doesn't matter anymore, though, as FOX made it and Alien: Resurrection officially non-canon (as they always were, anyways). Instead we got the much better Aliens: Colonial Mar----oh, wait, Nevermind. Let's just pretend that game doesn't exist, either.
Seriously, why the hell is it so impossible to make a proper sequel to Aliens? At this point, I'd rather they just leave the series alone. Aliens is the true end of the franchise as Ripley and crew finally take out the Xenomorphs once and for all. And that's it. There's no story left to tell after that point.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 22, 2014, 11:22:01 AM
Because, according to some people, David Fincher wasn't making a meathead action movie for idiots. Those aren't plotholes and detracting factors, you're just not part of the audience and are probably mentally deficient.
::)
Yes, that movie has defenders.
I notice that you take a lot out on David Fincher, but have you actually looked into this movie's behind-the-scenes production? Fincher had to deal with a lot of interference, and if you know his opinion, he hates the film just as much as anyone to the point of pretty much downright disowning it (or at the very least not wanting his name to be attached to it at all).
Wait, did FOX actually declare Alien 3 non-canon? I mean, it's already non-canon in my mind, but that'd be great if even FOX recognized this fact.
Aliens Infestation was pretty good.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on July 22, 2014, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 22, 2014, 11:22:01 AM
Because, according to some people, David Fincher wasn't making a meathead action movie for idiots. Those aren't plotholes and detracting factors, you're just not part of the audience and are probably mentally deficient.
::)
Yes, that movie has defenders.
I notice that you take a lot out on David Fincher, but have you actually looked into this movie's behind-the-scenes production? Fincher had to deal with a lot of interference, and if you know his opinion, he hates the film just as much as anyone to the point of pretty much downright disowning it (or at the very least not wanting his name to be attached to it at all).
That was more of a slam at the defenders than him. I've seen the "You just like brainless action movies!" argument used to defend Alien 3 and put down Aliens more than anything else.
Of course it wasn't entirely his fault, but he does have some blame to take. In the end, it was his decision to use a script that essentially made Aliens pointless, and a plot that was a retread of the first movie only worse. I don't hate him for making it, and I'm glad he recognizes it as the failure that it is, but I'm certainly glad that it's no longer canon.
You're better off just pretending the series is a duology. At this point it pretty much is.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on July 22, 2014, 11:29:14 AM
Wait, did FOX actually declare Alien 3 non-canon? I mean, it's already non-canon in my mind, but that'd be great if even FOX recognized this fact.
And Alien: Resurrection (by extension), yes.
That said, it's all for naught, since Aliens: Colonial Marines is "officially" considered canon until FOX says otherwise.
Aliens should have been it for actual sequels. Movies between Alien and Aliens is the only logical solution.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 22, 2014, 11:39:54 AMThat was more of a slam at the defenders than him. I've seen the "You just like brainless action movies!" argument used to defend Alien 3 and put down Aliens more than anything else.
Yeah, you just gotta love it when people play the "you're just not smart enough to get it" card. :srs:
QuoteOf course it wasn't entirely his fault, but he does have some blame to take. In the end, it was his decision to use a script that essentially made Aliens pointless
Actually, no, it's not his decision (at least not entirely). It's the producer/studio's decision. The people paying for the film ultimately say what goes, and when a director is bound by contracts there is little to nothing he can do about that unless maybe he has a more reputable status (and at the time David Fincher wasn't that big a name, among directors). Granted that, I can't say for sure how much any of this disaster was anyone's fault in particular, but I do know that movie making is far more complex than just the film magically being made. Even terrible movies still have a lot of time. Money, resources, and effort going into them. It's just that when things get to corporate, the film suffers ugly consequences for it, no matter how good a director is. Based on what I've read about the film's production, though, I'm more inclined to see it as the fault of the producers.
At any rate, regardless of who's fault it is, the important thing is that we can all agree that the actual movie itself is shit and can be glad that it "technically" no longer exists. David Fincher and FOX have both gone on to make much better films since then (and in the case of FOX, plenty of other fuck-ups as well).
I will go on record in saying, though, that despite its flaws, I still really liked Prometheus, and would gladly accept it as canon to the Alien mythos (which it is). I also look forward to it's supposed sequel, even if nobody else does.
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 22, 2014, 12:01:06 PM
Aliens should have been it for actual sequels. Movies between Alien and Aliens is the only logical solution.
Or video games, seeing as how we're getting Alien: Isolation. I'm not holding my breath for it to be any good, though. I've kept my expectations weary after Gearbox and Sega's Royal fuck-up.
There's always Aliens Infestation. That was fun. Shame everyone seems to have forgotten about it, though.
I have no clue what Infestation is.
What's Isolation going to be about again? I believe I mostly just heard about it's preorder DLC of the original cast.
Infestation was Metroidvania made by WayForward for the DS. It was REALLY good.
I hear that similar to David Lynch and Dune, Fincher walks out on interviews if Alien 3 is brought up.
Even the best have that hiccup in their career that they don't want to talk about. Not all of them are as obvious as Piranha 2 though.
True. Chaplin didn't even acknowledge The Circus in his autobiography, but that's more because of the film's troublesome production than the quality itself.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on July 22, 2014, 11:54:15 AM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on July 22, 2014, 11:29:14 AM
Wait, did FOX actually declare Alien 3 non-canon? I mean, it's already non-canon in my mind, but that'd be great if even FOX recognized this fact.
And Alien: Resurrection (by extension), yes.
That said, it's all for naught, since Aliens: Colonial Marines is "officially" considered canon until FOX says otherwise.
According to Wikipedia, Colonial Marines takes place after Alien 3. Is that information just incorrect?
Whatever the case, as far as I'm concerned, Alien 3 is just fanfiction, just like Terminator 3.
I've heard that it makes the last 2 chronological Alien films non-canon, so I'm just sticking with that.
Also if it did take place after the events of Alien 3, that would be a major plot-hole seeing as how Ripley killed off the last remaining Alien (which she was impregnated with).
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on July 22, 2014, 03:13:20 PM
I've heard that it makes the last 2 chronological Alien films non-canon, so I'm just sticking with that.
Also if it did take place after the events of Alien 3, that would be a major plot-hole seeing as how Ripley killed off the last remaining Alien (which she was impregnated with).
They also killed off the last alien in Aliens, the queen. Seems like that's a problem in every post-Aliens story, all the more reason to ignore them. :P
Another thing that's worse about Alien 3 is the alien design. I mean, when its a practical effect, it looks great. But when it's CGI and running around on four legs like a dog, it just doesn't look good.
The studio was really hoping for it to be their cash cow. I mean, there was a big media push behind Alien 3 at the time, I remember. Toys, commercials, video games... of course, in the long run it didn't turn out all that well. But you'd think after the space between Alien and Aliens they could have afforded to wait longer for a movie that wasn't destined to be sub-par.
Did they use that much CGI in 3? I know for a fact that at least some form of practical effects were used for it, because I saw the behind-the-scenes documentary on it when they aired in on FX quite a few years ago. Honestly, for all of its problems, the special effects were really the least of them, IMO. I hate it because it's a bad script with poorly written characters that shits all over what made the first 2 films great. That said I do still think that Resurrection is the worst Alien film. That, I know, used a lot more CGI, and the writing and characters were even worse, because at this point they resembled cartoon personalities rather than actual people.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 22, 2014, 12:22:13 PMThere's always Aliens Infestation. That was fun. Shame everyone seems to have forgotten about it, though.
Well, at least it certainly wouldn't be the only DS spin-off of a franchise that got criminally overlooked. :humhumhum:
There was a good amount of CGI in the extended version which is what I saw. Apparently the CGI wasn't in the theatrical version though.
That said, it was the smallest problem in that movie.
According to this source from a few years ago, 3 and Resurrection are still considered canon.
http://www.warpzoned.com/2012/04/aliens-colonial-marines-is-officially-part-of-movie-canon-wii-u-version-is-not-a-port/
"The only productions currently considered canon are the first four films (yes, even Alien 3), Aliens: Colonial Marines, and maybe Ridley Scott's Prometheus (since there's still the possibility it's not a prequel)."
They're not part of my canon, so I don't care.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on July 23, 2014, 07:55:40 PM
They're not part of my canon, so I don't care.
I agree regardless. I was just saying cause they were saying 3 and Resurrection were written out of canon.
I'm guessing there are sources from since then that override the quote I posted. I also think it would be amusing if even the official sources recognized that those movies shouldn't be canon. :P
Notice that none of the other stuff they regard as non-canon every even refer to anything that happens in the last two movies.
They pretty much are non-canon as it is.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on July 23, 2014, 07:50:31 PM
According to this source from a few years ago, 3 and Resurrection are still considered canon.
http://www.warpzoned.com/2012/04/aliens-colonial-marines-is-officially-part-of-movie-canon-wii-u-version-is-not-a-port/
"The only productions currently considered canon are the first four films (yes, even Alien 3), Aliens: Colonial Marines, and maybe Ridley Scott's Prometheus (since there's still the possibility it's not a prequel)."
Honestly, does it even matter anymore, at this point? Nobody considers those movies canon, anyways.
Oh I agree with you both 100%. I was just wondering what the official sources say. It's not that it actually matters, because no matter what they say, 3 can't be canon because of how it clashes with the intent of the first two movies.
I didn't know where else to put this, and I didn't want to create a whole separate thread for it, but on the subject of Alien 3, I thought it would be interesting to list out my most disappointing sequels, prequels, and spin-offs in film. Here's what I got:
10. Terminator: Salvation (I hoped that it would restore the franchise....that hope was misplaced)
9. Mission Impossible 3
8. Quantum of Solace (I didn't hate this one, but it was still a huge letdown)
7. Die Hard 2 (I haven't seen 5 yet, but this is easily my least favorite Die Hard film)
6. Alien: Resurrection (had lowered expectations from 3 going into it, but it still hurt to watch)
5. The Terminator 3
4. Iron Man 2
3. Star Wars prequels
2. Alien 3
1. X-Men 3: The Last Stand (yes, Wolverine was a worse film, but I had low expectations going into it, so there wasn't too much to be disappointed with)
Keep in mind, I'm including sequels that I had at least some hope for going into them, but which left me utterly disappointed. I didn't rank these based on the worst sequels in general, as there are plenty of bad sequels that I knew would be bad going into them, which is why they aren't on this list.
I thought most people thought MI3 was the best?
Quote from: Avaitor on July 26, 2014, 01:38:21 PM
I thought most people thought MI3 was the best?
I don't know who these people are, but I do not wish to associate with them. :whuh:
Mission Impossible was a decent action movie, with some very cleverly shot scenes that made the film iconic and memorable.
Mission Impossible 2 was a John Woo movie, meaning that it was ridiculously over the top, but still fun as hell as a good action movie should be.
Mission Impossible 3 was a generic uninspired action movie, IMO, and that's what made it such a disappointment from a series that was usually good for at least having memorable action, if nothing else.
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol was a return to form, and was great for being one of the few "fun to watch" super agent movies in a time that's utterly dominated by dark and gritty shaky cam action popularized by the Bourne movies (which I do like, aside from the shaky cam).
So yeah, I think 3 is the worst, personally.
only iron man 2, the last sw prequel and t3 would be on my list. i like x3 and mi3 and havent seen the rest.
I like both MI2 and 3 even though people seem to either hate one or the other. Still haven't seen Ghost Protocol.
I FINALLY watched Captain America: The First Avenger, and I loved it. I didn't think it was as good as The Winter Soldier, but as far as MCU films go, it sits firmly in second place behind its sequel (though I do feel that Guardians of the Galaxy will surpass both, for me). Very fun movie with likeable characters and good action; I think it felt the most like a live action comic book of all the superhero flicks I've seen.
Mission Impossible 3 is better than the first two. The only problem I had is I couldn't take the main villain seriously. Philip Seymour Hoffman was a good actor but in that movie he just seemed like a really angry little nerd.
I like both Captain America movies about the same, really. They are my 2 favorite Marvel movies. Guardians of the Galaxy may be up there as well if it's as good as I hope.
I haven't seen Terminator Salvation and I don't doubt that it's a weak film that hurts the franchise. However, based on the brief shots I've seen of it, it has a sort of grainy look to it that I think fits the Judgement Day war scenario well enough. If they incorporated that stylistic choice into a Judgement Day movie that makes sense (such as Spark's idea about a movie that follows John Connor and Kyle Reese in the future of the original timeline, before the future was changed), then maybe we could have had a good Terminator 3. Of course, though, it would also require good directing and writing.
That's really the only idea I can come up with for a Terminator movie after 2 that makes sense. Anything else at all that I can come up with clashes with the intent of the first two movies in some way. So if you set that aside, they should've just ended the series after 2.
ah yes, no continuity breaking. thats a good idea.
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 27, 2014, 09:11:10 PM
ah yes, no continuity breaking. thats a good idea.
What?
i wasnt being sarcastic if thats what you meant
I had no idea where to post this (I'm doing so here since we were talking about the Alien movies). A few days ago I finally watched James Rolfe's Monster Madness videos on the Alien franchise (when he aired those last October, I skipped them knowing that I'd watch the movies someday). For the most part I agree with what he says. I also highly agree on the strengths of the first two Alien movies, and I agree that it's completely arguable deciding which movie to prefer. One excels at horror while the other excels at action (both excel at characters, suspense, and all that).
I can also agree with him that Resurrection is more entertaining than 3, though I still don't really like either movie. In fact, I actually find 3 to be more memorable (or rather, less forgettable) both because of how much it frustrated me, and also because there was more effort put into it. With Resurrection, it feels like they didn't even try to make it good, and though it does succeed at being simple entertainment to a certain extent, I can barely remember anything that happened in the movie. And it's only been a few days since I saw it. I also find that I respect 3 more because of its effort, and I consider the ending of 3 (despite a few corny moments) to be better than any part of Resurrection.
I'm probably the only person here who thinks that Resurrection is a worse film than 3 was. Of course, they are both horrid pieces of shit, but I didn't get why people said that Resurrection was just simple dumb fun. It's certainly dumb, but nothing about it is even remotely fun. What made Alien 3 more frustrating to watch was because it was directly tied to the first 2 films and the movie clearly had a ton of effort out into it....it's just that the troubled production of the film really misguided the effort. David Fincher has proven himself to be a good director with many of his later films, but even he couldn't save a script that was pretty bad and that the studio pushed on him (and before you say it was his choice to go through with it, remember that he was bound by contract to make the film).
Resurrection, on the other hand, just felt like they didn't care. I understand that every movie takes a lot of effort to make. Even for bad movies, people are usually oblivious as to how much work and time goes into them, and for the people making the movie, it's impossible to tell whether it'll be good or not until the movie is actually done. With Resurrection, I'm sure it was a lot of work, but I get the feeling that there was no heart or passion in it. The people making it clearly didn't have much faith in the film to begin with. I think that the people making Alien 3 were actually trying to make a gear follow-up to Aliens, which ironically makes it that much more frustrating that it turned out to be crap. I think the biggest mistake was killing off all of the surviving characters from Aliens (sans Ripley), right at the beginning of the film (and off-screen, at that). Remember how a whole 20-minute segment if Aliens was devoted to Ripley risking her life to go back and rescue Newt? Yeah, Alien 3 says fuck that and kills her off like it's nothing. Right from that point I knew that the film would suck.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on July 28, 2014, 02:06:28 PM
I'm probably the only person here who thinks that Resurrection is a worse film than 3 was. Of course, they are both horrid pieces of shit, but I didn't get why people said that Resurrection was just simple dumb fun. It's certainly dumb, but nothing about it is even remotely fun. What made Alien 3 more frustrating to watch was because it was directly tied to the first 2 films and the movie clearly had a ton of effort out into it....it's just that the troubled production of the film really misguided the effort. David Fincher has proven himself to be a good director with many of his later films, but even he couldn't save a script that was pretty bad and that the studio pushed on him (and before you say it was his choice to go through with it, remember that he was bound by contract to make the film).
Resurrection, on the other hand, just felt like they didn't care. I understand that every movie takes a lot of effort to make. Even for bad movies, people are usually oblivious as to how much work and time goes into them, and for the people making the movie, it's impossible to tell whether it'll be good or not until the movie is actually done. With Resurrection, I'm sure it was a lot of work, but I get the feeling that there was no heart or passion in it. The people making it clearly didn't have much faith in the film to begin with. I think that the people making Alien 3 were actually trying to make a gear follow-up to Aliens, which ironically makes it that much more frustrating that it turned out to be crap. I think the biggest mistake was killing off all of the surviving characters from Aliens (sans Ripley), right at the beginning of the film (and off-screen, at that). Remember how a whole 20-minute segment if Aliens was devoted to Ripley risking her life to go back and rescue Newt? Yeah, Alien 3 says fuck that and kills her off like it's nothing. Right from that point I knew that the film would suck.
I wouldn't blame Fincher for everything that happened to 3. I know there was a lot of trouble during the creation of that movie. I do believe they really wanted to make a great movie with Alien 3, a dark and atmospheric movie that would serve as a great ending for the character of Ripley and the franchise. With Resurrection, I agree with James Rolfe that it feels like the movie existed hit theaters, make some money, and then be forgotten.
Also, I don't consider Resurrection to just be dumb fun. I just think it came off as more fun than 3, but that has to be put into perspective. My brother, who watched all the movies with me, called Resurrection dumb fun and I didn't get that. Resurrection was boring to me, and forgettable, and the characters were so silly they didn't feel real.
I think one way to put it is that I hated 3. It aimed higher, but if you're going to go the direction that 3 went, you need to
really get it right. I disliked Resurrection too, but honestly, I think the fact that the movie went so much more simple and is overall more harmless makes it hard for me to downright hate it. It's just bland and forgettable. If I do remember Alien 3 at all a few months from now, I'll remember it as being a movie that ruined the franchise and was painful to me, whereas I feel confident that I won't even remember Resurrection at all. I barely even remember it right now, in fact. All I can remember is a few brief shots from the movie. :D
Also, yeah, I hated how they killed off the likable characters from Aliens, especially Newt. I think it's especially important that Newt survive because she became like a new daughter figure for Ripley. I wasn't totally expecting those characters to be in this movie, but they still didn't have to do that.
I found a used copy of the Star War box set with all 6 movies for $30. The catch is that the front cover is hella scratched up.
Still, that's not a bad deal, and even though I don't have any real use for the prequels, I'm pretty sure that most of the extras are only in that one set, as opposed to the trilogy exclusive ones. If I can magically make $30 before I go, I'll consider it.
I feel like I'll never purchase a Star Wars set until the original, unaltered trilogy gets re-released properly. As far as I know, the last time they were released was on DVD as special features, years ago.
Not special features- they actually did get their own DVD releases. But not in a set, like the "remastered" trilogy, and without most bonus features.
Somehow, I doubt that we'll get the unaltered trilogy on Blu anytime soon, especially since Fox still owns the rights to A New Hope away from Disney.
After all this Star Wars talk, I think I'm gonna watch the old movies then hunt down the Thrawn trilogy. Then I'll stop. And I'll be just fine.
I've never really been a fan of the MI movies being not only that they felt remarkably different from the TV show, but also because I found them much too boring overall despite having some memorable moments. Also, that Tom Cruise keeps getting attaching to it as if it's his series and they can't make Mission Impossible without him, which simply isn't the case. He could easily be replaced and the series would be fine, it's not like he's very memorable in the part. This isn't Lethal Weapon or Die Hard.
That said, I've heard great things about Ghost Protocol, and since it is directed by Brad Bird, I do have an interest.
i disagree. mi is cruise's top franchise. he's kind of famous, you know?
And I honestly couldn't get into the TV series. I don't think it has aged all that well. Also, MI2 is a John Woo film, and John Woo is the greatest action movie director of all time, so that makes him infallible.[/fact]
i wish hollywood woo was good. he made no more than like two good movies over here.
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 28, 2014, 03:45:06 PM
i wish hollywood woo was good. he made no more than like two good movies over here.
That's Hollywood's fault. Woo should just make Harboiled 2, already. Stranglehold doesn't count.
i want to play stranglehold. the demo was decent and it's from the team that made psi-ops.
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 28, 2014, 03:52:17 PM
i want to play stranglehold. the demo was decent and it's from the team that made psi-ops.
Honestly, the game isn't all that great. From a story perspective it really hurts that the game is all in English. It just doesn't sound right, and I would have preferred that they spoke in Cantonese with English subtitles like how I watched the film. As for the gameplay, it's like a poor man's version of Max Payne. I mean, on the surface it has all of the makings of a great game, including powerful guns (which you don't even reload, in the spirit of the film), lots of maneuverability, and completely destructible environments. Yet the environments themselves are too cluttered and make it impractical to maneuver at all, and you end up having to rely on the strategy of just finding a corner to take cover in and take out the enemies as they come to you. You're really just better off playing a Max Payne game and pretending that it's Hardboiled (which is what inspired that game, anyways).
Isn't Woo planning on making a Stranglehold film anyway?
I never heard any confirmation on that, myself.
Slowly re-watching all the Disney animated films I have at my immediate disposal... which sadly means I have no access to Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, or The Lion King (never got around to buying the DVD's)- and, of course, Netflix's deal with Disney will not rectify this problem. But, they do have everything from Pocahontas to Brother Bear except Fantasia 2000, which I have in the Fantasia 2-disc set. So, I plan to watch all the movies I've never seen, pre-Chicken Little (and here's hoping they finally upload Home on the Range) (no, seriously, if they're not ashamed to put up The Haunted Mansion...).
Yeah, I also agree that Guardians of the Galaxy was pretty friggen awesome. Loved it from start to finish. Man, Marvel just continues to be on a roll with it's movies.
I hope to see it on Sunday. But, I feel really sorry for DC fans. Marvel is kicking their ass in cinema.
I will be seeing it tomorrow.
Should be fun.
AR's favorite critic on Guardians. (https://twitter.com/JesuOtaku/status/495376927763341312)
Pretty shocking series of Tweets there, considering Gunn was once married to Jenna Fischer... and they did a Troma movie together. Like... together. If there's anything more awkward than watching a couple who used to be married acting opposite each other in a no-budget movie, it's knowing that one of them has a bad reputation and the other moved on to much bigger mainstream success.
Quote from: Homura Akemi on August 02, 2014, 03:34:54 AMI cry blood. She doesn't explain her points. I cry blood again.
No, but if someone even so much as *dared* to question her on it, she'd probably unleash Zac Bertschy on them. She seems to do that for almost anything, these days.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 02, 2014, 09:22:10 AMQuote from: Homura Akemi on August 02, 2014, 03:34:54 AMShe doesn't explain her points.
No, but if someone even so much as *dared* to question her on it, she'd probably unleash Zac Bertschy on them. She seems to do that for almost anything, these days.
Do you have any opinion on what she said? About the movie or Gunn?
I'm not familiar with Gunn's work, but I watched the movie and didn't catch any misogynistic undertones from it at all, so :??:
Quote from: Homura Akemi on August 02, 2014, 03:44:24 PM
I'm watching Slither with Foggle thanks to Guardians. It's a pretty fun, humorous and cheesy film.
It was
so great! :swoon: :swoon:
Quote from: Cartoon X on August 02, 2014, 07:02:12 PM
I'm not familiar with Gunn's work, but I watched the movie and didn't catch any misogynistic undertones from it at all, so :??:
Morons like to pretend he's sexist on their soapbox because he wrote Lollipop Chainsaw. Of course, none of these people have ever actually played the game for more than 5 minutes, or else they'd realize that there really isn't anything misogynistic in it at all.
You know, when the people who hate the movie use statements like this, (https://twitter.com/gabbomatic/status/495766716295573504) it really shows how reaching people have to go to not like Guardians.
I just saw GOTG. I thought it was great, and now that I've seen it, I can't for the life of me see what about it is sexist in the least. As far as I can tell, nobody but JO has even made such a claim (aside from her followers, who believe just about anything she says).
I'd say that it easily takes 3rd place (or 2nd) among my favorite MCU movies, with the 2 Captain America movies still being my personal favorites. Whichever way you put it, though, this was a strong year for Marvel, and a much needed return to form after Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World, which are both films that I enjoyed well enough, but felt rather underwhelming coming off the heels of The Avengers (which I honestly feel that GOTG has surpassed in terms of ensemble superhero films, which is no easy feat).
I just got back from GOTG as well. I loved it to pieces! It's easily become far and away my favorite comic book movie, even surpassing Kick-Ass and Cemetery Man (if you count that one). Brilliant action, humor, characters, soundtrack, casting, everything. There wasn't a single thing I disliked about it. The rest of the cinema loved it too! Everyone there was cracking up at nearly all the jokes (myself included). I haven't seen a piece of space-faring science fantasy this good since Serenity. The people calling Guardians this generation's Star Wars are right on the money, IMO. If I was between the ages of 8 and 14, this would probably be my all-time favorite film. I'm gonna' pick up some TPBs of the comics ASAP!
the comic i read was alright. you should read annihilation v. 1-4. it has drax, ronan and gamora in it and is still my favorite big comic book event.
Quote from: gunswordfist on August 03, 2014, 09:15:15 PM
the comic i read was alright. you should read annihilation v. 1-4. it has drax, ronan and gamora in it and is still my favorite big comic book event.
Thanks, I will! :joy:
i am sure y'all love it. :)
Yeah, Annihilation is amazing and has great art. Anyone who loved this movie should check it out.
As for the movie itself, I plan to see it with my brother, but since he's out of town this week, I'll have to wait a little while.
Yeah, I saw Guardians of the Galaxy tonight, and I was surprised by how good it was.
They had a special screening for the creator of Rocket Raccoon, who couldn't go to theaters due to a severe brain injury. (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/nailbiter111/news/?a=105108)
People hate GOTG? ???
I thought it was pretty great. We were about due for a really fun summer action movie and we finally got one.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on August 04, 2014, 12:27:17 PM
We were about due for a really fun summer action movie and we finally got one.
...You didn't watch
Edge of Tomorrow, did you?
Quote from: Cartoon X on August 04, 2014, 12:51:50 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on August 04, 2014, 12:27:17 PM
We were about due for a really fun summer action movie and we finally got one.
...You didn't watch Edge of Tomorrow, did you?
Yes, and it was the worst movie I've ever seen.
No, I did not. ;)
Does X-Men: Days of Future Past not count for some reason? It was released during the summer season.
As for Edge of Tomorrow, I wanted to see it, but I couldn't convince anyone to go with me. I did at least read the manga when the translations for that were finished, though I haven't read the original novel.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 04, 2014, 01:10:48 PM
Does X-Men: Days of Future Past not count for some reason? It was released during the summer season.
It was an excellent movie, but I didn't consider it "fun" in the same way as GOTG.
I think that the Quicksilver seen alone encompasses enough "fun" to fill up 2 movies, and then some. :bleh:
But, I still think it can count as fun. It may be more serious than GOTG, but it had lenty of humorous and light-hearted moments as well, IMO.
By the way, a few nights ago I had seen James Rolfe's movie based on the AVGN. It's the type of movie that's a lot of fun if you like the character, which I know many people here don't. It's also obvious the effort that James put into the effects of the movie, intentionally giving it a campy B movie feel (for example, there is a driving scene that is obviously filmed on a green screen, despite the fact that it's easy these days to just film on an actual road). I also think it's good that James has finally put E.T. behind him, since people have been bothering him about reviewing that game for so many years.
And at the screening I went to in Phoenixville, PA, James Rolfe was there, gave a talk to the audience and gave a Q&A. I also got to meet him, Kyle Justin, Kevin Finn, and Mike Matei afterward, got my copy of the Ghostbusters NES game autographed, and got a picture taken with them. Overall, it was pretty cool.
Sounds cool. I probably won't get to check out the movie for a while, since it's only on a limited release in certain theaters for now.
Sorry I didn't make a GOTG talkback thread. I was out for the weekend, so I didn't get the chance.
But I just saw it, and wow, was it great! I liked it about as much as TWS, myself.
Quote from: Avaitor on August 05, 2014, 04:44:14 PM
Sorry I didn't make a GOTG talkback thread. I was out for the weekend, so I didn't get the chance.
But I just saw it, and wow, was it great! I liked it about as much as TWS, myself.
TWS?
Quote from: talonmalon333 on August 05, 2014, 04:48:01 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on August 05, 2014, 04:44:14 PM
Sorry I didn't make a GOTG talkback thread. I was out for the weekend, so I didn't get the chance.
But I just saw it, and wow, was it great! I liked it about as much as TWS, myself.
TWS?
The Willy's Silly
While Guardians of the Galaxy was great, I think The Willy's Silly blew it out of the water.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on August 05, 2014, 04:50:45 PM
While Guardians of the Galaxy was great, I think The Willy's Silly blew it out of the water.
Y'no what, you're damn right!
but seriously, The Winter Soldier
...oh.
The trouble with acronyms.
ijs.
True. My best friend's initials are KKK.
Knowing his parents, I'm not sure if they planned that or not.
About 3/4ths through Divergent on DVD. Not terribly impressed. I'm having the feeling that if I hadn't read the book, I wouldn't be sure what was going on. On the other hand, already knowing the plot, it's becoming a bore to watch. Stuck too close to the book, except for removing some scenes. I'm not sure if the movie fails at creating the necessary tension, or it's just unengaging because I already know what happens.
I was thinking, if it wasn't overly violent, maybe I could show it at the library. Then I ended up being annoyed that some of the more violent stuff from the book was not there.
Spoiler
(The girl that got killed jumping out of the train, Peter stabbing his competitor in the eye with a butter knife while he slept. Peter is coming off as nothing but an obnoxious jerk, instead of a psychopath.)
For the record, I was not a particular fan of the book, either, though it's reasonably decent in the flood of angsty semi-dystopia books that followed the success of The Hunger Games. (What do you call this genre, anyway? A dystopia is a story where a 'paradise' disguises a horrible secret, but these books all have openly oppressive, awful societies where the horrible underlying truth is just icing on the cake.)
I call it a fad. :P
I saw The Hunger Games and really wasn't impressed. Battle Royale already did this and was way more unsettling than THG tries to be.
Battle Royale >>>>> The Hunger Games
Yeah, The Hunger Games was only okay. But the sequel, Catching Fire, was much better, in my opinion.
I haven't seen Battle Royale.
I thought the new TMNT movie looked godawful, but this leaked footage really won me over. http://vimeo.com/65627200
Beautiful.
i might watch that later. i have been liking the commercials they've been showing. besides how ugly the turtles are, the only problem i've seen is the shredder is apparently white.
I just re-watched Iron Man 3, which was available free on demand from Starz, which my family got a free 3-month trial of when we switched to Dish Network.
My thoughts on it are exactly the same as they were the first time I watched it: the movie is a fun watch, and miles better than IM2, but overall it does feel a bit half-baked compared to the top tier Marvel films. I still think that the first IM is the best of the lot, by far. It just nailed the formula down so perfectly that it's kind of baffling to me that they weren't able to ever fully capitalize on it after that. It's a shame that RDJ will no longer be doing anymore solo IM movies. There was potential for an even greater film, but it looks like we'll never get it from him if he's done with the role after his contract with Marvel expires, and I just can't picture anyone else doing the role any justice if they decide to recast his role in any future sequels.
One of these days I'll also get to re-watching Thor: The Dark World, which is also available for free on demand. Still, as far as phase 2 MCU films go, I think that this year's Captain America and Guardians blows both of those movies from last year out of the water. They just felt like a bigger deal in the MCU with tighter pacing, and a healthy dose of fun to keep them engaging and enjoyable the entire way through. I really can't wait for Avengers: Age of Ultron, at this point. I feel that it really has the potential to top the original, if handled properly. Let's hope that Joss Whedon manages to deliver again.
I disagree on it feeling half baked compared to the top tier, because in my book it is on the top tier. :sweat:
I've always thought Iron Man 3 gives the first Iron Man a run for its money, or is maybe even better. That may be an unpopular opinion, but it's one I stick to. I feel like it was the most well written and gave Robert Downey Jr. room for wider dramatic acting than he gives in any other movies. I love him in Iron Man and Iron Man 2, but in those movies he was always sort of winking at the audience, if you know what I mean.
Eh, IM3 is far from perfect, though. For one thing, it has a lot of elements that seem like set-up for later, but go nowhere. One example is Tony's anxiety attacks. It seems like they will give us greater insight into his character, but later on, they just drop that element from the film and don't do anything with it. Another example, and a much bigger problem, is Maya Hansen's character. She basically has no purpose in the film. In the movie she is just in a few scenes and it sets up that she is working for Aldrich Killian, but that she has better intentions than he did and would receive some redemption. Then he just shoots her later on and her character is completely forgotten about, even by Tony who was supposed to have a rich history with her and feel more betrayed by the path she chose. In contrast, she was actually the main villain and mastermind behind Extremis in the comics (which I actually did read), and her character had a clear thematic purpose as the contrasting road to the one that Tony ended up pursuing in his life. Aldrich Killian was the one who got used and killed off, but even his character didn't feel like such an after-thought in the comic as Maya's did in the film. It's not really a matter of changing things from the source material, because that always happens, but looming at the film on its own, stuff like that just waste's screen-time.
The movie also has some serious plot-holes. For instance, even if you overlook the fact that Tony was stupid enough to give away his home address in public without a proper plan for defense in a fit of rage, it still begs the question of why the hell he didn't just unleash all of his suits on the attacking helicopters to save himself, Pepper, and Maya. I mean, no reason is ever given for it, and he clearly uses all of those suits at the end of the movie, which means that they were there the whole time. Why he couldn't just use them right where they were in his own freaking house is something that I'll never understand.
You can say that you like IM3 the best, that's just opinion, which is fine. However, you can't convince me that it's a tighter written and directed film than the original without some solid reasoning to explain how it outdoes it. I think that the first movie told a far simpler but also far more engaging story. It only had one plot and no sub-plots to get in the way, and IMO that worked in its favor. Thematically it was a good origin story for Tony Stark to go from being a guy who just profited off war to being a true hero. In IM3, they try to take say something about Tony Stark by having him go through anxiety attacks and then blow up all of his suits at the end. What they were actually trying to convey, though, is lost on me because I don't think that they did such a great job of showing the progression of his character from beginning to end. Like I said, I enjoyed the movie as a popcorn film, but when it comes to analyzing it on a level of story and character, it does feel half-baked to me, personally.
Looking at Iron Man 3 and Thor the Dark World, I'm confused how people can call GotG sexist when those movies pointlessly kill off or underuse female characters (Maya, Thor's mom).
More people are calling it sexist, now? I though that was just JO, Zac, and their brainwashed followers.
I saw Gail Simone say that the movie had a few issues (she did reiterate that she really liked the movie despite that), regarding how Gamora isn't shown to be as powerful as a Daughter of Thanos would be assumed to be.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on August 10, 2014, 01:30:20 AM
I saw Gail Simone say that the movie had a few issues (she did reiterate that she really liked the movie despite that), regarding how Gamora isn't shown to be as powerful as a Daughter of Thanos would be assumed to be.
To be fair, all five main characters were extremely underpowered in comparison to the comics, probably in an attempt to make them more relatable and grounded (which I liked).
Eh, I never got the whole idea of underpowering a character making them more relatable (especially since that would mean making the rest of the cast underpowered as well), but that's just me.
Quote from: Rynnec on August 10, 2014, 01:59:40 AM
Eh, I never got the whole idea of underpowering a character making them more relatable (especially since that would mean making the rest of the cast underpowered as well), but that's just me.
I'm kind if agree with this. I've always held that it's more about how the charaters are written that determines how relatable they are.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 10, 2014, 01:07:14 AM
Eh, IM3 is far from perfect, though. For one thing, it has a lot of elements that seem like set-up for later, but go nowhere. One example is Tony's anxiety attacks. It seems like they will give us greater insight into his character, but later on, they just drop that element from the film and don't do anything with it. Another example, and a much bigger problem, is Maya Hansen's character. She basically has no purpose in the film. In the movie she is just in a few scenes and it sets up that she is working for Aldrich Killian, but that she has better intentions than he did and would receive some redemption. Then he just shoots her later on and her character is completely forgotten about, even by Tony who was supposed to have a rich history with her and feel more betrayed by the path she chose. In contrast, she was actually the main villain and mastermind behind Extremis in the comics (which I actually did read), and her character had a clear thematic purpose as the contrasting road to the one that Tony ended up pursuing in his life. Aldrich Killian was the one who got used and killed off, but even his character didn't feel like such an after-thought in the comic as Maya's did in the film. It's not really a matter of changing things from the source material, because that always happens, but looming at the film on its own, stuff like that just waste's screen-time.
The movie also has some serious plot-holes. For instance, even if you overlook the fact that Tony was stupid enough to give away his home address in public without a proper plan for defense in a fit of rage, it still begs the question of why the hell he didn't just unleash all of his suits on the attacking helicopters to save himself, Pepper, and Maya. I mean, no reason is ever given for it, and he clearly uses all of those suits at the end of the movie, which means that they were there the whole time. Why he couldn't just use them right where they were in his own freaking house is something that I'll never understand.
You can say that you like IM3 the best, that's just opinion, which is fine. However, you can't convince me that it's a tighter written and directed film than the original without some solid reasoning to explain how it outdoes it. I think that the first movie told a far simpler but also far more engaging story. It only had one plot and no sub-plots to get in the way, and IMO that worked in its favor. Thematically it was a good origin story for Tony Stark to go from being a guy who just profited off war to being a true hero. In IM3, they try to take say something about Tony Stark by having him go through anxiety attacks and then blow up all of his suits at the end. What they were actually trying to convey, though, is lost on me because I don't think that they did such a great job of showing the progression of his character from beginning to end. Like I said, I enjoyed the movie as a popcorn film, but when it comes to analyzing it on a level of story and character, it does feel half-baked to me, personally.
I don't intend to convince you that Iron Man 3 is a superior movie. You're entitled to your opinion. However, since you're curious about why I liked the writing of the movie, I just think it was more story driven, to start. Iron Man 2 also pushed the storytelling to an extent, but that movie was kind of a mess so the story came off as more clutter in many ways. With Iron Man 3, the story was more straightforward and I thought was taken in a more serious direction. I liked that the movie was more about Tony Stark this time, rather than Iron Man, and I felt this was the movie where he shined the most as a character. I liked that he had to rely on smaller, less powerful means of survival being that his suit was destroyed for the majority of the film. And as I said before, I felt it allowed Robert Downey Jr. to show a wider range of acting, more than what he showed in the first movie where he was mostly the joke cracking super dude (and I did love him in that movie, too), a side that he was also allowed to show in Iron Man 3. And I might be alone in this, but I thought the Mandarin plot twist was phenomenal. In every way, it had to have taken a lot of faith to go that route with the "character". I also liked what they did with Pepper (I can never understand why people were surprised by her survival and claimed that she should have died in the movie, because the plot was building up to her survival, and really, she didn't deserve to die), and thought the ending in general was great.
To be honest, I haven't seen the movie since I watched it in theaters. In general, I haven't seen any of the Avengers movies more than once (with the exception of the first Iron Man and The Avengers). So in many ways I might be better off not approaching this debate since you're more educated on the topic than I am. But that's just the reaction I got from when I saw the movie, that I like it as much if not more than the first movie, even if it's not as "fun" as the original. It's certainly not perfect and I'm not denying that maybe it has its share of plot holes (though other superhero movies have their own plot holes as well). I should definitely watch it again, at which point I'll be able to give my own thoughts on things such as your interpretation of the Maya character, but I thought I remembered her getting a certain degree of redemption, and was essentially killed because of the path she chose. As for not utilizing the suits when his house was being destroyed, maybe he was essentially caught off guard in that situation and didn't really get the chance to activate all of them.
i didn't even know she was thano's daughter. either way, even in cartoons, main characters are depowered. heck, alfred did better against hush than dick grayson did and the butler also ko'd 4 league of assassin guys by himself and with just a stick in the comics a few years. don't get me started on the top heroes. if that's what gail meant, then her comment was completely useless. they nerf heroes even more in live action.
Quote from: gunswordfist on August 10, 2014, 03:18:28 PM
i didn't even know she was thano's daughter. either way, even in cartoons, main characters are depowered. heck, alfred did better against hush than dick grayson did and the butler also ko'd 4 league of assassin guys by himself and with just a stick in the comics a few years. don't get me started on the top heroes. if that's what gail meant, then her comment was completely useless. they nerf heroes even more in live action.
The thing is, she's not really his daughter - she's adopted. So she wouldn't have any Thanos powers regardless.
oh gail...also, someone needs to photoshop a gif of thor saying "she's adopted".
First of all, don't take anything I'm about to say as an attack on you. It's just that since you brought up your points, I feel obligated to present you with my rebuttal. I only say this because I'm aware that sometimes I give off the wrong impressions on people, even though I expect that you know me better, by now. At any rate:
RDJ was doing a lot more than just cracking jokes in the first movie. What about the whole first third of the film where he's in a serious dilemma trying to escape from a group of terrorists and has limited resources to work with? The situation is intense and while the guy who helps him dies early on, RDJ does a good job of showing remorse for the guy who saved his life at the expense of his own. And the whole theme of that movie is Tony Stark dropping his shtick as a playboy and taking a step to protect use his money, resources, and intelligence to help people. A good portion of the movie has him deal with his guilt of having been profiting off war for most of his life. I definitely think it showed a wide enough range of emotions.
As for IM3, it may be more story driven, but more story doesn't mean it's a better story. I already mentioned my problems with the plot in the previous post. As for the Mandarin twist, I didn't mind the twist itself, but I wouldn't call it phenomenal, either. It basically sets up that Aldrich Killian was the Mandarin the whole time, in essence, which in and of itself would be fine if you didn't stop to consider that his whole beef with Tony was just being pissed that he didn't take him seriously and skipped out on a meeting with him, which does sound pretty pathetic. I understand that he also had ideological reasons for doing what he was doing, but that's another problem with the film. They didn't spend any time exploring that side of his character, so it really just comes off as his bitter revenge towards Tony Stark. Simply being a twist that was a big risk and took a lot of faith to pull off doesn't make it a great one. As for Tony Stark not activating the suits at his mansion because he was caught off guard, if that was true, then that just makes him an idiot considering that he gave the enemy his address and bated him to come and attack him. One would find it common sense to be prepared for that.
As for the ending, I agree that it was a great set-piece action scene, and probably the best part of the movie, and if was never surprised that Pepper was still alive given her Extemis upgrade and the fact that the movie was still playing it tounge-in-cheek in tone after she "supposedly" died, so I had no qualms with that segment of the film.
At any rate, I'm not trying to sway your opinion, so don't take it that way. And also, I'm not more educated on the subject than you are. As far as Marvel comics go, I've only ever read the first 28 issues of The Amazing Spider-Man, Infinity Gauntlet, Extremis, and The Dark Phoenix saga, and that's literally everything I've ever read of any superhero comics that I can think of (well, that and about half of that Superman origin story). All I'm using in my arguments is stuff that I noticed from the movie the second time through. Like I said. It's fun, though, so don't take it as me bashing the film, because I'm not.
Quote from: gunswordfist on August 10, 2014, 03:25:48 PM
oh gail...also, someone needs to photoshop a gif of thor saying "she's adopted".
Gail Simone writes some of the best comics in the industry, and perhaps my lack of knowledge on the GOTG source material means I'm not privy to knowledge she might have, so I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Gamora did somehow inherit Thanos' powers, I dunno. Regardless, I don't think it negatively impacted the film or her character in any way.
Just to be clear, I do know you don't mean anything as a personal attack, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond, and I just wanted to do the same. But anyway, overall, I exaggerated how much of the movie he was just cracking jokes, now that I'm thinking about it more. I do still think he gave wider dramatic acting in 3, but you are right. As for the Mandarin, I was referring more to the commentary of it, you know, on American sensibilities and how easy it is for people to accept a Middle Eastern villain. The Mandarin in the movie shows images that are all too familiar to people, so it is a form of the enemies taking exactly what is in the back of the minds of the American public and using it to their advantage. Even Shane Black said the Mandarin "represents every terrorist in a way". It's just darkly satirical and I'm surprised they went the route they did.
As for the point that he shouldn't have been unprepared, that "caught off guard" idea was just something I thought up on the spot. Again, I really need to rewatch the movie. That's what I meant when I said you're more educated since you've seen it more than once. I remember the guys at Red Letter Media said the ending fight would have been more interesting if Tony didn't have all of those suits and instead had to win with his broken down suit. As much as I liked the ending fight, I'm curious how it would have gone if it went that way, plus it would potentially fix your complaint as it would likely omit all those suits from the movie period (though in this scenario, the movie would also cut out any other mentions of all those suits).
Also, it's worth nothing that, for the most part, I do like the two movies about equally. It's just that, if I had to chose only one of them, I might side with 3. It just really clicked for me when I watched it and was a great comeback after 2 ended up being a disappointment.
As for The Avengers sequel, I think something they should do to help kick it up a notch and bring it to a level that the first Avengers didn't do, is bring the team into a situation that's a real challenge to them. As cool as the first movie was, it always felt like they had a clear upper hand in the final battle, which was fine since the writers really wanted to show off how awesome and powerful the team was when working together in that movie. But now that that's been established, the heroes should be presented with a battle that's a challenge for all of them working together.
I disagree with RLM on that one. The plot-hole was a problem, but the ending fight with all the suits was really cool, and it was a superhero movie so we were overdue for some cool action scenes. As for fighting with a powered down suit and using his wits, didn't we already get that throughout the entire rest of the film? I mean, when he was defending Pepper and Maya at his home, while he should've used the suits then, he basically ended up fighting with his MK42, which as Jarvus said, wasn't combat ready, forcing him to improvise. The whole second act of the film featured Tony using nothing but his wits because he had no suit to rely on, at the end it feels more rewarding when he is able to finally go all out after having survived with minimum resources. Also, if he were to fight his enemy with a severe disadvantage due to a damaged or powered down suit, it'd just be reminiscent of the first movie, in which that very scenario basically happened.
As for Age of Ultron, I pretty much think that's the route they are going with it from what Joss Whedon has said about the film. If you haven't watched Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes yet, you should definitely check out The Ultron Imperative 2-parter (or better yet, the whole show, if you have the time) to get a good idea of just how dangerous of a villain he can be.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 10, 2014, 05:04:20 PM
I disagree with RLM on that one. The plot-hole was a problem, but the ending fight with all the suits was really cool, and it was a superhero movie so we were overdue for some cool action scenes. As for fighting with a powered down suit and using his wits, didn't we already get that throughout the entire rest of the film? I mean, when he was defending Pepper and Maya at his home, while he should've used the suits then, he basically ended up fighting with his MK42, which as Jarvus said, wasn't combat ready, forcing him to improvise. The whole second act of the film featured Tony using nothing but his wits because he had no suit to rely on, at the end it feels more rewarding when he is able to finally go all out after having survived with minimum resources. Also, if he were to fight his enemy with a severe disadvantage due to a damaged or powered down suit, it'd just be reminiscent of the first movie, in which that very scenario basically happened.
As for Age of Ultron, I pretty much think that's the route they are going with it from what Joss Whedon has said about the film. If you haven't watched Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes yet, you should definitely check out The Ultron Imperative 2-parter (or better yet, the whole show, if you have the time) to get a good idea of just how dangerous of a villain he can be.
I do agree with you, I prefer the final battle that we got. When I say I'm curious how their idea would go, I mean that in a way that I wonder how it would go more out of curiosity sake. Like, in some alternate reality where we can see both possible final battles. The ideal scenario is to have the ending fight we got, with a good explanation as to why those suits couldn't be used when his house was attacked or something.
And yeah, I really need to finally see that Avengers series (and Spectacular Spider-Man, on the topic of animated Marvel shows).
While on the subject, you should also check out GLTAS (consider it an apology for the terrible Ryan Reynolds movie) and BTBATB as well. The Spectacular Spider-Man is my favorite superhero show, and the best Spider-Man related thing that I've seen. Way better than any of the movies, for sure (and I actually like all of the movies, even SM3 and TASM2).
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 10, 2014, 05:58:48 PM
While on the subject, you should also check out GLTAS (consider it an apology for the terrible Ryan Reynolds movie) and BTBATB as well. The Spectacular Spider-Man is my favorite superhero show, and the best Spider-Man related thing that I've seen. Way better than any of the movies, for sure (and I actually like all of the movies, even SM3 and TASM2).
Got it. There are really a lot of animated superhero shows that I should finally get around to. A few summers ago, my friends and I rewatched the entire DCAU and had a great time, and for a while it seemed like it was going to become a thing where we all watch superhero shows, but that never happened. :(
I actually didn't see the Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern movie. Pretty sure I'm not missing anything, either. Does DC have any good live action movies with the exception of Batman and a few Superman movies?
I think some people liked Watchmen. The general consensus is that it's nowhere near as good as the comic, but it's still a decent flick (especially by Zack Snyder standards). I haven't seen it myself, though, so I can't comment.
Speaking of movie plot holes, I was wondering something about The Dark Knight Rises.
Why was Batman retired at the beginning of the movie? I mean, technically it makes sense because he became wanted at the end of the previous movie... But wasn't the idea that he's going to continue being a hero on the run because "he can take it"? It's not necessarily a plot hole, but thematically it seems weird.
Also, why was he crippled?
he retired because the city was saved by new laws that were hard on criminals. the crime rate severely went down and the only two crime syndicates in all of gotham were the ones bane was in.
Quote from: gunswordfist on August 10, 2014, 08:43:15 PM
he retired because the city was saved by new laws that were hard on criminals. the crime rate severely went down and the only two crime syndicates in all of gotham were the ones bane was in.
Still seems like a bit of a cheat from a storytelling point of view. With The Dark Knight they had that theme going with Batman and Harvey Dent of "the hero Gotham deserves" versus "the hero Gotham needs", and then Batman riding off being chased. I feel like saying "they cleaned up crime and Batman stopped being Batman" seems like a way of writing out of a plotline that they didn't want to do anymore.
Meanwhile, this weekend I watched Big Trouble in Little China.
:happytime:
Robin Williams died today. Learning this was a real shocker.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/robin-williams-dies-suspected-suicide-724724
RIP
Quote from: talonmalon333 on August 11, 2014, 06:23:04 PM
Robin Williams died today. Learning this was a real shocker.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/robin-williams-dies-suspected-suicide-724724
RIP
Wow, that came out of nowhere.
RIP.
i pretty much screamed when i heard he died. i've been thinking about how genie is probably my favorite disney character. r.i.p.
Wow....that was so unexpected and untimely. He will be sincerely missed.
Now's a good time to finally see Good Morning, Vietnam.
Time to finally watch Patch Adams and rewatch Hook.
He's such a legend...so sad.
Celebrity deaths don't normally hit THIS hard but, man, this one got to me pretty bad.
You were truly a legend, Robin Williams. Rest in peace.
Robin isn't the only loss we've just had. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MheNUWyROv8)
RIP Mrs. Bogart. But truthfully, Lauren deserves to be remembered for so much more.
r.i.p. lauren.
I finally got around to watching The World's End. I thought it was excellent, and really close to Hot Fuzz in quality (though, I still prefer that film, overall), which is saying a lot. Speaking of that film, since it's also up on HBO GO right now, I'll plan on giving it a re-watch sometime soon.
I only watched it once, but it didn't hate it. In general I've never been one for the modern way of thinking about movies influenced by ass-holes on the Internet, which is to hate any movies that have major flaws with a burning passion. The movie has a lot of problems, as does Spider-Man 3, but I also felt that both movies did a fair number of things right. With SM3 it was the action scenes and giving Sandman and Harry plenty of character depth. I mean, for a movie where people complained about too many villains, toe out of the three had plenty of characterization, and only one really suffered for being crammed in there (the one who Sam Raimi had never intended to put into the film to begin with, until the studio forced him to). With TASM2, I felt that they got the relationship between Peter and Gwen down really well, and all of the emotion-heavy moments felt really genuine and well-executed to me. The action was great as well. The main problem is that both villains were executed poorly (I don't count a certain villain who really only appears at the very beginning and very end of the movie). That, and the whole sub-plot about Peter's parents never really interested me. Still, for what it is, I thought it was an enjoyable movie. Just because a movie has severe flaws doesn't mean that there's nothing good about it and that it's not worth watching, in my book.
I also feel the same way about The Dark Knight Rises. Does the movie have huge, gaping flaws? Definitely. Is it as bad as some people make it out to be? Well, IMO, not even close. It's still a film with a lot of great elements going for it that made it just as entertaining to re-watch as it was the first time that I saw it.
I just can't wrap my mind around Bane wanting to destroy Gotham. What was his motivation? He says he intents to carry out Ra's al Ghul's plan, but Ra's wanted to destroy Gotham because he felt it was beyond saving. He felt the only way to save it was to start it from scratch. However, by the time of TDKR, Gotham has been almost completely cleaned up. Why destroy it now?
Quote from: talonmalon333 on September 06, 2014, 12:34:17 PM
I just can't wrap my mind around Bane wanting to destroy Gotham. What was his motivation? He says he intents to carry out Ra's al Ghul's plan, but Ra's wanted to destroy Gotham because he felt it was beyond saving. He felt the only way to save it was to start it from scratch. However, by the time of TDKR, Gotham has been almost completely cleaned up. Why destroy it now?
That's what I said. I still stand by saying Ra would have looked at (or hell, just heard about) Gotham and left it alone, if he were still alive at that point. I think it was just revenge and Nolan and the writers actually think it was more than that.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on September 06, 2014, 12:34:17 PMI just can't wrap my mind around Bane wanting to destroy Gotham. What was his motivation? He says he intents to carry out Ra's al Ghul's plan, but Ra's wanted to destroy Gotham because he felt it was beyond saving. He felt the only way to save it was to start it from scratch. However, by the time of TDKR, Gotham has been almost completely cleaned up. Why destroy it now?
Spoiler
You mean Talia. Bane was just working under Talia the whole time. As for her motivation, part of it was that she wanted Revenge on Bruce for her father's death, and the other part was that she didn't view the city as "saved," a big part of which had to do with the fact that the main thing keeping the city at bay for so many years, the Dent Act, was completely based off of a lie started by Bruce and Commissioner Gordon.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on September 06, 2014, 02:29:27 PM
Quote from: talonmalon333 on September 06, 2014, 12:34:17 PMI just can't wrap my mind around Bane wanting to destroy Gotham. What was his motivation? He says he intents to carry out Ra's al Ghul's plan, but Ra's wanted to destroy Gotham because he felt it was beyond saving. He felt the only way to save it was to start it from scratch. However, by the time of TDKR, Gotham has been almost completely cleaned up. Why destroy it now?
Spoiler
You mean Talia. Bane was just working under Talia the whole time. As for her motivation, part of it was that she wanted Revenge on Bruce for her father's death, and the other part was that she didn't view the city as "saved," a big part of which had to do with the fact that the main thing keeping the city at bay for so many years, the Dent Act, was completely based off of a lie started by Bruce and Commissioner Gordon.
Spoiler
I imagined revenge was part of their goal, but I thought I remembered Bane not learning about the Dent Act until he read Gordon's letter. Unless I'm remembering something incorrectly (I haven't seen the movie since it was in theaters). If he and Talia indeed knew about the Dent Act ahead of time, then I could easily buy into the scheme.
We just saw Snowpiercer in the school's film club.
It's almost like the polar opposite of The Winter Soldier. I loved it!
There's a pretty good chance that I'm going to see Swiss Family Robinson in theaters this Sunday!
It's funny, I had a choice between this or Gone With the Wind, but this'll save me 2 hours, heh.
The Vanishing
The way some movies pull off suspense is mind boggling.
Tonight was film club tonight, and the presidents know me as the guy who's seen mostly everything they've shown thus far. Although to be fair, of what we have seen, Snowpiercer and The Truman Show were new to me prior to their screenings during the club.
Anyway, this week's film was They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, which even the presidents haven't seen before. The club's projectionist, who's also a professor here, gave a big lecture on it and was surprised to see that not only was the movie familiar to me, but I wanted to see everyone's reaction to it. Needless to say, I think everyone needed a cigarette afterwords.
The best part of tonight, though, was this story that the projectionist told of his UCLA days, when he and a friend actually went to see a preview of the film a good month before its release. Apparently,
Spoiler
the film originally ended right after Michael Sarrazin's character was arrested for shooting Jane Fonda, and the sequences of Sarrazin being incarcerated and tried throughout the film weren't in, despite being a part of the original novel
They went to dinner afterwords at a restaurant where the cast and crew were also hanging out at, and he was able to meet Sydney Pollack. One thing he told Pollack was that the film ended a little too abruptly, and that it could have used a final scene at the contest. Pollack told him that this isn't the first time he heard the idea, and lo and behold, that is how the movie ends!
I really like the film. It's garnered a lot of unnecessary hate just because of how massively popular it got back when it came out, but I'd say that it earned that popularity. It basically made the found footage genre as obnoxiously popular as it is today, but I think that it actually managed to do that by being legitimately creepy in tone and having decent enough actors who weren't well known to really sell the premise of the story. I also like how it follows the horror tradition of "it's what you don't see that's scarier than what you actually do see" when it comes to what's on the screen. That, and the use of sound was excellent in this movie.
I agree. Blair Witch Project was great.
So I was just thinking about Godzilla. And I think I may have once said that I'm opposed to the sequels and their representation of the monster. I especially don't like portraying him as a sort of hero, having to protect the world from other evil monsters like Mechagodzilla. On the other hand, do you know what I kind of like? Admittedly, I haven't seen the movie where this happens, but I do know there is a movie where Godzilla is the bad guy, and Mechagodzilla is the good guy. To me, that's how it should be. Godzilla being the symbol of destruction, and Mechagodzilla being built as a weapon against him and as humanity's ultimate hope.
Personally, I've always liked the idea of Godzilla as an antihero rather than a straight up hero or villain. That's one thing that I actually really liked about the 2014 movie. Some people claim that it portrayed him as a hero just because of that last line, but those people clearly don't pay attention to what's actually happening on screen, and even what the director said about the movie. Godzilla is not a hero, but a force of nature. He's not some pure evil that just wants to wipe out humanity, but a creature who is basically doing nature's bidding. The fact that people die because of him doesn't even phase him at all. I believe that was also true in the original Godzilla. He was specifically taking revenge on people because he's a "bad guy" or anything like that. He was awoken by nuclear testing and clearly feels threatened by the destruction used against him, so like an animal would naturally do, it strikes back in its own defense, trying to take out its threat. Had Godzilla just started attacking cities and destroying them for no reason, then he'd be a villain. But much like with King Kong, a monster that truly helped inspire the creation of Godzilla, the destruction and chaos that he causes is heavily implied to be the destruction that people have brought on themselves through the actions of humans tampering with nature in gays that they were never meant to, and should never have done.
Let me rephrase my post. :P
I like Godzilla as a natural force of nature (as he is in the original movie). And I don't mind Mechagodzilla being portrayed as a weapon to stop him.
I'm pretty much with you on what you just said. In my last post, I just kind of simplified it for the Mechagodzilla point.
I just re-watched Blade. You know, for a 90's comic book movie with a ton of flaws that movies in this genre from that era tended to have, it honestly hasn't aged all that badly. It's still an entertaining movie for what it is, IMO, and it's one of the few times that a Marvel film was ever allowed to get away with an R-rating. We'll probably never see that again in the current age of Marvel cinema being that characters like Blade and The Punisher don't fit in with the Universe that they are creating. That's fine, really, but movies like this serve as a nice time capsule for a period when comic book movies were much more experimental and risky on a regular basis. Not that films like GOTG aren't risky either, but those earlier era movies had much lower budgets to work with, and much harsher critics at the time, so you so at least have to respect the effort and heart that was put into them.
Blade is a good film, and the sequel is even better. Kinda sad to hear that Marvel is probably not going to make more R-rated films again, since a Ghost Rider movie done in that style would be really badass.
Yeah, I always enjoyed the first 2 movies, sort of as guilty pleasures, but to their credit, they put a ton of effort and some actual decent talent into those films. Trinity was a piece of shit, though, from what I remember of it.
That said, while we won't be getting any R-rated movies from Marvel Studios themselves, I've heard that the Deadpool movie that FOC is producing will supposedly be a "Hard-R" movie, so there's that, assuming that it turns out to be any good.
that's pretty much how i felt about blade years ago. it seems a bit off, even if you accept it for what it is but it's still a pretty good film.
Boggy Creek. The first one, not the one featured on MST3K.
Just when you thought it was safe to sit on the toilet...
I saw John Wick this weekend with my dad. It's a really, really entertaining action movie and the best that I've seen in a long time in terms of just actual awesome action scenes.
I'm not saying that it's Die Hard or Hardboiled levels of awesome, because it's not, but compared to most modern action flicks, it's great, with the just the right amount of seriousness, yet still enough of a tounge-in-cheek tone going for it so that it doesn't take itself way too seriously (something that I never liked about the Taken films, which are incredibly overrated, IMO).
Keanu Reeves IS pretty monotone, as you would expect, but in this case they wisely gave him a character that doesn't have such a wide range of emotions, so he fit the role perfectly.
Other than that, I really can't praise the action scenes in this movie enough. It puts all other modern shoot-em-up movies to shame, and while it's not quite on the level of a John Woo masterpiece, it's at least as good as something like Desperado, which in and of itself is still a huge complement. Most notably, there's absolutely no shaky-cam bull-shit here, with all of the shots and angles being clean and easy to follow. Furthermore, the actual choreography is excellent, and thankfully the guys making this movie knew a thing or two about proper gun-action, as in how to even hold a gun in the first place, without any of this one-handed, sideways crap that every other movie seems to think is cool, but is actually incredibly stupid and completely neglects the fact that guns have a huge recoil to them which makes such a style incredibly impractical. And finally, there is absolutely no Matrix or Zack Snyder style slow-mo, which nearly ruined movie fight action for me whenever it came to fist fights or gun battles. I mean, I love slow-mo in a game like F.E.A.R. and Max Payne, but please keep them out of my action movies. This is just old-school style shoot and kill, which I love.
If you're not really into this type of movie, then you can skip it, but for me it was a really refreshing experience in action movie cinema. What it lacked in originality, it made up for in excellent execution, by smartly taking inspiration from old-school, actual good films in the genre, rather than most of the other modern Hollywood garbage.
Oh, and also it has Theon Greyjoy in it. I figured that had to count for something.
So recently, I showed Jaws to one of my friends, who hadn't seen it before. As a few of you may know, I frequently call this my favorite film. However, I will say, there is one minor part of the movie that I could do without. I'll put it in spoilers, since I imagine it's recommended.
Spoiler
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-BF2B3t30JsI%2FTajZ-wAskTI%2FAAAAAAAAAe4%2FuyUvQdmLTIs%2Fs320%2FJaws-shark-attack.png&hash=0c074fd1c9b94d19bda6b7ac5619fafd9e9de887)
I don't like how you can see the shark here.
This sequence takes place during the July 4th portion of the movie. Personally, I love how you really don't get much of a look at the shark until the second half of the film, when they get out on the boat, with its first appearance that point on being when it leaps up toward Brody while he's throwing chum out. From that point on, the shark is featured fairly prominantly, but before then, you rarely see it. You mostly just get certain looks at things from its point of view, or occasionally you'll see its fins. In one of the more effective moments, it's identified by the half of a dock that it ripped right from under people trying to catch it from the beach, which creates an especially chilling moment when said dock turns and starts drifting toward shore while one of the men is trying to climb out of the water.
However, in the picture above, you get a look at it. That's something I could do without. Admittedly, it's not a big problem because you really don't get that good of a look at it. It's mostly just part of its head that you can see. But I wish that scene had gone with showing the man screaming while being pulled underwater, with the shark remaining unseen. Still, as things are, I'm certainly glad that we saw no more than at least that until the second half of the movie. If the mechanical shark had worked properly while filming, this movie wouldn't have been nearly as effective.
But anyway, I also wanted to mention the look of the shark itself. I've heard some mixed opinions. Some people say the shark looks fine, and some say it looks fake. Personally, I think it looks good enough. It may look a bit strange, but to be perfectly honest... sharks are pretty strange looking animals. Seriously, just take a look at them, with those big black eyes, and that spray paint looking color covering only half of their body. (http://caterpillarpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/great-white-shark-picture.jpg) Of course they're awesome and very nice looking animals, but they're also pretty odd looking. Some of the most interesting animals in the world look goofy or weird. I suppose the shark in the movie does look a bit bulky. But I think that works. We have to remember this isn't just a regular great white shark. For all intents and purposes, it's a monster shark.
i watched most of night of the creeps. i missed the last 8 or so minutes. it was a pretty good horror comedy. jc was easily my favorite character.
Has anyone seen Network?
A couple of times, yeah. It's pretty fantastic.
It's incredible how the movie is just as relevant now as it was back in 1976.
Universal has recently put out some awesome-looking steelbook Blus with great minimalist designs. I had a $5 off coupon for Best Buy, so I used it to get this copy of Psycho (http://www.amazon.com/Psycho-Limited-Steelbook-Blu-ray-UltraViolet/dp/B00MN9PQ8C/ref=sr_1_2_twi_2_twi_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1415246778&sr=1-2&keywords=psycho) today. They also have great ones for An American Werewolf in London (http://www.amazon.com/An-American-Werewolf-London-Steelbook/dp/B00MN9PQ3W/ref=pd_cp_mov_0) and The Big Lebowski (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Lebowski-Widescreen-Collectors/dp/B00MN9PQ64/ref=sr_1_2_twi_2_twi_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1415246929&sr=1-2&keywords=the+big+lebowski), the latter of which I almost bought instead.
I also remember seeing one for Scott Pilgrim, among others that I can't recall off the top of my head.
These are cool!
I just watched 12 Years A Slave. While certainly not my favorite film of 2013 (that honor goes to The World's End), it was certainly a very well made movie, and not the boring artsy drivel that most Oscar-bait movies tend to be, IMO.
Man, Interstellar does not look like a movie that I want to see at all, but I'm probably going to end up seeing it in Imax anyway, since a friend wants to for her birthday.
She already saw Interstellar, so that means I don't have to. Good.
I keep on telling myself that I'll save money and stop buying stuff, but I got the Alien Anthology while it was on sale at Best Buy. Guess what I hope to rewatch soon! :swoon:
Oh, and I also got a copy of Treasure Planet, but that was mailed over for free, thanks to DMR. This will never be a favorite, but it's pretty good and nice to own.
We had a second viewing of The Room, and I have to say it does pull off one part of the movie. I'm going to put it in spoiler tags to hide the brilliant story telling and plot twists of The Room.
Spoiler
I actually do kind of feel bad when Denny comes into the room in the ending and sees Tommy dead, despite how incredibly and beautifully pointless he is to the movie (he's seriously just one more element of the movie that adds nothing and could be cut). Like, Mark and Lisa are what led to his death, but Denny was innocent. And at least he got his moment to tell them off so he could be alone with Tommy in the end (even if they came back afterward).
I can't believe I just complimented something in The Room.
Tonight's film club showing was supposed to be another screener (according to the guy, who's in charge of the club here and a big part of my school's film program, it was going to be Whiplash), but with Mike Nichols' recent passing, that's being pushed to next week, and we watched Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? instead.
This wasn't my first time seeing this, but wow, I think I like it even more than The Graduate at this point! The acting from the four actors is pitch perfect, perfectly complimenting the dark, wonderfully written dialogue. And despite being Nichols' first picture, it looks gorgeous!
Edit: Removing someone's name so they don't get in trouble with, um, certain things.
Ended up watching Interstellar with the family. Geez, that had to be the stupidest shit I've watched in a while. I was groaning and snickering the whole way through. The special effects were pretty neat, though.
looks like avaitor was right, for once.
I thought it was all right. Didn't meet my expectations, but a decent flick nonetheless.
And I still haven't seen it yet. At any rate, I feel like the one issue with Nolan films is that he's been making them long enough for people to take notice of his many tropes, which become easy to mock and kind of make some of his later movies feel less impressive than his older titles. That, and a good chunk of his movies, even his best ones, have gaping plot holes if you care to look for them. It wasn't just The Dark Knight Rises that had its share of issues, even though everyone now seems to love to single that film out.
Having said that, every director has their tropes, from Spielberg to Tarantino, so it really doesn't bother me that much. Would I still watch Nolan films even if this movie turns out to be bad IMO? Absolutely, he's still one of the best modern directors in terms of overall quality, even if this film is less than interSTELLAR (see what I did there :D). However, I must admit that this one particular film is something that I'm not that interested in seeing. Then again, I wasn't interested in seeing The Prestige, but that was easily one of Nolan's best films, so maybe this one will surprise me when I finally get around to watching it.
I'm thinking of pulling the low-fi test on Interstellar a year or so for now.
I actually just did that for Gravity, and it passed pretty well.
I'm going to be completely honest (and this might be an unpopular opinion) and say I don't even think Nolan is that amazing. I mean he's certainly a very talented director. But I think many of his fans make his movies out to be more than they are, and I've even heard many call him a "modern Hitchcock" which, let's be honest, is silly to the point of being kind of funny. I wouldn't even call The Dark Knight a great movie. Not to be "that guy" who makes fun of the incredibly popular movies, but when you look at things such as the dialogue in that movie, it's just not as strong or as smart as many fans claim it is.
Dialogue isn't that strong in any other comic book movie that I've watched, either, or rather, superhero movies specifically. That's kind of the territory of that genre, though.
That said, I highly disagree with that sentiment. Say what you want about Nolan's films, but the fact that he always tries something different with each film is a testament to his ability to take risks and actually have them pay off, considering that a majority of the films that he directs have been received with well above average reception.
Secondly, The Dark Knight is a great film, IMO. Not only is it probably my 2nd (or 3rd) favorite film in the genre (next to Captain America), but on an objective level, it did far more to get people and critics alike to have a newfound respect for the superhero genre that was previously lacking than just about any other film in the genre since the 1978 version of Superman. I mean, people really liked X-Men and Spider-Man, and IMO the 2nd X-Men movie was a legitimately great film, whereas the first was definitely a good film, but even those didn't really push the genre into the mainstream nearly as much as TDK did. That is to say, people largely still thought of superhero movies as "just silly fun" and didn't really take them that seriously, outside of hardcore fans. With TDK, Nolan pretty much proved that you could take the subject matter seriously, as ridiculous as the premise was, by cleverly adapting it in a way that modern audiences could relate to. That is to say that, as a Batman movie or a superhero movie, TDK is definitely around the top of its genre, but as a movie in general, it also still holds up completely well, even if you never read a single comic book or watched anything else related to superheroes in your life, save for maybe Batman Begins, as the first entry in the series.
Basically, it's a great film because it's just well-paced, well-written (and really, only Bruce and Alfred's dialogue can be a bit wonky at times, everyone else was pretty spot on), and well put together in general. The fact that it's a comic book movie is almost irrelevant since the movie works any way that you decide to view it. If that doesn't speak to how great a film is, then I don't know what does.
Also, keep in mind that this is me reflecting on the film over 6 years after its initial release, which is plenty of time to analyze it from an unbiased viewpoint, and in fact, for the record, I used to find the film a tad overrated back WHEN it was super hyped up. Now, it's much easier for me to appreciate it for the legitimately great piece of cinema that it is. Now, is it besr movie of all time material? Not even close. But would I say that it's an all around great film. Definitely.
On top of that, I can also vouch for Memento, Insomnia, and The Prestige as legitimately great films as well, and Batman Begins, Inception, and The Dark Knight Rises as good ones (even though I find the former two to be a tad overrated). That's a pretty solid track record that honestly very few directors, even ones that many consider to be great, can boast. Even if Interstellar turns out to be shit, one bad movie can hardly tarnish all of that good stuff.
At any rate, my point being that Nolan has earned his status as a great director. If you wanted to nitpick the common shortcomings in his films, I could easily do that for just about any other director that most people consider to be great. The point is that these directors each bring something to the table that makes their films so memorable, and that absolutely no one but they themselves can match.
I actually agree with a lot of what you just said, about Nolan and The Dark Knight. I was mainly referring to the some of the huge Nolan fans who I feel kind of go to the extreme with him. And in terms of the moving being great, that might be a semantics thing where we were using the word differently. Like, I guess one way I could put it is that I feel a great film would be like a 9/10. The Dark Knight would, to me, be more like an 8.5 or something. Just coming up short of being great, but still a very good movie nonetheless, and I do recognize the appeal that it has for people now.
EDIT
Also, I do feel that Iron Man also pulled that off to a certain extent, in getting more people to appreciate the superhero genre. But I will admit that it was The Dark Knight that really did it.
What you are talking about in terms of your number ratings is just more of a subjective way of looking at it, though. Granted that, I'd rate the film higher than that, myself, but that's also besides the point. What I was getting at is that, putting just personal preference aside, you can't deny how some of Nolan's films, in addition to mostly being critically praised, have either pushed a genre forward in some ways, or in other cases have had a lot of influence on movie-making in general. That's usually the sign of a great director. For instance, Spielberg is considered to be a great director, because of how much his films have influenced the medium, but he, like any other director, also went in with his own influences from the previous generation. That incorporation of his influences, and in turn his influence on many other directors through his films, is what establishes him as great, even if you consider the fact that he's made more than a few turds over the years.
Also, since you mentioned Alfred Hitchcock, while I agree with anyone that he's one of the greatest directors of all time, take into consideration just one thing: Can you remember any films that he did after The Birds that were great? Sure, there are plenty before it, such as Rope, Dial M For Murder, Vertigo, and Psycho, just to name a few, but most everything else that he did after that ranged from forgettably mediocre to critically panned, yet that's never used against him for what he did do great. That said, my basic point is that he isn't perfect, and neither is anyone, but when you look at Christopher Nolan's "nearly" spotless track record after over a decade of making films, it does say a lot that he's generally managed to stay so consistent with his critically praised films.
And going back to dialogue again, I would have to say that the complaint of his dialogue feeling unnatural and not realistic is a bit hypocritical if you actually are a fan of Hitchcock. Rather, the dialogue is suited to his style of telling a story, but most of it is always important with very few, if any, throwaway lines outside of the humor. If you watch films like The Dark Knight and The Prestige again, listen very carefully to what's being said, and how almost all of it is subtly paid off later in the story in ways that you may have never noticed before on an initial viewing. Guess who was famous for doing the same thing in his films? Alfred Hitchcock of course, but if you actually listen to the dialogue in his films, it doesn't really sound natural, either, even with excellent acting. Once again, it works because it suits the tone and nature of his films, and just about every spoken sentence has weighted importance and meaning behind it.
Anyways, I wouldn't call Nolan the next Hitchcock either, not so much because of a level of quality (though I do like Hitchcock's best output way more, admittedly), but more so because their general styles and qualities, aside from that one comparison that I just mentioned, are pretty much nothing alike to begin with. That doesn't mean that Nolan isn't still a great director for this specific era of film, though, and most of his films have stood the test of time so far, at least up to The Dark Knight.
I wasn't necessarily talking about how the dialogue being unrealistic in my original post. That's something I'm fine with in the context of a film. It happens in many movies, such as Hitchcock, as you mentioned. Also, a movie that I recently saw, Network had more than one scene of characters talking in monologue, and they were never weren't great. My thing about The Dark Knight is that it tends to come off as a bit too analytical. One moment in particular that I never liked was when Bruce was mourning Rachel's death, and Alfred talks about how "You spat in the faces of Gotham's worse criminals". It's like... the women this guy loves was just murdered. Let him be, Alfred... Alfred had a moment in Mask of the Phantasm (which is a Batman movie that I would call great), where he gave Bruce a speech after Andrea seemingly died, and I liked that moment a lot more.
Basically, I feel the dialogue in The Dark Knight isn't quite as strong as the movies I mentioned above.
Overall, though, I can't deny the validity of most of your points, because you're right about Nolan and The Dark Knight being significant (but I do believe there are exceptions to the idea that pushing the genre is the mark of a great director, though that's aside the point). But in the end, the point that I was making at first was that, even though I do think Nolan has made some very good movies, and he's made his mark, I'm just not one of his biggest fans, and I don't think The Dark Night is good as Hitchcock's or, say, Speilberg's best works. I've seen some major Nolan fans that have treated him like the greatest thing ever, though I suppose it's true that that's the case for many fans of many things.
First of all, I already mentioned how Alfred was one of the few characters who didn't come off right in terms of dialogue, but that hardly applies to every other character in the entire series. You seem to be just taking one point and using it to hold against the whole film. The dialogue, in the context of the film and the tone that it goes for, fits the story and characters, IMO.
You also kind of missed my point about why he's a great director. Pushing the boundaries of expectations is certainly one thing, but when it comes to the lesser quality ties of his movies, almost every weakness that you listed of him could also be applied to other so-called great directors, such as Hitchcock and Spielberg, or at the very least they would have their own set of issues even in their best films.
Also, I'm not a super huge Nolan fan. It's just that I can't deny that he is still a great director based on the same criteria that makes some of those other ones great. If you want another example, take Quentin Tarantino. Personally, I can't really get into a majority of his movies, but I can recognize why many people consider him so great and the appeal that each of his films have. Being a fan of him or not has nothing to do with it. It's what his films have managed to do themselves that cements his status. As for The Dark Knight, the movie is not perfect, much like any movie, but what it does do well is legitimately great. The performance of The Joker, the way it deconstructs the character of Batman and his world, and the themes portrayed in the film are all done extremely well in a way that no other film in the genre can really match, so far.
If you were to hold flaws against it, that would only be fair for other great movies as well. For instance, you mentioned that MOTP was great, which I agree with, but if I were holding things against it, I could be harsher on it for haphazardly throwing The Joker into the story. Did you ever realize that both thematically and in terms of plot that The Joker is not really needed at all? As far as story goes, you could replace him with almost any other villain in the Batman mythos and it wouldn't affect the story at all, outside of the final fight scene. In terms of the theme of the story about Bruce confronting his past and his relationship with Andrea, how exactly does The Joker contribute or connect to that? In all honesty, he's really just there because he was Batman's most popular villain and just had to be there. Now, if you directly compare it to Return of The Joker or The Dark Knight, he was completely core to both the plot and themes of those movies, and IMO was utilized more effectively in each of them. That said, I really still don't hold it against MOTP because I consider the rest of the film to be great, just like how I don't hold TDK's few shortcomings against it either.
I also noticed that, on the subject of whether Nolan is a great director or not, you only seem to be targeting TDK when it comes to your criticisms. That's fair enough when it comes to saying why you don't think that it in particular is a great film, but what about his other films that don't share the same set of problems, like Insomnia or The Prestige, for example?
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on November 30, 2014, 03:53:55 PM
First of all, I already mentioned how Alfred was one of the few characters who didn't come off right in terms of dialogue, but that hardly applies to every other character in the entire series. You seem to be just taking one point and using it to hold against the whole film. The dialogue, in the context of the film and the tone that it goes for, fits the story and characters, IMO.
Alfred's a big character, though, and of course Bruce is too. And as for others, I do think it kind of applies to Ra's (though that's Batman Begins). You can say the same was done with Hitchcock, but I just think it came off as stronger and more straightforward in his movies. With Vertigo in particular, there was a whole lot going on that wasn't said.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on November 30, 2014, 03:53:55 PM
If you were to hold flaws against it, that would only be fair for other great movies as well. For instance, you mentioned that MOTP was great, which I agree with, but if I were holding things against it, I could be harsher on it for haphazardly throwing The Joker into the story. Did you ever realize that both thematically and in terms of plot that The Joker is not really needed at all? As far as story goes, you could replace him with almost any other villain in the Batman mythos and it wouldn't affect the story at all, outside of the final fight scene. In terms of the theme of the story about Bruce confronting his past and his relationship with Andrea, how exactly does The Joker contribute or connect to that? In all honesty, he's really just there because he was Batman's most popular villain and just had to be there. Now, if you directly compare it to Return of The Joker or The Dark Knight, he was completely core to both the plot and themes of those movies, and IMO was utilized more effectively in each of them. That said, I really still don't hold it against MOTP because I consider the rest of the film to be great, just like how I don't hold TDK's few shortcomings against it either.
That was Jack Nappier, though. Yeah, they're the same person, but I think it was a fair twist since he was a mobster. That one didn't bother me much since I don't think it was too extreme. The movie didn't need him, but he did make it a bit nicer by being there.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on November 30, 2014, 03:53:55 PMYou also kind of missed my point about why he's a great director. Pushing the boundaries of expectations is certainly one thing, but when it comes to the lesser quality ties of his movies, almost every weakness that you listed of him could also be applied to other so-called great directors, such as Hitchcock and Spielberg, or at the very least they would have their own set of issues even in their best films.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on November 30, 2014, 03:53:55 PM
I also noticed that, on the subject of whether Nolan is a great director or not, you only seem to be targeting TDK when it comes to your criticisms. That's fair enough when it comes to saying why you don't think that it in particular is a great film, but what about his other films that don't share the same set of problems, like Insomnia or The Prestige, for example?
I actually meant to put this into my last post (I could've sworn I typed it up, too), but I meant to include a paragraph saying that... admittedly, there are still movies of his that I need to see, such as Insomnia and The Prestige. I've only seen The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception, and Memento (and for Memento, I don't have a full enough memory of to properly critique), which is why I haven't gone into the topic of him quite as much. The Dark Knight is the main movie I wanted to address in the first place, since that's his most popular film and the one people seem to consider his best. I just wanted to point out that I don't think the Nolan favorite is quite as good as other people do. But in retrospect I kind of feel a bit guilty about criticizing Nolan as a whole when I'm not especially educated on his films. The main point I should have made from the first place is that I don't like his movies that I have a grounded enough knowledge of, as much as some other people, such as The Dark Knight.
But I do want to make it clear that I'm not hating on the movie, either. And I agree with this point of yours:
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on November 30, 2014, 03:53:55 PM
The performance of The Joker, the way it deconstructs the character of Batman and his world, and the themes portrayed in the film are all done extremely well in a way that no other film in the genre can really match, so far.
It's not one of my favorite movies, but it's probably my favorite live action superhero film.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on November 30, 2014, 04:46:40 PMAlfred's a big character, though, and of course Bruce is too. And as for others, I do think it kind of applies to Ra's (though that's Batman Begins). You can say the same was done with Hitchcock, but I just think it came off as stronger and more straightforward in his movies. With Vertigo in particular, there was a whole lot going on that wasn't said.
You were talking about the dialogue specifically being too analytical, though, and Alfred was the only character who really did that in TDK, and to a much lesser extent, Dent was somewhat analytical. Bruce really wasn't, nor was Gordon.
QuoteThat was Jack Nappier, though. Yeah, they're the same person, but I think it was a fair twist since he was a mobster.
That completely ignores the point that he still could have been replaced by any other mobster. The Joker, as a character, really added nothing to the story. I also wouldn't say that his presence made the film better. I mean, it didn't make it worse, but I would have much rather had a more intense confrontation between Bruce and Andrea as he had to bring himself to take her down, despite their romantic feelings for each other. If anything, The Joker kind of served as a distraction from that.
QuoteI actually meant to put this into my last post (I could've sworn I typed it up, too), but I meant to include a paragraph saying that... admittedly, there are still movies of his that I need to see, such as Insomnia and The Prestige. I've only seen The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception, and Memento (and for Memento, I don't have a full enough memory of to properly critique), which is why I haven't gone into the topic of him quite as much. The Dark Knight is the main movie I wanted to address in the first place, since that's his most popular film and the one people seem to consider his best. I just wanted to point out that I don't think the Nolan favorite is quite as good as other people do. But in retrospect I kind of feel a bit guilty about criticizing Nolan as a whole when I'm not especially educated on his films. The main point I should have made from the first place is that I don't like his movies that I have a grounded enough knowledge of, as much as some other people, such as The Dark Knight.
Fair enough. I was never arguing against your personal opinion on those movies, anyways. I was just stating my disagreement with your earlier point, in how I feel that those films do, in fact, deserve their praise, even when putting subjective viewpoints aside.
I saw Interstellar and liked it up until a certain point that if you've seen it, you probably know what I'm referring to. The ending was weak, too.
That said, it was ambitious, tried new things, and was really fresh. If only more people in Hollywood would try more new things like Nolan does.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on December 01, 2014, 09:41:43 AM
That completely ignores the point that he still could have been replaced by any other mobster. The Joker, as a character, really added nothing to the story. I also wouldn't say that his presence made the film better. I mean, it didn't make it worse, but I would have much rather had a more intense confrontation between Bruce and Andrea as he had to bring himself to take her down, despite their romantic feelings for each other. If anything, The Joker kind of served as a distraction from that.
I do get what you meant. I was just saying, really. Though I do like having the Joker there, and I thought the final confrontation was fine as it is, so this'll have to be another agree to disagree stance.
At the very least, I do like the Joker's reveal in this movie more than The Dark Knight Rises twist reveal at the end. I think we can both agree there.
it was the best joker and btas fight. also, i heard that motp was going to originally be the end of btas so i can see why they would want to fit him in.
Quote from: gunswordfist on December 01, 2014, 07:52:21 PM
it was the best joker and btas fight. also, i heard that motp was going to originally be the end of btas so i can see why they would want to fit him in.
If that were true, that would make sense. The final scene does kind of seem like the Joker's end, and I never understood how he ended up surviving that (even though Andrea did).
I got to see Nightcrawler tonight, and I think I was the only one in the club who wasn't in love with it.
I mean, the film made me feel uncomfortable throughout, but I'm pretty sure that was the intention, so that worked. And Jake Gyllenhaal gave a fascinating performance for a fascinating character. But I'm still trying to determine how the narrative treated him. He was a pure sociopath, but the film often took a matter of fsct approach to almost everything he does, which is what makes me wonder. This isn't an easy watch at all, but worth a rewatch from me somewhere in the future.
just found out angels with filthy souls is a fake movie.
I forgot to mention, recently, my friends and I were watching The Godfather movies.
And what can I say? They are two of the all time greats. Now, I had already seen the first movie in the past, and it's still just as great as ever. Then you have The Godfather Part II, which is one of the most legendary sequels of all time. I love seeing Al Pacino in this movie as his calm persona slowly crumbles. And, as a counterpart to him, could you get any better than Robert De Niro (they're practically the same person as it is)? Fantastic. I do think it's not as good as the first movie, partially because The Godfather belongs to Marlon Brando just as much as it does Al Pacino, partially because I found that the movie was more complicated than the first movie, and not necessarily in a good way. Either way, though, both are fantastic, as we know.
I'm a big fan of the original novel, which is honestly my preferred version, but the first 2 films are still great. They also had Mario Puzo consulting with the screenplay, so the first movie was a really faithful adaptation of the source material, though unfortunately had to cut out a ton of backstory. We did get to see part of that backstory adapted well enough for the biggest character in the first movie, with the flashback scenes featuring Robert De Niro as Vito Corleone (or Andolini, if you remember his true family name) and those parts were the highlights of the second film for me. The film in general does feel like it really is what would happen in the continuation of the Corleone family story, but I'm in disagreement with the people who say that it's superior to the first film, mainly because I find that the supporting characters aren't nearly as interesting this time around. Even so, it's still a great movie.
Then there's The Godfather Part III, which is certainly one of the most unecessary sequels of all time (though I'd argue that the second movie wasn't necessarily needed as a follow-up, either), but I also feel that the massive hate that it gets is way overblown and largely undeserved. Is it a great film on par with the first 2 movies. No. But it's well written enough and put together in such a way that it's certainly not a bad film by any stretch, either. And yes, I know that Coppola casting his relative in the role of Michael Corleone's daughter was a big mistake and she was horrible, but one bad actress (for a character who honestly doesn't even appear that much in the film), does not kill the entire movie. It's one of those deals where people hate on the movies ore because everyone else does, these days, rather than judgining it properly. On its own, its a decent enough mobster flick. As a Godfather film, however, it's most certainly the weak link in the trilogy.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on December 18, 2014, 12:37:23 PM
I'm a big fan of the original novel, which is honestly my preferred version, but the first 2 films are still great. They also had Mario Puzo consulting with the screenplay, so the first movie was a really faithful adaptation of the source material, though unfortunately had to cut out a ton of backstory. We did get to see part of that backstory adapted well enough for the biggest character in the first movie, with the flashback scenes featuring Robert De Niro as Vito Corleone (or Andolini, if you remember his true family name) and those parts were the highlights of the second film for me. The film in general does feel like it really is what would happen in the continuation of the Corleone family story, but I'm in disagreement with the people who say that it's superior to the first film, mainly because I find that the supporting characters aren't nearly as interesting this time around. Even so, it's still a great movie.
Then there's The Godfather Part III, which is certainly one of the most unecessary sequels of all time (though I'd argue that the second movie wasn't necessarily needed as a follow-up, either), but I also feel that the massive hate that it gets is way overblown and largely undeserved. Is it a great film on par with the first 2 movies. No. But it's well written enough and put together in such a way that it's certainly not a bad film by any stretch, either. And yes, I know that Coppola casting his relative in the role of Michael Corleone's daughter was a big mistake and she was horrible, but one bad actress (for a character who honestly doesn't even appear that much in the film), does not kill the entire movie. It's one of those deals where people hate on the movies ore because everyone else does, these days, rather than judgining it properly. On its own, its a decent enough mobster flick. As a Godfather film, however, it's most certainly the weak link in the trilogy.
I watched the movies with my friends. I have to admit that I was kind of interested in seeing Part III, but no one else was. I will admit, though, that maybe it's for the best that we didn't watch it. Watching the first two Godfather movies in a single day was a lot, but the entire trilogy would have taken, like, 10 hours. :P
I just got back from seeing The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. Spoilers below.
Spoiler
I have to be honest, I didn't love it as much as I hoped I would. It had elements of it that were satisfying. But, to start, it honestly seemed like half of the 144 minute running time was dedicated to the battle. I also think the tone kind of clashed with itself again. Like, you had that greedy guy dressing as a woman, and then five minutes later, main characters were being killed. There's also the fact that I struggle to understand why Smaug had to be killed off in this movie. I mean, it only took a few minutes, before the movie's subtitle even came up. And I wasn't particularly fond of that cliffhanger in Desolation of Smaug. They should have just wrapped up his arc in that movie.
Some of the action was cool, though. And I did legitimately care about some of the main characters, and was sorry to see some of those dwarves go. The epilogue was also fairly nice. But overall, I remain unconvinced that The Hobbit had to be stretched into three movies.
I still need to see it, but I doubt it'll be that great. The movies tend to miss a lot from the novel, but I'm sure it's a decent movie in its own right.
I just saw this comment on spoilers for the last Hobbit movie:
QuoteOne of the things that struck me in seeing this final film last night was how much material from what really amounts to just the last 53 pages of THE HOBBIT was left out - not just virtually all of Bilbo's journey back (I can see how much of that might have been anti-climactic), but the decision to kill the Master so early on wiped out so much of what was intriguing about his part of the narrative.
Despite the fact this is a three hour movie based on 53 pages of a book, he STILL cuts most of it out?
Why wasn't this just two films?
I like the promise of taking a more serious approach to The Hobbit and intertwining it with The Lord of the Rings as a way to bridge the two stories. But it could have been done better.
Two movies, both not much more than two hours. One dedicated to the majority of the novel. The second wrapping things up, featuring the Battle of the Five Armies, and leading into the original trilogy. It could have been done with no fat ("fat" in reference to padding, not new or expanded content). Characters like Legolas can be there but they should feel more necessary. And Lord of the Rings tie-ins shouldn't feel so disjointed.
Are any of you guys going to be seeing the final Hobbit movie soon?
I will. Normally I would've seen it on release day, but I've been really preoccupied lately, hence why I still haven't watched it yet. I'm planning to see it some time this week, though.
I saw it a few days back. Overall, I enjoyed it, but at the same time I couldn't help but feel that it really wasn't necessary for this to be three movies, instead of just two, since most of what this movie amounts to is original content and lots and lots of fighting. Also, I agree that they should've just had Smaug die in the last movie, since that sequence was only like 7 or so minutes long anyway which made the last movie's cliffhanger feel even more pointless. Still, I had fun with the movie, since the pacing was much better than the last, the action and humor were enjoyable, and I could get invested in all the main characters' plights very well, and it was just a satisfying experience overall.
Spoiler
I don't know. It just felt like a big fight scene to me. I did like the Thorin bits before and during the battle, as well as the ending. So I at least liked parts of the movie. But the war just felt too long to me. I guess I just got tired of seeing CGI characters being sliced up for an hour. And I still couldn't bring myself to care all that much about the dwarves, other than Thorin and Balin. I mean I liked their presence. But even when Bilbo said goodbye to them, when they were all lined up, I still couldn't remember all their names.
I also think Legolas being in these movies didn't amount to anything, and in some ways actually hurt the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I like how his skills were more grounded in Fellowship, and then he progressively got better as the movies went on. But here, we learn that he was a super hero from the beginning. First he was hopping across dwarf heads in Desolation of Smaug over the river to fend off orcs, which wasn't necessary. But in this movie, it was just tiring to me. I especially didn't like seeing him run up falling rocks. Seriously, even the movie theater I was in broke out into laughter at that moment. He can do all that in The Hobbit, and suddenly his skills seem like such a downgrade when we see him again in Fellowship, when the best he did was shoot orcs impressively. More importantly, though, I think it's just really weird seeing him working together with all of these dwarves, witnessing Tauriel fall in love with one of them... and then being all racist against them in Fellowship. It's like Star Wars where the prequel just sort of contradicts the later storylines.
And the romance between Tauriel and the dwarf didn't really amount to anything. It wasn't developed, and ultimately it just led to his death and her feelings being "real", which doesn't mean much to me because I don't care about her and she isn't relevant to anything. The saving grace was that she was played by Evangeline Lilly, who was Kate Austen in Lost.
I also said this in an earlier post, that I felt the tone clashed too much between comedy and darkness (I didn't like that guy in Laketown who was bad and was played up for laughs), and that I didn't like how they waited till this movie to kill off Smaug when his death was done in less than 10 minutes, anyway. Desolation of Smaug was already about 10 minutes shorter than An Unexpected Journey. So incorporating Smaug's death into Desolation would have just put in on par with the first movie in running time, so I don't think length would've been much of an issue. And even with that aside, they could have just cut something down if they had to. I mean, I'm sure there was something in that movie that could've been cut or shortened.
Then there was the scene at Dol Guldur. I'll admit that it was kind of nice seeing those guys all band together against Sauron and the Ringwraiths. And I liked seeing Galadriel so easily release Gandalf from his prison, as we hadn't yet seen much of her power. It was a little bit of fan service. But I do have to admit it just felt disjointed and maybe a bit too fanservicy, especially when Galadriel went all dark and glowy and did what she did in Fellowship.
That's just what I think, and I don't really expect anyone to agree. Maybe this will be a popular or unpopular opinion, but I just felt this movie was, for the most part, varying degrees of okay.
By the way, it's funny thinking about Gollum back when The Hobbit was still new. First of all, Tolkien hadn't yet planned out how important and evil the Ring is. So, after Bilbo wins the riddle game, Gollum originally handed over the Ring to him as a reward and then showed him the way out of the cave. These were changed in later editions of the novel.
Also, originally Tolkien didn't describe how Gollum looks, so many artists imagined him as being really big.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg-fan.theonering.net%2F%7Erolozo%2Fimages%2Fensikat%2Fgollum.jpg&hash=191c5b1d0c3df86318ad8632d2a1cd88dc61dd94)
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpblancho.free.fr%2Fsw1%2Fimages%2Fsw1-017.jpg&hash=293d289c92374c125f5803d6ee98bf9875a1edd9)
Sorry for a triple post. Especially since it's another Hobbit one. :P
Spoiler
I saw Battle of the Five Armies again and liked it a bit more this time. My problems with the movie do stand. But I just think the parts with the dwarves, and the parts with Bilbo, are solid, and even though there is too much of them, the action scenes themselves are well done. I particularly like the fight scenes between Thorin and Azog. Also, Sauron's role isn't quite as disjointed as I initially said it was. But I do think Bilbo feels too sidelined in these movies, especially this one. To me, it feels like, for all intents and purposes, Thorin is the main character and Azog is the main villain.
Overall, I think that, in terms of pure entertainment, this movie is better than An Unexpected Journey. It's one-note, but An Unexpected Journey just wasn't that interesting to me, and was the movie where I most felt its length and thought dragged most.
Saw The Grand Budapest Hotel yesterday. Easily my favorite film of last year, though Why Don't You Play In Hell? comes close. Just really, really funny and expertly paced. Ralph Fiennes was simply perfect.
I'm thinking of Redboxing Grand Budapest when I go home for the weekend. I still need to see it, and my mother's interested as well.
In the past week or so, I've been able to see both of the Anderson's new movies, and I really liked each one!
Grand Budapest Hotel might be Wes' strongest story, at least if we're talking narrative. Yes, most of his idiosyncrasies are still present, but I think he actually restrains himself enough to tell a unique, cohesive Agatha Christie tribute. That said, I feel like I need to see it again to fully grasp my opinion on it, which might happen soon! Until then, I'm perfectly fine with it scoring some love at the Oscars this year.
And Inherent Vice, wow. Take Big Lebowski, add in the craziest Raymond Chandler elements that used, along with a dash of Punch-Drunk Love, and a composition of Miami Vice and Easy Rider into a blender, and that's this movie. Might just be my favorite film of the year.
Saw Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb on the weekend. To be honest, I put off seeing this for a bit because, frankly, this should have stopped after the first movie. These movies are fun, but nothing too much unique outside the first movie.
I don't know... I'm still glad I saw it, though. It ended on a somewhat high note, but at the same time it was a terrible tearjerker for most because of this being Robin Williams' last film - it was difficult to watch towards the end. I actually heard someone sobbing in the theater.
We haven't talked about this year's best picture nominations yet, have we?
- American Sniper
- Birdman
- Boyhood
- The Grand Budapest Hotel
- The Imitation Game
- Selma
- The Theory of Everything
- Whiplash
I've still only seen Grand Budapest, but I should be able to have a chance to see more of these by the time the show comes on. Still, that was a very good film, one I'd be happy to see win.
I just watched American Sniper earlier today, after reading about the stir it's been causing on the internet. It was pretty good, but I don't know about Best Picture worthy. Also want to see Boyhood, I typically like Linklater films and I've heard good things.
i caught a little bit of terminator salvation on tv for a second time...i can't believe this generic syfy channel movie is t4. it sucks that cameron never got the good robot war movie he wanted.
Double Indemnity in theaters. Excellent, excellent movie.
Finally saw the last Hobbit movie.
The Lord of the Rings movies are going to go down as the better trilogy, no doubt. This movie was almost entirely unneeded since the first twenty minutes should have basically been in the last movie and the rest is just action set-piece after action set-piece. All the added material is fairly disposable, too, not adding anything to Tolkien's work and padding the movie out way too much. On top of it, Bilbo's entire epilogue and journey back to the Shire is pretty much cut out leaving out much of the fun.
I think there's a decent movie in here somewhere, but as a whole The Hobbit is a miss. Such a shame as there is a lot of good stuff buried here. The book is monumentally better paced, more exciting, fun, and is just all around superior.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on January 30, 2015, 04:24:36 PM
Finally saw the last Hobbit movie.
The Lord of the Rings movies are going to go down as the better trilogy, no doubt. This movie was almost entirely unneeded since the first twenty minutes should have basically been in the last movie and the rest is just action set-piece after action set-piece. All the added material is fairly disposable, too, not adding anything to Tolkien's work and padding the movie out way too much. On top of it, Bilbo's entire epilogue and journey back to the Shire is pretty much cut out leaving out much of the fun.
I think there's a decent movie in here somewhere, but as a whole The Hobbit is a miss. Such a shame as there is a lot of good stuff buried here. The book is monumentally better paced, more exciting, fun, and is just all around superior.
It's still in theaters? Feels like it's been a while. Anyway, I do think the movie is at least better than the first Hobbit movie, which was just too slow for me.
Also, what epilogue are you referring to? I might not remember all the details from the book. As for Bilbo's journey back, I can understand cutting it for cinema purposes. And I liked the last minute of the movie, how it tied things together. But as a whole, I do agree that most of the good stuff is just buried. Peter Jackson could have made the movie substantially better by shaving an hour off of it (same could be said for the other two movies as well).
I mean the entire section of the book after the battle of five armies. It was basically all about Bilbo going home. None of it is here.
I'm sure there will be a fan cut that chops off a lot of the dead weight, but I don't think you can fix things like what they did to the barrel sequence. That was just a misfire.
I think that had this just been 2 films directed by Guillermo Del Toro as originally planned, it would've been excellent. Unfortunately, there was just too much studio meddling, here.
As for the last film, I actually enjoyed it, but it's definitely the weakest live-action adaptation of a Tolkien book. There just wasn't enough material for a full movie, here, even with bits from the extended lore included in this.
Overall, I found the first film to be solid, the second to actuslly be very good, and the third to be decent but far too padded out. I wouldn't agree with anyone who calls these the equivalents of the Star Wars prequels, but they certainly are very flawed and nowhere near as great as TLOTR trilogy.
No way would I rank them with Star Wars prequels. This had actual acting and a story that had a solid foundation even if not used to its fullest potential.
Either way, I'm glad it's over and done with now.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on January 30, 2015, 05:11:44 PMI'm sure there will be a fan cut that chops off a lot of the dead weight, but I don't think you can fix things like what they did to the barrel sequence. That was just a misfire.
I actually liked that sequence in the second movie. It was unnecessary for sure, but there's something refreshing about an action scene that combines good choreography and practical effects with CG rather than just full-on CG bull-shit. Modern Hollywood absolutely sucks at action scenes, so whenever we get a good one I can't complain. That scene was at least entertaining in an intentionally comical way. The battle at Laketown was going overboard, though, and the forced romance subplot was embarrisingly bad. I'd call that the biggest misfire, myself, aside from the obvious fact that this should not have been 3 films.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on January 30, 2015, 05:43:46 PM
I wouldn't agree with anyone who calls these the equivalents of the Star Wars prequels, but they certainly are very flawed and nowhere near as great as TLOTR trilogy.
Agreed. Even the worst Hobbit movie is overwhelmingly better than the "best" Star Wars prequel.
I also agree that one of the biggest misfires of the trilogy was the forced romance.
Yes, the subplot that just . . . ends. And then that character is never heard from again. Talk about pointless.
I'm in the vast minority of maybe five people who loved the first Hobbit film, didn't much care for the second one, and have no interest in ever watching part 3.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on January 30, 2015, 05:51:26 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on January 30, 2015, 05:11:44 PMI'm sure there will be a fan cut that chops off a lot of the dead weight, but I don't think you can fix things like what they did to the barrel sequence. That was just a misfire.
I actually liked that sequence in the second movie. It was unnecessary for sure, but there's something refreshing about an action scene that combines good choreography and practical effects with CG rather than just full-on CG bull-shit.
Same here. That was actually one of my favorite parts out of both movies.
Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug pretty much makes the second movie for me, though I'm in the minority who preferred it to the first one. Most people are lukewarm to the first movie and hate the sequels. I liked AUJ, but found it kind of boring at parts, yet I was constantly entertained by TDOS with the exception of the romance subplot and how they basically spent way too much time in Laketown. I suppose I'm just weird in that way.
TBOTFA is odd, in that I enjoyed it despite how dragged out it was, but it's probably the only movie in TLOTR franchise that I will never re-watch, or at least have no intention to. Once is enough. Here's how I would rank these:
1. The Return of the King
2. The Two Towers
3. The Fellowship of the Ring
4. The Desolation of Smaug
5. An Unexpected Journey
6. The Battle of the Five Armies
Anyways, despite being somewhat disappointing, it's still a bit of a bummer that all of the best Tolkien material has been adapted. I don't exoect to see such a big fantasy film series epic for a long time to come. Not unless we ever get those Robert's Rebellion or Dunk and Egg movies made.
Well it isn't as if Prydain is ever being adapted. Unfortunately.
I feel like I'm only going to rewatch The Hobbit trilogy when I inevitably do a run of the six movies, starting with the first Hobbit and ending with Return of the King.
I'm going to look through all of the Best Picture nominations, from the first to last years and see which film was the most worth each time. I won't name all of the nominees, since that'll take too long. Feel free to look them up with me. And I'll also do this in 2 parts.
1927/1928
It's kind of hard to really compare all of the BP winners, since The Racket is very hard to find. 7th Heaven, which has nothing to do with the show, not so much, although I still haven't seen it- apparently it's good, though. Wings is a solid spectacle flick, almost like a Marvel or Star Wars movie of the silent era, and it's still pretty fun to watch now. Not a bad way to start off the Academy.
As for the Unique and Artistic Production, two of what might just among the best films, silent or otherwise, ever made were nominated- The Crowd, and Sunrise, with the latter winning. I'm sure Chang is fine too, but those two sure deserved something.
1928/1929-
I've honestly seen none of these, parts of the winner aside. The early sound musicals are pretty hard to watch, and probably always have been, and nothing seems to indicate that The Broadway Melody was any different. From what I can tell, this is a weak selection all in all.
1929/1930-
Although The Love Parade is among the best of the early musicals, brought to life by decent direction and Maurice Chevalier just being himself. If it was eligible for the previous award, that would have been just fine, but the winner for this ceremony was well deserved- All Quiet on the Western Front. Still among the best war films ever made.
1930/1931-
Meh, a pretty weak selection here as well. Fuck Cimarron. Among the most boring anythings I've ever seen.
1931/1932-
I've been keeping my eye for Shanghai Express, hoping it'll arrive on TCM's lineup, but it hasn't recently. As of now, the only nominee I've seen is the winner itself, Grand Hotel, which is important enough but pretty dry by today's standards. You'd think that with such a big talent pool, a better script would have been offered. But nope.
1932/1933-
I've only seen one of the nominees here, I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang, which is a fairly dated but still powerful prison picture. Considering the weak reception I've heard towards Cavalcade, and a lot of the other nominees, it might have deserved the win instead.
1934-
On the one hand, the winner is one of the finest comedies you'll ever see, It Happened One Night. The chemistry between Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert still pops 80 years later, and will continue to pop in another 80 years. Even the expected climax still lands, since the bond the film builds between its characters is so strong. But another excellent comedy, one that started what might be my favorite iflm franchise, is nominated here- The Thin Man, a fantastic mystery comedy that pokes fun of itself just as much as its willing to take its story and characters seriously. It's far less dry than the martinis Nick and Nora sip throughout, and would have been just as deserving of a win. The Gay Divorcee's pretty fun, too.
1935-
I've seen a few films here, but not the big winner itself- Mutiny on the Bounty will actually be on TCM tomorrow night, so maybe it's time that I change that. Of what I have seen though, Captain Blood and Top Hat are excellent films that could have only been made the way they were during this great era for pirate films and light musicals, where choreography and chemistry came before self-aware writing.
1936-
A couple of good nominees, but my choice would be Dodsworth, an intelligent, uncompromising look at an older couple dealing with divorce. I have still yet to see The Great Ziegfeld, though.
1937-
Frankly, Snow White should have been nominated, and won. I couldn't even make it through Emile Zola. And I recently just saw The Good Earth, which is a good adaptation of the book, but really needed actual Chinese actors in the leads.
1938-
I like Capra's older stuff, but I wasn't really impressed with You Can't Take It With You. I see two much better choices in this ballot- Robin Hood, which is not only one of the earliest, most gorgeous use of three-strip Technicolor, but is just an insanely FUN action movie. You can tell that everyone involved with the production, from the actors down to the sound people, were having a good time making this one. And then there's Grand Illusion, which is among Renoir's finest, a great precursor to WWII and Rules of the Game.
1939-
Wow! So many strong choices. Gone With the Wind is Hollywood excess at its finest, even if it's also Hollywood at its most blatantly racist. I can't condone the source's obvious support of the confederacy, but it's hard to not be sucked into the whole sweeping release today. That said, my choice might have been Ninotchka, a great comedy written by Billy Wilder before being allowed to direct his scripts. And Garbo laughs!
1940-
Ooh, some more great films, including two of my favorite comedies- The Philadelphia Story, and The Great Dictator. But the closest thing to a big win for Hitch, Rebecca, was still a deserved choice. I read the original novel not too long ago, but he really knocked its gothic vibe with almost no effort necessary. Having Laurence Olivier as his actor sure helped, as well.
1941-
It's popular to make fun of How Green Was My Valley in the years since snubbing Citizen Kane, and while it isn't nearly as good as it or Maltese Falcon, it is a very well made look at Welsh culture that's still pleasant to watch today. I would have voted for Kane too, but as far as safe BP choices go, the Academy has went with much worse one than this.
1942-
Mrs. Miniver is a fine enough support film made just in time for British soldiers heading into WWII, but it's hardly something great to watch today. While I'm sure the full, unaltered version of The Magnificent Ambersons may have been the best choice of them all, I think I'll side with Yankee Doodle Dandy, where James Cagney's mesermizing performance as George M. Cohen is still unbelievable to behold today.
1943-
Some great choices, but there's only one true choice here. You must remember this, a kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh...
1944-
For whatever reason, I can't get myself interested in seeing Going My Way. I guess Bing Crosby just doesn't matter to our generation, even compared to, say, Sinatra. I'm sure it's fine, but against Double Indemnity or Gaslight? Well, I'd like to be surprised.
1945-
Oh man, now here are some great options. Mildred Pierce is an excellent noir, containing what is easily Joan Crawford's best performance, while Spellbound is fine practice for Hitch before Vertigo, containing gorgeous collaboration from Dali. But the winner is a fine pick itself. While there have been better films about alcoholism since, The Lost Weekend is an excellent look at the subject from Wilder, and is still rough today.
1946-
It's a Wonderful Life is the popular choice here, and The Razor's Edge is another fine potential, but I think the Academy made the right choice with The Best Years of Our Lives, a powerful take on postwar America. The film really deserves a better life on home video, though.
1947-
... I've got nothing. I've heard that Elia Kazan, one of the best actors' directors of them all, thought that Gentlemen's Agreement didn't work because of Gregory Peck's performance. I still want to see it myself to judge, but for now I've got nothing.
1948-
Laurence Olivier knocked it out of the park with Hamlet, which still holds up as among the best Shakespeare adaptations of them all. But it's not my choice, and neither is Treasure of the Sierra Madre, which I also really enjoy. The Red Shoes is one of the most important films I've ever seen. Hell, probably one of the best, period. I can't recommend it enough, even if you don't like ballet or fairy tales.
1949-
All I've seen here is A Letter to Three Wives and Twelve O'Clock High, both good films. I think I prefer the latter, though.
1950-
Oh man. I love All About Eve, and I love Sunset Boulevard. I even have seen Born Yesterday fairly recently, and enjoyed that a good deal as well. My favorite is probably Boulevard, though
1951-
I LOVE An American in Paris. Some of the best cinematography and choreography in all musicals, that ending in particular being a real winner. And Streetcar is an important part of American film culture, bringing method acting onto the world. But my vote would have gone to A Place in the Sun, among the best melodramas of them all. Everyone nails it here.
1952-
The Greatest Show on Earth is a weird-ass film. Worth seeing if you want to see Jimmy Stewart slowly die inside dressed as a clown. Nowhere near as good, or as intentionally awesome as High Noon.
1953-
I like From Here to Eternity, I like Shane, and I like Roman Holiday. I don't love or feel anything special for any of these, though. My favorite is probably Roman Holiday, but FHTE is a fine winner instead.
1954-
I'm not much for On the Waterfront, or Brando in general, but I can't deny its importance, so why bother fighting with the win? Especially since nothing here seem as worthy to take it instead. Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is a creepy as shit film, in particular. Great choreography, though.
1955-
Marty is another clear winner here, although I do like Mister Roberts and Picnic. This is the film that made Ernest Borgnine a star, and he couldn't have chosen a better film to do so with.
1956-
I haven't seen Around the World in 80 Days, although I kind of want to, just to see how it compares to the book I love. I have seen Giant and The Ten Commandments, though. Meh.
1957-
12 Angry Men and Witness for the Prosecution are fantastic, but Bridge on the River Kwai really was the best possible choice. If I'm picking a Billy Wilder film over something else, you know it's good.
1958-
Gigi is what happens when a despondent studio like MGM couldn't get the rights to My Fair Lady, and had to make do instead. There is fun and wit to be had, but there are much better musicals from the era to find first, and it also contains the biggest problem with An American in Paris in front and center- Leslie Caron. She just wasn't a very good actress, singer, or dancer, as much as Minnelli tried to hide this. Even Chevelier's presence isn't enough to save the film. If you want a better, more fun family film from the same year and ballot, look no further than Auntie Mame. But don't watch the musical version from the 70's starring Lucy.
1959-
I've tried more than once to sit through Heston's Ben-Hur, but haven't succeeded. 50's biblical epics just don't do much for me, although the original 1920's version is good. I'd have gone with Anatomy of a Murder, since North by Northwest wasn't nominated. Damn fine procedural.
1960-
Huh, Psycho wasn't nominated here, either. 1960 had 3 of my all-time favorite movies in its release released, but only one of them was nominated for Best Picture- and won, I might add. The Apartment goes through multiple emotions at once, and succeeds at everything it accomplishes with nary a hitch. This is the definition of a best picture, as it captures something relevant to the time, but contains enough human truth to make it eternally relevant. Bravo.
1961-
West Side Story is a fun musical, and it's just as progressive to Latina culture as it is offensive, which is good enough for this time frame. I'd probably vote for Judgment at Nuremberg, though.
1962-
To Kill a Mockingbird could have easily won in any other year, but this is Lawrence of fucking Arabia we're talking about. Two winners in a row, only David Lean.
1963-
...I'll get back to you.
1964-
My Fair Lady? Psssh, nah. As much as I dig Dr. Strangelove as competition, Mary Poppins deserved the gold this year. This might just be Disney's greatest statement, all in one powerhouse film.
1965-
Confession- I haven't seen The Sound of Music. I know of the plot, and have the general idea of the most famous songs down, but for some reason, I've never had the chance to see it. I do plan to rectify this soon, but of the nominees, Doctor Zhivago is a good follow-up to Lawrence, even if it isn't nearly as good. Ah well.
1966-
A Man for All Seasons is okay. That's about it. Sorry, Kevin Smith. But Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? just floors me. I would have loved to know it won instead.
1967-
And here's where I'm stopping for now. I'll be honest, I was really impressed with In the Heat of the Night when I saw it ages ago, but in hindsight, I don't remember much of it at all, and haven't felt the desire to see it since. And I recently saw Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, which means well but doesn't have much to offer today. And Doctor Doolittle, ha! It's all between Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate, two films that have more or less changed Hollywood in the past 45+ years. Either would have been fine choices, but I'd personally side with the latter.
Part 2 will be up later!
yeah, it sucks that there will probably not be another epic fantasy movie. i remember thinking thor 2 could have been that...
Now I'll finally try to do part 2!
1968-
Oliver! is a movie that I haven't seen all the way through, but am 99.99% sure that I've seen the whole thing. Considering how I couldn't even finish the book, it isn't that bad of a musical adaptation, but it's not what I'd call a great film. Now, a great adaptation would be Romeo and Juliet from this era. Way better than that Baz Luhrmann bs. That said, my choice would have been The Lion in Winter, a hell of a stage piece with some of Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn's best acting. We were still at the tailend of the Golden Age, but great films were being made here for sure.
1969-
Midnight Cowboy, the first and only X-rated film to win Best Picture, is mighty tame by today's standards, but it is pretty good. It wouldn't have been my first choice for the year (maybe Easy Rider would have been), but there's enough merit and promise for a new, exciting Hollywood to make it a deserving win. The only other nominee I've seen here is Butch Cassidy, and I'm honestly not that hot on it.
1970-
I finally saw Patton for the first time a few months ago, and was quite impressed with it. George C. Scott nailed the role, and made the film exciting all the way through. While I also do think there is much to like about Five Easy Pieces and MASH, this wasn't a bad choice at all.
1971-
I like The French Connection, right down to that fantastic car chase, but I can't say that I like it or find it to be a better choice than either A Clockwork Orange or The Last Picture Show. But that's just me.
1972-
This is pretty much a Gravity/12 Years a Slave deal, where Cabaret won the bulk of the awards, but The Godfather took home the big one, along with a couple of other deserving wins. I can't say that I disagree with it too much, since the production and aesthetic behind Cabaret is great, but the book is just too clumsy to fully appreciate, while The Godfather... yeah. Not a bad decision, really.
1973-
The only film I haven't seen here is A Touch of Class. Everything else, I love! The Sting is one hell of a flick, as fun to watch now as it was 40 years ago, and is a deserved win all on its own. But my favorite film of the year wasn't nominated, I'm afraid- Badlands. Which did deserve the award even more, honestly.
1974-
I'll say this- The Conversation is my favorite Coppola movie, but I can't argue with his other picture from the year winning. Godfather Part II is about as perfect of a sequel as you can get, and really did cement that this new crop of filmmakers had plenty to say. Chinatown is another great one, but again, I can't really argue against the Academy here.
1975-
I really like all of these but Barry Lyndon, which is precisely the Kubrick that I don't like. My favorite has got to be Nashville, a great look at American culture with country music as a backdrop, but One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a hell of a choice itself. I still get floored every time I watch it.
1976-
Rocky's a fine film, one that I really do appreciate. But I don't think that I would have voted for it. All the President's Men is a fantastic expose on the Watergate scandal, which came out at almost the right time for it. Taxi Driver is one of Scorsese's best, a gripping look at the life of a lonely wanderer, with equal parts sympathy and scorn behind it. And then there's Network. Oh my god, this is such a quotable film. I couldn't choose, but either of the latter two might have been it.
1977-
Woody Allen is a gross parasite who has no sympathy from me. I would never bother to defend his actions or reported lack of sympathy behind them... but as a filmmaker, I can't deny his talents. And Annie Hall really is a better film than Star Wars, and the right choice for Best Picture at the time. The dialogue just pops, as does his message. And Christopher Walken.
1978-
The Deer Hunter has some great moments throughout, but it's a bit jarring to sit through today, as it doesn't offer all that much for modern viewers. Or maybe it does, since it still has fans. Personally, Midnight Express is it for me, as rough as it is. Easily among the best prison pictures of them all.
1979-
I know that it's popular to hate on Kramer vs. Kramer since it isn't Apocalypse Now, but truthfully, I liked but wasn't blown away with AN, while I was surprised with how much of KvK I admire today. It does have a strong statement towards gender roles, and how they rule issues such as divorce. I also think it has one of Meryl's greatest performances, which she rightfully won her first Oscar for. But besides those, All That Jazz is... something.
1980-
I like various aspects of Ordinary People, but compared to Raging Bull, Coal Miner's Daughter, The Elephant Man? Nah.
1981-
Holy shit, Raiders was nominated? Well, since I still have no interest in Chariots of Fire, I would not have been opposed to that winning.
1982-
I like three of the nominees, don't like another, and haven't seen Missing (although it's on my queue). I think Gandhi was a good choice, myself.
1983-
Terms of Endearment isn't the most beloved award winner, but in truth, it holds up pretty well. The cast is strong all around, while James L. Brooks successfully pulls off a feature production in between his more iconic TV credits. It gets sappy, yes, but I think it was a better choice than either The Right Stuff or The Big Chill, good movies that do less for me on the whole.
1984-
Fun fact- I've read before that Amadeus and A Passage to India were basically tied by the Academy, until some form of intervening that I've since forgotten allowed the former film to walk home proud that night. Which is a good call, since Amadeus really is one of the best.
1985-
Ew, Out of Africa. My vote would have gone to The Color Purple, easily.
1986-
Hannah and Her Sisters is another good Allen film before... but Platoon was a better choice. Oliver Stone before he went batshit, and easily among his strongest films.
1987-
The Last Emperor isn't exactly among my favorite films, but it's a well-made film, and a better choice than... Moonstruck? That's all I've seen here. Huh.
1988-
Wow, I've seen none of these. Anyway...
1989-
I actually just put Driving Miss Daisy on my queue, so I have no opinion on it. All I have seen is Dead Poets Society, which I'm not much for.
1990-
Another year where I haven't seen the winner. But Goodfellas, man.
1991-
Beauty and the Beast will never be among my favorite Disney movies, but it is a good movie, and a respectable choice for the first animated Best Picture nominee. Similarly, while I'm not sure if I believe Oliver Stone's take on the JFK conspiracy, he made a heck of a movie out of it. But the winner was the right call. We may never see another horror film win again, and Silence was a damn fine one-off choice.
1992-
Unforgiven is really due for another viewing from me. It's a wonderful way to end Clint's western persona, a great film.
1993-
I like The Fugitive and The Piano, but again, the Academy chose well. Spielberg never did better.
1994-
Moving on...
1995-
Braveheart is crazy, not historically accurate at all, not always the right thing to deal with. Basically, the film version of Mel Gibson. But I like Apollo 13 just as much, a fine piece of popcorn filmmaking with one of Tom Hanks' best performances. The lack of Before Sunrise or Dead Man Walking is sad, though.
1996-
Elaine Benes. Moving on...
1997-
I'll never get the love for Titanic, myself. I've tried, but the thing just does nothing for me. LA Confidential, though, I can get behind any day of the week.
1998-
I haven't seen Shakespeare in Love, so I have no say. Saving Private Ryan loses me after the explosive opening, and while I like a lot of Life is Beautiful, I understand why it isn't for most people. My choice is The Thin Red Line, one of Malick's greatest creations.
1999-
Of all of these nominees, American Beauty is easily the best choice. But if Girl, Interrupted or Talented Mr. Ripley were nominated, on the other hand...
2000-
I do like Gladiator, stupidity and all, but I would have voted for Traffic instead. Or hell, maybe Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Not a bad year, really.
2001-
Ugh, not A Beautiful Mind. I'm sorry, but no. Give it to the hobbits or jukebox musical instead. Talk about a BM.
2002-
What I've seen of Chicago on stage points to a better musical than the film, which left me cold. I'm here for Gangs of New York instead.
2003-
I have interesting opinions on LOTR as a film franchise, but there's no doubt that it should have won this, and most of its other awards that night. So yeah.
2004-
One of these days, Million Dollar Baby will finally come here from my queue. Until then, all I've seen is The Aviator, which is good, but not among Marty's best.
2005-
Ew, fuck Crash. Every other choice is much better. No joke, take your pick!
2006-
I don't think that The Departed is among Marty's best either, but it's not a bad selection for his win, and it is a good film. I think that I like Little Miss Sunshine better, though.
2007-
I've tried on more than one occasion to appreciate No Country for Old Men, and it just never happened. I can tell that everyone involved was bringing their best, but I just can't care. I would have preferred There Will Be Blood instead, even if it is the last "conventional" film PTA makes. Also, Atonement should be here very soon. I liked the book, so I want to see how the film compares.
2008-
I remember liking Slumdog Millionaire pretty well when I saw it, which was just before the Oscar buzz came in. I haven't seen the film in years, but I'm not sure how it would hold up for me now. Of the other choices, Milk is a fine biopic, a great look at a great gay politician. I think that I prefer that now, in fact.
2009-
Frankly, I care not for The Hurt Locker. I think that it's a generic war picture, which won more due to Oscar politics than out of genuine quality. Although it did indeed deserve its awards over Avatar. That said, I do prefer every other film here that I've seen. And you can guess which would have got my vote if I had the chance to. ;)
2010-
The King's Speech is pretty much the definition of Oscarbait, an agreeable film with great cinematography, tight acting, and a good message for typical Oscar votes to relate to. While it's a hell of a film to look at, my vote would have gone to The Social Network or Toy Story 3 instead.
2011-
I love The Artist. I fell in love with the concept the moment that I heard of it, and was happy to see it win. Although I was actually rooting for Hugo, which is Marty at his best, telling a powerhouse story with some of the best use of 3D I've seen, being one of the few times that I didn't mind paying for it. But my favorite film here, and of the decade, has to be The Tree of Life. I don't care if many people hate it, this is too grand of an experience to ignore. And must be played at full blast.
2012-
I'll get to Argo at some point. Otherwise, I don't have much to say on these choices, aside from Django being a good one. Following up Tarantino's disgust towards Nazis in Inglourious Basterds, he does a great attack on slavery, keeping the film as angry and energetic as it needed to be. The way the guy uses genre to get his themes across is why I keep coming back to his films.
2013-
12 Years a Slave will be here from Netflix very soon, so I'll finally get to see it. There are some wonderful films, but I think Her is my favorite of what I've seen thus far.
As you can tell, I got lazy near the end, as usual. But it was fun to look back at the Academy's choices over the years.
If I'm not mistaken, the 1988 winner was Rain Man. That's one of my personal favorites.
Anyways, the Oscars is one of those things based more on tradition and older values than on actual quality, so it's no wonder why they get it wrong so many times.
In the past few weeks, I've been able to see the following films from last year-
-Whiplash- This was SO good. And intense, holy shit. The ending is the thing of legends, and more intense than most thrillers that I've seen. You can tell that this is a first-time director, since Chazelle has the energy of a newbie, but also the talent of a pro. Which is present from the use of hues in color, to how he stages Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons, who both seamlessly give wonderful performances. If Simmons doesn't win the Oscar, I don't know, man.
-A Most Violent Year- This really made New York in the 80's look GORGEOUS, thanks to fantastic cinematography, but it's a pretty flat crime story that you've probably seen done better a half dozen times at least. If you have an uncle, or a friend of your dad, or maybe just your own father that is really into The Godfather and The Sopranos, but don't care about other "prestige dramas", they'll probably love this. Otherwise, I don't recommend it.
-Selma- Beautiful. Absolutely magnificent. I really hope that Spielberg never makes his MLK movie, since there's no way that he could top this. It's one of the best experiences I've had in film in a long time, and really does make you feel like you're right there during the Civil Rights Movement. I think that I like this and Whiplash about the same, but I'd vote for this for BP if I could.
-Foxcatcher- Meh. Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo are great, Steve Carell less so. There are definitely some good moments, but I came out empty. Most of the people who saw this with me felt the same.
And I recently got my MoviePass card mailed to me, so I could do a free 2-week trial... except that you need an app for it to work, and my phone's too old to use it. So unless I get a new phone in a few days, I won't be able to use it. Which is a shame, since I wanted to take the chance to see American Sniper, Imitation Game, and Paddington, movies I have varied interest in seeing, but not enough to pay. As well as Mr. Turner, but that one is something that I wouldn't mind paying to see.
Oscars tonight! And I have a party with the other people in the film major here planned.
It seems like Birdman has become the new front-runner, surpassing Boyhood in the past couple of weeks. I still have yet to see either (although Boyhood should be here from Netdlix soon), so I can't compare, but these both seem like pretty non-traditional BP choices, so I'm happy.
Finally saw Birdman. Excellent film in every capacity, but extremely depressing. I found myself relating to Michael Keaton's character a lot... which probably isn't a good thing. :lol:
hang in there, foggle.
i want to do a a to z list here. maybe later.
Is anyone interested in the new Cinderella?
The Disney club I go to at campus is planning to go see it in two weeks, since this coming week will be our spring break. I'm honestly more interested in the Frozen short accompanying it, and I'm pretty sick of Frozen myself, but if any of my friends really wants to, I might join the group. I don't think they're going to have as big of a turn around as they did for Big Hero 6.
I see no reason not to go. :)
So, it looks like Netflix took down Big Trouble in Little China....just when I was planning to re-watch it for the competition. On the plus sid they do have The Apartment and Sunset Boulevard. They don't have Kung Fu Hustle, which I really wanted to re-watch, but at least they have Shaolin Soccer.
Dammit.
Dang, and I've been wanting to give it a chance myself. I think my friend has a copy though, so maybe we'll watch it together soon.
I'm hoping to get through the first Karate Kid and Friday the 13th before they expire at the end of the month, as well. Can you believe that I haven't seen the latter yet? And it's been years since I've seen Karate Kid.
Spend the couple of bucks it costs on DVD. It's a re-watch movie.
Where do you find out when Netflix movies expire?
Sometimes they tell you when they're expiring underneath the picture in the menu. Sometimes the date passes and they don't expire, sometims there's no date and they just vanish.
Netflix can be real frustrating.
Oh, by the way, it's still up here in Canada.
I finally got around to watching Edge of Tomorrow. I never read the original novel for All You Need Is Kill, but I did highly enjoy the manga adaptation. As for the movie, I enjoyed it a lot. Probably one of the most entertaining summer blockbusters from last year, which is saying a lot considering how strong the output was from that season of the year. I think it's also proof that you can do good Hollywood big-budget adaptations of stories originating from Japan if the source material is treated with respect (despite having clear differences in the movie, which is only natural for any adaptation), and if you have a good director, writer, and actors to execute it with.
It's a shame that the movie underperformed despite very good critical reception, though like many others, I'd blame that on the marketing not properly selling people on the concept of this movie. That, and the fact that Tom Cruise starred in the Sci-Fi flop Oblivion just a year earlier probably turned most movie-goers away from this film.
You can kind the novel in most bookstores now. I haven't seen the movie, but I've been wanting to pick the book up for awhile.
I plan to get around to reading it eventually. I've got some other books to get to first, though.
On another note, I just watched The Grand Budapest Hotel. While not my personal favorite movie of last year, it was definitely a throughly entertaining film with a great sense of wit and humor to the dialogue. It's also the only Best Picture candidate from the 2014 Oscars roster that I've managed to see, thus far. I still need to get around to Birdman and Whiplash. The rest don't really interest me that much, to be honest.
I just re-watched The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Yep, still my favorite movie of all-time. Excellent acting, excellent cinematography, and arguably one of the best scores from one of the best composers in the history of film-making.
In particular I really love Sergio Leone's ability to get the best out of the actors in so many ways other than just dialogue. So many scenes give you nuanced impressions of the characters just through their subtle gestures and facial expressions. This is something that he has also utilized very effectively in both of his "Once Upon A Time" films.
Beyond that, I have been watching this movie since I was a kid, and it has never failed to entertain me.
I now own the entire Evil Dead franchise thus far on Blu, including 2K13. I'll try to get to it all sometime this week, but it's really that one that is my top priority.
I decided to take a break from studying today and watched It Follows, which was getting a lot of good buzz.
In terms of modern horror movies, it's definitely got something going for it, and I appreciate the old-school style of cinematography and the excellent musical score, but I can't help but feel like the film is far from the masterpiece that critics seem to be making it out to be, and while an entertaining watch, I wasn't the least bit scared by it.
Overall, it's a good film despite some problems, but also a bit overrated, IMO. I'm still glad that I saw it, though. I needed a break from studying all day.
I just watched another horror film, this time of a more psychological nature, The Babadook. It was great, IMO, and incredibly well-acted. While I wasn't really scared by it, the story kept me constantly intrigued and not knowing what to expect. It also relies on very little violence and basically no jump scares, which is very refreshing.
Oh yeah, that's on Netflix now. I'll get to that soon, since it looks great!
It is? Then so will I!
On this subject, only one film has ever scared me.
I love it when a movie takes something that you associate with childhood and makes it terrifying. In this case it's in the form of a children's pop-up book:
"If it's in a word or it's in a look, you can't get rid of the Babadook."
It's just such a catchy line that stays in your head, much like a nursery rhyme, except way more psychotic.
Now I'm really interested. That reminds me, I still need to watch It. Creepiest film that I've never finished.
Do you mean Stephen King's "It" by any chance? That mini-series scared the hell out of me as a kid, though as an adult not so much because....it's Tim Curry in clown make-up, which is entertaining as hell, but not scary now that I can't get that out of my head. I still find it to be a really entertaining movie to watch, though, despite a really disappointing ending.
Yep, It. I've only seen some of it..It as a kid. I just really remember the part where the clown's voice talked to the group that killed him. Pretty chilling.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on April 18, 2015, 06:01:01 PM
I just watched another horror film, this time of a more psychological nature, The Babadook. It was great, IMO, and incredibly well-acted. While I wasn't really scared by it, the story kept me constantly intrigued and not knowing what to expect. It also relies on very little violence and basically no jump scares, which is very refreshing.
I saw that as well. Call me a wimp, but I was actually scared by it. The look of the monster was creepy, and the way it moved was just unsettling. I also liked the ending. Didn't expect something like that.
It was definitely very unsettling. When I said that I wasn't scared by it, I simply meant that most horror movies don't scare me anymore on a visceral level. Probably because I'm older now. That said, the best ones can still resonate with me long after I watch them, and while it won't exactly make me scared to peek into the closet, it will give me an uneasy feeling when I'm reminded of the film.
Anyways, I think that we can both agree that this is probably one of the best modern horror movies around, at least of the English-language variety (this is also one of the only Australian films that I've ever seen).
The genre has had a lot of misfires, especially in the last two decades or so, but there have been some good ones in recent years, IMO. I have particularly enjoyed Insidious (2011) and The Conjuring (2013). While it was very flawed and not really scary, I did like Sinister (2012) to a degree, and while these two other films were a bit over-hyped IMO, both The Cabin in the Woods (2012) and It Follows (2015) were good times.
I still need to get around to seeing Black Swan as well as Oculus, one of these days.
::EDIT::
Oh, and Mama (2013), was also kind of decent. The CG monster looked like crap, though.
I can agree with that. Some of the parts I especially found unsettling were the images in the book. The stylistically it looks great. Overall, easily one of the best modern horror movies I've seen (though I admit I haven't seen a while lot of them lately because I find myself put off by a lot of recent movies). Apparently it also got some good critical reception, which is nice for a horror film.
I need to see if Netflix has any of these.
That pop-up book was legitimately creepy as fuck. I loved the dialogue to go along with it. I got the sense of it being like a very dark and twisted version of a Dr. Seus book.
I just re-watched two films.
The first was Tombstone, which still holds up as a great Western, with one of the greatest movie characters of all time in Doc Holliday. Also, this was back during a time when Bill Paxton was actually a decent actor, so there's that.
I also re-watched Hardboiled. Good god, the action scenes in this movie are still mind-blowing. It's sad that a lot of modern movie-goers probably wouldn't be able to appreciate it even if they watched it, but the camerawork is brilliant, and really shows you how to do good action without terrible shaky cam or an overuse of cut-aways. And man, that hospital shoot-out scene is still arguably my favorite action scene in any movie to this day.
My only real criticism of the film is that, while the story is actually quite good with way more nuanced characters than your standard action movie, it sort of loses the plot in the hospital scene which focuses so much on the action and goes on for so long that there isn't really much story in the third act. By the time the main villain comes back into view by the end of the film, my reaction was "oh yeah....that guy....I kind of forgot about him."
Still, it's one of the few times that I'm willing to excuse something like that because the action really is just that engrossing, IMO.
This also makes me want to re-watch John Wick, since that has some of the best action scenes that I've seen in an American film in a long time. It proves that there are directors out there who know how to actually use a camera and properly capture good action that's easy to follow.
I still regret not seeing John Wick in theater. I'm digging how more and more movies and shows are going back to old school fight scenes again. They've been missed, I tell you.
We know how much you love shaky cam, Spark.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on April 23, 2015, 08:32:52 PM
I still regret not seeing John Wick in theater. I'm digging how more and more movies and shows are going back to old school fight scenes again. They've been missed, I tell you.
I got free tickets to see it with my Dad. I'm so glad that I got to see it on the big-screen. ;D
I'm going to watch it soon. ;D
Whiplash. It was excellent. I haven't seen too many movies from 2014, sadly, but with the exception of TASM2 (which I didn't even hate), literally all of the ones that I did see ranged from good to great. And I still have more to see, like Big Hero 6, Birdman, and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, among others.
Whiplash is the most intense movie that I've seen in so long. It isn't remotely a suspense film, but it's easily the most thrilling film made in the past 5 years, at least.
And it's really fucking funny, to boot.
I keep on thinking about the video game for some reason.
J. K. Simmons easily gave one of the best performances that I've seen from any actor in the past few years. Whiplash is probably my second favorite movie of 2014 that I've seen so far. Since it's so rare to get a legitimately excellent horror film these days, I have a really biased admiration for The Babadook, and if there's any other performance from last year that could even hold a candle to Simmons' role in Whiplash, it'd have to be Essie Davis in The Babadook, IMO.
Those are the two best films of 2014 that I've seen so far, followed by Captain America: The Winter Soldier as my third favorite.
I finally got around to seeing Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (that's a really stupid title, BTW). Overall, it's much better than the first movie, which I was just sort of "meh" on, myself. I really actually gave a crap about Caesar in this one, and Koba was actually a pretty good villain.
Next up for me is probably going to be BH6, which I'm going into with mixed expectations. I loved Wreck-It Ralph, but was very "meh" on Frozen, so I'm hoping that this one is more up my alley like the former.
Whiplash might be my favorite film from 2014, give or take Selma. And I'm usually not much of a biopic person at all, but everything about Selma was just as it should be. Ava DuVernay's direction was out of this world, as she got into every little detail perfectly, and helped to make the whole cast shine. Altogether, it's easy to fall for the film and feel like you're there with Dr. King. Such a great film.
After those, it's probably Inherent Vice, and then any given Marvel movie from last year, taking away ASM 2.
For me, it's:
1. The Babadook
2. Whiplash
3. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
4. X-Men: Days of Future Past
5. Guardians of the Galaxy
6. The Grand Budapest Hotel
7. Edge of Tomorrow
8. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
9. John Wick
10. The Lego Movie
At least so far. I still have a bunch of movies to catch up on.
My favorites were (going by US wide release dates)
1. The Grand Budapest Hotel
2. Why Don't You Play in Hell?
3. Calvary
4. Birdman
5. Guardians of the Galaxy
6. Snowpiercer
7. Gone Girl
8. X-Men: Days of Future Past
9. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
10. The Lego Movie
But I still need to see Whiplash and Selma, and a few others.
Let me see if I can do this.
1- Selma
2- Whiplash
3- Mr. Turner
4- Guardians of the Galaxy
5- Captain America: The Winter Soldier
6- Inherent Vice
7- The Grand Budapest Hotel
8- Boyhood
9- Big Hero 6
10- Snowpiercer/X-Men: Days of Future Past (tie)
I forgot about a few things! And my big ones to see from last year are Birdman, Force Majure, Gone Girl, and a few docs.
Last night I watched John Wick and then Captain America The Winter Soldier for the first time. Boy, was that a good movie night!
John Wick was the best non-superhero American action movie I've seen since.....I'm coming up with blanks. I really liked it. I love how they didn't overuse editing. The action scenes were nice and smooth. They knew when to not play music and when to play music (most notably for me, is the music that played when John escaped from being captured. That whole scene was awesome). I liked the dry humor and the MMA moves used during some action scenes. It was also nice seeing GSP's old teammate Keith Jardine (the blonde beard henchman at the club scene) in the film. My only complaint is that the movie wasn't anywhere near as exciting after the club scene which was kind of early in the movie. I hope Keanu Reeves works with this team again on something else. Between this and Ronin 47, which I thought was decent, 2014 is the best year Keanu has had since 1999.
5. Thor 2
4. Ronin 47
3. John Wick
2. The Desolation Of Smaug
1. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
I'm way behind on movies, like always.
All of those except for Winter Soldier and John Wick are 2013 movies.
Also, great lists, Avaitor and Foggle! :thumbup:
I still need to get around to watching some of those movies, myself. I did want to address that Snowpiercer is awesome, and easily would have ranked way up on my list, but I chose not to include it since I personally consider it to be a 2013 film by default (if we're not going by its U.S. release date). This also shows what a great actor Chris Evans is outside of just Captain America.
:D I really don't get out much.
Oh right, they came out at the end of 2013. I forgot to check.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on April 26, 2015, 08:47:14 PM
Also, great lists, Avaitor and Foggle! :thumbup:
Thanks, you too! :)
QuoteI still need to get around to watching some of those movies, myself. I did want to address that Snowpiercer is awesome, and easily would have ranked way up on my list, but I chose not to include it since I personally consider it to be a 2013 film by default (if we're not going by its U.S. release date). This also shows what a great actor Chris Evans is outside of just Captain America.
Yeah, like 3 of the films on my list are technically 2013 movies, so I just decided to make it easier on myself and go by the US release dates. :sweat:
Heh, three of your as well?
Looking at these lists reminds me how few movies I saw last year, even though I meant to go see stuff like Boyhood and Grand Budapest Hotel. I need to get on those, and some others on your guys' lists too.
FTR, I guess my Top 10 from what I did see would be:
1. PK
2. Birdman
3. Guardians of the Galaxy
4. X-Men: Days of Future Past
5. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
6. Edge of Tomorrow
7. The Lego Movie
8. The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies
9. Big Hero 6
10. How to Train Your Dragon 2
I still need to see the first and last Hobbit.
Your list reminds me that I should probably watch Princess Kaguya (and more Ghibli films general).
Also, my most anticipated movie of this year is still The Boy and the Beast, which just got a trailer recently: http://youtu.be/uifJLWoWv8c
It looks like what you'd get if you made a battle shonen as a film, and it was actually good. Though mind you that trailers for these Hosoda films always undersell the more nuanced and darker/tragic elements that accompany his stories (this is very true for both TGWLTT and Wolf Children).
Might have to check that trailer out. Summer Wars is my 2nd favorite anime movie.
I could easily swap out Snowpiercer with HTTYD 2, in that case. Or probably not, since that was a tie anyway. :p
But if I was to make a list for 2013, it'd probably be:
1- Before Midnight
2- Upstream Color
3- Her
4- 12 Years a Slave
5- The Wolf of Wall Street
There are a few other films that I liked from 2013 (the Marvels, Frozen, Monsters University), but nothing that I'm really compelled about to rank further into a top 10, aside from Gravity and Blue is the Warmest Color, I guess.
To be honest, I still have a lot of catching up to do from the last few years in general. That said, 2014 was a really strong year for movies, IMO. As for 2013, my list would probably be:
1. The World's End
2. Snowpiercer
3. The Wolf of Wall Street
4. 12 Years A Slave
5. Pacific Rim
Honorable Mentions: The Conjuring, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
For me, my 2013 list would be:
1. The Wind Rises
2. The World's End
3. 12 Years A Slave
4. Fruitvale Station
5. Gravity
6. Lupin the Third vs. Detective Conan: The Movie
7. American Hustle
8. Saving Mr. Banks
9. The Butler
10. Pacific Rim
Honorable Mentions: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug, Monsters University, DBZ: Battle of Gods
I really need/want to see Fruitvale Station still.
Love The World's End.
Quote from: Avaitor on April 27, 2015, 02:26:48 AM
I could easily swap out Snowpiercer with HTTYD 2, in that case. Or probably not, since that was a tie anyway. :p
But if I was to make a list for 2013, it'd probably be:
1- Before Midnight
2- Upstream Color
3- Fruitvale Station
4- Her
5- 12 Years a Slave
6- The Wolf of Wall Street
7- The World's End
8- Blue is the Warmest Color
9- Gravity
10- Thor: The Dark World/Snowpiercer (tie)
Shit, I actually forgot about Fruitvale and World's End. Not bad, then!
My backlog is aching. I'll get to some of these after I finish up on some kungfu and superhero movies.
I finished watching all of Zombieland within the last hour.
Quote[to Tallahassee] You are like a giant cock blocking robot, like developed in a secret fucking government lab!
This is now my favorite Zombie movie (I need to rewatch the Dawn movies though.) It's a pretty fun movie despite the commercial convincing me otherwise. I also kind of wish Woody was Rick Grimes.
I finally got around to seeing Birdman. It's a movie that I definitely respect, but more so on an artistic level than as something that completely captures my interest. It's a lot like There Will Be Blood in that way. I can recognize its greatness, but can't really bring myself to admire it on a personal level.
I want to see There Will Be Blood just for Daniel Day Lewis' performance one day.
I just finished watching Dredd (2012). This is definitely a good underrated scifi film like disqus has been saying. It's like Die Hard meets ultraviolent scifi films like Total Recall (1990) and Robocop (1987) with modern CG (for better or worse). I might have it around the bottom of my top 10 scifi films. Karl Urban did a good job of playing grumpy ass Dredd. Also, it has one of the most beautiful death scenes ever.
I wasn't crazy on Dredd. Then again, I was also unimpressed with Pacific Rim, and I still have no interest in The Force Unleashes so I really do feel like I'm losing touch with non-Marvel modern blockbusters.
Man, I loved Dredd and Pacific Rim, more so than Iron Man 3 and TTDW, which I liked, but not enough to compel me to re-watch either of them. Between this and our opinions on The Lego Movie and Frozen, I think that we may just need to make a habit out of agreeing to disagree on modern blockbusters and animated feature-length films. :thinkin:
Not that there's anything wrong with that, though. It's refreshing to have differing view points on stuff every once in a while.
Dredd's not that best movie in the world but it's good, imo. Also, you know I'm not the biggest fan of giant robots so I'd probably agree with you. :sly:
Sweet, I didn't know multiple others here have already seen Dredd. I wonder if Foggle has. :thinkin:
But Pacific Rim is also a giant monster movie, so that automatically makes it awesome. How is a movie about giant robots punching giant monsters in the face not up everyone's alley? You people are nuts. :bleh:
Oh right, I hate Gundams due to the lack of giant monsters. *slaps forehead*
The Big O had a giant monster-like thing in an episode or two which was fought by the titular giant robot and you like that anime, so....
...watch Pacific Rim? Ok. ;D
I really don't care about Frozen, though. I was more into it when the film first came out, but even then, the problems in the film bugged me, and the handful of things that I do like about it hardly can make up for the unnecessary hype. I'm happy that Disney has a Lion King-sized hit again, but it's hardly on that level.
It's Lion King sized? Man, I don't even know what it's about (don't tell me). I am way behind.
I watched The Imitation Game with my mom last night. It was a good movie, shot well and contained great performances from Benedict Cumberbatch and Keira Knightley.
It's a pretty basic biopic though, almost completely by the books in terms of execution, primarily in direction. The script actually helped a little, since it's easy to tell how dedicated to the concept the writer was, especially after his riveting speech at the Oscars. It was probably among my lesser picks from this most recent Oscar's BP nominees, but it's still worth a watch.
I just watched El Mariachi since it was on Netflix. It's a good film, but I'm in the boat that just likes Desperado better for the less clumsy camera-work, far better action scenes, and overall better cast of actors. Also, because Quentin Tarantino gets shot in the head in that film, which is just fun to see. :>
Even though it was a disappointment, I still want to revisit OUATIM one of these days to see how I feel about it now, and just to complete the trilogy.
Heh, OUATIM was only a disappointment after I saw Desperado, imo. I still need to see all of El Mariachi.
I just re-watched The Dark Knight. Nolan's dialogue can be laughably over-stuffed and downright bad at times, and certain aspects of the plot don't make sense, but otherwise it's still one of the best films in the genre to date. It's probably my second favorite behind both Captain America movies, which tie for my favorite in the genre.
I just finished watching Inception for the first time...while half asleep. I don't even really know what to say. Nolan's dialogue is certainly something at times. I don't know what though. lol
I saw three Marvel movies I've been neglecting over the weekend: Howard the Duck, Amazing Spider-Man 2, and Avengers: Age of Ultron. Howard was actually not that bad; if you removed the creepy ducktits and bestiality, it'd be a pretty fun 80's B-movie. Amazing 2 was weirdly uneven. It was like half of a really good movie pasted onto half of a really bad one. Also, some parts could have come straight out of Batman & Robin, which I loved.
I watched Ong-Bak 3 yesterday. Um uh um. What the fuck at it becoming a supernatural kungfu movie. Tony Jaa had lightning from God strike someone. Seriously.
Quote from: Homura Akemi on May 04, 2015, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: Foggle on May 04, 2015, 04:32:26 PM
I saw three Marvel movies I've been neglecting over the weekend: Howard the Duck, Amazing Spider-Man 2, and Avengers: Age of Ultron. Howard was actually not that bad; if you removed the creepy ducktits and bestiality, it'd be a pretty fun 80's B-movie. Amazing 2 was weirdly uneven. It was like half of a really good movie pasted onto half of a really bad one. Also, some parts could have come straight out of Batman & Robin, which I loved.
It's my birthday, time to light the candles.
Happy birthday to you! Happy Birthday to you! Haaappppy birth-day!
Speaking of superhero movies, I just have trouble hating them. I liked Daredevil back in the day and watched some of Blade 3 a few months ago and liked what I saw. Spider-Man 3 is one of my least favorites but I don't really outright hate it. Just think it's below average and like Sam Raimi himself said, it had too many villains and Venom was out of place in it.
Library copy of The Wolverine did not work. I'll be using putlocker for that instead.
I just watched Nightcrawler. It's a well-made movie, and Jake Gyllenhaal's performance is outstanding. That said, much like Birdman, I respect the movie, but don't consider it a personal favorite. The lack of any likable characters to follow makes it the kind of film that I don't wish to revisit. It's a lot like an earlier Tarantino film in that way.
I still don't really agree with you on Tarantino's earlier films, but I do agree on Nightcrawler. Jake Gyllenhaal is great, but it doesn't click for me on a whole.
I'm probably going to see it again this fall though, since I'm in a class about television in film, and the professor did mention showing it as a possibility. So maybe it'll click for me this time.
True Romance had plenty of likable characters. Unless you consider that a Tony Scott film.
I forgot he was the director on that. I love that movie's dialogue. Speaking on Tarantino, I still want to watch City Of Fire. :>
I'll be watching The First Avenger soon. Then I'll watch Winter Soldier again. We'll see how this goes. :)
Hey, Big Trouble in Little China is back on Netflix. Awesome!
Alright! Now we just need Trigun, Cartoon Cartoons and DCUA shows to return. :thinkin:
The thater a few towns over is actually going to be screening that movie tomorrow night as part of a "classics" program that they are doing every week over the Summer. It just sucks that I flat-out won't have the time to go to it. However, maybe I can manage to make the Blues Brothers screening two weeks from now.
On another note, I finally got around to watching Big Hero 6, which was a fun movie, though all of the supporting characters really got very little development. Overall, I'd say that I like this movie more than Frozen, but not as much as Wreck-It Ralph.
....and I need to watch all 3.
Quote from: Foggle on May 04, 2015, 04:32:26 PMIt was like half of a really good movie pasted onto half of a really bad one. Also, some parts could have come straight out of Batman & Robin, which I loved.
I agree. Hence why I don't outright hate TASM2 like most people do. It had some genuinely good things in it. That said, I wouldn't really go as far to defend it either, like how I do for SM3 which I honestly feel is a better film than most people are willing to give it credit for.
I LOVE what we got from Honey Lemon, Wasabi, and Fred from BH6, but it really was Hiro and Baymax's movie, so the other characters do get pushed to the side.
Spoiler
Aside from Tadashi, who pushed himself into the fire :sweat:
I'm still skeptical about WDAS doing sequels, but I would really like to see more of their world to get more time with the characters. That's why even if the proposed sequel falls through, I'd like to see a short or two with the characters ala what Tangled and Frozen got.
Selma. It's definitely a great film. Much like 12 Years A Slave, it's not a personal favorite of mine, but I can definitely see the importance of the movie and its subject matter, and I can see why it topped so many Best of 2014 lists.
Watch King: A Filmed Record, if you haven't already.
Yeah, that's about what I expected from a movie with this premise. I'm not particularly against sub-genre horror films (such as found footage, for example), but rarely do they ever amount to more than a cheap gimmick.
Something like The Babadook (currently my personal favorite 2014 film) is more up my alley when it comes to horror, as it plays more like a well-acted drama with horror elements than just straight-up going for scares all of the time.
I did see It Follows recently, which was getting a lot of praise from critics. To me, it's a really mixed bag. It gets some things right to an admirable degree, but also somehow still falls into too many trappings of horror movie cliches for me to regard it as highly as the critics do. Personally, I found it to be an OK movie that was scarier in concept than in execution.
Yeah, the soundtrack was easily the best part of that movie, which I begrudgingly admit since it's composed by the guy who did the music for Fez, and I hate that game.
I wouldn't say that the movie itself was bad. Just kind of a mix of some above average scenes, lots of mediocre ones, and a few really stupid moments.
I re-watched 3 movies recently: Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Star Wars: A New Hope, and The Rocketeer.
I'll save my thoughts on Star Wars until after I finish re-watching the trilogy.
As for Captain America, I stand by my opinion that TWS was the best comic book movie of last year, and one of the best in general. After re-watching it, I have plenty of faith that the Russo brothers can make another great film out of Civil War.
And Speaking of Captain America, I consider The Rocketeer to be the unofficial first good Captain America movie. It's directed by Joe Johnston, who also directed TFA, and you can see a lot of elements of that film present here, and in many ways it feels like a prototype of sorts to a good CA movie. And of course, it's just a really entertaining action-adventure movie with a lot of heart to it that holds up incredibly well. It really is an underrated classic.
Yeah, those specials are pretty lousy. The Walker brothers can't write story or dialogue for shit.
That said, I do not and never will feel sorry for JO, in particular.
I can't wait to see Mad Max, the best-reviewed film of the year, surpassing... Paddington. This has been a weird year so far.
Paddington was supposed to be a pretty good family movie. Which is odd to think about these days.
Nonetheless, I've heard this film is better than Thunderdome which is good news. Not sure if it'll touch the Road Warrior, though.
I....have never actually watched a Mad Max movie.
I should probably get on that.
In other news, I watched a few of my old DVDs over the past week or so during my spare time. That includes the original Star Wars trilogy (which I'll talk about later), Speed, and Hotel Rwanda.
Speed is still such a great action movie that holds up a lot better than I expected it to. I never appreciated how well-shot the film is, until now, and this time I have come to realize what a fun villain this movie has thanks to Dennis Hopper's appropriately over-the-top performance. It's just a really exciting action movie.
Hotel Rwanda, now that I think about it, may just edge out above collateral as my favorite 2004 film. It's a movie that covers some pretty heavy subject matter in the same way that something like 12 Years A Slave or Selma does, and usually I higly respect a film like that but don't consider it a personal favorite, but there's just something about this movie that gets me in a way that makes me really want to revisit it every few years or so.
Now watch Speed 2. :sly:
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 15, 2015, 06:45:30 PM
I....have never actually watched a Mad Max movie.
:huh:
Watch Mad Max and The Road Warrior back to back as soon as possible. I can't believe you of all people haven't seen these.
Quote from: Foggle on May 15, 2015, 06:46:25 PM
Now watch Speed 2. :sly:
You're not a nice person.
Well, I haven't seen EVERYTHING. Naturally we all have various classics to work our way around to. ;)
And in response to Foggle: Only if you watch Kick-Ass 2, first. :sly:
:shit:
I've actually only seen The Road Warrior, myself (own it, too). I've been meaning to get to the others, but keep on delaying them for whatever reason.
It doesn't seem like you need to be familiar with the trilogy for the new one though, so at least there's that.
You don't need to, but I don't see why you wouldn't if you had the chance to see them. I guess I was just lucky that my dad was such an action movie fan when I was a kid. I got to see a lot of movies like the Mad Max trilogy that I probably never would have heard of until much later.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 15, 2015, 06:45:30 PM
I....have never actually watched a Mad Max movie.
I should probably get on that.
In other news, I watched a few of my old DVDs over the past week or so during my spare time. That includes the original Star Wars trilogy (which I'll talk about later), Speed, and Hotel Rwanda.
Speed is still such a great action movie that holds up a lot better than I expected it to. I never appreciated how well-shot the film is, until now, and this time I have come to realize what a fun villain this movie has thanks to Dennis Hopper's appropriately over-the-top performance. It's just a really exciting action movie.
Hotel Rwanda, now that I think about it, may just edge out above collateral as my favorite 2004 film. It's a movie that covers some pretty heavy subject matter in the same way that something like 12 Years A Slave or Selma does, and usually I higly respect a film like that but don't consider it a personal favorite, but there's just something about this movie that gets me in a way that makes me really want to revisit it every few years or so.
I've always held a soft spot for Speed. It's such an immersive action film. Hopper's character reminds me of Dead Larry...no wonder I love Dead Larry.
Speed has aged remarkably well. For an action movie it still remains exciting and cleverly directed even so many years later.
I haven't seen it in 5-10 years but I'm sure I'll still enjoy it...man, now I really want to watch it. One of the better action hostage movies.
I've only seen Road Warrior. I wasn't even sure if it was a sequel at the time. I just picked it up from the library. I'll watch Mad Max and that, back to back. Also, is Thunderdome a "so bad it's good" movie? I've heard it mentioned a lot but it was never really praise nor repulsion.
Yeah, I've revisited plenty of action movies from the 90's and quite a lot of the ones that I used to love, while definitely fun, are a lot more cheesy and hard to take seriously than I remember, like Face/Off, Point Break, Bad Boys, Demolition Man, and so on. So, when I popped Speed into my DVD player, I was expecting more of that. But, no. It turns out that it's just as genuinely good and exciting now as it was over 20 years ago. That has a lot to do with surprisingly good writing and excellent pacing and directing. The cinematography in particular is still impressive to this day. I have no idea how they got some of the perfect shots that they did.
And of course, it's all honest to god practical effects, here.
I remember Speed setting off the trend of "loud and fast" action movies that all wanted to be more explosive than it and faster too. None succeeded because none were as well crafted. The tension in the movie is all set through characters and wondering what they'll do and if it will work. Without the excellent character interaction and dialogue it wouldn't be nearly as good.
Apparently the original version was going to have Dennis Hopper die at the beginning and have Jeff Daniels become the villain. That rewrite and change to what we have now not only saved the characters, the stakes, and the story, but it saved the entire movie.
Quote from: gunswordfist on May 15, 2015, 09:00:12 PMI've only seen Road Warrior. I wasn't even sure if it was a sequel at the time. I just picked it up from the library. I'll watch Mad Max and that, back to back. Also, is Thunderdome a "so bad it's good" movie? I've heard it mentioned a lot but it was never really praise nor repulsion.
Thunderdome was a letdown, but not completely without merit from what I remember. It's not remotely close to the Road Warrior, though.
It would have been weird to see him as the villain but then again I could see what angle they would be going for there, I guess.
If Speed did set that trend then, like Shrek, it's another great movie that spawned countless bad impersonators.
I'll watch the entire trilogy then since Thunderdome sounds like it's not painful to watch. Hopefully it'll be more Once Upon A Time In Mexico and less Superman III.
From what I've read, Thunderdome is kinda maybe sorta a retread of Road Warrior, but the kind that contains enough of the right ingredients to work out alright anyway.
But losing Brian May's soundtrack has got to hurt it some.
That doesn't sound too bad.
I watched The Last of the Unjust last night, Claude Lanzmann's latest. It's a tough film to watch, but also maybe a good primer for Shoah. I'm not sure if I'm ready to invest in the 9 1/2 hours just yet, though.
Quote from: Homura Akemi on May 16, 2015, 12:08:59 PM
I'd recommend Mad Max: Fury Road because IT WAS FUCKING GREAT AND WORTH YOUR MONEY
;D
I heard Nicholas Hoult couldn't come back to Skins a few years ago because he was filming Mad Max. Very good trade, I'd say.
Saw the latest Mad Max today. Not extremely high on story but was almost non-stop action. It was like riding down the steepest slope of a roller coaster at top speed and hardly ever slowing down. The villains were just as terrifying as the vehicles they drove.
And I found out a great tidbit of info today. Remember Toecutter from the first movie? He was the only one of the original cast to come back for this newest movie as a brand new villian: Immortan Joe. (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/hugh-keaysbyrne-interview-toecutter-is-back--but-as-a-different-villain-in-mad-max-fury-road-10255632.html) He was a hell of a scary bastard. But... I guess he kinda was in the original, too. Just on a different scale.
I just re-watched the original X-Men for the first time in a decade. Whereas a lot of early 2000's comic book movies suffer at least a little but from being products of their time, Bryan Singer's X-Men holds up remarkably well, IMO. It helps that it's more of a character-driven drama which isn't overly-reliant on dated CG, rather than a straight-up action movie.
I'll be revisiting X2 and The Last Stand soon enough, as well. I haven't seen the latter since it was in theaters, so it'll be interesting to see if I still dislike it as much without the hype of the first two movies to raise my expectations, since I already know that this film was a step down.
X-Men was the film that really kickstarted the whole superhero thing. It was amazing stepping into the same theater to see DOFP 14 years later on the same screen. Of course it's been bettered, but it's still a pretty good film to watch now.
It will be a shame when the Singer universe ends. It's been quite a ride.
Solid Snake did good. ;)
Yeah, I meant to bring up how David Hayter wrote the screenplay for that movie. The dialogue and jokes mostly still hold up as well, especially the excellent exchanges between Charles and Eric.
The only cringe-worthy line that I recall was that line that Storm said to Toad. That bit was just stupid.
I just re-watched Guardians of the Galaxy. Yep, 2014 definitely was the best year for superhero movies. It's easy to forget about TASM2 when quite literally three of the greatest films of the entire genre came out mere months apart from each other.
Peter Quill is also my second favorite MCU character, followed by Rocket at third.
It really was a pleasant surprise of a movie. It isn't that surprising that the sequel got pushed up to phase 3 due to the fan reaction.
As for top characters in the MCU? I think I'll put that in the other thread.
I watched episode 42 and 43 of JoJo today. The Big Damn Heroes..averted. :'(
Quote from: gunswordfist on May 19, 2015, 11:31:03 PM
I watched episode 42 and 43 of JoJo today. The Big Damn Heroes..averted. :'(
I think you're in the wrong thread lol
smh. I deleted my computer's history and before that, it used to take me to the right thread just by typing in watch. I'm still adjusting.
I recently re-watched the original theatrical versions of TFOTR and TTT. Unfortunately I left my copy of TROTK back at home somewhere, and thus can't complete my re-watch of the trilogy, which is a real bummer.
Anyways, both movies still hold up, but I will never understand why TTT is considered the weakest of the trilogy. Personally, I think that it's more entertaining than the first movie, which I still really liked, but it could seriously drag at times.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 21, 2015, 07:35:22 PM
Anyways, both movies still hold up, but I will never understand why TTT us considered the weakest of the trilogy.
It is? Most people I know seem to think it's the best one.
I've heard most people claim that TFOTR is the best one.
Personally, I'm one of the few people who feels that each film is better than the previous one, so TROTK is, and has always been, my favorite film in the trilogy.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 21, 2015, 08:14:24 PM
I've heard most people claim that TFOTR is the best one.
Whoa, that's surprising!
My favorite is TTT, but I think you can make the case for any of them.
Return of the King is the best one. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone other than Foggle who thought Two Towers was the best.
The reason I enjoy Fellowship so much is because it is the most like the Hobbit. It has the most old school adventure style to it while the last two have a very different focus. That said, it doesn't really matter. It's really one long story after all.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on May 21, 2015, 08:19:01 PM
I'm not sure I've ever met anyone other than Foggle who thought Two Towers was the best.
Pretty much everyone I know IRL does. :o
Most I know like Return of the King the best in real life. Online it seems to be a tossup between that and Fellowship.
But it doesn't really matter. No one should be watching one without the others.
The Battle of Helm's Deep is definitely my favorite large-scale battle scene in any movie. That's probably why I'm one of the few GOT fans who liked The Watchers on the Wall better than Blackwater, since that whole episode felt like one big homage to Helm's Deep.
The battles in TROTK were of course excellent and even grander in scale, but I'm always the most invested in fights where the protagonists are in a desperate and seemingly hopeless situation.
They are all A+ movies to me, anyways, so it's a moot point, but everyone that I know IRL also likes TROTK the best. That one had the most emotional weight to it, IMO, which is why it's my personal favorite.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 21, 2015, 08:14:24 PM
I've heard most people claim that TFOTR is the best one.
Personally, I'm one of the few people who feels that each film is better tan the previous one, so TROTK is, and has always been, my favorite film in the trilogy.
I just assumed everyone thought this. It's been awhile since I've seen the films and I've only watched each once in their entirety, I believe.
I think the reason why The Two Towers is frequently seen as the worst is because it is the middle point. So, it doesn't have much of both a beginning and an ending when compared to the other two.
I just re-watched X2: X-Men United. Aside from still being one of the best comic book movies of all time, I noticed two things that I never really noticed before:
-Having now read the Dark Phoenix Saga, this film really foreshadowed it and built it up a lot in ways that I was oblivious to before becoming familiar with that story-line.
-This movie REALLY wants me to read The Once And Future King, clearly, so I should probably get on that.
I couldn't help myself today. I really wanted to complete my re-watch of TLOTR trilogy, and went to buy a copy of TROTK, but I couldn't find it individually and instead came across a generic pack with the whole trilogy for $10, so I just bought it and will finish re-watching the final movie tonight.
I re-watched TROTK last night. Yep, still the best in the trilogy, IMO. This has inspired me to get back into Tolkien-lore when I get the chance.
That said, one criticism that I have come to agree with about these movies is that they are better experiences than they are stories. The book(s) are filled with so much detail and history that even in the extended cuts of the film it's impossible to explain it all, and thus anyone who hadn't read the books would have no idea what was really going on in the plot and which character was which. In fact, while I still stand by my opinion of calling this a better trilogy than Star Wars (and I love Star Wars), those movies were still a hundred times more coherent at getting their story and characters across, though of course had the advantage of being written specifically for film and being kept simple, as opposed to being adapted from incredibly dense source material.
However, these movies still managed to captivate many people because Peter Jackson and the excellent cast did a great job of conveying the feelings and emotions of the characters on screen, which gave the audience something to connect to. And that's certainly nothing to be taken lightly. Also, there was never a film with even close to the level of scale as these films before they had come out, and arguably few to none can even match them now, so that certainly contributed to its appeal as well.
I saw Fury Road this weekend.
It was such a '70s action film brought to a modern production that it took me be surprise. That said, I'm glad they both made it so old school and new at the same time. Within the first few minutes they referenced the original and the Road Warrior, and Tom Hardy did a great job as Max making it feel like a real sequel like it was meant to be. The strangest thing were that a lot of the complaints weren't true. Max is not captive for 40% of the movie (more like ten minutes), the film is not one scene long, there is no "men bad, women good" theme aside from the fact that the point of the general plot was not to treat people as objects, and as violent as it was it wasn't very gory at all. I always find it strange when complaints about movies turn out to not be true, but then I wonder if people actually watched the movie at all in this case. The lack of CG and use of practical effects should hopefully set a standard for future movies in the genre. It deserves the positive reaction.
Hopefully they are able to make the sequel they had planned out now.
The elderly women did their own stunts.
Holy shit, that was great.
I re-watched The Dark Knight Rises, recently. I still think that the haters are a bit too harsh for singling out this movie as the weak link in the trilogy when the first two movies had similar flaws. I also found the general Nolan-isms in the dialogue to be greatly toned-down from The Dark Knight (but they are still definitely there, and very noticeable), but that movie remains to be the better overall film.
That said, I still hold my opinion that this is a better and more entertaining movie than Batman Begins, and also works much better when viewed as a sequel to that movie, specifically, rather than as a conclusion to the entire trilogy.
Are there that many haters on it, though? I know the ones that exist were pretty vocal, but Nolan has a whole lot of fans who love everything he does including this movie.
As for the movie, I still feel like I don't understand the point of Bane's plan, why he was trying to destroy Gotham after it was supposedly cleaned up. But I don't dislike it at all.
I think it's below average and yeah, Bane's motivation made little sense outside of the plot twist..which doesn't help things.
The fact that:
1. Gotham's entire "peace" was built on a complete lie about Harvey Dent.
2. There were still plenty of corrupt people on the "legal" side of the law who exploited their power and had gone unpunished, such as John Daggett (in fact the whole first half of the movie basically revolved around him as a major part of the plot).
3. Talia wanted Revenge on Bruce for betraying the league and causing her father's death.
Not exactly sure how you missed all of that.
I haven't seen the movie since it was in theaters, which was years ago.
The stoicism his trilogy was built on needed to end the way it did. Personally, I would have liked TDA less if it was the final chapter of the trilogy because the ending is fine for an individual chapter but not for Batman as a whole. The right and just needed to persevere and defeat the lies and injustice.
My favorite part of The Dark Knight Rises was the very end. There couldn't have been a better way to end the trilogy.
Yeah, I found that TDKR felt like the logical as well as proper thematic ending for the trilogy. With The Dark Knight, Batman had eliminated organized crime, but used a lie to do so, and also failed to completely root out the source of evil and corruption from Gotham, which were the rich families that fed off of the success of the poor.
With TDKR, it was about the consequences of leaving things off the way that they were in TDK, and why that was ultimately the wrong choice, especially since maintaining order on a lie is so fragile that if the truth gets out, things will go right back into chaos, which was once again a big part of Bane's motivation since in reality, Bruce/Batman had not reformed and saved Gotham at all at that point.
And it was nice seeing Batman and Gotham get a happy ending. That's something we never get, so it was cool to see this for once.
I wonder what happened to the Joker when all the criminals were let out. I mean, yeah, I get why he couldn't be in the movie. But did they give an in-universe explanation as to why he isn't seen in the chaos?
I always just assumed that he was sentenced to death after getting caught in TDK.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on May 27, 2015, 07:04:55 PM
My favorite part of The Dark Knight Rises was the very end. There couldn't have been a better way to end the trilogy.
I agree with this. The only happy ending I've ever seen Batman get to his career.
I re-watched The Godfather last night. I still personally feel that the original is better than the sequel, but I'll see if my mind changes when I re-watch the second one.
And I just got around to re-watching The Godfather Part II, which is a great film, but I still hold the opinion that the original is superior. One thing that never made sense to me in the sequel is why Roth wanted to betray Michael in the first place. There's a few other things that still don't make sense about the movie's plot to me, but overall it is still a cinematic classic. I do appreciate these movies a lot more the older that I get, at any rate.
And yes, I will be re-watching Part III as well, which, to be honest I don't remember being as bad as most people say. But, it has been a long time since I last re-watched it, so we'll see.
I believe that Part II is every bit as fantastic as it's made out to be. However, I will always prefer the original if only because of Marlon Brando. To me, The Godfather is his just as much as it is Al Pacino's.
So Jurassic World has totally spanked Age of Ultron's opening weekend gross. I still have no strong desire to see it, though.
I did watch Goodbye to Language, though. If you don't like "weird" foreign movies or whatever, you won't like this at all... But I loved it. A lot.
I want someone to check it out for me to see how much I should avoid it.
I watched it. It's about what I expected. A dumb dinosaur movie. It's better than the other sequels, but that's not saying much. Really, Jurassic Park is a great movie, but honestly it was never well-suited to a sequel. There really isn't anything else that you can do with the plot to make it anything more than people running away from Dinosaurs. And I didn't even like The Lost World as a novel, for the record. Michael Chrichton was clearly forced into writing that one against his will just because the first book and movie were so popular.
It's not godawful, but that doesn't make it good, either. It's just there to make money, and while it succeeded at that, I can't say that I'll bother to see another one of these if they make it. If you're really that curious to see it, I'd recommend just waiting for it to come out on Netflix or rent it from Red Box or something. It's not worth a $7+ movie ticket.
Now, if you want to see a dumb giant monster movie that's actually fun, I still say that Pacific Rim fits the bill (Avaitor's opinion not withstanding), or if you want to watch one that's more low-budget but crazy over the top, then watch Godzilla: Final Wars. And if you want to see an actual good giant monster movie, then watch The original King Kong, Jaws, Godzilla (1954), or Jurassic Park, or watch The Host (2006).
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on June 14, 2015, 02:23:27 PM
It's not godawful, but that doesn't make it good, either.
That's similar to what I think of the other sequels. They aren't harmful enough to be downright terrible, but they are dumb and just aren't good.
Well, I think that you could say that about The Lost World, but III was just awful, IMO, and Joe Johnston is a director that I actually kind of like, especially since he did The Rocketeer and Captain America: The First Avenger. But that movie just felt so cheap, not just in terms of its effects, but also in terms of its writing, acting, and any actual sense of effort in general.
Since we're on the topic of questionable sequels, what's up with the new Terminator movie? Is it basically a reboot of the first two movies?
Nobody even knows. It's a bad sign when multiple trailers which are supposed to help sell the movie just end up making it more confusing as to what it's even trying to be.
Also, I like Emilia Clarke as an actress, but I just can't buy her as Sarah Connor, even a young version of her.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on June 14, 2015, 05:33:03 PM
Nobody even knows. It's a bad sign when multiple trailers which are supposed to help sell the movie just end up making it more confusing as to what it's even trying to be.
Also, I like Emilia Clarke as an actress, but I just can't buy her as Sarah Connor, even a young version of her.
She seems like a far cry from Linda Hamilton's portrayal of the character. Linda Hamilton did such a good job of portraying the innocent, somewhat shy waitress who's doesn't know what to do in danger, who then grows into an extremely tough and strong, while also somewhat unstable, soldier ready to fight for the human race against a future of robots. Two roles that are so different, but I was equally sold on her as both.
Similar to Jurassic Park after the first movie, there is nothing that can be done with Terminator after the second movie. The story has been told.
Honestly, it's even a miracle that the second movie was so great. Really, this kind of story is only suited to being stand-alone, and if you think enough about it, the basis of Judgement Day's plot doesn't really make sense since if Skynet sent a Terminator back to kill John Connor in the 90's then that would mean that their 1984 attempt failed and that they already knew that....so then why would they have sent that original Terminator back in the first place, or even go for a second attempt since technically they'd have to know that it failed as well.
But, if you can ignore that massive plot hole, both of the Cameron-era Terminator movies were Sci-Fi and action masterpieces. Trying to make anymore as sequels was pointless because you couldn't do a different kind of story-line. And trying to remake or reboot the story could only lead to an inferior product that, at best might manage to avoid being terrible, but in all likelihood probably will suck.
Clarke doesn't really seem right for Sarah Connor. I actually would have been more interested if Tatiana Maslany got to stick around, since she seems like a much better fit for the character. Even then, she's what has me the most interested in the new Terminator.
But man, I'd much rather give Pacific Rim another chance than go see Jurassic World. And I probably will in time for the sequel and/or animated series, depending on whether or not del Toro pulls a del Toro.
Well, at the very least I can assure you that if you didn't enjoy Pacific Rim, you'll probably like Jurassic World even less. Like I said, I'd recommend renting it in a few months as opposed to spending a lot of money to see it in theaters, and that's only if you're curious to see it.
Also, fun fact about Sarah Connor: Clarke isn't the first GOT actress to play the character. Lena Headey actually portrayed the character in the short-lived TV show.
As for my pick, if they were doing an older version of Sarah Connor, I would have found Emily Blunt to be a perfect fit for the role. That said, I can't really think of a good young actress to play the character, probably because I don't keep tabs on most young actors in general. I should probably change that.
Linda Hamilton was perfect as Sarah Connor. She got the normal woman aspect of the character and tough as nails mom down great. None of the others have felt anywhere as good in both sides as she did.
As for this new one, well, since 3 convoluted everything up (seriously, there's a Terminator timeline video on youtube, watch it and marvel how the simple events of 1 and 2 are made pointlessly convoluted thanks to 3 and Salvation) I really have no emotional investment here. The new Terminator going back and destroying the one from Terminator 1 is a bit silly, IMO.
So the events of the original series did happen in this new Terminator movie? At least, before the time travel messed that up? Or something?
No one has any idea what's going on here.
But what it seems to be is that Kyle Reese is sent back in time to the events of The Terminator and at the beginning of the movie where he steals the clothes he is assaulted by these new terminators instead and saved by Sarah Connor. That's where the movie starts.
Here's a tip, if you can't sum up your story in a two minute trailer, then there's a good chance that your story makes no freaking sense.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on June 15, 2015, 04:55:25 PM
No one has any idea what's going on here.
But what it seems to be is that Kyle Reese is sent back in time to the events of The Terminator and at the beginning of the movie where he steals the clothes he is assaulted by these new terminators instead and saved by Sarah Connor. That's where the movie starts.
Here's a tip, if you can't sum up your story in a two minute trailer, then there's a good chance that your story makes no freaking sense.
But wait, if this happens at the same time as the first movie, why did they want a younger Sarah Connor played by a younger actress? Shouldn't she be the same age as she was in that movie? ???
Oh, I can make sense of the story in the trailer perfectly. So many AUs have happened thanks to time travel that one of Skynet's trips accidentally crossed into another trip thanks to how much they've unraveled linear time. The problem is that I just don't like it.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 15, 2015, 04:58:33 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on June 15, 2015, 04:55:25 PM
No one has any idea what's going on here.
But what it seems to be is that Kyle Reese is sent back in time to the events of The Terminator and at the beginning of the movie where he steals the clothes he is assaulted by these new terminators instead and saved by Sarah Connor. That's where the movie starts.
Here's a tip, if you can't sum up your story in a two minute trailer, then there's a good chance that your story makes no freaking sense.
But wait, if this happens at the same time as the first movie, why did they want a younger Sarah Connor played by a younger actress? Shouldn't she be the same age as she was in that movie? ???
Because whoever is behind this has no idea what they're trying to do.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on June 15, 2015, 04:59:25 PM
Oh, I can make sense of the story in the trailer perfectly. So many AUs have happened thanks to time travel that one of Skynet's trips accidentally crossed into another trip thanks to how much they've unraveled linear time. The problem is that I just don't like it.
Fair enough.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on June 15, 2015, 04:58:33 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on June 15, 2015, 04:55:25 PM
No one has any idea what's going on here.
But what it seems to be is that Kyle Reese is sent back in time to the events of The Terminator and at the beginning of the movie where he steals the clothes he is assaulted by these new terminators instead and saved by Sarah Connor. That's where the movie starts.
Here's a tip, if you can't sum up your story in a two minute trailer, then there's a good chance that your story makes no freaking sense.
But wait, if this happens at the same time as the first movie, why did they want a younger Sarah Connor played by a younger actress? Shouldn't she be the same age as she was in that movie? ???
Emilia Clarke is at the same age (28) as when Linda Hamilton first played Sarah Connor, so it checks out there.
I recently re-watched A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More.
I remember Foggle saying he hated the second movie, but I didn't remember enough about either at the time to comment. After having seen both again, my opinion is that the first film is great for its time but a bit too slow-paced and dragged out by today's standards. That doesn't mean that it still isn't a classic, but it certainly wouldn't be the first Leone film that I'd recommend to someone. Also, Yojimbo is a better version of this story, in all honesty. Then there's the second movie, which I honestly like a lot, myself. Leone shows improved directing skills here, and it's where his visual style and lack of overt exposition really stsrt to shine. The villain himself is clearly a terrible person, but still feels more nuanced than a typical Hollywood Western villain, and Lee Van Cleef is an excellent co-star to Clint Eastwood. Additionally, that ending duel was really good.
That said, both movies absolutely pale in comparison to the final and best film of the Dollars trilogy. That one is just a grand scale adventure with some of the most brilliant film-making of all time, IMO. It's still Leone's best work, IMO, and to me it's the greatest genre film of all time.
I really need to rewatch Yojimbo.
I watched Ip Man 2 early this morning. Whoa...the movie lacked plot. It felt like they were just setting up Ip Man 3. What I did like was Sammo Hung character and Leung. Leung's probably the best hardheaded kungfu student character I've seen in years. I hope they do much more with him in 3.
After many years, today I finally got around to rewatching Titanic. I've been waiting for this to give my thoughts on it.
I think the biggest thing that makes the movie so good is the presentation of it. I'm referring to how it looks, and the soundtrack. Just the camerawork, for one, is great. And of course, the effects behind the whole sinking ship portion are fantastic. Cameron really used so many tricks there, rather than just all CGI, and learning about them is cool. The music of the movie is wonderful. James Horner was a very talented man, as we all know.
I think the relationship between Jack and Rose gets a little unnecessary heat. It's mushy, yes, and it's not the most compelling romance. But, you know... they are an adorable couple. Watching them together in the first half of the movie is fun, and I do legitimately care about them once the sinking occurs in the second half of movie. And, sure, "cute" isn't the best defense. But I'm not trying to call them the greatest love story of all time. As for the fact that they are fictional, that's true. But, well, adaptations always make up characters. Leo and Kate are good actors, and Jack and Rose are likable for what they are. I like Rose in particular. Cameron is good at writing his leading ladies and Rose is no exception. Even with the fictional characters, the movie does have people that were actually on the real Titanic (not the real people, but you know what I mean). And I really like the moments of the movie that are based on reality. I'm not just referring to the fact that the focus of the movie is a giant boat crashing into an iceberg. I mean little things that don't appear to mean much on their own, but are based on memories of real survivors.
I notice how some people are surprised that this is a Cameron movie. When you look at his list of films, with so much of the action genre in there, Titanic can stick out like a sore thumb a little but. But you can really see his love of action showing when the ship sinks, with all the running, smashing, punching, guns shooting, things blowing up, and even axes swinging.
My problem with the movie is how generic most of the supporting characters are. I'm also not sure the portions with Rose as an old lady are totally necessary (they also slightly weaken the part where Jack dies and the life boat seems to be passing by, which comes off as an especially sad moment if you don't already know Rose will make it out, but anyway). Despite the obvious flaws, I do like the movie a lot and I genuinely believe Cameron put a lot of heart into it, that he really wanted to make this.
Titanic is far from Cameron's best film, but I still find it very enjoyable for what it is. Much like Forrest Gump, I think that people love to shit on it a bit too much just because it won best picture. Were there superior films from that year? Certainly. And yeah the story and characters are formulaic to a degree, but there's much more to movies than just that, and the general presentation of the movie is masterful thanks to Cameron's expert film-making techniques.
I agree. There are other Cameron movies that I like far more. And I'd say people's hatred of it goes even beyond it winning best picture, but also having to do with the fact that it is the highest grossing film of all time (until Avatar took that spot, of course). But I do legitimately like it a lot. It's very well made technically. And the story is indeed formulaic, but sometimes, I honestly am all for a simplistic story. Call it a guilty pleasure, but I do enjoy Rose and Jack's relatively sweet and innocent scenes together. Like I said before, I do think Cameron put a lot of heart into this movie. On the other hand, with Avatar, I just can't help but find it to be a kind of heartless movie that he made for some egotistical reason or something. Titanic certainly deserved to be the highest grossing film of all time over Avatar, and it still would be if the climate of movie watching (and ticket pricing) was the same as it was in 1997.
That reminds me. Of the top ten highest grossing movies of all time, only two were made before 5-6 years ago (Titanic and Return of the King). And those two happen to be my favorites on the list. :P
Gone Girl and The Imitation Game.
I had the twist spoiled for me on the former way before the movie came out since my step-dad had read the book. It was still a good film, though.
I was really surprised to see Charles Dance in the latter. This guy was just born to play the cynical higher-up archetype role. As for the movie itself, I was really into it. I'm honestly not a big fan of docu-dramas as I find that they can get either too self-indulgent or too wrapped up in the historical aspect of things that they often forget to be an interesting movie, first and foremost. However, this was among the few that held my attention the entire way through.
Next up for me is Life Itself.
I just watched The Theory of Everything.
I have now seen every single Best Picture nominee from last year except for Boyhood.
What are the best Dracula movies again?
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 08, 2015, 01:57:14 PM
What are the best Dracula movies again?
The 1922 silent film and its 1979 remake. Those are my choices with very little comparison.
I knew I could count on you. :) Also, what about Nosferatu?
The 1922 silent film that he mentioned IS Nosferatu, and the 1979 film is its remake.
Nosferatu is basically Dracula, but it's not called Dracula because the director of the original film couldn't get the rights to use the name.
Yeah, sorry about that. Nosferatu is the movie I meant. As E-K said, it's basically the Dracula story with changed names since the character wasn't yet public domain, though most prints now just stick to the original Dracula names. The remake also uses the original names as well.
It's every bit deserving of its recognition as one of the masterpieces of the silent era. The remake is also amazing for its cinematography and the mood it creates, along with the direction it takes the character of Dracula. I really like some other Dracula movies, but I can't imagine myself putting them anywhere close to the Nosferatu movies.
Ah, cool. Thank you!
I just watched Boyhood. And now, I have finally seen all of the Best Picture nominees from this year's AA.
This is how I'd rank them:
8. The Theory of Everything- This is the usual type of Oscar nomination that I usually respect on a technical level but find to be kind of dull as an overall experience. Eddie Redmayne totally deserved his Oscar for his performance, but other than that, the movie was a bit too by-the-numbers for my liking.
7. Boyhood- This is one of those movies where I feel that your appreciation for it depends directly on how much you can relate to it. Thus, I absolutely LOVED the first half of this movie. It felt so real to me that it was kind of eerie. The second half was just as excellent, yet didn't mean as much to me because my high school life was nothing like Mason's. Even so, it was a good film all of the way through.
6. American Sniper- So this was easily the most controversial film to be nominated and also the least well-liked by most people. Personally, I decided to view this as a movie in and of itself, rather than on its stance on the politics of war as well as whether it's portrayal of Chris Kyle as a more heroic figure was in any way accurate to the real person or not. That, and I'm extremely biased. I love Clint Eastwood as a director, and his last couple of movies haven't been so hot, so I was glad to actually see a good one again, even though it's far from his best. Overall, I liked the movie, though it's far from being one of the best war films ever made, including some of Eastwood's earlier works like Letters From Iwojima.
5. Birdman- The winner for Best Picture, and I'm OK with that. I did enjoy the film, but it's just not my favorite of the bunch. I don't really know what else to say besides that. It was a good movie, but I just like these other four better.
4. Selma- This isn't the first time that a movie has dealt with MLK as an iconic figure by a long shot, but it's one of the best that I've seen in this regard. Films with issues of racism are a bit of a touchy subject to criticize, especially when they are based on true stories. Normally people tend to be more lenient towards them because of the subject matetial, but much like I did with American Sniper, I choose to judge such movies as films in and of themselves. Thus, I won't beat around the bush. For example: I tremendously respect what Jackie Robinson represented as a person, but "42" was a bad movie in my eyes. That said, with Selma, I luckily didn't have to criticize it much. The movie stands on its own as a genuinely good piece of cinema. I wouldn't say that it's as great of a film as something like Hotel Rwanda or To Kill A Mockingbird (if we can count fiction), but it's still a very good movie, especially in the context of its contemporary nominees.
3. The Imitation Game- Something about this movie just really won me over. I can't precisely pinpoint what it was, to be honest, but it had me fully engaged the entire way through, and Benedict Cumberbatch's performance made for a character that was incredibly up his own ass, yet strangely likable all the same. It was just an interesting movie in the best kind of ways.
2. The Grand Budapest Hotel- Despite my praise for the other movies, this is one of the only two that I'd personally call a truly great film. It had such a unique style to it yet was stuffed with substance. It was also wickedly funny and so packed with great humor and some surprisingly good drama that I'd consider it to be as re-watchable as a movie like Hot Fuzz. It's the rare Oscar movie that isn't afraid to actually be fun for a change, and that's really worth a lot to me.
1. Whiplash- J. K. Simmons just made the whoke goddamn film. Truth be told, the movie itself could have easily just been average were it not for this one performance, and his chemistry with the talented, up and coming Miles Teller. I remember when my brother was a student drummer for a couple of years, and while he was nowhere as passionate as this, I saw how frustrated he got in trying to get the instrument right. It's balls hard from what I can tell. So I could really empathize with the frustration of the characters in this movie, and really it's just the two of them throughout the entire film, as the other characters are essentially just extras for a point of reference for the audience. But man was I engrossed in this whole endeavor of a story, and that final drum solo just struck me so hard that I was an awe for that whole scene and for several moments after the film ended just so that I could take it all in. It's easily one of the greatest films of the decade, so far.
Nice rankings! I still haven't seen Theory of Everything or American Sniper, and Birdman is still on its way, but I liked everything I've seen from this year's nominees. My ranking would be, as of now:
5- The Imitation Game
4- The Grand Budapest Hotel
3- Boyhood
2- Selma
1- Whiplash
Thanks. Good rankings, yourself. :)
Here's a fun little video that compares the Kick-Ass comic book to the film adaptation. The funny thing is that without explicitly stating which version is better, the points that differ in the comic book sound so terrible that you can easily come to that conclusion for yourself.
But the new thing that I learned from this is that the movie was greenlit before the comic actually came out, and the story had been planned in advance. It's just that Millar and Vaughn had very different ideas of how to tell that story and what the message of it would be. In that regard, you really could see the movie as its own work rather than as an adaptation of shitty source material.
Yeah, most if not all of Mark Millar's comics in the past few years have just been extended movie pitches.
I hope an Old Man Logan movie gets made.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on July 19, 2015, 11:45:15 PMYeah, most if not all of Mark Millar's comics in the past few years have just been extended movie pitches.
Well, that certainly would explain a lot.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on July 19, 2015, 11:53:03 PM
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on July 19, 2015, 11:45:15 PMYeah, most if not all of Mark Millar's comics in the past few years have just been extended movie pitches.
Well, that certainly would explain a lot.
Kick Ass and its sequel were greenlit into movies before they were even written at all, like you said. Which is easy to understand, no one could read either comic and decide "Hey, this should be a movie!" because they are so terrible.
By the way, there's no link in your post, but I think I know the video you're talking about. They go through both movie and comic evenhandedly, but without saying anything it's pretty obvious the comic is incredibly poorly written.
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 19, 2015, 11:50:18 PM
I hope an Old Man Logan movie gets made.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that I read that this is what the third Wolverine was going to be based off of.
Quote from: Avaitor on July 20, 2015, 11:39:09 AM
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 19, 2015, 11:50:18 PM
I hope an Old Man Logan movie gets made.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that I read that this is what the third Wolverine was going to be based off of.
I sincerely hope not.
Paging Doctors Vaughn and Goldman...
Sorry, I can't believe that I forgot to post the link: https://youtu.be/lTAJ-Dd3Vb8
And yeah, I had always wondered how anyone could read such terrible writing and feel that it deserved to be a movie, but it makes so much more sense that Vaughn was sold on the concept of the story itself, rather than on Millar's writing.
Yep, that's the exact video I was thinking of. Every single comparison falls completely flat for the comic whenever the movie version is shown. Either Millar suddenly became worse than Ennis, Miller, and Moore, at their worst, or he really didn't put any thought into the comic when he wrote it. Considering he had a movie deal before it was even written, there's a high chance of the latter.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 20, 2015, 12:20:57 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on July 20, 2015, 11:39:09 AM
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 19, 2015, 11:50:18 PM
I hope an Old Man Logan movie gets made.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that I read that this is what the third Wolverine was going to be based off of.
I sincerely hope not.
I saw that coming. Imma send you tickets to the show. :)
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 20, 2015, 03:44:35 PM
Yep, that's the exact video I was thinking of. Every single comparison falls completely flat for the comic whenever the movie version is shown. Either Millar suddenly became worse than Ennis, Miller, and Moore, at their worst, or he really didn't put any thought into the comic when he wrote it. Considering he had a movie deal before it was even written, there's a high chance of the latter.
:srs:
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 20, 2015, 04:05:58 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 20, 2015, 03:44:35 PM
Yep, that's the exact video I was thinking of. Every single comparison falls completely flat for the comic whenever the movie version is shown. Either Millar suddenly became worse than Ennis, Miller, and Moore, at their worst, or he really didn't put any thought into the comic when he wrote it. Considering he had a movie deal before it was even written, there's a high chance of the latter.
:srs:
"At their worst."
They've written some rancid garbage.
Quote from: gunswordfist on July 20, 2015, 04:05:58 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 20, 2015, 03:44:35 PM
Yep, that's the exact video I was thinking of. Every single comparison falls completely flat for the comic whenever the movie version is shown. Either Millar suddenly became worse than Ennis, Miller, and Moore, at their worst, or he really didn't put any thought into the comic when he wrote it. Considering he had a movie deal before it was even written, there's a high chance of the latter.
:srs:
Please read Crossed, Holy Terror, and Neonomicon. ;)
I re-watched some movies lately.
The Wolf of Wall Street- This isn't nearly Scorsese's best work, but it's still a really well-made film that's high on the entertainment value level, and one of the better films of 2013, which IMO was a rather lackluster year for movies, outside of a few gems like The World's End and Snowpiercer.
Spider-Man Trilogy- The Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies still hold up, IMO. I still feel the same about them as I did when I was younger. The first one is one of the best early Marvel movies, the second is good but way too over-praised by critics, and the third is flawed but way too over-bashed by critics (it's honestly a pretty decent film if you can ignore how much Venom was butchered).
X-Men: First Class- It's really great stuff, and the friendship and eventual falling out between Professor X and Magneto is what makes it, IMO. It's just a step below X2 and DOFP, in my book.
Jaws- This is one of those films that holds the amazing distinction of being a cinematic masterpiece, AND just being really fucking fun to watch. They don't make monster movies this good, anymore. The acting is great, the music is iconic, and come on, let's all just admit that we love seeing people getting mauled and/or eaten by wild animals, whether it's realistic or not. This is among those few movies that I can watch countless times and never get bored of.
I finished A Star is Born this morning. Great movie, especially with Garland and Mason's performances. The award ceremony scene was really powerful.
Tonight's a night where I wanted to do more than just study and watch TV, so I switched things up by watching a couple of movies that I haven't seen for a while instead.
One was Seven, which I truthfully wasn't a big fan of the first time that I saw it. I guess that I didn't get or care for the plot, but I really dig it now. It's a very tightly made thriller, one where just about every element works, especially the excellent chemistry between Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman. And that ending is still out of this world. I actually bought it a while ago in hopes that I'd warm up to it, and thankfully I have.
And I'm finishing up Jaws now. I really wanted to go to TCM/Fathom Event's special rerelease for it, but I couldn't make either of those dates. I also wanted to catch their Double Indemnity screenings from a few days ago, but that also wasn't going to work for me. They're doing a few more screenings in the next few months, so I might try for some of those. I'm not really interested in their upcoming Grease sing-a-long, though.
But I own Jaws too, so it wasn't that big of a loss. It's as great as ever, though, as thrilling as it is fun. But it's the quiet moments that really bring the film to life, since the casting and writing is just as strong as Spielberg's sense of tension. There's a reason that this film hasn't left the public conscience 40 years later.
Ha! It looks like we both had similar timing on re-watching Jaws. I also really wanted to go to that TCM screening, but neither Sundays nor Wednesdays work for me on just about any given week.
Really though, their upcoming slate looks pretty great.
August- Grease
September- Psycho
October- Dracula double feature- the 1931 take along with its Spanish version
November- Roman Holiday
December- Miracle on 34th Street
Again, not really interested in Grease (I don't hate or even dislike the movie, but I don't have a desire to go), but all of these look really tight.
I picked up a basic, cheap edition of the Lethal Weapon film collection on DVD for $10 (no special features or anything, just the movies), and I also got X-Men: DOFP and Archer Season 3 for cheap as well. Not bad shopping, at all.
Anyways, DOFP is still as great as ever. As for Lethal Weapon, I'll be making my way through all four movies eventually, but I'll start with just the first one tonight.
It's the one that includes the director's cuts, right? The added LW1 scenes are brilliant. Never understood why they were ever taken out.
It says that it is on the case, so yeah. :thumbup:
Cool, then you have the same edition I do.
Now you get to watch a handful of great action movies. Enjoy!
I just watched Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation.
This is, IMO, the second best MI film to date. It's a lot of fun, and really stands out from the "dark, gritty" nature of most modern spy films, though it's not nearly as over the top as Kingsman. I was particularly impressed with the action scenes in this movie. Not only did it rely on practical effects over CG, but Tom Cruise did all of his own stunts, and both the underwater infiltration and motorcycle chase scenes are among the most impressive technical pieces of cinema that I've seen all year (though, I still have yet to see Mad Max Fury Road, to be fair).
Having said that, Ghost Protocol still remains to be my favorite MI movie, followed by this one, and then the first movie. While I like John Woo a lot, MI2 is probably one of his weakest films, and easily the weakest MI film outside of a few cool action scenes. MI3 is an OK movie, but the villain is really the only above average aspect of the movie, IMO.
y'no, there are 2 big modern franchises that I haven't seen any films of- M:I and Furious. I have the first Fast and the Furious in my queue, and I should really get to the Impossible movies as well.
That's just weird.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the FF movies. Everyone has at least one big franchise that they just can't get into despite its popularity, and for me that's FF. They just don't do much for me, personally.
As for MI, I like how each new film is done by a different director to keep it feeling fresh and unique from the others.
Mission: Impossible (Brian De Palma); The plot doesn't make a whole lot of sense but the situations are really intense and engaging, and that's what keeps the movie interesting.
Mission: Impossible 2 (John Woo); This one is admittedly not very good, despite my love for Woo, but at least it certainly has a flare for style.
Mission: Impossible 3 (J. J. Abrams); It's a typical Abrams' movie, which means that it's high on flash and merely kind of "meh" when it comes to everything else, though once again, the villain is its one saving grace, due more so to Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance rather than the writing itself.
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (Brad Bird); From the guy who brought you The Iron Giant and those famous Pixar films like The Incredibles, comes his first live-action feature film. Though, he does it so masterfully that you couldn't tell that it was his first foray into the live-action medium based on the quality of the film. This was the first film since the original that felt like a worthy sequel, IMO, and it totally saved the franchise.
Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (Christopher McQarrie); I'm not as familiar with this guy's work as I am with the other directors, but thankfully he carries the torch on from Bird and does the series justice yet again by just doing what the series does best: putting Ethan Hunt and the IMF into seemingly impossible situations to overcome and keeping you engrossed by showing you how they get through them. That said, this movie is still pretty fresh in my mind, so I can't properly judge it until I give it a second viewing a few months from now when it comes out on video.
I've never seen past the first two, but I did like the old series. I dig that old timey spy vibe.
I was gonna sit down with Ghost Protocol until it was taken off of Netflix literally the day before I was going to watch it. Now who knows when I'll get to see it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=76&v=hIKhoEIBSxU
Yeah, Rogue Nation is probably my favorite movie of the Summer as well.
Fant4stic always looked like ass to me, but I have to admit, I was expecting it to be MoS bad, but was shocked to hear that it's on a completely different level of bad. Like, the kind of movie disaster that we rarely ever get anymore. Apparently even some of the special effects look like they are from a 20-year old movie (based on multiple reviews that I've read).
I love how Josh Trank is trying to blame the studio for the mess, saying he has a better version of the movie but won't show it because he's too afraid to pull a Terry Gilliam. I can believe Fox meddled with some things, but hearing about the director's behavior on set makes it sound a disaster from both ends.
And besides, there's nothing worse than a creator refusing to take responsibility for their work's flaws and passing the blame to others.
Spoken like a true mad scientist.
I'm glad this movie sucks and I'm not even sure why.
Well, there are cases like with David Fincher's Alien 3 in which everything that I've heard about the movie from behind the scenes (from people besides Fincher himself, who refuses to even acknowledge the film anymore, let alone to even talk about it) makes it seem like the studio really fucked up the movie and put the blame on him.
However, with Fant4stic, I've heard that Josh Trank was incredibly difficult to work with, so I honestly can't pinpoint exactly where most of the blame for this movie lies.
Still, you've got to have respect for a guy like Steven Spielberg who will openly admit when he fucked up as a director, like he did for 1941 (and that was way before he was as big of a name in Hollywood as he is now).
I finally got around to seeing The Babadook, and holy shit, it's fantastic. The film does such a good job of keeping its creepy atmosphere, but the human, psychological core is what keeps it going. And it never stops to be utterly fascinating.
Easily one of my favorite films from last year.
Quote from: Avaitor on August 10, 2015, 02:43:50 PM
I finally got around to seeing The Babadook, and holy shit, it's fantastic. The film does such a good job of keeping its creepy atmosphere, but the human, psychological core is what keeps it going. And it never stops to be utterly fascinating.
Easily one of my favorite films from last year.
Yes! Glad you liked it! It's my favorite film of last year, but more than that it's one of the best horror films that I've seen in years. It doesn't rely on any cheap gimmicks, but instead plays out like a drama and character study that just happens to have elements of horror in it by extension (the horror being a perfect metaphor for the drama).
Essie Davis turned in my personal favorite performance of any movie last year, as well. And that kid is one of the few good child actors that I've ever seen. He is only irritating because the film actually calls for him to come off that way at first, but he does such a brilliant job of getting you to sympathize with him as the film progresses.
The Babadook is a great film because it works as a great drama with great characters and great writing and acting to back it all up, regardless of the horror elements. In other words, it doesn't feel like it's trying to be suspenseful or scary, but rather it is suspenseful and scary as a natural effect of the story that it's trying to tell. This is something that more modern horror movies need to learn from, including some of the other critically praised ones like It Follows (which is overrated, IMO).
I'll get to It Follows soon, but it'll take a lot for that to match this for me. This really is a great mix of strong acting, writing, and directing into a unique melting pot of storytelling.
Quote from: Avaitor on August 10, 2015, 03:27:38 PM
I'll get to It Follows soon, but it'll take a lot for that to match this for me. This really is a great mix of strong acting, writing, and directing into a unique melting pot of storytelling.
I honestly don't understand the praise for It Follows, myself. It's about as mediocre of a horror movie as I've ever seen, and it can be downright dumb in its logic (or lack thereof) at times.
The Babadook definitely earned its praise, though. I'd rank it among my 10 favorite films in the genre, and I definitely plan to bring it up again this year when we do the next 31 Nights of Halloween (yes, given how we got some good discussion out of it last year, I'll be doing it again this year).
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 10, 2015, 04:04:10 PMnext 31 Nights of Halloween (yes, given how we got some good discussion out of it last year, I'll be doing it again this year).
Nice. For me, October starts on September 1st (because of time restraints, it tends to take me a lot of time to watch all the horror movies I want for a Halloween). So pumped for some horror.
I'm watching Birdman, and I'm 100% with Todd here. (http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8088351/oscars-best-picture-birdman)
I don't quite think that it's as self-indulgent as he makes it out to be. I get not liking a film, but some of those criticisms of what he thinks that it means are a pretty large stretch of interpretation, IMO.
Keep in mind, it wasn't even one of my favorite films of last year, or even close to it (certainly not in my top 10), but that doesn't mean that the praise that it gets from others is wrong or undeserved.
As for my opinion, I think that it's a well-made film, but one that I can't find any personal attachment to, nor any reason to re-watch it.
I haven't seen many of the best picture nominees last year, more out of laziness than any spite, but one thing putting me off watching Birdman in particular was an interview from Inarritu about how genre movies were cultural genocide. (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/alejandro-inarritu-calls-hollywood-superhero-obsession-cultural-genocide-plus-watch-1-hour-of-birdman-interviews-more-20141016) It's the kind of talk that turns me away from viewing, because I can't stand that level of snobbery from filmmakers who think they're better because they've never made any science fiction.
Can't get with anyone who thinks Birdman is pretentious or self-indulgent. I thought it was absolutely brilliant and had a lot to say about depression and self-worth/loathing.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on August 14, 2015, 01:08:12 AM
I haven't seen many of the best picture nominees last year, more out of laziness than any spite, but one thing putting me off watching Birdman in particular was an interview from Inarritu about how genre movies were cultural genocide. (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/alejandro-inarritu-calls-hollywood-superhero-obsession-cultural-genocide-plus-watch-1-hour-of-birdman-interviews-more-20141016) It's the kind of talk that turns me away from viewing, because I can't stand that level of snobbery from filmmakers who think they're better because they've never made any science fiction.
Yeah, it's a pretty dickish, stupid, and borderline offensive thing to say. At the same time, I can kind of see where he's coming from, though I think Simon Pegg worded it much better (if still too mean-spiritedly) earlier this year.
Like I said, I appreciated Birdman as a film, but couldn't relate to it on a personal level. I don't see what's so nuts about that. :thinkin:
But on that note: Whiplash >>>>>>>>>>>> Birdman
As for the director's comments, do I agree with them? Not particularly. But I'm not going to get all worked up over one guy's opinion. The way that he seems to come off as superior for his taste in hating the genre IS very asinine, though. He fails to realize that this "cultural genocide" is merely just a generational trend that's always been there. Every era has its equivalent of the popcorn movie. In the 50's it was B Monster Movies, in the 60's it was Westerns. Today it just happens to be Superhero movies. Twenty years from now, it'll probably be some other trend. It doesn't mean that it's killing movies, or the chance for people to make truly artistic films. Hell, even films in those aforementioned genres can still break the mold and occasionally produce works of artistic merit. For Westerns, just look at the works of Sergio Leone, for example.
I don't agree with Inarritu's cultural genocide remark, but to be fair, Robert Downey Jr had a shitty response to the line (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/robert-downey-jr-trashes-indie-moviemaking-fires-back-over-alejandro-gonzalez-inarritus-superhero-diss-20150501), himself.
I give Birdman credit for sticking to its experiment, and mostly succeeding at it. But I don't like much of anything about it. No line of dialogue worked me me, most of the acting left me flat, and I came out completely uninterested. Maybe not as much as I did for Foxcatcher, but I felt no love for this movie.
That and Inglorious Basterds are like the only two Tarantino films that have ever appealed to me.
Come to think of it, Christoph Waltz was in both of those. Hmmmm....
Quote from: Homura Akemi on August 14, 2015, 07:17:42 PM
Kill Bill is still the best Tarantino film to me. It's so beautiful I cry every time
I actually enjoyed the first Sinister a few years ago. It's a very flawed horror film, but it had some nice ideas and the execution by Scott Derrickson combined with Ethan Hawke's excellent acting is what made it work. Now both of them are off doing other things (Derrickson is directing Doctor Strange for Marvel), and it really shows in how easily the second film fell apart. I'm not surprised, though. Horror sequels rarely ever work, to begin with.
The people who didn't like Birdman probably didn't have a problem with the themes that the movie tackled, but rather the execution of the movie, itself. Just my guess.
Maybe the people who don't like Birdman... just don't like Birdman.
Fair enough, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions.
Actually, the Voices looks pretty interesting. I should add that to queue.
You know, I've been wanting to do a list of my top 10 favorite movie shoot-outs for a while, now, but there are a few famous films that I still need to watch for consideration. Most notably Heat, A Better Tomorrow 2, and The Wild Bunch. The problem is finding them. Netflix has failed me three times in a row.
Shit, I thought I remembered seeing Heat and The Wild Bunch on Netflix... Hate when they remove films for no reason. :(
The funny thing is that they'd probably still be available almost anywhere else. Netflix of America seems to have a hard-on for removing awesome classic movies that I specifically want to see.
I don't have them here, either.
Pacino's Heat? Between Netflix having nothing and Hulu's ads, streaming movie watchers are fucked.
Watched The Killer, and I thought it was really fun. It was style that became substance, and I was enthralled by Ah Jong's hitman-with-a-heart character.
Then I watched the new Fantastic Four. Other than completely hating it, I must ask, what was Dr. Doom's plan? He wanted to destroy Earth in order to protect his planet even though his own world was a desolate wasteland? Why does he want to be a god of a barren planet? I don't get it.
The Killer is great. One of those movies that has a bit more going on in it than you would expect at first. It helps that the action sequences are pretty bonkers, too.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on August 27, 2015, 10:26:50 PM
Watched The Killer, and I thought it was really fun. It was style that became substance, and I was enthralled by Ah Jong's hitman-with-a-heart character.
Yeah, it's a really well-made film, and the Church shoot-out is one of John Woo's best action scenes, IMO.
The thing about John Woo films in general is that they are more about the characters than the plot. The stories themselves aren't usually very original, but what makes him such a good film-maker is that he focuses on the execution of it all. It's style combined with substance, as you said. Admittedly he can get a bit cheesy and over-the-top with some scenes, but it also stems as a result of him putting so much heart into the characters on-screen, which makes them compelling in the first place. And of course he's a master at crafting crazy but intense gun-battles.
I also dig how most of his films have two main characters who oppose each other at first but find some common ground and posdibly even work together by the end. Their character arcs are also usually the opposite at first. In the killer it's a hitman who wants to leave his work behind him versus a detective on his trail who is obsessed with his work. In A better tomorrow it's about family, with two brothers having a falling out (one a gang member, the other a cop), until they find a common target. Hard-Boiled is about two cops on opposite ends of the coin, one an undercover agent who despises himself (symbolizing identity crisis and moral confusion) as opposed to a standard action cop who's comfortable with who he is but doesn't think things through as much as he should. Face/Off literally puts the cop and criminal in each others' skin. And MI2....well, I'm sure it follows a similar pattern, but even as a John Woo fan I have to admit that movie kind of sucks.
He's also good at developing nuanced characters without relying too heavily on overt-exposition through dialogue.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on August 27, 2015, 10:31:12 PM
The Killer is great. One of those movies that has a bit more going on in it than you would expect at first. It helps that the action sequences are pretty bonkers, too.
I'm glad you love it as well. I was surprised to see you vote it so highly in the film competition thread. Until then, I didn't even know that you had seen it.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 27, 2015, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on August 27, 2015, 10:26:50 PM
Watched The Killer, and I thought it was really fun. It was style that became substance, and I was enthralled by Ah Jong's hitman-with-a-heart character.
Yeah, it's a really well-made film, and the Church shoot-out is one of John Woo's best action scenes, IMO.
The thing about John Woo films in general is that they are more about the characters than the plot. The stories themselves aren't usually very original, but what makes him such a good film-maker is that he focuses on the execution of it all. It's style combined with substance, as you said. Admittedly he can get a bit cheesy and over-the-top with some scenes, but it also stems as a result of him putting so much heart into the characters on-screen, which makes them compelling in the first place. And of course he's a master at crafting crazy but intense gun-battles.
I also dig how most of his films have two main characters who oppose each other at first but find some common ground and posdibly even work together by the end. Their character arcs are also usually the opposite at first. In the killer it's a hitman who wants to leave his work behind him versus a detective on his trail who is obsessed with his work. In A better tomorrow it's about family, with two brothers having a falling out (one a gang member, the other a cop), until they find a common target. Hard-Boiled is about two cops on opposite ends of the coin, one an undercover agent who despises himself (symbolizing identity crisis and moral confusion) as opposed to a standard action cop who's comfortable with who he is but doesn't think things through as much as he should. Face/Off literally puts the cop and criminal in each others' skin. And MI2....well, I'm sure it follows a similar pattern, but even as a John Woo fan I have to admit that movie kind of sucks.
He's also good at developing nuanced characters without relying too heavily on overt-exposition through dialogue.
The Killer does a very good job at the start of setting the scene. Right before the first action sequence Ah Jong is shown as someone who appreciates silence and something higher, and the look he gives Jenny shows that she is much of the reason why he does. That makes the brutal action sequence right after hit much harder. And in his fit of blind violence, he blinds the person who changed him. Everything that unfolds after that, from his pause during the assassination attempt to his willingness to help the little girl to his delay in killing the very man who betrayed him (the scene where he gets the money back is probably one of my favorite scenes in any action movie) and restoring his humanity, to changing the very cop who had nothing but contempt for criminals, it's a great ride. I especially enjoy his realization at the end when he is about to die that he now understands what Jenny went through and realizes the path he chose lead him there. Throw in some excellent action sequences that are all pretty top notch and creative from John Woo and you have one of the best action movies ever.
I'm just as surprised as anyone that it made it as far as it did in the competition.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 27, 2015, 10:51:56 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on August 27, 2015, 10:31:12 PM
The Killer is great. One of those movies that has a bit more going on in it than you would expect at first. It helps that the action sequences are pretty bonkers, too.
I'm glad you love it as well. I was surprised to see you vote it so highly in the film competition thread. Until then, I didn't even know that you had seen it.
As you can also tell, I think pretty highly of it, too. :D
Out of curiosity, have you checked out John Wick from last year? It's not an action-classic or anything like that, but I found it to be a really entertaining and extremely well-shot hitman style movie that felt like something out of the 80's combined with some modern flair. I think you might enjoy it.
Desperado is another good action movie, this time by Robert Rodriguez, in the vein of John Woo style shoot-outs. It lacks the same substance, but the style does really go a long way in this case, IMO.
On another note, I finally got around to seeing Heat. It's a very well-made, well-acted movie, and that famous shoot-out scene has earned its place on most top 10 lists. That said, I do get the feeling that, similar to True Detective season one, had this movie not had the right combination of director and actors, the script would've fell flat. Personally, I feel that Collateral is still Michael Mann's best film.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 27, 2015, 11:58:07 PM
Out of curiosity, have you checked out John Wick from last year? It's not an action-classic or anything like that, but I found it to be a really entertaining and extremely well-shot hitman style movie that felt like something out of the 80's combined with some modern flair. I think you might enjoy it.
I'm not kidding, I literally have it on my movie pile right now. A friend
insisted I watch it. I'll probably do so tomorrow after Girl Meets World.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 27, 2015, 11:58:07 PMDesperado is another good action movie, this time by Robert Rodriguez, in the vein of John Woo style shoot-outs. It lacks the same substance, but the style does really go a long way in this case, IMO.
Oh boy, I haven't seen the El Mariachi trilogy in a loooonnng time. I should probably get on that.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 27, 2015, 11:58:07 PMOn another note, I finally got around to seeing Heat. It's a very well-made, well-acted movie, and that famous shoot-out scene has earned its place on most top 10 lists. That said, I do get the feeling that, similar to True Detective season one, had this movie not had the right combination of director and actors, the script would've fell flat. Personally, I feel that Collateral is still Michael Mann's best film.
This is another one I saw waaay back on VHS (this was one of those movies that came on two VHS tapes like Titanic and Wyatt Earp) but I remember really liking it. I didn't think it was a classic or anything, but it was good at what it did. Certainly the action was good.
Heat's dialogue can get laughable with how outdated the lingo is at times but besides that, I think I'd like it no matter who was casted.
John Wick lived up to the hype. Taking '80s action movie sensibilities and wrapping it in a modern package was a treat, but I was even more surprised at how engaging it was. A simple revenge plot that spins out further and further it just kept getting better as it went on. The ending really brought everything full circle. The action scenes were so very good, too. No shaky cam alone would be enough to be awesome, but they are legitimately great. I hope this and Daredevil are enough to start a trend of proper action sequences again.
If they keep a character arc in mind for Wick that follows on this, I could definitely be interested in the sequel when it comes out.
Glad you liked it! :joy:
As for the action scenes, it's worth noting that the directors of this movie, Chad Stahelski and David Leitch, are both former stunt-men themselves, so they had a lot of great insight into how to both choreograph and film proper action scenes. Not only was there no BS shaky-cam, but the camera angles were perfectly utilized to showcase the action in a manner that was easy for viewers to follow. Furthermore, they said in interviews that they wanted to stand out from other action movies by making the action feel more down-to-earth and less physics-defying.
The result is a very uniquely awesome kind of action in which it looks cool and flashy by not actually trying to be cool and flashy. Instead of shooting everything up, John Wick doesn't waste ammo and almost always shoots to kill, so you really buy that he's a professional hitman. Even better is that they made Keeanu Reeves train for months learning real fighting techniques from different kinds of practical martial arts, as well as how to properly wield guns, hence the two-handed style with a steady aim technique that persists throughout the movie. It has the effect of making John Wick feel lethal but also very vulnerable, rather than an unstoppable bullet-sponge.
In short, take notes Hollywood. THIS is how you're supposed to film action scenes.
Another thing that I really liked about this movie is the world-building aspect. On the one hand, this movie is a simple revenge plot, but it also does a great job of establishing this fictional underground society of hitmen that John was once a part of. Things like the gold coin being their form of currency and the idea of a special hotel that's a safe-haven for professional killers where no business may be conducted are novel concepts that could be further explored in a sequel (which this movie really deserves, IMO).
Yes, the way the stunts were done and filmed so that you could actually make out what was going on was great, but it was doubly exciting because the action scenes themselves were pretty good on their own. They actually got better and better as the film went on which worked as the story spun out of control.
Also the performances were quite great for such a simple film. I was impressed with pretty much everybody.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 28, 2015, 09:36:24 PMAnother thing that I really liked about this movie is the world-building aspect. On the one hand, this movie is a simple revenge plot, but it also does a great job of establishing this fictional underground society of hitmen that John was once a part of. Things like the gold coin being their form of currency and the idea of a special hotel that's a safe-haven for professional killers where no business may be conducted are novel concepts that could be further explored in a sequel (which this movie really deserves, IMO).
Good news on that end:
QuoteDuring an interview on February 4, 2015, directors Chad Stahelski and David Leitch revealed that a John Wick sequel was currently in development. On February 6, 2015, CEO of Lionsgate, Jon Feltheimer made an announcement during a conference call, to which he stated, "We see John Wick as a multiple-title action franchise". Additionally, it was reported that Kolstad will return to write the screenplay. On May 4, 2015, it was confirmed that the sequel was greenlit and Lionsgate would be selling the film at the upcoming Cannes Film Festival. It was announced that Keanu Reeves, David Leitch and Chad Stahelski would return to the film.
I could see a Mad Max-style redemption arc here (taking out Thunderdome, anyway) that follows on from him getting the dog at the end of the movie. Also more information about the underground society who I will suspect will be a player should be interesting.
Yeah, this is literally the best thing that Keanu Reeves has done since....I don't know, Point Break? And the other performances are very solid for an action movie.
Personally, I'd love for a sequel that moves the story forward, but which also contains short flash-back segments throughout that build on John's history with certain characters and establishments from the first movie.
On another note, on the subject of good action movies, you really should get around to the last two MI films. As someone who didn't like 2 very much (despite my usual love for John Woo's work) and thought that 3 was so-so, 4 and 5 were really a great return to form, IMO, and quite frankly are superior to even the first movie. I'd have to say that the 4th one in particular (Ghost Protocol by Brad Bird) is my favorite of the series.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 28, 2015, 10:17:25 PM
Yeah, this is literally the best thing that Keanu Reeves has done since....I don't know, Point Break? And the other performances are very solid for an action movie.
Well, he's done good things since then (like the Devil's Advocate), but my personal favorite of his films is Speed though this is up there with it. I really think he should stick to these kinds of action movies. He's really good at them when he's on.
I was taken aback they he was nominated for the Razzie Redeemer Award for this one, but then it is his best movie in quite a while.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 28, 2015, 10:17:25 PMPersonally, I'd love for a sequel that moves the story forward, but which also contains short flash-back segments throughout that build on John's history with certain characters and establishments from the first movie.
I think that would be great if they used flashbacks like they did here only to emphasize the other side of John and in a potential third movie use both to complete the package. Really, there's a lot they can do here.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 28, 2015, 10:17:25 PMOn another note, on the subject of good action movies, you really should get around to the last two MI films. As someone who didn't like 2 very much (despite my usual love for John Woo's work) and thought that 3 was so-so, 4 and 5 were really a great return to form, IMO, and quite frankly are superior to even the first movie. I'd have to say that the 4th one in particular (Ghost Protocol by Brad Bird) is my favorite of the series.
I know, I know. I was going to sit down with Ghost Protocol on Netflix before they took it off. They have III on there which I'll probably watch just to finish the original three movies. But I keep hearing how Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation are leagues above the first trilogy
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on August 28, 2015, 10:36:12 PMWell, he's done good things since then (like the Devil's Advocate),
Oh, right, I forgot about Devil's Advocate. Though, Al Pacino stole the movie with his performance, IMO.
Quotebut my personal favorite of his films is Speed
Same.
QuoteI was taken aback they he was nominated for the Razzie Redeemer Award for this one, but then it is his best movie in quite a while.
Well, he has been in a lot of bad movies since The Matrix Reloaded, so it's not that surprising. Though as for the Razzie Redeemer Awards, I think that Ben Affleck earned that more than anyone else since he's done multiple great movies in the past few years, cementing his comeback.
QuoteI think that would be great if they used flashbacks like they did here only to emphasize the other side of John and in a potential third movie use both to complete the package. Really, there's a lot they can do here.
I think that flashbacks could work both ways. They could be about John from his point of view, but by extension we as the viewers naturally learn more about the world that he lives in without the need for blatant exposition.
QuoteI know, I know. I was going to sit down with Ghost Protocol on Netflix before they took it off. They have III on there which I'll probably watch just to finish the original three movies. But I keep hearing how Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation are leagues above the first trilogy
They really are. I like the first movie quite a bit, but it does feel a tad dated now. The second movie showed that John Woo and the MI franchise just didn't mesh too well and weren't meant for each other. The third movie by J. J. Abrams has a lot of visual flair (both figuratively and literally) and has its moments (including a great villain performance), but the story and tension feel lacking.
Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation just nailed it, though.
I finally got to watch Gone Girl, and wow, it's great! It almost feels like a game of chicken between Nick and Amy for who is the worse spouse, and at some points is a little hard to watch for how far it will go. But like Fincher at his best, it's shot too brilliantly to not get engrossed with. It's got to be one of his best.
And I showed my friend who brought it over Vertigo for the first time, as she loved it. This is a film that really does feel different every time you watch it. But the visual beauty is never lost, especially on how great the Blu looks.
Wow, RIP Dean Jones. (https://d23.com/walt-disney-legend/dean-jones/)
He was never any less than awesome in any movie I've seen him in, even in some of the sillier Disney flicks. Now would be a good time to show some of his best.
R.I.P. Dean
So today, I got to watch the entire Apu Trilogy. It was interesting to finally see these works, and looking at the films in kind of an larvae-pupae-adult stage system. This was one of those coming of age stories that I thought most accurately depicted human growth. Few of the characters were really likable or interesting-Apu's mom was particularly unlikable-but it wasn't about them, it was a personal story about how bad events turn a happy kid into a somber adult. I'm especially thankful to the Criterion for repairing this film quality back to the closest to its original state. As for which one was better, I'd go with Apur Sansar > Pather Panchali > Aparajito.
In preparation of Creed (which honestly looks pretty good from the trailers, IMO), I'm going to be re-watching all of the Rocky movies on Netflix, except for Rocky Balboa which isn't on Netflix for some reason. If I can find that movie, though, then I'll watch that too.
From my recollection, the first two movies are legit good, the next two are extremely cheesy fun, and the fifth film is just bad. But, I'll see if I feel any different about any of them after my series re-watch.
Backwards ass Netflix. I'd almost think they'd have none of the older flicks available and just Balboa if any of their madness actually made sense.
I've only seen the first and Balboa, but I quite like both.
I've never felt too compelled to watch the others, aside from maybe 2.
I re-watched the first Rocky and The Sixth Sense. I'll talk about both later: I'll wait until I re-watch all of the other Rocky movies and talk about each of them at one time, and I already have The Sixth Sense as one of my 31NOH picks.
That said, I really have to say that it's amazing how far off the mark M. Night fell after just two or three films. The Sixth Sense is a suspense masterpiece, IMO. It combines excellent acting, writing, and directing, and don't forget that it even got nominated for Best Picture. Even re-watching it now, it still holds up so well. How the guy who made this went on to make The Happening, The Last Airbender, and After Earth is beyond me.
Long story short, he got full of himself.
After Signs, when he was writing Lady in the Water, his ego got out of control which lead to him splitting from Disney. I had posted a link a while back about how he even went to an exec's kid's birthday party to argue about notes. Starting from Lady in the Water on, he refused to listen to any notes or criticisms, did whatever he wanted, and got worse and worse to deal with even as his films got worse and worse. It shows considering the tepid reaction to The Village did nothing to change his habits.
It's a real shame, because I still think his first three films are great, but it obviously was not due to him alone and, like George Lucas, he refuses to admit that he isn't as great as he is without help from a lot of talented people.
Until he either has an epiphany or someone who produces his films puts their foot down, he won't be back to making good films any time soon.
It's a good thing I watched Unbreakable at least 5 years after his fall. I would be saying he could do anything if I didn't know better. :D
There's supposed to be a great book about the production of Lady in the Lake. I need to pick that up.
Last night, I saw the horror movie titled May. It's interesting in that it gives you an idea of what will happen eventually (and that's not a spoiler, as this is literally shown early on), and after that, is a slow build. It works well.
I finally got around to re-watching the first three Mission: Impossible movies. My opinions on them are generally the same as before, but I do think that it's worth noting a few things:
Mission: Impossible- It still holds up, but more so for it's brilliant first and third-acts, as well as its excellent set-piece moments, with the security vault heist still being the most iconic scene in the entire franchise. The second act, however, really drags, IMO, and the plot also makes no sense if you actually try to stop and think about it. To be fair, though, none of these movies have particularly exceptional stories to tell.
Mission: Impossible 2- I'm a big fan of John Woo, but this film is one of his weaker efforts. That isn't entirely his fault, as the script (which he didn't write) is incredibly bland as is. What I will say is that even a worse John Woo movie still has tons of great style and is beautifully shot, and this film is no exception. That said, the over-abundance of style here doesn't mesh well with the rest of the MI franchise, and the movie takes itself way too seriously to the point of being outright silly....though, in an odd way, that gives it a unique sort of charm that at least makes it worth one watch, if nothing else. It makes for a poor MI movie, but is at least more entertaining than your typical Hollywood action flick, even if for the wrong reasons.
Mission: Impossible 3- I'll give this one a little bit more credit than I did before. It's certainly very well-paced and never has a dull moment. And as always, Philip Seymour Hoffman turns in an outstanding performance, and makes for a memorable villain in this movie, which is easily its best feature. That said, the movie again suffers from a lack of substance, and J. J. Abrams' s erratic camerawork, shaky-cam, and meaningless lense-flair is annoying to put up with. If you can look past that stuff, though, it's a pretty entertaining action movie.
So, it's an uneven trilogy in terms of quality, but still mostly worthwhile for what it is. That said, Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation blow all of them out of the water. Those movies breathed new life into this franchise, and elevated these from decent popcorn-flicks into flat-out great spy/action movies.
Next time that I get a chance, I'll probably check out the original 60's TV series.
I just saw Spectre. It's really fun if you enjoy the classic Bond-formula for what it is, silliness and all. That isn't to say that it's not a film to be taken seriously, but rather that it's a lot more action-oriented and light-hearted in tone than the previous Daniel Craig movies have been.
That may, however, also be a big problem for people who really loved the darker tone and trope-subverting nature of this film's predecessors. I absolutely love Casino Royale and Skyfall, but I could look past that and still enjoy this movie for what it tries to be, which is not like those movies. As a result, I don't find it to be anywhere near as good as those two, but as a Bond film it's still very entertaining and better than a lot of the other ones (especially Quantum of Solace), so I do feel that critics are being a little too hard on this movie. Had this come out right after the end of the Pierce Brosnan-era, the reception would have been more favorable. Following two well-beloved classics, it was just bound to disappoint a lot of people, so it's important to go into it with the right expectations.
Having said all of that, of the big three spy movies this year, while all were good, IMO, I'd rank them like this:
1. Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation; This just destroyed the competition this year, IMO, and it's not even my favorite in the series (though it comes close). It nailed everything from the characters, to the pacing, to the stunts. This and Ghost Protocol have really elevated this franchise to new heights.
2. Kingsman: The Secret Service; This was a great introduction to a potential new franchise. About the only things that hold it back for me are the fairly predictable nature of the plot and some questionable writing choices, but most of that only amounts to nit-picks for me. I love the sense of humor of this movie, and the main character is refreshingly relatable.
3. Spectre; As I just said, it's a ton of fun, but unfortunately is overshadowed by two far superior Bond-films, and even comparing it just to this year's competition, it basically has a similar plot to Rogue Nation, except that movie did it even better, IMO.
I wonder where Spy would rank here if you get the chance to see it. ;)
I'll get to Spectre this weekend, when I get home. I'm also going to try to see The Martian, and possibly Bridge of Spies. We have cheap tickets here. :P
A friend of mine has been participating in a local Rocky Horror production, and this weekend she got the one role she was dreaming to do for it- Magenta. As such, I decided to go to show her my support.
I've only done Rocky Horror once before, when I was 15 and went with a friend and his mom, and wasn't impressed then. Now, I get the appeal of the camp, and this probably won't be my last time seeing this troupe. Especially if she gets to play Magenta again, since she was great!
I only paid for one of them, but I finally got to see The Good Dinosaur and Spectre tonight.
I'll edit my ongoing 2015 post with more detail about these later, but I think that they're both pretty good, but not great. Good Dinosaur is decidedly a little less "adult" and a lot less original than Pixar's normal stuff, which is probably why it hasn't resonated as well as Inside Out has, but it's still pretty entertaining. And Spectre is a more traditional Bond, given how big Skyfall felt, but it's still good Bond all around. Christoph Waltz and Lea Seydoux do a great job as the main villain and Bond girl, and Ralph Fiennes increasingly finds his voice as M as it goes.
But yeah, you can kind of see how tired Craig is becoming of the character.
I recently watched The Gift and Inside Out. Both were great films, IMO. The Gift is a somewhat disturbing personal story that I don't really know how to describe without giving away spoilers for the plot. It's almost Hitchcock-ian in nature, that way. It's definitely not for everyone, though. I'll just say that it's one of those movies where you think that the plot is going one way for about the first half, and then it completely throws you for a loop. It's greatest strengths are in its performances, though. I never knew that Jason Bateman could pull of serious drama as well as he did in this movie, and Joel Edgerton was just the definition of creepy, here.
Inside Out is one of the best Pixar films in a long time, and I don't say that lightly as someone who generally doesn't love Pixar as much as everyone else seems to. I'd say that it's easily a top 5 for me, though. If it weren't for Toy Story 3, it may have even cracked my top 3, but that movie along with Monsters, Inc. and Up tightly hold those rankings on my list.
I also recently re-watched Hellboy for the first time in over a decade. As a film that I didn't like or get when it came out, I appreciate it so much more than I did. Guillermo Del Toro really is such a unique and visually interesting director, but while I love movies like Pacific Rim and Blade II, I almost forgot that he's genuinely great at writing substance, too, when the movie really calls for it. Hellboy is one of the most unique comic book movies that I've seen, in a way that makes it feel a bit more timeless than the typical Marvel of DC film (and I'm a huge fan of the MCU, so I don't say that as a detractor to those movies in any way). It doesn't have a lot going in the way of action, but much like Captain America: The First Avenger or The Rocketeer, I don't view it as an action movie. In this case it's about the characters, and Ron Perlman's performance as Hellboy is on the level of someone like Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man; I just can't imagine anyone else playing the character. I also love the use of make-up and prosthetics for the character, and especially adore the abundance of practical effects in this movie. Yes, there's tons of CG, of course, but only in places where it's absolutely necessary. The look of the film still primarily holds up because of the practical effects, though, IMO.
Now, I do actually remember enjoying The Golden Army back when I watched that movie for the first time, so I can't wait to revisit it now that I've grown a deeper appreciation for the first movie.
Saw The World of Kanako. What an insane, fucked up, disturbing, vile, horrible, reprehensible movie. I absolutely loved it. Every minute. :im_nabeshin:
Here are the cities that are getting Hateful Eight in 70mm. (http://www.avclub.com/article/heres-your-complete-list-cities-hosting-hateful-ei-229789)
My nearest theater is getting it, and I have plans to see it on the 26th! I'm getting a little more excited about this movie every day. Especially since I found out that Ennio Morricone added some unused cues to The Thing in his score!
It makes sense if you consider that this movie is basically the general set-up of The Thing (minus the Thing itself), and mixed with a Western.
Ennio Morricone scored The Thing, and a bunch of classic Westerns. Of course they'll use his music.
:SHOCK: Don't know what's going on in here but I like it!
Got tickets to see the 70mm version! I'm so excited! :el_hail:
Awesome! Enjoy and tell us how it goes. :)
So I guess Episode VIII will take place on New Zealand?
I'll be seeing The Hateful Eight tomorrow. I'm not sure if it's in 70mm, though.
Oh, it should be. The only screenings right now are in 70mm. The regular transfer will be out a week or two later.
I have plans to see it on Saturday, myself. The reviews are looking a bit mixed, but it still sounds like something I'll like. I'll find out soon enough, at least.
Quote from: Avaitor on December 24, 2015, 06:35:38 PM
Oh, it should be. The only screenings right now are in 70mm. The regular transfer will be out a week or two later.
Nice! :joy:
TCM recently announced their Fathom Events rerelease schedule for the coming year.
January 17/20- Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
February 21/24- The Maltes Falcon
March 20/23- The Ten Commandments
April 24/27- On the Waterfront
May 15/18- Ferris Bueller's Day Off
June 26/29- Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory
July 24/27- Planet of the Apes
August 28/31- The King and I
September 18/21- Dr. Strangelove
October 23/26- The Shining
November 27/30- Breakfast at Tiffany's
December 11/14- From Here to Eternity
There's some good stuff here, but I wish that we got more Hitchcock or Wilder films in this selection. I'm still sad that I had to miss Double Indemnity and Rear Window.
I actually just watched Butch Cassidy again earlier this semester, and my opinion remains the same as ever- I like the film when the characters sit down and talk, but it loses me with the action sequences. I much prefer The Sting, myself.
I don't consider The Maltese Falcon to be noir. Proto-noir, sure, but some of the key ingredients are missing, and Mary Astor is miscast as the femme fatale. But it's still a very well-made film. I'd consider going.
Definitely will skip the Ten Commandments, since I can still barely watch it in full. I know that the film still has its fans, but I'm not much of a fan of this kind of epic. I still haven't been able to watch more than a half-hour of Ben-Hur.
I like everything about On the Waterfront but Brando, honestly. That's why I own the Criteiron release, and why I'll pass on this.
I'm also not a fan of John Hughes' high-school movies, so Ferris Bueller will be another pass for me. I like the Vacation movies that he had a hand in and his more "adult" films like Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, and parts of The Great Outdoors (if you haven't seen the DVD Shelf's review of that, go for it, since I'm right with him), but Ferris Bueller, Breakfast Club, Sixteen Candles, I can't deal with.
I'm not a huge fan of Willy Wonka in any capacity (it's one of my lesser favorite Daal stories), but I do like parts of both movies in varying capacities. Still, I'll probably skip this one.
Planet of the Apes, however, that will be nice to see in theaters. I'm putting it in the maybe pile.
I haven't seen The King and I, and I haven't heard all that many great things about its adaptation. With Rodgers and Hammerstein, while the Sound of Music is considered to be among their lesser shows, it's easily regarded as the best adaptation of their work (and it's definitely worth seeing in theaters if you get the chance, like I was able to earlier this year). I'd go again for that, but this one is a maybe, if I have a friend who wants to go.
Both Kubricks are among the most likely that I'll go. The Shining, in particular, seems like something that I need to see in theaters.
Breakfast at Tiffany's is another maybe. This is a good movie (Mickey Rooney aside), but like Roman Holiday, it's not something that I really NEED to see in theaters. But if I have someone interested, I'd be down.
From Here to Eternity, though, that I feel like would be a great experience in theaters. The DV Shelf also touched on this one briefly in his excellent Hawaiian films video, and he's right, this is a true knock out.
Is there anything here that you guys feel the need to see in theaters?
Nothing for The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly's 50th anniversary? I'mean disappointed. :-\
Brief thoughts on The Hateful Eight:
-It's definitely worth seeing in 70 mm for the experience
-It's a Tarantino movie, so it's violent as hell
-The first half is slow; It gradually gets more interesting as the plot progresses, but I will admit to being a bit bored during portions of the first hour, and it just starts to get really interesting before the intermission; the second half is much better, though
-The music is excellent, as expected by a soundtrack featuring the talent of Ennio Morricone
-Overall, this movie is sort of like a Western version of Reservoir Dogs; not as good as Inglorious Basterds or Django Unchained, but I still personally prefer this to most of Tarantino's earlier stuff
Based on what I've seen, here are my top 5 favorite films of the year so far:
5. Kingsman: The Secret Service
4. The Gift
3. Inside Out
2. Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation
1. The Martian
Honorable Mentions:
Ex-Machina (an interesting film, but one that I wouldn't personally re-watch)
Dragon Ball Z: Resurrection F (a really fun movie, and one of the best anime-original entries to come out of the franchise, but ultimately it still had flaws holding it back from being great)
Avengers: Age of Ultron (a fun movie, and IMO superior to the first, but not quite up there with the better films of the year)
The Hateful Eight (a memorable experience, but the first half being such a slow-burn ultimately held it back for me)
Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (much like AOU, this one was a really fun movie, but suffers a bit from essentially relying too heavily on the formula of the older films)
I still missed a lot of movies, though, including Mad Max: Fury Road and Creed.
I still need some time to recoup my thoughts on the Hateful Eight, but I was very happy with it on the whole. Not perfect, but I was engrossed throughout.
I'm not sure where I'd rank it, either from this year or in Tarantino's canon, but it's easily among the stronger films that I've seen from what has been mostly a meh year for film. But I do have a few more films to see. It's going to take a lot of will power for me to tread through Spotlight, though.
Also, I understand that Morricone crypting some of his unused tracks will make for a tricky situation at the Oscars, but I really hope that he gets nominated, and wins, since he really deserves it. And seriously, what was up with Tim Roth's Rowan Atinkson impression?
I didn't like it at all immediately after watching it, but letting the film stew in my mind has allowed my reception to warm a bit. Tarantino definitely needed a tighter editor on this one though.
I haven't seen this one, but he's needed a tighter editor for years now.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on December 28, 2015, 08:50:37 AM
I haven't seen this one, but he's needed a tighter editor for years now.
One could even argue that every single movie that he's ever made could cut out at least 30-minutes of self-indulgent crap and be better for it.
*Ducks for cover from the Tarantino fanboys/girls*
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on December 28, 2015, 09:46:22 AM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on December 28, 2015, 08:50:37 AM
I haven't seen this one, but he's needed a tighter editor for years now.
One could even argue that every single movie that he's ever made could cut out at least 30-minutes of self-indulgent crap and be better for it.
*Ducks for cover from the Tarantino fanboys/girls*
*kicks you while you're on the ground* :>
I won't lie, if there's one problem Django had, it's that he was really missing something with Sally Menke no longer with us. I feel that Hateful Eight's editing was an improvement, as in form, but I do agree that there is a little fat.
And my friend has a pretty unique opinion on the film, from what I've gathered from other people who have seen the film- she loved the first half, but absolutely hated the exposition in the second half, enough for it to ruin the film for her. I do see where she's coming from there, and I prefer the first half's character building, but it's really not that bad. If anything, the film's heavy use of exposition helps to build the film's take on the west's admiration for tall tales. Everybody has a big lie in the movie, and they build on their bullshit in their own way. It just so happens that Jennifer Jason Leigh gets a lot of time to build on her bullshit.
I honestly feel the opposite. The first half was pretty slow for me, and a lot of the early conversations weren't that interesting. The second half was actually pretty enjoyable, and moved along at a much faster pace. The exposition bits with Tarantino narrating were a clever nod to the stage reading from which this film originated, and also had a very "Clue-like" vibe to it, and it wasn't overly used. The flash-back was actually necessary to the plot and characters, and helped make sense of the whole situation. I understand really well how annoying too much exposition can be. Trust me, I've even called it out in series and movies that I like. But the stuff in the second half actually felt necessary to the picture as a whole.
I couldn't make the showing of Hateful Eight last weekend due to hailstorms, but hopefully I can get some tickets for this weekend to replace them.
This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-ZCkOR0HxQ) was definitely the best film I saw in 2015.
Early top 10. I'll probably update this around Oscar season, when I'm more caught up.
10. Avengers: Age of Ultron
9. Paddington
8. Love and Mercy
7. Inside Out
6. The Martian
5. Tangerine
4. The Big Short
3. Beasts of No Nation
2. The Hateful Eight
1. Mad Max Fury Road
I just go back from seeing The Force Awakens. I liked it, I'd say it was the best Star Wars movie since Empire (yes, that may be a case of damning it by faint praise, but it doesn't make it any less true).
Can't think of much to say about the movie to be honest. I went into expecting a couple hours of solid entertainment and that's what I got.
Quote from: Pharass on January 02, 2016, 11:37:25 AM
I just go back from seeing The Force Awakens. I liked it, I'd say it was the best Star Wars movie since Empire (yes, that may be a case of damning it by faint praise, but it doesn't make it any less true).
Can't think of much to say about the movie to be honest. I went into expecting a couple hours of solid entertainment and that's what I got.
This is pretty much how I felt as well! A very enjoyable film, but not a life-changing one. Even though I liked it a lot, I don't really have too much to say about it. I hope Episode 8 has more Oscar Isaac, though; I love him in everything I've seen.
Speaking of which, I finally saw Ex Machina, and I thought it was really great! Probably my second favorite film of last year.
Thirded on The Force Awakens.
Ex Machina was a good film, but not the kind that I'd revisit. Oscar Isaac was definitely great in it, though.
Speaking of Oscar Isaac, I'm looking forward to seeing him in X-Men this year.
This year's Best Picture nominees:
The Big Short
Bridge of Spies
Brooklyn
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Room
Spotlight
Gah, I wish Hateful Eight could have made it in. But wow, Carol didn't make it in. But yay for Fury Road!!!!
Cool that a Summer Blockbuster finally scored a nomination. I also believe that this is the second George Miller film to be nominated for Best Picture in his career.
Glad to see The Martian on the list as well.
If I can be so pretentious as to pick my hopefuls from this year's nominees:
Best Picture- Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Director- George Miller
Best Actor- Matt Damon
Best Actress- Brie Larson
Best Supporting Actor- Christian Bale
Best Supporting Actress- Jennifer Jason Leigh
Best Original Screenplay- Inside Out
Best Adapted Screenplay- The Big Short
Best Animated Film- Inside Out (I'm seeing Anomalisa in a week or two, so maybe this will change?)
Pass on foreign language film for now, but I might get to see Son of Saul later
Pass on documentary film and shorts for now, but I'll get to see Look of Silence ASAP, and the shorts before the awards
Best Original Score- The Hateful Eight
Pass on original song, because all I know is Sam Smith's Spectre song, and, uh, no
Best Sound Editing- Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Sound Mixing- The Martian
Best Production Design- Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Cinematography- Either Fury Road or Hateful Eight. Just flip a coin
Best Make-Up and Hair Style- Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Costume Design- Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Film Editing- The Big Short
Best Visual Effects- Mad Max: Fury Road
I actually really liked Sam Smith's Spectre song. I wouldn't call it the best of the year by any stretch, though.
Ennio Morricone definitely deserves recognition for his work.
So, on another subject, I wonder what will be selected as the worst movie of the year at the Razzie's. Terminator: Genesys managed to just barely miss the cut and got off the hook, but the nominations are:
Pixels
Fifty Shades of Grey
Jupiter Ascending
Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2
Fant4stic
Any of them could take it, but my money's on Fifty Shades of Grey being the top contender.
I'm expecting Sylvester Stallone to win the redeemer award, hands down.
I voted for Stallone! And Elizabeth Banks shouldn't have been nominated for that- if anything, she deserved to be nominated for Worst Director.
Fant4stic was a bomb for the ages, and I think has a strong chance of winning. I wouldn't be surprised if they pull a Twilight and wait to give the last 50 Shades the Golden Razzie.
I just saw Bone Tomahawk, a dark Western coincidentally starring Kurt Russel as a law man and released just two months before The Hateful Eight. It's a tad slow, and the horror elements weren't exactly what I was expecting, but overall it was an interesting film.
Quote from: Avaitor on January 14, 2016, 12:42:07 PMFant4stic was a bomb for the ages, and I think has a strong chance of winning. I wouldn't be surprised if they pull a Twilight and wait to give the last 50 Shades the Golden Razzie.
Oh, God! You mean that there are actually MORE of these things on the way?!
It's a trilogy. I'm not kidding. Give it to Fant4stic.
Stallone's been making good stuff for a while now. He really should have a redeemer.
Come to think of it, I'm surprised that Ridley Scott didn't get nominated for the Redeemer award after the huge success of The Martian. Keep in mind, I'm one of the few people who actually likes Prometheus, but most people hate it, and pretty much everyone agrees that Robin Hood and Exodus really sucked. So, the last few Ridley Scott films have mostly been less than stellar, with most people hailing The Martian as a huge comeback for him. Given all of that, it seems like he would be the perfect candidate for the award.
Wow, the amount of bonus material on the Alien Anthology Blu set is intimidating. There is so much to dig through, but I doubt that I'll find the time to watch much of it!
Aliens is as great as ever, btw.
Just saw The Walk. You know, Robert Zemeckis may not have made any true classics for a while, but the guy is a talented director who almost always turns in an entertaining or interesting movie. The Walk may not be a big Oscar candidate, but it was a really fun film to watch.
I went to see The Big Short again with a friend, and it's just as good the second time as it was when I first saw it.
I'm still rooting for Fury Road for Best Picture, but I'd be perfectly happy if this wins instead.
The Oscar race is looking interesting. Spotlight has won a lot of the previous awards, while two of the most likely predictors, the PGA and DGAs, have gone to different movies- The Big Short and The Revenant, respectfully. So it could be a toss-up between these three.
Unless the best happens, and these movies cancel out so Mad Max can win BP. :thumbup:
Hey EK, guess what- I got your favorite movie on Blu today!
Best Buy has a sale for the Man With No Name trilogy set for only $15 that expires on Saturday. The restorations for GBU is supposed to be a massive improvement over its previous one, which is why I waited so long to add that to my collection. It's a great deal, all in all.
I also got the original Mad Max, since that's also on sale. And now I have all of the movies! And no excuse to sleep on the first and Beyond Thunderdome.
Yeah, if I had a Blu-Ray player I would totally hit that up. :joy:
Speaking of GBU, it's a shame that there hasn't been any announcements thus far of 50th Anniversary theater screenings of the film. That film really deserves more love. At the very least I'm sure that Quentin Tarantino will organize and host a private screening of the movie like he did for A Fistful of Dollars two years ago. But, you know, that doesn't really do the general public movie fans (such as myself) any good.
Just finished watching Bone Tomahawk. Definitely among the finest westerns of the modern era, and easily one of last year's best movies. Few films have such sharp and engaging character writing. I highly recommend it! :im_nabeshin:
I saw it last month myself. Neat how we got not one, but two good Kurt Russel Westerns in the same year. :joy:
Sadly, I never ended up getting to see Hateful Eight in theatres, but I can't wait to catch it when it comes out on DVD!
Right before you watch it, I recommend playing the full Overture on YouTube or from iTunes to set the mood. The 70 mm version starts with the Overture, and in all honesty I feel that it is an essential part of the movie experience that Tarantino intended for setting the tone. It was wrong to remove it from the digital version, IMO.
It'd be the equivalent of removing the opening themes from movies like Lawrence of Arabia, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, and Star Wars, which are all essential parts of those films.
I recently saw Deadpool now that I finally got a chance. I don't really have anything unique to say that hasn't already been said. This is one of the best comic book movies ever made, one of my new favorite comedy films in general, and it single-handedly redeems FOX from the debacle that was X-Men Origins.
If I had to list any criticisms, the only one (which is really minor and nit-picky) would be that I wasn't a fan of all of the social media jokes/references. I feel like that material will become really dated very quickly.
Other than that, though, this is easily already a contender for best comic book movie of the year. The only one that I might possibly prefer is Civil War (which is surprising to say considering how shitty the source material is).
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on March 06, 2016, 03:04:30 PM
Right before you watch it, I recommend playing the full Overture on YouTube or from iTunes to set the mood. The 70 mm version starts with the Overture, and in all honesty I feel that it is an essential part of the movie experience that Tarantino intended for setting the tone. It was wrong to remove it from the digital version, IMO.
It'd be the equivalent of removing the opening themes from movies like Lawrence of Arabia, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, and Star Wars, which are all essential parts of those films.
Wow, okay; thanks for the heads-up! I thought the only thing they removed from the digital version was the intermission. :shit:
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on March 06, 2016, 03:20:07 PM
If I had to list any criticisms, the only one (which is really minor and nit-picky) would be that I wasn't a fan of all of the social media jokes/references. I feel like that material will become really dated very quickly.
Yeah, some of the pop culture references probably won't make any sense 10 years from now. That's been part of Deadpool's character since his first ongoing series, though; there are some jokes in Joe Kelly's run that I couldn't even hope to understand without Google. :il_hahaha:
According to Tarantino, the digital version is missing the Overture, Intermission, and up to 4-minutes of additional footage which is exclusive to the 70 mm version.
I finally had the Mad Max marathon with my friend that we've wanted to do. We did end up skipping Fury Road, since we had limited time and it wasn't new to us, but it's so worth seeing if you haven't yet.
The first one's damn fine for what it is, but if you're weird like me and have seen other Mad Max's first, this will definitely feel different to you. It's slower and looks much less desolate than the other films. There's so much green! But it's still a good action film, one that starts off as an awesome car chase flick that builds its way into a fitting revenge piece, and keeps good character moments in it throughout. Even though the dead family trope has been done to death, it still works okay here, especially as Max and his wife's relationship feels believable. And that old lady is sweet! I wish that she had more time in the film.
The Road Warrior isn't new to me, but it's good no matter how many times that I've seen it. My friend agrees with me that it's better than the first and about on par with Fury Road, as it's so smart with its use of camera and facial expressions to tell character. The original also wisely cuts back on dialogue to get its point across, but the use of body language and camera tricks are bolder here, and especially come through into the chasing sequences, which keep such a good pace throughout. Everything about this film is on a different class than just about any other action film, and will probably still be as entertaining in another 35 years.
And Beyond Thunderdome is... eh. The first half hour was okay, but nothing too special. You can tell that they finally got a budget here, as the set design is out of this world, and the story was building up to become something interesting... then Tina Turner's character's true colors are revealed out of nowhere, and every unique element is thrown to a halt. When Max moves into the children's world is when the seams really start to slip, as its faults become more obvious- there's way too much exposition, and the characters here aren't interesting or developed enough to make the story worth a damn. Max isn't meant to run a story- he's basically Link, and you don't play Zelda because you like Link's character. He doesn't have too much that's interesting to say or do here, and it's very apparent.
It's also lame that we have to wait until the last 20 minutes for a car chase, and even that isn't as tightly shot or edited as the previous two or Fury Road's. And seeing the children tanned so badly is kind of awkward, as well.
I don't really recommend BT, but the rest of the movies are very much worth a watch.
Have you guys heard about how MovieStop is going out of business? They're holding going away sales until they're all closed for good in July. Right now, new movies are 20% off, used are 30%, and merch is supposed to be varied, but most of what I've seen is at 20%.
I haven't really found anything that I NEED to get at these prices now, but if they're still around when the sales are getting better, I might finally get the Lupin vs Detective Conan movie, and a couple of Hateful Eight Pops.
I just saw X-Men: Apocalypse. I'm probably going to be in the minority on this one, but I really don't get the critics here. The movie IS flawed, and not as strong as X2 or DOFP, but I really did find a lot to like here and I personally had an enjoyable experience with the film. I'm by no means a die hard X-Men fan, and will call out when I think a movie is shit in the franchise (X3 and both Wolverine movies, for instance), but I'm definitely not in agreement with the Tamato-meter on this one.
Of course, I can't speak for everyone else, but that's just my honest opinion. For what it's worth, though, I've noticed that quite a few people besides myself don't seem to agree with critics on this movie either.
I thought Apocalypse was okay - certainly not a horrible film like the reviews are suggesting. To be honest, it kind of felt like a movie from the early 2000's to me, back when superhero films were still finding their footing, with all the good and bad that entails. I actually really liked the first half; it was cheesy, yes, but very fun. The Quicksilver scene especially was great. The second half and final battle I found a little dull, but it was still entertaining enough. Overall, I didn't regret watching it, but I didn't love it either. A decent time-waster, if nothing else.
As an aside, the new Suicide Squad trailer they showed before the film looked surprisingly great.
Speaking of X-Men, Bryan Singer apparently has James McAvoy's hair locked away in a safe for some reason. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sgKTSY_qiS0#t=112)
I just saw The Conjuring 2 this past weekend. Now, as a horror movie, I tend to go a bit easier on it than other movies in terms of certain things not making logical sense, and despite it going with that "based on a true story" angle, I of course rightfully treat these movies as complete fiction as they really are aside from using the names of real people, and just take stuff like that with a grain of salt going in. I was actually honestly really excited for this movie because I've personally been a fan of James Wan's horror movies since Insidious, and I really liked The Conjuring back in 2013, which is personally one of my favorite modern horror movies, right behind The Babadook. That said, I was also weary of this movie since horror sequels are rarely ever any good (Evil Dead 2, Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead, and Dream Warriors and New Nightmare are among the few exceptions that I can think of), but I was pleasantly surprised to see the movie get fairly positive reviews. After seeing it, I can say that I did indeed enjoy this movie as a worthy follow-up to the first, but it's also nowhere near as good or effectively creepy as that movie was. If the first movie was an A+ for me, then this one would be a solid B. It's full of great homages to classic horror movies, works as a well-done period piece, the acting is top-notch all around just like in the first movie, and James Wan's direction, cinematography, and use of music is excellent for building up tension and delivering effective scares through the atmosphere he creates with his techniques as opposed to just relying too much on jump scares (of which there are only a few in either of these movies).
What held the movie back for me is how it gets a bit messy in its second half. The first film thrived on its simplicity, but this one introduces another demon into the mix and creates a sub-plot that it tries to tie into the main plot, and it just doesn't come together in a way that I can buy. The concept of the plot twist that this movie goes for could work, but the way it was handled here feels rather forced and actually raises a lot of questions that don't make much sense the more that you think about them. Having said that, looking past that problem, I found a lot to like about the movie, and there were a number of memorable scenes that I just found to be so expertly crafted. Overall, as a fan of horror movies, I'm glad to see that there is at least one modern director who (IMO) knows what he's doing. Well, aside from James Wan, I've also liked Scott Derrickson's Sinister and Jennifer Kent's The Babadook, but that's really only one film from each that I have to go on (though, Derrickson did also do a film that Desensitized/Spark of Spirit said was good and brought up for last year's 31 Nights of Halloween, so maybe I should check that one out sometime soon).
Cinefix did another 5 brilliant movie moments list, but this time with the twist that they are all action scenes: https://youtu.be/t3_d5Y0Gr3c
They also did a spin-off video for 3 brilliant action scenes from the Game of Thrones episode "Battle of the Bastards": https://youtu.be/F8hExR0NXGI (Major spoilers here)
The funny thing here is that Mad Max is the only movie mentioned that I actually still haven't seen yet. :D
And despite my issues with the writing in this season of GOT, I absolutely agree that the direction in these episodes was superb, and I wouldn't mind seeing this episode win an Emmy in that category.
Um... (http://getlisty.net/p/5784b08e89862228c03f1efe)
Its only according to M. Night himself. I don't see anything that link that mentions the studio actually backing him. Can't see why they would, it terrible in the box office.
I finally got around to watching Dredd. I really liked it. It felt like an 80s action movie with modern production values.
Quote from: Avaitor on July 13, 2016, 05:18:20 PMUm... (http://getlisty.net/p/5784b08e89862228c03f1efe)
The sources that article links to all date back to last September, and they all state that he's (currently) shelving
Airbender 2 in favor of original work.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on July 19, 2016, 11:51:51 PM
I finally got around to watching Dredd. I really liked it. It felt like an 80s action movie with modern production values.
I hope Netflix gives us a sequel.
Well, I did it. I somehow ended up watching Suicide Squad.
Ummm....on a positive note, it's the best DC movie of the year!
....Of course, considering that those two other DC films were BVS and TKJ, that's actually incredibly sad....
Well, Will Smith and Margot Robbie were surprisingly good in their respective roles, as was Viola Davis. But Jared Leto's Joker was awful, IMO, and most of the other performances were forgettable. But good god that editing....some of the worst that I've ever seen from a big-budget production. I can't believe that this is from the same David Ayres who made Training Day. This film is one big heaping mess.
Yeah, I also saw it. The editing is a huge mess, the first 40 minutes are literally introductions (sometimes multiple introductions for the same character), and as a result, the pacing and tone are all over the place. The Joker subplot was completely pointless to the plot and should have been completely cut out. Not to mention, his relationship with Harley is WAY off. I don't think anyone actually watched Mad Love. Other than that, there were good points to the film, like Diablo, Harley, and Deadshot/Flag's chemistry.
I think there's a solid B movie in here, but it desperately needs a better, consistent cut.
On the other hand, even like this, it's better than Zack Snyder's superhero efforts so far.
On a side note, I find it absolutely hilarious that these villains are unintentionally better heroes than Batman and Superman in this Universe. Even combined they somehow have less civilian casualties than those two, and unlike those two, they are actually supposed to kill people for a living.
Seriously, WTF, DC?
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 19, 2016, 09:43:17 AM
On a side note, I find it absolutely hilarious that these villains are unintentionally better heroes than Batman and Superman in this Universe. Even combined they somehow have less civilian casualties than those two, and unlike those two, they are actually supposed to kill people for a living.
Seriously, WTF, DC?
Ayers clearly knows more about superheroes than Snyder does.
I hope this Frankenstein cut is obliterated in the future. I want to see what Ayers original cut looked like before WB sliced it apart.
That's what bums me out the most. Others have said it, but this movie feels like three or four different movies in one. And the thing is, I know first hand that David Ayres can direct legitimately good films, so I don't believe this mess of editing and tonal dissonance were his fault. This movie absolutely reeks of too much studio meddling. And I say this because in this clusterfuck, there were some scenes which I legitimately liked but also felt like they were happening woefully out of their intended context. Those scenes probably exist somewhere stored on some hard drive in some editing room. I'm curious to see THAT cut of the film, personally.
There were three different cuts of the final film. The first one was the original cut, the second was the "lighter" cut to match the tone of the later trailers, and the third was a Frankenstein cut of the first two. What ended up in theaters was the third because WB had no faith in the director and were gun-shy about the "dark" tone people didn't like from the first two movies. Though if you asked me, the serious parts in this film were actually pretty good and well beyond those in the other two. I don't think people would have complained.
Now that it's well known that everyone's #1 issue is the horrendous editing, I do hope WB is smart and simply puts out the original cut when it's released for DVD. Both Man of Steel and BvS got one, so I'm hoping this does as well. It won't make it a masterpiece or anything, but it will improve its greatest flaw tremendously simply by being consistent.
I just got back from watching Kubo and the Two Strings. I love all of Laika's works (well, Box Trolls had issues, but was still a thoroughly enjoyable experience), and I don't say it lightly when I claim that this is their best work to date, IMO. I really hope that it manages to do somewhat decently at the box office. Laika films tend to make minimal money compared to other big-budget animated productions, and they really deserve so much more support than their works typically receive.
I'm planning to see it tomorrow. I've been excited for it ever since the first trailers, and hearing claims that it's Laika's best film to date is really energizing.
I need to go to the movies again. The last time I went to the theater was for a dollar theater showing of Zootopia (my third time seeing it), and the last new movie I saw was The Lobster.
So I'm thinking of checking if Ghostbusters, Finding Dory, or Civil War are at the dollar theater. I have marginal interest in seeing the first 2, and some interest in rewatching the latter. I'm also considering waiting for a cheaper movie day to see Pete's Dragon, but I'd be more than willing to spend full price for Kubo and the Two Strings. Laika's track record is pretty strong thus far.
Also, I recently watched The Assassin. If you like nice, clean, easy to follow plots, this isn't for you. But I fucking loved it.
The Stallone/Banderas movie?
Nope, it's a Taiwanese marital arts flick from last year.
I just watched Hell or High Water. Personally, this is my favorite movie of the year so far.
So, overall it was a pretty disappointing summer movie season in terms of blockbusters. Civil War was really good. Kubo and the Two Strings was excellent. X-Men: Apocalypse and Suicide Squad were both messes, even though I did enjoy the former for what it was (still a disappointment, though, after the really strong DOFP). Jason Bourne was mediocre. Sausage Party is just so not my cup of tea. Star Trek Beyond did absolutely nothing for me. And I skipped Ghostbusters. I don't really have any interest in watching that one. The rest of the big-budget stuff just looked awful, and viewer reception seems to support that.
On the flip side, some of the lower-end films were surprisingly great. I really liked The Conjuring 2; one of the rare horror sequels that's legitimately good, IMO, though not as good as the first. And Hell or High Water was a big surprise, and my favorite film of the year so far. I really wanted to see Sing Street, but couldn't find it playing anywhere near me. And I feel bad about missing The Lobster, but I'll be sure to catch it on DVD at some point in time.
Overall, it was a pretty weak summer, though, all things considered.
I think the best thing I saw this summer was Stranger Things. Civil War was great, but it was the only great thing I saw in the theaters.
Personally, I loved Star Trek: Beyond. I liked it way more than both previous films and even The Force Awakens. But yeah, not a great year for summer blockbusters. That said, another summer movie I really liked was The Infiltrator. A lot of people seemed to find it boring, and I suppose I can see where they're coming from, but stuff like this usually keeps me riveted, and the lead actors were great. I still need to see Hell or High Water, Don't Breathe, and Kubo, all of which interest me greatly.
I've seen two of those three and absolutely loved both. I might check out Don't Breathe this weekend.
As for STB, I agree that it was better than the first two, but I never cared for either of them to begin with. I didn't outright dislike the movie. I just didn't find much to invest in with either the Enterprise crew or the villains, so I just wasn't feeling it very much. To be fair though, I'm in the minority on that one.
Yeah, this wasn't one of the best summers of recent memories, but I'd say that it isn't any weaker than last summer. Although that one did have Fury Road and Inside Out, but this also had Civil War and Kubo.
For my birthday this year, I got a $50 Amazon giftcard, and I decided to use most of that on the Universal Monsters Blu collection. The European version is somehow $30 cheaper than the American one, and also happens to be region-free and have basically the same content, so I went with that instead. And I had enough to buy a CD on top of that!
So tonight I decided to do a double-feature of the original and Bride of Frankenstein, and they look so good here, well beyond even TCM's prints of them. If I have time tomorrow, I'll follow this up with Dracula and The Mummy. And I think in between and over the next few days, I'll follow this up by watching the rest of their Frankenstein movies elsewhere. Watching these and Young Frankenstein really have me in the mood to, and I haven't seen most of them. I'll still try to find time to rewatch Dracula's Daughter for 31 Days of Horror, as well.
I'm almost done with Son of Frankenstein, and I definitely think that this is better than its reputation precedes it to be. Then again, it seems to be decently liked today, and James even made it the highest-ranking Universal film in his list of best horror films from the 30's. I don't think that I prefer it to Bride, but there's plenty to like here.
For one thing, this is a full 20-30 minutes longer than the previous Frankenstein films, which gives it more time for character building, which it does pretty well. Basil Rathbone does a good job as Wolf (yes, that is his name, and it's pronounced with a W), and arguably does a better job than Colin Clive did as his father. The rest of the cast is pretty strong too, aside from the kid, although Bela's Ygor performance can definitely be a bit much for some people. I also find Karloff to be a little disappointing here, losing much of the subtlety he brought to Bride, aside for one or two scenes. Apparently he was never a fan of the more intelligent Monster present in the novel and hinted at for Bride, which is why he was dumbed down a little here. I can't say that I approve.
Anyway, this is better than I was expecting, and I might consider nominating it for next year's 31 Days. Although if I recall right, we only nominated Bride in the first place.
Went and saw Arrival yesterday. Terrific movie, I recommend it to anyone interested in science-fiction of the more cerebral kind.
Ol' film Sissi. I hate Romy Schneider :immad:but the setting of the Bavarian Alps (https://tranio.com/germany/bavaria/munich/commercial/) is cool, ?anked by fairy-tail craggy giants, foothills and lakes glistening like sapphires in the sunshine.
Maybe I'm just a sadistic bastard, but Martyrs was a lot tamer than I was expecting.
And this year's nominations for Best Picture are:
Arrival
Fences
Hacksaw Ridge
Hell Or High Water
Hidden Figures
La La Land
Lion
Manchester By The Sea
Moonlight
No real surprises this year. I've seen 5 out of 9, and Manchester by the Sea and Hell or High Water are easily my best choices. I actually found Arrival, Moonlight, and La La Land each somewhat underwhelming.
Heh. I've only seen Hell or High Water. The only other ones that interest me are Manchester by the Sea, Moonlight, and Arrival.
The only one I've seen on that list is Arrival.
Not going to lie. I rather enjoyed Split. Oh, don't get me wrong, it has plenty of M. Night Shyamalan's absurdities to go around (which, to be fair, ususally tend to add entertainment value to his films, especially the bad ones), but I did also surprisingly find a lot of legitimate things to enjoy here as well, not least of which is James McAvoy's performance(s).
On a side note, though, am I the only one who saw the "twist" coming? I thought it was pretty obvious after a certain point in the movie what was really going on and what it was ultimately building up to, making the final reveal at the end more of a cool little nod to the viewers than an actual surprise.
But, hey, I still dug it either way....
Spoiler
It also got me to re-watch Unbreakable, so that's definitely a plus.
I saw John Wick 2. I had thought it was great.
They apparently knew exactly what they were doing since they added all the exact things people wanted more of. More lore, more character moments, more humor, and a lot more gunfights. That ending was dynamite, too.
All I can say is that if you enjoyed the first one, you really should see this. It's a sequel done right.
I finally saw Gremlins 2 for the first time, when I decided to double feature both films. I still enjoy the first, but it's not that special. The second is a lot more fun, IMO! And you can probably guess what my favorite part was.
Apparently Chris Columbus is working on a new one, but I'm not sure if that's a good idea. Not just because he's kind of whatever as a filmmaker, but apparently he didn't like the direction Joe Dante took 2 in, and wants another take on it without him. I don't think that's going to turn out great.
Quote from: Avaitor on February 26, 2017, 01:50:25 PMI finally saw Gremlins 2 for the first time, when I decided to double feature both films. I still enjoy the first, but it's not that special. The second is a lot more fun, IMO! And you can probably guess what my favorite part was.
I agree completely. When I first watched the second one, I couldn't believe how overlooked and underrated it was. The first movie was a fun concept but ultimately hasn't aged that well, IMO (much like other early 80's Joe Dante films, if I'm to be honest). However, Dante was allowed to run wild with creativity for the second movie, with the Looney Tunes cold opening to the Christopher Lee and Hulk Hogan cameos to all of the various different types of Gremlins in the film, each in their own right having their designs, personality, and actions crammed full of references to other movies and inspirations for Dante. This movie really felt like a passion-project for the director, through-and-through, and it really shows how much fun he and others had making it, and that fun translates really well on the screen. Gremlins 2 is hands down one of my favorite comedies of the 90's or otherwise.
Part of why I wanted to give Gremlins 2 a watch is because of this great article (https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/why-gremlins-2-is-an-essential-commentary-on-contemporary-pop-culture/), but it's not even the first time I've heard about how subversive the film is. I got it in a triple-pack with both films and The Goonies, and I think that I'm going to use that disc the most.
Quote from: Avaitor on February 26, 2017, 02:47:32 PM
Part of why I wanted to give Gremlins 2 a watch is because of this great article (https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/why-gremlins-2-is-an-essential-commentary-on-contemporary-pop-culture/), but it's not even the first time I've heard about how subversive the film is. I got it in a triple-pack with both films and The Goonies, and I think that I'm going to use that disc the most.
I own the exact same DVD set. :D
That's actually how I originally watched all three movies for the first time.
There is also this great video that goes into detail about the production of Gremlins 2 and why it's such a great film: http://youtu.be/33PSQjs3lrk
So that happened.
I'm not disappointed by La La Land having Best Picture taken away from it, since the film did just about nothing for me. Which is pretty disappointing, since I was completely on Damien Chazelle's side from Whiplash, and I love the same musicals he loves and emulates, but even as an aspiring artist, I found absolutely nothing to connect to or hold onto. I also thought that he was somehow much less confident of a director here than he was in Whiplash, which became a serious problem throughout.
Moonlight is far more deserving of the award, but I'm not really in love with it, either. Coming of age films are rarely my favorite, and the excessive hype kind of ruined it for me, but at the same time, it's as good of that kind of film that can be made. Additionally, it's fucking gorgeous, and it's a kind of story that is seldom told for the black community. It's an important film, but the real reason that I want it to stand out is so artists can learn and be inspired from this, and do something even better, because I know it can be done.
Still, I think everyone should get around to seeing both and decide for themselves. They've struck a nerve for a lot of people, for clear reasons.
On a spur of the moment, I ended up seeing Get Out with a friend. I really liked it, and I think that it deserves the hype. It's a unique enough horror experience, which plays on tropes a little but isn't committed to just playing with them like other modern horror films, and it's funny in the right moments without drowning you with comic relief.
Just saw Logan. Honestly, it's going to be hard for any film this year to top it for me. It was a very personal story, and you don't find that too often in comic book movies of this nature.
This has really been a surprisingly good time for movies in general, considering that the first quarter of the year is ususally a pretty dead season for movies. However, in less than three months alone we've gotten an actual decent M. Night Shyamalan film with Split, a surprisingly good horror thriller with Get Out, a genuinely great action sequel with John Wick Chapter 2, and now arguably the best stand-alone X-Men film to date with Logan. That's pretty impressive. I'm just wondering if the rest of the year can actually live up to it, but we're off to a great start right now, all things considered.
Yeah, its been an odd start for this nearly everything the last two months have been surprise hits. My brother and I are planning on seeing Logan this Thursday, and I've been interested in Get Out for a while. It being a horror film though I'll likely wait until its on Netflix or Cinemax/HBO.
I'd recommend at least going to see Get Out if you have a discount ticket night. The audience participation was some of the best I've had for it, and made going to theaters worth it.
I'm seeing Logan on Sunday, and I'm excited. And I agree, this year is off to a pretty good start for film. I don't think last year was a slouch at this point either, though, since we got Kung-Fu Panda 3, The Witch, Deadpool, and Zootopia at this point, and I think also Green Room.
What I'm curious to see is how the MCU stuff will turn out. I'm doubting that Guardians Vol. 2 will live up to the first one, but the colors are popping off for it so much that I'm open. I don't really want another Spider-Man, but it's looking like an improvement over all the previous ones. And Thor can go either way, tbh.
Holy shit, yeah, Logan was fantastic. If they wanted to end this generation of X-Men films here, I'd be fine, but at the same time, I think Singer still has aspirations to do his take on Phoenix, and frankly I think we can get one more Stewart and McKellen appearance. I do think that it's fair to say goodbye to Jackman, though, but at least he had an excellent finish.
There's one thing that bothers me, though.
Spoiler
I did want to find out more about what happened to the last X-Men besides Xavier and Logan, and want to know who the last surviving members were before they died. At the same time, I didn't want them to spoil TOO much, but I wanted a little more information. But if there's anyone whose fate I wanted to know about, it was Magneto's. A big part of Xavier's arc is his guilt towards the path Erik chose, which is needless, but there is no doubt that he was on Charles' mind even up to his dying breath.
Besides that, I was really happy. I'm glad that James Mangold was given another shot at the character, since even though The Wolverine had some problems and didn't compare to Claremont and Miller's miniseries, I felt like it showed that he had a good grasp on the character and a strong talent for structure. This was a great one.
Spoiler
I read that Kitty Pryde was supposed to be taking care of the kids at Eden, but she was cut out for some reason. I do want to know what happened to Magneto though, considering the Transigen events in this movie mean that he was absolutely right.
Watching Logan's really bittersweet, because it's a great movie, but the whole "end of an era" feel is absolute. I know Jackman's been Wolverine for 9 movies, and most people were tired of him by the third, but it's still sad to realize we reached that endpoint. 17 years. 8 more years than RDJ. For superhero fans just preparing to get out of high school, he's been Wolverine forever.
I know what you mean. We've had some great X-Men movies, mediocre ones, and shitty ones. It's a real mixed-bag in terms of quality, but Jackman has consistently been in most of them (and Stewart in his fair share as well), and this was a film version of characters that were a big deal to me when I first saw them on screen as a ten-year-old and was instantly a fan of both. This being both Jackman and Stewart's swan song as these characters really does feel bittersweet to me, leaving me feeling both ecstatic to see them go out on a high note but also a little sad to know that we'll never see them reprise these roles again.
And for those doubting it, not only does this movie end with a definitive sense of finality, but I put a lot of trust in Jackman's integrity when he says that this will be his last time playing the character that made him famous.
The toughest scene for me in the movie is when we first see Xavier in his current state. It's clearly more than just dementia that is affecting him, but it's downright shocking to see this man I've known since I was a child, a force of good that has mattered a great deal to me, struggle so hard.
This is steering off from Logan, but I want to just say, RIP Robert Osborne. I don't think TCM is going to be the same without him.
I heard that the X-Men producers have plans to use Laura/X-23 in future films, but I'm wondering how. I'd rather they not recast her though, because the actress in Logan did a cool job.
Using the same actress for X23 in future films seems strange to me unless they're planning to set them post-Logan. Which they could do and might be pretty neat, but it's quite a gamble to make an X-men movie exclusively around her not featuring any other popular/known X-Men characters (since presumably everyone else is dead now?), and especially since she's still a pretty young actress and didn't have to really say a whole lot during the movie, whereas if she was the star of her own film she probably would need to be given more dialogue and have to do a wider range of acting.
Oh, and yeah, I saw Logan last weekend. Loved it, thought it was an amazing sendoff for Jackman and potentially Stewart. Personally think it might be the best X-Men film but I'd have to watch it and others again to compare and make sure. It definitely had me the most emotionally engaged and connected with the characters without a doubt.
Maybe Deadpool 2 will have Cable kidnapping X23 and send her to McAvoy-Charles.
Heh, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually did that. :D
So check this out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5YWVne9pDE)- a page committed to criticizing CinemaSins. I've always felt a little uncomfortable with CinemaSins, so I find this kind of cathartic. Especially since he's not afraid to call out what they forgot to call out.
Cinema Sins is really a lot of stupid jokes and nitpicks that are actually awful. Glad to see them taken down a peg.
Cinemasins isn't even supposed to be taken seriously to begin with and never was.
Even if they're not supposed to be, people sure as hell take those videos seriously. And while I haven't seen the videos of him in the car, the one shown here rubbed me the wrong way about the Cinema Sins guy.
A video taking Cinema Sins down a peg is great in concept, though admittedly just like Cinema Sins itself I got bored watching it. Still, I appreciate someone is exposing all the holes in Cinema Sins' lazy, nitpicky formula and the blatant mistakes they make in their videos.
Quote from: LumRanmaYasha on March 10, 2017, 06:33:47 PM
A video taking Cinema Sins down a peg is great in concept, though admittedly just like Cinema Sins itself I got bored watching it. Still, I appreciate someone is exposing all the holes in Cinema Sins' lazy, nitpicky formula and the blatant mistakes they make in their videos.
Everything Wrong With Everything Wrong With Sherlock Holmes is the best one IMO. Short and sweet.
I just picked up the recent release for Crimes of Passion. The movie's screenwriter is my professor, and a really cool guy, and this is a good film. It's definitely a product of the 80's, but so out there that it's still entertaining, and has fun performances all around.
Fun fact- apparently John Carpenter was almost the director of this at one point. He and Barry, the writer, became close and were passionate about making it, but Carpenter's wife wanted to be the lead, which even he recognized was a terrible idea. Besides her not fitting the role, everyone else wanted Kathleen Turner for the role, including Turner herself. He had to back down because his wife would not drop her interest in the role. Ken Russell's an awesome director and did a good job here, but I would have liked to have seen Carpenter's take on it.
One of these days, I'll try to watch the rest of the Furious movies. I've seen the first 2, which I thought were fine, 2 Fast's weird Drive-esq subplot aside, but I haven't seen anything special yet. But apparently it gets a lot of fun with the fifth film?
It's weird that a franchise doesn't get particularly good until the fifth entry, but I do enjoy mindless action as much as the next person.
I've never really cared for these movies, myself. The closest I came to really enjoying one would be with Fast Five, in which Justin Lin really managed to step up as a director in terms of action and pacing, but even that didn't rise up much beyond the level of dumb fun.
Even the seventh film, which I specifically watched because it had James Wan attached to it (being that I'm a fan of his recent horror films) really did nothing for me.
I haven't caught up with the franchise or saw F8 of the Furious yet, but I saw something that I'll probably enjoy more- Raw. It's a weird little horror flick that I can't really put a finger on what sect it belongs to.
But it doesn't matter, since it's hella enjoyable throughout.
Blomkamp's Alien 5 is no more (http://collider.com/alien-5-neill-blomkamp-ridley-scott/).
It's probably for the best, since he isn't a very good director. I'd like to see Ripley again, but maybe we shouldn't? I still don't know how I feel about Covenant.
QuoteBlomkamp shared some artwork he made for a proposed Alien 5 that would bring Sigourney Weaver's Ripley and Michael Biehn's Hicks back into the fold, essentially serving as a direct sequel to Aliens.
:cry:
Bad director or not, this was the only good idea the movie franchise has had since the early 80s.
I saw Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 last night. The short summation of it is that it's a lot of fun, but not quite as good as the first movie.
That said, when I heard early criticisms of the film, I was worried that this would be another case of Iron Man 2 or Age of Ultron (I enjoyed Age of Ultron, but it still had problems with staying focused on its main story at times). That's really not the case here. Despite juggling so many characters, the movie actually manages to let them all be fleshed out in equal parts. I think where a lot of people have issues with the movie is how the plot essentially splits up the Guardians into two parties for most of the movie, and also the lack of a central villain until the end. On the first point, I actually appreciate that the movie took an Empire Strikes Back approach, not so much in the tone as this movie is still fairly light-hearted, but in terms of not just copying the first movie and actually splitting up the characters to further develop them on their own. While I don't like this as much as the first movie, I like it a whole lot more than if the movie just would have done the first movie again by recycling the same general plot. As for the second criticism, I'm actually glad that the movie didn't take so much time to focus on another uninteresting villain. The MCU movies are notorious for having a plethora of lackluster and forgettable villains, and while I would prefer to see a good one, I'm not opposed to seeing them take more focus away from having a weak central villain throughout the plot to instead put more focus on the characters that we care about. That's probably a big reason for why this movie is actually able to handle so many characters without it feeling like a clusterfuck, which is a pretty amazing feat if you really think about how many other movies fumble with trying to do the same thing. And the character writing and performances still stand out as much as in the original, with a good number of funny and memorable lines and moments through the run-time.
While it's still only fresh in my mind, I'd personally say that this movie is around Ant-Man or Doctor Strange levels of quality. Pretty decent and entertaining spectacles with some good dialogue and interesting characters, though ultimately not nearly the best that Marvel has to offer.
I really enjoyed the film, myself. It's not as striking as the original (which at the same time wasn't exactly that original to begin with), but it's nearly as fun. I do think that the music isn't as useful or iconic as the first one's choices (although I don't really like most of the songs from the first one either- their placement is where a lot of the movie's charm comes from), and some characters get a bit too many cheap laughs.
But the development among the characters is great, and what helps to keep this feel much more fresh than your average sequel. I especially like getting plenty of time with Rocket and Yondu, two of my favorite characters, together. They worked wonderfully together.
I think this is the most fun I've had seeing an MCU since the first one. I'd probably call Civil War a better movie, but I wouldn't call it fun. The only thing I'm worried about is if Gunn will be able to keep the mojo going with Vol 3. It's clear that he knows what he's doing with the characters, but there are times where it feels like he's resting on the first film's laurels. You can get away with that once, but it'll get old if he doesn't find a way to make the next one really stand out.
I actually feel that while not as good, this movie did quite a bit to differentiate itself from the first, so I'm not worried about Gunn playing it safe and resting on his laurels. I also feel that with the success of films like Deadpool and Logan, Marvel as a studio is realizing that they will need to take more risks in order to stay ahead of FOX, which has gradually been becoming steeper competition for Marvel against all odds.
Guardians 2 was a lot of fun, and that's all I was hoping it would be. Yondu had a good arc and his dynamics with both Rocket and Starlord was great, and I was legit moved by his sendoff. Movie never lost sight about what's fun about these characters and Ego was handled pretty well for a Marvel villain even if the plot beats was pretty predictable. Baby Groot was also not nearly as annoying as I feared he would be, though his cutesyness was a bit overplayed at times. Overall it wasn't a movie that left a strong impression on me like the first one did, but I think it's a worthy sequel. Glad GOTG wasn't a one-hit wonder.
I just picked up Alien and Aliens on Blu-Ray in preparation of Alien: Covenant. I re-watched Alien last night and it's still a classic in my eyes. That said, I'm personally of the opinion that the middle third suffers a bit from becoming a bit too much of a typical horror movie what with all of the tropes and characters acting dumb in certain situations. It's still expertly designed and directed, but it does drag the overall quality of the picture down for me a bit. That said, the first and final acts of this movie are some of the most masterful pieces of film-making that I have ever seen to this day.
I'll try to give Aliens a re-watch later this week.
Just saw Alien: Covenant. Really mixed feelings about this one. There were some fascinating concepts explored throughout the film and some really brilliant moments of directing. However, the overall structure of the film was a mess and for every good moment there was something equally as stupid when it came to the plot or how the characters acted. It seems like outside of the first two movies, nobody has ever been able to find a way to write an Alien story in which the plot can progress without some characters acting like idiots.
For the record, I don't agree at all with the general hate that Prometheus gets. It's certainly a flawed film, but it does some fascinating stuff with the Alien lore, and the general mystery element of it is quite compelling. It has its dumb moments, but there's a lot of genuinely good stuff that makes it worth watching, at least for me. Covenant, on the other hand, seems to break a lot of rules and ignore the previously established lore of the older films, and in general it doesn't come off that interesting in regards to its overall story. There is one really interesting character that is quite a memorable antagonist, and is easily my favorite part of this movie, but I'll refrain from going into detail about it here for spoiler reasons.
Overall, though, while the movie was admittedly entertaining to watch once, I have no desire to ever really go back to it like I did for Prometheus. Say what you want about that movie, but at least it had a clear vision of what it was and didn't compromise on it. Covenant, meanwhile, felt like it had a story that Scott wanted to tell, but it got lost in so many elements that tried too hard to pander to what fans wanted and didn't get in Prometheus, leading to a final product that's all over the place.
I'm still not sure what Scott wants to do with the Alien franchise. He states he has several movies' worth of stories to tell, but it mostly amounts to a couple fascinating ideas combined with character idiocy and recreating scenes from past Alien movies and watering them down instead of re-interpreting them the way the Fargo series twists and innovates on various Coen Brothers movies. The Alien franchise is going through this same crisis the Terminator series is, where they obviously can't die because Hollywood wants to keep churning installments out of them, but they often have to choose between letting new blood direct the movie while under heavy executive control (leading to talents like David Fincher to make tripe), or let the original directors come back to make anything they want despite having a questionable record of recent films. Which makes news that David Cameron will step in to produce Terminator 6: Schwarzenegger's Alimony questionable to me.
I saw Alien: Covenant last night, and it was thoroughly okay. Some of the action sequences were cool, but god damn are the characters unmemorable or unrelatable. Only Fassbender makes some kind of impact, give or take Danny McBride. I feel that if the cast had some fine-tuning and this wasn't tied to Alien, it would be a better experience.
Also, the white Xenomorphs were disappointing.
Nerd mode: I'll have you know that only Protomorphs and Neomorphs appeared in this film, my good sir. There were no Xenomorphs whatsoever.[/nitpick] :>
Overall, though, the more I think about this movie the more I dislike it. I have problems with Prometheus, but overall still liked a lot of things about it and what it tried to do. This movie seemed like it couldn't decide if it wanted to be a sequel to that or a prequel to Alien, thus it had this strange identity crisis. Prometheus at least tried to be thoroughly different from Alien and knew what kind of movie it was. It felt rather self-indulgent at times, but at least some of that indulgence was earned. Alien: Covenant feels like it's trying to be an Alien movie at times, but that makes it all the more frustrating when all of those elements are interceded with Ridley Scott's pretentious "look how smart I am" bull-shit. Doing a smart Alien movie can and has been done. Just look at the original film. It has smart themes and subtext, but do you know why it worked so much better? At no point did it forget that it was supposed to be a good monster movie first and foremost. Even back when I didn't understand some of its hidden meaning, I still basically saw Jaws in space, and it was excellent. The nuance to its story and narrative only helped enhance the experience on repeat viewings. It never once overtook the rest of the film. With Covenant, we start out with a scene so out of place that I momentarily wondered if this was originally supposed to be part of Blade Runners 2049, but even the original Blade Runner worked better because it knew to be a good futuristic detective noir story first with the philosophical elements complementing the main story.
For whatever reason, Scott these days seems more obsessed with exploring interesting ideas rather than actually telling a cohesive and engrossing story that can more subtly convey those same themes. I mean, if that's the case....why not just write some books instead?
It's weird how Wagner's work is meant to be a bookend and set piece to a film where a murder takes place during a shower sex scene. It's not a great balance.
The more I think about it, I don't believe that It Comes at Night is really horror. It's a very different film than is what being advertised, for one thing. And as much as I enjoyed the pacing stand point and that it doesn't force its backstory down your throat, I'm feeling kind of cold on it in hindsight. There's just more that could have beeb done.
I'm glad that I got to see it and indie film is getting to do cooler things, but it's not something I plan to go back to anytime soon. If you haven't seen Raw yet, I highly recommend you get to that instead.
John Wick 2 just came out on Blu-Ray and I bought the Steel Books for both it and the first film from Best Buy (which they had on sale at my location as part of a special promotion).
I gave John Wick 2 a re-watch for the first time since I saw it in theaters, and man I think the Museum shoot-out scene may have just barely edged out the club shoot-out scene as my favorite action set-piece from either film, so far. But, overall, I'd go so far as to say that John Wick may be on its way to being the best modern action movie franchise. Either that or The Raid, but regardless, it's hard for me to accept anyone who says that the action movie genre is dead outside of comic book movies when stuff like this exists.
Thanks for reminding me- I still need to see the other Raid movies, as well as the John Wicks.
I'm happy to know that both series are confirmed to be getting third installments each to cap off their respective trilogies. I'm also really interested in the prospect of that Continental TV series spin-off that the John Wick producers are apparently planning to develop. There are lot of possibilities there given how rich the world-building in this series is.
Saw Baby Driver at an early screening. Decent flick but Ansel Elgort is so fucking bad. I don't know how he gets roles. Writing is a huge step down from Wright's previous films, probably due to the lack of Simon Pegg. The action and music were enjoyable but while it was well-made it didn't really impress me too much. Not sure why everyone's falling in love with it or where the hype comes from.
John Wick 1 & 2, though, now those are fucking movies! Best action films I've ever seen and some of the greatest usage of music in film history. Gotta get the second one on Blu-ray and watch both back-to-back one of these days.
The John Wick movies are great action flicks. Never get bored rewatching them.
That's disheartening to hear, as Baby Driver is one of my most anticipated films of the year. I'm still to see it, of course, but I'm going to temper my expectations when I do.
And fuck yes! John Wick has singlehandedly revitalized the American action movie genre in my eyes. I know that this is probably an unpopular opinion, but I'd argue that the first John Wick in particular manages to top The Matrix as Keeanu Reeve's best action film. And mind you, I don't dislike The Matrix at all. It has aged poorly in some areas, but I still have a lot of respect for what it has done right in terms of both action and writing. Also, if it weren't for The Matrix, John Wick probably wouldn't even exist as it does now (the directors were both stuntmen for Keeanu in The Matrix films). That said, on an action level, I feel that John Wick surpasses it in terms of both technical choreography as well as stellar camerawork. But I'd also argue (and I know that this is a bold claim) that it's a better written film as well. Now that may raise some eyebrows because clearly The Matrix explores more philosophical themes and has more heavy dialogue than anything in John Wick. And yes, it's more ambitious in that way, however simply having those qualities to its story and themes is not the same as doing them all well. Those movies tend to have an issue of occasionally over-expositing to the point of being rather awkward and up their own ass, and while the original Matrix is far less bad about this than the sequels, it still does have some of that weighing it down in a few key scenes throughout the film.
On the other hand, good writing does not just mean good dialogue. Writing in fiction places just as much emphasis on the flow of story-telling and in any story in existence, what's not said is equally as important as what is, something that I really wish more people would remember. The key characters in John Wick are all relatively simple, but well defined. You aren't bogged down with any more backstory than you need to understand the context of the situation, and the most important character traits are displayed through actions rather than words. But what's more is how this movie and it's sequel tackle world-building. You learn so much about the world of hitmen and assassins in this Universe through observation over any spoken dialogue. The fact that they have their own unique currency, that there are common code-words used by those in the know, that there are certain rules which all of them must follow despite their line of work, and the general relationships that certain characters have with each other are explained with visuals and non-verbal communication or cleverly subtextualized dialogue rather than any direct exposition. What you get is a superb action film with terrific pacing and a story that is as simple as it is engaging.
I honestly find it hard to have to wait for John Wick Chapter 3; it's one of my most anticipated films of ever.
Personally, I like the John Wick films, Speed, and the Bill & Ted movies more than the Matrix, but I do think it's definitely one of his best flicks.
John Wick, however, did more than just be well written and choreographed. It brought back the grit of '80s action movies, got rid of shaky cam, and nailed everything I like about filmmakers like John Woo and John McTiernan. I keep hoping its success is going to bring a renaissance in action movies, and not clones, but I'm still waiting for it.
John Wick 3 is also my most hyped sequel. I don't know how they managed to match the original with 2, but they did it.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on June 25, 2017, 10:17:11 PM
That's disheartening to hear, as Baby Driver is one of my most anticipated films of the year. I'm still to see it, of course, but I'm going to temper my expectations when I do.
Keep in mind that almost everyone else seems to love it! Perhaps it just isn't my kind of film or my expectations were too high. It's a very different beast from the Cornetto trilogy which I love with all my heart. I've also been feeling a bit off today (had trouble getting into both my homework and playing Overwatch earlier) so maybe I would have liked it more under other circumstances. And I enjoyed the movie for sure, the only things I genuinely disliked about it were the lead actor and a couple of plot developments in the final act (including the ending). Kevin Spacey, Jamie Foxx, and Jon Hamm were brilliant.
I agree with everything you said about John Wick! The Matrix is still awesome (my favorite action movie as a kid) but these films are even better. I love how simple the plots are despite how intricate the world-building is. I also love how the protagonist is built up as an all-star badass just by having the villains talk about how scary he is. I think I liked the original slightly more but both movies are perfect. I was in awe during every single action scene the first time I saw them. I can't wait for Chapter 3 either, and I can't believe one of the directors from the first film is doing Deadpool 2... :zonk:
I also prefer the first John Wick, but the sequel is no less brilliant in my eyes, and there's only one real issue that I have with it (which isn't even that big in the grand scheme of things), and that's just that I'm not a fan of cliffhanger endings to bait a sequel. I would've bought a ticket to see John Wick 3 on day one without that added incentive. Even so, the sequel did not disappoint me in the slightest besides that, and I went in with high as fuck expectations!
Also, yeah, Deadpool 2: my next most anticipated film of ever....:swoon:
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on June 25, 2017, 10:41:48 PM
Also, yeah, Deadpool 2: my next most anticipated film of ever....:swoon:
Same director also has a film called Atomic Blonde coming out next month, which I've heard really good things about from festival reviews. Action cinema is alive and well!
So, I just saw Baby Driver. I can certainly respect Foggle's outlook on it, but personally I'm going to have to go with the masses on this one: I fucking loved it! It's my third favorite movie of the year so far right behind John Wick Chapter 2 and Logan.
Also, maybe it's because I never saw any of the shitty Maze Runner movies nor anything else he's been in, and thus didn't have any pre-conceived opinions of the guy, but I personally didn't have a problem with Ansel Elgort in this movie. He wasn't necessarily that good, in that I could imagine other people in that same role, but nothing he did in his performance outright turned me off from his portrayal of the lead character, either. To me, he was the textbook example of "just fine," which admittedly is a bit of a disappointment for an Edgar Wright film, but I felt that the direction did a good job of making up for his lacking qualities as an actor (not unlike how the directing makes Keeanu look better than he actually is in the John Wick films).
And as for Wright's writing suffering due to a lack of Simon Pegg, I don't know if I can quite agree with that. While I do largely prefer the Cornetto Trilogy to this (not a slight against Baby Driver; those films are just Godly), the important distinction here is that those are comedies, while this is a straight up action movie with more serious drama, tension, and stakes. Pegg is absolutely brilliant at comedy. Star Trek Beyond showcased that he is a capable writer when it comes to more serious stories, but comparing that directly to Baby Driver, I'd say that Wright was the stronger dramatic writer in this particular case.
Anyways, as I stated, I can totally get where Foggle is coming from. I'm only really trying to justify why my perception of the film and its quality (or lack thereof) is more positive.
My perception of Elgort was probably colored by past roles, true. I just found him to be a bit grating in the film. That said, I need to watch Baby Driver again sometime. I think I wasn't in the right state of mind to enjoy it last Sunday.
Saw Spider-Man: Homecoming this weekend. Tonally this film really reminds me of TSSM, which in my case is a very good thing.
Overall this is probably the best Spider-Man movie that we've had so far, and it's arguably one of the stronger stand-alone MCU films.
Yeah, got back from watching it. Was really fun and hit all the right spots. Vulture was a great departure from the typical MCU villain mold. Ned and Michelle were funny. Much less Tony Stark shilling than I expected, so that was pleasantly surprising.
Overall, this year's been great for superhero movies. Now to see if Thor 3 or Justice League will screw it up.
I feel like those are both possibilities, but I'm trying to remain hopeful. Moreso for Ragnarok, whose trailer still has me hyped, but I could see go either way. But I would like to believe that Wonder Woman is the right step forward for the DCEU.
And I really liked Homecoming. I'd call it my favorite Spider-Man film to date, as well as my current favorite Phase 3 film. It did hit all the right notes, and I particularly appreciate that this and Vol. 2 have cut back on the obnoxious foreshadowing, and focused on building the stories at hand first. I don't know if Thor and Black Panther will keep this trend going, though.
Oh yeah, I definitely got an SSM vibe from the movie. Also, I took a little schadenfreude from Ned just being Ganke in all but name, but because he's not called Ganke, Bendis won't be able to get any royalty checks from the film.
So I guess I'd rank it: Homecoming > Spider-Man 2 > Spider-Man 1 > Spider-Man 3 > 3 Dev Adam > Amazing Spider-Man > The Supaidaman movie > those episodes of the 70s show taped together to make made-for-TV movies, I haven't watched them, but I have no doubt they're better than... > Amazing Spider-Man 2
Homecoming was amazing. I think I found it to be even more intense than Winter Soldier, which is possibly my favorite superhero movie. Also, the film was just so smoothly directed. I can't get over that. And Tom Holland is easily the best Spider-Man. Definitely not dry like Tobey and even more fun than Garfield, while getting the serious side of Spider-Man down
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on July 09, 2017, 04:47:24 PM
Yeah, got back from watching it. Was really fun and hit all the right spots. Vulture was a great departure from the typical MCU villain mold. Ned and Michelle were funny. Much less Tony Stark shilling than I expected, so that was pleasantly surprising.
Overall, this year's been great for superhero movies. Now to see if Thor 3 or Justice League will screw it up.
Vulture was a decent villain, which was much better than I expected since a Birdman villain sounded so lame to me. He would have been much better if I got to actually sympathize with him a bit, like they were trying to go for but he was a dick for a lot of the movie.
Hopefully Thor Ragnarok is not disappointing, unlike the first two Thor movies. I'd like a Thor film that's not just decent at best.
I'm still playing catch-up with 2016. I really did not like Midnight Special- felt too much like Close Encounters lite, which I guess goes up there with Stranger Things as to why I'm not impressed with Spielberg worship. Toni Erdmann, meanwhile, might be my favorite from the year. The director states that it's not a comedy, and while I can buy it as a straight family drama, it's too damn funny to not appreciate its dry charm. It definitely has the funniest nude scene I can recall.
The Red Turtle and Swiss Army Man should be on their way soon, as well. And I do also plan to get to The Witch and The Boy and the Beast soon.
Swiss Army Man is a VERY strange kind of film. Definitely not for everyone. It is one of those movies that I'm glad to have experienced, but will also probably never re-watch.
Just saw War for the Planet of the Apes. A few months ago I said that I doubted that anything could top Logan as my favorite movie of the year, and I seriously meant that. While I still need to process it, this film may have just slightly edged it out for me (and yes, I fucking love Logan, so that speaks volumes about this movie in my eyes). It really hit me on a personal and emotional level, and it's definitely the best possible conclusion to what I now genuinely consider to be one of the best film trilogies of all time.
This goes beyond just being a great summer blockbuster for me. It's a legitimately terrific piece of cinema.
I feel like the only person on Earth that didn't hate Spectre -- just now finally got around to watching it the other day.
I didn't say I liked it, but there are worse Bonds.
Yeah, it's not a bad film at all, but a lot of people expected another Skyfall since it was directed and written by the same guys, and Christoph Waltz as a Bond villain sounded hype. And that thing where they tried to tie all the other Craig movies together into Oberhauser's master plan was haphazard, especially when the last film strongly implied Bond went on a ton of other missions between Quantum and Skyfall, as he goes from this new, doesn't know all the ropes yet James Bond to a grizzled, should-have-been retired by M one in the span of 2 films.
It's not a bad movie. You know, fuck it, I do kinda like it. Skyfall is a tough act to follow (to which this was kind of a poor follow-up), but I never really got the hate for this one. It's entertaining enough, the action is solid, and it's a far better use of your time than Quantum (or -hot take incoming- at least 80% of Moore's output).
Gah, I feel like ranking the series now. :awesome: I'd have to spend at least a week or two to marathon the whole thing though, there's just so much of it I haven't seen in any recent viewing period. I haven't watched anything from the Brosnan era in probably 10 years at least.
I like Moore's output, but that's because it's bad. I still haven't seen Spectre for some reason (just never got around to it), but I enjoy almost every Bond film either legitimately or ironically.
I always kind of saw Spectre as a throwback to the camp and cheesiness of some of the older Bond films, not too unlike the Moore films, ironically enough (though, minus a man inflating like a literal balloon and exploding). I can't actually tell whether that was intentional or not, but that's what I got out of it.
In general, though, I'm personally ok with a lot of poorly received installments in various franchises that apparently everyone else in the world hates. I think I may be the only person on the planet who kind of likes Prometheus, for example. There's dumb shit in the movie to be sure, but also a lot of genuinely great moments and aspects of it to appreciate which it never gets recognized for. Meanwhile, Alien Covenant can go penetrate itself, Xenomorph-style.
My appreciation for B-movie camp and cheese has increased exponentially over the years. I rewatched the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films recently and I thought they were amazing. Liked them even more than when I was a kid. They're so quotable and hilarious! Fuck, I even liked The Amazing Spider-Man 2. It's a terrible film, yet I can't help but adore the way Jamie Foxx hams it up with that terrible blue makeup/CG/whatever. X-Men: Apocalypse is great too. The last third is a bit dull, but everything up to and including the Quicksilver scene is a laugh riot. Helps that I am extremely gay for Oscar Isaac and will watch anything with him in it.
I watched all the live action Resident Evil movies and xXx: Return of Xander Cage with my fiancee and uhhh they're actually the shit. They're so bad but SO GOOD. I adore Milla Jovovich (I unironically wish it was her in Atomic Blonde instead of Charlize Theron) and Vin Diesel. I've also been converted into a follower of Nicolas Cage. That man can do no wrong. Have you seen Con Air or Vampire's Kiss? Masterpieces. David Lynch's filmography is also a lot more hilarious than I remembered. Twin Peaks (both the original series and the new one) is funnier than most actual comedies.
On the subject of Raimi's Spider-Man movies, while they are silly and I don't love them as much as some people, I do legitimately have to give Raimi props for being a fan and clearly putting a lot of heart into these films. In fact, much as I enjoyed Homecoming, it was missing one very essential element of the character that Raimi's movies absolutely nailed: the hardship that comes with being Spider-Man. Say what you want about Tobey Maguire's performance as Spider-Man, but I think that he made a pretty great Peter Parker. He really nailed the struggles and tragic life that came with being that character.
By no means did Tom Holland give a weak performance, but not once in the movie did I ever actually feel genuinely bad for Peter like how I did in Raimi's films or TSSM. In fact he seemed to have a pretty neat life all things considered, which is fine for this interpretation of the character, but it also doesn't give him as much weight and depth as the best iterations of Spider-Man have, IMO.
Speaking of camp, I finally watched Schindler's List after ages of putting it off. And it was definitely as chilling as I expected. A wonderful film though. I was fascinated by Goeth and Schindler's relationship, and Ben Kingsley's performance.
It sits as either my second or third favorite Spielberg film, pretty much tying with The Adventures of Tintin. Yes, I know how that sounds, but I deeply love both films for very different reasons, so suck it. The fact that he came put with both Schindler's List and Jurassic Park in the same year is beyond insane. And yes, I teared up at the "I could've saved more" scene.
So Dunkirk was cool. But I did laugh when it turned out the heroic pilot was
Spoiler
Tom Hardy in a mask, who made the fire rise on his plane while making sure Dunkirk would have survivors.
I just bought Logan, Creed, and Shin Godzilla on Blu-ray. I plan to give Logan a re-watch via the Noir version exclusive to the Blu-ray set, and getting Creed now completes my Rocky collection. As for Shin Godzilla, I have yet to watch it, but I definitely wanted to nab it as soon as I saw it on store shelves. Before I watch it, though, I still have a few Godzilla movies left watch on my DVD box set collection, so I want to go through those first before watching this new one (yes, I know it's standalone and isn't in continuity with the old movies, but I still feel like going through the old stuff first).
This morning, I've been wondering something: What happened to all the great directors who were also complete assholes? We used to have Michael Curtiz drowning actors to get a Noah's Ark scene, Stanley Kubrick mentally abusing Shelley Duvall so hard that she wears tinfoil on her head now, and Jodorowsky raping an actress on-camera purely so they could the take right. Nowadays, most of the great directors usually aren't abusive, while the directors who do traumatize their actors nowadays are usually z-list indie filmmakers that only a dozen people like.
I mean, there's David O. Russell, but apparently he's been fine with Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper, unlike his past with George Clooney and Lily Tomlin.
Swiss Army Man is one of those rare films where I can't say that I liked a single element about it, but I wouldn't say that I hated it. Well, I particularly didn't like the final act, yet I just can't fault the thing for being so damn different. I can't really think of anything else like it.
I also got to see The Red Turtle, which I thought was beautiful, but didn't leave much of an impact with me. It was a treat to watch from start to finish, though.
Just got back from seeing "IT" tonight. Just to preface, I have read the original novel and grew up with the mini-series. The novel isn't exactly great source material as it has many legitimate criticisms that have been levied against it (some of which King himself even agrees to in retrospect) but a lot of it did still work for me on a personal level. I would describe it as an intriguing mess, in that it's interesting to read but is all over the place when it comes to the actual quality of its narrative. The mini-series on the other hand is trash while also simultaneously being a nostalgic guilty pleasure for me. Tim Curry is ridiculously entertaining in it, regardless, though not for the intended reasons, but it's never boring to watch him on screen.
At any rate, my point is that I went into this with at least a bit of personal bias for the material. In that regard, I really enjoyed the film. While some have criticized it for being tonally inconsistent, I personally am not bothered by that since I never saw "IT" as a straight-up horror story but rather as a coming of age story with a horror-theme in the background (basically Stand By Me but with a supernatural entity thrown in to shake up the formula). So the balance between the drama of growing up, scares, and humor thrown in for good measure is something that I personally find makes the movie more appealing. I'd say that this was basically about as good of an adaptation as you could possibly make out of source material this lopsided, so I was really satisfied with the finished product, myself.
Sounds good. Most complaints I've heard so far are from people who focus too much on the horror aspect and felt Pennywise wasn't scary enough and miss the bigger picture of what the story is really about. Like you said, it's a coming of age story first and horror second. I'm pretty excited to see the film, and am really glad to hear the positive buzz it's been getting.
I really wish I'd seen It tonight instead of Wind River. I saw it because a friend of mine recommended it to me and we're going to podcast about it, but regardless I was expecting a good film coming from the writer of Sicario and Hell or High Water, which I loved. Instead I left the theater more insulted than I felt after seeing Ghost in the Shell. If you're making a story about Native Americans, especially a problem as severe as missing and abused young Native American women, actually tell their stories. Don't use them as a backdrop for a boilerplate thriller about a hyper-perfect self-insert white male "badass" who fights on behalf of the Native Americans and knows better than them because they apparently can't protect themselves or bring justice for one of their own being murdered, and has to hand-hold the female FBI agent who should have actual training but is frequently made to look like an incompetent idiot because she's "from the city" and doesn't understand the country or some bullshit. That the movie has the gall to claim it's based on the very real tragedies befalling Native American women but fetishize the abuse and victimization of them as motivation for it's white male lead really infuriated me, and disappointed me because the writer's previous films were so genuinely enjoyable. Like, the cinematography is beautiful and there are genuinely tense moments of suspense, but the messages of the story and representation of women and the Native American community is incredibly problematic, and it's baffling that so many people seem to be ignoring these faults which are too persistent in media and need to be addressed in favor of praising the surface elements.
I still kind of want to check out Wind River to form my own opinion on it since I was such a big fan of Sicario and Hell or High Water. Sucks to hear that the message is so skewed, though.
As for "IT" I can understand criticisms against it perfectly fine; just don't watch the Sibling Rivalry video; as ususal Doug and Rob are riding their smug high-horses so in your face that it's hard to tolerate regardless of whether you agree with their actual opinions or not. That said, the overwhelming praise that the film has gotten far outweighs the gripes, as you can probably tell, and I'm glad because I think that the success is well deserved. Outside of my personal attachment to the source material, I am one of the few people who actually really liked Andrés Muschietti's previous film Mama, so I was actually quite pleased to see him announced as the director of this movie after Fukunaga left the project. Stylistically he may have actually been the best fit for this film after all, and his keen attention to detail honestly has me wanting to go back to see the movie again to catch all of the little nuances and Easter Eggs that I missed the first time around.
Yeah, I saw Doug and Rob's review and it really annoyed me. For half an hour all they did was gripe about how the movie isn't scary because clowns aren't scary and other bullshit, but not once do they ever address the themes of the story or the development of the characters in context of the horror elements. At one point Rob complained that the adults were scarier than the clown...which was the entire fucking point! They really seem to have a very shallow understanding of the appeal of the novel, and a lot of King's work in general. I'm glad their opinion is in the minority, but it was definitely a strange whiplash for me after listening to Brad Jones' really positive and thoughtful review right beforehand.
The thing is, it doesn't actually bother me that they dislike something that I or others like. Nor does it even bother me if they completely miss the point. It annoys me when they do those things while expressing their opinions in a painfully arrogant and ignorant way, though thankfully most commenters are calling them out on their bull-shit in that video (not that they actually read the comments, anyways).
Also, the film specifically uses a technique of having all of the adult characters framed in ways that make them look intimidating. It was an intentional decision to have this entire movie filmed from the childrens' point of view. Not sure how they didn't quite grasp that concept when literally everyone else did.
And Rob calling this movie a "Trainwreck of tonal inconsistency" is hilarious coming from a guy who claims to be a fan of Stranger Things, a show that is not only directly inspired by Stephen King works like IT, but was even created by people who originally were trying to make this very adaptation before being turned down due to their lack of experience at the time, and then making their show carry many of the same themes and tonal shifts "inconsistencies" of IT.
It feels like they're preoccupied with their ideas of what IT should be and have blinded themselves to what it actually is, and think that any other interpretations and perspectives on the story is beneath their own, even though theirs is extremely shallow. If this was the character of the Nostalgia Critic saying this it would be one thing, but it's obnoxious because these are Doug and Rob's "real thoughts," which is apparently "everyone who likes this is dumb and easily scared."
Personally, unless they're discussing a Holocaust movie or something, I absolutely hate when people harp on about "tonal inconsistency." Oh shit, something funny happened after something scary did? That's real life! A normal day for anyone is usually going to feature tons of conflicting emotions, including laughter, anger, sadness, fear, etc. The Wire is praised for being realistic and heartbreaking... guess what, that show is also funny as hell, which is a huge part of what makes it realistic. Actual human beings naturally say hilarious shit without thinking about it, even during the gravest moments. I mean, if the characters start randomly busting out with tired Adam Sandler/Amy Schumer-esque gags or anime-style boob jokes, then yeah, that's stupid, but a film devoid of humor is also a film devoid of character or realism as far as I'm concerned.
Also, I've always found clowns terrifying. Yeah, I'm a pussy, whatever; they're scary! And this is the first I've heard of Wind River but it sounds like a very unfortunate film.
I feel bad for clowns in real life because of how IT, the Joker, and John Wayne Gacy have painted them as crazed murderers. I want a movie where a clown is the guy who saves the day just to fuck with viewer expectations.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on September 10, 2017, 03:34:07 AMI feel bad for clowns in real life because of how IT, the Joker, and John Wayne Gacy have painted them as crazed murderers. I want a movie where a clown is the guy who saves the day just to fuck with viewer expectations.
Just for fun they should make the villain of that film an evil cosmic turtle.
RIP Harry Dean Stanton
The man had a long life and incredible career. And it's been way too long since I've last seen Paris, Texas.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on September 10, 2017, 03:34:07 AM
I feel bad for clowns in real life because of how IT, the Joker, and John Wayne Gacy have painted them as crazed murderers. I want a movie where a clown is the guy who saves the day just to fuck with viewer expectations.
Then gets shot by Deadpool.
So I have no interest in watching the movie, but it's been fascinating to see guys like Half in the Bag (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2oUaPFlbW8) and Critikal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0NFhUs35I8) give their takes on mother! by Darren Aronofsky.
mother! sounds like a trip, but not really in a good way. I'd consider using it for a bad movie night, but it sounds too bleak for that.
I'll check it out on DVD probably, but yeah, more interested in people's reactions to it than actually watching it.
This quiz says it's a skip for me (http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/will-i-hate-mother-a-serious-quiz.html).
(https://i.imgur.com/K1g7wnG.png)
But I thought this was a movie about religion...
So, a whole eight years after it came out, I finally saw Watchmen for the first time. Originally when the movie was coming out I planned to read the graphic novel before it released, but I didn't really get a chance and with the polarizing reviews, I just decided to skip it altogether. I did eventually read the book, and then just recently re-read it which got me thinking that it's about time that I checked out the film version just for the hell of it.
Keeping my expectations relatively low, I ended up finding it to be not nearly that bad. It's riddled with a lot of Zack Snyder's obsession with style over substance, though not anywhere close to as much as something like Batman V. Superman, as there is at least a little bit more cohesion here. Really, this movie to me, as an adaptation, is the equivalent of what Game of Thrones is in comparison to ASOIAF when Dan and Dave don't have George to hold their hands and guide them along. That is to say that it's reasonably entertaining on a base level despite a fair share of cheesy and over-the-top moments, but it thoroughly misses the point of the source material by essentially glorifying the very things that its counterpart is specifically so critical of.
Also, what was with all of those insert songs popping up randomly during big scenes? This move came out last decade, well before this annoyingly overused trend was even a thing, but then again I suppose you could say that Snyder helped contribute to that very trend. It certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Still, it's alright for a Snyder film. I'd day that it was worth one watch. But it's certainly not the type of film that I'd ever care to revisit beyond that. Though, I will give it props for having a pretty excellent opening credits sequence.
What amused me the most about Watchmen's production history was when David Hayter of MGS fame wrote a script for Watchmen that would've set the story in the early 2000s and done some other changes, and it was the script that convinced Alan Moore to bite his lip and reluctantly say it was the closest Hollywood would ever get to adapting Watchmen correctly. Of course, Snyder got somebody else to heavily rewrite that draft for the final product.
Snyder doesn't seem to get the point of Watchmen, but it's a strong enough story and he gets enough of the basics right that it still turns out enjoyable.
Although I don't really get why he changed Rorschach's way of getting vengeance for the child killer, aside from wanting to make it more gruesome, I guess.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on September 25, 2017, 07:23:57 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/K1g7wnG.png)
But I thought this was a movie about religion...
Oh, but it was. The Church of Our Holy Mother Nature.
Aronofsky is a weird guy.
Quote from: Avaitor on September 26, 2017, 10:11:21 PMAlthough I don't really get why he changed Rorschach's way of getting vengeance for the child killer, aside from wanting to make it more gruesome, I guess.
Most likely to avoid people complaining about it being directly lifted from Mad Max. The comic could get away with it because it was a different medium and could be seen as more of an homage, whereas he probably figured that people would bitch about it being a complete rip-off of that scene in the movie.
Of course, I could be giving Snyder too much credit and the more gruesome manslaughter may have been one of his "artistic" touches to "improve" the scene. Either way, it still fit in line with Rorschach's character, so it didn't really bother me nearly as much as some other changes that he made.
Like, I can understand him omitting the Giant Squid Monster at the end since it'd be too much for a common movie-going audience to take, but what he chose to replace it with doesn't even begin to make sense as soon as you stop to actually think about the logic of it (or lack thereof, in this case).
Stallone's taking over for Creed 2. (http://www.darkhorizons.com/sylvester-stallone-to-direct-creed-2/)
I gotta admit, this kills my excitement for the film. I'm not a big Rocky fan, but really liked the first one, a big part of which coming down to Cooglar's direction. I'm not sure if I needed to see more of Adonis and Rocky anyway, though, so it's not a big loss for me.
I am a fan of the original Rocky, and the sequels are mostly a guilty pleasure, but Creed was really something special and Ryan Coogler was a big part of that. Without him, I don't see this sequel being anything other than silly (though if it's silly fun like the other Rocky sequels, it may be worth a watch just for the laughs).
In other news I just saw Blade Runner 2049 and I can totally vouch for it being a genuinely great science-fiction film. As I stated earlier, the original Blade Runner is a movie which I respect more than I actually like, but aside from its excellent production design it never did much for me. I am however a fan of Denis Villeneuve, whom I believe to be one of the best, most talented directors working in Hollywood today. He took the basic themes and concepts of the first movie and, IMO crafted a much more compelling story out of it. And if I'm being perfectly honest here, with all due respect to Ridley Scott, I feel as though Villeneuve has a much stronger grasp on how to convey information visually than Scott ever did. In the original Blade Runner there are needlessly drawn out shots that some fans like to claim are layered with meaning, but often times convey all of their information within a few seconds and then linger on just for the sake of seeming artsy. In 2049, just about every single frame of the movie was deliberately timed and I was always picking up something from the visuals up until the last second before a cut. It helped the film mimick the tone and pacing of the original without ever feeling as boring as that film could at times.
What I'm basically trying to say, though, is that this is a great movie that deserves your support in theaters so that people like Villeneuve can have the opportunities to work on more ambitious films such as this one in the future.
Yeah, I've been hearing good things about 2049 from other people who aren't a big fan of the original. I do plan to get to it now that I have MoviePass, but my top priority is The Florida Project.
I've been playing catch-up on this year's releases, and in the past couple of weeks, I've seen-
The Big Sick- Worth it for Holly Hunter and Ray Romano alone. The core relationship material that drives the film is strong as well, but it goes from a solid romcom to a really good when they arrive. That said, it could have been one of the greats if Apatow and co weren't so damn afraid of leaving stuff in the cutting room, since a lot of the standup parts is superfluous.
The Florida Project- This one gets brownie points alone for basically being shot in my backyard. Its limited release here was a big hit for that reason, on top of being a damn fine film. The child actors work well, and there's strong material with Moonee's mother's struggles to keep them sheltered, but Willem Dafoe is the one getting praise for a reason- even besides being the only name, he's given a lot of great stuff to work with, and gives his character a full arc. The ending is definitely going to divide people, and while I was initially turned off, I'm in favor of it now. I don't think it's meant to be taken at face value.
Baby Driver- I finally got to this while on a plane ride during part of my vacation, and I loved it. The acting's strong all around, even though Lily James' character barely gets anything to do, and it's a damn fun action film. I wasn't as into the music as much here surprisingly, but everything else more or less worked for me.
Wonder Woman- Also caught this on a plane, and tbh, I thought it was a little overhyped. My main problems were that I didn't feel the opening material, as I found Hippolyta's refusal to allow Diana to train cliched, and like many, thought the final fight was underwhelming and unnecessary. But credit where credit is due, as I did like the majority of everything in between, primarily Gadot and Pine's chemistry and performances in general. It's a pretty good movie, easily DC's best since TDK, but I don't think it's the end-all, be-all of super hero movies. Logan's definitely still my favorite, but I think that I'd even rank Homecoming above it, as well.
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri- Damn terrific. All the characters, and almost all the jokes land, without undercutting the more serious moments of the film. I could have done without some of the crassness of the dialogue, but I mean, it fits for the location and characters. Easily among my favorites of the year.
Now I need to get to Ragnarok and 2049.
Wonder Woman is a decent flick, but its reputation and perceived quality happens to be bolstered by a phenomenon that I like to refer to as "lowered expectations." It's a competently made DC film, which automatically makes it leagues better than the last several to be released, making more viewers blind to its flaws.
One thing I will say is that both Wonder Woman and Spider-Man: Homecoming stand out to me in how much value both films put on human life. In Wonder Woman you can clearly see that Diana really wants to help people first and foremost rather than fight bad guys just for the sake of it. And in SMH it says a lot that many of the action scenes have less actual content of peter performing cool attacks on villains and more emphasis on him saving lives, including those of the very same villains who he fights. It really didn't strike me until I saw those movies just how unsympathetic the action in a lot of superhero movies could feel until these interpretations of these characters reminded me of what superheroes are supposed to be all about in the first place. With a movie like Logan it makes sense that the main hero is a morally ambiguous guy since that's part of the movie's theme in the first place, but in a movie like Thor Ragnarok, as extremely fun and enjoyable as it was, it does strike me as unintentionally cold of Thor to so casually brush off all of the death and destruction that he witnesses throughout the film, including those of many of his own people.
It would be nice to see more films in the genre follow suit with the examples set by WW and SMH in terms of having their heroes actually have more real superhero moments as opposed to just cool action scenes.
When I really think about it, My Hero Academia works so damn well for that very reason, among others.
Cinefix just did a list of the top five movie sequels: https://youtu.be/EP9rG6XMtQM
It's a really good list and as someone who's seen all five of these movies I feel that they are all well justified being on here. Speaking of which, their last pick in the video is in itself a major spoiler so just be weary of that before watching it.
As for people bitching in the comments section about their favorites not being on the list, people really need to understand that Cinefix doesn't do traditional or conventional lists. They aren't ranking things so much as picking their favorite representative pieces in different categories. The fact that Logan is on the list while The Dark Knight is absent isn't a snub against Nolan like so many idiots seem to believe. If you actually pay attention to the video, they don't mention TDK in Logan's category. It's mentioned in the same category as The Godfather Part II, and in that regard they are saying that while it's worthy of an honorable mention, it's not necessarily the best in its category. Logan belongs to a completely different category and thus is not being directly compared to TDK.
Also, having re-watched their number five pick myself, it totally belongs there. It's by no means a perfect film, but it is legitimately great despite its flaws and I'm saying this as someone who is by no means a particular fan or apologist of the director behind it in question. It's not just the surprise factor or hype train effect. It genuinely holds up upon further viewing, arguably even better than the first time.
I didn't like Split much myself, but I'm not really sure what else could even go in that category anyway, so I'm not sure what there is to complain about with it.
I'll watch later to see if Drunken Master 2 is in there.
Honestly, I'm just surprised that I haven't seen anyone really complaining about The Empire Strikes Back losing out its place to The Two Towers. I mean, I'm personally fine with it since I'm more of a TLOTR guy than a Star Wars guy, myself, but you'd figure if anyone was going to complain about something being excluded, it would be that.
Quote from: Foggle on November 21, 2017, 07:25:55 PMI didn't like Split much myself, but I'm not really sure what else could even go in that category anyway, so I'm not sure what there is to complain about with it.
They gave a few examples in the video, like Rogue One among others, but I suppose one could argue that it also fit in other categories as well. Halloween III would also fit the criteria so a side-quel, and I could think of at least a few other examples that they didn't mention, myself, but most of them are terrible so there isn't much strong competition in that department.
When I stop to think about it, 21 Jump Street would also fit that criteria but couldn't count for a list like this since it's a sequel to a TV series as opposed to an actual film.
As for Split, though, I still stand by the opinion that it's one of the better thrillers that I've seen in a while. And before anyone says anything, Get Out is not a sequel, so there's no point bringing that up.
Leon, or known in America as The Professional.
It is a wonderful film.
Yes it is!
I never really understand what goes on with AFI's lists (https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/afi-top-10-movies-and-tv-shows-of-2017-announced/?cmp=FBRT_AFI_Selections). I don't really know how you could find Wonder Woman better than Logan. I'll admit that Logan gets a little familiar with comic book cliches in the end, but WW is full of them all over, and the more I think about it, its climax is stupid. But at the same time, Patty Jenkins is an AFI alum, so it's not that shocking.
The TV side really confuses me, though. Game of Thrones still ranks? This was not The Americans' best season either, but it's ten times the show GOT has become, and is far more deserving of acclaim. And I still can't jump on the Stranger Things bandwagon. It's just reheated Spielberg and Stephen King cliches with slightly more obnoxious kids.
Wonder Woman is (and I hate to say this, but it's true) a good but flawed movie that's held to a higher pedigree than it truly earns through certain biases (Avaitor already mentioned Patty Jenkins and her position with the AFI) and above all else its status in today's social climate. Essentially it adapts one of America's biggest fictional female icons and role models and by all accounts is the first major Hollywood production to do it well.
It definitely deserves credit for that, and I don't have any desire to deny its importance and potential impact on not just the genre, but the industry.
That said, the apparent blindness that many critics have to its flaws is what baffles me. Much like Nolan's The Dark Knight, this is a movie that will always be regarded as a classic, but I also feel as though time will make its issues all the more clear just like with TDK (which I also still genuinely enjoy, but it's hardly perfect).
That said, I'm honestly fine with the movie being as well-liked as it is. That said, I just want to point out that it bears a lot of similarity to Captain America: The First Avenger, a film which I have a strong personal love for though am not blind to its shortcomings. Even so, it does irk me a bit that people can so easily pick out what they don't like about that film yet leave Wornder Woman untouched by any hint of criticism. That reeks of hypocrisy to me.
QuoteThat said, the apparent blindness that many critics have to its flaws is what baffles me.
I'd say it was their lowered expectations to DC movies after the last 3 that made them praise Wonder Woman more than they should. It has flaws, but they weren't as glaring as Pa Kent telling Clark that he should let kids die, or Bruce going on an insane drive to kill Superman only to stop after finding out his mother shares the same name as his own. And definitely not as bad as the Joker telling one of his henchmen to have sex with Harley, then shooting said henchman when he doesn't want to.
Oh, I'm certainly not denying any of that. I actually like Wonder Woman. It just still has issues, albeit on a much smaller scale than any of its sibling films. I was also relatively impressed going into it with low expectations, but I still saw the dumb bits of writing for what they were all the same.
It was amusing how the insane DCEU fandom that thinks Zack Snyder is a cinematic god and how the negative reception to their movies is all part of some Illuminati-tier conspiracy by Disney became so quiet during Wonder Woman's critical and box office performance.
Quote from: Avaitor on December 12, 2017, 04:07:10 PM
I never really understand what goes on with AFI's lists (https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/afi-top-10-movies-and-tv-shows-of-2017-announced/?cmp=FBRT_AFI_Selections).
Where is Twin Peaks wtf
So a day ago, I realized something: Nobody talks about Uwe Boll anymore. I haven't heard anybody mention Uwe Boll in years, even that retirement announcement of his last year was something I only found out about yesterday. Compared to how people still talk about The Room years after it became a meme, almost all of the other infamous bad movies have seemingly faded away from modern culture. Nobody cares about Gigli, Battlefield Earth, or Baby Geniuses 2 anymore. And it seems like the consensus on legendarily bad movies of all time is in flux.
Oh yeah, I got to see Blade Runner 2049 the other day. It has a lot of what I thought was missing from the original- an actual mystery, an interesting protagonist, impressive visuals, and solid pacing. I know that some people like that the original was more of a mood piece instead of a legit mystery, which is fine, except that I think that its aesthetic sucks, and it's shockingly flat visually.
That said, I think that the film would have been better without Deckard. Which I would have written as a spoiler, except that Harrison Ford is all over the marketing despite not appearing until the last third. Obviously it's his mystery, but I don't think writing him in really added anything. And it still isn't great with women, either.
I also liked Call Me By Your Name, aside from some choppy editing. I can definitely see Timothee Chalamet take the Oscar home.
Glad I'm not the only one who thought Blade Runner wasn't that good. I've never said anything before because I thought I might have been "missing the point"/
I've also said that before on this board (I also said that I personally prefer the original novel). Blade Runner as a film is something that I appreciate on a technical level more than I actually like. Blade Runner 2049, on the other hand, is a superior film in every way from (IMO) a better director than Ridley Scott. I like some of Scott's films, to be sure, but I also have my issues with all of his movies as well.
I'd be lying if I said that Villeneuve has fully won me over with any of his movies, but I do think that Scott is fairly flawed, himself.
I also don't like that he's trying to become the grand vizier of the Alien franchise. Besides personally preferring Aliens, he was hardly the only one who made the original work in the first place, and if Covenant is any indication, I don't think that he's the best voice for it anymore. I'd like to see the franchise continue without him.
I'd say that Sicario and Blade Runner 2049 are genuinely great movies, myself. Arrival is well-made but does suffer a bit from being too overhyped by film snobs. His earlier films tend to be generally good in certain aspects but lacking in others. He's not nearly as great of a director as some people want to make him out to be, but he's shown steady improvement and I could see him eventually earning that status if his films continue to improve as they have been.
That's a fair assessment. I definitely liked 2049 more than I was expecting to. I'm at least curiously excited about his Dune adaptation.
Oscar nominations are in, and this year's Best Picture nominees are:
- Call Me By Your Name
- Darkest Hour
- Dunkirk
- Get Out
- Lady Bird
- Phantom Thread
- The Post
- The Shape of Water
- Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Whoa, I've seen 2/3rds of these before the nominations even came out! I'll admit that I'm not as interested in seeing Darkest Hour, Dunkirk, or The Post, because I don't like Nolan or movies about journalism, and Darkest Hour just doesn't sound all that appealing to me, as much as I like Gary Oldman. I liked everything else that I've seen, though. Phantom Thread might be my favorite overall in terms of enjoyment, but I actually want Three Billboards to win. It's the right kind of messy, and while I understand where its detractors come from, I think it's on the good side, and the movie knows that Dixon's "redemption" is bullshit.
But besides that, Logan earned a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination! Well deserved in my eyes.
Also, the Paddington movies are amazing, and among the best family films ever made.
As someone who got burned out on Nolan's movies post-The Dark Knight, I actually found Dunkirk to be quite a refreshing change of pace for him.
It's cool to see a genre-bending film like Get Out among the nominees, but to be fair every year seems to have at least one oddball pick among its nominees. It has no chance of actually winning, but it's great to at least see it get acknowledged by the Academy.
Part of me was really keeping my fingers crossed that Logan would get a nomination, but as expected, the Academy still has an irritating phobia of giving out any nominations to superhero flicks in any of the major categories (sans Ledger winning one for his Joker performance, which was nearly a decade ago, anyways). It'll probably get nominated for some technical awards at best.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on January 23, 2018, 02:06:43 PM
It's cool to see a genre-bending film like Get Out among the nominees, but to be fair every year seems to have at least one oddball pick among its nominees. It has no chance of actually winning, but it's great to at least see it get acknowledged by the Academy.
It probably won't win, but I think the fact that Get Out was remembered despite being out for almost a year now shows that it's no slouch.
This is an interesting awards season, since there doesn't seem to be anything close to a consensus winner. It's not even like 2 years ago when it was a seemingly three-way tie between Big Short, Revenant, and Spotlight. Three Billboards, Shape of Water (itself a genre film that may have not had a chance before now), and Lady Bird all seem like very real possibilities. I think The Post has a shot too in case these all cancel each other out, given how Oscarbaity it looks, and how much everyone loves everyone involved in it. Get Out and Dunkirk also seem like wild horses, given how well they've been sticking out award season and the high followings both have.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on January 23, 2018, 02:06:43 PM
Part of me was really keeping my fingers crossed that Logan would get a nomination, but as expected, the Academy still has an irritating phobia of giving out any nominations to superhero flicks in any of the major categories (sans Ledger winning one for his Joker performance, which was nearly a decade ago, anyways). It'll probably get nominated for some technical awards at best.
What? Logan was very definitely nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay.
You're right that the Academy is still iffy about giving super hero films major nominations, but this did happen, and it's a big deal IMO.
Oh, did it? My bad, I missed that. Great to see it get a writing nomination in that case, which it really deserves. Still, having seen some of the films nominated for Best Picture myself, I'd argue that Logan is of that caliber. Not as good as say, Three Billboards, but easily on par with the likes of Dunkirk and Get Out, IMO
I ended up seeing The Post on Tuesday night (it was better than I was expecting, but still not a favorite), so I may as well complete the bracket.
I actually thought about seeing Dunkirk after work tomorrow night, since the AMC at Disney Springs brought it back, but now they don't accept MoviePass anymore. I might look up other theaters to see if it they brought it back, since it's not really the kind of movie that I think I should watch here. Living in a house full of autistic people (myself included), some of my roommates are sensitive to hearing, and from what I understand, this is a film where you want to keep the full sound experience.
I finally got around to seeing all nine Best Picture nominees, and I can safely share my rankings.
9- Darkest Hour- A snoozefest that only plays on some of Churchill's faults with a (relative) weight lifted, and almost never directs itself towards his constant xenophobia. I wasn't even impressed by Oldman, who I thought never seemed to find the right tone for Churchill and just relied on a so-so impression. I don't know why this one received so many nominations.
8- The Post- There's a solid feminist story here that I wish Spielberg explored more. Graham has a legitimate arc and method for her madness that sold its best scenes, and Sarah Paulson was also hinting at something more with the little bit she got. If we got less of Ben Bradlee, it might have appealed to me more, but his material did the least for me and I particularly thought that Tom Hanks was poorly casted. I will admit that this had an uphill battle for me to begin with, as journalism movies don't really impress me, and this was no exception. And I still hate the ending.
7- Dunkirk- Part of me regrets not seeing it in 70mm, because when the best material hits, it really soars. But I'm in the camp who doesn't like how much the film lacks character, and found it hard to connect with on the whole. There's enough strong moments where I'm right with it, but not enough for it to fully resonate with me.
6- Lady Bird- I'm just going to come out and say that I don't connect or relate to this one enough. But I'll also admit that it's not for me, and I'm glad that Gerwig made this movie to stand out among other high school movies. It is a little smarter than the lot of them, and I really like how Lucas Hedges' character was handled. And if Lesley Manville didn't get a surprising but deserved nomination, I would be all for Laurie Metcalf taking it.
5- The Shape of Water- I did mostly enjoy this one, but I don't think that I fully bought the hype. My biggest problem with the film is that its attempt at 50's satire feels confused, like it tries to tackle everything all at once despite not being a subject del Toro relates to enough to make it work. That, and the Michael Shannon character has been done much better with Videl. But credit where credit is due, in that this finds a strong human core in an otherworldly plot. It's not my personal favorite, but I do like the idea of it winning BP since it's so unlike usual winners.
4- Call Me By Your Name- While the age gap is definitely notable and creepy, I felt that Elio was mature and capable enough for his age to be in command of the relationship, while Oliver wisely keeps enough distance to know their place. I really enjoyed watching it through, and of course, the ending is everything. Honestly though, it just makes me want to go to Italy even more.
3- Get Out- Even though I stand by its ranking here, I do want this to win just to blow minds. A fantastic horror movie that uses satire and symbolism brilliantly, I'm on the camp who thinks this is the start of something new.
2- Phantom Thread- This makes up for Inherent Vice being a confusing, if entertaining, work of bullshit. It has three of the best performances of the year, as well as some of the sharpest dialogue. I think that I enjoyed this more than any movie from last year, all things considered
1- Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri- Yes, it's a mess. The few POC characters are treated poorly, McDonagh is a little glib with his word choice, and the ending seems confused. At the end of the day, I think this needed another draft or two, and maybe some work with the lighting. But this might just be the right kind of messy we need right now. The characters are incredibly well defined as well as complimented by their actors. And at its best, the dialogue and pacing deserves the Oscar its probably going to win. The backlash hit this one strong, but I'm in its favor.
But away from the Academy, I finally saw John Wick, and it totally deserves its hype. Chapter 2 went right up to my queue.
I've only managed to see three nominees this year, but I do agree with you about Three Billboards being the best (I even liked it enough to buy the blu-ray). I'd also argue that not adhering to a rigid three-act structure is one of its strengths.
Quote from: Avaitor on March 02, 2018, 01:11:31 AMBut away from the Academy, I finally saw John Wick, and it totally deserves its hype. Chapter 2 went right up to my queue.
The only sentence that matters. :thumbup:
This is the first year I've seen all Best Picture nominees before the Oscars myself. I generally agree with most of your assessments Avaitor, with some exceptions. Here's my rankings:
9: Darkest Hour - A sanitized depiction of history that tries to characterize Churchill as a heroic figure who refused to surrender to the Nazis on moral grounds when in reality Churchill was a white supremacist who committed horrific war crimes, delighted in genocide, and desired ethnic cleansing. The scene where Churchill was treating a black citizen on the train respectfully makes my skin crawl for the whitewashing of his racism. I do think Gary Oldman was good in the role, but this is historical revisionism at its most irresponsibly propagandistic and I loathe its attempts to depict a monster as a hero.
8: The Post - A mastubatory look at how great The Post was for standing up to the big bad government in the name of justice. Oh wow Hollywood you're soooo relevant. Too bad the film doesn't have anything interesting to say about fighting censorship. No matter how the movie tries to imply otherwise, The Washington Post doesn't really break the story because its the right thing to do but because it'd be an eye-grabbing headline to make people buy the paper and increase their notoriety. The story is still interesting, but I never connected with Graham's arc, and what should've been a strong feminist story is instead merely her being pressured to make a decision in the heat of a moment, not for justice or moral reasons, but as a do-or-die risk for her company, which is fine but hard to sympathize with considering she's so wealthy and well-connected it's hard to imagine she couldn't have survived just fine even if the Washington Post had to shut down. That and Tom Hanks had way more screentime than her that she didn't even feel like the main character of the film. I found the ending hilariously cartoonish and honestly do hope a make a sequel about Watergate just to pay off on it.
7: Dunkirk - Never saw it in IMAX so I missed out on the "proper" way to experience it, but I still can't imagine I'd connect with it anymore considering how devoid of characters it is. It's an interestingly made film and the sound mixing is really effective, but since I wasn't invested in most of the characters and didn't even know their names most of the time it was hard to latch on to anything that happened. Tom Hardy's plotline was probably the most interesting and I have to wonder if it might've been better if the entire film was about film.
6: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri - I understand why people like it, but I just don't think it handles its themes or messages well at all. It is often funny and refreshingly raw and I do think there is something good in there about its messages about guilt, grief, and closure. But Dixon's arc, while well-intentioned, infuriated me for trying to take a monster of a person and try to present him as having redeemed himself at the end. The forced way they tried to do it, having the two black people in the movie witness him trying to do the right thing and come to his aid, as if that has forgiven him for his racism and brutalizing an eight year old boy, is such a hackneyed way to try and show he's redeemed himself when in reality he's done nothing to apologize or make amends for what he had done to the black community in Ebbing. Considering how prevalent racist cops are and the horrible tragedies that result when they abuse their power, it doesn't sit right with me that the movie tries to say he's a good person for helping to solve the murder case when he's still a racist and implied murderer of black folks himself.
5: Get Out - Really fun and smart take on racism in the guise of a horror story, especially how it depicts the supposedly well-meaning types of racists and the uncomfortable situations and prejudices that black folks have to deal with every day. Really funny and creepy story grounded in something very real, making for a solid modern horror flick that I really enjoyed all around.
4: Lady Bird - Unlike Avaitor, I really connected with Lady Bird's experiences and definitely saw a lot of myself at that age in her. Her dynamic with her parents is great, especially when she realizes how ignorant she's been of their problems and how she's made them feel, which also hit close to home. The subplot with her becoming friends with the rich kids is pretty cliche and the lamest part of the movie, but it's done as well as you can do with those tropes. What really sticks with me about the film is the ending, when she moves to New York for school and is all alone for the first time and does a bunch of irresponsible things and just doesn't know what she should be doing anymore, realizing just how much she loved the home and family she took for granted all her life. As someone who went through that exact arc in their own life...yeah, that hit home pretty hard.
3: Call Me By Your Name - Beautifully shot film where every scene expressed such a powerful emotion it totally immersed me, even when it was being slow. The age-gap is honestly important if only to emphasize that Elio is still a child and this is him first exploring things he's not maturely able to deal with yet. The relationship between Elio and Oliver is as fascinating as it is tragic, and both the scene where Elio's father tells him he should treasure how strongly he loved Oliver and of course the final scene where he quietly cries over the end credits really affected me emotionally.
2: Phantom Thread - A fascinating character study that depicts a disturbing, unusual love story in a really gripping way. This was probably the movie that most surprised me this year, as I could never predict where it was going or had a firm grip on what its characters were thinking right up until the very end.
1: The Shape of Water - The film that captivated me the most out of all the Oscar nominees. Loved its aesthetic and 50s nostalgia. The main heroine is really interesting to watch as a mute woman who can only communicate through gestures and the way she befriends and falls in love with the creature is fascinating to watch, and I totally love how the movie depicts female sexuality and presents her relationship with the creature through a female gaze - as in, she's the one who is sexualizing and desiring him as opposed to the other way around. I also found its criticism of toxic masculinty being masked as traditional all-american values and how destructive and oppressive that is really satisfying. It's no coincidence that the protagonists of this movie are a mute woman, a gay man, a black woman, and a monster from another country and the villain thinks of himself as the all-american white man (and who, of course, is the real monster of the film).
While I enjoyed most of this year's BP nominees, none of them are actually in my top 10 for this year, which is probably to be expected considering my tastes. Though I really wish I, Tonya got a BP nomination more than any of the bottom half of this list in particular.
I haven't bothered to try and watch every Best Picture nominee in a year since 2014 when I ended up being nearly bored to death by half of the picks, and after a boring-ass Oscar-bait flick like Spotlight won the next year, I almost completely stopped putting stock in the Academy's picks.
As for Dunkirk, the reason I view it differently from the both of you is because to me, film as a medium does not have to he limited to the common narrative tropes of story-telling that we often project on it. Dunkirk was intentionally made to give you no backstory on characters, and little dialogue, instead opting to present the conflict of various characters and who they are specifically in those key defining moments of life or death. While I do agree with YMS's thoughts that this film would likely work better as a series of short films as opposed to Nolan's ususal non-linear narrative, the actual strength of the technical film-making on display here is nothing short of masterful, IMO.
As for Three Billboards:
Spoiler
While I'm all for open interpretations on film in general, I really don't see eye-to-eye with Lum on Dixon's arc, not so much on the fact that he's a terrible person, but on what the arc itself actually means. You see, as someone who is a sucker for good redemption arcs, I can tell you that from my point of view, Dixon definitively does NOT undergo a redemptive arc, or rather, he undergoes the deconstruction of one. Dixon IS a terrible person, as the film makes a clear point of, and by the end of it, he still isn't really a better person. If the film actually wanted you to identify him as a better person by the end, it wouldn't feature him ending his story going off to murder a guy in cold-blood who may or may not be a rapist (of which he has no proof for).
To bring up your point about the two black people witnessing his beating, I never interpreted it as a way to redeem him as a racist for two reasons: one being that his goal doesn't have anything to do with race in that scene, but that he's trying to get that guy's DNA to submit towards Angie's case; the other reason being there's no way that he could have planned for their to be black witnesses there, but rather the point of them being there and witnessing his beating is a case of role reversal in which he is the one who is subject to violence (of which he brought upon himself) emphasizing the hypocrisy of his outlook on the black community.
To further signify that this is not a redemptive arc, though, we learn shortly after this that the guy he pegged is in fact not the same guy who raped and murdered Angie. He effectively accomplishes nothing by his actions, which the film makes a point of, and his response is to go and murder that man anyways because he thinks that will make him in the right all the same. You see, a key staple of a redemption arc is that the character in question has to come face to face with who they were on the past and show regret for it and a willingness to better themselves. The reason I call this a deconstruction of a redemptive arc is because a clear point is made of Dixon not undergoing those meaningful reflective beats that define such a narrative, but rather that he thinks he's being a better person. Him apologizing to Red (the man that he brutally beat) is the closest he comes as he does genuinely show regret for his actions there, but it doesn't mean that he has redeemed himself or that the film paints him in any more of a positive light simply for doing just that.
If you were to ask me, his arc fits in to reinforce the key theme of the film, which is a study of how people do terrible and destructive things yet believe themselves to be in the right or have good reasons for doing what they do. It rinds me of something that I once heard in a George R. R. Martin interview in that he believes there to be plenty of bad people in the world, but does not believe that any one person ever wakes up in the morning telling themselves "well, I can't wait to be evil today." Three Billboards is a film about people who believe they are in the right despite their actions constantly having negative repercussions. Mildred isn't depicted as a heroine either, as other films might opt to do. She puts up those billboards as a way to achieve some form of justice for her daughter's murder (who we specifically see and learn was being driven away by her mother's behavior even before it happened) while in doing so ignores how her behavior affects her son who is also still grieving and only suffers more for her actions. She's just as broken and destructive as Dixon despite being on the opposing side of the conflict (another way of saying that no one is in the right in this film), which is symbolized by them driving off together at the end. They are both literally and figuratively riding the same path (which again, will most likely end in violence given their destination; but the film tactfully chooses to leave that last part open and undecided). This is reinforced by the "three" letters that Chief Willoughby has sent after his suicide: One to his wife justifying his act yet we still see the negative effect it has on her despite his "good" intentions, a second being sent to Mildred ultimately acknowledging why she puts up those billboards and expressing that he hopes she will find peace even though he knows full well that the billboards will only worsen her problems, and a third being sent to Dixon saying that he sees the good in him but also that he will never live up to it if he is fixated on his hatred that festered after his mother was left to raise him once his father died (and he still hasn't overcome this by the end of the film, as I've already pointed out).
At any rate, that's just my two cents on the whole thing. Whereas I can understand your interpretation of the movie and what it means,
I personally never saw it that way myself. To me, it's a lot more complex and morally grey than "Dixon's a bad guy but it's all OK by the end because he's good now." To me, his character arc, along with Mildred's, is about trying to do what you think is right despite all outward signs showing you that it isn't. And especially in Dixon's case, he's perhaps attempting to have a redemptive arc, but ultimately he fails at it, and the movie is making that a focal point. It does allow you to sympathize with him in some regard, which may bother you since being a racist and biggoted monster should mean that you can only have bad intentions, but I see it as the filmmaker saying that even terrible people are still human beings and thus we are left with far less clear-cut good or evil characters. Chief Willoughby is probably the closest we come to seeing someone who may be depicted as being morally in the right, but as I've also stated, a point is made that even one of his decisions is brought into question in the narrative.
Obviously, though, it all comes down to opinions. So just take that for what you will.
I agree
Dunkirk is a really well-made film with incredible cinematography and excellent editing, and is arguably groundbreaking in how it chooses to depict war and how viscerally it communicates the feeling of being in various types of life-or-death situations. There's a lot I can respect about it, but as entertainment, it didn't click with me on an emotional level because I never cared about the characters. That wasn't its priority, so the film still did what it wanted to do really well, but it just wasn't an experience that stuck with me.
As for
Three Billboards:
Spoiler
I understand where you're coming from in your interpretation of Dixon's arc in Three Billboards, but I don't think the movie was intentionally deconstructing the idea of redemption arc. If they were, they handled it clumsily. Many people that I've seen praise the movie and Dixon as a character have framed it as a straightforward redemption arc, and while they may have misinterpreted it as something it was not, when that seems to be the prevailing perspective on the character from audiences I do think the movie is at fault for poorly communicating its message.
Dixon never tries to redeem himself for his racism, yes. But I think the filmmakers intentionally chose to have two of its few black characters in the movie witness him trying to solve Angie's murder case and get beat for it for an explicit purpose. To me, that came across as a way to say that he's redeeming himself by having the people who most detested him see him doing a good thing and come to his aid after the beating. If the point was to communicate a role reversal and emphasize the hypocrisy of his violence, they needed to be more explicit by making the parallels clear or having characters directly comment on it in that manner.
The comments you've made about how Dixon's arc doesn't line up with a traditional redemption arc and doesn't go through meaningful reflective beats are valid, but that comes across to me as poor writing rather than purposefully done. The film does make it explicitly clear that none of its characters are good people and that they are no heroes in this story, and I like that aspect of it, but it still came across like Dixon was redeeming himself in his actions by helping Mildred and the other characters too easily accepted and were uncritical of that. If Dixon's redemption was supposed to be hypocritical and half-assed, I think the film needed to do a better job at calling him out on that instead of making him more sympathetic in the eyes of both the audience and the other characters in the film.
I've never believed in black-and-white morality and love morally gray stories and characters. And I was loving Three Billboards for the first 2/3rds of its run for that very reason, for showing these characters who thought they were doing the right thing but ignoring the destructive effects their actions had on the people around them. There were no heroes, no villains, and no resolutions - just an unsatisfying cycle of violence and misery for everybody involved. I really wanted to love the movie because of that. But the way it handled Dixon's arc and themes of racism don't still well with me because this movie doesn't exist in a vacuum. Racist cops getting away with horrible violence and murder is a systemic problem with many victims. Did the perpetrators of those crimes think they were good people? Did they do good things in their life? Perhaps. But that doesn't excuse what they did, the system that conspires to keep them from being punished for it, and is certainly no relief to their victims. Dixon is a fictional character, but he represents a very real kind of person who commits very real crimes with very real victims, and that needed to be addressed more directly without any room for misinterpretation. I don't think the movie challenges his hypocracies enough to show that he's still a bad person in the eyes of his community and the audience. Yes, he and Mildred are going off to murder a man at the end of the film, and while I do feel like the movie is presenting that as pointless act of violence that will only perpetuate the cycle, it's hard to gauge if that really registers as a bad thing in the minds of audiences raised on films where people are presented as heroic for killing bad guys. I have a problem with the film not being critical enough of Dixon nor being explicit enough in emphasizing he's a bad person and his redemption arc is bullshit, to the point that I have trouble trusting that they weren't playing it straight. If McDonagh comes out and says that was his intent, that's great, but even then I still think they executed it poorly considering how many people have interpreted Dixon's arc as a straightfoward redemption.
And E-K, your implication that I think that a "racist and biggoted monster should mean that you can only have bad intentions" is insulting. I believe all people are nuanced and informed by their experiences, have their own moral code and sense of justice, and are equally capable of doing good and evil things in their lives. However, as a victim of someone like Officer Dixon in real life, I want to see that sort of character depicted in a way that explicitly makes audiences understand that he cannot be forgiven for what he did and that his redemption is bullshit. That did not come across to me, and it doesn't seem to have come across to most people I've seen embrace the film. And that makes me uncomfortable and rightfully upset when Dixon reflects a real-world problem with daily victims.
Dunkirk:
Well, I think we can both agree that this one comes down to a: "either it works for you or it doesn't" sort of deal. So yeah, I do get your viewpoint, but just feel differently myself.
Though, can we also at least agree that:
Dunkirk Nolan (almost no exposition and heavy reliance on the language of film) > Interstellar Nolan ("Love is quantifiable" and I'm going to force-feed the themes of my film down your throat)
Three Billboards:
Spoiler
-That's not the prevailing interpretation though. I've seen other people that interpret the film this way as well (I can't remember if it was YMS or some other internet critic that did a short piece on it; maybe I'll try to find it later). The film isn't even that old yet, so I'm not quite sure how any given consensus could have formed and be the prevailing interpretation of it as of yet. Not that my own interpretation was influenced by any one else's, however I've always detested the argument: "well if other people interpret it this way then that means it's not well done." (To be clear I'm referring to the argument in question, not you). On the contrary, many classic films have been wildly misinterpreted when they first came out only for those stances to change over time. Go look up some of the old reviews for 2001: A Space Odyssey from when it came out compared to more recently to see my point on that.
-Two problems with your stance on the two black witnesses being about his redemption: 1) When you mention them witnessing him doing a good deed by trying to collect evidence, they don't actually know what he's doing. They are seeing the scene out of context. All they saw was him scratch a guy and get beaten for it. We are specifically shown that his motive was to collect DNA in the scene AFTER this one. The guy trying to stop the fight is just trying to break up the violence. Secondly, you mentioned that the only way to make the role reversal clear was to have characters specifically comment on it, but part of good filmmaking is in being able to communicate ideas without the need for blatant exposition. Also the fact that the film doesn't have black characters outright comment on Dixon's actions kind of supports the point that he is not being portrayed as a redeemed man in their eyes. The film DOES address his stance towards people of color to an extent in the scene where Dixon himself savagely beats Red while having an African American witness, the new chief officer (though of course that isn't revealed at the time). What's particularly clever about this, though, is in how it's not a mere case of him beating up a black person and then being beaten by a person of color later on (it's also made a point that we don't see this ever happen in the movie). Rather, in both cases he treats clear witnesses, all of whom are African American, like they aren't really there or real people while being the oppressor of violence in one case and the receiver in another.
-Third Paragraph: It's not poorly written. The film sets up expectations of Dixon to redeem himself but instead has him make multiple attempts which don't lead his character in a clear cut direction of fully good or bad. That's what makes it a deconstruction, in that it takes the principles of what we identify as a redemption arc but applies a more real-world logic to the formula which ends up going against most of its tropes. These points are then backed up with various scenes that play out as motifs, some of which I've already talked about. Again, it's fine if you and others choose to interpret it differently, but I've pointed out and cited specific examples from the film in which the themes and narrative both make sense and line up. So no, I don't consider that poor writing, myself.
-As for your fourth paragraph, that just goes more into the interpretation of the film. While I agree with everything you said regarding real world racism, there isn't a point in me responding to that since clearly the main point of debate here is whether the film handled these themes well or not, which is what I've addressed my side of the argument on in my other responses.
-Last paragraph: Firstly, chill out. I figured that you'd know me well enough by now to know that I would never intentionally try to insult you or your viewpoint on anything. Granted, if it came off that way, then I sincerely apologize as that wasn't my intention. I wouldn't have responded to your point in the first place if I didn't find any value in your opinion or stance on the movie.
Again, where you call the redemption of Dixon bull-shit, while I agree that his redemption would be bull-shit, as we've already discussed at length, I never interpreted his arc as achieving redemption, myself, and I don't really intend to keep at arguing that point more than I already have. At this point, it's based on each of our own personal viewpoints. While I can respect yours, mine is ultimately different.
I am sorry to hear that you've had to deal with real-life racism before. While I myself was lucky enough to not have been subjected to anything more than the school bullying level (which sucked, but that's something that I got over when I got older), I do have stories from my father about the way he was treated by some people when he first came over to America, so it is still an issue that I take very seriously. Granted, the elders in my family have always been very religious, and as a result I was raised to not hold onto feelings of hatred or animosity no matter what. That ISN'T to say that I believe anyone should just be forgiven for anything, especially acts of racism and brutality. In the case of a character like Dixon, though, he's explicitly not "forgiven" for his racism. He doesn't conveniently get his job back or have his life set in order for his actions. Mildred forgives him for something unrelated to his racism, but that's someone just as messed up and broken as he is.
Though, on the subject of Three Billboards, I'm curious to here Avaitor's stance on its themes and how it conveys them, being that he's the only person besides me on this board who liked it.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on March 02, 2018, 03:42:33 PM
Though, can we also at least agree that:
Dunkirk Nolan (almost no exposition and heavy reliance on the language of film) > Interstellar Nolan ("Love is quantifiable" and I'm going to force-feed the themes of my film down your throat)
EASILY. :D
Your defense of Dixon's arc in Three Billboards is strong, and it fits in line with what the rest of the movie was doing narratively and thematically. It didn't come across to me that way when I watched the film, and the people I talked to and critics I saw talk about whose perspectives tend to line up with mine like Brad Jones and Mumkey Jones praised Dixon's arc as a redemption arc and not a deconstruction of one, so today was the first time I've heard that argument. Your evidence for the case makes sense, so I would like to rewatch the film sometime to see if I can see it that way. I have seen the film be embraced and misinterpreted by unsavory people, which I do find uncomfortable and dangerous, but I'm willing to give the film the benefit of the doubt that it's criticizing those people and not validating them. I legitimately really enjoyed the movie right up until the aftermath of Dixon's interrogation of the rapist, so I do want to give it more credit when it comes to how it handles racial violence and police corruption, which are problems I feel very strongly about.
And I'm sorry for misinterpreting that comment - I should've given you more credit to not talk down to me considering how many passionate and lengthy conversations we've had in the past. :sweat:
No problems man. It's always good to have little debates like this from time to time. ;)
While I am aware that your interpretation of what the film is saying is shared by many (and I'm definitely not saying that it's invalid by any means), I also feel that it's left open enough to not be definitive to any one viewpoint, which is something that I love about fiction in general. I mean, unless McDonagh comes out and says otherwise, in which case I suppose I'd look like quite the fool, wouldn't I? :sweat:
Keep in mind, though, I coincidentally happened to re-watch the film last night, so I had a second viewing and more refined memory of it along with more time to ponder my thoughts of it. While I can't guarantee that a second viewing would at all he able to change your stance on it, I am really impressed with how open-minded you are to even be willing to reconsider it in the first place. Whatever your thoughts are, though, it is great to discuss this sort of stuff with you whenever you drop by, just like we used to do more frequently a couple of years ago when we both had more free time on our hands (though in my case it was more because I was a lazy bum who couldn't find a job). :D
So, interestingly enough The Shape of Water is the Oscar-contender that I wanted to see the most but never got a chance to because of an abrupt change in plans in my schedule (and also because the only nearby theater wasn't actually playing it like I thought it would).
That said, I'll definitely catch it when it comes out on Blu-Ray, but I'm really glad to hear that Guillermo Del Toro finally got his due and won best Director and Best Picture for this. Granted, I feel that he deserved that way back for Pan's Labyrinth, but I'm still glad that he got it all the same.
What I've always admired about Del Toro most is that he puts passion into whatever he's making and commits to the feel of that film without any pretentious mentality to go with it (unlike a certain colleague of his). He's the same type of guy who can do an Oscar-caliber film while also giving us a fun Summer Blockbuster tribute to mecha anime and Kaiju films with Pacific Rim or really unique and entertaining comic book movies such as Blade II or the Hellboy films. Come to think of it, he's about the only director I can think of who wasn't afraid to let his comic book movies be as weird as they could be back when most of Hollywood was trying to scale back on the less grounded elements of reality in their comic book adaptations. I've always respected him for that, and the diversity of projects that he has taken on in general.
I was going to share my thoughts on the Dixon arc, but I think EK addressed a lot of it better than I could. That said, I do think Three Billboards is due for a rewatch on my end regardless. I was able to catch it a bit before the backlash, and I want to see how I think of it now after seeing a bunch of solid arguments on both ends.
As for Shape of Water, I have to admit that I like its win more for being a sci-fi victory than out of my own personal enjoyment of the film. Although while I'd also say that I'm not a huge del Toro fan, I have nothing but respect for his scope and love of film and storytelling all across the board. This is one of his better works to me, and it's a triumphant love story, even if it's not among my personal favorites of the year.
So, after seeing Annihilation and taking some time to consider it, I think it's safe for me to say that Alex Garland is a competent but incredibly overhyped filmmaker. Just like Ex Machina, the concepts and ideas tackled by this film are incredibly interesting (the kind of stuff that high-concept Sci-Fi thrives on) but the execution is utterly boring aside from a few standout scenes.
Whereas films like Snowpiercer or Blade Runner 2049 can tackle similarly interesting themes while also being engaging movies to just watch unfold on a surface level, Garland's films feel so up their own ass in trying to appear smart and intelligent and insightful at every scene that the characters and story feel secondary to whatever message the movie itself is trying to preach, which is never a good thing.
The bear scene was pretty brutal in an awesome way, though. Probably the only part in the entire film that actually got any kind of genuine response out of me throughout my entire viewing experience with it.
I love Alex Garland, I think his movies are incredibly engaging personally, both the ones he directs and the ones he simply writes. I watched Sunshine for the first time a few days ago and it was awesome, I also felt like Ex Machina was one of the best films of 2015 and got snubbed at the Oscars. I haven't seen Blade Runner 2049 yet (or Annihilation, for that matter), but I would actually say exactly what you said about him but about Denis Villeneuve. His movies are incredibly impressive in a lot of ways but I find them uninteresting and hard to get through.
I'll agree on Villeneuve's earlier films (especially Prisoner), but I honestly feel that he has improved his craft over time. My problem with Ex Machina is that it's incredibly boring on a re-watch and from a story-telling perspective I just don't feel like it handled it's subject matter in a way that other filmmakers couldn't do better.
I'll say that while movies like Arrival and Blade Runner 2049 aren't going to be for everyone (especially Arrival), they managed to work for me both on a surface level and on a subtextual one a lot more than Ex Machina did for me, personally.
Obviously, no disrespect intended to you on your stance, though. Keep in mind that I'm in the minority on my opinion, here (though, Annihilation's reception is a tad more mixed in general as opposed to Ex Machina which was unanimously praised). Most people would agree with you about Alex Garland. I'm just the oddball in this case. ;)
I definitely need to check out Arrival and Blade Runner, as well as Denis' French movies. His earlier English films don't really do it for me (though they certainly aren't bad, particularly Sicario which I respect despite not liking so much) but he's a very talented filmmaker. I can't say much about Garland's directing style since everything he worked on before Ex Machina was only written by him, but I did really like how that film was done. I have only seen it once, though.
I've only seen Ex Machina once, but I'm with EK in that it didn't do much for me. I'm not very familiar with Garland beyond that, however, but I'm willing to give Annihilation a shot.
Oh hey, according to Karl Urban, Alex Garland was the actual director of 2012's Dredd (http://collider.com/alex-garland-directed-dredd-says-karl-urban/) (and, of course, he wrote the script for it). So this proves that he definitely has range outside of the slow-paced sci-fi horror niche, even when directing!
Granted Garland did co-write it with two other writers (though he gets the main screenplay credit), which is probably why the dialogue feels different than from his other films, but yeah, he did write for Dredd. Him being an uncredited director is news to me, though. I wonder how and why he would not be credited for that if it is indeed true. Seems like that should be illegal or something unless he specifically asked to not be credited or unofficially ghost directed most of the film.
At any rate, I do love Dredd, but seeing as how it's more in the action department, maybe I just may prefer Garland's take on that genre over the more slow-paced Sci-Fi stuff that he's done.
On that note, the gunfights in Dredd were brutal and intense. The best scene in Annihilation was a brutal and intense horror movie-seque scene in which a mutated bear attacked the characters in a dimly lit house in the middle of the night. So if Garland can handle action, brutal violence/gore, and horror, where am I going with this? Well, maybe let him try his hand at an Alien movie? I mean, at this point the series has more bad movies than good ones, so who gives a fuck anymore if the next one turns out shit since it's expected. But if he does make a good one maybe it'll win me over. At any rate, I doubt it could turn out any worse than Covenant. Seriously Scott, what was going through your head when you were making that?
Quotewhat was going through your head when you were making that?
I still don't know why the Xenomorphs were planting wheat.
Anyway, I haven't seen Annihilation yet, but all the "this movie would be a success if it weren't for all the dimwitted audiences binging on mainstream schlock" talk I hear from Twitter and RLM are turning me off. It's like an inverse recommendation, a buzzkill, and goes back to what EK said about uppity asshats who act like popular genre films are killing cinema.
You guys remember when the first Pacific Rim came out, and fans invented a "Mako Mori Test" for female characters in film? Because whoever made that test is gonna be pissed off at the sequel.
As someone who unabashedly loves the first movie, Pacific Rim: Uprising somehow managed to live up to literally ALL of my worst fears. Regardless of whether you cared for the original or not, it's clearly a self-aware and passionate love-letter to Mecha and Kaiju, while still also managing to keep its own unique identity throughout. Uprising is about as cynical of a Hollywood cash-grab sequel as you can get. None of the care and attention that the first movie received is present here. It's like they took that movie, looked at how much more money Transformers was making, and decided to just try and make that instead at the cost of everything the original movie did to build its own identity and distinguish itself from anything else.
John Wick 2 is even better than the first, holy shit. While the bathhouse scene in the first wasn't really topped, there's just one great set piece after another, and I couldn't draw my eyes away from it. Cannot wait for the third!
You know, I still flip-flop back and forth between which one I prefer, but overall both of these movies are bar none the best American-made action films of the decade so far. I'd be inclined to argue that it can indeed hold its own against top notch modern Asian action franchises like The Raid series (which I'm also a big fan of).
I like 1 more. Both are great though. The only two movies in the same series I like almost equally is Drunken Master 1 and 2, afaik.
So, I just saw Hereditary and it may just be the most emotionally disturbing film that I've seen in quite a while (and I mean that in a good way). Just a heads up that this isn't anything like the type of horror film that the trailers make it out to be. It's a slow-burn family drama first with horror elements that don't really kick into gear until the final act. That said the entire experience was effectively uncomfortable and unsettling for me.
It's definitely not going to be for everybody, but I'd recommend it if stuff like this is more up your alley. If I had to compare it to anything I'd say that it's similar in tone and pacing to a movie like The Witch from a few years ago.
Mission Impossible: Fallout was pretty good. I still prefer Ghost Protocol, but this was about on par with Rogue Nation for me. The plot doesn't make a lick of sense if you actually stop to think about any of it, but these were always action movies that you watch for elaborate and intense set pieces first and foremost, and it delivers on that front.
Oh yeah, I finally got around to seeing all of the Mission: Impossible movies, including Fallout. Here's my rankings.
1- MI- Fallout- As exciting as a modern blockbuster can be, with one great set piece after another. Bringing McQuarrie back was a great call, as his experience with the franchise helps to make the film feel as confident. I also like the nods to past films in the franchise. This is probably the least newbie friendly of them all, but there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not sure if it's really the next Fury Road that many are calling it, but I enjoyed just about every moment.
2- MI- Ghost Protocol- Brad Bird proving his sense of great timing for action can translate just as well to live-action as his animated works. Jeremy Renner was a good addition to the cast, while Benji gets more to do and becomes more likable after only being mildly entertaining in III. And that Burj Khalifa sequence gives me chills.
3- MI- Rogue Nation- Maybe equal to Protocol? It's worth a rewatch for me to decide, but on my initial thoughts, GP feels more fresh. But that opera sequence. Rebecca Ferguson was also a terrific addition, and helped to make the crew feel whole. Really solid stuff.
4- Mission: Impossible- It's definitely a classic, but I'd be lying if I said that I was expecting to love the franchise after seeing this one. The story's pretty eh, aside from a cool opening twist, the dialogue feels quite robotic, and I don't think the train sequence really holds up. The wire sequence absolutely does, though, and really helps to set the ball rolling. Sometimes all you need is that one great scene to set up something special.
5- MI III- Philip Seymour Hoffman is amazing in this film. He pulls off the rare kind of villainous performance where sounding kind of bored isn't at all a deterrent. I also give it credit for introducing Simon Pegg as Benji, who really helps to add some joy to the series. But maybe I'm biased, but I'm just not a fan of Abrams' mystery box bullshit, which is totally prevalent here, as well as his absolute lack of artistic style. Also, Keri Russell is totally wasted. There's enough good here for me to give it a pass, but just that.
6- MI II- Damn John Woo, what happened? I don't come into these movies for great stories, but there's not even an attempt here, and somehow he doesn't even make the action all that exciting. If nothing else, it feels very much like what it is- a dumb turn of the century action movie.
I'm interested in investing in the box set and rewatching some of these (I'll probably ask for Fallout for Christmas to keep up), but I also just bought the Planet of the Apes set, so I should hold off.
Oh, and I also saw Ant-Man and the Wasp, which is pretty enjoyable, but no classic. I feel the same way about it as I do the first, which is a good way to kill an evening, but is hardly among the best the MCU has to offer. I'd argue that it feels like more of a movie than Infinity War, which almost comes off as a highlight reel in hindsight, but I probably do enjoy that one more. Black Panther is their true winner this year.
Oh, and I also got to see Teen Titans Go to the Movies, which is surprisingly sharp and enjoyable. Moreso than I'd expect from the series, but I feel like the critics are right about it. There's a lot of good jokes about the state of DC and comic book movies in general here, even a couple of Marvel shots, not to mention tons of references to the characters. It works best when it goes for the jokes as opposed to trying to be a traditional movie, and it could have been a little shorter, but that's to be expected.
My MI list would mostly be the same as yours except with Ghost Protocol in my top spot. I think we can both agree though that the second trilogy is actually an all-around improvement over the first.
After re-watching Infinity War multiple times, I'd argue that it feels like more than just a highlight reel. I still really dig Black Panther, but now that the hype has died down I can definitely see some of its flaws. Infinity War has its own share as well but if I'm to be honest it's easily the MCU winner this year for me. Everyone gets so caught up in how it not being standalone makes it inherently inferior in some way but to me that doesn't sit well because that would be like saying any culmination movie is inferior to something standalone, but The Return of the King and War for the Planer of the Apes are some of my favorite blockbusters and neither of those are standalone.
To be fair, I do have more interest in rewatching Infinity War than Black Panther, so it has that going for it. Maybe another viewing will raise it higher for me.
I read the plot twist of the new Predator movie and can't stop laughing.
Yeah, it's honestly quite dumb, but I did still kind of like The Predator. It at least knows it's worth more than Alien: Covenant. Although I can't really defend the twist.
The Predator is an odd-one. It knows it's bad and just kind of plays up to that. The end result is a semi-enjoyable movie, which I could normally just kind of accept, but then why did Shane Black even agree to do this project if he didn't think that he could turn out a good product? Like, he has two solid crime thrillers under his belt with his directorial credits, as well as several successful screenplays, with the Lethal Weapon franchise being the most notable among them. And I'll even throw Iron Man 3 a bit of pity here and say that I didn't really mind the Mandarin twist and found the overall movie to be dumb fun for what it was. If nothing else, no one of his previous movies ever made me feel like he wasn't at least trying, so why'd he just give up with this one?
That's fair, and I'm curious about it too.
Hell, apparently even Arnold thought the script was crap, since he turned down reprising Dutch for the ending.
Venom in a nutshell:
-It feels like a lost early 2000's superhero script that some Sony executive just happened to stumble across while cleaning his office and decided to turn into a movie.
-It's not good, but it's not AS terrible as the reviews would have you believe. This isn't Fant4stic or even BvS or Suicide Squad levels of terrible....which is kind of disappointing, in a way, since I feel as though a complete trainwreck would have been way more fun for me.
-Much like The Predator, this movie also seems to be somewhat self-aware that it's bad, so it tends to play up the humor a lot more than I expected based on the trailers, but also just like The Predator, while it softens the blow, it doesn't really give it an excuse for being bad.
-Tom Hardy was fine for what he was given, but it seems like such a waste of one of Hollywood's most talented actors in today's industry. Most of the other actors range in performance quality from forgettable to downright cringe-worthy. I've seen plenty of instances that prove that Riz Ahmed can be an incredibly good actor, but his performance in this movie was just embarrassing.
-There are a lot of action scenes in this movie that honestly feel like they were designed and intended with an R-rating in mind, but had to be heavily censored when Sony decided to chicken out and go for a family-friendly PG-13 rating. It actually really bothered me because something felt really off about having so much clear decapitation and brutalization going on yet either having the camera cut away at the last moment or in some instances seeing really odd images of people clearly being cut into with either little to absolutely no blood being shed. It just didn't feel right.
-There are two mid-credit scenes in this movie. The first one is a hilariously bad tease to a sequel that we will probably never get unless the negative reviews don't effect this movie's box office. The second is a pretty lengthy (perhaps about 5-minutes) preview for Into the Spider-Verse, and I'm REALLY digging what I'm seeing. I'm still as excited for that film as ever.
So, overall verdict is don't bother, but if you're really curious to check it out then wait for it to show up on streaming or just rent it from a Red Box or something. It's not good, but also not nearly bad enough to be all that much fun to pick apart. Anyways, that's just my two-cents on Venom.
Oof, sounds mediocre and boring on all levels. I was at least hoping for an entertaining trainwreck. VLord and I already made plans to see it this weekend and there's really nothing else out this week we're interested in, so hopefully we'll find something to be amused by with it.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on October 04, 2018, 11:18:01 PM
Venom in a nutshell:
-It feels like a lost early 2000's superhero script that some Sony executive just happened to stumble across while cleaning his office and decided to turn into a movie.
-It's not good, but it's not AS terrible as the reviews would have you believe. This isn't Fant4stic or even BvS or Suicide Squad levels of terrible....which is kind of disappointing, in a way, since I feel as though a complete trainwreck would have been way more fun for me.
This was the best I could hope for at this point.
Quote-Much like The Predator, this movie also seems to be somewhat self-aware that it's bad, so it tends to play up the humor a lot more than I expected based on the trailers, but also just like The Predator, while it softens the blow, it doesn't really give it an excuse for being bad.
At least they're being faithful to the source. (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DofG9JaX4AAsBxa.jpg:large) The humour (intentional or not) of the Venom mini's were one of the most endearing things about them so they seem to have gotten that down, if nothing else.
Quote-Tom Hardy was fine for what he was given, but it seems like such a waste of one of Hollywood's most talented actors in today's industry. Most of the other actors range in performance quality from forgettable to downright cringe-worthy. I've seen plenty of instances that prove that Riz Ahmed can be an incredibly good actor, but his performance in this movie was just embarrassing.
Tom Hardy feels like a pretty good Eddie Brock Venom going from the trailers, and certainly better than the
last live action Venom we got. If Disney were somehow allowed to use him in the main MCU, I definitely wouldn't mind Hardy reprising the role (hopefully in something truly good this time).
Quote-There are a lot of action scenes in this movie that honestly feel like they were designed and intended with an R-rating in mind, but had to be heavily censored when Sony decided to chicken out and go for a family-friendly PG-13 rating. It actually really bothered me because something felt really off about having so much clear decapitation and brutalization going on yet either having the camera cut away at the last moment or in some instances seeing really odd images of people clearly being cut into with either little to absolutely no blood being shed. It just didn't feel right.
This is honestly the biggest blow for me. The minute I heard Sony pussied out on an R rating, my dwindling hopes were dashed.
QuoteSo, overall verdict is don't bother, but if you're really curious to check it out then wait for it to show up on streaming or just rent it from a Red Box or something. It's not good, but also not nearly bad enough to be all that much fun to pick apart. Anyways, that's just my two-cents on Venom.
I may end up seeing it theatres anyway since I'm a moderately big (if casual) Venom fan, but unless what I see impresses me greatly, I more likely than not won't be getting the blu-ray/dvd.
It really bums me out that some of my favorite Marvel characters haven't received any movies that did them justice.
Quote from: Rynnec on October 05, 2018, 05:53:20 AMThis is honestly the biggest blow for me. The minute I heard Sony pussied out on an R rating, my dwindling hopes were dashed.
Yeah, supposedly over 40-minutes were cut from the movie in order to bring it to this PG-13 rating. Granted, a chunk of those minutes were probably just replaced with re-shoots to at least get off the same story beats, so I don't think that it would have made the movie's story any better, but at least the action and humor could have been far more entertaining than what we got. Tom Hardy himself claimed that all of his favorite scenes were left on the cutting room floor.
I've also heard that the rest of the cast and crew of Venom seem to have had a different experience than Tom Hardy did with the movie, and don't believe there's an R-rated cut. I've been getting Jared Leto vibes from Hardy from what I've been seeing.
Right now the movie I want to see is Mandy, which I just found out my local independent theater has... for only a few days, and I'm booked for each of those.
I'm also cautiously optimistic about the new Halloween, and growing an interest in the Suspiria remake. The latter especially surprises me, since I'm in the vast minority who thinks the original is boring as shit and can't stand Goblin, but it's looking like that may be somewhat to my advantage.
Until then, I may end up going to see A Star is Born, which is getting glowing reviews, but I'm expecting to not be as blown away with. The template is something that can easily be remade over and over again, as it has, but I haven't been eating up the press as much as others in the film community has. But I still have more interest in it than First Man, which looks like the most tedious boilerplate biopic. I don't get how Damien Chazelle went from Whiplash to this.
Quote from: Avaitor on October 07, 2018, 11:49:28 AM
Right now the movie I want to see is Mandy, which I just found out my local independent theater has... for only a few days, and I'm booked for each of those.
God, I was SO excited for that movie, and I just didn't like it at all. It's molasses slow, style over substance from beginning to end. Once the Cage is unleashed in the second half it gets kinda' fun, but he's barely in the first hour and the story/characters are just nothing. There are a few good kills in the last act but outside of some Raimi-esque visual comedy the attempts at humor felt really forced to me. Soundtrack is fucking good though.
Maybe if you don't go in expecting something like Con Air, Face/Off, The Rock, etc. it might be better, but it's the kind of artsy film I don't care for, unfortunately.
I actually just came out of Mandy, and while I can see it not be for everyone, I really liked it. I've been told to expect something among the lines of Terrence Malick directing Nicholas Cage through an Italian exploitation horror flick, which this more or less delivers on. It also happens to be metal as fuck, which I couldn't help but enjoy.
Quote from: Avaitor on October 07, 2018, 11:49:28 AM
I've been getting Jared Leto vibes from Hardy from what I've been seeing.
How? Always found him more of a Christian Bale type: A guy who's willing to break his body to fit into his role and gets angry when the director doesn't dedicate themselves to that same level. And from what I've seen, most of the cast didn't dislike him. At the very least, he never sent Riz Ahmed used condoms like Leto did.
So, for what it's worth, the negative critical reception hasn't done much to hurt Venom's box office opening. It actually has done rather well for an October movie. Also worth noting is that most general audiences seem to be responding well to the movie, so it's one of those films in which there exists a clear rift in opinions between the larger public and the critics, which means it may have a chance at doing relatively well for the next couple of weekends as well, but that still remains to be seen.
I myself fall a bit more in line with the critics, but if this is enough to green-light a sequel I hope that Sony takes the chance to learn from their mistakes with this movie....which is of course unlikely.
Quote from: Avaitor on October 07, 2018, 11:49:04 PM
I actually just came out of Mandy, and while I can see it not be for everyone, I really liked it. I've been told to expect something among the lines of Terrence Malick directing Nicholas Cage through an Italian exploitation horror flick, which this more or less delivers on. It also happens to be metal as fuck, which I couldn't help but enjoy.
Ah. I hate Malick so I guess that makes sense why I didn't like it then. :sweat:
So, I tried watching Hold the Dark. When I did finally get around to Green Room (also directed by Jeremy Saulnier), I really liked it, so I was hoping that this would be equally as engaging for me but it was such a mess of a plot and so badly paced with bland characters that I got bored and stopped watching halfway through. I mean, it's on Netflix, so I guess give it a shot if you're curious, but IMO it's not really worth the time.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on October 08, 2018, 04:16:20 AM
Quote from: Avaitor on October 07, 2018, 11:49:28 AM
I've been getting Jared Leto vibes from Hardy from what I've been seeing.
How? Always found him more of a Christian Bale type: A guy who's willing to break his body to fit into his role and gets angry when the director doesn't dedicate themselves to that same level. And from what I've seen, most of the cast didn't dislike him. At the very least, he never sent Riz Ahmed used condoms like Leto did.
I guess that's fair. Hardy didn't seem to be as obnoxiously intense as Leto, although he did seem to have different expectations about the film than others.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on October 08, 2018, 07:57:17 PM
So, I tried watching Hold the Dark. When I did finally get around to Green Room (also directed by Jeremy Saulnier), I really liked it, so I was hoping that this would be equally as engaging for me but it was such a mess of a plot and so badly paced with bland characters that I got bored and stopped watching halfway through. I mean, it's on Netflix, so I guess give it a shot if you're curious, but IMO it's not really worth the time.
I swear there have only been like two good Netflix original movies ever. It seems they will greenlight literally anything, and even filmmakers who have proven themselves in the past can't seem to make anything worthwhile for them. This is especially surprising since their TV series output is generally at least decent.
I'm really disappointed by Hold the Dark's reception, as I really liked both Green Room and Blue Ruin. I hope it's just a misstep in Saulnier's career.
But yeah, I do think Netflix needs some kind of filter or quality control, since a lot of their original content is crap. Or maybe they should focus a little more on picking up other movies and shows, since they're spending a little too much of their resources on their originals, and they're not making too many agreeable hits on the level of Stranger Things or OITNB.
Also, the title of this movie totally breaks the whole colors schtick that Solmier had going on with the names of his films, which is another lose in my book. Then again, I could see how Hold the Black might sound racist to some people. :>
Just saw Halloween....the third one in the franchise to be called that....not Halloween III, to be clear....let's just call it the new one, I guess.
I didn't really like it. I enjoyed bits and pieces of it. The last 20-minutes in particular were a lot closer to the kind of movie that I wanted to see, but on the whole it makes many of the same mistakes as every other Halloween sequel. To be fair, I kind of see the franchise like Jaws, in that it's the type of concept that only works as a one-shot story, so I can't really see any way for a sequel to work without feeling incredibly forced or contrived and at best derivative of the original, unless the franchise went the anthology route that was originally intended with Season of the Witch.
And I get that this was done by a director known for comedy, but quite a bit of it comes off as unintentionally funny, not unlike H2O, which this movie feels very similar to in tone and concept (to be fair, though, there are some genuinely funny bits in the movie). I'll give the movie some credit for being well-made on a technical level and having some really great callbacks to the original, but it mostly feels like it's padded out for the majority of its run-time, and there is hardly any focus or drive to the story until the final act. I mean, the trailer sets it up like it'll be some epic final showdown between Laurie Strode and Michael Myers (which, again, I'd like to point out that H2O basically already did), but that's only relegated to those final 20-minutes. It actually kind of feels like the writers just forgot to do anything with her story-line until they decided to put her back in at the end. The rest of the movie is mainly just random characters popping in and out of the story as Michael kills them off, and there's one "major" plot-twist around the middle that is so half-assed that it makes me wonder why it was even brought up to begin with since it's dropped from relevance within literal minutes. It's like the movie starts trying to go down one route and then completely forgets what was going on and hops to another scene.
So, yeah, my two-cents on it, I guess. I wasn't really expecting much to begin with so I can't really say that I'm disappointed, but if nothing else these mediocre to bad sequels always do help me appreciate the original that much more.
How would you rank it compared to all the other Halloween sequels/reboots?
That's a bit tricky because on a technical level it's easily a better-made film than any of the other sequels. But on a personal level I have a soft-spot for II and IV even though both are incredibly stupid in their own right. Those for me are the fun kind of stupid, though, so I consider them to be guilty pleasures. Admittedly I have never actually seen Season of the Witch except for a few scenes on YouTube. I find V, The Curse of Michael Myers, and Resurrection to be flat-out garbage so the new one is definitely leagues above those. That just leaves H2O which, funnily enough, is also the closest in tone and concept to this movie. That one is both cheesy and dated, but it also kind of falls into the guilty pleasure category, though it's been quite a while since I've last seen it (more than 10 years), so I'm not sure how I'd feel about it in comparison to this new one. I'd say that the latest one had maybe a couple of genuinely good scares, and some comedic relief scenes worked well intentionally, but quite a lot of enjoyment that I got out of it just came from unintentionally funny writing and directing choices. Even with all of that, though, there were a number of parts that kind of dragged for me (as I said, the movie feels really padded to hold its run time), so I do feel as though it doesn't quite meet that complete dumb-fun feeling that I get from some of the other sequels.
Basically, in shorter terms, it'd rank somewhere in the middle for me.
Just finished this season, and it was my favorite one so far, not just for Daredevil but for any of the Netflix shows so far. Also, before anyone brings it up, yes, this does end up hitting a lot of the same beats as the first season did, to the point where a basic outline of the plot makes it seem like they just did the same thing all over again. However, the thing that worked for me here is that, aside from the better execution of the material, I think that it was intentional to return to the roots of the first season but at the same time re-explore how Matt, Foggy, and Karen's new outlooks on life have re-informed their decisions to very similar moral quandaries than the ones that they faced in the first season. A big theme of this season is redemption, and whereas the characters mostly started out on the straight and narrow at the beginning of the show, they've all made decisions that they have regretted since then and this season's structure being so similar to season one's is essentially them being given a second chance to respond to their past sins. That isn't just true of the returning characters but the new ones as well.
Also, while there wasn't necessarily a single fight that was as much of a stand-out as the hallway fight from season one or the stairwell fight from season two, I can say with certainty that the action overall was done better here than anything in either of those two seasons (and that's saying a lot considering how much those seasons set the bar for action scenes in television). If anything, the shorter bursts of fighting make things feel more intense since you get the sense that the fight could be decided at any given second.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on October 20, 2018, 02:01:55 AM
That just leaves H2O which, funnily enough, is also the closest in tone and concept to this movie. That one is both cheesy and dated, but it also kind of falls into the guilty pleasure category,
That one seemed too much like the Halloween franchise riding the coattails of Scream and Buffy, and their meta-eyewink-approach to slasher movie cliches. Sure, it was better than the last three movie's strange attempt to build a character arc around Michael Myers and his niece, but it felt like the turning point where even the rights owners of Halloween didn't take the franchise seriously anymore.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on October 18, 2018, 10:13:41 PM
Just saw Halloween....the third one in the franchise to be called that....not Halloween III, to be clear....let's just call it the new one, I guess.
I didn't really like it. I enjoyed bits and pieces of it. The last 20-minutes in particular were a lot closer to the kind of movie that I wanted to see, but on the whole it makes many of the same mistakes as every other Halloween sequel. To be fair, I kind of see the franchise like Jaws, in that it's the type of concept that only works as a one-shot story, so I can't really see any way for a sequel to work without feeling incredibly forced or contrived and at best derivative of the original, unless the franchise went the anthology route that was originally intended with Season of the Witch.
And I get that this was done by a director known for comedy, but quite a bit of it comes off as unintentionally funny, not unlike H2O, which this movie feels very similar to in tone and concept (to be fair, though, there are some genuinely funny bits in the movie). I'll give the movie some credit for being well-made on a technical level and having some really great callbacks to the original, but it mostly feels like it's padded out for the majority of its run-time, and there is hardly any focus or drive to the story until the final act. I mean, the trailer sets it up like it'll be some epic final showdown between Laurie Strode and Michael Myers (which, again, I'd like to point out that H2O basically already did), but that's only relegated to those final 20-minutes. It actually kind of feels like the writers just forgot to do anything with her story-line until they decided to put her back in at the end. The rest of the movie is mainly just random characters popping in and out of the story as Michael kills them off, and there's one "major" plot-twist around the middle that is so half-assed that it makes me wonder why it was even brought up to begin with since it's dropped from relevance within literal minutes. It's like the movie starts trying to go down one route and then completely forgets what was going on and hops to another scene.
So, yeah, my two-cents on it, I guess. I wasn't really expecting much to begin with so I can't really say that I'm disappointed, but if nothing else these mediocre to bad sequels always do help me appreciate the original that much more.
Just saw the new
Halloween myself today, and I'm pretty much in agreement with you. I'm in the unique position of only having seen the original
Halloween, and not any of the sequels. And from my perspective...this movie just doesn't work as a sequel at all. It's totally disconnected from the original, failing to communicate the paranoia of the original or present Michael as a fearsome figure. I've seen a lot of people say that it's a well-made film on a technical level, but honestly, I disagree. Watching well-made horror genuinely fills me with dread, and schlocky horror bemuses me with its excess of violence. With this film, though, I felt pretty much nothing but annoyance. I thought the shot compositions were really flat and uninteresting, the sound mixing wasn't provocative in a way that induces dread, the editing didn't communicate any sense of paranoia, and honestly, the film only looked average at best in quality. In general, the film didn't effectively frame Michael Myers as something frightening or badass, nor his murders as grotesquely horrifying or entertainingly over-the-top. In this film, he just felt like a dude who murdered people, predictable and uninteresting. Everything felt plainly presented, boring and paint by the numbers.
To say nothing of the story. The idea behind Laurie's character in this film and how her experience has warped her life over 40 years, including inflicting trauma on her own child, would've been fascinating to explore. But it's only brought up, and not really done anything with in a meaningful capacity, and the rest of the time we're watching Michael kill random nobodies, mostly unlikable with generic personalities that I either couldn't care less about or wanted to die so they wouldn't be in the movie anymore. Like, none of the deaths were memorable beyond him stomping on the psychiatrist's head, and that was just stupid.
And yeah, the comedy was just AWFUL. All the "jokes," like "I dropped peanut butter on my penis," the granddaughter and her friend shit-talking their other friend while he's blowing up a pumpkin, and the two random cops talking about Bahn Mi and brownies made me groan. To say nothing of the unintentional comedy, which was pretty much everytime the movie tried to be scary but did it in the lamest way possible, which was constant. Like everyone's said, the last twenty minutes are the closest it gets to evoking a sense of dread in the confrontation between Laurie and Michael, and even then the movie undermines itself with stupid moments like Laurie disappearing when Michael's not looking or how they ultimately defeat him.
It's not a boring movie for sure, but I'm surprised critics have been lauding it so much. I don't think this works as a sequel or a good horror film on its own merits at all, and it doesn't even succeed in being a horror comedy. It's just...lame.
I've kind of gotten used to critics over-praising horror movies that aren't a complete train-wreck these days. Sometimes I agree with the praise, like in The Babadook or this year's Hereditary, but more often than not I feel that it can be rather overblown. Like, It Follows was an OK movie that got made out to be a modern horror masterpiece, yet even thinking about it for half a second shows an incompetently written narrative that sets up too many rules and then fails to follow more than half of them. A Quiet Place is basically this year's version of It Follows in that regard, and it's equally as incompetent (and even though I don't always agree with him, YMS's review pretty much nails why in this case). Happy Death Day was a painfully cringe-worthy attempt at a modern-day horror comedy yet apparently a lot of critics were suckered into the Groundhog Day meets a slasher film hook to the concept without actually analyzing to see whether it pulled any of those elements off well.
With Halloween, it follows a string of equally bad if not worse sequels. A lot of people consider those to be guilty pleasures (like I said, even I have a soft-spot for II and IV, despite how badly written they are), and that makes sense. Likewise, I could understand if people felt the same about this movie, but to see it getting genuinely praised leaves me baffled. If this movie had come out a decade ago following the same beats that it does here, it'd be called out for what it is: a generic, trope-heavy genre flick with no substance beyond its overabundance of clear fan-service. And, again, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's not like it would ever get praised for those things back then. These days it feels like critics have just significantly lowered the bar for what qualifies as a well-made horror movie in their assessment of them.
It could be because of how low the standards of slasher movies are rather than horror movies in general. A decade of nonsensical Saw films, failures to bring back Freddy and Jason back into prominence, and no new up and coming slasher franchise have done heavy damage to the genre, so when a slasher flick comes out and it's okay, it looks great compared to all the other attempts.
I really liked Happy Death Day. :??:
Nothing wrong with that! :thumbup:
I'm just saying that it falls into a category in which I feel people over-praised the movie. That's just a personal opinion, though, and doesn't mean I think that others aren't allowed to really like it. The same goes for the new Haloween film. I'm glad that fans and critics really enjoy it for the most part. I just don't get why it's being given such accolades among those people, though.
Like Dr. Insomiac, though, I suspect it may he because traditional slasher movies have been dormant for a long while so it gets people all nostalgic for them. In contrast, If a superhero movie came out and had just as many issues nobody would hesitate to call it out for that since we get a pretty steady stream of those movies every year.
I've been thinking about how much of a harder time the other slasher franchises would have coming back, because Halloween had it easy. John Carpenter was still around to give his blessing, Jamie Lee Curtis was back as Laurie, and they could ride simply off of those two notes. Whereas Nightmare on Elm Street has the issue of Wes Craven no longer living, and the Friday the 13th films never had much in the way of a beloved creative figure akin to Craven or Carpenter. And neither have a recurring arch-nemesis to the villain the way Laurie was to Michael, so you couldn't use that as your hook. I guess bringing back Englund and Hodder would bring back some fans, but then you'd have to brainstorm the kind of story that would require old Freddy and Jason to come back over newer versions of the characters.
The Hellraiser movies have a different problem, since hiring Clive Barker and bringing back Doug Bradley would work, but the company that owns the rights is too cheap to do either and would rather let the franchise stew in a dying direct-to-video market.
I saw Halloween last night, and I honestly liked it. Granted, it's no masterpiece like the original- you don't get a feel for the crispness of a midwestern autumn like Carpenter successfully evoked, for one. The film keeps the same flat aesthetic that most Blumhouse features maintain, and that's ultimately what it is- a Blumhouse take on a Halloween movie. Not exactly a perfect experience, but I had a good time.
I thought that it had good thrills and was well paced, running exactly as long as it should have. I also really like how the movie ended with three generations of women teaming up, especially since I feel like Karen's know-how in the end filled in some of the gaps I thought her relationship with Laurie was missing.
Granted, I didn't really love any character, although Judy Greer surprised me with a mostly good serious performance (I only fell off with her when she started serving flat exposition, but that's not entirely her fault), and I liked that Toby Huss played her husband, even if it was kind of a thankless role. The Loomis surrogate especially wasn't a favorite. It wasn't stated how long he worked with Dr. Loomis, but you'd think that he would have had enough experience with not just him, but Michael in general to accept that no prodding could have possibly gotten anything out of him, and that he's better off dead.
I've been watching this video analyses on Halloweens 4 through 6, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlNJuxc8BIc) and I understand when you're turning a movie into a franchise, you almost have to expand your previously enigmatic character so he has his own lore and reasons to kill if you don't want to recycle the same movie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spfHEXoEDGk) as the first, but nothing about this sounds like the thoughts and ideas of storytellers or even film executives, but of schizophrenic madmen who contradict themselves at every turn. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9okTMvuuHc) And what was the lasting influence? Nothing. These movies became non-canon, nobody's ever praised them as more than just guilty pleasure slasher films, and they're mostly seen as that disinherited stepchild era of Halloween between the second and H2O.
I've actually been seeing a little bit of reevaluation of 4 in recent years. I've watched it recently, and it's not as bad as I was expecting- it focuses on a sisterly bond that's different than most slasher films (although I also recently saw Slumber Party Massacre, and that has a superior sister dynamic imo), and while Donald Pleasence was showing tear in his performance, he has some good moments.
I wouldn't call it a great movie by any means, not on the level of the original or even 2018, but I'd put it about on par with II, which has some good ideas and scares, even if the concept of Laurie being Michael's sister is really fucking unnecessary. I still need to get to III at some point, having only seen bits and pieces, but I'm not really interested in any of the others.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on October 29, 2018, 10:06:06 AM
I've been watching this video analyses on Halloweens 4 through 6, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlNJuxc8BIc) and I understand when you're turning a movie into a franchise, you almost have to expand your previously enigmatic character so he has his own lore and reasons to kill if you don't want to recycle the same movie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spfHEXoEDGk) as the first, but nothing about this sounds like the thoughts and ideas of storytellers or even film executives, but of schizophrenic madmen who contradict themselves at every turn. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9okTMvuuHc) And what was the lasting influence? Nothing. These movies became non-canon, nobody's ever praised them as more than just guilty pleasure slasher films, and they're mostly seen as that disinherited stepchild era of Halloween between the second and H2O.
The production history behind this franchise is really interesting to me, even as someone who hasn't seen the films. The reviewer put it well when he noted how insecure and unconfident the filmmakers were in their creative vision, too afraid to change the formula that they changed plans constantly to double back on the familiar while unsuccessfully introducing new ideas and throwing them out by the next installment. These kind of production troubles are always fascinating to me, especially when it comes to long-running franchises like this. Learning this stuff almost makes me want to watch the films themselves to analyze them for myself, but when it comes to the
Halloween franchise I think
Season of the Witch is really the only one I'm genuinely interested in watching, while the rest I wouldn't go out of my way to seek unless I was in the company of friends to joke around with.
For once, there was actually a screening of an anime film that was within an hour of where I was currently living. I went to see the latest Mamoru Hosoda film Mirai, and as expected it was pretty great. I have yet to see anything by Hosoda that I dislike. His weakest film was probably his entry into the One Piece franchise, but even that was better than the majority of One Piece (and Shonen Jump in general) anime movies, and in general it still had a lot of memorable moments to it. The main thing holding it back was that Hosoda had to try his best to adapt his style to something that fit One Piece, which it really doesn't. When he started doing original works of his own, I feel that he was truly able to flourish his talents as a director in animation. I'll grant you that The Boy and the Beast stumbles a bit compared to his other works, but even that still succeeds in so many ways despite having its clear faults.
As for Mirai, it's both his most ambitious film but also the smallest in scale and scope in terms of the story. That is to say that it shows how much he and his studio have grown in both their animation skills and story-telling capabilities, and this one dealing with more surreal elements than any of his past films has him playing around with style, tone, and color-gradients a lot, so it really is ambitious on a technical level. However narratively it's a very personal and intimate story dealing with the themes of family that are prevalent throughout all of his work, however in this case what makes it different is the perspective in which he chooses to tackle this story from, which is that of a young boy who's beyond his toddler years but not yet of school age. It's nothing new for Hosoda to make his viewpoint characters representative of youth, but he tends to go with teenagers, or at least characters of school age. It's a very interesting move to have this story take place from the perspective of Kun, who falls well below even that age demographic to the point of not even being able to form all of his words and sentences properly. It's also a really interesting move in how he makes it very ambiguous whether the fantastical elements are all in Kun's head or if some are in fact real (some of them kind of have to be if you stop to think about the progression of the story).
At any rate, I'd say that this is a better movie than The Boy and the Beast (again, still really dig that movie, but it is one of Hosoda's weaker efforts in my book) and about on par with The Girl Who Leapt Through Time. I'd still have to say that Summer Wars and Wolf Children are at a pretty even stalemate for my favorite Hosoda film, though. Those are what he produced at the top of his game, IMO.
Well, anyways, as much as I love this movie, I won't be surprised to see it yet again snubbed at the Oscars. It really is a shame how little they actually give a shit about the animation category. We have this movie, Isle of Dogs, and Spider-Verse from this year alone, yet I'm willing to bet you anything that the mediocre Incredibles 2 or Ralph Breaks the Internet will be the only two movies that have a serious shot at winning in this category. To be fair, I haven't seen RBTI yet, but I while I'm sure that I would enjoy it I highly doubt that it would match any of those other movies for me.
Mirai got nominated for the Golden Globes, so it may have a chance this time. Being distributed by GKids definitely helps- Funi just do not have the clout to get anything nominated, not Boy and the Beast or even Your Name. That said, it probably won't win, but don't count out Into the Spiderverse, since it's winning a lot of critic's awards. I'm personally not interested in it, though- I don't like Lord and Miller's style, and just like The Lego Movie, what I've seen of the animation gives me a headache.
I hope to see this soon, but I'm also still behind on Hosoda's stuff. I need to get to Boy and the Beast and Wolf Children, but if I get to Mirai first, I'm hitting that up.
As for recent stuff, there are two biggish movies I'm surprisingly interested in, giving their franchise's track records- Bumblebee and Aquaman. Their trailers make them look a little more fun than previous installments in the Bayverse and DCEU (although if I hear "I call it an asswhoopin'" one more time...), and they're both directed by talented filmmakers. Early reception also seems solid, with Aquaman getting decent buzz, and a friend of mine who grew up on G1 but doesn't like the Transformers movies coming out quite pleased with Bumblebee.
That said, they'll both have to wait for Mary Poppins Returns. By far my top priority this month.
Quote from: Avaitor on December 10, 2018, 12:33:54 PM
Mirai got nominated for the Golden Globes, so it may have a chance this time. Being distributed by GKids definitely helps- Funi just do not have the clout to get anything nominated, not Boy and the Beast or even Your Name. That said, it probably won't win, but don't count out Into the Spiderverse, since it's winning a lot of critic's awards. I'm personally not interested in it, though- I don't like Lord and Miller's style, and just like The Lego Movie, what I've seen of the animation gives me a headache.
Lord and Miller are only producers on this one, though.
Also you're objectively wrong about the animation, so :bleh:....
QuoteAs for recent stuff, there are two biggish movies I'm surprisingly interested in, giving their franchise's track records- Bumblebee and Aquaman. Their trailers make them look a little more fun than previous installments in the Bayverse and DCEU (although if I hear "I call it an asswhoopin'" one more time...), and they're both directed by talented filmmakers. Early reception also seems solid, with Aquaman getting decent buzz, and a friend of mine who grew up on G1 but doesn't like the Transformers movies coming out quite pleased with Bumblebee.
With Bumblebee, while I'd normally have no interest in it, I am very curious to see how Travis Knight handles a live-action film. This could be similar to how Brad Bird transitioned from animation to live-action and (IMO) knocked it out of the park with his own entry into a franchise, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. I'm hoping for the best here, since while I don't care a bit about the Transformers franchise itself, I'd like to see Knight's career flourish.
QuoteThat said, they'll both have to wait for Mary Poppins Returns. By far my top priority this month.
I'm very cautiously optimistic about it. The early reviews have been very positive, but I'm worried because of how critics have a tendency to overhype Disney reboots and sequels. I was baffled by how Cinderella and The Jungle Book got the praise that they did, and stuff like Finding Dory and The Incredibles 2 were just flat-out overrated, IMO. I am not a cynical, anti-blockbuster/franchise moviegoer, but at the same time I'm not blind to Disney's infuriating tendencies to soullessly mine their classic IPs without really understanding what made them work to begin with (and this is coming from someone who was mostly fine with The Last Jedi, mind you).
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on December 10, 2018, 12:58:23 PM
Quote from: Avaitor on December 10, 2018, 12:33:54 PM
Mirai got nominated for the Golden Globes, so it may have a chance this time. Being distributed by GKids definitely helps- Funi just do not have the clout to get anything nominated, not Boy and the Beast or even Your Name. That said, it probably won't win, but don't count out Into the Spiderverse, since it's winning a lot of critic's awards. I'm personally not interested in it, though- I don't like Lord and Miller's style, and just like The Lego Movie, what I've seen of the animation gives me a headache.
Lord and Miller are only producers on this one, though.
Also you're objectively wrong about the animation, so :bleh:....
I thought one of them was a co-writer.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong and it'll live up to the hype. If it hits MoviePass, I'll get to it. Like how I was waiting for Creed II to be available to view from them (my plan is to see it tomorrow), but I was willing to pay cash for Ralph Breaks the Internet.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on December 10, 2018, 12:58:23 PM
QuoteAs for recent stuff, there are two biggish movies I'm surprisingly interested in, giving their franchise's track records- Bumblebee and Aquaman. Their trailers make them look a little more fun than previous installments in the Bayverse and DCEU (although if I hear "I call it an asswhoopin'" one more time...), and they're both directed by talented filmmakers. Early reception also seems solid, with Aquaman getting decent buzz, and a friend of mine who grew up on G1 but doesn't like the Transformers movies coming out quite pleased with Bumblebee.
With Bumblebee, while I'd normally have no interest in it, I am very curious to see how Travis Knight handles a live-action film. This could be similar to how Brad Bird transitioned from animation to live-action and (IMO) knocked it out of the park with his own entry into a franchise, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. I'm hoping for the best here, since while I don't care a bit about the Transformers franchise itself, I'd like to see Knight's career flourish.
I'm definitely with you on Bumblebee- without Knight's involvement, I wouldn't give it the time of day. But the CG transformations look more like the real thing than in Bay's films, and he seems to get into the aesthetic, so I am hoping for a good time.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on December 10, 2018, 12:58:23 PM
QuoteThat said, they'll both have to wait for Mary Poppins Returns. By far my top priority this month.
I'm very cautiously optimistic about it. The early reviews have been very positive, but I'm worried because of how critics have a tendency to overhype Disney reboots and sequels. I was baffled by how Cinderella and The Jungle Book got the praise that they did, and stuff like Finding Dory and The Incredibles 2 were just flat-out overrated, IMO. I am not a cynical, anti-blockbuster/franchise moviegoer, but at the same time I'm not blind to Disney's infuriating tendencies to soullessly mine their classic IPs without really understanding what made them work to begin with (and this is coming from someone who was mostly fine with The Last Jedi, mind you).
I have not been a fan of any of Disney's recent remakes (although granted I've still yet to see Pete's Dragon, which I've heard marginally better things about than most of them), and this one does seem to hit a lot of the same plot beats as the original. But from what I understand, the original books were pretty formulaic themselves, and Travers seemed to have a hard time leaving the Banks family alone herself. I'm definitely worried, but Emily Blunt seems like as perfect of a substitute for Julie Andrews as you can get, and I've really liked what I've heard of the new soundtrack. And frankly, I think the world could use another adventure with Mary Poppins, which is why I'm not against a sequel being made. I want it to be good, and the Oscar buzz is a step in the right direction, but we'll see.
Just saw Dragon Ball Super: Broly....
....I've been critical of Super for a while, and this movie is far from perfect....but damn if I didn't thoroughly enjoy it. This feels like the closest thing to what I wanted from the franchise since Battle of Gods. It actually feels like the Dragon Ball lore was expanded in big and interesting new ways by the time the end credits rolled. And the fact that it got me to give a shit about a character that I reviled since his inception is worth commending alone.
Short version: This is not a great movie, but it IS a great Dragon Ball movie, IMO.
The nominees for Best Picture are:
-Black Panther
-BlacKKKlansman
-Bohemian Rhapsody
-The Favourite
-Green Book
-Roma
-A Star is Born
-Vice
Wow, I'm slacking- I've only seen 3 thus far (Black Panther, Favourite, Green Book). And I really liked two of them, while I admire Vice more than many, but wouldn't call it as worthy as some others. I guess it's time to play catch up, but I'm not especially interested in Green Book or BoRap.
Wow, I've been really busy over the past few days. But I did manage to watch all of the Best Picture nominees just before the Oscars on Sunday, and here's my personal rankings of each of them.
8- Bohemian Rhapsody
A total snoozefest of a biopic, one that you can tell how badly Brian May and Roger Taylor wanted to sanction up the band's history to an unsastisfactory dull degree. Just about the only thing Freddie would have particularly approved of is Rami Malek's performance, which is admittedly solid if slightly overhyped. Not to mention the hackneyed direction from a genuine creep (to think that I used to admire Singer, too), and horrific editing. From what I've noticed, love for this film comes from love of the band, which comes to my own personal problem- I'm just not that into Queen. I've never been, a few songs aside, but I understand enough to know that this just falls flat on its face.
7- Green Book
I went to bat for Three Billboards last year, and still would, but I can't here. I haven't seen Driving Miss Daisy, so I can't make the comparison to it, but the comparisons to Crash are somewhat fair, if off. Crash makes every single point about race even when it has no reason to, and falls flat on its face when it becomes apparent that no one involved knows what it's talking about. Green Book, meanwhile, wants us to think that racism was solved when an asshole became slightly less of a bigot after driving a black person around the deep south, and it also tries to poorly add classicism into the mix with just as much nuance as portrayed in moments of said bigot yelling that said black person isn't black enough for not eating fried chicken or recognizing Little Richard. It's a dumb movie, which I'll grant does have a good performance from Mahershala Ali, although Viggo Mortensen is absolutely dreadful throughout, while Linda Cardellini is traditionally wasted. A poorly deserving BP winner, it only ranks above BoRap for having a couple of moments that genuinely made me laugh, and a slightly more award deserving performance.
6- Vice
I really liked Adam McKay's previous attempt to go political in The Big Short, and I do think that he's done some good work back on SNL and with his work with Will Ferrell outside, but just like Green Book, this is a little too smug for me. Big Short's layman moments work because the stock and housing markets are confusing and require some kind of explanation, but McKay honestly seems to think that we're too dumb to understand who Dick Cheney is and a lot of the things he's done over the years. Probably because we were too busy watching his dumber movies when he and Bush were in office. The ending Fast and Furious joke especially bugged me, because he's really just jamming that down our throats. But I'll give credit that while I only somewhat liked Malek and Ali in their roles above, I truly thought Christian Bale was Oscar-worthy as his turn as Cheney. He captured the mannerisms down to perfection, and made each line reading count. Amy Adams was similarly excellent as
Lynne, even in the moments where McKay haphazardly suggests her as a Lady Macbeth figure. Even Sam Rockwell did well with his little bit as Bush, showing off his outlandish and weirdly charismatic side that made his elections a success. I was less hot on Steve Carrell's Rumsfeld though, which I think Carrell kept a little too much of himself in.
5- A Star is Born
"Shallow" is more or less worth the hype, but the movie basically peaks after that, especially if you're familiar with the story. It's very by the books, and could have easily cut 15 minutes out of its runtime. Cooper is quite good in the role, and Gaga starts off better than she finishes, getting a little too screamy during her angry scenes to really pull it off. If you ask me though, the real MVP is Sam Elliott, who I think does wonders with the little he gets. Dave Chappelle's character is horrifically useless, however. Not bad overall, but I'm not surprised that this lost its hype during the campaign trail- you're honestly better off watching the Judy version again.
4- Roma
I really regret not seeing this in theaters, but we didn't get many chances to hit that up here. Still, even on my TV screen, it's easy to admire how gorgeous and deserving Cuaron's camerawork is. Every banal little detail pops to make the whole screen illuminate. Unfortunately, I couldn't connect to the film too much in terms of story and character, which moved a little too slowly for me. I know it's an unpopular opinion, and I would've been totally fine with it winning, but this just wasn't my first choice.
3- BlacKKKlansman
Terrific! Washington and Driver have excellent chemistry together, and both have a solid and earnest enough character arc separately and together to help build this beyond the usual cop movie formula. What further helps with that, though, comes down to Spike Lee, who helped pen an excellent script and brings so much life and character to its direction. And this is where our attention to editing really should have gone, as some of its cuts are insane. I do think the second act drags a little, however, and I'm not sure how much I love the ending, but this is definitely one of the nominees that feels like a true winner.
2- Black Panther
I've gone over what works and doesn't work for me about BP before, but I will say that if this was my ballot, I'd swap the last two around so this had a greater chance of winning. It would have been terrific to see how film purists AND racists would react to it! I still think this is about as good as the MCU gets, and a genuinely worthy entry for Best Picture. I cannot wait to see what Coogler does next, even (especially?) if it's Black Panther 2.
1- The Favourite
I really need to see more of Yorgos Lanthimos' work. Between this and The Lobster, I like how he sinks his teeth into his work. I like how this is almost like a madhouse period piece, where nothing looks in place and lens are being played with frequently. It helps make getting into their world become easy to accomplish. The acting is also on point throughout, with the three ladies in charge each giving wonderfully nuanced performances, including Olivia Coleman's well-deserved win, as does Nicholas Hoult, who deserved mention this awards season. It basically plays like an 18th century All About Eve, which is totally fine by me.
Overall, I found this year's set of nominees to be lesser, even if I'd otherwise call 2018 a better year than 2017. Still, that year I liked 2/3 films, and really connected to 3 or 4 of them (I would rather be watching Phantom Thread than write this btw), but here I feel like only the top 2 or 3 will really stick out for me in the moments to come. I hope with some of this year's nominations and wins will help to make the next few years allow for more varied BP nominees than stuffy biopics, overdone period pieces, and slightly offense crowd-pleasing dramedies. We'll just have to wait and see.
BLACKkKlansman was my favorite of the bunch, though I still say that Hereditary was snubbed in terms of not even being nominated for both Best Picture and most definitely Best Actress in a Leading Role. The Academy hates horror movies and clearly undervalues Toni Collette's amazing talent. This also reminds me of when they snubbed Essie Davis for The Babadook.
Still haven't seen Bohemian Rhapsody and honestly don't plan to. Also still need to see The Favourite. I will say that The Lobster is a film that I appreciate on a technical level more than I like. The same can be said for Roma.
For the most part my list would probably be the same as Avaitor's except with BKKK winning out. I still really enjoyed Black Panther, though Infinity War and Spider-Verse basically tie for my favorite superhero flicks of the year. That said I honestly don't have a problem with Black Panther being a Best Picture nominee. It brings me great joy to see elitist ass-holes cringing at the thought of a mainstream blockbuster comic book movie "disgracing" the integrity of good film-making with it's presence as a serious Academy contender. It's not necessarily my favorite, but this is also the same Academy that nominated Avatar as a Best Picture contender, yet there wasn't even half as much outrage for that movie's inclusion as a nominee. Personally, though, I think that genre-film bias is just plain stupid. Fictional story-telling can take countless different forms. The idea that one is inherently superior or inferior to another is fucking ludicrous.
Somehow the only Best Picture nominee I actually saw was Bohemian Rhapsody, and it absolutely did not deserve the nomination. It's an awful film, straight up. I will definitely get around to the rest before too long, though I can't say I'm particularly interested in Green Book. Those two could have easily been replaced by Blindspotting, First Reformed, Hereditary, Annihilation, or any of the other great films that were ignored by the Academy this year. Heck, Spider-Verse should have been nominated for Best Picture instead, though I know they would recoil at the mere thought of putting an animated film up for that award.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on February 27, 2019, 06:17:14 PM
Also still need to see The Favourite. I will say that The Lobster is a film that I appreciate on a technical level more than I like.
Yorgos has improved a lot from what I can tell. The only film I've seen by him is Dogtooth, which I didn't really like at all. Emmy has seen all three of his latest, felt the same way about The Lobster that you did, but loved The Killing of a Sacred Deer and The Favourite.
Dogtooth does not sound like an easy to love film, but I'm still curious about it. You haven't seen Black Panther, Foggle?
I'll keep that in mind. I do still plan to see The Favourite.
Also, the Academy actually has nominated animated features for Best Picture before (both "Beauty and the Beast" and "Up" earned that distinction), but yeah, they generally don't care about animation as a serious art-form. Glad that Spider-Verse won for Best Animated Feature all the same, though. Avaitor, you should really let go of your Lord and Miller bias and give this one a shot. It's by far one of the best superhero movies that I've ever seen.
I did, and still didn't love it. The animation and humor just didn't click with me. That said, I did appreciate the obvious labor of love, and I'm glad that it won since it's so damn different. I still enjoyed Incredibles and Ralph, but they don't offer anything new, and I still think Wes Anderson could do better than Isle of Dogs, and although I still haven't seen Mirai, it feels like more of a deserving win
I'm not sure with people looking at Into the Spider-Verse as a return to form for Sony, as it felt like the movie succeeded in spite of Sony than because of them. And the only reason it could be so stylized and different was because Sony wasn't paying attention, and if they did, it would have been more focus-tested like Venom was. As for the rest, Incredibles was okay. I liked it more than other people did, but it definitely wasn't as good as the first. Isle of Dogs had some decent moments, but wasn't swooned by it. And the toddler character in Mirai was too annoying for me. Even if he was meant to be a brat in the first part of the movie, Hosoda succeeds too hard at this. I was also disappointed the film didn't focus on Future Mirai as much as the trailer implied.
Avaitor: Eh, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Personally I've never really been much of a fan of Auteur theory to begin with, anyways, which is why I tend to judge each movie more on individual merit rather than who's behind making it; not implying that you are, just that a lot of people always mention Lord and Miller's involvement in the film as if that's an inherent mark of quality when there are three directors and another writer who worked on it to make it what it was.
I think what personally makes Spider-Verse one of the better superhero movies that I've seen IS it's stylistic choice of animation and how it utilizes it to embrace the absurdity of comic books in a way that a live action movie simply can't. Personally I really wish we could see more high-profile superhero or comic book movies in this style than something more generic like Big Hero 6 (which isn't bad, but is also completely unmemorable). I personally love that we are getting stuff that isn't afraid to go weird to reflect the material that it's adapting rather than trying to always tone down the more comic book-ey elements in order to appease some sort of sense that comic book movies being more realistic somehow makes them or their messages more mature. For that purpose, while I really dug Black Panther and would be happy to jump back into more of Wakanda, I think that Spider-Verse (and also Infinity War for somewhat different reasons) really stole the year for me in this particular genre of film. That's just my take, though, with all-due respect to your opinion, of course.
But no, you are still objectively wrong about Isle of Dogs. I'll go on record stating that it's my favorite movie of last year (out of what I've seen so far) and I'd argue one of Wes Anderson's best. :bleh:
Mirai was another good example of a movie that was more brilliant in it's craft than as an overall product. I still quite enjoyed it, myself, but it doesn't hold a candle to Hosoda's holy trinity of modern classics, so to speak.
Quote from: Avaitor on February 28, 2019, 05:29:16 PM
Dogtooth does not sound like an easy to love film, but I'm still curious about it. You haven't seen Black Panther, Foggle?
Dogtooth is kind of interesting, and admittedly I could have paid more attention to it, but it felt like bog-standard dogme to me. Honestly, I haven't seen Black Panther yet, or Infinity War, or Ant Man & The Wasp, or Venom, or Aquaman! Which isn't due to lack of interest, it's more that I hate going to movies on my own, so I usually only see films in the theater when Emmy is visiting (sometimes we go every single day, maybe even multiple times) or on the very rare chance I can convince my other friends to accompany me. I really went out of my way with Deadpool 2 just because I love the character. Speaking of which, the director's cut on the blu-ray elevates that film a ton for me; the fights are longer, the CGI is better, the alternate joke takes are funnier (for the most part). I'm sure I'll get around to the rest of 2018's superhero films before too long and then kick myself for missing out on them in the cinema like usual. :P
Watched Us last night.
It's more of a horror comedy in parts and a thriller in others as opposed to a straight-up horror movie as the trailers made it out to be. If you are one if those people who can't stand multiple leaps in logic for a movie, then this might not be for you. That said, fir me this was personally right up my alley. There was a sense of creepy foreboding and tension when there needed to be, even if I was never really scared, and the humorous bits were for the most part genuinely funny. Also Lupita Nyong'o was fantastic in this movie, essentially playing two roles and effectively convincing me that her double was someone else entirely.
In comparing it to Get Out, the former is the better overall film, but Us falls into a certain genre niche that I personally prefer.
Personally, I preferred this to Get Out. I thought it was an improvement in just about every way, including balancing humor, even if I think Get Out is funnier. The build-up is especially fantastic, and it really feels like every little moment mattered, which I love in movies like this.
An easy contender for favorite of the year so far.
Also, as others have pointed out, perhaps not coincidentally, the premise of this movie feels like something out of the Twilight Zone, and I'm definitely eager to check out Peele's take on the classic anthology series when his version drops next month.
(https://i.ibb.co/T4w82Q7/20190510-230803.jpg) (https://i.ibb.co/Jr4rTmp/20190510-231015.jpg)
I only got two cards with my booster-pack and neither of them are true holographic. This movie's a rip-off!
I'm also perplexed as to who thought it was a good idea to fight Gengar with a water-type, especially a low-tier like Blastoise.
That said, on the more positive side, we did get Magikarp evolving into Gyarados, and Pikachu does in fact know the disadvantage to using Volt Tackle, so it's got a few things down.
Detective Pikachu had some cool scenes, but the twist with Bill Nighy's character was weird.
Just saw John Wick Chapter 3 as part of a triple feature with the whole trilogy. It was everything I've ever wanted from an action movie! :swoon:
I'm really late to these John Wick films - still haven't seen the first two, which I want to watch before Chapter 3. Unfortunately, they aren't streaming on Netflix or Hulu, and the library requests for the dvds number in the dozens. I'll probably have to rent them off Amazon if I want to watch them...and based on all the good things I'm hearing, I think I'll bite the bullet and watch them sometime this weekend!
I'm not sure why, but I naturally just assumed that John Wich Chapter 3 would be closing out a trilogy, even though it wasn't advertised as a final chapter. But it doesn't. It really is just a third chapter....and I'm totally OK with that. I already want to watch it again. :joy:
Quote from: LumRanmaYasha on May 17, 2019, 11:14:16 AM
I'm really late to these John Wick films - still haven't seen the first two, which I want to watch before Chapter 3. Unfortunately, they aren't streaming on Netflix or Hulu, and the library requests for the dvds number in the dozens. I'll probably have to rent them off Amazon if I want to watch them...and based on all the good things I'm hearing, I think I'll bite the bullet and watch them sometime this weekend!
I hope you like them! :el_hail:
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 17, 2019, 11:53:23 AM
I'm not sure why, but I naturally just assumed that John Wich Chopter 3 would be closing out a trilogy, even though it wasn't advertised as a final chapter. But it doesn't. It really is just a third chapter....and I'm totally OK with that. I already want to watch it again. :joy:
It was supposed to be! I heard they reshot the ending a month or two ago because they had so much fun working on this one that they want to keep the series going indefinitely. Can't wait for Chapter 4!
Always thought it would be hilarious if Hugo Weaving showed up at the end of a John Wick movie and said "How have you been liking the reboot, Mr. Anderson?"
As luck would have it, it turns out the Paramount Network is airing the first two John Wick films today! Looks like I'll be watching both of them tonight and then catching Chapter 3 tomorrow! ;D
Parabellum was my first John Wick film in theaters (although if there was a triple-feature experience over here like Foggle got, I would've done it), and I really loved it. My only complaint is that it could've been a little shorter and tighter, but my word do the set pieces blow just about everything else out of the water. I really hope the momentum keeps going for the franchise.
Aside from it's amazing action setpieces, I feel as though the world-building is the other selling point of this franchise. It really helps it to stand out from other generic action movies. That said, one bit of criticism I could give to Parabellum is that I do feel that it piles it on a bit too much at times, to the point of really slowing down the pacing and overall momentum of the movie up to that point. It brings everything back into full swing again by the third act, but there was about a 10-15 minute chunk of the film in which I was somewhat starting to lose focus.
I agree that it felt a little long in the middle. I love the world-building and weird storylines but this one might have gotten a little too wacky and convoluted for a few minutes. That said, it was still my favorite of the three so far. The action set-pieces are among the best I've ever seen, and I absolutely loved John's "rival" of sorts. Ugh I wanna watch it again already
There were so many "Hey, it's that guy" moments in the movie. Like "Hey, it's that chairman from Iron Chef America!", "Hey, it's the villains from both The Raid movies!", or "Hey, it's Bronn!"
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on May 18, 2019, 11:09:05 PM
There were so many "Hey, it's that guy" moments in the movie. Like "Hey, it's that chairman from Iron Chef America!", "Hey, it's the villains from both The Raid movies!", or "Hey, it's Bronn!"
To be fair, the first two movies had a lot of that too. :il_hahaha: I've never seen Iron Chef America, but man I loved that guy in the film. I want to see more of him in the future!
If you're going to have Bronn in the movie, you might as well have him pretty much act like his GOT counterpart who's already basically a glorified hitman and literally had the only scenes in this final season that were actually still any kind of fun. That's sort of what they did with Alfie Allen, who, at the time the first John Wick came out, acted like the same shitty prick his character in the show was at that point; though going by interviews, that was apparently completely unintentional on the directors' parts because they hadn't yet watched GOT when they were making the first movie.
Also, with all of the world building in these three movies, you'd think they'd at least bring back some more elements from past films rather than just try to introduce a bunch of new ones. Like, I'm legitimately surprised that Cassian didn't show up in this one after how he and John left things off in the last movie.
I do agree that this movie has by far the best action set-pieces, which itself is saying a lot. I still think that the club scene from the first movie will remain my personal favorite action scene in a John Wick film, even if they've technically done better since, though. That's mostly because of how much of a surprise that movie was at the time, but also because I do feel that one thing that the first movie had that the sequels can't help but lack is a strong motivation for John to fight, making the action feel that much more satisfying.
That said, this third movie really brought all kinds of variety to the series beyond just Gun-Fu, with excellent action with knives, vehicles, and especially animals. I will not be surprised if Chapter 4 has trained monkey assassins or something.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on May 18, 2019, 11:48:42 PM
Also, with all of the world building in these three movies, you'd think they'd at least bring back some more elements from past films rather than just try to introduce a bunch of new ones. Like, I'm legitimately surprised that Cassian didn't show up in this one after how he and John left things off in the last movie.
I have a feeling he will be back in Chapter 4, along with Ruby Rose's character and whoever else Wick let live over the course of the series...
I'm pretty sure he killed Ruby Rose's character in Chapter 2, or at least it's implied with her nodding off, whereas Cassian was still visibly conscious after his fight with John (in addition to John specifically saying that he left him alive as professional courtesy).
You're probably right, it just seems like someone always says "be seeing you" when he doesn't outright slaughter one of the other assassins, which I feel might be implying something? :sweat: I really want to at least see Common again in the next movie though!
Well, don't forget, Viggo also says this line to John before dying. I've taken the line to basically be a shorthand for "I'll see you when you get to Hell." It makes more sense for a dying character to say since the only retort they can have at that point is knowing that their killer (in the case of these movies that being John) will eventually end up dead as well.
Chapter 4- May 21, 2021.
John Wick 3 is the first Keanu Reeves film in over 15 years to make $100 million domestically. (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Actor&id=keanureeves.htm)
So, I kind of want to call the new Godzilla movie a guilty pleasure of sorts. I definitely get why it's not doing well with critics, but I also can't help but see it as a tribute to the campy nature of some of the past films, right down to the human characters being stupid and the plot being nonsensical. I mean, for crying out loud they boost Godzilla's energy by exploding a nuke right in front of his face. That'd be like trying to heal someone by bursting open a can of energy drink right next to them. It's the kind of logic you'd find in some of those older era Godzilla movies. In that regard it's entertaining to an extent, but it's not shot nearly as well as the 2014 version, doesn't have the clever political satire of Shin Godzilla, and doesn't all out commit to the camp like Destroy All Monsters or Final Wars. So, it's still ultimately kind of a mess.
I've been bummed to hear all the mixed reception to the new
Godzilla - I was really hoping for some unadulterated monster mayhem, but it sounds like there's a lot of lame human drama stuff in it too. Still, I'm planning to see it with friends on Monday or Tuesday, so I'm hoping it'll be a fun experience nonetheless.
Also, I forgot to mention it, but I've seen all the
John Wick films now and damn do I love them. The action sequences just keep getting better and better with each film, and I'm totally engrossed in the world and John's journey. The first one is my favorite since I feel it's the most complete story, but regardless I've enjoyed each film and am totally down for more installments in the franchise. I've even rewatched the first film and
Parabellum with VLord, and I'm not one to rewatch a film so soon after first seeing it, which really shows me how enthralled I've become with the world these films establish, the action, and the character of John Wick himself.
I do wonder about the ending of
Parabellum though. Namely:
Spoiler
I get Winston thought he could play John, but for someone who has always had the upmost confidence in John's ability to survive anything thrown at him, knows first hand what he's capable of, and has even warned other people not to cross him before, it strikes me as a bit careless of him to not make sure he was dead after betraying him. Now granted, a normal man wouldn't survive being shot that many times and dropped off a building from that height, but John ain't no ordinary man and Winston should know that. I have to wonder if this was really the best solution - maybe Winston should've let John in on his plan, and staged his death, letting him keep the Continental and John get away. Then he wouldn't risk John surviving and gunning for him in the future. Maybe it'll be revealed in the next film he intentionally didn't finish the job, but it's still strange that he would risk John getting revenge because of a misunderstanding, so I don't think that's it. Either way, I was shook by Winston's betrayal and am pretty exited to see the "consequences" of that. ;) Also, I'm very happy Lawrence Fishburne's character survived. His performance as the Bowery King has been captivating and a riot in these past two movies, and I'm really hoping there'll be even more of him in the next one.
As far as other movies I've seen recently go, I don't get the love for
Rocketman. I didn't like it that much better than
Bohemian Rhapsody - it felt like a bunch of music videos set to Elton John songs loosely strung together by the standard musician biopic formula. Granted, there's things I do appreciate about it, namely that it's unabashedly gay and dwells in Elton's failures and low points more than in his successes, which is a bold move for a mainstream biopic about a still-living musician. But I really didn't like that the movie posits that Elton needed to forgive the people who abused him and ask forgiveness from them. I get the core of the idea - there were people he treated poorly that he absolutely had to make amends to for sure, and he definitely needed to let go of the past to focus on finding happiness in the present. But directing this epiphany towards his abusive, unloving parents really rubbed me wrong since they didn't have any redeemable qualities depicted in the film, and that hit a nerve with me for personal reasons.
Glad you dig the Wick! I think they get progressively more enjoyable but I can agree on the first one being the "best" since it tells a simple, effective, and engaging story, whereas the other two are more focused on action and twists.
I think what's great about these films is that you could make a case for any of them being the best one. In fact, I think 3 has hands-down my favorite action sequences in the franchise so far. I like all the films about as strongly, but I give the edge to the first for being a self-contained story that is very centered in John grieving over the loss of his wife and the emotional catharsis of his revenge being the most satisfying, whereas the other two have more open endings and lingering plot threads to lead into sequels.
Also glad to hear that you liked them, Lum! I saw the first movie with my dad back in 2014 when it was out in theaters, and we really just saw it on a whim since we had fee AMC movie pass tickets that we ended up using for my birthday. I didn't have any particular expectations going into it other than hearing some fairly positive word of mouth from critics, so I was pleasantly surprised by how good it was and ended up buying the movie on Blu-Ray and really loving it even more after looking at all of the behind-the-scenes work and effort that went into making it. At that time I didn't expect it to get a sequel, but was overjoyed when it was announced that John Wick Chapter 2 was going into production, and now we have the third one with a fourth already announced and scheduled for release in just two years. The way that this series has grown in popularity over the past few years has been really great and well-deserved.
Like Lum, my favorite is still the first movie. While the sequels have overall better action scenes, John's motivation in the first film really gives it a level of impact that the sequels just don't have to capitalize on. That said, whereas they suffer a bit in terms of story potential, they more than make up for in regard to the action and world-building. To me, the first movie has the surprise factor as well as the best use of John Wick as a character (and arguably still the best villain in Viggo, IMO). Also, Alfie Allen is just such a good actor when it comes to portraying a shit-bag that you want to punch in the face (and yes, I do mean that as a complement). The second movie has the best world building elements in the series, and introduces two of my favorite supporting characters in the franchise so far in Cassian and The Bowery King. In particular I really wanted to see Cassian make a return in this movie since his plot-thread with John is still unresolved, and he's one of the few characters in the entire series to take on John Wick and make it out alive (he even came close to offing him a few times). The fact that John willingly spared him is something that I've always interpreted as John feeling guilty for having killed his Ward against his will, so he may have taken some pity on him even though Cassian would still pose a threat to him later on down the line. As for the third film, like Lum said, I think it by far has the best and most creative action scenes, though probably has the weakest overall story of the franchise. I'd still say that it's about on par with the second movie, though, and overall I'm just really excited to see more of this Universe through the next movie and that supposed Continental TV series that's in development.
As for the whole thing with Winston at the end of John Wick Chapter 3:
Spoiler
I was also surprised to see him genuinely betray John at the end. At first I thought that he and John had a plan, especially because when the Adjudicator told him that John was "gone" he reacted like he was un-surprised, but when he understood her meaning than he looked more serious about it which meant that he hadn't staged a fake death with John. It's especially interesting since the whole reason he landed himself in a situation in which he needed to betray John to get out of in the first place was because he helped John earlier by taking pity on him and giving him an hour to escape. If you remember in the first movie, he immediately had Ms. Perkins executed once she broke Continental Ground rules. This is what he was supposed to do with John, but he treats him more friendly and gives him a chance, which shows that he does on some level have a fondness for John, which it's why I find it all the more surprising that he legitimately turned on him in the end. That said, his reaction to realizing that John was still out there was not one of fear (or at least it didn't look that way), but of acceptance of the consequences. I have a feeling that unlike other people who have pissed off John, he might get a shot at redemption in the next film, but that remains to be seen.
Yeah, I was surprised Cassian didn't show up in 3 since you think he'd be eager to pursue his revenge on John. Then again, the film does start immediately after the end of 2, and when we last saw Cassian he wasn't in the best shape - probably needed to get surgery to get that knife out of him without bleeding out. Hoping he will show up again though, maybe even in the next one.
Spoiler
As for Winston, he did tell John "not to make the mistake of thinking this is personal" when John was conflicted about killing him, probably also referring to his own intentions as well. I think Winston decided to make the best choice for him to keep the Continental and his power in NYC, and shooting John in front of the adjuticator was the best way to prove his loyalty to the high table and make up for his leniency with him before. I do wonder if he could convince John to just let it go, but considering how pissed off John seems to be I don't think he's going to get out of this without a beating at least.
Yeah....I would've preferred if Dark Phoenix was cancelled after all. In the same way that Charles Xavier mentally blocked Jean Grey from remembering key parts of her past (yes, they pull that BS again), I choose to mentally block this movie from my mind and go on pretending that Logan was the swan song to the FOX era of X-MEN movies.
Also, nothing against Simon Kinberg as a person, but why the fuck is the guy notorious for fucking up the Dark Phoenix Saga the first time by writing The Last Stand now both writing AND directing a second adaptation of it to fuck it up all over again?
FOX genuinely did not give a shit about this project with the Disney merger, I suppose.
Since Dark Phoenix was meant to be the start of another trilogy until the merger turned it into the finale, imagine how it could have gotten worse. Judging from this and some insiders reactions to New Mutants, seems like the XCU was going to die even if Disney didn't buy Fox.
I'm waiting until Tuesday to see Dark Phoenix, since MoviePass doesn't really work on the weekends, and that's when we have $6.50 movies anyway, but I'm really not expecting much. I did also rewatch The Last Stand, which is as bad as I remember, but also meaner? I've seen some discourse over the bit where Storm says that the mutant cure is an oxymoron when there's nothing to cure is shooting down Rogue, who has every right to want a resolve to her powers, which is totally justified. Then there's the time when Xavier tells Logan that he doesn't need to explain himself to anyone, least of all to him. The fuck was up with that? Magneto's bit about how in chess, the pawns go first is also extra. On top of that, while I do like the idea of the mutant cure, there just isn't much connecting the storylines together, or enough thought put into any of them to make it work.
Quote from: LumRanmaYasha on June 02, 2019, 12:05:55 AM
As far as other movies I've seen recently go, I don't get the love for Rocketman. I didn't like it that much better than Bohemian Rhapsody - it felt like a bunch of music videos set to Elton John songs loosely strung together by the standard musician biopic formula. Granted, there's things I do appreciate about it, namely that it's unabashedly gay and dwells in Elton's failures and low points more than in his successes, which is a bold move for a mainstream biopic about a still-living musician. But I really didn't like that the movie posits that Elton needed to forgive the people who abused him and ask forgiveness from them. I get the core of the idea - there were people he treated poorly that he absolutely had to make amends to for sure, and he definitely needed to let go of the past to focus on finding happiness in the present. But directing this epiphany towards his abusive, unloving parents really rubbed me wrong since they didn't have any redeemable qualities depicted in the film, and that hit a nerve with me for personal reasons.
I just saw this, and I more or less agree with you. I did generally like the musical sequences, but the biopic boilerplate material is flat as all hell, as much as Taron Egerton gives his all. I do ultimately like it more than BoRap though, mainly since I like Elton's music a lot more than Queen's, but I will admit beyond the campier moments and open gayness, there isn't that much more to it.
As for the forgiveness scene near the end, I think that comes from Elton's own desires to make amends with his parents, but it doesn't work as well in the film as it probably does in his mind because as you said, they don't come off as very sympathetic here. I do feel genuine remorse in that sequence, but it's imperfect.
I read a spoiler, and Dark Phoenix has a weird parallel with the Captain Marvel movie.
Spoiler
So you know how Skrulls are now innocent refugees desperately looking for a home with none of their villainy in the MCU? The D'Bari, the guys Jean Grey genocided in the original Dark Phoenix comic, are basically comic Skrulls here. They even shapeshift. And since they're villains here, this completely ruins one of the biggest moments in the source material. And instead of Jean's turning point being her murder of billions of innocent aliens, it's just killing Mystique.
Emmy saw Dark Phoenix yesterday and said it was "pathetically bad." Keep in mind that she actually liked Apocalypse. :whuh:
I'll stand up for Apocalypse and say that it's decent....if you pretend that it's an early 2000's superhero movie.
Dark Phoenix kind of makes me feel bad for James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender, who were perfectly cast as Professor Xavier and Magneto respectively in First Class, and actually feel like they are trying here despite nobody else in this movie seeming to give a shit. It just feels like such a waste of talent.
I enjoyed Apocalypse as a comedy! As a superhero movie I thought it fell flat, but a lot of it was very funny (whether intentionally or not).
(https://preview.redd.it/inqs0h26z0331.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=78aaa19e5a3e1efc48e1ccd0f9db8c3a62270472)
Tarantino really wasn't kidding about Once Upon a Time in Hollywood's ending deserving to not be spoiled. It's pretty batshit, even (or especially if) you know where the Tate/Polanski stuff was going.
I enjoyed the movie, but I'm not sure how much or even how I really feel about it. On a first viewing, it seems kind of aimless, but the character work is some of his best. I really want to see it again soon to get a fuller impression.
I actually really liked it, myself, but I can understand the issues that many others have with it. It's a character study more than it is a traditional plot-driven movie, which is why there basically is no plot until the last couple of scenes.
As for the ending, I actually didn't find it that surprising. I've seen enough Tarantino movies to know his habits and tendencies, and in particular if you've seen Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained, you'll have a good idea of how that final encounter will shake out.
I finally got to watch Avengers Endgame. Boy, wow, I don't want to go into too much about it, and maybe this is because I just finished watching it as I'm typing this out, but this might be my favorite superhero movie of all time (I had Dark Knight as my #2 favorite movie behind Pulp Fiction, and Endgame might get that #2 spot). I'll re-watch it again maybe in about a week or 2 just to be sure.
I'm not an emotional guy at all, but, almost got me tearing up.
Spoiler
Robert Downey Jr made me like Ironman. Ironman is probably 1a or 1b to Superman. I was aware of him dying, I just didn't know how he died, so just going through the journey with Ironman hit me in the feels a little bit.
I don't know the deal about this Brie Larson lady, but the little bits that she showed up for I had no problem with.
I'll end it here with this; THAT DAMN THANOS is so good.
Endgame was a really good event film. It's been a while since a big commercial live-action movie could hit me on such a strong mix of emotional levels, and the performances from all of the actors for the core original Avengers were spot on. It's one of those things where I have to kind of point to it when people accuse the MCU of being a big machine-produced soulless cash-grab franchise and ask: "What movie were you watching?"
Also, for as much flak as MCU movies get for relatively forgettable scores (this is kind of a fair point on the whole), Alan Silvestri's soundtrack is fucking peak composing skill and I'll take no arguments otherwise. As far as I'm concerned the scores for Infinity War and Endgame are on par with any Star Wars movie.
That said, for everything that I loved about it, I'd be lying if I said it was my favorite MCU movie. I think I ranked it at #6 and I definitely stick by that ranking. It's great, but as an overall experience I do still prefer Infinity War which was much tighter paced. My top favorite MCU films above that one still tend to be the smaller, more personal stories in-between the big crossover blockbusters.
Still, this was a pretty great end to this particular era of Marvel movies. If I'm being honest I doubt even with Feige still on board that this franchise will ever quite reach the same heights again. It's actually probably for the best that it doesn't try to and instead maybe tries a few weirder, more experimental projects in the mix. I'm not saying that it has to go full on Legion here, but something tonally out of the scope of what we've become so used to within the MCU up to this point.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 26, 2019, 09:30:54 PM
Also, for as much flak as MCU movies get for relatively forgettable scores (this is kind of a fair point on the whole), Alan Silvestri's soundtrack is fucking peak composing skill and I'll take no arguments otherwise. As far as I'm concerned the scores for Infinity War and Endgame are on par with any Star Wars movie.
Yeah, I was indifferent to plenty of the soundtracks for MCU movies outside of Thor Ragnarok's, and that's only because of all the licensed songs, but they hit it out of the park for Endgame's music.
QuoteI'm not saying that it has to go full on Legion here,
Still holding out hope Feige will greenlight Noah Hawley's Doctor Doom script.
The vibe that I'm getting is that the Disney+ shows will be allowed to be more weird and experimental (WandaVision, for example, looks like it'll be bonkers), whereas the movies will probably still remain as the safer bets. Still holding out hope for In the Multiverse of Madness to be proper comic book levels of fucking absurdity, though.
As far as MCU music goes, I have a soft spot for Iron Man 1's soundtrack as it has a very unique vibe to it that perfectly fits that movie's tone and the character, sounding nothing like what you would typically expect a superhero theme to sound like. It's not something that I'd listen to on it's own, but it works really well in the context of the movie.
Also I think Captain America: The First Avenger has a great fucking soundtrack, and I'll defend that opinion to my grave. It's also composed by Alan Silvestri, which is why you hear quite a few beats of it reprised and modified to be integrated into Endgame's score. In particular that rendition he played when Steve passes the shield onto Sam really raises the entire emotional payoff of that scene. It was kind of a shame to lose him for the sequels, but I can kind of understand why since The First Avenger soundtrack didn't fit with the very big tonal shift that The Winter Soldier and Civil War took.
Oh, and Ant-Man's main theme music is actually quite good, but unfortunately doesn't have a particularly memorable set of movies to be attached to. Black Panther also had some pretty rad tunes, but I wouldn't exactly call it Oscar-worthy, myself. Aside from those examples, though, the MCU has definitely been lacking in anything substantial in it's film scores.
As for licensed music, Ragnarok and the Guarduans of the Galaxy movies are the only two examples of MCU movies which I feel use it well to service the story and/or tone of any given scene of the movie in particular. Most other Marvel movies just feel like they randomly insert popular songs in random spots just for a cheap "Hey, remember when this was popular?" reference.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 28, 2019, 05:27:09 PM
Also I think Captain America: The First Avenger has a great fucking soundtrack, and I'll defend that opinion to my grave.
The Star-Spangled Man is great. I know it's intended to parody pro-war tunes from that era (which it does well), but I just love that Captain America has a proper vocal theme song.
Any song featuring a montage of punching out Hitler over and over again is A+ material in my book. :thumbup:
So, I know the reviews are apparently mixed on this one, but personally I really liked It: Chapter Two. I'm in a position where I haven't found this story to be scary at all for a long time, now, but to me it's a character study first about coming of age that happens to have horror elements. Much like an actual Stephen King novel, horror is actually only a secondary element at best used to explore character and narrative themes.
The cast in this movie is pretty fucking great, and there's a lot of great visual direction, especially with the brilliant scene transitions and expert use of imagery to create clever motifs. I personally didn't feel the length of this one like others did, and am quite happy with many of it's story-telling decisions. I might change my mind and find more flaws on a re-watch, but the fact that I even do really want to watch it again is a pretty promising sign of my feelings about it. I think I'm personally going to have to disagree with the majority on this one.
I watched Avengers Endgame again and, yeah, I was definitely in the moment with the movie when I said it might've been better than Dark Knight. 2nd time viewing it I noticed a lot of it could've been trimmed, but overall it was still a good movie. Infinity War is probably the better of the 2, but I think I like Endgame more because it had a lot of moments that just got reactions out of me. I did almost tear up again btw.
Next up, John Wick 3 when I buy it.
So, while I don't think that this movie was in any way necessary, for what it's worth I did really like El Camino. I don't think that it's quite on par with Breaking Bad or Better Call Saul at their best, but it's easily better than just about any other straight-to-streaming movie that I've seen.
I thought Todd was the MVP of the movie. The show already did a good job highlighting his psyche, but El Camino reiterated how abnormal he is. Like the way he kills his own maid just because she accidentally found his stash of money, but then gets mad at Jesse for asking if she stole from him and trying to give her a decent burial. Or how he's just unable to understand why Jesse wouldn't want to be friends with him. He thinks offering Jesse pepperoni pizza will calm his nerves, even though the flashback takes place after he shot Andrea in front of him. At least with the Salamancas, you know where you stand with them. But with Todd, it's not like he's sadistic or anything. This wasn't a Ramsay/Reek situation. He legitimately doesn't know what he does to Jesse is evil, and thinks locking him up in a cage is no different than letting him crash on his couch. He's just a jovial guy next door who happens to murder innocent people if they get in his way.
It also somehow manages to make Jesse strangling him to death at the end of Breaking Bad retroactively even more satisfying.
On another note, one little trope that Vince Gilligan brought back from Breaking Bad was the bad guys somehow letting their sense of pride or at least hubris lead them into making a dumb decision that ultimately benefited the protagonist. To an extent I was alright with it in Breaking Bad since characters like Gus or Jack were established that way and thematically played into Walt's character arc. In Gus's case his cockiness in wanting to keep Hector Salamanca alive to torment him gave Walt the means to take him out. Likewise, with Jack, the whole point was how Walt exploited the same kind of pride that lead to his own downfall in the first place. He got him to hold off on killing him to prove a point which gave Walt the opportunity to turn the tables.
Jesse, though, is not that kind of character. If anything the movie did a good job of showing how Mike's character rubbed off on him more than Walt, and he tended to be a lot less gung-ho than his former partner. So it kind of strikes me as a bit too oddly convenient that the climax of the movie worked out completely in his favor. The guy challenging him to a duel was just a random situation that he couldn't possibly predict, yet he was perfectly equipped for that situation. But what would he have done in the very reasonable alternate situation that they just started shooting him as soon as he appeared? Or what if they had more guys that he didn't know about? The whole scene just felt way too contrived, as cool as it was.
Don't get me wrong, it's not like it ruins the movie for me, but it does feel like a bit of a copout, IMO.
El Camino was pretty good. At first, I wasn't sure, since the thing about Breaking Bad is that everything that takes place on the show is about Walt. The rest of the cast, as strong as they are, primarily function to serve his story. It's not a bad thing. especially since it seems like TV is currently more interested in smaller scale stories like that, rather than ensembles like Mad Men, Lost, or Game of Thrones, and it's fair to say that BB was a big reason for that shift. So yeah, taking the focus to another character, even a major one like Jesse, could be tricky. Although Better Call Saul has proven itself to be worthy, even if it took me a couple of seasons to really fall for it.
This just proves that I shouldn't doubt Vince Gilligan, even if it wasn't perfect. The pacing wasn't as tight as either show's, and it's not as dynamic as BB at its best. But I wasn't coming in for a flawless cinematic masterpiece- I wanted to see a decently satisfying coda for one of my favorite Breaking Bad characters, and I got it. I especially appreciate how tasteful the film was with its cameos, only focusing on the ones who'd make the most sense. As much as I'd like to have seen a bit with Hank and the Whites, they don't figure into his story the way Walt, Mike, or Jane do. And damn, Badger and Skinny Pete are friendship goals.
QuoteIt's not a bad thing. especially since it seems like TV is currently more interested in smaller scale stories like that, rather than ensembles like Mad Men, Lost, or Game of Thrones, and it's fair to say that BB was a big reason for that shift.
I'm not sure if I see TV going that way. There are still plenty of sociological dramas than psychological ones on TV all the time like Fargo, Chernobyl, and Watchmen. I haven't noticed a big enough shift in prestige dramas that focus more on the individual than the society they live in. Even Better Call Saul founds it stride when it spent less time on Jimmy and more on making Mike, Gus, and Nacho protagonists.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on October 27, 2019, 05:40:59 PM
QuoteIt's not a bad thing. especially since it seems like TV is currently more interested in smaller scale stories like that, rather than ensembles like Mad Men, Lost, or Game of Thrones, and it's fair to say that BB was a big reason for that shift.
I'm not sure if I see TV going that way. There are still plenty of sociological dramas than psychological ones on TV all the time like Fargo, Chernobyl, and Watchmen. I haven't noticed a big enough shift in prestige dramas that focus more on the individual than the society they live in. Even Better Call Saul founds it stride when it spent less time on Jimmy and more on making Mike, Gus, and Nacho protagonists.
You know, in hindsight, I think you're right. I feel like it's more of a dramedy thing to be one-sided in your attention, such as with Fleabag and Russian Doll. But even that isn't 100%, since Atlanta isn't the Donald Glover show, even though it could easily be.
In some ways though, I do see Breaking Bad still being the show of the era, give or take Game of Thrones as well.
Quote from: Avaitor on October 27, 2019, 10:20:34 PMIn some ways though, I do see Breaking Bad still being the show of the era, give or take Game of Thrones as well.
Oh, definitely. I remember Vince Gilligan credited the shift in binge watching as the reason the show didn't get cancelled early on. Even though previous shows demanded marathon viewing over weekly watches, Breaking Bad aired around the time you could actually do that with Netflix instead of waiting for DVDs to pop out or manually collect old episodes on your DVR. It presented a fresher way of watching shows that most networks and even plenty of streaming services are still having trouble adapting to.
You could also argue Breaking Bad is just improving on what Sopranos did. Almost all the show's events revolve around Tony or people Tony's close to (which makes Chris his Jesse?). It's just that Walt has a really dynamic character arc that pushes him to extreme ends, while even though Tony's a very complex person, he doesn't change all that much between the first and last episode. Layers unpeel, but then they're put back on.
Dark Fate was the least painful of the post-T2 sequels. Like all of the Terminator sequels, it had the inevitable problem of unraveling T2's ending and going "Judgment Day wasn't stopped, but only delayed" and "Miles Dyson wasn't that special. The military was just going to find another computer genius to build a killer AI." If there weren't any Terminator movies between Dark Fate and T2, this would have sucked, but after Genisys, my expectations were so low that it's easier to swallow. And for what it's worth, at least this has Linda Hamilton over drug addict John Connor, Christian Bale sleeping through his lines John Connor, and Daenerys.
Spoiler
As for John getting killed in the first five minutes of the movie, yeah. I can understand why that's the sticking point for critics. Kind of like Alien 3 making everything Ripley did in Aliens all for naught. It's like the opposite problem T3 had when they killed Sarah off-screen, and we were just stuck with John and Claire Danes as the POV characters. I can forgive it more here because T3 needed Linda Hamilton more than Dark Fate needed Edward Furlong or whoever they could have gotten to play an older John. But the POV characters in Dark Fate were only marginally more likable though. Grace was fine, but Dani was just there and doesn't have any screen presence even though she's meant to be the new John.
I don't have particularly good expectations for this movie, but I may check it out this weekend.
As for myself, I saw The Lighthouse this past weekend and an early screening of Doctor Sleep last night. I'll be seeing JoJo Rabbit in a couple of hours, so I'll update with my thoughts on all three films a bit later.
I really wanted to see Parasite, but the nearest theater to me that's playing it is roughly 3 hours away, and I just don't feel like putting up with a 6-hour roundtrip for one movie, as much as I want to see it. I will just have to wait for the video release on this one.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on November 01, 2019, 04:34:03 PM
I don't have particularly good expectations for this movie, but I may check it out this weekend.
I think the later Terminator movies are a little more enjoyable if viewed as schlocky B-movies that inexplicably have $150 million budgets. They're still not good, but they're easier to swallow when comparing them less to the first two films and more to how slasher franchises will often have one or two genuinely good films but the rest are crap people only watch because Robert Englund or Kane Hodder. Or something similar to Jackie Chan's recent films, where not only has age restricted him from doing his famous stunts, he's far too willing to show up in awful movies instead of something a little classier, but he's still fun to watch regardless of quality. Just like how it's still pretty fun to watch Arnold fight CGI robots even if the reasoning for why grows stale.
I really want to see The Lighthouse and Parasite, and they're both in Orlando, but I just moved back in with my mom, and we rarely get those kinds of movies here. I may be going back in a few days to see King Diamond, so if I do, I'm hoping to find time to catch one.
I've been really behind on movies lately, especially after MoviePass went down for good. That said, I was thinking of going to see either Zomebieland 2 or Joker this weekend, since we have a theater with $6 matinees near my neighborhood. I was hoping for It 2, but looks like I missed that.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on November 01, 2019, 08:08:41 PMI think the later Terminator movies are a little more enjoyable if viewed as schlocky B-movies that inexplicably have $150 million budgets. They're still not good, but they're easier to swallow when comparing them less to the first two films and more to how slasher franchises will often have one or two genuinely good films but the rest are crap people only watch because Robert Englund or Kane Hodder. Or something similar to Jackie Chan's recent films, where not only has age restricted him from doing his famous stunts, he's far too willing to show up in awful movies instead of something a little classier, but he's still fun to watch regardless of quality. Just like how it's still pretty fun to watch Arnold fight CGI robots even if the reasoning for why grows stale.
To be honest, I haven't watched T3 or Salvation since they were in theaters, and I didn't even see the last one with Emilia Clarke, but the newest one seems to ignore those ones anyways. That said, I kind of remember enjoying T3 back when I was an easily wowed little kid and thought almost anything with action in it is cool. Not sure how I'd feel about it now, though, but it may he a guilty pleasure like some of the Halloween sequels are to me.
As for the movies that I saw this week:
The Lighthouse- While certainly not for everyone, much like Eggers previous film, The Witch, this really struck a cord with me. It's bat-shit insane with a mix of psychological horror and dark comedy. The cinematography is especially impressive given the old-school silent film-era aspect ratio of this movie. It makes everything feel that much more claustrophobic and isolated. Be warned, this movie gets fucking weird, and I can admit there's a shit ton of stuff I didn't even begin to understand or interpret toward the end. It's a movie that I'd need to watch multiple times to even make sense of, but unfortunately the only theater in my area that played it gave it a very limited release window, so it was only there the one weekend. While I wouldn't call it my favorite movie of the year (that's still Once Upon A Time In Hollywood for me), it's easily up there among the best just as an overall experience.
I'll update with my thoughts on Doctor Sleep and Jojo Rabbit tomorrow.
Quote from: Avaitor on November 01, 2019, 11:31:10 PMI really want to see The Lighthouse and Parasite, and they're both in Orlando, but I just moved back in with my mom, and we rarely get those kinds of movies here. I may be going back in a few days to see King Diamond, so if I do, I'm hoping to find time to catch one.
Yeah, I know the feeling of being unable to see interesting films because they don't release anywhere near you. There are a bunch of films like that which I've had to miss in the past, and even for something like The Lighthouse I had to drive a full hour out of my way to see it.
Well, I'm going to try to catch The Lighthouse before my concert tomorrow. Sounds pretty doable to pull that off.
I saw Zomebieland: Double Tap today, btw. It's honestly kinda dumb and has some serious story beat issues, but I had a lot of fun. The cast is as strong as they were back in the original, and the new characters mostly blend well with the cast. And credit where credit is due, even when it feels like the movie drags as it rests, the camera and editing keep things engaging throughout. I don't think we need a third one, but it's not like we really needed this one either, and it turned out pretty well despite that.
So, I lucked out this weekend. I managed to find a theater within an hour of me playing Parasite! I'll be seeing that tomorrow night. And the Xscape the next town over will be playing The Irishman, which I'll be seeing on Saturday afternoon (I was originally going to watch Ford V. Ferrari that day).
Plus I'll be seeing Knives Out next weekend, and I'll probably push back FVF to that weekend as well.
So I actually did end up catching FVF just because I found a show time at night that worked out. And also, since I never updated on my thoughts on all the movies I saw a couple of weeks ago, here's my really brief thoughts on each:
Doctor Sleep- Mind of disappointing since I at least somewhat enjoyed the novel and expected more from Mike Flanagan as a director. It's not a bad movie by any stretch, but it's pretty underwhelming on the whole, at least IMO.
Jojo Rabbit- Pretty great. I don't think it's quite as good as Life us Beautuful or Inglorious Basterds as far as Nazi satire films go, but it's still pretty top notch and proves that Taika knows how to combine humor with genuinely heartfelt drama. This really has me looking forward to what he does with Thor: Love and Thunder. This would definitely make my top 10 movies of the year.
Parasite- Fucking masterclass. I was already expecting greatness from Bong Joon-Ho, but he really outdid himself here and still exceeded my already high expectations. This is easily my favorite movie of the year, by far, and I have a hard time seeing anything topping it.
The Irishman- Again, another easy top 10 of the year. It's the exact kind of movie that I expected from Scorcese, while still differentiating itself enough from Goodfellas to feel like it's own narrative. I don't think that it's nearly his best film, but it's easily my favorite film of his from this decade, which is still saying a lot.
Ford V Ferrari- Mangold is always a solid director, so the movie works more in good execution and good performances from it's leads than anything else. The script itself is the most standard, run-of-the-mill, Oscar-bait kind of biographical drama that you can imagine, which means that at best, it's a decent flick, but nothing that I'd ever really care to revisit beyond just one viewing. This is actually very similar to how I felt about Walk the Line, cementing Mangold as being at his best when he's directing a Western over a biography (being that 3:10 to Yuma and Logan are easily his best movies).
Overall, though, it was a good round of movies these past two weeks, with only one out of five that I didn't particularly like.
Oh nice, you seem to be catching a lot of movies. I've sadly been pretty behind, although I did get to do one recently- Kevin Smith brought his Jay and Silent Bob Reboot roadshow here, so I had to go and finally knock seeing him off of my bucket list.
I haven't been as big of a fan of Smith's movies in recent years, but his stuff was important to me back as a teenager. I don't think this movie is very good at all- when it isn't being barraged with lowbrow dick and weed jokes, along with occasional bits of racism, it considers in references to past View Askew works and Smith's personal life as jokes, even without the slightest hint of a punchline. Its attempt at "feels" also comes off as hollow, at some points insulting with the way Harley Quinn's character talks about how lonely it is to be fatherless.
That said, I had a lot of fun. Being in a big theater full of audience members laughing along to every gag and applauding every cameo, from expected crowdpleasers like Matt Damon, Brian O'Halloran, and Jen Smith, to more surprising appearances like Frankie Shaw (am I that out of the Askew loop, or did we just have a lot of SMILF fans at this showing?). The best scene is ironically enough the one Smith made at the last minute, the Chasing Amy reunion, which feels like the most authentically cathartic part of the film. I also will give Jason Mewes and Harley credit that they had generally strong performances, and make most of their material work. Even Smith does well with his few important scenes.
I mainly went to see him and Mewes do their Q&A/storytime, which is worth the price of admission alone. The movie was more of an extra to me, and I probably won't ever get to it again. I'll most likely be there opening day for Clerks 3 and Mallrats 2, though.
Yeah, I'm behind too. I saw The Lighthouse last week and it was amazing, but that's all in the past month. :( I really gotta force myself to go see Parasite before it leaves theaters since I know it's gonna be incredible, but I hate going to movies alone and I'm so tired all the time from work and studying that I just want to sleep whenever I'm not busy.
If anyone is interested, I compiled a list of my favorite films of the decade on Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/foggle/list/top-69-films-of-the-2010s/ It will almost certainly change a bunch over time (if I remember to update it), as there's still a lot of good stuff I haven't gotten around to yet. Also, don't pay too much attention to the numbered rankings, Emmy challenged me to make it a ranked list so she could hear me suffer so it's kind of haphazard. At least the top 10, probably the top 25, should be sorted pretty accurately though.
Awesome list! Definitely some on there that I still need to get around to myself. Killer Joe's inclusion reminds me that I haven't seen any of William Friedkin's modern films. Aside from his two biggest classics (The French Connection and The Exorcist), I finally got around to his much less popular 70's film, Sorcerer, which is incredibly underrated now that I've seen it. As I understand it, the movie had the severe misfortune of being released around the same time as Star Wars, and got completely buried by it at the box office.
Interesting to see Guardians 2 instead of the first movie, as most people tend to have the opposite preference. However, the sequel has grown on me a lot each time I watch it. As far as Marvel movies go, I'm curious to know if Logan would rank anywhere were you to extend the list to 100 or so.
I've been wanting to watch Why Don't You Play In Hell? for years now. Also been wanting to watch One Cut of the Dead. I really need to watch a lot more Asian cinema in general. :sweat:
Thank you! William Friedkin is great, another film I really like of his is Bug, which coincidentally is also from the same writer as Killer Joe. I still need to see Sorcerer, myself.
I love Guardians 2. The original is also fantastic but the sequel just really does something for me in a way few films do. I can totally understand why most people tend to prefer the first one but I think the second is my favorite MCU movie overall. I did actually have both Logan and Captain America on there originally, but I decided to diversify my list a little by only including single films from franchises (otherwise the first two John Wicks would also be on there, for instance), with Deadpool 2 being there for X-Men and Guardians 2 being there for the MCU. Once I see more movies from this decade I will probably expand it to a top 100 and include all of those. :)
Why Don't You Play In Hell? is great! A little slow but a lot of fun if you enjoy movies about making movies and oddball comedies. It, along with several others on my list, is from Sion Sono, who is probably my favorite writer/director at present. I'm so mad that I missed seeing One Cut of the Dead while Emmy was visiting last time. They were playing it at the Drafthouse but all the seats for every showing were sold out before I even found out it was on. I also need to watch more Asian cinema, particularly stuff from outside of Japan. South Korea probably has one of the best film industries in the whole world right now, and has for years.
I believe One Cut if the Dead is available to stream exclusively on Shudder. You could sign up for a 7-Day free trial to watch it and then cancel your subscription right away, but I don't know if it's already on the service or not, yet.
Keeping movies limited between franchises is a better way to add variety for sure, but I'd probably cheat by tying the first two Captain America movies and also including Infinity War on there. Don't think any other MCU movies would crack my top 50, though, despite being a fan. Maybe Thor: Ragnarok but I feel like it'd be ruled out in favor of Hunt for the Wilderpeople which is still my personal favorite film from Taika (though I still have yet to see Boy).
Also Grand Budapest is superb, though I would also probably include Isle of Dogs (my favorite movie of last year) were I to make my own list. That said, apparently I'm in the minority on loving that film.
By the way, I had actually added Hail, Caesar! to my watch list on HBO just this past weekend. I was already planning on getting to it this weekend.
Oh, and great to see The Nice Guys get some love on there!
That's a pretty nice list. A lot of stuff I like, a lot I need to get to.
I've thought about my own best of the decade list, but I've also become increasingly indifferent towards the concept of ranking things. I enjoy a lot of things, some more than others, but I'm never really sure if I have it in me to compile things together in a list anymore.
Oh, I finally got around to seeing Joker. I thought it was fine, but not all that special IMO. I give it credit for being a little different than other comic book movies, but I don't think it's as deep as Todd Phillips wants us to think it is, coming off more like Baby's First Scorsese. I also thought that Joaquin Phoenix was just fine, and not as great as many have reported him to be. He was a little too on the nose for my liking. But it did keep my attention throughout, which I could have definitely seen this movie struggle to do.
Quote from: Avaitor on November 19, 2019, 04:20:00 PM
I've thought about my own best of the decade list, but I've also become increasingly indifferent towards the concept of ranking things. I enjoy a lot of things, some more than others, but I'm never really sure if I have it in me to compile things together in a list anymore.
Yeah, same. I've never been into ranking things. I once tried to do a top 10 Simpsons episode list recently, and couldn't figure out a specific 10, much less which of those 10 was better than the other.
I don't really like ranking things anymore either, I just did it because Emmy wanted me to. :awesome: That said, I do enjoy making lists of things that are important to me without a particular order.
Sometimes I think of getting back into it, like making a definitive list of my favorite TV shows ala my old favorite fictional characters list (which I've also thought of updating). But similarly to how I seldom make big posts or contribute to the blog anymore, I don't really have that passion in me aside from the odd moment or two.
I also don't really do ranking lists anymore as it just becomes kind of arbitrary and pointless to try and categorize stuff that I like into different tiers of quality, when in reality they all give me some kind of satisfaction or enjoyment in different ways. Exceptions would be when I'm ranking something specific, like my least favorite to favorite movies or games in a series or any subject where there is a narrower margin of stuff to choose from.
Like, I could make a list of my favorite movies of any given year, but at this point I'd find it hard to really rank them other than maybe singling out my personal favorite.
Saw The Irishman. I wasn't sure about the movie at first, but the last act won me over.
It was nice seeing Joe Pesci again, and especially good to see Robert De Niro doing a role you could tell he actually gave a shit about.
Didn't know Joe Pesci was in it! Gonna have to check it out just for that!
I got to see it in theaters yesterday, myself. I was surprised that we got it here, but then I remembered that this area has a pretty big geriatric market. Seriously, I was the only person under 50 at my screening, and I saw a lot of other older people go to Knives Out, The Good Liar, and Ford vs. Ferrari, as well.
It was pretty good. Not as near-flawless as Goodfellas, but at least better than The Departed. I thought it mostly didn't drag, which it could have easily done being a movie of its length. And yeah, it was nice seeing De Niro and Pacino give a shit for a change, and to see Pesci at all. I was happy to get to see one Scorsese gangster epic in theaters, but I'm especially glad that it was a good one.
The nominees for Best Picture are:
-1917
-Ford v Ferrari
-The Irishman
-Jojo Rabbit
-Joker
-Little Woman
-Marriage Story
-Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood
-Parasite
Okay, got some work to do. I've only seen 4 of these thus far (I've talked about the other 3 before, but I did get to FvF last week, which I thought was just fine). It helps that I've actually been hoping to catch the other 5 nominees this time around, so catching all of them should be a little more pleasurable than usual. It may be tough to find Parasite and Jojo Rabbit, though, but I'm hoping to finally see Marriage Story tonight.
Still need to see Little Women, but I've actually seen every other movie on this list, which is rare this early in the year.
SUPER glad that Parasite made the nomination, though. It 1,000% deserves it.
As for biggest snub, I'd have to say The Lighthouse. Would easily take that over Joker, myself. I was also really impressed by Uncut Gems, but knew that it didn't have a realistic shot at making a best picture nomination. It's the complete antithesis of the kind of movie that the academy goes for. Adam Sandler legit deserves an acting nod, though, and I don't say that lightly.
Based on what made the list, excluding the one that I haven't seen yet, I'd rank them like this.
8. Joker- I said I liked it but had issues with it after first seeing it. The more I've sat on the movie, the more the latter element has grown, to the point where I'm not even sure I could call it all that decent a flick. To be fair, the plethora of ass-clowns who make this out to be some transcendent experience that is above the whole comic book genre (as if genre film is inherently a bad thing) doesn't help my opinion of the flick. That said, I do my best to separate my opinions from what other people say or how they act, and honestly this feels like a derivative version of better films to me. I don't hate it, but it really does nothing for me.
7. Ford V. Ferrari- Solid direction, great lead performances, but average script. I liked the movie well enough, but it is a tad overhyped, IMO.
6. Marriage Story- This movie is completely dependent on the strength of it's two leads, and both Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson more than live up to the task. This also has a bit of personal meaning to me as someone who's experienced similar things when my parents divorced, so the acting felt all the more real to me in that way. Definitely a strong contender, IMO.
5. The Irishman- It's not Martin Scorcese at his best, but even close to that for this director is still pretty quality stuff. I've already talked about this movie at length, but it really manages to keep me engaged in it's characters and the history of these people, which is no easy feat considering how long the movie is.
4. 1917- Saw this just the past weekend and was pretty into it. I'll get it out of the way that it does indulge in a little too much over-dramatiztion that is common of Hollywood type war movie productions, but the overall experience really elevated the movie for me and got me to look past those flaws. This could easily flip-flop spots with The Irishman, but for now I'll give it the slight edge since I feel a bit more inclined to re-watch it.
3. Jojo Rabbit- I love Taika Waititi, and he didn't disappoint, here. Easily one of my favorite films of the year, and I love how he can tackle literally any genre with his style of comedic sensibility, from vampires, to superheroes, to Nazi Germany. I can't wait to see what he does with the next Thor movie.
2. Once Upon a Time....in Hollywood- I may be in the minority here, but I've liked Tarantino's last few movies more than his earlier ones. It may just come down to personal taste, but OUATIH is easily my kind of film. I love the sets, acting, direction, music, and most importantly, the script. This movie easily has the best dialogue of any 2019 film that I have seen. If Tarantino won for this, I'd say that it was well-earned.
1. Parasite- This is no surprise to anyone. I've gushed about how good this movie is, and I can easily say that it's my favorite movie of the year. I know it has no real shot at winning since it's a foreign film, but I'm just happy that it even got this level of recognition. Please go see it, everyone.
Overall, this was a much better list of nominations than the past few years. Keeping in mind that there is still one more movie that I need to see, the fact that I actually like 7 of the 8 movies that I did is automatically better than any other Oscar year from this decade, and finding 6 out of the 7 that I enjoyed to actually be worthy entries is just a huge bonus.
It definitely feels like one of the better stack of nominations in recent years. Very few of these feel like Oscarbait. Even Ford v Ferrari, the one biopic, is more of a crowd pleaser than other stuffy BP noms like Darkest Hour, or even Bohemian Rhapsody.
There's still some voter-friendly choices, and choices that make too much sense. Little Women is a highly lauded adaptation of one of the most beloved books ever written, voters generally like wartime films like 1917, and the Academy loves Tarantino and Scorsese. I don't think you'd have seen Parasite or Jojo Rabbit here five or so years ago.
Or Joker... in its present self. If you took the Batman mythos out of it, maybe it'd still seem like a shoe in? But I'd argue that the Gotham connection is the only thing that makes the movie of note. Make it a regular character study, and no one would bat an eye.
Welp, I did it- finally caught up with all of the nominees. Here are my rankings:
9: Joker- I'm just not that enthused about this one at all. The moral of the story is pretty weak- all it amounts to is to treat people with mental health issues with more empathy, and also classism is a thing. Not that these are bad points, but they're basic and don't really go anywhere. It doesn't help that it makes Fleck look like more of a lucky bystander than a great schemer, which is a... different approach to the character, and I don't think that it ultimately knows where it's going. It's not much more than fine.
8: Ford v Ferrari- I like it better than some of the other biopics that have been nominated in recent years, but that's about it. The acting's generally solid, but not amazing, and Mangold is solid enough of a director to make it pop. It has the same problem that most racing movies have in that the climatic final race just isn't as interesting as intended, in part that it goes on for too damn long, and the director used better ideas early on. It's a perfect dad movie, but doesn't do much for me.
7: Jojo Rabbit- I enjoyed the movie for the most part, but I do agree with some of the criticism that it's sympathies become too close to the wrong parties at certain points, and it doesn't always nail its tone. Especially after a certain twist near the end, it all but loses me. At its best, it's a fun little movie.
6: Marriage Story- I feel like this one needed a rewrite or two. The actors consistently give it their all, and the direction is on point, but a lot of their monologues come off as constipated and oddly worded, which hurts it. If Baumbach fixed bits like Laura Dern's Virgin Mary rant or the final confrontation and cut some of the clunkiness out, this could have been a little higher.
5: 1917- I thought this one was mostly on point, especially aesthetically. I was into the camerawork, subtle editing, and music throughout, and thought that it was paced quite well. I just ultimately prefer character works as opposed to more experimental pieces like this, which is why it fits square in the middle for me.
4: Little Women- I was surprised to like this one as much as I did, having no familiarity with the original novel, and not being a big fan of Gerwig's previous film. And I'll admit that I was a bit confused by the time changing narrative- maybe a rewatch would help things out some more. But I really do like the characters. Each of the sisters (give or take poor Beth) are lovingly defined and acted, and the supporting cast are similarly well built. I mainly clicked with it due to its warmth, which helps to make it stand out among a traditionally glum lineup. I wish each BP slate had more movies added like this and Black Panther, or even The Artist. Even if they aren't the absolute best, they're a welcome change.
3: The Irishman- I consider this to be like a new album from your favorite long-running band- they may not have the energy that they used to, or have as many new things to say, or frankly, as much need to impress as they did 30 years or so. But their craft is as good as ever, and they know what appeals to their fans, and you never know if it'll be their last, so it's worth cherishing. It's a good addition to the Scorsese canon, but it's not on the level of Goodfellas or Casino. And frankly, it doesn't need to be.
2: Parasite- My only complaint is the ending, which I don't love, and would've preferred it they cut it about 10 minutes earlier and on a more vague note. But I otherwise loved everything else about it. It's such a funny movie, and does a great job defining its characters, from the main family's moral code to the subtle meanness of the Park's. What also works well is its shift in genre, which of course Bong Joon-ho knocks out of the park..
1: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood- What can I say, I really like Tarantino's movies, and I think that he slayed it here. It has his best editing since Sally Menke passed, and some of his best character writing overall.
Overall, it's a pretty good balance. I don't love every movie here, but I don't think there are any turds on the level of Green Book or Bohemian Rhapsody. Even Joker is better made than either of those, imo.
I mean, I don't think I can agree with you at all about Parasite's ending not being fitting as it's kind of the whole point of the movie and the natural culmination of the arc that the main family goes through. The ending is still ambiguous in that it only presents that "scenario" as a future that a character imagines in his head (being vague to avoid spoilers here), and reading a general translation of the lyrics to to closing song adds an extra layer to the meaning of the ending.
Still respect your opinion, though.
I wasn't sure about it, but they did it- Parasite became the first (primarily) non-English speaking film to win Best Picture. And while I still don't love the ending (even if I do understand and respect it a little more now), I have to agree that it's the most deserving winner in a while. Bong Joon-ho has been on an incredible roll over the years, and if this helps to make not only his work, but other great Korean and other foreign films to be recognized wider here, I'm happy.
Otherwise, the awards were pretty well-expected. The only win that I think was greatly undeserved was Toy Story 4. I didn't care for Joker or Phoenix's performance much, but I give him credit for how far he took himself for it, and its score was admittedly deserving. Although I'd personally have preferred Adam Driver. Simliarly, I love Laura Dern and liked seeing her win tonight, but I was more impressed with what Florence Pugh did in Little Women, especially as her character is traditionally the one no one likes. I haven't seen Judy, and I probably won't, since Judy Garland makes me uncomfortable, so I'll give Renee Zellweger the benefit of the doubt here.
Everything else I mostly agree with, although I'd have given Parasite the Production Design award instead, and probably would've given Tarantino something.
Had to miss the Oscar's due to my plane flight back to Kentucky being at that time, but was pleasantly surprised when I found out that Parasite won. This is definitely among the few times where I'm actually in agreement with the Oscars on the Best Director and Best Picture category. Also, it's just super awesome to see a foreign film getting it's due outside of just it's own category.
Watched Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Parasite. I didn't like the former all that much. The acting was good, and it was fun seeing all the references to 70s movie culture, but it never felt as fun as Tarantino's other films. Same issues I had with Hateful Eight, really. Though I admit I'm biased because I'm a little bitter Tarantino hasn't gotten to Kill Bill 3 yet.
Now Parasite, that was a beautiful film. Been hearing people argue that they think the Kims are more sympathetic than the Parks and vice-versa, when I really felt the first housekeeper and her husband were the biggest victims of the cast, even after what happened at the birthday party. I like that level of nuance with everybody though. It's also funny to see people misunderstand the film and assume one specific character was meant to be the parasite, (https://twitter.com/nealbrennan/status/1226754938660773888) like they thought they were watching a slasher film and thought the "Parasite" was going to be a monster or a serial killer instead of the wordplay for society forcing people to leech off of each other in order to thrive in life.
I may be in the minority in preferring Tarantino's later films to his earlier ones (by "later", I mean Inglorious Basterds and onward), but I also understand why slower-paced flicks like OUATIH wouldn't be to everyone's liking. It's admittedly a film that lives and dies by how engrossed you get in it's characters and setting, rather than any coherent plot or traditional narrative. If those aspects don't do anything for you, than the film will certainly be a bore. I watched it a second time on a flight last year during Christmas vacation and personally enjoyed it even more than on my first viewing.
And yes, Parasite is one of Bong Joon-Ho's best films to date. I also agree with you about the housekeeper and her husband being the most misfortunate characters of the film.
I personally much prefer stuff like OUATIH to Kill Bill, although I don't really have much use for Hateful Eight, myself. I've been really wanting to see Parasite again, and after I get to Portrait of a Lady on Fire on Hulu, I think that I will.
Watched Ip Man 4, and it's by far the corniest of the Ip Man movies. Every one of them except Ip Man 3 took inspiration from the plot and aesthetic of Rocky 4, but this one more so than the others. It's so heavyhanded in reminding the audience that Ip Man's Chinese martial arts are superior to every other nation's fighting technique. And it veers into After School Special territory when Ip Man walks into an American high school and beats up racist teenagers. Also funny that the film paints Ip Man as the pride of everything Chinese, when the real Ip Man chose to live in Hong Kong for most of his life even after his family was sent back to China. Not to mention by the time 4 happens, he should be around 70 when Donnie Yen doesn't look anywhere near that age.
Watched The Innocents and The Changeling back-to-back today. Both classic horror films for sure. The Innocents definitely deserves it's recognition as a masterpiece of the genre. I'm actually quite surprised at how often I forgot that I was watching a 50+ year old movie (seriously, I didn't expect to see some of the stuff that I did in a major studio production from 1961). I can definitely see the influence this had on more modern mainstream haunting films like The Others and Insidious, among many more. As for The Changeling, while I didn't necessarily find it scary or disturbing in the same way that The Innocents was (though it has some terrifically creepy moments), it works really well as a suspense story with the protagonist slowly uncovering the eerie mystery of what happened in the house he has taken up vacancy in. It isn't quite as perfectly put together as The Innocents, and does slightly drag in a few places, but it more than makes up for that with it's superb film-making craft (especially the excellent use of camera-angles and purposeful shot composition to great effect) and genuinely interesting mystery that keeps pulling you back in as each new piece of the puzzle is revealed. These are now both definitely among my more preferred pieces of horror cinema.
The Batman trailer led me to listening to a ton of Nirvana, and that led me to watching the documentary Montage of Heck. While it has no insight from some people like Dave Grohl, it tells a pretty complete look at Kurt's life. Everything's all so visceral, the combination between animated scenes and journal entries mixed together with interviews from all his friends and family. Those home movies from Kurt and Courtney were rough.
Tenet was bewildering. Not because of the plot, but the sound mixing. It's horrible and all of the cast sound like they're mumbling their words. Ironically, the movie will probably fare much better when it gets to home release just so everyone has a subtitles option. Anyway, for how much the film is a love letter to Bond films, it's not even Nolan's best Bond pastiche. The Dark Knight Rises was his answer to the campy Connery/Moore Bond films, while Tenet seems like his specific tribute to the Daniel Craig era. Kenneth Branagh's character reminds me of the villain from Quantum of Solace, and I don't mean that in a bad way, but it's still strange.
Glad I'm not the only one who had an issue with the audio. I was wondering if it was just my theater that screwed up. As for me, I'm mixed on the movie. It has aspects of Christopher Nolan that I both love and hate. The visual direction is fantastic and Nolan gets great performances out of all of the actors that he works with. However, the time-travel rules that he creates are sloppily laid out in exposition dumps (something that Interstellar also relied too heavily on), and also still isn't that well explained on a first time viewing, and the overall plot feels needlessly convoluted at times.
I do feel like the movie was still enjoyable enough even when I wasn't on board with some of the writing, though, so I'm glad that I saw it. Still, I'll wait for a home release to re-watch it, as I do believe that this is the kind of movie that I can better appreciate on repeat viewings.
Also, just wanted to mention that the Dune teaser made me giddy when I saw it. I love the original novel and while I understand that Villeneuve's style isn't for everyone, I'm personally a fan of his direction. I also went back to reread it recently, but now I'm also reading the sequels which I initially avoided for how polarizing they are, but I'm half-way through the second book and personally I'm really into it. It seems so far that some people understandably dislike how it takes the story in a much darker, more bleak direction, but that can work really well in fiction if handled well, and IMO it has been so far. It plays out sort of like a Shakespearean tragedy. I feel like I'll probably enjoy this and the third book, but the other three Frank Herbert entries in the series apparently polarize even the fans who like the Paul trilogy. I guess I'll get to them when I get to them.
With the teaser and released stills, though, I can definitely say I'm liking what I'm seeing, and the cast seems pretty fucking great. More than anything, though, I really just want to see a high concept Science Fiction movie do well at the box office. Even though I'm not the biggest fan of Alex Garland, I do wish that Ex Machina and Annihilation could have done better to increase interest in the genre. Likewise, Arrival and Blade Runner 2049 (which I loved) did really poorly. And let's not even get started on how Harvey Weinstein utterly butchered the theatrical release of Snowpiercer. Sure, mainstream fair like the Matt Reeves Planet of the Apes trilogy did well enough (which I am certainly a fan of), but I view them more as action blockbusters first with Sci-Fi elements. I'd really love it if Dune could do for it's genre what Game of Thrones The Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones did for adult Fantasy series in mainstream media.
It'll probably still underperform, of course, but I'd like to hope a bit of I can. :sweat:
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on August 08, 2020, 12:12:51 AM
Watched Ip Man 4, and it's by far the corniest of the Ip Man movies. Every one of them except Ip Man 3 took inspiration from the plot and aesthetic of Rocky 4, but this one more so than the others. It's so heavyhanded in reminding the audience that Ip Man's Chinese martial arts are superior to every other nation's fighting technique. And it veers into After School Special territory when Ip Man walks into an American high school and beats up racist teenagers. Also funny that the film paints Ip Man as the pride of everything Chinese, when the real Ip Man chose to live in Hong Kong for most of his life even after his family was sent back to China. Not to mention by the time 4 happens, he should be around 70 when Donnie Yen doesn't look anywhere near that age.
Personally, I love Donnie Yen movies. That being said, Ip Man should've stopped after the 1st one. I get it, we're trying to see the legacy of the man who taught Bruce Lee, but story wise I hated everything when it came to 2-3 (I haven't watched 4 yet but I can guess where it's going). IPM2 I just thought was overall terrible. Didn't even enjoy the fights. IPM3, I would've rather it been 2 and 4 be 3. However, IPM3's story irked me to no end. I get it, I don't know what Chinese culture is/was like back then but the premise of Ip man fighting just bothered me. I love the fight scenes though, especially the last fight, but the overall premise of everything. Surely, he could've told everyone why he would step away from fighting (and surely people would understand), but like I said, I don't know what their culture is like. IPM1 though, was just immaculate.
If I'm not watching comic book movies you can probably find me watching a martial arts movie. They are my go to's no matter how corny they can be. Even the good ole 70's-80's martial arts movies are still something I'd watch this very day.
Yeah, the exposition dumps were annoying. For a movie that's meant to be Nolan's Bond tribute, it lacks any of the snappy dialogue you usually get from Bond films. Speaking of, I think the most interesting part of the film wasn't the film itself but the intertextuality in Nolan making a movie in the style of 007 when Sam Mendes was heavily influenced by Nolan's films while making Skyfall. It's fun to see that mutual mingling between directors and franchises that doesn't actually involve the director touching the franchise.
Watched the Mulan movie and hated it. This video perfectly sums it up. (https://youtu.be/ZccG-wtt5FA)
Kudos to you for actually making it through that. I wouldn't drop a penny on another live-action Disney remake let alone $30 of my money.
I'll give it one plus in that it isn't a shot-for-shot remake like all the others, but it's so joyless and stiff that I'd have preferred the former.
Disney really seems to struggle with making these remakes notable. When they're basic remakes like Beauty and the Beast and Lion King, they're entirely superfluous, but when they venture off like Maleficent, Dumbo, and apparently Mulan now, they lose their point and become basically useless. They seem to do better with splitting the difference, like with Cinderella, Jungle Book, and Aladdin, but even those are hardly essential IMO.
Aladdin was also pretty bad, IMO. Cinderella and Jungle Book kind of have the benefit of not being quite as widely beloved as the Disney Renaissance movies so people tend to go a bit easier on those, but even then I'd hesitate to call them good. They aren't as awful as the other Disney live-action remakes, but that's a pretty low bar. I'd still say that they suffer from a lot of the same problems as many modern Hollywood blockbusters do, though.
They need that spark that turned Pirates of the Caribbean from a theme park ride into a bunch of seafaring adventure movies. And that's crazy to think about because I used to think all the movies after the first one were dumb, but compared to the live-action remakes, at least the first two sequels have more depth and experimentation to them.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on September 10, 2020, 05:00:37 PM
I wouldn't drop a penny on another live-action Disney remake let alone $30 of my money.
Wait what
It's what they're charging to watch the movie on demand.
They're charging $30 to watch the movie on a streaming service, and it'll be available to the general public in December. It's pretty fucking bullshit.
Thinking about it, Marvel aside (and let's be honest, that's Kevin Feige running the show there), I'm hard-pressed to think of any major Disney projects that I've even found above passable for the last half-decade or so. Pixar has had a couple of alright movies and a few pretty bad ones, and overall is kind of a hollow shell of their 90's and 2000's output from Toy Story to Up. I thought Wreck-It Ralph was alright (still haven't bothered to watch the sequel) but personally couldn't stand Frozen and found Big Hero 6 to be incredibly mediocre. And of course, their live-action remakes have ranged from inoffensive but inferior alternatives to their animated counterparts at best to absolute dumpster-fires more often than not. And I'm not one of the people that detests The Last Jedi but overall, Disney's Star Wars has failed to really ignite any excitement in ke for that franchise.
Despite clearly being the most profitable movie company in the business, their output really doesn't reflect that from a quality standpoint. Of course, their movies make up less than 20% of their overall profit since they make far more from their amusement parks, hotels, and cruises, as well as their merchandise, so it's not like they have any incentive to do better, but it's still rather sad to see how much they've degraded in terms of quality on the movie side of things.
I honestly really liked Zootopia, Moana, and Inside Out, but I'll agree that qualitywise, the latter half of the 2010's wasn't great for Disney. I already didn't care about the remakes or Star Wars, but I haven't had the same level of enuthisasm for either of their animation studio's films in a while, and even Marvel's upcoming slate isn't leaving me stoked. They've been doing better with their animated series, but even those are starting to show a tired formula.
It doesn't really matter how we feel about their recent output, because Disney has been doing quite well for a while. But that may not last, since they've notably gone through cycle of profitability. They were on top of the animation game in the late 20's and 30's, but were struggling to find profits throughout most of the 40's. Cinderella and an increased focus on live-action helped to make the brand bigger than ever, especially fueled by the opening of Disneyland and ventures into television, then they couldn't figure out how to follow Walt's path in the 70's and 80's. Eisner and Katzenberg push the animation studio into creative highs, then follow one of the most iconic run of films ever made with samey musicals and ill-advised experiments to increasingly diminished results. After years of mostly staying afloat thanks to Pixar and POTC, the animation studio comes up with some of their most popular films in years, while Marvel and Star Wars continue to dominate the market, and they find high levels of success by remaking some of their most beloved animated films.
They may be heading towards another low, especially after having such a record high gross income from last year. They must have reached the ceiling by now, and the trashfire reception to Rise of Skywalker and mixed at best reaction to Mulan suggest that they could be falling soon. If the next couple of Marvel movies end up sucking, that could further push towards a down period for Disney.
I don't necessarily expect Marvel to suck all of a sudden even though that seems to be a prevailing opinion after their momentum has been reset to ground zero with the conclusion of the Infinity Saga. My main worry is more that they will creatively stagnate with safe and formulaic movies. I wouldn't mind at all if we had a few stinkers were they to go a more experimental route if that also produced some truly unique and great movies as well. I mean, after reading the entire 102-issue + 5 annuals Lee/Kirby run, I'd at the very least like to see them nail a new FF movie.
I know we're in that phase where it's cool to hate on Marvel because it's a product of evil corporate Disney, but Disney only owns it. At the end of the day it's still made by actual people, some of who do give a shit about making something that respects the comics and is good, so I'd still personally be happy if Marvel could remain fresh going forward. We'll just have to wait and see, though.
This article I read's been making me think about SPECTRE lately. (https://medium.com/@ellardent/tweetnotes-extra-spectre-b34a41ebf5f8) How it has all the ingredients for a great Bond movie, but it just landed flat for me and I couldn't think of how to word it for ages. The essay's helped me see some things in a new light, like how the film's subversions of the Craig formula is meant to melt Bond's heart and guide him to a role outside of killing. Doubt No Time to Die will stick to that message, but I hope so. I just wish they had a better villain to glue it all together. SPECTRE was a waste of both Christoph Waltz and a legendary Bond villain. You finally get the rights back to Blofeld after decades of legal tangling, and all you do is make him an evil stepbrother who wanted to Reverse-Flash Bond because his dad liked him more?
I'll have to check that article out later.
Spectre wasn't really more than fine, but I've mostly accepted that there aren't that many Bond movies as good as Skyfall or Casino Royale were. The franchise has always been pretty uneven, including the Connery days. For every Goldfinger high, you'd have a Thunderball-level mediocrity or two to sit through.
Speaking of Bond, No Time to Die's been delayed yet again, which everyone sort of expected, but still a pity. It did get me to thinking though, No Time to Die's the only 007 swan song film that was produced from the beginning under the idea it'll be the lead actor's finale. Connery was on the fence with leaving when filming You Only Live Twice, Moore announced his departure after his displeasure from filming View to a Kill, and both Dalton and Brosnan were planning to do more films before EON pushed for a new take on Bond. Craig's the first actor whose last film will actually feel like a last film.
Been watching my fair share of horror this Halloween. Among those has been the action-horror hybrid Kim Jee-woon film "I Saw the Devil" which is pretty fucking amazing, IMO. Definitely not for the squeamish, but it's one of the most unique and disturbing revenge films that I've ever seen.
I also watched John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness which is among the few of his films I hadn't seen before. While it's one of his more critically panned films, I personally enjoyed it for the most part. I do think it gets hammed up a bit too much at times, even by John Carpenter's standards, but the hoakie nature of the story is also part of it's charm, much like other Carpenter films from that era. I think what makes it work for me, though, are the core cast of characters who are fairly likeable and easy to get behind even if they lack in any real depth (again, playing to Carpenter's strengths).
The Wolf of Snow Hollow is a really good horror comedy in my book. It manages to have a strong emotional core with it's central character's depression and alcoholism while being morbidly amusing at times with it's dark humor and over-the-top moments. Not quite as good as something like An American Werewolf in London for me, but about on par with Ready or Not and Us from last year, both of which I also really enjoyed.
Watching Blackkklansman. For all of Spike Lee's well-documented antipathy toward Tarantino, the film feels like a less stylized version of something QT would've done.
Just watched Wolfwalkers. It's definitely worth most of the praise that it got. Despite being a fairly predictable story, it's execution is so top notch that it still works despite the conventional set-up. Kind of reminds ke of what animated Disney movies used to feel like.
The Empty Man is a horror movie based off a comic book that was just dumped into a minimal amount of theaters last year due to the pandemic. Only recently has it really started to get some buzz due to word of mouth developing a bit of a cult following. Having just seen it myself, it really did live up to the hype for me. It's my ideal kind of horror movie and definitely one of the best I've seen in the last few years. It gets a strong recommendation from me provided you're into more psychological horror with not much emphasis put on answering questions or trying to make sense of everything.
Tombstone
I might have to rethink my current favorite movies. It's always been top 2 for me, but it might move over Pulp Fiction. I have to rewatch Pulp Fiction some day to see if I still feel the same about it. The kicker, I'm not a fan of westerns at all, but I do love this movie. Anyway, of course Doc Holiday is my favorite (no surprise right? Everyone loves him). I've been quoting some of his lines the last couple of days, but there are some great lines all over the place from quite a few people. I have quite a few favorite scenes but Doc and Ringo meeting for the first time really stands out in my head at the moment.
The movie did make me want to check out the Red Dead games but, as I've stated, I'm not a fan of westerns. I would probably jump on every western right now if I had an interest.
Watched Promising Young Woman earlier this week. It's a really uncomfortable watch, and the story likes playing with your head by casting actors usually known for nice or comic relief roles as pieces of shit, but I thought the final scene tied it all up pretty well.
Saw Mangrove too, and Shaun Parkes gives a pretty good performance.
You can never go wrong with Tombstone. I came around to liking Pulp Fiction eventually, but if I'm being honest I'm among the few who actually enjoys Tarantino's later films a bit more than his earlier ones. I know I'm in the minority on that, though.
I just saw Kimetsu no Yaiba: Mugen Train and Mortal Kombat. The former was obviously something I really enjoyed, though a tad disappointing as an adaptation since it added nothing to the source material and could have stood to slightly re-work the narrative to better fit a feature-length film. On the other hand, it's still adapting one of my favorite arcs from the manga, so of course I still liked it.
Mortal Kombat joins Sonic the Hedgehog and Detective Pikachu as one of those movies that I can't really call good but is kind of passable for a video game movie. There's a lot of dumb writing in here which is all the more odd since there is a bit more source material to work with from the games to tell a better fleshed out story, but what we get is ultimately more of a "so ridiculous it's kind of fun" sort of affair.
I finally got around to Godzilla vs Kong, and I enjoyed it a good bit. I mean yes, the human characters are weak (although holy shit, when did the kid from Deadpool 2 start going through puberty?), and there's no effort to tie the story together, but who watches a Godzilla movie for character development or plot? It was a little weird how the characters from King of the Monsters almost never coincided with the characters from Skull Island, but that's fine, I just wanted to see monster action.
It did remind me that I still need to see Skull Island, but I'm more interested in digging through the Criterion set that I picked up last year. Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla is calling me. Should also finally see the Snyder cut, but I'll just wait for that to come back to HBO Max. I still need to see Man of Steel and BvS first, anyway. I'll probably end up doing Mortal Kombat instead soon.
I also got around to seeing Soul, which I did enjoy, although it's probably my least favorite of Pete Docter's films. I'm with the side uncomfortable with a white woman voicing a Black man, but besides that, I'm just growing increasingly tired of the Lasseter formula, who Docter in particular feels especially tied down to. But it's at least a lot better than Onward, which I thought was mostly uninspired, and I loved how the afterlife segments looked, as well as the soundtrack and mixing.
Thought Soul was all right, but it's frustrating how close it gets to being a great movie but doesn't quite accomplish that. Like an 8 that's so close to being a 9.
Watched Nomadland yesterday. I appreciate what it was going for, and I liked seeing Frances McDormand, but I don't get why this movie's been gobbling up awards left and right. Or maybe I'm just too stupid for these tone poem movies.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on April 25, 2021, 05:24:09 PMThought Soul was all right, but it's frustrating how close it gets to being a great movie but doesn't quite accomplish that. Like an 8 that's so close to being a 9.
Watched Nomadland yesterday. I appreciate what it was going for, and I liked seeing Frances McDormand, but I don't get why this movie's been gobbling up awards left and right. Or maybe I'm just too stupid for these tone poem movies.
Agreed on both counts. Soul is mostly a good movie but has various plot issues and kind of pussies out with it's ending (IMO).
And yeah, I tried to get the appeal of Nomadland, but it's a stark reminder of why I don't like art films. I've seen Chloe Zao's two previous films as well, and I honestly don't think I can understand the hype behind this director. I thought The Rider was at least interesting enough that it didn't outright bore me, but it's not exactly something that I would ever care to re-watch.
Still, oddly enough I'm kind of interested to see The Eternals if only to figure out what Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios saw in her that would be a good fit for one of their movies.
I haven't seen all of the Best Picture contenders this year, but of the ones that I did Judas and the Black Messiah is easily my favorite to win.
It's always been a case in superhero movies to hire a director not known for action films. Who would have expected the Elf guy to make Iron Man, the Saw guy doing Aquaman, or the Fruitvale Station guy to do Black Panther? Even back in the day, Tim Burton was considered a surprise choice to direct Batman because he was mostly known as the Pee-Wee/Beetlejuice guy then.
I felt more or less the same way about Nomadland. It's gorgeously shot and has some genuine compassion to it, enough so that I think Tim Brayton is a little unfair to it (https://www.alternateending.com/2021/04/nomadland-2020.html), but it's not going to stick with me the same way Parasite or OUATIH did.
Honestly, aside from maybe Chicago 7, I don't think there was a real stinker in this year's BP race, but there also isn't that one film that I truly loved, either. Nomadland and Promising Young Woman were among my favorites, but I don't see myself owning them, and they'd probably rank among the middle fair from last year.
I do wonder if I would have reacted better to most of these films if I got to see them in theaters. No matter how much the studios keep trying to push their streaming services on us, even despite their convenience, nothing will compete with the big screen for me. Now that I'm fully vaccinated, I'm hoping to finally go back. I tried to see the first two Heaven's Feel films a while ago, but someone sitting a few seats away from me kept his mask off for as long as I could see, so I walked out after the first film ended, and have refused to go back until now.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on April 25, 2021, 06:17:42 PMIt's always been a case in superhero movies to hire a director not known for action films. Who would have expected the Elf guy to make Iron Man, the Saw guy doing Aquaman, or the Fruitvale Station guy to do Black Panther? Even back in the day, Tim Burton was considered a surprise choice to direct Batman because he was mostly known as the Pee-Wee/Beetlejuice guy then.
True, but in those cases all of those directors had proven that they could do mainstream crowd-pleasers beforehand, like James Wan with Insidious and The Conjuring, Ryan Coogler with Creed (not to mention that the racially-driven narrative of Fruitsvale Station is an element that made him an attractive pick for what they wanted to do with Black Panther), and Tim Burton with both movies that you mentioned. To add to that, James Gunn had both Slither and Super under his belt by the time they hired him for Guardians, and even more indie directors like Taika Waititi still had movies that were easy to get into even if they weren't very popular. And Sam Raimi had definitely already reached a very well-renowned cult status well before the first Spider-Man.
Chloe Zao's movies are VERY niche and it's not as outright obvious (at least not yet) what quality of her style makes her a good fit for a property like The Eternals. I'm not really criticizing their choice here (as I said, I'm actually interested), but I'm also not quite sure what she has in mind for a big-budget Hollywood movie given how her movies are the polar opposite of having mainstream appeal, even compared to other similar directors. Again, that could absolutely be to Marvel's benefit here in the same way that Denis Villeneuve was a great choice for Arrival and Blade Runner 2049 despite not having really done big-budget Sci-Fi before that point (and subsequently why I'm so excited for Dune). It's just not as obvious yet why she would be a good fit for her respective big-budget movie until maybe we see it for ourselves.
Quote from: Avaitor on April 25, 2021, 06:29:53 PMI do wonder if I would have reacted better to most of these films if I got to see them in theaters. No matter how much the studios keep trying to push their streaming services on us, even despite their convenience, nothing will compete with the big screen for me. Now that I'm fully vaccinated, I'm hoping to finally go back. I tried to see the first two Heaven's Feel films a while ago, but someone sitting a few seats away from me kept his mask off for as long as I could see, so I walked out after the first film ended, and have refused to go back until now.
That sucks to hear. I can't stand it when even just one inconsiderate person has to ruin an experience for everyone else. It's not that hard to keep a mask on during a film. If someone isn't willing to do at least that much, they might as well just stream the movie at home.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on April 25, 2021, 06:39:44 PM
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on April 25, 2021, 06:17:42 PMIt's always been a case in superhero movies to hire a director not known for action films. Who would have expected the Elf guy to make Iron Man, the Saw guy doing Aquaman, or the Fruitvale Station guy to do Black Panther? Even back in the day, Tim Burton was considered a surprise choice to direct Batman because he was mostly known as the Pee-Wee/Beetlejuice guy then.
True, but in those cases all of those directors had proven that they could do mainstream crowd-pleasers beforehand, like James Wan with Insidious and The Conjuring, Ryan Coogler with Creed (not to mention that the racially-driven narrative of Fruitsvale Station is an element that made him an attractive pick for what they wanted to do with Black Panther), and Tim Burton with both movies that you mentioned. To add to that, James Gunn had both Slither and Super under his belt by the time they hired him for Guardians, and even more indie directors like Taika Waititi still had movies that were easy to get into even if they weren't very popular. And Sam Raimi had definitely already reached a very well-renowned cult status well before the first Spider-Man.
Chloe Zao's movies are VERY niche and it's not as outright obvious (at least not yet) what quality of her style makes her a good fit for a property like The Eternals. I'm not really criticizing their choice here (as I said, I'm actually interested), but I'm also not quite sure what she has in mind for a big-budget Hollywood movie given how her movies are the polar opposite of having mainstream appeal, even compared to other similar directors. Again, that could absolutely be to Marvel's benefit here in the same way that Denis Villeneuve was a great choice for Arrival and Blade Runner 2049 despite not having really done big-budget Sci-Fi before that point (and subsequently why I'm so excited for Dune). It's just not as obvious yet why she would be a good fit for her respective big-budget movie until maybe we see it for ourselves.
Yeah, I've been curious where they're going with that film. A director swimming in awards directing a Z-list Marvel team, and the only tangible connection with the rest of the universe is that the characters are loosely the same race as Thanos. Not expecting it to be niche or anything, they have Angelina Jolie, Salma Hayek, and Kit Harrington front and center in the cast listings and the film's budget sounds about the same as the others, and I'd be an idiot if I thought "Does this Golden Globe-winning director have what it takes to direct a blockbuster?", but it's been one of the biggest enigmas in the franchise in a while. A little on the level of if Marvel one day said "Heads up. We've announced Bong Joon-ho's Power Pack!"
So I went and watched Midsommar. On the bright side, it was a well-directed remake of The Wicker Man with stunning location shots and cinematography. But once I realized it was just Wicker Man, it all became predictable and fell into that same problem lots of other horror movies face where all the characters who die gruesome deaths were just dumb assholes. I get it was also an analogy to grief and how you can't process grief when you're in a bad relationship, but I came out of it more annoyed than unnerved. And it's disappointing too, because I really liked Ari Aster's short film Strange Thing About the Johnsons.
While I don't often post about it, I've been in the habit of watching a couple of classic movies every weekend over the past year or so. I've discovered a lot of great stuff over that time, most recently being Night of the Hunter which is probably one of my favorite films that I've seen in quite a while. It's a movie that I know has been influential among many directors and now I can finally see why. There is a sharp use of cinematography as well as stylistic uses of framing and lighting that feel ahead of their time (though I do know of other movies from this era with similar levels of care and forethought in their filming styles). This is also another one of those rare movies with a surprisingly good child actor in the case of John (Harper's son). However, it's Reverend Harry Powell (played by Robert Mitchum) who steals the show, and who may have just secured a spot as one of my all-time favorite movie villains. I'll definitely be giving the film a re-watch one of these days, but it definitely managed to leave a strong impression on me right from my first viewing.
I was working on a draft about that one for my blog, but I haven't touched it in a while.
I'm glad to see you like the movie, though! It's a very impressive film, and deserves the following its received over the years.
It's hard to believe that this was not only from a first time director, but that it was his one and only film, given how deliberately crafted it feels. I'm also surprised at what it managed to get away with given the standards of the 50's, from religious brainwashing and domestic abuse to putting children in very clear danger and forcing them into emotionally intense situations. And it's not all just through implication. It actually outright shows some stuff that I imagine would have been considered disturbing to some audience members from that time.
Sunset Boulevard (Billy Wilder)- This was masterful. Here is yet another one of the many, many classics on my backlog that it took me forever to get around to, but such is the case when I'm into so many different things in multiple different mediums at the same time. I've seen many classics that I respect from a technical and/or historical standpoint, and many others still that I do quite like but don't personally fall in love with. However, this is one of those that really does feel timeless to me. It's probably one of the earliest films that I've seen (in terms of release date) that tackles a meta-narrative of sorts with how it openly and unsubtly comments on the Hollywood system beyond just the plot itself taking place in a Hollywood setting. It's also a great example of a film that pretty seamlessly and expertly blends genre, in that it's clearly a drama with a dark romantic focus to it, but also strays more than once into the realm of (I would argue) psychological horror what with Norma's manipulative behavior in guilting Joe into staying with her, with an increasing focus on her dependency both destroying his life and mental state as well as his submissiveness to her feeding her ego-induced delusions of grandeur to a pretty toxic effect for both of them. The now deservedly iconic final scene is all the more haunting in context of the entire movie leading up to it (and yes, this is one of those that I unfortunately had spoiled for me long ago through the osmosis of countless pop-culture references).
Overall, these are the other movies that I've seen this year that I really liked in one way or another and that lived up to their famous pedigree (for the classics) or hype (for the more modern stuff) or that I just really liked in general because it suits my personal taste:
Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton)
The Innocents (Jack Clayton)
Dr. Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick)
Night of the Demon (Jacques Tourneur)
The Treasure of Sierra Madre (John Huston)
The Man Who Would Be King (John Huston)
The Day of the Jackal 1973 (Fred Zinnemann)
In the Heat of the Night (Norman Jewison)
The Sting (George Roy Hill)
Three Days of the Condor (Sydney Pollack)
Thief (Michael Mann)
Manhunter (Michael Mann)
Sorcerer (William Friedkin)
Kramer Vs. Kramer (Robert Benton)
Network (Sidney Lumet)
The Verdict (Sidney Lumet)
The Changeling (Peter Medak)
The Blob 1988 (Chuck Russell)
The Monster Squad (Fred Dekker)
Born on the Fourth of July (Oliver Stone)
Good Morning, Vietnam (Barry Levinson)
Presumed Innocent (Alan J. Pakula)
Twelve Monkeys (Terry Gilliam)
L.A. Confidential (Curtis Hanson)
Audition (Takashi Miike)
I Saw the Devil (Kim Jee-woon)
The Wailing (Na Hong-jin)
You Were Never Really Here (Lynne Ramsay)
One Cut of the Dead (Shin'ichir? Ueda)
The Suicide Squad (James Gunn)
Mind you, again, these are just from the ones that I've seen this year that I had never watched before, and at that only the ones that I really loved. I'm particularly surprised that it took me as long as it did to get around to Twelve Monkeys and both Michael Mann films that I listed since I love Gilliam's Brazil so much, and I've been a huge fan of Michael Mann's 90's and early 2000's output (Collateral is still probably one of my favorite movies of all time). I have been trying to watch more movies in general on my days off, though most of that has been older stuff. To be quite honest I have barely watched that many movies that have actually released this year.
Also, I may very well add to this list, not just movies that I may end up seeing later on from this point, but others that I'm sure I have forgotten about in trying to list everything that I watched this year that I really liked. It's still easy to forget at least a few.
Watched The Green Knight. It's a really slow, but beautiful movie. Every frame of it's like a museum painting.
Watched Candyman last night. I'm a bit conflicted on this one upon initial viewing and kind of want to see it again to clarify my thoughts on it. The original film is one of my favorite horror movies of the 90's, and I feel that this movie does a great job of respecting the message, themes, and tone of that movie. However, the story beats felt all over the place on my first viewing, one scene in particular feels like it could be cut from the film entirely without losing any story or theming, and some of the CG is distractingly bad. That said, the cinematography and general camera work is excellent, and the score is pretty great as well. This movie is a mishmash of things I really like and a lot of individual issues that add up. I still want to watch it again, though, as I'm not quite sure I entirely got every aspect of what the movie was trying to say on my initial viewing, aside from the more obvious subtext.
The Player (Robert Altman; 1992). A really good and different take on a thriller. I'm always a bit iffy when it comes to anti-Hollywood films, not because I don't love seeing greedy, corrupt, soulless executives being called out for what they are (I very much do enjoy that), but because more often than not these sorts of stories can come off as overly preachy, pretentious, and/or cheaply vindictive if handled by poor talent. When done well, though, they can be a sharp critique on the nature of the business and still a great film in their own regard. Much like Sunset Boulevard (which this film clearly takes inspiration from, among other classics, and openly acknowledges it), this is definitely the latter case and I really love the unexpected ways in which the story unfolded. I definitely need to check out more of Altman's filmography in the future.
I saw Alan Moore's The Show, and it's an intriguing curiosity piece. Full of subversions of detective tropes, nods to the British Dennis the Menace, and even a superhero lurking around despite Moore's insistence he's done with the genre. Plenty of times where it's Moore doing a pale imitation of Lynch, and I don't think the themes of the movie tie up in any meaningful way, but it's nonetheless cool we're getting works like this from him.
Stanley Kubrick's The Killing. You can tell that Christopher Nolan took a lot of influence from this movie for the bank heist scene in The Dark Knight. It's interesting for an earlier Kubrick film. On the one hand it feels a lot more standard in execution than much of his later work (not to imply standard as a bad thing, to be clear), but it's also easy to forget that a lot of aspects of this movie were completely against the norm for it's time, such as the non-linear storytelling.
The Apartment. Another excellent Billy Wilder film. Shame it took me so long to get around to it, but to be fair romance isn't really my genre. That said, when a story is well done, I find that genre rarely matters, and this is definitely a case of that.
Yeah, I wasn't really up for romantic comedies when I got to The Apartment, but there's so much more to it that I was able to get hooked into immediately.
It's also a really dark movie for how big of a hit it was.
So, No Time to Die...
Spoiler
I wasn't expecting a thematic sequel to On Her Majesty's Secret Service but with the roles reversed, and I'm very pleasantly surprised it went that route.
It's so bittersweet watching this. Unlike every other last Bond film like Diamonds Are Forever, View to a Kill, License to Kill, Die Another Day, this movie absolutely knows this is a finale and milks that for all it's worth. And for Daniel Craig, who thanks to film delays across his time as Bond, is the longest-serving 007 in film history. A 10-year-old who watched Casino Royale in cinemas would be in their mid-20s now. Which you can also apply to Roger Moore since he also played Bond uninterrupted for over a decade, but his era never had the multi-movie character arc Craig's bond had. While not all his films have been stellar, none of them have been boring, all setting up pieces of the puzzle. And while it's obvious there was little planning involved in Bond's arc throughout his run, Quantum's seeming omnipresence in Quantum of Solace devolved into nothing in further installments, while Spectre's involvement here is so easily swept under the rug after the previous film, and you can tell they wish they could have done a lot more with Vesper, I still liked his story throughout the films. Going from a killer far too primal and fierce to be the traditionally dashing film Bond, to a man run through the gamut and whose existence asks if the adventures of James Bond still have a place in today's world, and then to someone saving the day not because of duty but love, and his journey turning into myth passed on from generation to generation. Critics of the Craig era often accuse his run of repeating the same "How does someone like James Bond fit in today's society?" question a little too much, but I argue that's the point since it's the running theme of his era that No Time to Die is very willing to play with, such as with Lashana Lynch's character. And yeah, the Bond films have been fighting off cultural irrelevance for quite some time, remember in Goldeneye where M accuses Bond of being a misogynist dinosaur from the Cold War, but these films know that's a pressing concern and apply it to Bond's character: A man trying to persevere while the passage of time and the whims of his superiors have other plans for him, ultimately learning the best lesson any human can learn is how to ensure the generation after theirs can prosper. I love how this film in particular takes the bombast and extravagance of the James Bond mythos and converts it into both tragedy and something uplifting. Within the 007 universe, there will always be world domination plots or global heists organized by eccentric supervillains, but there are also people willing to step up and stop them. While the history of one such person becomes wistful but affirming tales told to a child.
It's almost unfair to Craig's successor that this film was so good. I struggle to see how the next Bond, whoever they are, will top this. Die Another Day's awfulness and the Austin Powers movies turning the standard Bond tropes into jokes gave people such low expectations for the series that even if Casino Royale weren't a great film, it still would have blasted them away. But this was an end on a high note. And as I said earlier, this is the first time a Bond actor is allowed the chance to bow out gracefully than to abruptly leave due to creative differences or contract disputes.
As for Many Saints of Newark, it'll take some time to digest (after all, how many years did it take for fans to go from hating the finale to loving it?), but as of now, I didn't like it all that much. A messy film that reminded me of the Star Wars prequels rather than something like Better Call Saul. Often felt the film was supposed to be a standalone film about class struggles within the 70s Newark black community, but then they taped Sopranos characters in-between scenes for marketability. The attempt to mirror and contrast Harold's struggle with Dickie's is disjointed, and I would have preferred if it stuck with Harold's.
Spoiler
And I don't agree with revealing Uncle Junior was the one who ordered Dickie's death. Sure, revealing the old school was nothing but nostalgic lies and the bad guys in the past were even worse than the people now has always been a theme in The Sopranos, but it comes at the cost of revealing Dickie wasn't a barely-functioning junkie and, while still a murderer with abhorrent views, was one of the least horrid parental figures in Tony's life by comparison. Now I'm supposed to see Junior as the guy who ultimately ruined Tony's and by extension Christopher's lives instead of the closest thing Tony had to a parent. Guess whenever I rewatch the finale, I'll be glad Junior is heavily senile and stuck in a shitty nursing home instead of the bittersweetness I felt when originally watching that scene? Same thing as thinking how kind it was the nurses left Sil's wig on during his coma. Junior was definitely no saint in the show, and he obviously had people whacked for petty reasons, but he comes off as exaggerated here. All of the returning characters feel like exaggerated versions of their show selves. Maybe I would have been more okay with the reveal if it was better executed, because they don't give Junior much meat to chew on in this film. Movie juggles too many characters to give them focus, jarring when a series that utilized arcs spanning over 12+ hours a season is now stuck with only 2 hours.
Interesting thoughts about both movies! I skimmed through the spoilers to avoid learning too much but you definitely got me hyped to see No Time To Die now. :im_nabeshin:
And since I mentioned Die Another Day, I found this interview from Brosnan soon after he was laid off from the role, confusingly making him the one Bond actor who got fired instead of quitting. (http://pbfiles.net/interviews/Inter036-Playboy2005.html) He's understandably far angrier and blunter here than recent interviews about his time as Bond. Some mean things to say about Lazenby and mentioning his recent roles were great stress relief for how mad he was at the EON producers, for instance.
I've heard a few 007 fans suggest now that Craig's gone, EON should rehire Brosnan back for a final Bond movie just so he'll have a proper sendoff this time instead of Die Another fucking Day, as an apology, and so Brosnan has one other good Bond film in his tenure instead of just Goldeneye.
I just saw No Time To Die and pretty much agree with Dr. Insomniac's take on the movie (and Craig's run in general). It wasn't perfect, but it was a a genuinely interesting character arc that persisted over five films of uneven quality. The best thing that I can say is that even in the weaker movies, I always still enjoyed Craig's portrayal as Bond. It's not as iconic as Connery's (but what possibly even can be?), but I'd argue that this interpretation felt more like a real person than just a fictional character, while still fitting into the core Bond archetypes.
I still maintain that Casino Royale is the best Craig Bond movie (it's one of those introductions so strong that it's just hard to top), but this one pretty much ties with Skyfall as an overall great Bond movie. Quantum of Solace was bad from what I remember (I honestly haven't re-watched it since it came out), but even then I still recall liking Craig's performance in it and felt that he still got some good scenes in there. I didn't dislike Spectre like most did (in many ways it felt like a throwback to classic-era Bond), but it felt really out-of-place in tone and execution with the rest of Craig's run, and did have some headscratchingly stupid writing even by Roger Moore Bond movie standards.
Still, all movies in this run were at least watchable, and at best were memorable action thrillers with a strong emotional core. I also found Cary Fukunaga's direction in No Time To Die in particular to be some of the best in the entire franchise, as expected.
Fukunaga's vision for Bond was great. The grit from the earlier Craig films was still there, but intertwined with some of the surrealism of Connery's films like Safin's poison garden, and his elegiacal nanobot farm. Curious if he or any of the other writers were Metal Gear fans since Safin's tech heavily resembled FOXDIE. But I also wonder what Danny Boyle's film could have been, especially since I read the ending to this film was what drove him to quit the project.
Agreeing with what others are saying about Paloma. It's a shame she didn't have a bigger part in this film since she was really fun, and fun characters who didn't die were rare in the Craig era.
Rewatched Goldeneye recently,
Spoiler
and noticed Trevelyan predicting Bond's legacy will be a small memorial service with only Moneypenny and a few others.
As well as him mocking Bond for all the dead women in his life, which referred to Tracy in the original context but could easily remind younger audiences of Vesper. I'm struck by how much Goldeneye's scenes and messages influenced Craig's era, even more than it influenced Brosnan's other Bond films. It's such a trailblazer that I'm disappointed Campbell's only directed two of these.
I didn't really care for 2018's Halloween, but Halloween Kills somehow manages to be even more disappointing given my already low expectations. Had it leaned more into being a straight-up slasher with more emphasis put on over-the-top kills and the stuff you expect from a B-movie-esque set-up, it could have been fairly entertaining in the same way that Halloween 4 is, despite not being very good as an actual horror movie. As it is, it tries to do a bit of that but also have some kind of message behind it that makes it feel like it's elevating it's material. The result just doesn't work, though. Both aspects of the movie clash tonally, and the writing it doesn't end up feeling smart, or scary, or even any fun except for some unintentionally funny moments.
Why did Halloween Kills decide to repeat that scene from Austin Powers with the same exact actor? (https://youtu.be/l4UFQWKjy_I) It's something you'd expect Scream to do, or one of the Scary Movie movies if you have low expectations, not Halloween.
Also, in both cases he was killed by Michael Myers....
Yeah, which I assume was the joke, but it kinda ruins the tension of a Halloween movie if it intentionally reminds you of Austin Powers. Halloween was never the meta slasher franchise that Scream or the later Nightmare on Elm Street movies were.
I imagine part of that is David Gordon Green touching back to his comedic sensibilities with films like Pineapple Express, as both this and the 2018 movie seem to be crammed with attempts at humor, most of which fall flat. I suppose it would bother me more if I expected more from these movies, but I already wasn't a fan of 2018's iteration, and the humor became the lesser of my issues with them.
Honestly, Halloween as a franchise is a lot like Jaws for me. It's a concept that's great for just one movie, and both first films of each respective franchise did the concept about as well as you possibly could (granted, Halloween is a little more dated with time than Jaws, but still effective for what it does). Everything after that is either a pale imitation at best or ironically entertaining in a way that was clearly not intended.
Interestingly enough, I'd say Halloween III is my favorite of the Halloween "sequels" precisely because it isn't one. It does it's own concept and is a lot more entertaining for it. It's super 80's camp to the max, but is honestly pretty genuinely enjoyable in that camp, and feels more like an episode of The Twilight Zone stretched into a feature-length movie.
Trying to make Michael Myers a recurring threat is always a doomed idea. He's a voiceless character with little personality, no reciprocal relationship with anybody, and no explained motive for why the way he is or why he kills, and that naturally results in a character you can't do much with outside a movie or two, but trying to add new shit to his character like the Thorn cult, making him Laurie's brother, or most of what Rob Zombie did always ends in disaster. So you're just left with rehashing what the very first movie did but making it gorier since Myers is a dead end of an antagonist. Which can be easily said for most if not all horror franchises that last beyond a couple movies. Even the characters with depth like Pinhead end up becoming schlocky parodies of themselves one way or another, but Myers is a special case since Halloween always retcons itself after 2 or 3 movies. After Halloween Ends, we'll inevitably get another reboot that "goes back to the roots" yet again, and when that fails, we get H60 starring an elderly Jamie Lee Curtis.
Like the inherent problem with slasher franchises is there isn't much catharsis for the viewer when the villain is effectively the mascot of the franchise and can't die. But if you do try to add catharsis and have the villain murder random assholes the audience couldn't care about, then it isn't scary anymore. So they all ride on how interesting the mascot is, and Myers isn't that interesting. He's no Hannibal Lecter, or even a Freddy.
I was originally supposed to see Dune on Friday last week but had to miss my showing because the person taking the evening shift at the Pharmacy called out sick and I was asked to cover last minute (I wasn't forced to, but decided to do it since I got paid over-time).
Anyways, I finally saw the movie in IMAX today and absolutely loved it. It's easily my favorite movie of the year and I desperately want to watch it again, which is harder these days due to my work schedule. I'm actually even more irritated at corporate WB now for essentially sabotaging this movie (along with many others, including The Suicide Squad), with their idiotic HBO MAX simultaneous releases. Seeing this movie on the big screen gave me similar vibes to how it felt watching The Lord of the Rings trilogy on the big screen for the first time. It really felt like that impactful of an experience to me, which is a rarity.
Rewatching Halloween 2018, and this is a lot stupider than I remember. The Dr. Sartain twist in particular. I spent most of the rewatching thinking "Why didn't all those residents lock their backdoor? Why did Laurie bring a comically oversized shotgun with only a couple rounds instead of a pistol? How can an elderly Michael Myers squish that guy's skull with his foot? Why is Sartain so obsessed with Myers when up until the events of this movie, he killed less than half a dozen people 40 years ago? Not exactly Hannibal Lecter here." All the problems with Kills were already in this movie, and I think the main reason this film received a ton of praise was just because it was a reunion with Curtis and Carpenter back. I and a lot of people were too mesmerized by the reunion factor to notice the film itself was dumb.
I kinda fear/hope that Halloween Ends reveals every Halloween movie is canon just to revel in the stupidity. Like say Laurie secretly survived her end in Resurrection, and she has 3 kids who each don't know they have siblings. And she inexplicably abandoned Jamie because fooling 2 kids into thinking they were only children was hard enough. Oh, and it turns out a completely different family had kids named Laurie and Michael, and one of them became a serial killer so we can shove the Rob Zombie films in. Expecting Laurie to show her granddaughter a modern-day picture of Danielle Harris and say "Allyson, this is my other daughter Jamie, who I loved very much but let go. I digitally aged up her photo because I want to pretend she's still alive. Yeah, I know."
And while I know bad installments in movie franchises will always find at least a little positive re-appraisal when another bad installment comes out years later, but I've noticed more Halloween fans are talking about the Rob Zombie movies in a more positive light. It might be just nostalgia since those films came out over a decade ago, but at least compared to the recent films, they've been more experimental and tried to change up what kind of people Michael Myers or Dr. Loomis would seem from a different perspective. Granted, the flaws are still there. They're still messy and come off as exploitation films that happened to find their way to mainstream theaters. But after watching Michael Myers go John Wick on the stupidest civilians ever in Kills, maybe the white horse wasn't that dumb by comparison.
I've been behind on, well, everything lately, so I only just got around to Dune earlier today. I really liked it! This is as good of an adaptation of the book as we're likely to get, and it looked and felt rightfully epic on the big screen.
But I wish I had more time to get to other films. I still need to see French Dispatch, Last Night in Soho, and Eternals. I know the last two have a mixed at best reception, but I still want to see them for myself. And I've put Halloween Kills on the backburner.
I quite enjoyed The French Dispatch. Granted, it may be a bit stylistically overloaded for some, even by Wes Anderson standards, and it's not one I immediately wanted to re-watch like with The Grand Budapest Hotel (but I do still want to re-watch it), however it was still a delight to watch the whole way through. I also still want to see Last Night in Soho, and like you I just haven't had much time to go out to the movies. I ended up missing The Last Duel as well, which I still want to get around to.
Glad you enjoyed Dune too. I'm super biased but it's genuinely my favorite movie of the year and I'm super happy that the sequel managed to get the green light. I doubt that we'll ever get to Messiah, but it's at least reassuring to know that we'll still managed to get a proper adaptation of the original novel all of the way through.
I had an uncharacteristically early day of work yesterday, and took the time to see French Dispatch. I really liked it! I think it's around the middle of Anderson's filmography- equal to or above Life Aquatic, Darjeeling Limited and Isle of Dogs, and below Royal Tenenbaums, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Moonrise Kingdom, and Grand Budapest.
The two I struggle with are his first two. Bottle Rocket feels more like a trial run for his work, which results in a fun time, but I'm not sure if its roughness clicks with me or turns me away. And I remember being underwhelmed with Rushmore the first time I saw it, but it's about time for me to give it another shot.
Anyway, I thought that French Dispatch was entertaining throughout, but I can definitely see that this would do nothing to convince you if you're ambivalent to his work- it's maybe the most Wes Anderson movie ever. And it is a little overstuffed, especially in the murder's row of a cast (I didn't even realize Saoirse Ronan was one of the prostitutes!), and there's little breathing room. But it's also one that I think will play well in repeats, like Anderson's other works.
Just watched Ghostbusters: Afterlife, and in all honesty I quite enjoyed it. It seems like a lot of people are turned off by the nostalgic-overtones to much of the movie, and while I usually hate that as well, it worked here for me because it didn't feel like cheap nostalgia. The movie still has it's own identity and tone, and managed to get me invested in the core characters. I feel like because we've seen so many movies and shows badly use nostalgia to pander in the last few years, people have a tendency to think that any use of it is now inherently bad. To me, however, by it's nature Nostalgia is meant to comfort, and when done well and with clear passion and care, it can be used to great effect. To me this movie is clearly an example of the latter. It's far from perfect, mind you, as I definitely have issues with it. That said, it really entertained me the whole way through and surprised me with how much genuine heart it had. This is one that I'm glad I saw and would happily watch again. Obviously nothing will ever come close to the original, but the movie clearly knows that and, IMO wisely differentiates itself in it's overall tone and style.
The reception to this is looking more positive than I was anticipating, so that's cool! It's still not a high priority, but it's good to hear.
Just saw Nightmare Alley. I liked it overall, though the first hour was kind of on the slow side, which isn't inherently a problem, but it did drag in a few places. That said, it does get incredibly intense as the movie goes on, in many ways reminding me of the Safdie Brothers' Uncut Gems (not quite as good as that movie overall, but still pretty engaging).
I really have to give props to the teams involved with set design as well as costumes. It's really top notch stuff.
This is definitely a a good case for how remakes can in fact be done well when made with proper care.
Nightmare Alley is on a small list of films I hope I get to see over my break, with Spider-Man taking top precedent, followed by Licorice Pizza. I also do hope to see Encanto and I'm considering Ghostbusters: Afterlife, but at this point I'm fine with waiting for the Blu release of the former, and wherever the latter ends up streaming.
Saw Matrix Resurrections, and I liked the film, but had issues with it.
-Recasts don't work. There's a scene near the end that would have had a thousand times more weight if Hugo Weaving was Smith instead of Groff.
-I wish the movie stayed with the tone of the first third where it's basically Wes Craven's New Nightmare. It's similar to the issue I had with Cloud Atlas where I really loved the first half of that film, but then it kept going long after I got the point.
-Fight scenes are a huge downgrade from the trilogy. But the non-action scenes have much more emotion than the past three films. The natural lighting helps.
-Flashbacks to the previous movies are overdone too. The movie's on shaky ground where it wants to satirize Hollywood's sequel/reboot love while mostly delivering the kind of sequel/reboot Hollywood churns out.
-On the plus side, Neo and Trinity's relationship has much more pathos in this film than in any of the other ones combined.
-Casting the John Wick director as the guy who cucks Neo was funny in a meta way.
-While I actually didn't think the movie was meta enough, I'm sure the movie's appeal depends on how much you like the movie leaning hard on metafiction. And whether the use here is self-indulgent or genius. I've been seeing audiences call it either the best or worst Matrix movie ever.
-For all it's worth, a better ending than Revolutions. The series-wide themes of purpose and choice are far better executed here than in the sequels.
Power of the Dog was okay. Not too sure why it's topping every film critics' list this year though. I get what it's going for, and I really liked the cinematography, but then it became one of those Westerns. I can't elaborate on that without spoiling the movie, but it gave me deja vu to other recent subversions of the Western genre. And Cumberbatch trying to do a cowboy accent was hilarious.
On the other hand, I also saw The Lighthouse. And that movie's fantastic.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on January 04, 2022, 03:51:57 PMPower of the Dog was okay. Not too sure why it's topping every film critics' list this year though. I get what it's going for, and I really liked the cinematography, but then it became one of those Westerns. I can't elaborate on that without spoiling the movie, but it gave me deja vu to other recent subversions of the Western genre. And Cumberbatch trying to do a cowboy accent was hilarious.
On the other hand, I also saw The Lighthouse. And that movie's fantastic.
Speaking of which, The Northman is legit one of my most anticipated movies of the year.
Yeah, Robert Eggers is 2-2 for me, and The Northman looks 100% like my shit. Cannot wait.
Don't know why I didn't watch Magnolia years ago, but I just finished and really liked it. I love those movies where all these seemingly unconnected plots and characters slowly intertwine, then that eureka moment happens and you go "Oh, that's what the movie means!"
Finally got to watching Dune. Great cinematography, loved the atmosphere, excited for what Villeneuve will do for Part 2, but I laughed at this scene.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FKOMMJ3XMA4eZF5?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FKOMOM8WQAgqKwY?format=jpg&name=small)
Just watched The Northman on Thursday night and absolutely loved it. It's definitely Robert Eggers' most straightforward and easily accessible film for anyone who found The Witch or The Lighthouse a bit too artsy or abstract for their taste, but it's executed incredibly well. It's more like a Norse myth brought to the big screen than historical fiction, so there are supernatural elements at play here, but I love those kinds of stories, myself.
Forgot to mention. Everything Everywhere All at Once was pretty cool, even if the ending's like "...okay?" on an emotional level.
Been on a movie binge lately. Some funny (A Dog's Will), some depressing (An Elephant Standing Still), some annoying (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), some classics (Barry Lyndon), and some classics that I thought were fine (Moonlight).
I've been in a phase where I wanted to revisit some older Don Bluth and Walt Disney animation, so I've been jumping back and forth on those a bit lately.
The Secret of Nimh still holds up incredibly well. There's always something appealing about a children's film not afraid to shy away from dark subject matter. I also think the score is incredibly well utilized and really enhances the emotional weight of various scenes.
I went back to watch The Rescuers, which Don Blush was on the animation team for back when he worked at Disney. It's a charming enough movie but it does suffer from the same issue as other Disney animated films from that era of playing it too safe and not doing anything noteworthy with it's story or animation style (the animation itself is still top-grade stuff, though).
I did immediately go onto The Rescuers Down Under even though I hadn't originally planned to. This one I have a lot of nostalgia for because I wore out my VHS copy watching the shit out of this movie as a kid (I believe it also had The Prince and The Pauper short). I still adore this movie beyond just nostalgia, and it baffles me how bad it did at the box office at the time as well as well as how forgotten about it is now. This was actually the first Disney film to integrate computer imaging technology with traditional hand-drawn animation (it predates Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King easily in this regard), and for a first attempt it still mostly looks really good. While I would never want a cheap, cash-grab Disney+ sequel or anything of that nature, it'd be great if it could eventually find some newfound popularity on the streaming service through good word of mouth. The movie deserves a second chance in that regard.
Watched The Northman and thought it was all right. Didn't like it as much as Lighthouse, and it's not as tight as it could be, but it's still fun. Also watched The Red Shoes earlier this week and loved that.
Just saw Nope and loved it. It's not as good as Get Out and probably won't be for everyone, but it's the kind of thriller that just hits all the right notes for me. In particular, you can tell how much influence Peele took from Jaws here in terms of building suspense, among many other movies.
I'm hoping to see it on Sunday, and I'm pretty stoked. I still really like both Get Out and Us, and everything I've heard about Nope, while still being able to avoid spoilers, makes it sound like this will be another hit for me.
Until then, Quentin Tarantino recently started a podcast where he talks about various movies in his collection, and this made me realize that I haven't seen Carpenter's Dark Star yet. It's on Tubi, so I got to it yesterday, and it's not bad for a no budget debut. The set design is pretty nice despite being made for peanuts, but the blob is enjoyable laughable.
I think my favorite part of seeing this is noting how much of his script Dan O'Bannon would cannibalize for Alien in a few years. It really does read like a precursor in some ways.
Belle AKA Our War Game 3 AKA Hosoda's Beauty and the Beast was pretty fun. Always a treat whenever Hosoda goes back to his old sandbox and plays with how digital life affects real life. Ending was awkwardly inconclusive though.
So, Prey was....alright. I'm seeing people heaping praise on it, and granted, yeah, it is easily the best Predator movie since the original. Of course, that isn't exactly saying much considering the quality, or lack thereof, of all of them in-between. It's nowhere near as good as the original, of course, but I will say that it managed to be genuinely engaging at key moments and did have me at least invested in the main duo of the film. I also loved the setting and thought it made for probably the best possible set-up for a Predator movie since the original. That said large chunks of the film feel like filler to keep the story at movie-length, and the movie did feel like it dragged during the first half without much real build-up. It was pretty well-shot, though, and I can't say that I didn't at least enjoy myself overall, so it's probably worth a watch if you like the first Predator.
Pearl was fun. Really liked Mia Goth's performance.
Saw Elvis and RRR. Elvis felt like somebody took a 20-episode show and cut it up into a 2-and-a-half-hour movie. The pacing's so bipolar, and I don't know if anybody with no prior knowledge of Elvis Presley would understand it because it speeds through tons of major details, but it certainly wasn't boring. Especially with Tom Hanks channeling the Danny DeVito Penguin for the entire movie.
Meanwhile, RRR was fun and I echo the same compliments everyone else already made.
Just saw Halloween Ends....that was definitely a movie with Halloween in the title....
I honestly didn't really care for the 2018 movie but at least it felt somewhat competently made. Kills was bad but had some unintentionally funny moments. This movie was just bizarre with the story it tried to tell. I'll say that it's actually a bit more entertaining than Kills in terms of how much I found myself unintentionally snickering at several scenes that were supposed to be scary, but as an overall movie it was maybe one of the most terrible pieces of shit that I've seen in a while. I mean it's actually impressive how bad it is compared to even some of the other really shitty Halloween movies.
Even worse than Curse or the Rob Zombie ones?
Curse of Michael Myers was more consistently entertaining in it's awfulness for me. Like, it's impossible to take Paul Rudd seriously and the movie stretches the bounds of absurdity past it's limit for even a Halloween movie that it's just kind of admirable how bad it is on every level. Ends certainly has elements of that but not as consistently. It's more a case of the movie trying to be a psychological thriller (and doing it badly) that has nothing to do with Halloween until the final act suddenly remembers what movie it is. Like, people have been joking about this online, but I legitimately wouldn't be surprised if I heard that they repurposed the script for another movie into a Halloween sequel. It just feels like it's own bad movie that loosely ties into Halloween rather than an entertaining bat-shit insane flick like Curse.
It's still not as bad as the Busta-Rhymes one, but that one does at least have the "Trick r' treat, Mothafucka" line going for it.
Admittedly, I barely remember anything from the first Rob Zombie film and I never saw it's sequel, so I can't really make an accurate comparison there.
The second Zombie film was on TV a few days ago, so I had that on as background noise, and maybe it's been a while, but it's so cheap-looking. Like I know it's Rob Zombie, and Halloween movies don't have big budgets anyway, but this one looked like a DTV film compared to all the others. And then it gets worse by doing shit like spending the first 15 minutes on a fake-out dream sequence, having Dr. Loomis go on a talk show with Chris Hardwick and Weird Al, all the white horse scenes that try to be David Lynch but fall flat, or that scene where Danielle Harris' character dies and they play archive footage of her when she was a little girl almost like Zombie's going "See! I gave you guys a real Jamie Lloyd death unlike the one in Curse!" It's such an incoherent mess of a film, and it's no wonder the 2018 one was welcomed with open arms because the standards were just that low.
And I see people try to reappraise the Zombie films all the time.
I sat out Kills last year, although I'm considering getting to it and Ends before Halloween just for the hell of it. I thought that the 2018 film was good at the time, but I'll probably cool on it if I watch it again, as I'm getting weary of horror films that are about trauma.
Saw Ends. Yeah... I didn't care for the Corey plot at all, and that's the meat of the movie. It all felt like the creative team went "We want the Stranger Things audience!", and I guess people who wished ST had Eddie or Jonathan snap and kill the cast might like this film. Bemused that just searching "Halloween Ends" on Twitter gives me a ton of people simping for Corey.
And then they had to play the cowbell version of Don't Fear the Reaper at the end.
Quote from: Dr. Insomniac on October 01, 2021, 07:43:39 PM
So, No Time to Die...
Spoiler
I wasn't expecting a thematic sequel to On Her Majesty's Secret Service but with the roles reversed, and I'm very pleasantly surprised it went that route.
It's so bittersweet watching this. Unlike every other last Bond film like Diamonds Are Forever, View to a Kill, License to Kill, Die Another Day, this movie absolutely knows this is a finale and milks that for all it's worth. And for Daniel Craig, who thanks to film delays across his time as Bond, is the longest-serving 007 in film history. A 10-year-old who watched Casino Royale in cinemas would be in their mid-20s now. Which you can also apply to Roger Moore since he also played Bond uninterrupted for over a decade, but his era never had the multi-movie character arc Craig's bond had. While not all his films have been stellar, none of them have been boring, all setting up pieces of the puzzle. And while it's obvious there was little planning involved in Bond's arc throughout his run, Quantum's seeming omnipresence in Quantum of Solace devolved into nothing in further installments, while Spectre's involvement here is so easily swept under the rug after the previous film, and you can tell they wish they could have done a lot more with Vesper, I still liked his story throughout the films. Going from a killer far too primal and fierce to be the traditionally dashing film Bond, to a man run through the gamut and whose existence asks if the adventures of James Bond still have a place in today's world, and then to someone saving the day not because of duty but love, and his journey turning into myth passed on from generation to generation. Critics of the Craig era often accuse his run of repeating the same "How does someone like James Bond fit in today's society?" question a little too much, but I argue that's the point since it's the running theme of his era that No Time to Die is very willing to play with, such as with Lashana Lynch's character. And yeah, the Bond films have been fighting off cultural irrelevance for quite some time, remember in Goldeneye where M accuses Bond of being a misogynist dinosaur from the Cold War, but these films know that's a pressing concern and apply it to Bond's character: A man trying to persevere while the passage of time and the whims of his superiors have other plans for him, ultimately learning the best lesson any human can learn is how to ensure the generation after theirs can prosper. I love how this film in particular takes the bombast and extravagance of the James Bond mythos and converts it into both tragedy and something uplifting. Within the 007 universe, there will always be world domination plots or global heists organized by eccentric supervillains, but there are also people willing to step up and stop them. While the history of one such person becomes wistful but affirming tales told to a child.
It's almost unfair to Craig's successor that this film was so good. I struggle to see how the next Bond, whoever they are, will top this. Die Another Day's awfulness and the Austin Powers movies turning the standard Bond tropes into jokes gave people such low expectations for the series that even if Casino Royale weren't a great film, it still would have blasted them away. But this was an end on a high note. And as I said earlier, this is the first time a Bond actor is allowed the chance to bow out gracefully than to abruptly leave due to creative differences or contract disputes.
I too thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I saw it in theaters (again, I'm catching up on old conversations right now :P) and though it was a tad long, it felt like a satisfying ending to this Bond series.
It's not my favorite of the bunch though. Casino Royale is probably my all time favorite Bond movie, and Skyfall was also one of the best Daniel Craig James Bond movies.
Speaking of, I rewatched a couple of the Brosnan-era films recently. Kinda strange he's gotten a reputation as being one of the campier Bonds since his movies actively attempted to freshen up and modernize the franchise, the "What purpose do spies have now that the Cold War is over?" theme hanging over the Craig era was already a common topic in Brosnan's movies. Maybe it's because Brosnan's are more straightforward fun while Craig's are "Fun... but at what cost?", and of course Brosnan came after Dalton who was also a dark, introspective Bond, so he's sandwiched between the two contemplative ages of the franchise. It leaves him and his tenure in a weird place in history, since he's absolutely one of the most iconic Bonds thanks to 90s kids and/or Goldeneye players, but almost too composite to be an era with a clear vision in the way some of the others were.
And it didn't occur to me until rewatching that Nolan stole all of The World Is Not Enough's plot for The Dark Knight Rises.
So I watched that one James Cameron movie where he goes underwater, which really opens your eyes on his pure obsession and fascination with the sea. It's easy to mock it, so easy that there's been backlash to that mockery, but Cameron's just a guy who's genuinely in awe of the sides of nature most people haven't gone out of their way to see. And it's something I respect. I also think aquariums are pretty cool, while he takes it to another level and drags his crew along to explore the depths with him. You can see it all throughout his prior films like The Abyss and Titanic that he's just so in love with the ocean, even in his first film Piranha 2 that he admits was little more than a hired gun job, so it's fascinating to see him go full circle here.
And that's why Aliens of the Deep was a fun documentary. Anyway, Avatar 2 was fine.
Water is to Cameron what planes are to Miyazaki and bad men in suits are to del Toro.
I had fun with Avatar, but I'll admit that whenever we spent time with the commandos, I was thinking of how much better Aliens is, and how I wish he could get closer to that mode again. We get parts of that throughout, but a lot of it is spent doing world-building that I don't think is ever totally justified. Still, it does have more personality than the first film, and better action, which is enough for me.
Yeah, Avatar 2 felt too much like a greatest hits of Cameron's previous films. Sinking ship climax, marines with power loaders, villains transformed to resemble the heroes, that scene in True Lies where the bad guys are threatening Eliza Dushku's life, man-eating fish, it's very Cameron playing to his usual tricks. And fair enough, Avatar as a franchise is basically what he's going to do for the rest of his life, so why not indulge? And over time, I've grown to see that a lot of the old stock criticisms for Avatar were a little dumb ("You can't remember any of the characters' names" is an odd one to apply when Get Out was one of the most beloved movies in the last decade and I can't remember the name of Daniel Kaluuya's character, and "The movie made no cultural impact" makes no sense if execs at Disney saw enough interest to build all those Pandora theme park attractions). Just wish it was more concentrated than what we got.
I do find the arguments on both sides tiring. No, I didn't recall a lot of the original film before seeing Way of Water, but I also remember jack shit about Home Alone and I see people talk about all over social media. Sometimes, it's just you (even when "you" is me in this case), and clearly enough people still have interest in the Avatar brand.
But I similarly think that a lot of the people who are riding the hype train for Cameron are doing so to ensure that something, ANYTHING becomes a hit besides super hero shit, and that's just tiring. For one thing, you're not sticking it to Marvel by seeing Avatar, they're both going to the same studio's revenue. Additionally, supporting something out of spite is stupid. Do you actually want to see this, or want to stick it to cape shit? Why not just see Tar or The Fabelmans or something instead?
It was hilarious seeing the guys on Twitter who are otherwise "This media is colonialist!", "This movie is propaganda!" suddenly keeping their lips shut when Avatar 2 and Top Gun 2 came out. The theaters that showed Top Gun literally had military recruitment booths, and the people who cry that something like Thor Love and Thunder was military propaganda pretended not to notice.
While they probably didn't rally around Tar and demand everyone see that is because Tar isn't a mainstream appeal movie. I personally got bored while watching it.
Finally got around to seeing the new Hellraiser, and when Pinhead was on screen, I loved it! The genderfluid take on it, which is closer to Barker's original vision, works and the person playing them is great, and the torture scenes were similarly cool.
The rest of the movie is crap, though. I wasn't expecting much, but I just did not like the "human drama" at all, and it did not need to be 2 hours long.
Stumbled my way into watching slow cinema like Tropical Malady and Goodbye Dragon Inn, and I don't get the appeal of slow cinema. My attention span is fucked so I'm probably biased, but I've yet to watch one of these movies where I wasn't bored to death, besides maybe Tarkovsky's Stalker.
John Wick 4 was really that movie, and I hardly felt the length at all. Possibly my favorite?
Spoiler
It looks like this is it for the character, though, unless the Continental show is a prequel.
Quote from: Avaitor on March 26, 2023, 11:23:32 AMJohn Wick 4 was really that movie, and I hardly felt the length at all. Possibly my favorite?
Last hour is probably the best action movie I've ever seen, the rest was just incredibly delicious icing.
Spoiler
The ridiculous car combat followed by the one take Hotline Miami part followed by that fucking staircase scene? Pure cinema. I almost cried when the Justice song came on.
I love all of these films so much.
Spoiler
Yeah no, the Paris car chase scene is an all-timer, especially when it stops being a car chase and just has John throw people into traffic.
I haven't seen a movie in theaters twice since Guardians Vol. 2, but I'm considering making an exception for this.
I couldn't co-sign on the 2013 hype train and zoned out of Ash vs. during its last season, but Evil Dead Rise was a lot of fun, enough to give me hope for the franchise again and maybe do a full rewatch. I also need to upgrade my copy of Army of Darkness, I only have the older Blu. Need the Shout/Scream Factory release.
Finally got to watching John Wick 4. Wasn't expecting Scott Adkins to steal the show.
Also rewatched The Crow when it was on TV a few weeks ago, and it got me wondering what Brandon Lee could have done in the John Wick movies if he was still around. Given Stahelski was his body double, and how a few of Keanu's roles back in the 90s were considered with Lee in mind.
Saw Clerks 3 a few days ago, and that shit was rough. Kevin Smith was always high on my list of creators I was heavily into as a teenager but just don't see the appeal of even out of nostalgia, which nothing about this movie or anything he's done in the last decade has disproved. I'm reminded of why the first one became a huge cult classic, because people were amazed that indie films like this could come from just a few guys with a camera and little money, and how that led to Smith recruiting a young Ben Affleck to partner up for a bunch of later films. But now that charm's gone, and it turns out Smith never learned any new directing tricks since the 90s, none of his friends learned how to be better actors either, so now we have old Dante and old Randall argue about Star Wars and their sex lives again but without the quirk of knowing it's their first film.
Spoiler
And while the plot tries to deal with heavier shit by killing off Rosario Dawson from the 2nd film and leaving Dante a widower, the fact that she died in 2006 but Dante's been in a funk since then while Randall hasn't done shit to help him undermines any real friendship we're supposed to feel for them. Hell, Randall's the reason Dante gets his fatal heart attack. Yeah, their relationship was always shitty, but never this bad. But instead of the movie tearing apart Randall for this, he's given most of the sympathy, and Kevin Smith even gives post-credit narration saying Randall becomes successful and lives into old age. We're supposed to see Randall as Smith's self-insert because he gets a heart attack and makes movies about working at a convenience store and all that, but none of the emotional beats pay off because Randall's such an ass to everyone in a way that doesn't warrant the amount of schmaltz the scenes give him. It's like if Dennis from IASIP or Cartman got a heart attack and we were supposed to feel bad.
And then there's Rosario Dawson's ghost showing up to give Dante a pep talk, but since he dies shortly after, none of that means anything. The whole movie's kinda nihilist in that regard. These feel good speeches about continuing to live life mean nothing, the random comic relief characters with no connection to reality like Elias get to become rich, Dante had so little people in his life that he contacted his ex from the 2nd movie who he hasn't talked to in 16 years for money. But then Randall makes another "This is the way" Mandalorian reference so Smith can have dumb jokes.
But it's a movie where the plot's resolved by Elias selling Jesus NFTs while he's dressed like a Juggalo, so I'm the fool here for expecting the beats to work. At least it was better than Yoga Hosers?
I crossed seeing one of Smith's stand-up/Q&A shows off my bucket list when he did the Jay & Silent Bob Reboot roadshow. It was nice to see him and Mewes up close and shoot the shit, but there's a reason that I didn't attend the Clerks 3 roadshow when it came here. And it's probably the same reason that you no longer see many up-and-coming filmmakers call him an influence anymore.
Quote from: Avaitor on June 13, 2023, 02:20:36 PMAnd it's probably the same reason that you no longer see many up-and-coming filmmakers call him an influence anymore.
And a lot of that's down to time and distance, since the very creation of Clerks wouldn't happen in the same way it would now thanks to iPhones and advances in computer editing. There are all these microbudget films like Tangerine shot on a smartphone that look a thousand times better than Clerks did. Even back in the late 00s, Clerks' accomplishments in spite of its budget didn't look as impressive when Primer did much more with a quarter of the money Smith had. Another weird part of 3 is that Smith doesn't seem to know that film technology's moved on, so when Randall's making his own movie that's just Clerks but within that universe, he does the same exact shit Smith did in the 90s like get 30 grand in loans and use a black and white camera.
Also because the 90s are long over, and Kevin Smith isn't the underdog struggling to get his work on the big screen anymore. Sure, he's not a big filmmaker like Tarantino or Rodriguez, and you'll never see him hired to make a blockbuster any time soon, but he's definitely in a position where he can just shit out movies whenever he wants with little executive interference instead of fighting to get another Dogma or Chasing Amy made, and I doubt any aspiring filmmakers find inspiration from Tusk or Jay and Silent Bob Reboot.
I'm still critical of Indiana Jones as a franchise, but I got to see a free screening of Dial of Destiny. It's not very good, and the climax takes a wild turn that makes the fridge scene look like nothing. Still, I had fun watching an Indy film on the big screen, and Mads Mikkelsen will always be a good choice to play a villain, even a Nazi.
Now Bottle Rocket, on the other hand, that's a great time on the big screen. If you're not an Anderson fan, it won't sway you to change your mind, but I think it's his best since Grand Budapest.
Oppenheimer was a pretty strong outing for Nolan and easily his best film since Inception for me. I liked parts of Interstellar but felt he got too heavy-handed with the themes he wanted to explore that he lost focus on the overall story and relatability to the characters. I really liked Dunkirk but it's not necessarily the most readily rewatchable film in his catalogue as it's a very specific kind of vibe. I tried but really could never get into Tenet even on a re-watch.
Oppenheimer feels like a breath of fresh air for Nolan in that he can flex his creative muscles and use everything he's learned over his filmmaking career while telling a cohesive story and not losing the audience with trying to be too grandiose with his ideas. It was a fairly quick 3 hours for me.
I'm not able to do the Barbienheimer thing (honestly not sure I'd want to, five hours in a theater sounds like a big commitment), but luckily I got to see a free preview of Barbie on Wednesday, which is a fun, if heavy handed time. I do intend to see Oppenheimer at another point, but I just don't know when I'll have the three hours to spare.
Oh, but Dead Reckoning Part I was excellent. I'm almost disappointed that Cruise is backing out on these being the end of the MI franchise, but if he and McQuarrie can keep topping themselves even after Part 2, I can't complain.
Yeah, wasn't expecting the double feature to be 5 hours. The tonal whiplash was about as much as you can expect. At least the casting directors somehow knew in foresight that audiences would make the experience more convoluted than it was supposed to be, and packed both movies with actors I'd recognize just to make it easier to keep track of everything. Especially in Oppenheimer's case, once you get past the obvious ones everyone will know like Einstein and Truman, it throws a hundred characters at you and the only way you'll keep track of half of them is because you know most of them by their actor name.
But it was fun. Interesting to watch a movie made in 2023 where Rhea Perlman gives the big epiphany speech, and neat that Nolan finally figured out how to give Cillan Murphy a lead role after years playing bit parts in his movies. And that final scene between him and Einstein where he's in pure fright over what his role in history will become.
Which adds to how strange it is to watch these movies back to back. Barbie's a movie about desperately looking for personal meaning in light of a lack of identity. Oppenheimer's about finding that meaning and gaining no positive insight, but an existential disturbance from it.
So, originally I was planning to see The First Slam Dunk on Thursday, but got sick and ended up having to skip it, and unfortunately had to work over the weekend and couldn't get time to go. Luckily I was able to catch a screening at my local theater this evening which was the last show-time available, and I'm so glad that I managed to see it. The movie was fucking excellent. I didn't have the time to do a re-read of the manga like I wanted to before the movie, but getting to see the legendary final match between Shouhoku and Sannoh animated in it's fully glory has motivated me to read the whole damn thing over anyways.
What was interesting, though, is that from a writing perspective this actually had the core story play out from Miyagi's perspective as well as showcase his backstory throughout the film and solely his. This actually does make sense since, if I recall correctly, his backstory either wasn't touched on or barely even referenced in the original manga and he was the last fleshed out of the core five characters, so it was like Inoue Takehiko giving his boy his due. It was also an interesting choice to have the play-by-play mostly go through in real-time rather than being dramatized like in the manga and anime, but it was a smart decision for a movie since it kept the movie moving at a razor-sharp pace.
The music was also fucking rad. I'm biased in saying this, but this is easily my third favorite movie this year behind Oppenheimer and Spider-Verse, and still one of my favorite sports series of all time.
Also, for the record, if you have the ability to see it then I highly recommend it. Even if you have zero knowledge of the series prior to this, the movie does an excellent job of giving you everything you need to know about the characters to make everything make sense. You will still have a great time.
I was able to sneak The First Slam Dunk in for $5 Tuesdays at my local Regal, and I'm glad I did. It's a terrific film that works just as well as an introduction to the franchise as it does for fans. It definitely reminded me of my admiration for the series, and while I'd like to read the manga again, I think that I'll give the anime a shot after I finally finish Berserk 97.
Yeah. You can clearly feel the love Inoue poured into this film. The fact that he directed it himself just blows my mind with how multi-talented he is as an artist and creator.
It's a shame that this movie hasn't generated much buzz in the states, but then again Slam Dunk was never that popular over here. I remember an old video from The Omnibus Collector where he pointed out how this series had just been localized a bit too early for it's own good, and missed the boom in popularity that sports manga and anime would experience in the early to mid 2010's with stuff like Haikyu!! and Kuroko no Basket.
Yeah, Slam Dunk's presence in the West or lack thereof is something I was always a little confused by. I remember having some Slam Dunk merch as a little kid and even though I didn't watch much of the show, vaguely remember seeing old VCDs of it, I just assumed as a child that it was on somewhere in America. And even when I was old enough to know better, it was still weird since there were a couple nearby anime-themed stores at the time that sold Slam Dunk merch next to the Yugioh and Pokemon shit.
I think that if someone took a chance on the anime during the early 2000's, Slam Dunk could have been a hit on Toonami. Honestly, it's kind of surprising that it took them nearly a decade to try out a sports title until they got to Prince of Tennis during the Saturday run, and that didn't catch on because the block was well past its heyday when relative oddities like Tenchi or Outlaw Star could have caught on. Also, from what I've seen and read, Prince of Tennis is no Slam Dunk.
From what I can tell, sports titles don't tend to do as well in the states because of how niche and nerdy anime and manga is here, or at least was back when the series was translated. But even if it remains kind of obscure stateside, I don't think Inoue or Shueisha really mind.
From what I've read, First Slam Dunk is already in the top 5 grossing anime movies worldwide, and that's despite the franchise being inactive for decades. One smaller market isn't going to take away its momentum elsewhere.
At the same time, at least the whole series was translated and I believe still in print over here. That's better than plenty of other titles.
Toonami airing Prince of Tennis out of order on its first run didn't help its chances either.
Quote from: Avaitor on August 03, 2023, 01:41:24 AMI think that if someone took a chance on the anime during the early 2000's, Slam Dunk could have been a hit on Toonami. Honestly, it's kind of surprising that it took them nearly a decade to try out a sports title until they got to Prince of Tennis during the Saturday run, and that didn't catch on because the block was well past its heyday when relative oddities like Tenchi or Outlaw Star could have caught on. Also, from what I've seen and read, Prince of Tennis is no Slam Dunk.
From what I can tell, sports titles don't tend to do as well in the states because of how niche and nerdy anime and manga is here, or at least was back when the series was translated. But even if it remains kind of obscure stateside, I don't think Inoue or Shueisha really mind.
From what I've read, First Slam Dunk is already in the top 5 grossing anime movies worldwide, and that's despite the franchise being inactive for decades. One smaller market isn't going to take away its momentum elsewhere.
At the same time, at least the whole series was translated and I believe still in print over here. That's better than plenty of other titles.
Checked Rightstuf and yeah, I can confirm it's still in print with a couple of volumes here or there being on backorder but not listed as out of stock.
The funny thing is that Sports anime has seen an increase in popularity in the states. Not as popular as Naruto or Dragon Ball or something like that but enough to where multiple series have been localized here and done relatively well.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on August 03, 2023, 12:54:12 PMQuote from: Avaitor on August 03, 2023, 01:41:24 AMI think that if someone took a chance on the anime during the early 2000's, Slam Dunk could have been a hit on Toonami. Honestly, it's kind of surprising that it took them nearly a decade to try out a sports title until they got to Prince of Tennis during the Saturday run, and that didn't catch on because the block was well past its heyday when relative oddities like Tenchi or Outlaw Star could have caught on. Also, from what I've seen and read, Prince of Tennis is no Slam Dunk.
From what I can tell, sports titles don't tend to do as well in the states because of how niche and nerdy anime and manga is here, or at least was back when the series was translated. But even if it remains kind of obscure stateside, I don't think Inoue or Shueisha really mind.
From what I've read, First Slam Dunk is already in the top 5 grossing anime movies worldwide, and that's despite the franchise being inactive for decades. One smaller market isn't going to take away its momentum elsewhere.
At the same time, at least the whole series was translated and I believe still in print over here. That's better than plenty of other titles.
Checked Rightstuf and yeah, I can confirm it's still in print with a couple of volumes here or there being on backorder but not listed as out of stock.
The funny thing is that Sports anime has seen an increase in popularity in the states. Not as popular as Naruto or Dragon Ball or something like that but enough to where multiple series have been localized here and done relatively well.
Right, you mentioned Haikyu!! and there's also Yuri on Ice. Anime seemingly getting bigger than ever has opened up the door for sports titles to catch on, but I don't see Slam Dunk doing as well as those unless it gets another series. It's a little too old and missed that window.
Just saw Godzilla Minus One and loved it. Easily one of the best Godzilla movies and probably one of my favorite movies of the year.
So Killers of the Flower Moon deserves all the praise it's gotten. A parable on the evils of greed and the complicity of those who look away.
Just watched The Iron Claw. Brilliant performances and a good overall movie, but they really glossed over a lot of the Von Erich's history to the point where the movie may have been better served as a limited series on HBO or something like that.
It's not quite up there with Spider-Verse, G -1, or Slam Dunk as my favorites of the year and is at least slightly edged out by Oppenheimer, but still one of the better movies I've seen this year overall.
Watched The Holdovers. You know those 90s network TV shows that only last 1 season but get a huge cult following years later like My So-Called Life or Undeclared? This movie feels like a condensed version of that.
Meant to see Dune Part 2 on Thursday but got really sick and ended up missing that screening of it. Felt good enough to go see it last night and man was it a fucking awesome experience! I may slightly prefer part 1 (not really sure until I re-watch this one) but they probably both work better as one long movie anyways. But that movie had to still contend with coming out of the Pandemic and Day and Date tactics by the old WB regime fucking up it's Box office attendance, so you couldn't really see it in a packed theater like it was meant to be viewed in. This movie is proof of what a missed opportunity that was. I haven't felt this way about watching a movie in theaters in a long time.
A couple of theaters here are showing it in 70mm, and I went on Friday. A hell of an experience, but I can see the first film being better.
Honestly though, the casting is great all across the board... aside from Zendaya, who always sounds kind of disinterested in everything I've seen of hers.
Spoiler
Also not sure about Anya Taylor Joy being the voice of Alia, but oh well