Trash books. I don’t think they made any movies based on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies…?
I’ll have to watch that video when I am at home. I’m curious what his reasons are. I like that the movie doesn’t give any answers for why the birds attack, at least not in the text. I do like the vibe in the diner where everyone turns on each other like The Mist. “You did this!!” is always a classic.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Trash books. I don’t think they made any movies based on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies…?
I’ll have to watch that video when I am at home. I’m curious what his reasons are. I like that the movie doesn’t give any answers for why the birds attack, at least not in the text. I do like the vibe in the diner where everyone turns on each other like The Mist. “You did this!!” is always a classic.
bad news
it made $16 million on a $28 million budget, so you know it's good!
Basically just Pride and Prejudice as is, with some nonsensical, poorly written Zombie attacks where everyone is suddenly a ninja.
Utter, utter tripe.
IIRC, they were trying to play off of the success of "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" (which is a genuinely humorous take on things). . . . . and utterly failed at it, because the premise didn't work as well.
Probably not though. These to me always sounded like chasing internet clout because "omg that's so random". Iron Sky did that to an extent, whereas the film hat 2 jokes. Or concepts for jokes at least.
Basically just Pride and Prejudice as is, with some nonsensical, poorly written Zombie attacks where everyone is suddenly a ninja.
Utter, utter tripe.
IIRC, they were trying to play off of the success of "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" (which is a genuinely humorous take on things). . . . . and utterly failed at it, because the premise didn't work as well.
If you liked that you are gig to love FDR American Badass!. I'm kidding. I've probably got both movies on the shelf but haven't watched either in a long time.
Basically just Pride and Prejudice as is, with some nonsensical, poorly written Zombie attacks where everyone is suddenly a ninja.
Utter, utter tripe.
IIRC, they were trying to play off of the success of "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" (which is a genuinely humorous take on things). . . . . and utterly failed at it, because the premise didn't work as well.
If you liked that you are gig to love FDR American Badass!. I'm kidding. I've probably got both movies on the shelf but haven't watched either in a long time.
Yeah. . IMO, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter was a decent enough movie the first time around. But it quickly loses its luster on subsequent viewings. I can't recall ever actually finishing it a 2nd time.
Sigur wrote: Yup. I mean at 2016 is was too late for anyhting "...and zombies" even for the most zombie-tolerating person.
I found the 19th century English literature bits tedious, not the "zombie" parts. I'd argue the zombies as a sentient, persecuted group with the backdrop of 19th century English society aren't even a terrible thing. But on a technical level the parts don't mesh very well (that's classic English literature, Eastern martial arts and zombies). In my opinion it's too glossy and serious for its own good and ends up a dull movie as a result.
Basically just Pride and Prejudice as is, with some nonsensical, poorly written Zombie attacks where everyone is suddenly a ninja.
Utter, utter tripe.
I didn’t read that one, because zombies, but I read Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters…for about 60 pages. That’s about as far as one joke could take me, especially since the original novel was not exactly my cup of tea.
Signed up to a weeks trial of Crunchyroll, spotted this.
At first, the monster effects struck me as super lame. Then…it clicked. It’s not that they’re meant to be lame (this isn’t Sharknado, or other Asylum cinematic drivel)….they’re meant to resemble proper “it’s a bloke in a suit” Kaiju. Which is a very specific look and feel. And now I’ve got my idiot brain round that? The effects look hella cool - and adds to the Kaiju’s otherworldly nature.
Brad Pitt grumbles his way through a slow paced psycho drama about his daddy issues, but IIIINNNN SPAAAAAACE! The NASApunk equipment aesthetics look great, and the set dressing is wonderful. The actual story is dull as dishwater. Also it Turns out baboons have some kind of natural radio jammer. That’s the only thing that explains one specific bit of the film.
Also some kind of moon pirates can apparently operate with impunity against the US military without having satellites track their moon buggies back to their lairs.
So yeah, looks great, makes little sense and is only vaguely entertaining. Only watch if you like spacesuits and morose looking Brad Pitts.
Signed up to a weeks trial of Crunchyroll, spotted this.
At first, the monster effects struck me as super lame. Then…it clicked. It’s not that they’re meant to be lame (this isn’t Sharknado, or other Asylum cinematic drivel)….they’re meant to resemble proper “it’s a bloke in a suit” Kaiju. Which is a very specific look and feel. And now I’ve got my idiot brain round that? The effects look hella cool - and adds to the Kaiju’s otherworldly nature.
that movie is a great example of how less can be more. this suit-like effects are maybe not technically impressive, but they match the look of the film better than any attempt at "better" CGI could be. that's also how it looks significantly better than Shin Ultraman, despite coming out years before
Anno is fantastic at making movies about the things he loves. check out Shin Kamen Rider, if you can, it's great in a similar way
Easy E wrote: @Bob - Regarding the spoilers for The Keep....... maybe?
I request further elaboration. I can’t picture how the film could be ambiguous about something so silly yet central to the book’s premise.
They mention it in passing from an unreliable narrator(IIRC), and then never really talk about it much again.
However, the crosses do play a big role in the movie, but their origin and nature is not the key component. The movie is much more interested in the "Jewish revenge" on the Nazis angle to release the creature in the Keep, and then the wizard slowly making his way to the big showdown.
The movie was just more interested in killing Nazis.
Your comparison between the trash films from the late Noughties and The Birds made me chuckle.
One of the very, very few youtubers I follow. He put some of his film reviews up in English.
No films seen recently, been out this weekend.
So, I watched the review, and since I’ve never seen him before I need to ask: is he doing a bit, or is he serious? His phrasing and deadpan delivery are hilarious.
The content of his video…it’s about what I expected. Again, I’m not sure how much is parody, but it feels like a non-zero amount.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Easy E. That sounds pretty different from the book, where Molassar spends a great deal of time breaking the Jewish professor’s religious convictions by stating the crosses are Christian crosses and that’s why they are effective. Also, the wizard(?) in the book is more like Kull the Conqueror meets Connor MacLeod, more of an epic swordsman with a destiny.
…But I can’t find fault with the film being more interested in killing Nazis. That’s good cinema.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Mad Doc Grotsnik,
I finished your video review and, yes, gently depressed the like button. I’ve already made my thoughts on the film known, so I’ll comment on your video. The laid back atmosphere is nice, but perhaps you can either add music or use multiple phone cameras to splice together different angles or start out with an outline for the discussion? I found my attention wandering, as your video is one long static shot, and both of you talk in a comparatively slow pace.
Oh dear. Where to begin. I think this is an Indonesian movie, as it’s mentioned Jakarta. And hails from the 70’s as time stamped by its awful disco dancing opening scene. In which the band sound completely indistinguishable from Fast Show’s Mikki Disco.
Seems to be an exploitation flick. And not a very good one. Lots of moustachioed villains, a bit of (not very good) Kung Fu.
Written and directed by Arizal. Not sure if surname or forename. Just Arizal. Well, don’t worry Arizal, if that’s is indeed your name. I’m not sure I’d give my full name to this utter nonsense.
But hey, at least the English dub voice actors are at least trying. Not very hard. But there’s identifiable effort being made.
Hopefully we’ll get to some of the Ferocious Fighting afore long. Spesh this is (amazingly) part two. I’d hate for this to all be arse about face and a second half centred solely on (crap) exposition (unconvincing) flashbacks and long, pointless lingering shots of faces where the camera zooms in for the last couple of seconds to no particular purpose.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Third of the way through, and the male lead is doing some Deja Fu, where the target sometimes goes flying before he’s even pretended to lash out. And not a single woman has fought.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Little over halftime, and we have a training montage. She’s not very good, as sometimes she’s going backwards. Though to be fair that might serve well for confusing an opponent. Open them up for a traditional British frying pan to the noggin. That’s usually an effective technique, man or woman.
@BobtheInquisitor: Oh, you really sat through it. I watched the review after I linked ot it, and listening to him in English is tough. Surely there is a certain degree of self-awareness about the whole presentation and such, but as far as I understand the guy is a bit of a freak, but very well read. He's rather popular as the sorta intellectual mouthpiece of German internet lefties. The film critizism from an ideology-critical point of view is what got him popular and he's very, very big on Zizek of course, but since he's very much branced out to political and economical commentary and such. He's even a capable talker, but not in English it seems. The cadence and such made it a bit hard to follow.
I sat through it and laughed more than a few times. The way he talks about things is, I guess unintentionally, hilarious, such as the photos of the planes representing birds of a type that are industrial birds, or something like that.
Pearl
If you’ve seen the trailer, it’s pretty much that, but more. It’s not for everyone, but I enjoyed it.
First off, it doesn’t feel like a horror movie. The movie delivers a lot of scenes that are disturbing and uncomfortable (in a good way), but it’s not scary. There are two really fun scenes where people start to see the real her and gradually realize how much danger they’re in, but not a lot of jumpscares or something’s-gonna-get-me scenes.
Mia Goth’s performance of a crazy person is riveting. If you just want to look up any scenes on YouTube, I recommend her dance audition (and aftermath) and her performance in the last scene and end credits. One thing that was a little weird is that she starts the film with old timey acting, like the kind comedian Rachel Feinstein uses for bits, but transitions into more normal acting. This might be a choice as parts of the movie feel like they’re attempting an old technicolor look, but most of it doesn’t do that.
Anyway, I recommend it to anyone who wants to see a movie about a descent into murderousness.
Henry wrote: BarbieAnd similarly the Barbie ideal is an empowered female perspective so long as that falls within the American view of what Barbie represents. There's nothing wrong with using movies to present these ideals but we should at least recognise the limits of this cultural representation.
Sorry if that was a bit all over the place, and I'm sure it would be easy to pick holes in my thesis, but it's something that was picking at my mind by the end of the film.
Have to chip in on behalf of my daughter who is Indian. Was in the UK, heard the hype, went along to the cinema... and half an hour into the film wandered out.
I will put your analysis to her and see if that jibes with how she felt the movie wasn't that interesting and left her cold.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: The documentary about the making of AN, Hearts of Darkness, is a really interesting watch. A lot of wild stuff went on during the making of the film.
If we are talking documentaries I finally got to watch "The Battle of Algiers, a Film Within History".
If anyone hasn't seen The Battle of Algiers, all I can do is implore you to. Incredibly influential on filmmakers, routinely regarded as one of the best films of all time. If you are into wargaming, especially lower model count games, one of those touchstone films.
And the documentary is a brilliant accompaniment. Multiple voices are heard including many Algerian, both talking about the film but also the circumstances around it. Would have been easy to do one of those infuriating talking head things that fill TV screens, this manages to add to the after experience of the film and not simply have vacuous comments or anecdotes.
B-Movie thriller which, whilst not exactly fantastic is far, far better than I was expecting.
Boatman and his client are looking for El Diablo, a ship which sunk in the Caribbean, allegedly with treasure stolen by Heretical Monks. And of course it’s said to be cursed.
I was expecting a shlocky horror movie, perhaps with convincing monsters. But no. I got a genuinely enjoyable mystery thriller.
Everything about it is Slightly More Than Fine. Whilst not original, it is pretty competently put together.
It’s dated yet still a fun watch. It’s all about racism and using religion to justify discrimination, shown through the treatment of chimpanzees and especially the attitudes towards humans, who have no rights, no voice and no justice. It’s also about how humans are just the worst, ruin any society they participate in and deserve everything bad that happens to them. A bit of a mixed message, really.
I suppose the rampant “the most evil creature is man” misanthropy was fresh and interesting when the film was made, but really feels tired now. And it’s not a small part of the film. Even the dark mirror of ape society reinforces the humanity sucks vibes.
Yet for all that, there’s something charming about 60’s Sci Fi that makes it more entertaining than not.
Watch it because it’s an important film pop culture.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
One of the few great prequels ever made.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
A decent follow up. The mocap apes are strangely compelling.
War of the Planet of the Apes
So, every PotA film is a downer, and the effect is cumulative. This seems like a pretty good movie, but it was a mistake to watch these all in a row.
We had plans to watch Beneath the PotA, Escape from the PotA, Conquest of tPotA and Battle for tPotA, but those are now on indefinite hold.
Netflix suggested this one and were right on the button.
I have fond memories of this from the first time around, we saw it during a family trip and then it was one of those films that always seemed to be on HBO. Me and my sister quoted it for ages.
"Strangers in the night, exchanging clothing"
Basically Chevy Chase is a fast-talking con artist/investigative reporter who talks and bluffs his way through a mystery and various foes and ends up with the girl, the money and a trip to Rio. His bluffs and cover stories are the real attraction.
It’s a film nobody particularly needed, but is fun enough. And could be said to serve as a sequel if we go from Part VI/Part VII, wisely avoiding the intervening four films (which to be fair aren’t without their charms).
The Dudebros are more obnoxious. Jason is bigger. I think. But it’s got the right DNA.
Main issue for me Jared Padalecki. Not his performance. Not the man. But he is Sam Winchester, and always will be. So when he’s up again some possibly supernatural killer? I expect Dean, the Car, Crowley and at least one phone call where the boys are called Idjits.
Odd that Supernatural, over its 15 seasons, never featured a Jason-a-like nasty.
Ip Man is a really cool movie. everything in the film just sort of works. the acting is all great, the historical time period is portrayed really well, the music is fantastic, and, of course, the action is incredible. i'm not much of an action movie person but this definitely has me wanting to watch more
Just so dumb. This is the most scenery chewing I’ve seen from bad guys for a while. Not in a frothing at the mouth, although there is a bit of that as well, but just so generically bad. There were a few places where I had to restrain myself from shouting “he’s behind you!”.
Creepy love at first major medical procedure side line. Magical foresight and home made super weapons. Extremely overplayed “great guy loner gun enthusiast against the deep state” storyline.
And Mr Wahlberg just mumbles his way through all of his lines.
I mean it’s not terrible, but it would have been better if it was. Can’t recommend due to its utter blandness.
What is really strange is that it did fairly well in the theater yet they never followed it up. I'm not saying they should it is just odd to see a studio not follow up on a money maker, especially in a horror franchise.
Seems it’s a Rights issue and studios feeling the squeeze.
But also? It’s already a sprawling franchise of wildly varying quality and tone.
It’s true horror films tend to do well at the Box Office, mostly due to very modest budgets meaning even a slight breakthrough is going to deliver fat old profits. But if you’re having to negotiate rights, that takes time and salary costs, and adds further fingers to the pie when it’s cash o’clock, so even a decent hit can see your side’s profits eroded.
Be fair, he was very in The Departed for about 2 minutes and owned every second of his screen time.
Looking through his film history the only other film of his I'd highly recommend is Deep water Horizon, but again that would be in spite of rather than because of Whalberg.
Hadn't seen this in years so why not.
I still remember having seen this in theaters as a kid.
I enjoyed this a lot less than I thought I would. Frankly the peasants and the soldiers disgusted me as did the corrupt and cowardly bishop, or what ever he was. . I'm puzzled as to why that is.
Alan Rickman looked like he was having a really good time as the Sheriff. He was really hamming it up and that was still fun.
Morgan Freeman's Azeem was a quite good character. I noted that the dialog was sparse at best but his lines were well picked getting the most from the least.
Over all there's not really a lot of dialog in this movie.
Lastly Michael Wincott, always fun to watch him play one of those horrible personality types. He was good in this movie playing such a heel. ( I think I like him best in The Count of Monte Cristo out of all of his roles. )
An enjoyable film, but one which will forever irk me for its bizarre geography.
White Cliffs of Dover? Fair enough. I live in the next town over, and it’s the shortest sea crossing between Britain and France. Then off to Nottingham, on account that’s where Sherwood is (well, is now. Sherwood Forest was huge historically. So away to the Midlands.
Via….erm….Hadrian’s Wall. In the north.
For my money, do check out Robin of Sherwood if you can. It’s from the 80’s and redefined the legend, and was a real influence on Prince of Thieves.
Then, for more contemporary Sherwood Shenanigans? The truly sublime Maid Marian and her Merry Men.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: An enjoyable film, but one which will forever irk me for its bizarre geography.
White Cliffs of Dover? Fair enough. I live in the next town over, and it’s the shortest sea crossing between Britain and France. Then off to Nottingham, on account that’s where Sherwood is (well, is now. Sherwood Forest was huge historically. So away to the Midlands.
Via….erm….Hadrian’s Wall. In the north.
For my money, do check out Robin of Sherwood if you can. It’s from the 80’s and redefined the legend, and was a real influence on Prince of Thieves.
Then, for more contemporary Sherwood Shenanigans? The truly sublime Maid Marian and her Merry Men.
The only thing I spotted was Kevin Costner's boot soles. As he's going into the rocky river area. Later at the hanging all the peasants have what look like more correct shoes soles but I would suspect even those aren't quite right.
I also saw The Big Hit, in the cinema.... possibly twice.
I saw it in the cinema and later recorded it off TV. And I had a China Chow picture for my desktop background for half a year. We’re all young once.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
StudentOfEtherium wrote: Ip Man is a really cool movie. everything in the film just sort of works. the acting is all great, the historical time period is portrayed really well, the music is fantastic, and, of course, the action is incredible. i'm not much of an action movie person but this definitely has me wanting to watch more
I remember the action being incredible. I should show this to my son.
inspired by Ip Man, i checked out The Raid, and... wow that's not a good movie. it completely lacks in characterization or development, and it has a lot of unfortunate political implications (a copraganda action movie that treats its evil gang members as being more like zombies than humans). the fighting was good, of course, but if all i want is good fights, i'll go watch pro wrestling or mma or something like that
StudentOfEtherium wrote: inspired by Ip Man, i checked out The Raid, and... wow that's not a good movie. it completely lacks in characterization or development, and it has a lot of unfortunate political implications (a copraganda action movie that treats its evil gang members as being more like zombies than humans). the fighting was good, of course, but if all i want is good fights, i'll go watch pro wrestling or mma or something like that
That’s good to know. I remember someone on Dakka always bringing up the Raid whenever someone mentioned Dredd, as the superior film.
The Howling
My son is really into werewolves, but I refuse to show him American Werewolf in London until he’s a few years older. So I thought The Howling would be a good compromise movie. Turns out I only remembered half of what happens…
The Howling starts with a news reporter meeting a serial killer in the grimy 70’s-New-York-sleaze part of Los Angeles. In a porno booth. That’s showing a possible snuff film. Let’s just fast forward a bit here…
Anyway, the film really starts to get going about halfway through when the reporter and her husband realize their new age cabin retreat is a werewolf colony. Whoopsie.
Everything in the second half is excellent. The effects, the building dread, the set up for the climactic scenes, and the final shot are all classic. The werewolf effects are top tier and worth the watch on their own. The first half is a drag, but really captures that late 70’s early 80’s feel.
If you enjoy werewolves at all, this is a must watch.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Tell me you’ve seen Dog Soldiers? For me, it’s hands down the greatest Werewolf movie ever made.
Multiple times. I love Dog Soldiers. But to me it’s more of an action movie than a werewolf movie, closer to Underworld in my ranking than something like AWIL or The Howling. I plan to show it to my son after he sees Aliens.
And I place the werewolves in Dog Soldiers, great as they are, below the werewolf designs of AWIL, The Howling, Werewolf The Series, and even Bad Moon.
just watched Final Destination. i went in with really low expectations, but once i realized the film was a total comedy, i had a blast with it. a bunch of points where i started cackling aloud. it's not on the level of horror comedy classics like House, Evil Dead 2, or One Cut of the Dead, but it's still a fun time
A sort of low budget, fantasy take on Tron. A tech wiz gets challenged by an evil wizard in a series of contests to see if the new magic of technology is better than the old fashioned kind.
It's pretty silly and kinda fizzles out at the end, but it does have some quirky, 80's B-movie charm.
Yeah, Wahlberg's role was funny in that one. But I guess it's just because it probably was written around Wahlberg rather than Wahlberg "becoming" that role.
I watched Blackkklansman (2017). It's an OK film that just goes on without having incredibly memorable stuff in it. The leading actors work well (never quite sure if I'm okay with Adam Driver, but it was that time when he was in everything), and for some reason I always enjoy seeing Topher Grace on film. Now as for John David Washington - is he good? I think this is the first film I've seen him in as a leading actor, and after having seen the film I remembered somebody on a podcast saying that he never quite clicks for them as a leading man. He sure knows how to look at a camera and play a straight man, and that very much was the role in this film. So I'm not quite sure if he's a bit boring or just adapted to the role.
I'm The ending is rather interesting. And THEN Spike Lee gets out the footage of the BLM things and Trump and MAGA people that people-driving-cars-into-others, and all of that was pretty effective. And it made me realize that you can't just take things back once they've happened and once the bar for how officials communicate and how people react to things and treat others and gak they say has been lowered so much it's really hard to raise it again. And the frankly dangerous people constantly working on lowerig bars and inhibitions and the standards of civilization.
Anytime you think Jurassic World is crap (and it’s fairly crap to be fair) just remember this utter turd exists.
So turd, it has Vince Vaughn playing…erm…Vince Vaughn, just for a change.
Not even Jeff Goldblum can save this utter, utter dreck. Which features characters that could only be more stupid if their entire plan was to stick their todger in a T-Rex’s gob to see what would happen.
Just so dumb. This is the most scenery chewing I’ve seen from bad guys for a while. Not in a frothing at the mouth, although there is a bit of that as well, but just so generically bad. There were a few places where I had to restrain myself from shouting “he’s behind you!”.
Creepy love at first major medical procedure side line. Magical foresight and home made super weapons. Extremely overplayed “great guy loner gun enthusiast against the deep state” storyline.
And Mr Wahlberg just mumbles his way through all of his lines.
I mean it’s not terrible, but it would have been better if it was. Can’t recommend due to its utter blandness.
It has the critical flaw that the only reason for the plot is that the bad guys conceived of an overly elaborate evil plan that neither needed to involve an outsider, nor was improved by trying to kill him.
Like if they'd just sat back and said/done nothing and not tried some contrived scheme, they'd probably have gotten away with it.
Hero is such a cool movie. watching those other martial arts movies got me in a mood to rewatch it, and wow does this hold up. it's stunning in every sense, with incredible direction, color design, acting, etc. i won't hesitate to say that this is my favorite martial arts movie
Freelance This is a much better rom-com/adventure movie than the similar Lost City. A good in-between movie to watch with the wife, BUT there is some splatter-y violence in a few parts.
Jumanji 2: The Next Level Perfectly serviceable sequel to the surprisingly good Jumanji re-make. Funny to see the Rock/Danny DeVito and Glover/Hart try to imitate each other. The plot is ropey as all heck and the "moral" is heavy-handed.
Hero is amazing. I think I still prefer Crouching tiger, Hidden Dragon out of that surge of Chinese movies that came out close together.
Just saw The Flash on a plane. There were fleeting moments in a what was a fairly rotten movie. Some of those the fan service stuff (Keaton, the Elfman Batman theme) and the concept they were always going to lose, but the writing in general was awful.
MarkNorfolk wrote: Hero is amazing. I think I still prefer Crouching tiger, Hidden Dragon out of that surge of Chinese movies that came out close together.
funnily enough, i'll be watching that one next! i'm really looking forward to it, after having heard so much praise for it
Enough is enough! I've had it with this mommajubblin' Flash on this mommajubblin' plane!
Yeah, I also prefer Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon over Hero. Hero was cool, but it already had all that ....well, heroic stuff seeping in. Tiger&Dragon was just nicer, Hero was a bit loud.
Current epic Chinese films are just insane.
Re-watching the John Milius documentary on youtube again. Lots of stressfull (and entirely needlessly so!) things going on, so retiring to one's happy place is a good idea. I think I watched some film last night, but - no, wait, I do remember. I watched Raw Deal (1986), starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's really not good. Which is weird, because it's a 1986 Schwarzenegger film, but it just isn't very good. The German title is "The City Shark", surely based on City Cobra which was released the same year (and which I happened to watch party recently as well!), but I think that Cobra - whilst being also rather vapid - is more entertaining than Raw Deal.
Nic Cage horror thriller supernatural mystery flick.
Nic Cage, via his son’s schools’ time capsule comes into possession of a list of numbers, which had been buried in said time capsule for 50 years.
Nic Cage realises the numbers have significance, and relate the date, geolocation and death toll of disasters. Including those yet to come. But nothing as to what is going to happen.
This is, if nothing else, an interesting premise, and Nic Cage is pretty restrained. And the first (I’m assuming it’s the first) disaster yet to come was pretty impressive, with some neat tricks by the film makers to slightly wrong foot us. Like the good, smart rug pulls I really appreciate.
It’s kind of in the same vein as Final Destination, of knowing something is gonna happen, but not what, and being powerless to stop it.
I thought Knowing was really well done, right up until the ending. I’m not saying the ending was or wasn’t well done, but it made me so angry. It retroactively made a lot of the good parts of the film into cheesy bad parts.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon... was good but kinda disappointing. in retrospect, the hype might have been too high, because it's still a good movie, but i still feel like i expected too much
Jen is great, and when the film is concerned with her. the way the film shoots the landscapes of China is also great. but the rest of the cast doesn't have her depth, and all the fights at night felt a bit more muddled due to being shot so dark
i think my favorite scenes were the ones in the desert, because that openness contrasted against all the tight spaces of the earlier scenes really gave a sense of freedom and acted as a breath of fresh air. oh, and the bamboo forest scene was as good as everyone says it is
which itself is reminding me of when Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon came up in Microphones in 2020, and reading over the lyrics in question again, this feels like the best possible sell for what makes the movie so good. so i guess i should go listen to Microphones in 2020 again and reflect on the movie because maybe doing so will make me appreciate it more
Spoiler:
The Microphones wrote:I watched Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in a dollar theater in Aberdeen.
It was a rainy matinee 2001, Sunday, March 18th,
and in the parking lot afterward
for a few minutes in the rain
I stood glowing with ideas of what I might try to convey
with this music. At that moment my mind flashing like a blade.
A 22 year old in flip flops running around in an empty mall parking lot lost in a martial arts fantasy,
it looks ridiculous now but the truth is:
alone there
something was formed.
The way they held themselves upright with tea in the opening scenes,
a warm formality, spines straight and feet planted wide,
un-tip-over-able like the bamboo'd undulating hills,
walking slowly, making eye contact, gliding,
the sound of empty wind when they sword-fought weightless in the bamboo
with a purity of heart that transcends gravity
leaping off the mountain into ambiguity
falling slow
as the end credits rolled.
I decided I would try to make music that contained this deeper peace
buried underneath distorted bass, fog imbued with light and emptiness,
I kept on driving out to the ocean.
It was raining so hard, I was wet wool caked with sand.
I watched the dunes migrate slowly.
Nic Cage horror thriller supernatural mystery flick.
Nic Cage, via his son’s schools’ time capsule comes into possession of a list of numbers, which had been buried in said time capsule for 50 years.
Nic Cage realises the numbers have significance, and relate the date, geolocation and death toll of disasters. Including those yet to come. But nothing as to what is going to happen.
This is, if nothing else, an interesting premise, and Nic Cage is pretty restrained. And the first (I’m assuming it’s the first) disaster yet to come was pretty impressive, with some neat tricks by the film makers to slightly wrong foot us. Like the good, smart rug pulls I really appreciate.
It’s kind of in the same vein as Final Destination, of knowing something is gonna happen, but not what, and being powerless to stop it.
I always confuse that one with the much worse "Nicholas Cage can look 3 seconds into the future" film.
Pastiche slasher flick, ostensibly as a follow up to a lost classic slasher series. But of course it’s just riffing off Friday the 13th.
Not as daft as Scary Movie and its many imitators, this is more tongue in cheek than an outright parody. And crucially, we have some pretty impressive though by no means original practical gore effects. And the telly ad for Catfish Cabin has me hankering to visit.
Overall, it’s an odd fish and whilst I’m definitely enjoying it, I’m not sure why. It’s definitely well made with decent performances and technicals and that, but it’s neither a slasher nor a “proper” comedy, and as such it shouldn’t work, as it’s not committing to either bit. And it’s not really sending up any specific scene or trope.
It has a few impressive stunts, especially near the beginning, but feels very slow. Not by any means a bad movie, it feels like the gawky awkward stage before the Mad Max series comes into its full form.
Logan’s Run
A Sci Fi classic. Weird and trippy, with a few obvious attempts to recapture some Planet of the Apes magic. I was not expecting a PG movie to have more nudity than a Game of Thrones exposition episode, nor for it to have a chase scene through a slow-motion orgy. Stand out scenes are the Carousel and the robot named Box.
A Sci Fi classic. Weird and trippy, with a few obvious attempts to recapture some Planet of the Apes magic. I was not expecting a PG movie to have more nudity than a Game of Thrones exposition episode, nor for it to have a chase scene through a slow-motion orgy. Stand out scenes are the Carousel and the robot named Box.
Yea, people had sex back then. It's a cool film. I'm not a fan of the Planet of the Apes films (any, really), but Logan's Run I like.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well this wasn’t very good.
In short, Tom Hank’s’ character clearly has some undiagnosed mental health issues. Possibly as severe as schizophrenia.
He plays some sessions of Not D&D and then goes awol around NYC, eventually ending up on the roof of the WTC, where his friends track him down and talk him down. Talk him down by playing into the delusion, including the “Maze Master” explaining his word is law, so stop being a tit and come away from the edge. Which he does. Months later he’s still suffering the delusions, which his Mum has seemingly done nothing about. Like, I dunno….seeking medical assistance for her son, who is clearly still in distress.
Even the conclusion isn’t that the game was at fault. Which given this was part of the Satanic Panic makes me wonder what it was all about. A PSA about the dangers of untreated mental health? A PSA about “oh noes TTRPG am evils and will make your kid try to top themself”
Automatically Appended Next Post: Zombie Creeping Flesh aka Hell of the Living Dead.
Now you’re talking! Pretty ropey Italian Zombie Flick. Dodgy synth score. Wildly varying zombie make up (from the crap to the genuinely impressive), buckets of violence and of course obligatory knockers.
There’s absolutely nothing original or fresh in this 1980 effort. But as Zombie flicks of this era go? It’s genuinely one of the better ones.
Whilst as I said the zombie makeup varies (some are just…blue, others are right proper manky), their behaviour is consistent. They’re slow, ponderous, need a headshot to drop them, and are dangerous in large numbers.
Oh wait, the kid zombie. That’s a noteworthy inclusion and kill.
In the world of Dodgy Zombie Movies? I’d give this a comfortable 8/10. Whilst it borrows element from the Romero movies, it’s clear they’ve understood why those elements work, and what they add to the overall tale. And as such, it’s definitely enjoyable. If you’re into this sort of thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dead Dudes In The House
Indie supernatural flick distributed by Troma.
This didn’t go as I expected. At all. First, the thumbnail on Prime suggested a faux blaxploitation bit of silliness, as did the title. And when the Troma intro played, I was settling in for proper daft nonsense. Both of which I was looking forward to, because I love Troma films, and sendups of exploitation movies.
Yet here I am, disappointed in the best possible way. Because this is an 80’s low budget haunted house/slasher flick hybrid. And it’s a proper attempt at one.
The makeup effects are solid efforts. The acting is more than acceptable, it’s even pretty tense when it gets going. So much so this is going on my list of Hidden Gems.
A Sci Fi classic. Weird and trippy, with a few obvious attempts to recapture some Planet of the Apes magic. I was not expecting a PG movie to have more nudity than a Game of Thrones exposition episode, nor for it to have a chase scene through a slow-motion orgy. Stand out scenes are the Carousel and the robot named Box.
I offer my perspective largely in ignorance of what's in Game of Thrones, not having watched the show, but it feels like you overstate what's in Logan's Run just a little. Being a 70s movie, the skirts are short and there's a notable absence of bras, which is understandable because bras are how THE MAN oppresses you. But aside from that, for a 70e movie Logan's Run is pretty tame. It might just be the European perspective, but what's really there? I checked, in the name of scientific interest. The slow motion orgy scene has a bit of dancing, a few sultry moves and a pair or two of boobies. There are half a dozen naked corpsicles later on. A blink and you miss it nude scene of the female lead. That's it.
There's plenty of pussy in the last part of the movie, but it's the meow kind and obviously not problematic even to the most Victorian censor.
Is more a curiosity than an issue. Usually I'd say, hey, it's a 70s movie. Don't overthink it. They did drugs back then and caught the rating board on a good day. But let's have a tiny bit of a detour here.
You know, I happened to watch Passion of the Christ on TV back in the day. Take this as a perfectly neutral observation. Any slasher/torture porn movie that would have emulated it scene for scene would have been rated 18 and not shown uncut on German TV. By virtue of being a Christian slasher/torture porn movie, Passion of the Christ was shown uncut with a 16 rating. I consider this a lesson in bias.
Who knows what might have prompted the rating of Logan's Run, but it appears to be enough of a high profile movie that any leeway it received might have just been down to how it jived with the zeitgeist to get away with more than other movies at the time. The movie certainly has very strong personal freedom versus state control themes going. It fits the period well, in my latter day view.
Oh. Oh god. This is clearly meant to be a comedy. And obviously has zero budget.
Lots of disembodied voices. Lots of obvious and crap CGI.
But worse. Much, much, much worse? Even the fart jokes aren’t funny. Fart jokes. That most basic and reliable source of humour. Aren’t funny.
I mean, that’s an achievement. Especially as it was the promising of fart arsed Zombies that grabbed my attention.
The film makers couldn’t even manage a baffle on the mic, because whenever there’s an actual actor on screen speaking (and not the aforementioned disembodied voices which may be AI generated, there’s a horrendous echo.
My mate and I do our YouTube videos in my front room, and even we’ve jury rigged some kind of baffle (yay for having lots of cushions).
If there is a hell? This is what I expect to have pumped into my eyeballs for eternity.
A Sci Fi classic. Weird and trippy, with a few obvious attempts to recapture some Planet of the Apes magic. I was not expecting a PG movie to have more nudity than a Game of Thrones exposition episode, nor for it to have a chase scene through a slow-motion orgy. Stand out scenes are the Carousel and the robot named Box.
I offer my perspective largely in ignorance of what's in Game of Thrones, not having watched the show, but it feels like you overstate what's in Logan's Run just a little. Being a 70s movie, the skirts are short and there's a notable absence of bras, which is understandable because bras are how THE MAN oppresses you. But aside from that, for a 70e movie Logan's Run is pretty tame. It might just be the European perspective, but what's really there? I checked, in the name of scientific interest. The slow motion orgy scene has a bit of dancing, a few sultry moves and a pair or two of boobies. There are half a dozen naked corpsicles later on. A blink and you miss it nude scene of the female lead. That's it.
There's plenty of pussy in the last part of the movie, but it's the meow kind and obviously not problematic even to the most Victorian censor.
Is more a curiosity than an issue. Usually I'd say, hey, it's a 70s movie. Don't overthink it. They did drugs back then and caught the rating board on a good day. But let's have a tiny bit of a detour here.
You know, I happened to watch Passion of the Christ on TV back in the day. Take this as a perfectly neutral observation. Any slasher/torture porn movie that would have emulated it scene for scene would have been rated 18 and not shown uncut on German TV. By virtue of being a Christian slasher/torture porn movie, Passion of the Christ was shown uncut with a 16 rating. I consider this a lesson in bias.
Who knows what might have prompted the rating of Logan's Run, but it appears to be enough of a high profile movie that any leeway it received might have just been down to how it jived with the zeitgeist to get away with more than other movies at the time. The movie certainly has very strong personal freedom versus state control themes going. It fits the period well, in my latter day view.
I was commenting on it out of amusement. Although Inseem to remember a lot more of the lead actress and Michael York than you do, as well as the orgy being more explicitly sexual than say the breastfeeding and bare walk on the beach from Clash if the Titans. And yes, American prudishness with nudity is odd, and it has only grown over time. I don’t know why.
Back in the day, they used to play Shaka Zulu uncut on broadcast television all the time. If those breasts had been paler, they would have been censored out, so yeah biases are pretty funny.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Mad Doc Grotsnik
Would you and your friend be willing to make videos review/reacting/trash talking some of these weird, obscure movies?
This was a Hugh Jackman Neo-Noir that went in and out of the theatre so fast, I thought I had hallucinated the really cool trailer and movie poster I saw.
Overall, if you like Neo-Noir with a Sci-fi lean than this is the flick for you. A solid effort, and a great little piece of film making.
They don't write flicks like this anymore, as almost nothing is wasted. If you see it on screen, you were suppose to see it and it moves the story, character, or plot. Same with the dialogue, it you hear it; it is relevant. I love the craft that went into this thing.
The guy playing Saint Joe is a huge stand-out in this flick for mixing pidgin Chinese AND a New Orleans accent. Great character.
This movie is like a mix of silent film, slapstick comedy and Looney Tunes with Itchy and Scratchy-levels of violence. Not every gag landed for me, but I still laughed a lot and had a great time. My wife thought the movie was a bit too gruesome at times, even though the beavers bled stuffing instead of blood. I don’t want to spoil anything, but the film has a great escalation of craziness leading to the big climax.
If you’re looking for something funny and action packed that’s as far from a big IP movie as possible, try Hundreds of Beavers.
Would you and your friend be willing to make videos review/reacting/trash talking some of these weird, obscure movies?
In due course? Yes! We’re currently working toward a fairly set recording schedule, and for now will attempt to ride the algorithm in search of an initial following.
But eventually, we’ll tackle the obscure and hidden gem.
MarkNorfolk wrote: I’m a little disappointed that people don’t seem to recognise/remember who Jenny Agutter is.
I'm terrible with names. I watched Lost in Space last night and couldn't for the life of me remember Gary Oldman's name until the credits reminded me, even though I recognized him instantly. What chance does an actress from a fifty year old movie stand?
MarkNorfolk wrote: I’m a little disappointed that people don’t seem to recognise/remember who Jenny Agutter is.
I'm terrible with names. I watched Lost in Space last night and couldn't for the life of me remember Gary Oldman's name until the credits reminded me, even though I recognized him instantly. What chance does an actress from a fifty year old movie stand?
Fair enough. Maybe as a middle aged Brit it’s very easy for me to remember the actress from The Railway Children, Logan’s Run, An American Werewolf in London, Captain America: Civil War and a plethora of British TV appearances.
That said, this is a Ridley Scott film. Therefore, that is what you get! The film looks amazing, great sets, great costumes, and great details. Historically or Biblically accurate? Of course not!
For example, there is a lot of cool Chariot action in this flick. But there is also a lot of guys riding around on horseback. If you could get that many guys on horseback, why would you be using Chariots? Plus, the scene where the chariots smash through some guys with shields..... yeah. So, for those of us interested in the question, "How did chariot armies even work?" this movie is more frustrating than helpful.
It is also fun to see Bale "Batman-up" Moses.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie for what it was, big budget cinema by a visually motivated director trying to deliver a summer Blockbuster formula. However, it is right on the edge of being eminently hate-able.
This was a Hugh Jackman Neo-Noir that went in and out of the theatre so fast, I thought I had hallucinated the really cool trailer and movie poster I saw.
Overall, if you like Neo-Noir with a Sci-fi lean than this is the flick for you. A solid effort, and a great little piece of film making.
They don't write flicks like this anymore, as almost nothing is wasted. If you see it on screen, you were suppose to see it and it moves the story, character, or plot. Same with the dialogue, it you hear it; it is relevant. I love the craft that went into this thing.
The guy playing Saint Joe is a huge stand-out in this flick for mixing pidgin Chinese AND a New Orleans accent. Great character.
That's the film! I remember I saw the trailer for that (I don't watch many trailers; mostly by accident), it looked vaguely interesting, and then I never heard of that film again! The way you describe it, it sounds rather cool. I assume it doesn't go on overly long either? like 100 minutes?
Thoroughly easy going easy to watch film. Saw it with my mum and daughter one random evening and all thought it was enjoyable enough. Affable really. Better than the average film and you won't go wrong watching it, even if it won't set your world aflame.
Reminiscence is 1 hour and 56 minutes, so closer to two hours long.
It only has 5.9/10 on IMDB but I guess it pushed buttons I like in films. I actually enjoyed this more than Blade Runner 2049, but I also enjoyed that one as well.
John Wick is really cool. gorgeous use of color, gorgeous cinematography, great fight scenes, and Keanu Reeves is able to make himself feel like the coolest man in the world
Sydney Sweeney stars in this fairly run of the mill horror flick. Didn’t hate it, but I feel like I’ve seen this movie or variations of it done so many times over the years. Starts off strong, but kind of meanders for a bit until it gets pretty crazy. I’d give it a rent, but wouldn’t recommend someone go out of their way to see it.
On Netflix now, I may have praised this here before but I shall praise it again. Best of the Conan movies IMHO, a fun, fun D&D party adventure with everyone playing it absolutely straight.
This is a really good bit of movie making. And compared to the original, the extra time given lets us delve deeper into the mythos and message.
I’m even happy to say this is, by all metrics, the better take on the story.
But, having not read the book? I still prefer the original, and consider it the better film. Despite it being objectively worse.
I think for me, without denigrating any actor, actress or performance, I just prefer the characterisations in the original. Gurney Halek in particular. Also, when Timotheé’s Paul is shouting, The Grumpy Old Man that is me (used to be in me, but at 43, I am now him proper) struggles to see beyond “spoilt teenager throwing a wobbler”, despite that not really being the tone.
Hence I’m so confused. Normally I know my own mind and can say why I prefer X over Y. But here? No such luck!
This film is still in theaters. I put a brief review in the upcoming films thread, but wanted to put a mini review in this thread because for me (and I assume others), this is the thread I go back through when looking for ideas on what movies to check out.
Anyway, Abigail is a horror comedy that is all about character actors character acting through a deadly game of character actor cat and mouse. If you love seeing your favorite that guy or that girl taking a big old bite of scenery, check it out. Personally, I think Alisha Weir (Abigail), Dan Stevens (Frank) and Kevin Durand steal all their scenes. Kevin Durand got a ton of laughs.
It’s a little bit gory but a lot bloody, like every action scene is that one scene from Dracula Dead And Loving It. The action is well done, with choreography that is allowed to breathe but also some fast-paced editing that adds energy to some stand out scenes. There’s a bit of crime/heist movie, some Clue style mystery-in-a-mansion stuff, and a healthy dose of Scream/Tremors horror comedy scenes.
If any of that sounds like something you would enjoy, I recommend seeing it with a crowd.
On Netflix now, I may have praised this here before but I shall praise it again. Best of the Conan movies IMHO, a fun, fun D&D party adventure with everyone playing it absolutely straight.
And Grace Jones!
While I still find the first film superior, Destroyer is the one I rewatch (at least some scenes) the most by far. I love the opening with the riders and the pounding soundtrack. I love the big monster fight at the end. There’s some good stuff in between, mostly due to Grace Jones.
But I will always have a soft spot because that opening track has almost the same rhythm and beat as the sung prayer that essentially goes “blessed is the Name of Holy Majesty forever and ever”, which made Friday nights a lot more fun when I was a child.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dune 2 cut out all of the epic, big picture stuff to focus on a more personal story. Instead of big splashes of color and strong flavor we got nuance acting and, uh, some super bland action set pieces in a world of sandy beige. Without the mystical mumbo jumbo or the “look to the future and you will see me looking back ant you” grandeur, the climactic fight between Paul and Feyd Rautha was some low stakes low energy stuff. Also, Christopher Walken took me out of the film every time he was on screen.
A different kind of horror flick. Not one that’ll make you afraid of the dark or anything that bumps in the night, but it was effective. Worth a rental imo.
To secure a PG rating, Sarah Douglas said several scenes involving her character were cut, including a sex scene with Schwarzenegger, slapping Chamberlain, a virgin sacrifice, and the seduction of a statue.
To secure a PG rating, Sarah Douglas said several scenes involving her character were cut, including a sex scene with Schwarzenegger, slapping Chamberlain, a virgin sacrifice, and the seduction of a statue.
I have no idea who this is for. I mean I am a fan of the original King Kong, and I love pre-war New York and even I was bored with the 45 minutes it takes them to get to Skull Island. I was duly impressed with the monsters of Skull Island but didn't need 90 minutes of them.
The third act, Kong rampaging through Depression-era New York is almost worth the wait.
As far as I can figure Jackson, coming off LotR and with a blank check, wanted to do a period piece about Golden Age Hollywood (look at all the dialogue Jack Black has about filming, studios and such) and to outdo the original Kong. Where Kong fought one T-Rex, this Kong fights three! The result is bloated, decent at parts and every forgettable.
And yeah I say that as a fan of Jackson, Kong and Olde New York.
I like what they tried to do when they were on Skull Island. Portray a Lost World of relentless danger, where just as our human cast survive one encounter and catch their breath, something else comes after them. It’s kind of like I’d imagine landing on a Death World might be like - just utterly lethal, and relentless with it.
But it just didn’t really work. It was exhausting in the wrong way. It’s fun not to give the cast much of a breather, but for the audience it all just blurs into one, and we stop caring.
I have no idea who this is for. I mean I am a fan of the original King Kong, and I love pre-war New York and even I was bored with the 45 minutes it takes them to get to Skull Island. I was duly impressed with the monsters of Skull Island but didn't need 90 minutes of them.
The third act, Kong rampaging through Depression-era New York is almost worth the wait.
As far as I can figure Jackson, coming off LotR and with a blank check, wanted to do a period piece about Golden Age Hollywood (look at all the dialogue Jack Black has about filming, studios and such) and to outdo the original Kong. Where Kong fought one T-Rex, this Kong fights three! The result is bloated, decent at parts and every forgettable.
And yeah I say that as a fan of Jackson, Kong and Olde New York.
A few years ago I caught the last 15 or so minutes of this on TV, looked pretty good so I brought the DVD to watch the whole thing...
It takes a long while to get to the good bits, but I think its vastly superior to the last few recent Kong offerings, though I don't go out of my way to view it.
Although its full of tropes in addition to the oversized insects, the bottom of the trench scene was nightmare fuel for folks who are afraid of bugs. Andy Serkis character's fate in particular.
Deleted scenes that are set on the island are also pretty good creature/survival horror. Think there is some sort of giant piranha and some flying beasties.
Space truckers ignore quarantine protocols: hi-jinks ensue.
Didn't realize it was going to be shown in a half sized theater where the main lights just slightly went down so it wasn't as atmospheric as it could have been. Adding to that the small room size had a myriad of lit exit signs, which just added to the poor lighting. Still it was nice enough to see and the ticket wasn't very expensive.
Spoiler:
Did notice for the first time that when Ash is being talked to by Ripley at a science station after she leaves he drinks what would be assumed to be milk but once it is known that he is a robot (they don't call him a synth) you realize that probably wasn't milk but the white liquid he is full of. Well, until they knock his head off, of course. It is always neat to notice little details all these years later.
It's the FUTURE! To combat high crime rates America makes crime legal for one night a year... THE PURGE!
I saw another Purge film and it was just survival horror as thugs besiege a house. But this a pretty big budget film with a big cast and big fights. An idealistic senator promises to end the Purge Night but the government does not want that to happen. So the whole night is spent trying to evade assassins and purge gangs and rebels.
Not bad, not bad at all. The Purge films are a lot more disturbing than the usual horror flick. Watching the First Purge next.
I’d suggest giving The Forever Purge a miss. That’s the only one I didn’t enjoy.
Argylle
OK. So the adverts made this look proper crap. Henry Cavill with a “Buzz out of Weird Science haircut” in a poorly CGId car chasing Dua “who?” Lipa.
But…it’s good, it’s really really good. Bryce Dallas Howard, Catherine O’Hara, Sam Rockwell, Bryan Cranston among others are our leads. And there’s plenty of other talent on screen.
This is a spy romp with a vein of comedy flowing through it, but well short of being a Spoof. And there’s plenty of twists and turns and rug pulls.
Sigur wrote: I'll also always prefer the first one, but I do think that Conan the Destroyer is perfectly OK.
Both movies were beloved by me as an 8yo kid, and just about were the first thing that put me on the path to loving medieval fantasy. Just unashamedly awesome, even if they weren't really that loyal to the Conan mythology.
To be fair they are more loyal to the concept of Conan than a lot of the stuff we get today. At least its a fairly low-magic world with an adventurer who is mostly saving himself and those around him than saving the whole world every time. They feel like adventures which is something I feel we have steadily lost in a lot of media over the years.
Sigur wrote: I'll also always prefer the first one, but I do think that Conan the Destroyer is perfectly OK.
Both movies were beloved by me as an 8yo kid, and just about were the first thing that put me on the path to loving medieval fantasy. Just unashamedly awesome, even if they weren't really that loyal to the Conan mythology.
They are awesome.
But medieval fantasy? Between the time when the oceans drank Atlantis and the rise of the Sons of Aryas?
If its old-timey with swords and bows and arrows and black powder isn't yet around then its medieval fantasy
If there's a single castle or fortress then its guaranteed medieval.
You've got the ancient era; the viking era; the medieval; the black powder (often called Napoleonic); the steam punk era and then you hit the desielpunk, rock punk and modern.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’d suggest giving The Forever Purge a miss. That’s the only one I didn’t enjoy.
Argylle
OK. So the adverts made this look proper crap. Henry Cavill with a “Buzz out of Weird Science haircut” in a poorly CGId car chasing Dua “who?” Lipa.
But…it’s good, it’s really really good. Bryce Dallas Howard, Catherine O’Hara, Sam Rockwell, Bryan Cranston among others are our leads. And there’s plenty of other talent on screen.
This is a spy romp with a vein of comedy flowing through it, but well short of being a Spoof. And there’s plenty of twists and turns and rug pulls.
MASSIVE
Spoiler:
It’s part of of the Kingsman series!
Really enjoyed Argylle. Much fun. Bollocks - but fun. But I like that kind of movie.
Overread wrote: .
You've got the ancient era; the viking era; the medieval; the black powder (often called Napoleonic); the steam punk era and then you hit the desielpunk, rock punk and modern.
This got my head spinning and my teeth biting down on my tongue heftily.
I've been out this weekend, at an anime con thing. In the evening in the hotel I watched a film!
Blue Steel (1989)
Pretty sure I've never seen that one before. Jamie Lee Curtis is a police officer, Clancy Brown is thin and very curly-haired and Ron Silver is a weirdo. Pretty sure Tom Sizemore has a little role as well. Directed by Catherine Bigalow, and that's why the film, sat in New York, looks really cool. That lady knows how to shoot a grimy city at night.
After I watched it I read some reviews from when it came out, and was surprised how often it got compared to Halloween just because it stars Jamie Lee Curtis. I mean she was pretty young in that film, but surely she'd done something in between Halloween and that. Also, the film is nothing like Halloween at all.
Anyway, on paper this is a pretty regular thriller, but the cast, the look, and the addition of some problems and themes elevate it over the usual 80s cop thriller. Surely somebody theorized that Curtis' and Brown's roles are bascially a gender-swap of the usual fare and that their haircuts underline that, but only a hack with a taste for the obvious and the boring would go for that. These are characters, period. And good ones too.
Much like part two? It’s quite pretty. Acting is fine, cinematography is dandy. Design work is pretty damned good.
But I still prefer the first take on the film. It’s just more fun, and the soundtrack is vastly superior to my ears.
I think a big part is the battle scenes. In Villeneuve, there seems to be a lot going on (big ships, big explosions), but nobody seems to be in a hurry. Like. At all. Yes I get the slow blade penetrates the shield, so rapid stabby slashy wouldn’t make sense (and the shields look so much better). But it’s too much a Waltz pace, and comes across as if those involved really can’t be arsed, and they’re just going through the motions until they can slope off to the pub, And….where are all the guns?
Actually. I’m gonna extend the “feels like nobody can be arsed” to pretty much all of it. The dialogue is sedate and calm. Nobody really speaks with much emotion. Compare to Baron Harrkonen’s bile in the original, and it’s just not the same. It takes me out of the moment, and leaves me with a lesser understanding of their motivations. Like, they don’t seem overly bothered, so I’m not invited to care.
1991 Hong Kong made live action adaptation of an anime film.
This is a very silly film. Made all the more hilarious due to a ridiculous English dub. But whilst we’re becoming increasingly spoiled with well dubbed and subbed eastern cinema offerings? This was kind of par for the course when Anime really started being noticed in the west.
Plus its violence makes up for it. Still silly, but the film is notorious for it.
If like me you enjoy this sort of thing? Definitely give it a watch.
Not as bad as I was expecting. It opened in great Indy fashion with a non-stop extended action sequence, with thrills and humour. The story worked, more or less. Phoebe Waller-Bridge was engaging and her character had her own arc. Karen Allen had remembered how to act again, and Mads Mikkelsen made (another) decent enough bad guy. Just as we think Indy is going to live out his years in the ancient world, he has to come home and get back with his wife.
Cons: The CIA agent was a complete waste of space (personally and as a pertinent character) and the young street thief was utterly unlikeable. I'd have punched him off the tuk tuk.
Speed Racer
Wow. That's a lot more brightly coloured than I remember! A world where in sports it's more about the stock price of the companies that own the teams rather than who wins or loses. A frightening dystopian sci-fi nightmare that has no basis in reality. Crazy car races, organized crime, torture, a father who can build a top flight race car in his house's garage in under two days, a son who can never go home - and ninjas! Ninja's who go from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon to Clouseau vs Cato is a heartbeat. Somehow, it works.
Easy E wrote: I love the live-action Speed Racer movie more than a person should.
I found the open scene (despite the 'now' and flashback not that clearly separate) when Speed goes for the record but lets up at the last split second so his old brother's time still still stands quite impactful. Moreso the second time around. But I'm soppy like that.
the wachowski sisters' speed racer has certainly been seeing a critical reappraisal in recent years. i think people are more accepting of
its campy and silly nature now than they were back in the 00s (i still need to watch it; haven't seen it since it was in theaters)
I only saw Dune part 1 for the first time recently. It might well end up being for the only time. I really wanted to like it, theoretically it should be right up my street. But I was just bored. My wife is less inclined towards epic sci-fi than I am, and she was more bored. My eldest son was bored. My youngest son was confused and bored. It was not a successful screening for us!
So as is the style in these days #4 is in fact #0. I blame the Star Wars Prequels.
And...
Maybe it was seeing two Purges in a row but this one felt like a let down, not all that shocking or interesting. Part of it was the feeling that the director wanted to go somewhere but couldn't.
It's the FUTURE! not as FUTURE! as Purge 3, but a bit more future than today. Our corrupt tyrannical government wants to thin the herd of poor folks by allowing one night of CRIME! in Staten Island, NY. When the poor dark-skinned residents don't kill each other with enough enthusiasm the government sends in mercenaries - literally dressed as the KKK - to stir things up.
It's like they go 90% of the way to saying the evil government is racist but can't quite go there. It's like it's fine for the government to stir a class war and kill thousands but we wouldn't want you to think they're racist or nothing. So possible biting commentary becomes just kind of limp. Like a lot of modern films.
Also... dude, I'm from New York. Staten Island is the lily white suburban borough of ranch houses and back yards and softball games. Sure maybe it will be a heckhole of urban decay in the FUTURE! but it just kind of rankled. So yeah, OK, 2 to 3 stars of 5.
I think my issue with The First Purge is its exactly the same message as The Purge.
And it is a powerful message. But even the densest of viewers will have got said message now.
Though it is…dunno what the word is. Satisfying feels wrong, but will do. It is satisfying when the Gubmint have to draft in soldiers to make it look like everyone enjoyed and took part in Purging.
Bit of an odd one this.
It's not particularly well acted and a lot of the plot is vague gibberish, but somehow it all comes together as a good film, when it really shouldn't be.
Great soundtrack though.
Crispy78 wrote: I only saw Dune part 1 for the first time recently. It might well end up being for the only time. I really wanted to like it, theoretically it should be right up my street. But I was just bored. My wife is less inclined towards epic sci-fi than I am, and she was more bored. My eldest son was bored. My youngest son was confused and bored. It was not a successful screening for us!
You're not alone. I found it utterly soulless so shall not be bothering with the sequel.
I've been quiet on here because I don't think I've watched anything worth talking about recently. Tried watching Oppenheimer but the first 15 minutes was so abysmally Nolan that I couldn't bear to carry on.
Oh dear, I think I've entered another one of my "everything is crap" stages.
Crispy78 wrote: I only saw Dune part 1 for the first time recently. It might well end up being for the only time. I really wanted to like it, theoretically it should be right up my street. But I was just bored. My wife is less inclined towards epic sci-fi than I am, and she was more bored. My eldest son was bored. My youngest son was confused and bored. It was not a successful screening for us!
You're not alone. I found it utterly soulless so shall not be bothering with the sequel.
I've been quiet on here because I don't think I've watched anything worth talking about recently. Tried watching Oppenheimer but the first 15 minutes was so abysmally Nolan that I couldn't bear to carry on.
Oh dear, I think I've entered another one of my "everything is crap" stages.
For the best. When I said something similar in the Oppenheimer thread, it didn’t go well.
As for the new Dune movies, they feel more serious and Oscar-baity than a Sci Fi epic should. The style was too grounded, too ponderous, too interested in the very personal to include a lot of the fun stuff that makes Dune memorable for me. I wouldn’t call it bad, but certainly more bland and off putting than Lynch’s version.
The dialogue delivery certainly felt more melodrama than sci-fi epic.
Also my previous observation of the combat being all slow and plodding, and rationalising “because of shields”?
Remembered in Part 2, we see a Harkonnen Ornithopter absolutely shredding Fremen during an attack on a Harvester, using a sci-fi gun which I think is shooting flechettes.
Yet we still see the infantry just sort of…plodding along. No rush. No urgency. No blood up.
A weird, French comedy that starts off about a team of Power Rangers style heroes going on a team building retreat, but focuses mostly on weird. meandering, unconnected side stories.
I watched the whole thing out of pure morbid curiosity, but I wouldn't recommend anyone else do that, unless you're into weird, French comedies.
Seriously though, I think this movie fits the John Wayne template quite well. I love that it ends in a big knock down drag out fist fight.
I just gave a copy of this to my Dad and am trying to convince him to actually watch it.
He enjoys John Wayne movies, he's of that age, so I figure this would be right up his ally.
I know he will enjoy it.
Movies like this gave me the tho8ught that it would have been really cool for aging actors that we all like to move on to voice acting when the demands of acting in things like action movies get too much as they age out.
Imagine how many Indiana Jones animations or audio dramas we could have had, for example.
Really in this day and age it could be done very well.
All the Ghibli films make me sad that the western market all but abandoned animation (at least non-CGI/3D stuff) as a "kids only" market. Even a good many anime get chopped and changed when they are "adapted" by the US hollywood machine to be more child-friendly versions.
there's no range between "anime" (Japanese animation made for a variety of demographics) and "cartoons" (non-Japanese animation made for children). this has been expanding slightly in recent years but because of this disparity, you have any animation that isn't for kids labeled as anime (even if it's not Japanese), because there just isn't a commonly used term to otherwise define it
not sure where this went wrong but i'm going to blame, as always, ronald reagan (deregulation of advertisements towards children in the 1980s created a boon of cheaply made animation that was just toy ads which went on to dominate the medium and become the only profitable way to make animation in the US)
Yup, it's weird. I assume that Hollywood consider anime being too niche and too hard to get into from an industry perspective. Or people just don't wanna see US-made anime. Funny thing is that even with kids cartoons they seem to move away from animation, with disney doing all these entirely unnecessary CGI remakes of their older cartoon films and Netflix doing all these unnecessary adaptations of cartoon shows featuring people dressing up in front of green/LED screens.
You know who I'd trust to get that stuff right? France. Just the other day I heard of a supposedly great sci-fi film named "Mars Express" in Germany (really bad name). Animated film which doesn't look too horribly 'new', and it's said to be really, really good. Not to mention that they got a whole different approach to filmmaking and creating cultural products in-country in France. I mean they've been doing their own animated stuff for many, many decades, from kids tv shows to proper films for grown-ups.
But elsewhere it's not much better either. This past weekend I spent sitting at a con. The lady on the next table is working on an animated feature film; just got some public funding after fighting tooth and nail for it since animated films for young adults aren't considered a thing. Now she's struggling with the fact that a.) due to public funding she can't (and wouldn't want to) go to a foreign studio to do the animatin') and b.) there just is NO infrastructure for animation in Austria. The chamber of commere's department she's part of (anybody running a company in Austria has to be part of the chamber of commerce, pay them for ..... I'm not quite sure what exactly, but GOD HELP YOU IF YOU'RE LATE ON YOUR PAYMENT!! . And there's a ton of different departments for each sort of job. Fun fact: I'm officially a 'toy maker' and thus part of the department of woodworkers and carpenters. So you see how up to date that whole organization is.) were completely staggered with when she did a presentation for getting funding and instantly gave her some official (unpaid) function, because nobody else even in the head of that department knows squat about animation.
This of course is vastly difference to the experience in the US I'm sure, but it shows what level we're at here when it comes to animated films. In recent years, Austria gave birth to one animated film, which in the end had to be sent to Spain to have it fixed.
Honestly those cartoons were decently made and considerably more mature (and better animated) than many we get today.
I do think its a very USA/Hollywood thing that pushed animations more and more toward only being for kids until all they did was make them for kids and at some point that latched into the minds of adults at the time.
It's probably more than just the deregulation of ads for kids in cartoons. There's also the huge market of Disney and Warner creating masses of kids cartoons. Even though at the time, and now, adults still enjoyed them too; they were a "kids product".
And from the USA it spilled out ovre a lot of the west. A little like how DC and Marvel dominated comics to make them all about super-heroes.
OF course once you look past the top items you can see more variety - I know France produces a lot more mature animations and comics and there's many mature comic series (often gaining the title graphic novel to sound more - mature).
But yeah I think its a huge shame, especially for the fantasy and sci-fi markets where animation can really do wonders with those whilst for live-action you've got to reach huge budgets and honestly had to wait for CGI tech to advance to be good enough to actually do big battles or complex monsters and scenes and such.
I agree with all of you. These movies, to me, just have way more soul than newer animations. Like they really cared a lot about their work and the final product.
I'm looking for Mars express right now, found a trailer to check out. @Sigur Thank you for mentioning it.
I'd love to see remakes of classic movies animated by Studio Ghibli. I know it would still be a hard sell but there are some movies out there that are just wonderful stories but younger audiences will never even hear about them or bother to watch them. From what I have gathered over the last, going on 10 years now, Younger people seem to think anything before like 2010 or even 200 is just too old and there for dumb or bad. I gather that mostly from OP's and jurnos making silly claims only to go back and actually watch something like Alien, for example, and then write a about how much they enjoyed it.
I need to get the full Studio Ghibily set to gift to my nephews.
Oh, cool, Mars Express looks like it's following the lines of Automata (2014) staring Antonio Banderas*. It was interesting if not a new concept for a story. His character* is a bit like a blade runner in that ,if I remember, he polices robots and robot crimes. Worth at least one viewing.
I mean it says something where it seems the only time Hollywood will get involved with anime is to try and make a terrible live action adaptation of it. Which usually leads to bad casting and missing the point of why anime works is because a lot of the action sequences can't be replicated well with live actors or without an absurd amount of CGI.
The dumb part is there's plenty of good Western animations that are more geared towards older audiences like Venture Bros., Archer, Primal, Bojack Horseman, Robot Chicken, and more recently Smiling Friends. I personally think South Park still holds up but unfortunately stuff like Family Guy and Simpsons have become the template for what is considered "adult animation" which really hinders it from exploring into things that don't follow their sitcom type format.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’d also point out that Ghibli are of noticeably high quality all round. And sadly, are by no means representative of Anime as a whole.
I don’t mean to denigrate the genre and industry as a whole. But there is an awful, awful lot of crap related to it.
Oh yes, if only the best of the anime stuff is what gets to us / is talked about 'round here I shudder to think how much generic rubbish there must be.
@Grimskul: Yup, these cartoon shows which are aimed at an adult audience very much seem to be bascially aimed at 12 year olds or so. Last weekend wifi at the hotel didn't work and I realized that - probably by accident - I had downloaded 10 episodes of Archer some time ago. So I gave Archer another whirl. It's really not for me; not even after 3 episodes or so. I love Bob's Burgers, maybe that doesn't help with me getting into Archer. But that' that's a family show through and through I'd say. There's something for everybody.
By chance I saw a new Simpsons episode recently. A halloween one called "Not It", which was a thing about the new IT films. Deary me, how the Simpsons have fallen.
South Park is a rare gem really, which I think never lost much of its appeal. Only reason I don't watch it any more since a few years is how depressing it got. But that's more because of the world rather than the show itself.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’d also point out that Ghibli are of noticeably high quality all round. And sadly, are by no means representative of Anime as a whole.
I don’t mean to denigrate the genre and industry as a whole. But there is an awful, awful lot of crap related to it.
Oh yes, if only the best of the anime stuff is what gets to us / is talked about 'round here I shudder to think how much generic rubbish there must be.
@Grimskul: Yup, these cartoon shows which are aimed at an adult audience very much seem to be bascially aimed at 12 year olds or so. Last weekend wifi at the hotel didn't work and I realized that - probably by accident - I had downloaded 10 episodes of Archer some time ago. So I gave Archer another whirl. It's really not for me; not even after 3 episodes or so. I love Bob's Burgers, maybe that doesn't help with me getting into Archer. But that' that's a family show through and through I'd say. There's something for everybody.
By chance I saw a new Simpsons episode recently. A halloween one called "Not It", which was a thing about the new IT films. Deary me, how the Simpsons have fallen.
South Park is a rare gem really, which I think never lost much of its appeal. Only reason I don't watch it any more since a few years is how depressing it got. But that's more because of the world rather than the show itself.
Archer takes until the second season to really start taking off and honestly seasonal rot has kicked in like for many shows that go past 5-6 seasons, I think Archer was good up until Archer wakes up from his coma. It's funny you mention Bob's Burgers, there's actually a crossover episode with Bob's Burgers where Archer has amnesia and become's Bob with Linda and the kids in one of the opening credits of the episodes for the season.
Bob's Burgers is another good show I forgot to mention, always love Mr. Fischoeder's episodes!
south park really has not aged well. the "let's insult everyone" approach doesn't really work when not everyone is equally privileged, and ultimately a lot of it is just peddling bigotries, which encouraged younger viewers to continue sharing those bigoted beliefs (i'm fairly certain that my high school bullies took notes on antisemitism from the show)
StudentOfEtherium wrote: south park really has not aged well. the "let's insult everyone" approach doesn't really work when not everyone is equally privileged, and ultimately a lot of it is just peddling bigotries, which encouraged younger viewers to continue sharing those bigoted beliefs (i'm fairly certain that my high school bullies took notes on antisemitism from the show)
I have a strong feeling that you see humour in a way where you only like comedy when its perceived as "punching up". Unfortunately, we'll have to agree to disagree here, I think South Park has done a fantastic job of staying relevant and not having any sacred cows in terms of what they make fun of, for both sides of the culture war as well as general pop culture. The recent one regarding streaming wars definitely hits the nail on the head.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: south park really has not aged well. the "let's insult everyone" approach doesn't really work when not everyone is equally privileged, and ultimately a lot of it is just peddling bigotries, which encouraged younger viewers to continue sharing those bigoted beliefs (i'm fairly certain that my high school bullies took notes on antisemitism from the show)
I was in college when South Park started, and it was also around the time that offensive humor and “ironic racism” were all the rage. I saw Cartman as a character designed to be unlikeable so that the creators of South Oark could make all the offensive jokes they wanted while not appearing to approve of the bigotry since the character making those comments was a jerk. In addition, the other characters could spew fat jokes to give him a taste of his own medicine without the audience turning against them. I don’t believe they ever intended for the bigotry to be cool or for Cartman to be seen as an inspirational character, at least not the first season.
I’ll never forget how many people I had thought were normal, decent people started quoting Cartman because “Cartman is my hero” or “Cartman says what we’re all thinking”. It disillusioned me about that kind of humor. For example, I loved (and for the most part still love) Norm MacDonald, but I always assumed his misogyny jokes were funny because he was being ridiculous and saying things he obviously didn’t mean; finding out a large chunk of people enjoyed those jokes because they thought Norm was spitting truth and did mean everything he said made them less funny and more uncomfortable for me.
I also don’t think it’s as simple or easy to dismiss as “you only like humor when it punches up”. For one thing, most people don’t like bullies, and taking the extra layer of irony out of a joke that is just someone saying something bigoted transforms it from a comment on bigotry into bullying the targets of bigotry. For another thing, it makes it less complex, less clever. For example the difference between a successful “roast” joke and an unsuccessful one is the craft in that it has to be a joke first and an insult second. Starting with an insult and using funny words or puns might get a laugh, but not everyone’s having fun and they weren’t meant to. Everyone laughing at the (lower status) victim is bullying.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is a video that I think captures the difference. This is a roast battle where the guy starts out fine, but once he moves into insults he quickly loses the crowd. He attacks her appearance, religion, that kind of thing, aiming to land devastating insults rather than crafting a set of jokes. The woman, on the other hand, chooses to go after his ego almost entirely, letting him hang himself and set himself up for a show stopper that probably would have been too cruel for the audience if she hadn’t set it up and used his own lack of craft against him. I feel like it demonstrates the difference between bullying g dressed up as shock comedy and actual shock comedy.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: south park really has not aged well. the "let's insult everyone" approach doesn't really work when not everyone is equally privileged, and ultimately a lot of it is just peddling bigotries, which encouraged younger viewers to continue sharing those bigoted beliefs (i'm fairly certain that my high school bullies took notes on antisemitism from the show)
I was in college when South Park started, and it was also around the time that offensive humor and “ironic racism” were all the rage. I saw Cartman as a character designed to be unlikeable so that the creators of South Oark could make all the offensive jokes they wanted while not appearing to approve of the bigotry since the character making those comments was a jerk. In addition, the other characters could spew fat jokes to give him a taste of his own medicine without the audience turning against them. I don’t believe they ever intended for the bigotry to be cool or for Cartman to be seen as an inspirational character, at least not the first season.
I’ll never forget how many people I had thought were normal, decent people started quoting Cartman because “Cartman is my hero” or “Cartman says what we’re all thinking”. It disillusioned me about that kind of humor. For example, I loved (and for the most part still love) Norm MacDonald, but I always assumed his misogyny jokes were funny because he was being ridiculous and saying things he obviously didn’t mean; finding out a large chunk of people enjoyed those jokes because they thought Norm was spitting truth and did mean everything he said made them less funny and more uncomfortable for me.
I also don’t think it’s as simple or easy to dismiss as “you only like humor when it punches up”. For one thing, most people don’t like bullies, and taking the extra layer of irony out of a joke that is just someone saying something bigoted transforms it from a comment on bigotry into bullying the targets of bigotry. For another thing, it makes it less complex, less clever. For example the difference between a successful “roast” joke and an unsuccessful one is the craft in that it has to be a joke first and an insult second. Starting with an insult and using funny words or puns might get a laugh, but not everyone’s having fun and they weren’t meant to. Everyone laughing at the (lower status) victim is bullying.
It really shows the post-modernist framework for people who view comedy this way, because it feels like the lens for everything are ALWAYS about power dynamics and some sort of oppression olympics on who's on what level on the ladder of "privilege". Are you people even able to go to the grocery store without being wracked with indecision over how you're supporting the supposed capitalist patriarchy you live in with every purchase?
Can comedy aimed at the disadvantaged be funny? Is comedy aimed at the disadvantaged permissible?
What's the relationship between funniness and permissibility, if any?
If I don't find it funny, is it ok for me to say it isn't funny simpliciter, or is there an acceptable plurality of humor? Does everyone have to agree about what's funny?
Is there a convincing argument for the idea that art must reflect moral values we wish to live by? Is there no room for art which expresses counter-values? If it's true that we don't all agree about the terms of morality (value theory, etc), then what are the possibilities for disagreement about comedic content?
What the best response to humor in bad taste? Can we reasonably compel people to ignore comedy they find funny if we believe it is impermissible?
Generally the punching up vs punching down distinction seems, at best, like a limited heuristic for comedic craft and, at worst, a misguided principle about the phenomenology of comedy.
Furthermore, the position you seem to be taking is that the premise that jokes are necessarily harmful, and that people or groups are diminished by them in some tangible way. It implies that there is no such thing as an innocent joke; you can't joke about race because those jokes "embolden" racists; you can't joke about gender because it "reinforces negative female stereotypes/toxic masculinity; you can't joke about trans people at all, even if their gender isn't part of the joke, because you're "putting a vulnerable group in danger."
And that's all complete hogwash, but it's not the worst of it: This also changes the context of what "punching up" actually means. It's okay to punch up not because it doesn't harm the target -- remember, jokes cannot avoid doing harm -- but because it's okay to harm some groups.
The entire concept of "punching down" in comedy only exists if you view yourself as being "above" other groups.
"I'm white so I can't make jokes about black people because they're lesser than me."
I think the problem at the end of the day is that ultimately the criticism doesn't go into the delivery of the joke or actual content that's being satirized (despite claims to the contrary), you guys are fundamentally talking about activism and nothing is less funnier than that.
That’s a lot of word salad that doesn’t really apply. I was giving my experience, where there’s a difference between jokes meant to get laughs and meant to offend.
Perhaps a clearer example: since elementary school, I have heard a lot of Holocaust jokes. There’s no solid law for who should or shouldn’t tell them, and yet I can always tell when the people are telling the jokes because they appreciate bleak humor and people who are laughing because Jews died. I guess I’ve met enough of them to be sensitive to the intent in that kind of humor.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: That’s a lot of word salad that doesn’t really apply. I was giving my experience, where there’s a difference between jokes meant to get laughs and meant to offend.
Perhaps a clearer example: since elementary school, I have heard a lot of Holocaust jokes. There’s no solid law for who should or shouldn’t tell them, and yet I can always tell when the people are telling the jokes because they appreciate bleak humor and people who are laughing because Jews died. I guess I’ve met enough of them to be sensitive to the intent in that kind of humor.
to be honest i don't think holocaust jokes are amusing, no matter who is telling them. there's plenty of dark jewish humor i like, but some things should be off-limits
for example, Mel Brooks does this great. he makes a lot of nazi jokes in his films, but, importantly, he doesn't really touch upon the holocaust directly that often. instead, he makes nazis look lame. Springtime for Hitler is how you do nazi jokes right. compare that to cartman and the general south park ethos of repeating bigoted things as a joke. you can laugh at the characters for being bigots, but just as much you can laugh at the people being made fun of. the authorial lens isn't saying that making the bigoted jokes is bad, it's saying that those jokes are funny. cartman is someone that people can laugh with and aspire towards. no bigot wants to be on stage in Springtime for Hitler
Justice League:- Crisis On Infinite Earths - Part Two
Spent quite a bit of the run-time on set-up, although not as bad as Part One, and now it's past the timeline jumping shenanigans it feels like a more cohesive movie.
Still kinda meh though, it's fun to do some character spotting, but overall it just feels a bit off.
Not sure if the studio thought it would have more time getting all the pieces into place and is now rushing to cobble something together, or it's a story that just doesn't work as a movie (Even as a trilogy), or a bit of both.
Looking forward to seeing how it all wraps up in Part 3 though.
I've not seen the films but Crisis on Infinite Earths the comic had gorgeous art, an amazing swath of characters and...
Was not a great story.
Audacious for what it tried to do and very memorable for the walls of white literally erasing worlds, but no just too too much stuff and too many characters. Like We Are the World but as a 6 hour opera.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: ....
Unless it’s Bernard Manning, or Jimmy Carr. Both of whom are in fact objectively awful.
*puts the needle on the record again*
I like Jimmy Carr. There very, very much is a schtick to what he does and no depth, but he's a joke-teller. Het gets on stage and then tells one joke after another. I kinda like that approach for the craft itself.
Of course I also prefer for humour to punch upwards, because that's less easy than it used to be I think because very, very rich people we're aware of behave like absurd men-children and are caricatures already and all of us (especially so stage performers) made themselves so dependant on the powers that be and those powers got so ubiquitous that they barely work as a target without falling for the allure of going with the really cheap and boring targets (Weinsteins/Trumps/dictators, the catholic church, ....).
Btw, speaking of stand-up comedians, a few weeks ago I watched an old stage thing by Janeane Garofalo from the early/mid 90s. It was very nice. Making fun of people because of something they were born with is boring, but making fun of people for the music they like is good. And making fun of consumerism, brands, etc will always work. We need more of that I'm sure.
I always liked the reviewer who challenged the audience to name one character in the purge films. I know who they are, I know their real names, I still can't remember their character names.
It has an almost Clue-level cast of character actors. It was great to see with a decent crowd in the theater. I’m going to see it again with different friends when it comes out on streaming.
Sigur wrote: I'll also always prefer the first one, but I do think that Conan the Destroyer is perfectly OK.
Both movies were beloved by me as an 8yo kid, and just about were the first thing that put me on the path to loving medieval fantasy. Just unashamedly awesome, even if they weren't really that loyal to the Conan mythology.
They are awesome.
But medieval fantasy? Between the time when the oceans drank Atlantis and the rise of the Sons of Aryas?
It might not be strictly "medieval" fantasy, but it was the best that the era had to offer to get a kid into fantasy. Magic, big swords, warrior women, bulging muscles, monsters, horse-punching.
This film is a throwback in many ways, almost all positive. The stunts are real and most of the effects are practical, which makes the action genuinely exciting. The movie is action-romance-competence porn with a dash of humor and mystery, an old fashioned crowd pleaser. It also feels like it was built around the star power of its two leads, which is great if you like Emily Blunt and Ryan Gosling, but not so much if not so much.*
Basically, I think it makes a fun date night or family night movie.
*One reviewer I saw complained that there were some lines that seemed like they were supposed to be jokes, but they weren’t jokes. I’m pretty sure they were written not as punchlines but to emphasize the stars’ charms, like any scene from an older film where Hugh Grant went “uhh ahh” or Jeff Goldblum said “uhh ahh”.
It isn't a 1:1 of retelling of the tv show but goes for capturing the spirit of the show in two hours that thankfully isn't just trying to set up a sequel or series. They could have tried and set it up as a series, or use sequel bait, but thankfully it is a self contained story.
It is a light romantic comedy and mystery rolled into a package surrounded by awesome stunt work. It creates every excuse it can to create stunt heavy scenes that are fun to watch. If you like the stunt work of Fury Road you'll most likely enjoy this. It is a very meta film that comments on narrative structure and film tropes, often as they are happening, and the more you know about film work/jargon the more jokes you'll get. I imagine a slew of "all the references in The Fall Guy" type videos on YouTube.
The cast has great chemistry with each other seem to be having a good time. Gosling has the snot knocked out of him during the film.
A genuinely entertaining and funny film worth seeing. I won't go so far as to say it has to be experienced in a theater but if you do you won't be wasting your money. Plus it might help encourage more well made films. Oh who am I kidding?
Still, highly recommended.
Spoiler:
The Bionic Man sound effect makes an appearance. The Unicorn gag was funny and didn't overstay its welcome. The bit where he had been thrown through glass earlier and kept emptying his hoodie but their were still glass shards tickled me. I got a kick out of how back home he had a pick up like the one from the original series and when he gets overseas he is loaned a modern version of the same truck.
Nic Cage! Jackie Earle Haley! Ron Perlman! Ernie Hudson! in a sort of spy chase slightly tongue in cheek spy thriller.
It’s…alright. Nic Cage is a retired Government Operative, who was possibly an Assassin. Whilst enjoying his retirement on the Cayman Islands, he has to help his daughter and granddaughter who are in a spot of bother because reasons. And of course he puts his skills to good use.
The action is fairly restrained, which makes for an oddly refreshing change of pace. Cage’s character isn’t showy or John Wicky, just really competent. Though he does look a bit too much like Rik Mayall as we saw him in Man Down (the grate one’s final role before his most untimely psssing).
It’s nothing particularly special, but it’s passed the time on this Bank Holiday Sunday very nicely.
Sweet Moses in a diaper, this film is 21 years old...
Reboot of a 1975 TV series, taken off the air for being too violent, this has Samuel L Jackson, Collin Farrell, Michelle Rodriguez, Jeremy Renner and LL Cool J as Cops Who Shoot People (but only bad ones). Made at the height of post-911 "all cops are heroes" zeitgeist, we get a rag-tag (yet elite!) team of cops who have to escort a drug lord to prison. The catch? He's offered $100 million to anyone who can get him out!
Will the SWAT team make it through the gauntlet as EVERY CROOK IN LA goes gunning for them? Will the crooks have RPGs and machine guns? Will Judas MacTraitorson betray them? You'll have to watch it to find out!
A bit slow in the start, the first half is training exercises! Will Team Samuel L Jackson successfully complete the simulated airplane hijacking? Yes! Yes they will! Once the gauntlet starts it's is a bit of a mixed bag, there's one over the top attack with hijacked 18 wheelers, missile launchers and such, there's a .50 cal sniper rifle taking down a helicopter and such. But then they try to return to a bit of realism as the real escape plan goes off.
Still, a great film for assembling Adeptus Arbites Exaction Teams by. It went on to spawn 2 direct to video sequels and a TV show now in it's 7th or 8th season so it can't be all bad.
I always liked the reviewer who challenged the audience to name one character in the purge films. I know who they are, I know their real names, I still can't remember their character names.
Piece of cake! I just watched two Purge films, there was uh... Not~Elizabeth Warren, That Guy from Captain America and uh, Black Dude. So there.
I watched that at the cinema back in the day. Things I remember: Michelle Rodriguez not being in it enough, weird jokes about Polish people and the enjoyment of an american hot dog. Also Jeremy Renner. Few months prior I'd seen him as Jeffrey Dahmer. In SWAT he was HUGE by comparison, which amused me. Overall I wasn't too much into the film, despite a pretty OK cast. Didn't know it was based on a tv show.
This is my second watch through, so now know what’s coming plot wise, so can just enjoy the minutiae.
Something that’s immediately grabbed my notice is the cast chemistry, because it’s pretty damned great. And so, whilst the film does have its flaws, it’s pretty easy watching. The relationships feel genuine, and they clearly had fun making this,
Ray however remains my Stand Out Character. He has excellent interactions and development throughout. Indeed my favourite scene is when Ecto-1 goes flying past his shop on a mission, and on his face is this look of wistfulness, but also pride. It helps the audience feel like Ray has lived a life since Ghostbusters 2.
Don’t get me wrong, there are things I think they could’ve done differently. In fact my friend and I did a YouTube review, and we discussed just that. And I’m gonna propose we do a follow up where we focus on those suggestions.
But get this watched, it’s very family friendly, if like the originals perhaps a bit much for the very young.
This is the Conan The Destroyer of the Mad Max movies. It’s a sequel to a true classic that tries to capture the same magic while going bigger yet safer…and almost does. Almost.
This direct to video sequel of SWAT I: The Pre-Avengers has none of the original cast or characters returning.
Instead, as far as I can remember, we got the story of Sgt Stuart S Swat who is sent from LA to Old Detroit to train OCP Clearance Teams for the Delta City Project. He soon clashes with Moff Gideon as he tries to train the team in the Ways of the Swat, just as Master Windu once trained him. However he is soon entangled in a battle of wits against a T-1000 ending in a battle in an abandoned housing project. Will patrolman Alex Murphy survive? Will What'sHerName from Arrow save the day? Will there be a cool impossible shot by a sniper? And will the Detroit SWAT team (whose symbol is a skull, because nothing says Serve and Protect like a skull), will they get certified? You'll have to watch it to find out.
Or don't.
It's not good.
I'm here for two things, explosions and cool police stuff. Which means I want at least a veneer of realism. So when Sgt Swat is sent to Detroit to train the team the chief reminds him he's not a cop and has no arrest powers. To which he says I can't train them unless I lead them and yeah, then goes around shooting people with the rest of the team, kicking people off team, brining in the Hot Chick and all that. Much like how when we get a trainer at work they also control the budget, can fire folks and reassign people, because that's what a trainer gets to do right?
And of course the supervillain who can get military explosives and hack any computer and all that, well he can do it because he works for the top-secret black ops organization known only as... the State Department?
And needless to say after killing multiple people no one is taken off front line duty or sent for a psyc evaluation.
It's dumb in the bad sense.
And does not need to be. Why make Sgt Swat a trainer, why not just make him team leader from the start? Why not have the psyco villain work for an actual black ops agency? This totally fails the Fifth Grader test (if a Fifth Grader sees the problems in your script, you have a bad script).
I enjoyed Farscape for ages, my only real crit is that I feel they got WAY WAY too overlong with the whole Scorpy/Chriton storyline in terms of the little thing in his brain. Way too many "he's mad being mad doing mad human things" kinda storylines come middle last half of the story.
There was a lot I enjoyed about Farscape, yet we only made it through two seasons before switching to something else. (Which is better than my wife’s and my attempt at Lexx.)
My favorite character was the pilot, the Jim Henson puppet with the Uhura sized role, so that didn’t help. My least favorite was the bald inconsistent alien. Or maybe it was the goofy inconsistent big alien. Or sometimes the theater-kid energy albino.
I think I only liked three characters consistently.
I very much enjoy Farscape, but yea, the Harvey stuff in Chriton's brain might have gone on a bit long. It's OK though. I like all the puppets. Everything's better with puppets. To me the whole thing very much feels like Community, but with sci-fi. Which is about the best verdict I can give to a show.
I realized that in our Traveller campaign I verymuch play Rygel (as a captain).
rewatched Cameron's Avatar a few days ago. really gorgeous movie in every aspect. the scenery CGI in particular has aged incredibly well, and combined with my love of bioluminescence and sky islands means i got a lot about of that aspect... which makes it a shame that most of the three hour slog is devoted to characters with less charisma than a wooden plank and a story so generic that it feels like someone forgot to remove the template before shooting
anyway ive heard really good things about the water CGI in the second film so i'll probably be watching that one soon but this rewatch taught me that i should significantly lower my narrative expectations
There ought to be a word for films that you're really glad you watched once and have no desire to ever watch again. Avatar is the apex of this sort of film.
Yeah. A film you’re glad you’ve seen, you feel your life is richer for having seen it, but have no desire whatsoever to see a second or further time.
Whilst I know there are those who adore it (my friend’s son and his grandad have a special bond through repeated trips to the cinema to see Avatar), but for me whilst a truly stunning bit of film making? The actual story is distinctly average. To the point I only slightly cheekily call it Ferngully In Spaaaaaaace.
And yeah there's a few films that I've watched that I don't want to rewatch or won't rewatch for a very very long time -Grave of the Fireflies is right in there!
The one based on an Arthurian legend you really need to read ahead of time.
This is a frustrating movie. There are a lot of beautiful shots and artistically-crafted scenes, but there are also long stretches of nothing happening or the film being too dark to see what’s happening. Slow pace I can deal with, but not being able to see anything drives me nuts. Also, the deliberate pace finally changing made it really obvious when the movie
Spoiler:
pulled an Incident at Owl Creek Bridge near the end.
Anyway, I highly recommend reading the legend and then watching some of movie’s best scenes on YouTube. The trailer is also worth watching. I can’t recommend watching the whole movie.
Also, it surprised me that the pretentious art-house version of the story ditched 90% of the homoeroticism.
oh i love The Green Knight. i get the issues with lighting, but the pacing of the film is perfect. it's more a film about traveling than anything else and it's really good for that
For family friendly, action-adventure fantasy movies they are all right. Sure, I could have literally written them myself because there is nothing "new" that happens in them. They are competently done and probably delivered on budget. They are a solid example of workmanlike professionalism and craft in the industry and that should not be overlooked.
I actually enjoyed seeing Jim Carrey hamming it up as a villain. It seemed like for the first time in a while, he might have been having some fun on-screen.
So, what you’re saying is, you sanction his buffoonery?
StudentOfEtherium wrote: oh i love The Green Knight. i get the issues with lighting, but the pacing of the film is perfect. it's more a film about traveling than anything else and it's really good for that
The traveling scenes were great. Most of them were beautiful, well-framed, and visible. The excellent fantastical parts at the beginning and ending were also well lit, or at least moodily-yet-adequately lit. The movie was gorgeous when I could see it.
There were just too many mostly-indoor scenes that were cut like they were supposed to be meditations on some personal growth or letting some gravitas sink in, but were just completely unintelligible inky masses of blurry darkness. The pacing became an issue when nothing visible was happening. I found myself googling “Green Knight Too Dark” and going down a Reddit rabbit hole of technical jargon waiting for something to look at onscreen.
I mean, I hate having to old man rant about movies being too damn dark, but the movie was too damn dark. At least I didn’t need subtitles just to hear the dialogue…
For family friendly, action-adventure fantasy movies they are all right. Sure, I could have literally written them myself because there is nothing "new" that happens in them. They are competently done and probably delivered on budget. They are a solid example of workmanlike professionalism and craft in the industry and that should not be overlooked.
I actually enjoyed seeing Jim Carrey hamming it up as a villain. It seemed like for the first time in a while, he might have been having some fun on-screen.
Yeah. I watched the last third or so of that film and it seemed rather un-horrible. Sunday afternoon thing.
Btw, I also watched the Super Mario Brothers film. It's alright. The little star ghost who went insane in prison might be a bit hard to understand for kids, but I think that isn't a huge problem. It's inoffensive, there are some fun ideas. It's a kids' film and a huge ad.
OK there's cheap, there's direct-to-video cheap, and then there's "we can't even afford to license the theme song of the TV show we're derived from". I swear half the budget went to renting Black SUVs for this one.
Which is a shame because this is a halfway competent action film.
Sgt Stewart S Swat (who is unfortunately not played by Steven Siegal but by some guy from Parenthood, and not the good Parenthood, the movie, the mediocre sitcom Parenthood) and Seattle SWAT capture drug lord/assassin/mercenary/CIA operative/demon spawn Al Simmons and hold him in Fort Swat. So the local drug lord/mercenary/crime boss/whatever sends his private army of the baddest badashes in all of Seattle to get him back. And only Sgt Swat and Mockingbird Agent of SHIELD stand in their way!
Will Team SWAT fight off the army of mercenaries? Will Trooper Benedict Arnold betray them? Will Al Simmons kill a whole big buttload of guys? Will Bad Hacker defeat Good Hacker and hack open the door? Can you hack a door? I mean that doesn't seem like the sort of thing you'd put on an integrated network, surely they'd be on a hardwired system no? That was First Traitor, but what about Second Traitor?
So it's a good idea for a Bottle Episode, a couple of SWAT guys, Adrianne Palicki and Michael Jai White and whoever played Sgt Swat against an army of goons so generic they all wear facemasks so you can use the same stunt guy again and again. It has flaws, Sgt Swat is completely uninteresting and the rest of the team gets no personality. But again, good wall paper for building Arbites.
Now the question is, do I jump into SWAT The Series?
A few years ago John Boyega was the darling of fresh British acting talent. He dominated the screen time in Attack the Block and was one of the rare elements of the Star Wars sequels that wasn't utterly embarrassing. So I'm interested to see him in a real acting role and try to make a fair judgement.
Sadly, this isn't the film for that. For too much of the film it feels as though if they could have got Denzel Washington to do the part then they'd have preferred that. Indeed, given that the plot is hostage taking to right the wrongs of unfair bureaucracy, there's a strong feeling of low budget John Q. running through the whole affair. For too much of the film John is pulling a Denzel impression and only in sparse moments do we get to see him breaking through (during which he is very, very good).
While it's not a bad film, I can only recommend as a curiosity.
I saw it had Kirsten Dunst and decided to give it a watch. This is..... not the movie for me.
Very slow pacing, not a lot of dialogue, and focused mostly on short, tightly clipped, hallucinations often involving the forest and lumberjack industry.
I am not saying it was bad, but it just wasn't for me.
Imagine Neal Breen was a talented artist with something genuine to say.
Nobuhiko Obayashi, director of House/Hausu, co-wrote, directed and edited this to be his ultimate movie about movies, war movies, and movies about war movies. The story structure is surreal and nonlinear in places, using layers of artificiality and jaunty, upbeat pacing to tell a very real and not at all jaunty or upbeat story about Japanese wartime atrocities. It urges the audience to seek a future of peace, to use positive movies and art for inspiration. It was almost overwhelming, in terms of emotion and visual stimulation. I recommend it.
However, if you only ever see one Obayashi movie, see House.
i love Labyrinth of Cinema! i was just thinking about it a few minutes ago, even. easily one of my all-time favorite movies
it's a movie that really earns its length for how much complexity it's able to stuff into it. not just focusing on the effect that war had on Japan, but the effects that Japan's war had on the countries surrounding it, especially the Ryukyuan islands (otherwise known as Okinawa), and for as much as can be said about the negative effects the war had on Japan, the effects for those other countries experienced were far more grave. or, for the film aspect of the film, the way that film itself can be used as medium for keeping the experiences, thoughts, and beliefs alive for future generations to learn from (a theme further emboldened by this being Obayashi's last; thus, his sendoff and his attempt to push forward into future generations
truly an incredible film, and one that only gets better the more time you have to think about it
In which Johnny Depp pretends he has a fraction of the charm of Terry Thomas,
A frustratingly uneven film. It most definitely has its moments, and when those land it’s very enjoyable. But when you’re done watching, part from the odd quote, completely fades from memory.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i love Labyrinth of Cinema! i was just thinking about it a few minutes ago, even. easily one of my all-time favorite movies
it's a movie that really earns its length for how much complexity it's able to stuff into it. not just focusing on the effect that war had on Japan, but the effects that Japan's war had on the countries surrounding it, especially the Ryukyuan islands (otherwise known as Okinawa), and for as much as can be said about the negative effects the war had on Japan, the effects for those other countries experienced were far more grave. or, for the film aspect of the film, the way that film itself can be used as medium for keeping the experiences, thoughts, and beliefs alive for future generations to learn from (a theme further emboldened by this being Obayashi's last; thus, his sendoff and his attempt to push forward into future generations
truly an incredible film, and one that only gets better the more time you have to think about it
I intend to revisit it sometime. Like you said, there’s a lot to it, more than I could pick up in a single viewing. It’s a bit too emotionally endowed to watch casually or back-to-back for me, though.
It’s surprising that it wasn’t talked about more during its US release. It seems like exactly the kind of movie-about-movies and experimental that a lot of film buffs love. It displays Tarantino levels of love for the craft.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i love Labyrinth of Cinema! i was just thinking about it a few minutes ago, even. easily one of my all-time favorite movies
it's a movie that really earns its length for how much complexity it's able to stuff into it. not just focusing on the effect that war had on Japan, but the effects that Japan's war had on the countries surrounding it, especially the Ryukyuan islands (otherwise known as Okinawa), and for as much as can be said about the negative effects the war had on Japan, the effects for those other countries experienced were far more grave. or, for the film aspect of the film, the way that film itself can be used as medium for keeping the experiences, thoughts, and beliefs alive for future generations to learn from (a theme further emboldened by this being Obayashi's last; thus, his sendoff and his attempt to push forward into future generations
truly an incredible film, and one that only gets better the more time you have to think about it
I intend to revisit it sometime. Like you said, there’s a lot to it, more than I could pick up in a single viewing. It’s a bit too emotionally endowed to watch casually or back-to-back for me, though.
It’s surprising that it wasn’t talked about more during its US release. It seems like exactly the kind of movie-about-movies and experimental that a lot of film buffs love. It displays Tarantino levels of love for the craft.
i think the issue is that for the majority of people, Obayashi is "that guy who made the silly 70s horror movie", and so something much more serious wouldn't be what people are looking for (House has plenty of serious aspects to it, and a lot to say about generational trauma and war, but it's far from direct about it)
I mean, yeah House is a lot of silly fun, but it’s clearly deliberate, not accidental. It also had something to say about grief and the trauma of the war, and made it accessible to young people in a way a serious movie probably wouldn’t.
I guess I don’t understand the critics who dismiss it for being experimental. The sheer craft of cinematography, the editing, the different wipes and transitions and animations and stop motion techniques used to draw the audience in while constantly reminding them they’re watching a movie—I’d love to see more of these techniques used more often to make movies feel fresh and creative.
That’s one reason I recommend Hundreds of Beavers so much; it’s a breath of fresh air to see someone try something new in a medium that often feels mined out.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I mean, yeah House is a lot of silly fun, but it’s clearly deliberate, not accidental. It also had something to say about grief and the trauma of the war, and made it accessible to young people in a way a serious movie probably wouldn’t.
I guess I don’t understand the critics who dismiss it for being experimental. The sheer craft of cinematography, the editing, the different wipes and transitions and animations and stop motion techniques used to draw the audience in while constantly reminding them they’re watching a movie—I’d love to see more of these techniques used more often to make movies feel fresh and creative.
That’s one reason I recommend Hundreds of Beavers so much; it’s a breath of fresh air to see someone try something new in a medium that often feels mined out.
that bit there is a great example of why Obayashi is so good. his films are serious and thematic, but still approachable (as approachable as three hour avant-garde films can be). and re:the craft of film, i'm convinced that no one used greenscreen as well as Obayashi. fully leaning into the artifice in a great way
haven't heard of Hundreds of Beavers, but any film mentioned alongside Obayashi must be worth watching! will watch it soon
OK there's cheap, there's direct-to-video cheap, and then there's "we can't even afford to license the theme song of the TV show we're derived from". I swear half the budget went to renting Black SUVs for this one.
Which is a shame because this is a halfway competent action film.
Sgt Stewart S Swat (who is unfortunately not played by Steven Siegal but by some guy from Parenthood, and not the good Parenthood, the movie, the mediocre sitcom Parenthood) and Seattle SWAT capture drug lord/assassin/mercenary/CIA operative/demon spawn Al Simmons and hold him in Fort Swat. So the local drug lord/mercenary/crime boss/whatever sends his private army of the baddest badashes in all of Seattle to get him back. And only Sgt Swat and Mockingbird Agent of SHIELD stand in their way!
Will Team SWAT fight off the army of mercenaries? Will Trooper Benedict Arnold betray them? Will Al Simmons kill a whole big buttload of guys? Will Bad Hacker defeat Good Hacker and hack open the door? Can you hack a door? I mean that doesn't seem like the sort of thing you'd put on an integrated network, surely they'd be on a hardwired system no? That was First Traitor, but what about Second Traitor?
So it's a good idea for a Bottle Episode, a couple of SWAT guys, Adrianne Palicki and Michael Jai White and whoever played Sgt Swat against an army of goons so generic they all wear facemasks so you can use the same stunt guy again and again. It has flaws, Sgt Swat is completely uninteresting and the rest of the team gets no personality. But again, good wall paper for building Arbites.
Now the question is, do I jump into SWAT The Series?
Play us out Robert Duncan!
Well, SWAT (the modern) series is far more entertaining than what you've been subjecting yourself to....
This movie had me at the start when Commodore Perry comes ashore to Yankee Doodle and one of the Samurai gets chastized for doing a little dance XD
The premise: a lord, worried about the fate of the country with the arrival of Perry and his ships, decides his samurai are weak and lazy. The solution? He's gonna make them run. They're gonna run a lot.
Which is a bit deceptive as summary as there's several other things going on in this plot; a ninja working for the Shogun who sends a letter warning of the mobilization of Samurai before he realizes its just a marathon desperate to stop his mistake from ending in blood. A girl who is trying to get out from her father's oppressive parenting. A guy who wants to marry that girl. And of course a lot of guys who don't want to go running and one who very much does.
It's something akin to a chase film in the end, but it's a fun little period piece if you're in the look for some samurai cinema.
EDIT: there's also a bit of a theme running (haha puns!), based on how the samurai in this era aren't the warriors they were in previous ages. Many of the characters do not work as soldiers. They're accountants. Secretaries. Tax collectors and such. Men who carry swords but have little to no real use for them. Kind of a film about a country on the cusp of the future, and the characters who have their own futures on their minds as the marathon plays out.
A Liam Neeson Thriller of a recent vintage, so you kinda know what you are going to get.
A rancher at the border gets caught up in the middle of some Cartel business. This man is on the cusp of losing everything, and decides to help this migrant boy get to his family in Chicago, while being pursued by the Cartel. Heavy on suspense rather than out-right action.
This movie is not that good, but it is triggering me to feel like I have a lot to say about it. Here are a collection of half-formed thoughts....
1. This is a modern Western. The themes, especially at the beginning; align with that genre. What is justice? The main character's honor. The unrelenting nature of environment. A man who has lost just about everything.
2. Most action movies are by definition "Right-wing" in nature. They do not make a huge deal about "Open Borders" and I applaud the movies restraint by not making the implicit explicit. However, the subtext in much of this movie is antigovernment and right-wing as feth.
- Borders
- Firearms
- Law-enforcement (and government) is bad
- The system is corrupt
It hits a lot of the marks for current right-wing folks in the West.
3. The movie does not have a definitive ending. It is open to interpretation about what happens. I like that in a movie.
4. The film does a pretty good job setting up the film. What they show you on screen is just enough to keep the plot movie and help you understand the characters, and everything extraneous is left out. Excellent and streamlined film, strong craft there.
5. The main character and the main villain have both been shaped by violence. It is a strong theme in this film for the Protag and Antagonist to act as influences to the little boy on what path to take. There is a strong theme that runs through the film, and the movie has a Point-of-view BUT as I said the ending is very ambiguous on this topic.
So, a little low-budget thriller that did get sometime in the theatres. This movie has a decent amount of craft put into it. I would say the "worst" part of the movie is that it is all sizzle and no steak.
If you want to watch some Neo-Westerns, than check out this and Hell or High Water. I liked that one better, but the two would go okay together as a double feature.
Solid vampire survival flick. Pretty funny writing, lots of gore and enough twists to keep you on your toes. Also, I know the actor died young in real life, but man was it satisfying seeing them get killed first. As soon as they opened their mouth, I said that person needs to die ASAP. And sure enough!
The mob puts out a hit on a Las Vegas magician who his holed up in a Lake Tahoe penthouse. A variety of colorful assassins gather to collect.
The editing in the movie is very "of-it's-time". The cast is pretty stacked. It is also notable that Ryan Reynolds actually tries to act in this one, and not just mug for the camera doing his usual stick.
The movie starts kind of light-hearted and fun, but gets very serious and depressing towards the end. It feels like a big tonal shift.
I actually expected more from this film, but it did not deliver.
I don't recall if I ever bothered watching this one. I know what you mean by "of its time" as I immediately think of Layer Cake, Lucky Number Slevin or 21.
I had figured Smoking Aces was more of a Shoot ‘em Up than an Ecks vs Sever. Huh.
Anyway…
Legend of the Cat Monster
The other Obayashi movie with a cat.
My son really wanted to see another crazy Obayashi movie, but we couldn’t find The Girl Who Leapt Through Time or School in the Crosshairs anywhere on streaming, and we thought Legend of the Cat Monster might be good enough. We thought wrong. Mostly.
It’s a made for TV movie about a failing writer and producer want to hire a famous old actress, an actress who it turns out murdered her lover when he tried to leave for Hollywood, and now is an immortal witch? succubus? cat monster? obsessed with forcing the young writer into the role of her dead lover. And the entire first hour feels like a conventional made for TV movie, which isn’t great.
Then an hour in they all sit down to eat some fish heads and stuff goes bananas. After dinner, an old director decides to punish a young woman in a scene easily 100 times kinkier than 50 Shades, ending with
Spoiler:
the old man collapsing in a literal crygasm
. At one hour and twenty minutes of the youtube version is my favorite sudden-cat-jump-scare of all time, OF ALL TIME.
TLR: It’s a skip, except for the cat scare at 1:20:05ish, which is highly recommended.
Emotion
Obayashi’s student film, bursting with strong student film energy. It’s experimental, sometimes hilarious, often baffling, and completely 60’s. It mostly made up for Legend of the Cat Monster, mostly.
A man who has made more money that he will ever need continues his exploration of whatever the hell he feels like. And that is just Daniel, rather than the film.
It’s a weird and violent fairy tale of love, loss, sudden and inexplicable power and annoyingly long flashbacks, with a frisson of redemption added in for kicks. The twist is telegraphed and hugely obvious.
The truth telling bits were entertaining and quite dark. The snakes were unexpected.
All in All an odd 90 minutes or so. I’ll have to get back to as to whether I actually enjoyed it or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I might watch Guns Akimbo next and stick with the theme.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I had figured Smoking Aces was more of a Shoot ‘em Up than an Ecks vs Sever. Huh.
....
I liked Shoot'em Up. Layer Cake was alright, but it always immediately makes me think of that Daniel Craig film in which he tries to help at the ballooning accident, fails to do so and then gets stalked by the dude who loves him or something. That one was more interesting and I watched both around the same time.
Never got the appeal of Lucky Number Slevin. Is 21 the Stallone card playing film?
@Flinty: Good points. I enjoyed Horns for the most part (apart from the ending).
Finished Farscape season 4, commenced Peacekeeper Wars pt.1, everything is very enjoyable, as before.
Sigur wrote: Layer Cake was alright,... Never got the appeal of Lucky Number Slevin. Is 21 the Stallone card playing film?
Only got around to Layer Cake recently and "alright" is about as much as I can praise it. Equally like you, Slevin was a nothing much for me. And 21 was a Kevin Spacey playing the odds at blackjack film that was equally meh.
I like Smok'n Aces, not so much because I think it's a good film but because it's an unrestrained trashy film. Smok'n Aces feels like a movie where the cast and crew got together, decided 'feth it we'll do what we want' and just did what they wanted.
It's not a high concept film.
It's not a clever film.
It's not even a particularly good film.
It's just a fun action bonanza with a cast of zany characters.
It's basically the spiritual predecessor to the Bullet Train film imo, both being very similar kinds of movies with a similar premise of just being a bit balls off the walls over the top ridiculousness. Except Smok'n Aces had the wisdom to know when to end before overstaying its welcome.
Sigur wrote: Layer Cake was alright,... Never got the appeal of Lucky Number Slevin. Is 21 the Stallone card playing film?
Only got around to Layer Cake recently and "alright" is about as much as I can praise it. Equally like you, Slevin was a nothing much for me. And 21 was a Kevin Spacey playing the odds at blackjack film that was equally meh.
Unmistakably films of that time period.
Riiight, that Kevin Spacey one. I think I've watched that, but it didn't leave much of an impact on me.
Basically a “semi-contemporary” Robin Hood flick. Except where they’ve called it semi-contemporary I think they really meant “we have no idea what would’ve been historically accurate, and figuring that out would’ve been like, effort”.
Boring set pieces. Confusing mess of visual styles.
It’s like it took Kingsman and A Knight’s Tale, stripped out everything that makes those good movies, and just mashed the remaining into a pretty dreadful movie.
It is chuffing awful. I like the main cast members, but they’re wasted on this film.
Kongzilla - The New Empire
Man I love this film series. They’re cheesy, they’re a bit silly, but they’re well made.
And, for a franchise in the modern day? Refreshingly not Rushed Out. Enjoyable enough singularly, each does add to the overworld mythos and lore in a considered way,
Baron Munchausen is a stylish fantasy epic with action and laughs spread throughout. Are the fabulous stories of Baron Munchausen real? Can he really lift the Ottoman siege with only the help of his scrappy band of friends? Can whimsy triumph over the rational world? Turns out, yes.
The cast has a lot of old favorites, such as Robin Williams, Eric Idle, Uma Thurman, Richard Pryce in the role that typecast him ever after as the villain, and even a brief cameo by Sting. The special effects are what you expect from an 80’s fantasy, and yet my son was still wowed by them, especially the visual design of the moon scenes.
He says he wants to see Time Bandits or Brazil next, so that’s good. Looking for other weird fantasy movies without too much dark material, has anyone got any recommendations? Are movies like In the Company of Wolves or City of Lost Children good?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: He says he wants to see Time Bandits or Brazil next, so that’s good. Looking for other weird fantasy movies without too much dark material, has anyone got any recommendations? Are movies like In the Company of Wolves or City of Lost Children good?
Hawk the Slayer might fit the bill if you haven't seen it in a while or at all. I know for years it was more or less a running joke in my circle about how bad it is but it's far better than that. Not sure if this is on Youtube or not but I know the sound track is.
A touch darker would be Sword and the Sorcerer, which is a favorite of my. A little campy and a little nudity here and there but you might enjoy it. A few really neat ideas in there as well. I think you can find it on youtube for prescreening if needed.
For a little more of a Sci-fi I'd recommend Space Hunter.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: He says he wants to see Time Bandits or Brazil next, so that’s good. Looking for other weird fantasy movies without too much dark material, has anyone got any recommendations? Are movies like In the Company of Wolves or City of Lost Children good?
Hawk the Slayer might fit the bill if you haven't seen it in a while or at all. I know for years it was more or less a running joke in my circle about how bad it is but it's far better than that. Not sure if this is on Youtube or not but I know the sound track is.
A touch darker would be Sword and the Sorcerer, which is a favorite of my. A little campy and a little nudity here and there but you might enjoy it. A few really neat ideas in there as well. I think you can find it on youtube for prescreening if needed.
For a little more of a Sci-fi I'd recommend Space Hunter.
I forgot about Hawk the Slayer. It used to be available on YouTube, along with Yor: Hunter of the Future. I’m not familiar with the Sword and the Sorcerer—for some reason my mind expects it to have the twins from Barbarians?
Space Hunter is going on the list alongside Star Crash and Message from Space. Is Laserblast a good watch?
You could also start leaning into the Ray Harryhausen movies... the various Sinbads, and Clash of the Titans. Jason and the Argonauts, whilst the pinnacle, is a bit long. Valley of Gwangi is probably best avoided.
I think we’ve seen all the Sinbads and Clash. I think we saw Jason when he was much younger, so we should revisit it. I don’t think we’ve seen 20,000,000 Miles to Earth yet. Nor the Beast from 20,000 Fathoms.
Nor Gorgo for that matter, not that I have plans to see Gorgo again.
Easy E wrote: Prince Valiant maybe? I don't recall it being very good.... but that doesn't seem to be the point!
Easy E wrote: I don't recall it being very good.... but that doesn't seem to be the point!
Easy E wrote: but that doesn't seem to be the point!
Wait but all the films we've been talking about are blockbuster awesome films! I think you're confused!
Also on the serious front if you want Valiant get the cartoon The Legend of Prince Valiant instead. It was on Amazon Prime for a time but doesn't seem to be right now
Baron Munchausen is a stylish fantasy epic with action and laughs spread throughout. Are the fabulous stories of Baron Munchausen real? Can he really lift the Ottoman siege with only the help of his scrappy band of friends? Can whimsy triumph over the rational world? Turns out, yes.
The cast has a lot of old favorites, such as Robin Williams, Eric Idle, Uma Thurman, Richard Pryce in the role that typecast him ever after as the villain, and even a brief cameo by Sting. The special effects are what you expect from an 80’s fantasy, and yet my son was still wowed by them, especially the visual design of the moon scenes.
If you love fantasy, Watch It.
Oh yes, that is a snazzy film.
I watched a remarkable film today. It's called Going Overboard (1989), and it's Adam Sandler's first film. It's one of those films you'd never ever watch unless you (like me) appreciate Plex TV. Basically my guest and I were sitting, waiting for guest#3 to arrive, and we started browsing Plex stuff, and we got intrigued by this 1989 Adam Sandler film. It very much is a no-budget comedy film of its time and based on the Adam Sandler schtick, which wouldn't change much for the decades to come.
Adam Sandler plays a waiter (who dreams of a career in stand-up comedy) on a cruise ship full of contestants for a beauty contest, Miss Australia insults General Noriega in a tv interview, he sends terrorists to kill Miss Australia. This basically is a somewhat anarchic (but mostly boring) sketch comedy thing without much sketch comedy. Clearly the highlight is Billy Zane's performance. There also are some silly things you just laugh at.
Basically, this film is for any serious historian of Sandler's work. People I advise to Don't Watch.
Then we watched the first episode of Mutant X, famous for starring Lex Luthor (the only proper one) as ....well, Professor X. It's hilarious. Seriously. There is so much year 2000 style over so little substance. The people look pretty. They dress prettily. There is a weird charisma about the bad guy's main henchman. And a lot of smugness, especially about the male lead (the one who shoots lightning from his hands). This is remarkably silly. Very interestingly, in the end it was very clearly pointed out that this thing was made by Marvel Studios. From back when people had shame and superhero stuff was kept under wraps and hidden via genetic experiment stuff by some company.
He's had a few films that weren't meant to be funny such as Punch Drunk Love, Reign Over Me, and Uncut Gems. I would only recommend the first and the last.
I want to say it's not. I only saw it once and it's been a few years, but I think I found it lame at the time. Low budget, slow, not much in the way of writing, and neither charming acting nor special effects to gloss over the deficiencies.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: He says he wants to see Time Bandits or Brazil next, so that’s good. Looking for other weird fantasy movies without too much dark material, has anyone got any recommendations? Are movies like In the Company of Wolves or City of Lost Children good?
I love them, but both Brazil and The City Of Lost Children can get pretty dark, particularly Brazil, it's basically Terry Gillam's take on 1984.
I want to say it's not. I only saw it once and it's been a few years, but I think I found it lame at the time. Low budget, slow, not much in the way of writing, and neither charming acting nor special effects to gloss over the deficiencies.
I watched it several times, but only the MST3k version. Yeah, it's a slow film without all that much of a story to it. The most remarkable thing probably are the aliens (which I'm fairly certain they're from another film) and they already show in the beginning.
As for weird fantasy films - maybe the Deathstalker films? The Sword and the Sorcerer?
I forgot about Hawk the Slayer. It used to be available on YouTube, along with Yor: Hunter of the Future. I’m not familiar with the Sword and the Sorcerer—for some reason my mind expects it to have the twins from Barbarians?
Space Hunter is going on the list alongside Star Crash and Message from Space. Is Laserblast a good watch?
Trailer for Sword and the Sorcerer. It's a fun little movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oooh! Oooh! Maybe “The Last Starfighter”?
That’s always been a favourite of mine.
Hawk the Slayer is better than that. I feel like it's where the atmosphere in Diablo, the first one, came from. At least they remind me of each other. To me it's wholesome in the way that the Prince Valiant comics are wholesome. The FX's aren't amazing but they did quite a bit on a shoe string budget. It is also a little cheesy.
Flinty wrote: @Warhead01 it’s a joke from a UK comedy show called Spaced from a looooong time ago
Ah, ok. Wouldn't have gotten that. My own game circle has trash talked Hawk the slayer off and on for years. I hadn't seen it in a longtime until a few years ago and really enjoyed it. I figured trash talking this movie was just a common thing.
Flinty wrote: @Warhead01 it’s a joke from a UK comedy show called Spaced from a looooong time ago
Ah, ok. Wouldn't have gotten that. My own game circle has trash talked Hawk the slayer off and on for years. I hadn't seen it in a longtime until a few years ago and really enjoyed it. I figured trash talking this movie was just a common thing.
Just watched Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (aka Gorkamorka The Movie) and I enjoyed it almost as much as Fury Road. It gave a compelling backstory to a totally awesome character, and there were plenty of things seen that were sort of retroactive foreshadowing (sort of an oxymoron I know but this movie is a prequel so...eh). Anyone who plays Orks in 40k will of course want to bring a notepad with them.
Furiosa is great. Also worthwhile for Gaslands players. It blends into Fury Road nicely enough that you could realistically watch it as one cataclysmic 4.5 hour long movie.
Speaking of which, I caught a bit of Fury Road on terrestrial last night and was once again reminded that not even Tom Hardy's complete lack of talent could prevent it from becoming one of the most spectacular actions movies ever made.
Hey, I love Tom Hardy! Not his Bane. But everything else I’ve enjoyed.
Time To Duel
This is…oddly spectacular. Fan made live action Yu-Gi-Oh movie.
The budget is non-existent. The acting is…endearingly awful. Because whilst they’re not good, they are trying. And it’s clearly been made with love for the source material. Also, Yugi’s wig is quite something.
If you’ve a taste for Outsider Art (thanks, years of watching Eurotrash!) at 45 minutes this is probably worth a whirl. Maybe with nerdy friends and some beers.
I was in two minds about having an evening playing Fallout 4 or breaking out the Blu-ray, only to turn on the tv and there it was, just starting. So decision made, and a very enjoyable rewatch it was too. A coda, of sorts, to Endgame and a nice party piece for all concerned. I hear that a fourth movie (Spider-man: Can't Afford a Home?) starts filming later this year....
Graphite wrote: Furiosa is great. Also worthwhile for Gaslands players. It blends into Fury Road nicely enough that you could realistically watch it as one cataclysmic 4.5 hour long movie.
Yeah, and one where the third act action scene is half of the runtime.
But yeah, Furiosa was a really good film. Don't go in expecting Fury Road 2. You still get some very nice vehicular based action but the pace of the film is a lot slower. It is more akin to Mad Max 1, focused on examining how this particular character reacted to and was moulded by the wasteland.
A "Bob Ross-esque" PBS TV painter in Vermont has his world shaken when the station brings in a new rival.
This is billed as a comedy, but the comedy is all in the set-up for the most part. The characters themselves are a bit quirky, but play it straight. This is not set-up then punchline style comedy. It is pretty low-key and my fellow watchers felt it more of a drama about a man slowly coming apart and re-building themselves after set backs.
The film is set in Vermont but it felt VERY Mid-western. The way Fargo (the movie) is very Mid-western. The whole premise and the way the characters react to situations reminded me of home.
Next Goal Wins
A sports-underdog-comedy from some hot-stuff-young director that is very loosely based on some stuff that actually happened to the American Samoa international soccer team.
Pretty much what it says on the tin, but with a few solid moments. I can see why it never went to the cinema, but straight to streaming.
A fine enough way to pass the time after a tiring or rough day.
Rarely have I been so disappointed. I loved Fury Road. I mistakenly dragged various family members with me on Sunday, in one case the first time they had been to the cinema since Covid. The film basically was boring, with each chapter being reminiscent of a webisode, not part of a film. Making the wasteland dull and slow is a curious choice. Most of the audience were checking phones at the end, and for the credits they basically show you a better film you could have watched instead...
Rarely have I been so disappointed. I loved Fury Road. I mistakenly dragged various family members with me on Sunday, in one case the first time they had been to the cinema since Covid. The film basically was boring, with each chapter being reminiscent of a webisode, not part of a film. Making the wasteland dull and slow is a curious choice. Most of the audience were checking phones at the end, and for the credits they basically show you a better film you could have watched instead...
I'm not sure I'd call it boring, but no, you're right, Fury Road it's not....
The main thought I had all throughout it was: "HOW have these ultra-violent morons managed to survive all this time past the fall of civilization?? HOW??"
I mean, Dementis is so stupid that he can't find the land of abundance. It's not that hard. You know the range of the bikes they were riding. Tank full of gas + what, 2 Jerry cans of extra fuel each? Your underling morons could only have gone out so far.... Do a search. Maybe aim towards rocky hills on the horizon/perimeter because you know it isn't out here in the sand with you - otherwise you'd have come across it already as you crisscross the wastes in your {somehow} still functioning vehicles.
This idiot then takes over a refinery city & holds it for years....
If you watch a Mad Max movie expecting realism, you're missing the point entirely. That would be like watching a p*rno movie for the plot. Personally I liked Dementus as a villain, he was over-the-top enough to be entertaining, and deranged enough to come off as threatening. Chris Hemsworth did a pretty good job really. And it was nice getting a close up look at Gastown and the Bullet Farm, places that were basically only mentioned in Fury Road.
The lack of constant action was okay in Furiosa. We got to see her backstory, and it worked well in telling how even though she was stuck in horrible situations with horrible people, she still retained her humanity and basic desire to do good, leading up to her actions in Fury Road. All in all, a competent bit of storytelling, with enough action interspersed throughout to remind you that you were indeed watching a Mad Max movie.
Also, the point was that Dementus was not a good leader. He had some cunning but basically no leadership beyond that, as seen by the events of the film whenever he got his hands on something resembling power over more than his horde.
Dementus and his group was a horde of locusts, they destroy anything they touch, with no regard for the future, only consuming the here and now.
Immortan Joe and his brothers, for all of their many, many faults, understood the limits of the civilizations they were in charge of. They knew what level of production they could maintain in the Citadel, they kept their populations under control despite their tyranny. They still needed to die, but until then it is better to live under them than a mad dog like Dementus.
He always was the person that Furiosa faced in their final confrontation. It is just that earlier in the film we were seeing him through the eyes of a child, and it is easy to appear threatening and powerful to a child.
Nothing in Irate Maxwell passes the fridge logic test. There is just no way a world that desolate could keep so many cars and trucks and bikes fueled and working.
Oh you have Gastown and the Bullet Farm you say?
Great where's Rubber Plantation World, Iron Smeltington, Machine Toolopolis and all the other places a fleet of cars fighting off road need?
You get the idea, there's enough realism to be disturbing, but not so much it's 2 hours of people scrounging for food and watching their teeth fall out.
Also got to remember that the Mad Max movies are myths within the Mad Max universe itself.
Mad Max is sort of it's own thing, really, but you can see it being the sort of tale MFP guys in other precincts tell over a couple of beers about a guy who went completely off the rails.
Mad Max II is told as "I remember the Road Warrior" by the feral kid who ends up leading a tribe out east.
Beyond Thunderdome is the recollection of the kids who already talk about The Before Time as half remembered civilisation.
Fury Road is again about seeking a myth from childhood. The Warboys look for a mythical Valhalla. Is there any way at all that human society can have gone that weird in a time interval where Max is a former cop?
In Furiosa the Wasteland is vast, and empty, and it's all there is. So where did Dementus come from? Somewhere else. Doesn't matter. Not to the myths that people are telling each other around campfires decades, maybe centuries, later.
And Dementus is not only a bad leader. It seems that he's actively sabotaging himself.
Frank Grillo (The guy who plays Crossbones in The Winter Soldier) stars with Naomi Watts in this action movie version of Groundhog's Day.
At first, the movie's show don't tell approach to setting up the plot was really causing me to grind-my-teeth. Second, the main character was not that likeable. Third, there is a lot of stream-of-consciousness exposition. All three of these things had me discounting the movie.
However, by the end, I found myself enjoying it for what it was. They humanize the main character as part of his character arc. They tone down the Noir style narrations, but do not eliminate it. They reduce exposition bombing, to more of a distant thudding.
Honestly, the exposition bombing was not really needed. Any half-way intelligent audience would be able to figure it out, but that is the problem with a lot of movies now-a-days. They have 0 faith that an audience can figure anything out.
Judging by the "analysis" I read and watch online.... the makers are right to think this. Most viewers can not figure things out on their own and absolutely need all ambiguity explained to them. They want (and need) the exposition dumped on them. If you don't, the audience feels like the film-maker failed. Subtlety in films is dead.
Anyway, not a terrible movie, and actually kind of fun. Nothing new here per se, but it delivers where it needs to competently. I think this is a HULU original.... whatever that means..... and would not go out of my way to see it. Sorry HULU, you can't make Frank Grillo happen!
I appreciate it takes pretty big libs with the source material.
But Lawks. For its era? This is the “one and done” sci-fi epic to rule them all. Much more plot dense than its contemporaries, with a stylistic impact which heavily influenced that of the artists and creatives who’d go on to create 40K.
I appreciate it takes pretty big libs with the source material.
But Lawks. For its era? This is the “one and done” sci-fi epic to rule them all. Much more plot dense than its contemporaries, with a stylistic impact which heavily influenced that of the artists and creatives who’d go on to create 40K.
And talk about a cast.
One day, I hope to see this on the Big Screen.
I'd argue Lynch's adaptation does some really masterful things that are very rare to get.
For example his take on the Wyrding way and the modules as weapons - its not in the book.
It's not in the book at all
But its so well done that its easily accepted that it was in the book. It fits so well.
I'd also agree it paces itself and establishes its characters better. The new Dune (at least the first) feels like we have very important, very impactful events shown but they are like snippets. The tiny bits that link them together. The unimportant "Walking from room A to B" kind of stuff that knits a story as a single thing; are missing. So it feels like we get the headline event from every chapter without the stuff around it that makes it a story. It's not alone in this, I feel like there's a good few films that suffer from this, though sometimes its just one or two scenes not multiple.
But yeah Lyche created a visual style for Dune that has lasted the test of time. Much like how the Lord of the Rings films have very firmly created a visual style for LotR
The one that’s here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and it’s all out of bubble gum.
Nada is a down on his luck construction worker who stumbles onto the horrible, horrible truth: capitalism, consumerism and exploitation walk among us. They Live is a classic that will ever be a movie that’s More Relevant Now Than Ever. So, yeah, it holds up.
If that doesn’t appeal, here are two other reasons to watch it:
1. The memes.
2. The never-ending alley fight.
Watch it. Buy it. Buy the t-shirt. Buy the Ultra-4k Special Edition.
Consume.
never much cared for They Live. in the modern day, it all feels a bit too proto-qanon. the scene in the bank in particular is so reminiscent of a public shooting that it becomes uncomfortable. and i know Carpenter has said that wasn't the intent, and i believe he didn't mean it that way, but the whole thing comes across as unsettlingly antisemitic
StudentOfEtherium wrote: never much cared for They Live. in the modern day, it all feels a bit too proto-qanon. the scene in the bank in particular is so reminiscent of a public shooting that it becomes uncomfortable. and i know Carpenter has said that wasn't the intent, and i believe he didn't mean it that way, but the whole thing comes across as unsettlingly antisemitic
True. It’s hard to argue a movie where all the financiers, the powerful and the celebrities are part of an invasive force seeking to usurp and enslave every nation doesn’t sound like an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory on celluloid in the era of QAnon. But it doesn’t feel like that is the intention, and a few lines later in the film about Them treating us how we treat the Third World show the kind of satire Carpenter was going for.
Unfortunately, antisemitic conspiracy theories are so prevalent they can be read into almost any story about infiltrating aliens. For example, my favorite GW villains are Genestealers. But if I try to describe them…a human-looking invasive species with alien religious ideas that seeks to infiltrate society’s pillars of power and weaken them in the face of an incoming horde of aliens by seducing and impregnating the innocent, diluting the human race, and by starting unions… oof.
Furiosa was ok. Not as good as Fury Road but it was fine. The weakest part of the movie, for me, was Furiosa. I just didn't find her that engaging and she had almost no real character arc. She was a foolhardy hyper competent child and at the end of the film was a foolhardy hyper competent adult. I've liked ATJ in what I have seen but I didn't buy her as a younger version of the same character from Fury Road. She didn't have the same energy and just came across as someone trying to be badass instead of someone who was badass. The younger version did fine. I did roll my eyes when someone said she was the fifth horseman of the apocalypse. It did not remotely feel earned yet and even if they had stopped in one of the other MM films and had someone audibly refer to Max (or Furiosa in Fury Road) as "death, destroyer of wastelands" or something similar it would also have been groan worthy. Being a myth doesn't excuse bad writing or gak narrative elements. Speaking of the myth angle the other films felt like stories being told around a campfire while this is more like a priest reading from a Bible. Just a very different approach and attitude toward the material; it was less organic and more dogmatic. You're just supposed to accept out of the gate how super awesome this character is and not question it.
Now if you move away from Furiosa everything else is really interesting and engaging. The world building was great and the performances were good. The whole Praetorian Jack element felt a bit undercooked. Overall, not a bad movie, but just disappointing in a lot of places, which may be worse than being bad. It is going to be a very divisive film it seems. We'll have to wait ten years or so and see how it shakes out.
Had always been interested in this historical figure ever since she was a playable character in a Total War game. This movie made me regret that interest.
A magic bronze sword, prophecy that leads to nothing, obvious ghost children, horrible dialogue, a barrage of Jon Snow-esque “Muh Queen”, wooden acting and pretty gakky fight choreography all combine to make a truly terrible flick.
Its like if someone gave a copy of a Wish version of Braveheart to a group of kids, and then they performed a play on that version.
Spoiler:
History: Boudica died either from sickness or suicide after being defeated by a Roman force that her forces massively outnumbered.
Hollywood : Lets have her take a close range Scorpion bolt to the chest, immediately stand up from that, and roar her defiance to the surrounding Roman soldiers and get shanked by 15 dudes. Flash to her statue, roll credits. Epic! Certified gold!
I did learn that there is a pretty baller statue of her in London, so thats cool.
Not sure wtf I did to have my algorithm recommend this movie to me, but I sincerely apologize to whoever I wronged.
The one that’s here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and it’s all out of bubble gum.
Nada is a down on his luck construction worker who stumbles onto the horrible, horrible truth: capitalism, consumerism and exploitation walk among us. They Live is a classic that will ever be a movie that’s More Relevant Now Than Ever. So, yeah, it holds up.
If that doesn’t appeal, here are two other reasons to watch it:
1. The memes.
2. The never-ending alley fight.
Watch it. Buy it. Buy the t-shirt. Buy the Ultra-4k Special Edition.
Consume.
I love that film. Just a few days ago I thought about it, how it might be interpreted by people in weird ways. Then I got back to that thing where the extreme right now use narratives formerly used by just the left and of course people are confused.
One last comment on Furiosa, apparently it was originally planned as an anime. As a cartoon, I think it would have worked. As a film, I remain cheated.
I find it increasingly frustrating that the things made to point out the problems with the system, in this case Reaganomics (in John Carpenter’s own words), are being taken and used by bigots and conspiracy theorists. After StudentofEtherium’s post, I went to check out the comments on some They Live reviews, and yep. It’s all antisemitism, antivaxxer/QAnon, or some weird demon/lizardman gibberish.
The other day I read somewhere that WNs tried to claim Prisencolinensinaincusol of all things.
I just wanted to discuss a fun movie with a bit of a heavy handed anti-consumerist/anti-exploitation message.
Qanon is like The Thing, it absorbs and incorporates all other conspiracy theories into itself so it can wear their faces to lure in more gullible fools.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I find it increasingly frustrating that the things made to point out the problems with the system, in this case Reaganomics (in John Carpenter’s own words), are being taken and used by bigots and conspiracy theorists. After StudentofEtherium’s post, I went to check out the comments on some They Live reviews, and yep. It’s all antisemitism, antivaxxer/QAnon, or some weird demon/lizardman gibberish.
The other day I read somewhere that WNs tried to claim Prisencolinensinaincusol of all things.
I just wanted to discuss a fun movie with a bit of a heavy handed anti-consumerist/anti-exploitation message.
If I may be so bold?
Engage with those who might’ve read too much into it.
For instance, I see where SoE is coming from. Because They Live can be interpreted that way. But, if you read or watch interviews with those behind its making, it becomes apparent that wasn’t their message.
It doesn’t make SoE inherently wrong, especially because I’m sure we’ve all met clueless bigots online who’ll swear any given media is supporting their “ist” agenda. But, I will argue SoE is just mistaken in this particular instance. And dare I say that SoE might need to dial it back a wee bit and research the background. As in read up on the writer, director and producer’s aim.
Just because something could be interpreted one way, doesn’t define the thing.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I find it increasingly frustrating that the things made to point out the problems with the system, in this case Reaganomics (in John Carpenter’s own words), are being taken and used by bigots and conspiracy theorists. After StudentofEtherium’s post, I went to check out the comments on some They Live reviews, and yep. It’s all antisemitism, antivaxxer/QAnon, or some weird demon/lizardman gibberish.
The other day I read somewhere that WNs tried to claim Prisencolinensinaincusol of all things.
I just wanted to discuss a fun movie with a bit of a heavy handed anti-consumerist/anti-exploitation message.
If I may be so bold?
Engage with those who might’ve read too much into it.
For instance, I see where SoE is coming from. Because They Live can be interpreted that way. But, if you read or watch interviews with those behind its making, it becomes apparent that wasn’t their message.
It doesn’t make SoE inherently wrong, especially because I’m sure we’ve all met clueless bigots online who’ll swear any given media is supporting their “ist” agenda. But, I will argue SoE is just mistaken in this particular instance. And dare I say that SoE might need to dial it back a wee bit and research the background. As in read up on the writer, director and producer’s aim.
Just because something could be interpreted one way, doesn’t define the thing.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: and i know Carpenter has said that wasn't the intent, and i believe he didn't mean it that way,
speaking as a Jewish person, it's uncomfortable whether or not it was intended that way, but i don't hold it against Carpenter for the way culture has changed since the film came out
Anyway, are we looking forward to the remake of The Crow? The other night I caught the last third or so on TV. What a film. That remake has been in development hell and passed on between studios and directors for 15 years now or so. Probably not the best indicators.
Michael Jai White is a phenomenon. I never got into his work much, but he's been around for a long time now, and seems to be really good at what he does. Does he work as a lead? IIRC I only saw him as a baddie so far. edit: Wait, I must have confused him with somebody else. He was the dude who played Spawn!
He’s a so-so actor. Not terrible, but limited range.
On a scale where an Oscar Winner is a slap up steak dinner with all the trimmings, and Steven Seagal is an out of date service station egg and cress sandwich on gluten free bread?
Michael Jai White is a McDonalds. Nowhere near the best available option, but plenty reliable and you know it’s going to be tasty enough.
What’s important is that he has serious screen presence. Which given he’s a martial artist first, actor second is fine with me.
Funnily enough I rewatched Black Dynamite yesterday. Such a great film which perfectly recreates the feeling of a 70s blaxsploitation movie complete with production errors such as boom mics in view, flubbed lines and actors reading the stage directions, editing mistakes etc.
And seeing Nixon get his arse kicked in a Kung Fu fight in the White House is always great.
I’m sure I’ve seen it before, just don’t remember it very well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well it’s inevitable!
Black Dynamite
This film is fantastic. A solid spoof of Blaxploitation, without being farcical, and the cast play it pretty straight, relying on subtle overacting and a deliberately dodgy script rather than nod and wink to camera.
Not sure why it took me so long to see this flick, when it was much hyped at the time of release and got Dicaprio an Academy Award later that year.
Very solid flick, but incredibly graphic, dark & intense. There were parts where I started to feel cold because of what was happening on screen, and the opening battle/massacre was a wild sequence. Quite a few parts had me pretty damn happy to have been born in the late 20th Century. Its a film that will stick with me, but not something I’ll go out of my way to rewatch.
Tom Hardy’s performance was stellar, and I feel his performance truly elevated the movie, despite Leo having top billing. His character was so crazy and despicable I couldn’t look away when he was on screen, whereas Leo’s character was just a force of nature bent to survive and get his revenge. Solid supporting cast with Domhall Gleeson and Will Poulter as well.
This was the palette cleanser that I needed after Boudica: Queen of War.
Anyway, are we looking forward to the remake of The Crow?
For me? No, not really.
I saw the original way back whenever it was new. While I thought it was pretty good I've also just never had the urge to watch it again.
So I highly doubt I'll be seeing the remake. And if I ever do it certainly won't be in the theatre.
A well regarded movie, but possibly lesser remembered than it deserves.
Two randy young losers create a woman via not-quite-Internet-as-we-know-it, and hi-jinks ensue.
This is one of my favourite movies. The cast and script really come together as a perfect slice of nonsense. And because not-quite-Internet is central to said nonsense, a movie which has held up to the passage of time surprisingly well.
Even the TV series I remember as not being utterly awful, bucking the tend of early 90’s attempts to syndicate movies of a few years before.
Wasn’t sure what to expect with this one. Thought it was a horror movie about aliens because the cover art looked to be a spacesuit. Turns out its a bit more grounded.
A bloodied woman runs into her house, cleans up and grabs what she can and takes off on foot. Another woman, who seems to be some sort of hitman/fixer is contacted by her work and told to apprehend the woman on the run.
What follows is the mystery woman making brief connections along the way while reminiscing of the life she left and what led her to this situation. Meanwhile, the fixer is dealing with the shock of an ALS diagnosis and trying to come to terms with it during the mission.
Turns out :
Spoiler:
in a series of flashbacks, we see that the woman on the run is unkowingly a mostly immune/resistant carrier for a zombie virus, and she’s spreading it to everyone who is helping her. The fixer thought it was a more benign kind of virus so she’s caught unawares.
Not a whole lot of scares in the 1hour 15 minute runtime, but still pretty good horror/thriller/chase movie.
Didn't have much luck with the new-ish movie I was watching (The Creator, it had potential, but the screenwriter was much more interested in mashing the "America bad" button than writing something entertaining), so I thought I'd try some movies from yesteryear:-
Treasure Planet One of those weird, forgotten Disney movies. But apart from some poorly aged CG elements in the animation, it totally doesn't deserve to be barely remembered, even if it will always be the 2nd best Treasure Island adaptation.
The Shadow Always liked this one. The final confrontation is still, sadly, a bit lacklustre, but the rest of the movie holds up well. Shame they never did any sequels, but I don't know enough about the source material to know if it could handle becoming multiple films.
I am a sucker for the "You messed with the wrong guy" genre of films. This fits into that category comfortably. This time Ron Pearlman is the star as the aging but lethal Baker. Plus, as a former baker myself, it tickled me to see the profession held up on screen.
Solid entertainment.
Morbius
It's Morbin' time!
You know, I haven't seen a movie try so hard to set-up a sequel it didn't deserve since the Jem movie.
I actually felt bad for Jared Leto and Matt Smith, because they are not bad actors. However, this movie gave them NOTHING to work with. It felt like something an early teenager wrote on some dodgy internet site for spicy, homoerotic fan-fiction.
The Vampire effects do not hold up at all. The script needed three more re-works to be baked, and the direction as wooden. Key scenes that should have an impact feel unearned and wooden. The comedy moments just fall flat. I also can not shake the feeling that the blood-borne pathogen angle was somehow a metaphor for the Aids epidemic..... but maybe I am overthinking it due to the homo-eroticism of the whole thing.
The most exciting part is when Michael Keaton shows up as Adrian Toombs in a Vulture Cameo that is completely undeserved.
If we are really lucky, maybe someday Sony will make a Vulture, Morbius, Venom, Madam Web, and Kraven team-up movie sort of like the Avengers! Oh my, what a spectacle of garbage that would be!
Satanic horror movies are kind of stale and predictable in my opinion, but this movie was alright.
Starts off strong with Ralph Ineson and Charles Dance, then it switches to a young nun about to take her vows. Bill Nighy also co-stars. The young nun uncovers the schemes and mysteries that lead up to the original film. Probably a bit on the boring side where a great deal of nothing happens for some time, but I didn't hate it. Reminded me quite a bit of last years "The Immaculate" starring Sydney Sweeney.
Brings nothing new to the table, but might be worth a rent if you enjoy these types of movies.
It strikes me as a film which is telling a story that just doesn't need to be told?
I think having the exact details of how the events of The Omen came about as mostly unknown and only hinted to is quite essential to the atmosphere of the film.
It'd be like trying to explain the origins of the demon in The Exorcist, but thankfully they never made another Exorcist film about Regan specifically, or named that particular demon.
A Town Called Malus wrote: It strikes me as a film which is telling a story that just doesn't need to be told?
I think having the exact details of how the events of The Omen came about as mostly unknown and only hinted to is quite essential to the atmosphere of the film itself.
Yeah, the whole not knowing how Damian was created is a mystery that I didn't need revealed.
I feel like this movie was made because Studio A started filming on a "How to create a Satan Baby" movie (The Immaculate), and Studio B said "We need a 'How to create a Satan Baby' movie to compete" (The First Omen).
A Netflix season, new cast but geek royalty like Felicia Day and Patton Oswalt. First up was Mac and Me, and this is the only way I would ever watch that turd.
Now on Atlantic Rim, a mockbuster of Pacific Rim. It's bad.
On the other hand, Mac and Me did give us one of the best running jokes with Paul Rudd repeatedly getting Conan to roll a clip from it thinking that it was a preview of Rudd's latest project.
And then he even did it to Conan on Conan's own podcast.
Thank you!
