It was... fine? Love your family or everything is ruined forever is a bit heavy handed, but its a lesson, I guess.
There were a lot of Columbian culture notes to the film, but they were bizarrely and pretty much entirely irrelevant. I was basing gnoblars while watching it and had to keep looking up to remind myself that it wasn't just a bunch of Americans chatting, gossiping & having musical numbers in a local suburb.
So... watch it or not. But don't expect a lot. The best bit is when the film takes the time to dig into the heads of the protagonist's sisters. There was some depth and actual psychology in play there, but unfortunately it got cut short by the plot happening.
Spoiler:
I was highly amused that in the flashback, the actual first 'miracle' was Abuela Madrigal fireballing the gak out of the vague bandit/soldiers/whatever, and then trapping everyone in the valley by raising mountains in the pass. I mean, what the actual feth. Its easy to miss, but its an entirely different tone, even knowing at the beginning that her husband was murdered.
Also, I'm still not convinced that Mirabel doesn't have a Gift. She's clearly a timebender, as she stops time during her songs, and can simply watch the past as if she's there.
I hated it
Plot was boring, songs didn't catch my attention and after Hamilton (hands down the best show of 2020) I had a lot of expectations from Lin-Manuel Miranda. The movie's message was grim and IMHO completely wrong for a disney movie. But I agree about one thing, songs from the strong and the flower girls' point of view were the highlights of the movie.
Spoiler:
The Madrigal family reigns over the village with a system of favours and concessions, like mafia. Flower girl that has to marry a specific guy in order to make her family and the village "happy" was a perfect example of that. They keep the villagers "safe" but also completely dependant on their magic. Not only they can't leave the place but apparently they can't even survive without their magic as nothing works in that village without the help of the Madrigals.
I thought the ending could haven been refreshing but no, the family got their magic back and so the villagers will still depend on them with no chance of personal growth and emancipation.
That's fair.
Spoiler:
yeah, the mafia comparison is pretty apt. I wasn't looking at it like that simply because anything outside the horrid family dynamic seemed irrelevant. I disliked 'Abuela' from the beginning, even before anything unfolded, because that was a _lot_ of crap to dump on a child, and the rest of the family wasn't much better.
And some day I'd like a film to immediately recognize what a self-fulfilling prophecy is, and avoid the trope like the plague.
The weirdest thing about it is I've always understood 'Abuela' to be an affectionate version of 'Grandmother.' Not something you'd use on a matriarch, but the really doting kind of grandmother.
The film was indifferent enough about its cultural notes that I suspect a lot of the audience unfamiliar with the language (or related ones) thought it was her name.
Turnip Jedi wrote: Hot Fuzz is my favourite of the 3 despite Worlds End being the better movie, then again living in a place only a few notchs up from Sanford might have something to do with that and Welsh Bond can bring the baddy like few others
Aye, I think that plays a big role in enjoying that film. I appreciate the Hot Fuzz setting, I just found Shaun of the Dead to be more on point as a genre parody and World's End to be the most grown up of the three. (yes, the ending is too much). They're all fine, fine films though, that's without question.
By Pesci this was a muddled puddle of fup, clearly wanting to be high minded sci-fi but having its arm twisted to stick child friendly Star Wars robots in, didn't help that the humans clearly knew they'd signed to a stinker and didn't even try, along with a strange ending that was part of another cut, passable sfx for the time is about the only thumbs up. avoid
Rise of the Silver Surfer
Not as awful as I recall, I suspect Thor 2 helped in adjusting the bad supe movie scale and Hollywood Alba is rather distracting
I really enjoyed it and I thought it was a lot of fun but also pretty terrifying. I can see why a lot of people might hate it though, the director's style alone is pretty divisive and this movie is extremely political, it flat out mocks an entire category of people. There is a tiny attempt to mock also the other side but it's almost irrelevant compared to the director's intended target.
I like all previous works from Adam McKay, but this is my favorite so far.
I start this with this caveat: the macguffin of this series is fething stupid. Like, really really stupid. I can't fathom why they picked the one they did. Everyone knows there's water on the moon, but the characters in this show treat it as some profound impossibility come true. And that's just the start of how stupid the macguffin is. It gets dumber.
That said.
If you can overlook how dumb the chosen macguffin is, this series is pretty good. Another entry in the Korean scifi import genre, this is a survival thriller with characters who generally don't behave like complete morons. That in itself is a plus. The drama is good. The suspense is good. It suffers from the tried and true idiocy of evil overlord sends in team but tells them jack gak about what they're doing and thus sabotaging their own efforts, but the whole water thing is so fething stupid that plotting error is kind of easy to overlook this time.
Christmas movies are dropping off platforms faster than teen extras in a Jason movie. However, I did get to squeeze in one last one.....
Klaus A CGI animated movie about a postman, sent into exile on a remote island, where he meets a recluse toy-maker and a fishmonger teacher and they all learn to love again..... in short.
It was actually a pretty fun movie.
I also say the new Matrix, but I put all that stuff in the other thread for it.
It was a fun comedy with a hard R rating for a reason. Probably a lot more fun if you are familiar with the comedic actors of the 2000’s. My wife thought it was too disturbing, so afterwards we watched:
The Fighting Temptations.
She thought this movie was much better. I thought it was formulaic and cynical, especially since they run your face in it by making the main character a cynical advertiser who at one point spells out exactly how he will market his film, er booze. If Cuba Gooding Jr were any less charismatic an actor, the audience would hate the bastard character for not getting any real comeuppance. Also, the Beyoncé plays a no-name, shunned small town music act who never got a break, so you need science fiction levels of suspension of disbelief. Tons of recognizable faces and good music.
What We Do In The Shadows
We had to stop watching at the big party scene because it was getting close to midnight. My wife thought the movie was boring, so we didn’t finish it. I was really enjoying it. It’s a type of comedy closer to Spinal Tap or Best In Show than Borat or Airplane, so you either enjoy it or you don’t.
Shang-chi (buckle up, gonna be a moderately long one)
Act 1 (40 minutes'ish). I'm really enjoying this. The action scenes are good quality. The plot chuggs along at a satisfying pace. We don't have to suffer the hero having a "how can I be the chosen one" moment. Even the side kick is satisfyingly rounded as a character. The comedy is a bit 50/50 and I think the film would have been better if it had taken more of a different directorial direction than traditional MCU, but we can't have everything. Very good so far.
Act 2 (about an hour long and my word we'd have all appreciated it being substantially less). What the hell just happened? Did the first script writer call it quits and they had to bring a new team in? The change in pace will give you whiplash. We go from an entertaining adventure where we are gradually being introduced to our heroes and the mythology through the action of the story and instead we get an info dump as over the next half an hour we get three boring monologues.
And to make up for it we get two action sequences. We get a half baked car chase scene that is thoroughly uninteresting and we finish the act with the director recreating (god alone knows why!) one the the worse scenes in Black Panther, by having two set of expendables in pyjamas having an uncoreographed brawl on a set that looks like the designer crawled out of bed late with a hangover and this is the best they could achieve at the last minute.
And what the hell is Ben Kingsley doing? Because it certainly isn't acting. I've seen this guy act, he's great. Whatever the hell this is, it is not acting.
And the guy who plays TazerFace... sorry, RazerFist... either needs acting lessons or I hope we don't see him again. Guy was an imposing figure and a terrible actor.
Act 3 (last 30 minutes). Big boss fight, heroes get closure, tid-bits to keep us interested in future films. A satisfying if unspectacular conclusion, which is still much better than many superhero movies can muster.
Without having read any reviews, I had heard people say this was not a good movie and (for the first act at least) I had to question what were they on about. Now I know. If the movie had kept up the pace and tone of the first act I'd have loved this movie, but the sudden change into the second act is terrible. I don't know how they managed to screw up something that bad which had started that good.
I watched the sequel to Airplane!, called Airplane 2: The Sequel.
At first I didn't even notice. The film's got large swathes of the same actors as well as the same story, but in space. They do make fun of that fact of course. It was alright. Later on William Shatner shows up and gets a ton of very funny lines.
It's a rather Take It Or Leave It sort of film, but alright.
Now on to the second season of Occupied (Norwegian tv show, co-production between Norway, Sweden, France and so on): Not as good as the first one. It's good, you still got the political intrigue, people trying to do their jobs to best of their ability, but tons of disruptive factors keep on making life hard for everybody. The dynamic between the Norwegian government, the Russian embassador (always a delight) and several people through whose eyes we see the results of those decisions still works nicely.
Spoiler:
The thing is that first, there's a 'bad guy' over several episodes now. Well, there are several, but the one that stands out like a sore thumb is Minnikov. He's an ominous figure right from the start, and towards the end of his stint he turns very, very, very 'evil' indeed (chewing scenery, being creepy around the little girl and so on). That's a bit too much, and the show doesn't need that sort of character. So far, one of the strengths of the show was the moral ambiguity every character had to deal with due to the circumstances.
Seond, I did NOT care for the "Djupvik's and Hilde's daughter gets kidnapped". Just as with Minnikov, nobody needs that sort of stuff in Occupied. That whole personal, family-in-danger-get-revenge crap. That's the low bar. As soon as personal stuff or family gets involved, we know that the writers couldn't think of any proper reasons for people to do something. What I liked about this is that Djupvik had to go to the Russians for help. That was very much a Sopranos moment.
I do like the social media/peaceful protest/activism thing. Sure, it's not done masterfully, and they had to take care not to use actual social media or youtube or stuff like that, which always hurts those sort of stories on film. Oooh, hey, that's something the EU could write into the Digital Services Act: Gatekeepers' websites and so on can be used in works of fiction as seen fit. If they wanna be monopolists and build their proprietary markets and are part of so many people's every day life they should be depicted rather than artists having to ask permission to depict what billions see every single day. Anyway, I digress. I like that little story. And it shows the free-App designer to be a total muppet, which fits my tiny little world view.
But either way, I like it. And it's good fun to watch if you're willing to cut the show and its little budget some slack. For one, I really enjoy the decision of not showing court scenes. Things get to court, cut, we get the press interviewing people about the results of the court meeting.
Jesper Berg is still entertaining, but he's become a bit of a joke now. From the central power figure with a vision for a better future to resistance leader from his exile to Carmen Sandiego and kind of a dick. Showing up in Paris at his ex-wife's apartment, staying forever, tricking her new boyfriend into working for him and making things uncomfortable on the whole. But oh well. He's in a bit of a crap situation, and he does what ever he can to survive, I guess.
But still, good fun. Not as good as the first season (not the least due to the secret service boss being gone, who was a cool character).
Flinty wrote:Fury is awesome right up to the final set piece. Then it gets sufficiently stupid to drop me out of the suspension.
As has been pointed out, there are similarities to real events that took place.
I think the most common criticism I have read from historians on that final scene is how the event is portrayed, how the soldiers behave, rather than a single tank being able to hold off a vastly numerically superior force which is documented. But you are being asked to believe that elite units of SS, that have survived the war up until this point (including no doubt fighting on the meatgrinder of the Eastern front) would carry out a Zerg rush on a tank and just get mown down in droves. It comes off as Hollywood even to the layman, so rivet counters must have been doing mid-air 360s about it.
It's a shame because I don't think the film needed it, and I don't think it tonally matched the rest of the film (of the Tank commander who had taken his crew through hell and high water and managed to keep them alive). In the same way really that Tom Hanks saluting the Stars and Stripes at the end of Saving Private Ryan felt tonally false (as a non-American) at the end of that film. Hold on a second, you've taken over two hours showing us the horrors of war, including that scene on the beaches, you're now switching it around to say it was all worth it?
LordofHats wrote:There's something to be said that war is no more immune to the sunk cost fallacy than any other venture.
There are numerous examples of forces committing to a questionable objective far past the point it made any sense to pursue it. In a very short engagement like we see in the movie (it's a couple minutes) it's very easy to think an objective is easily surmountable only for that to become untrue and for anyone in charge to be very slow to realize they're losing more than there is to gain.
Really, the most questionable part of the movie IMO is the encounter with the Tiger. Dramatically its fan-fething-tastic! Logically, it's not clear why the Tiger left a hulled-down position to confront the Shermans except that it was more cinematic. Especially in the late war, this was basically what tank crews were being trained to do because they could barely operate their vehicles. Tanks were increasingly used as armored movable bunkers.
Yes I agree. From what I have read, most of the success of the Tiger came from the excellent sighting/ranging optics in the tank, the power and killing distance of its 88 gun, and the experience of the Tiger commanders. The tank would have been positioned perfectly, hidden, in a position some distance away and knocked out the Shermans without placing itself in danger. That was how some of the Tiger commanders were able to tally such high numbers, the moment they got into a close-range brawl their advantage would be reduced.
An exception to this was Michael Wittman, who made use of a well timed ambush (British armoured division that was not deployed for action) and drove in amongst them, destroying them at close range, while the British tank crews were hurriedly trying to get back in their vehicles or diving for cover.
Airplane!2: The Sequel is worth it just for the Macho Grande scene. The Shatner scenes are also gold. I don’t really remember much else, except Sunny Bono playing a terrorist.
Pacific wrote: But you are being asked to believe that elite units of SS, that have survived the war up until this point (including no doubt fighting on the meatgrinder of the Eastern front) would carry out a Zerg rush on a tank and just get mown down in droves. It comes off as Hollywood even to the layman, so rivet counters must have been doing mid-air 360s about it.
To be fair, by the end of the war 'elite' and 'SS' really only went together in propaganda. The SS had been bleed out along with the rest of the German military machine. Recruits were often given barely the minimum of training (if that) and were about as well equipped as the rest their regular army fellows (not well). While the movie plays up the SS as fanatics who are really deadly soldiers, and this was an attitude among the allies at the time, the reality is that zerg rushing is something the SS totally did because 'charge in the direction I'm pointing' is one of the few tactics you can employ with men who have no idea what they're doing and commanders who are more energy than ability.
Given that Fury takes place very late in the war, every scenario it presents (while highly dramatized) is at least loosely plausible or very similar to something that actually happened somewhere. The big stand out is the fight with the Tiger but I guess they weren't going to get a real Tiger for the movie and then not make it as cool to watch as possible.
In the same way really that Tom Hanks saluting the Stars and Stripes at the end of Saving Private Ryan felt tonally false (as a non-American) at the end of that film. Hold on a second, you've taken over two hours showing us the horrors of war, including that scene on the beaches, you're now switching it around to say it was all worth it?
Well sir that sounds like something someone who doesn't love 'Murica would say!
More seriously, I know the feeling. Watching Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers for that matter is a somewhat different experience now than it was when they were new. Band of Brothers less so because it toned down on glorifying the events and focused more on the men, but especially in the post War on Terror world a lot of 'Murica feth yeah' things stand out like sore thumbs for me in ways they didn't before. Cynicism about war and the nation are higher than they were when these things were made and some of their moments that seemed meant to indulge in a universal sense of national pride and achievement can now appear like unearned indulgence or wistfully remembering the right things in the wrong ways. I had the same problem with the recent Midway remake, which felt far too self-indulgent in what events it was portraying with little real consideration for what those events represented. Such films present the horrors of war like hypocritical moments meant to remind the audience 'war is bad' before 'but check out how fething awesome this dude with this gun is!'
In a way, films like Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, and The Thin Red Line feel more authentic despite being less popular with audiences in comparison at the times of their release.
Band of Brothers is excellent, because the early episodes are very much high action superheroes into the fight, and the later episodes are all about the looting, officers looking in the other direction, incompetence and major combat fatigue.
The series decidedly does not glorify the horror of war. I mean even the first episode showing combat, also has a bit of prisoner murder going on.
Regarding the final Fury scene, from memory the tank was on its own, reasonably in the open with plenty of opportunities for a light infantry unit just to bypass it. Even a light mortar with smoke rounds could have enabled an easier approach, and the engagement takes so long it goes from day to night.
Single small units were definitely responsible on all sides for holding up much larger forces, but to me that last engagement doesn't seem to capture enough reasonable conditions fro the SS guys to keep charging straight at the. immobilized tank.
However, thankfully I am totally an armchair general, and long may that continue!
The wisdom of returning to a long dormant and beloved franchise will almost always be greeted with an amount of trepidation and cynicism by its fans. By doing so, filmmakers invite a degree of pressure that would be absent from a new creation with a much higher bar to clear.
Thankfully, Afterlife makes a decent college try of doing so. Most of the key elements can be gleaned from the trailer, but briefly, the late Egon's estranged daughter and two children relocate to a remote farmhouse, the only real asset left to them in his will. It soon becomes clear that Egon was working on something that may have implications for the safety of the world, and it falls to his grandchildren (but mainly Phobe, his mini me granddaughter) to pick up the torch.
There's no question the film leans heavily into its legacy to evoke nostalgia, but by and large it does so repsectfully and doesn't ever feel too cynical. The Ecto-1 gets its Millennium Falcon moment, and the first time that unmistakable "waaa-waaa" siren sounds it feels earned (a bit like the moment Craig gets the classic theme in his Bond movies for the first time.)
Given we don't live in alternate universe, it's difficult to say how well the film would stand up without the weight of history behind it, I suspect not all that well. There's other issues too, the first act drags its feet a little which then seems to squeeze the second and third acts for time making them in turn feel a little rushed. If there's ever a director's cut released I suspect we'll see more added there. A certain popular actor feels criminally underused and totally superfluous, which again lends itself to the idea that there's more to see than is present here.
It's difficult to talk about the movie without discussing certain things, I will spoiler those things here, click the tab at your own risk.
Spoiler:
By the time the old guard show up, I was feeling convinced that the Akroyd cameo was all there was, so the swing from impending bitter disappointment to a combination of relief and delight was a potent one. That, along with the ghost of Egon/Harold punching me right in the feels makes it hard to view the climax critically, it's pure fan service, but for me it felt right. Also, Harold's ghost looks totally convincing, and the decision not to ruin it by attempting to have him speak deserves special praise. I'm sure the spirit SFX helped, but it's the best realisation of a departed actor I've seen anywhere. Not gonna lie, it got a bit emotional for a minute.
Overall then, a bit of a mixed bag, but there's enough here to be entertained while your nostalgia (assuming you have any) is tickled, and the legacy of the old movies remains intact.
Has anyone actually seen GI Joe Origins Snake Eyes?
Only it’s on Amazon Prime to rent for a mere £1.99, and I’m thinking of rotting a few brain cells whilst I wait for my stew to slow cook (Oxtail, with veggies in a beef and Guinness gravy, in case you’re wondering)
By Pesci this was a muddled puddle of fup, clearly wanting to be high minded sci-fi but having its arm twisted to stick child friendly Star Wars robots in, didn't help that the humans clearly knew they'd signed to a stinker and didn't even try, along with a strange ending that was part of another cut, passable sfx for the time is about the only thumbs up. avoid
The ship design was cool. Between the whole 'Glass Cathedral in Space' and 'Undead Cyborg Crew' I wonder if it wasn't a strong influence on BFG and 40k.
Shazam!
Ain't it always the way? You wait forever for a Captain Marvel movie and two of them come at once!
So I saw the Carol Danvers Capt Marvel film in theaters but missed the Billy Batson one till a flight this week and y'know, it was mostly good. The kid who plays Billy is properly charismatic, and the guy who plays Captain Marvel (whose name may never be spoken!) is just having a great time. I like how it embraces the 1930s trope of Billy being an orphan and updates for the modern era. His foster family/group home is the best part of the film. It has some dark turns which makes it less suitable for my kids, but the ending should make anyone smile.
Spoiler:
Billy shares his power with his five foster brothers and sisters and becomes a whole Marvel family.
Definitely felt like it should have gotten more attention than it did.
I thought this was a delightful film. They had a clear objective and went with it. Plus it's got Djimon Honsou in it, and that's enough for me. There's a sequel in the works for next year.
I still hold up Shazam as the only truly good DC film. The rest are at best, passable or memorable only for being bad. Shazam was the only one with real chops.
Yep. It’s the film that everyone forgets exists. And….I can see why.
For a toy line tie in kid/tween action film, it takes ages to stop fannying around and get on with the actual plot and the requisite fisticuffs. Which lets face it is what we’re all really here for.
Some of the action scenes are quite fun, and whilst I need to remember I’ve seen such shenanigans before, it’s target audience may not have.
But ropey as they were? It’s just not a patch on the two original live action ones. And that’s honestly not something I ever thought I’d type.
And somehow? The three giant snakes, done in CGI, look far worse than the Harry Potter Basilisk. I’m not entirely sure I understand how that works.
But, as I said. This film isn’t meant to be high art. It’s for kids/tweens who probably shouldn’t be watching actual martial arts films quite yet. There’s some hefty exposition “Joes? Wot are Joes” and “Cobra, wot are Cobra”. Given I’ve just sort of always known, or at least can’t remember not knowing the answers to those questions, I can’t say whether it was entirely necessary.
The action scenes are competent enough I suppose. Usual samurai ninja chop-sockey. And of course people do get injured, but no blood.
Ooooh! A proper proper swear! The f word no less. Quietly said but it’s in there. And without revealing full context, it is indeed suitably contextual.
Now, I rented this for £2.99 (£1 more than I thought) and I can’t say I really regret it. It definitely starts to redeem itself in the third act. But my word it took its sweet time getting to it.
If you’ve sprogs from say, 9-13, they’d probably love it. And if you’re a supervising parent, there is probably enough here to stop your eyes rolling into the back of your head.
I'm not sure how I waited this long to watch the movie. But I really enjoyed it. Hard for me to believe the sequels can live up to this one though, the entire story was very personal to the characters and I'm not sure how you can keep that moving forward in a franchise.
But yeah, solid story about loving yourself, confronting past mistakes, and self-fulfilling prophecies.
After watching Matrix 4, I went back and watched all three of the other Matrix films.
I know Reloaded and Revolutions get a lot of flak, but I think as a trilogy they hold together fine. The music, action, and psuedo-philosophy are all fine by me. Sure, there are a couple scenes and production choices that are "meh", but overall all three together deliver.
I put it up there with most of the big geek trilogy/film series and would feel like it can hold its own up against any of them.
Had a chance to watch, so decided to. It was... alright, I guess?
I don't totally feel like I wasted my evening, but I do a little.
The characters needed more depth (rather than the paint by numbers backstories), and the shock value of the blood and violence of whatever didn't last very long (and just sort of wandered off, as by the end of the film the expendable hordes are just getting knocked down).
The weirdest bit is probably the random office lady who swung the golf club. She wasn't even one of the main minions, why was she the one to object?
Part of the problem is I don't think the premise is repeatable. Someone being willing to kill off theoretical supers (even non-'meta' ones) is shocking the first time. But so many super hero movies do kill off characters now that it isn't shocking anymore, and that's really the only thing going for the film.
The last two episodes of Neon Genesis Evangelion reached the IMDB top 250 in the form of the feature movie The End of Evangelion, and I wanted to give it a shot, without knowing anything about that anime.
I thought that watching the "re-cap" (Death & Rebirth) was enough, but I was wrong. It's really impossible to understand anything by watching it if you haven't already seen the regular episodes. If you're interested in that anime just watch the regular episodes and then The End of Evangelion. Which is what I'm going to do now.
Death & Rebirth is completely useless and a waste of time. Vote 2/10. Not 1/10 just because the anime looks extremely interesting and got my attention even if I could understand very little out of that mess.
I quite enjoyed it. It’s definitely better than the first, but let’s be honest that’s hardly an endorsement in and of itself.
The important thing for me is that it remembered to be fun. No sad edge lord Joker. Just a bunch of maladjusted reprobates having a bit of a laugh at all the danger around them.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I quite enjoyed it. It’s definitely better than the first, but let’s be honest that’s hardly an endorsement in and of itself.
The important thing for me is that it remembered to be fun. No sad edge lord Joker. Just a bunch of maladjusted reprobates having a bit of a laugh at all the danger around them.
I'm not actually sure it was better than the first. Certainly disagree with the 'having a bit of a laugh' part (except Harlie, because that's her only character trait), because there was a lot of horror underlying everything, and mostly the characters _weren't_ having fun. (or for the real cast, the sense they were ever in danger). It honestly felt too 'try hard,' where being edgy and 'inappropriate' was the only thing.
@Kung Fu Panda: Watched that one loads of years ago (still loads after the release) and impressed with the look of the fight scenes.
Easy E wrote: After watching Matrix 4, I went back and watched all three of the other Matrix films.
I know Reloaded and Revolutions get a lot of flak, but I think as a trilogy they hold together fine. The music, action, and psuedo-philosophy are all fine by me. Sure, there are a couple scenes and production choices that are "meh", but overall all three together deliver.
I put it up there with most of the big geek trilogy/film series and would feel like it can hold its own up against any of them.
I'm too lazy to put up with 2 and 3 to be honest. I watched the second one at the cinema, and didn't really bother with 3. The Matrix is a great film, and was exactly the right film at the right time. And there are soooooo many themes to explore with these films, but somehow I don't think they did.
Just rewatched Porco Rosso. Great film, watch it. Watched most of Ghostbusters 2. Yeah, well. I don't know. It's alright-ish, innit? I'm not wild about Ghostbusters, but what I really, really appreciate about it is the look of the ghosts. These are great effects.
Home for the Holidays (1995)
Lady (got a cold, just got fired, played by Holly Hunter) goes home to the town where she grew up to spend Thanksgiving with her familiy. Loads of good actors (the cast is really impressive) play roles in that family, among them 1990s Robert Downey Jr., being very much 90s Robert Downey Jr.
It's a neat film. Characters, ensemble cast, comedy, drama, kinda genuine, all these things keep happening.
Spoiler:
I could have done without the romantic angle between Holly Hunter and that guy who's in a lot of films.
I'll Watch It when it's on TV; because it's a nice, pleasurable film to watch.
The new one. the 2021 version, by Denis Villeneuve (sp?).
My short review is, when the feth is part 2 coming out?!? Ironically, this movie covers events about as far into the books as I've read (I had/have it on Kindle. . . but hate reading via that medium so. . . yea, never finished it) so that was pretty cool, even if a bit unintentional.
The longer review, obviously, I love it. Now, you can definitely tell it was made by Denis Villeneuve, in terms of feeling like "I've seen this before". For me this was no bad thing, as I personally am of the opinion that Dune was done right, and Denis' way/method of film making, the shots he uses are no bad thing. It doesn't feel like you're mixing multiple movies together at all. It feels distinctly Dune, but it feels familiar, like you've had it for a while.
The sound and soundtrack was, spot on. Now, I'm not sure if the soundtrack works on its own. Like, I dont know if it will make it onto the "GW approved iPod" playlist with the LOTR and Gladiator soundtracks. But for me, the sound work fit the film, and set the mood without going over the top, or feeling like it was the wrong choice for the scene.
My only "critique" was Baron Harkonnen. I'm sure most of yall have read the book, and he's supposed to be like, Jabba the Hutt huge, and even in this version he isn't. I guess it really, truly is that difficult to make a fat suit big enough for his literary description. That said, I cannot fault the actor at all, he played the role quite well.
Actually not terrible. It's kind of like the Hangover but with a ghost and lower budget. The actors are surprisingly okay in their rolls, the back and the plot, while not laugh out loud funny, is amusing. The movie is kind of overburdened with too many characters but I get the sense this was a project by a group of friends. They didn't do too bad.
I actually really liked it. I liked how it was the 70s but also the future and also IN SPACE. I liked the actors.
I thought the finale was a bit much with everyone dealing with multiple bullet wounds by walking them off. I appreciate that in THE FUTURE multiple bullet wounds might be an outpatient procedure but they need to at least get some medical care. Even if they were just slapping on med-patches or giving themselves nano-healing-potion-stuff shots throughout I could accept that handwave. I see this much too much in action films these days (John Wick I assume just has a mutant healing factor) and it's getting annoying.
Other than that I don't see the reason for the bile directed at it. Was it just because Faye Valentine wore pants? Deserved a second season at least.
Feel free to dismiss this post, because it's just about TV and not proper film.
I just was at my sister's for some movie watching thing. We ended up watching two episodes of Emergency Room, season 1. Dang, that was a good show, at least for the first four or so seasons. I always tied the end of my interest in the show to Sherry Springfield leaving. And it holds up. I mean there's some wackiness, but it's good TV.
Sigur wrote: Feel free to dismiss this post, because it's just about TV and not proper film.
I just was at my sister's for some movie watching thing. We ended up watching two episodes of Emergency Room, season 1. Dang, that was a good show, at least for the first four or so seasons. I always tied the end of my interest in the show to Sherry Springfield leaving. And it holds up. I mean there's some wackiness, but it's good TV.
The thing that always strikes me is how real the hospital feels. And a big part of that is how many random extras there are everywhere, holding a bleeding arm or something, even if they never have a word of dialogue. It makes a huge difference to how alive it feels.
Maybe 7-8 people with significant dialogue, but dozens and dozens of people on set.
Even pre Covid, I started noticing fewer and fewer extras in hospital shows and a much less grubby, lived-in feel, nothing close to the slushy-pavement-walked-into-the-lobby feeling of the ER set.
I actually really liked it. I liked how it was the 70s but also the future and also IN SPACE. I liked the actors.
I thought the finale was a bit much with everyone dealing with multiple bullet wounds by walking them off. I appreciate that in THE FUTURE multiple bullet wounds might be an outpatient procedure but they need to at least get some medical care. Even if they were just slapping on med-patches or giving themselves nano-healing-potion-stuff shots throughout I could accept that handwave. I see this much too much in action films these days (John Wick I assume just has a mutant healing factor) and it's getting annoying.
Other than that I don't see the reason for the bile directed at it. Was it just because Faye Valentine wore pants? Deserved a second season at least.
I liked the first 2/3rds of it pretty well. It had some hard misses at times, but for the most part it was fine. The deeper it got into Spike's backstory the less invested I was and the flashback episode (9) broke me completely. But to be honest, I felt the exact same way about the original anime, though at least there I didn't have to suffer through as many scenes with Vicious and Julia.
But it also didn't feel as fun and entertaining as the original- some parts were just the painful parts of mundane banality
The thing that always strikes me is how real the hospital feels. And a big part of that is how many random extras there are everywhere, holding a bleeding arm or something, even if they never have a word of dialogue. It makes a huge difference to how alive it feels.
Agreed. . . I mean, I haven't watched /that/ hospital show, but the success of a given show depends greatly on its environment being right. Its partially why another hospital show, Scrubs, was so successful. Even my sister in-law, who is a nurse multiple times over (she has a nurse practitioner degree, as well as the masters and bachelors before that) absolutely LOVES scrubs, and will point out just how much they got right in that show.
I so wanted to love this film. Am a massive Bill Paxton fan, and he directed and starred in this psychological/supernatural thriller.
Excellent performances by him, Matthew McConaughey, Powers Booth - even the kids acting in it are brilliant.
I thought the film was great until the last 10 minutes, when it lent way to heavily on the supernatural element and didn't really leave any space for ambiguity.
I guess part of the problem is me - I will accept aliens, ghosts, vampires, whatever. But the moment the Christian/Evangelical idea of God comes into it I immediately switch off. I found the same thing with Book of Eli, liked the film until you found
Spoiler:
at the end that Denzil Washington had actually been blind the whole way through the film and God was guiding his bullets.
I can imagine it was probably very popular in the American heartlands and a different audience to myself.
I so wanted to love this film. Am a massive Bill Paxton fan, and he directed and starred in this psychological/supernatural thriller.
Excellent performances by him, Matthew McConaughey, Powers Booth - even the kids acting in it are brilliant.
I thought the film was great until the last 10 minutes, when it lent way to heavily on the supernatural element and didn't really leave any space for ambiguity.
I guess part of the problem is me - I will accept aliens, ghosts, vampires, whatever. But the moment the Christian/Evangelical idea of God comes into it I immediately switch off. I found the same thing with Book of Eli, liked the film until you found
Spoiler:
at the end that Denzil Washington had actually been blind the whole way through the film and God was guiding his bullets.
I can imagine it was probably very popular in the American heartlands and a different audience to myself.
I watched that one in cinemas and really enjoyed it.
I have no problem with christian themes and supernatural stuff. At least it's not the usual fantasy crap we're all overfed with anyway. And it builds up on well-known traditions and background knowledge we all have so it feeld more immediate than some stuff that's been made up for that film specifically, which always seems like an unnecessary crutch. Didn't know it was directed by Bill Paxton though. Neat.
Must have missed that bit about Book of Eli. I thought that the important thing we was carrying was a bible. and I'm all well with that. Not the worst thing to consider an important thing. Unless you insist that it's been written by god or is to be taken literally. That's about on the level of considering Space Marines the good guys in 40k.
Somehow I've never gotten around to watching this before. Over all it's a fairly run of the mill kids movie with a good number of adult jokes hidden in the text. I was relieved that the end didn't finish with the cliché "hero backslides on their character development in the last twenty minutes to create false suspense" and instead had a conclusion that showed consistent character development to the end.
Well done and all wrapped in a nice package with, for me, two stand out moments.
1) "Luigi only follows Ferrari!"
As an F1 fan, the moment an Italian turned up I hoped he was Tifosi and I wasn't disappointed. I'm going to be quoting this for days.
2) Tractor tipping. I lost it at this point. Whoever conceived of this is a genius. I lost the plot and was howling with laughter. Just as I collect myself the camera pans to the underside of a tractor to see four nuts and bolts dangling under the bovine stand-in and I lose it all over again.
When I read that Meat Loaf had died I instantly had to listen to some fine, fine music and happened across this documentary (available on youtube). It follows Meat Loaf on his 2007 tour, and I think that it does a really good job at conveying the sort of passion the guy had for his work. Or rather the possession to 'get it right'. Not for a second he's satisfied with a gig, he takes the smallest niggles by critics personal and works on correcting it. Either due to a frail personality, or due to the fact that he lost it all before and remembers that his status may be as fleeting as back in the late 1980s or just to 'show them'. Not that all his ideas were great, but I just enjoy the fantastic element of him insisting in playing out the teenage love drama of Paradise By The Dashboard Light on stage with a tiny actress in her 20s. It's not a good idea, it looks odd at best, but the mindset in which this sounds like the only right thing to do is just enviable. To have a vision for a thing so clearly and the conviction that this has to be done this way AND to be in the position in which it actually is put on stage like that... that's an impressive mix.
The guy was an artist, very concerned with minute little details about the stage show, and very much willing to suffer for his work. Maybe because he didn't know it any other way. There probably was as much theatrics to his own person as to the characters he played in the songs (they talk about that in the documentary too. Very interesting.). Watch It. I mean the guy rocked. He was the most unlikely of rock stars, which made him one of the greatest.
Must have missed that bit about Book of Eli. I thought that the important thing we was carrying was a bible. and I'm all well with that. Not the worst thing to consider an important thing. Unless you insist that it's been written by god or is to be taken literally. That's about on the level of considering Space Marines the good guys in 40k.
Yeah. . . he was more "daredevil" than he was "guided by god" (ie, his "heightened" senses guided him, not some supernatural bs). . . And Even as anti-religion / anti-christianity as I am, I rather enjoyed Book of Eli. Throughout the movie he's carrying a "most important" book. They make mention that its been used to bring hope, and its been used to oppress, so it was important to get it into the "right" hands.
I so wanted to love this film. Am a massive Bill Paxton fan, and he directed and starred in this psychological/supernatural thriller.
Excellent performances by him, Matthew McConaughey, Powers Booth - even the kids acting in it are brilliant.
I thought the film was great until the last 10 minutes, when it lent way to heavily on the supernatural element and didn't really leave any space for ambiguity.
I guess part of the problem is me - I will accept aliens, ghosts, vampires, whatever. But the moment the Christian/Evangelical idea of God comes into it I immediately switch off. I found the same thing with Book of Eli, liked the film until you found
Spoiler:
at the end that Denzil Washington had actually been blind the whole way through the film and God was guiding his bullets.
I can imagine it was probably very popular in the American heartlands and a different audience to myself.
I watched that one in cinemas and really enjoyed it.
I have no problem with christian themes and supernatural stuff. At least it's not the usual fantasy crap we're all overfed with anyway. And it builds up on well-known traditions and background knowledge we all have so it feeld more immediate than some stuff that's been made up for that film specifically, which always seems like an unnecessary crutch.
Didn't know it was directed by Bill Paxton though. Neat.
I did have a think about my post on this and think I missed the mark a bit, upon reflection.
My problem isn't that it has Christian supernatural themes. I'm fine with that actually, watched the Exorcist, The Omen, other horror films etc. In the latter case, even though its aged a bit I really enjoyed those films. But in those cases there was a clear understanding of what the film was going to be and it felt a natural fit. With Frailty, it swerved away from someone having what seemed like a nervous breakdown and what was a murder/thriller, into a last moment shoe-horn of a religious explanation for what had been happening. So I kind of felt like I was tricked
That was I think the problem I had with it, rather than it being the Christian themes themselves.
@Ensis Ferrae: Aye, that sounds a bit much. I'm okay with the bible being the book, but the fact that the blind dude without help did all that stuff was a bit much. Wasn't the blindness also a bit of a twist thing as well?
@Pacific: Yeah, I get what you're saying. IIRC the film was bascially about a religious nutjob and his sons. The reveal in the end lessened the intrigue and steered everything straight into a "a wizard did it" direction.
Haven't seen anything since yesterday I think. Well, I watched "Abenteuer im Schloss" (Adventures in the Castle) with half an eye. Austrian music/revue film from 1952 with minimal story, and lots of competently done dancing, music and costumes. Basically what was available in Austria at the time. But that's it. Very unremarkable.
Sigur wrote: @Ensis Ferrae: Aye, that sounds a bit much. I'm okay with the bible being the book, but the fact that the blind dude without help did all that stuff was a bit much. Wasn't the blindness also a bit of a twist thing as well?
It may be a tad much, but its kind of how I remember it?? Like, opening fight scene they kind of act it out like he has sensitive hearing and thus heard baddies surrounding him, a la Daredevil (though they dont make Eli as extreme as ol' Matt Murdock) Also, it has been a bit since I seen the movie, so maybe the blindness was a plot twist in its own right, i dont remember.
Since others are mentioning horror genre stuff, the missus and I have been semi-slowly watching Archive 81 on the Netflix. Its a pretty good psychological horror type thing where they really mess with your senses in pretty much every episode. And, it seems like just when youve figured out the "rules" of the game in the show, they go and flip them, messing with you further.
I failed to follow my own advice and not watch films with big actors in that I haven't heard of; in this case Ben Kingsley, Henry Cavill, Stanley Tucci.
The film was entertaining, for entirely the wrong reasons. Quite large plot holes, suspension of disbelief trampled. The worst of these is the police's apprehension of a mentally disabled individual (he was running around in his underpants dancing at the point of arrest) and could barely string a sentence together - think almost Opie from Family Guy if you know that show - yet they are convinced he is some criminal mastermind, despite car bombs and elaborate traps going off whilst he is incarcerated.
It had some nice ideas and some beautifully shot scenes, but the whole thing just felt badly put together. Cavill was wooden as hell, with the few scenes attempting to introduce some emotion feeling forced. Ben Kingsley wasted, the female lead (Alexandra Daddario) just there for close-ups of her, admittedly beautiful, blue eyes.
It's rated 5.9 on IMDB, I would probably drop it a point or two lower.
PS - also has a very brief, explosive appearance (almost cameo role - he isn't even listed on the cast on Rotten Tomatoes) of Firefly's Nathan Fillion.
Made-for-TV German/Austrian co-production about the Wannsee conference held in 1942 by German SS, SD, state secretaries, legislature, army, etc. delegates in which Heydrich presented Himmler's plans for the murder of all Jewish people in Europe.
The meeting protocol was found after the war, which (despite Heydrich and pals went over it before sending it out to all the other participants) pretty meticulously gives us an insight about what was talked about at this important meeting. Looking at the language used we get an even more ghoulish and creepy impression of the whole affair, as what we witness is pretty much the top of a bureaucracy putting efficiency first under an inhuman regime.
...and of course it's pretty easy to put into film. And possibly pretty hard as well. You need very precise and nuanced acting, and the same goes for the camera and whole staging. I watched the 1984 version (then also made for German TV) several times. Honestly, I have no idea why you would have to remake the film at all, because that worked really well. [Yes, somebody else did a version in 2001 as well (starring Kenneth Brannagh and others), I think I saw it, it didn't really stick.]
Anyway, with the 1984 version in my head I went into this new 2022 version which just premiered on TV earlier tonight. I was very worried, but soon my worries dissolved. This version is even more precise than the 1984 version, which at times looked cosy, had some banter between participants during breaks (not that this didn't make them seem any less sinister, but there were a few more jovial bits in there). This 2022 version leans even more heavily on the burocratic language and the coldness, up until the end when certain concerns are voiced about the humanitarian aspect. Instantly, all the others are snapping at the one person, rattling through all the usual NSDAP party rethorics. Quite nicely showing that they're fully aware of what they're doing there; not just the participants coming straight from the Eastern Front where they lead Einsatzgruppen, but also the higher-ups, the delegates of the legislature, exterior ministry, and so on. Of course the humanitarian concerns voiced were only meant in regards to the mental wellbeing of the German soldiers / SS personnell carrying out the murders. I found this to be a great little twist, because this is a very contemporary approach to such a situation, and maybe one we should give a bit more thought. I'm pretty darned sure that this bit was given some more space than in the 1984 version. At least it struck me as pretty impressive.
Otherwise, it's pretty much the usual fare. Solid, solid actors in an intimate play doing as little acting as possible, but get the point across.
Watch It. It's interesting, it's ghoulish, it's well made.
Oh, it is. Because it's like any other meeting among technocrats/brutal upstarts/elbow careerists/lawyers, and the topic is "my boss came up with this awesome solution for a problem in our organization, and here's how we implement it", meaning the murder of millions of people. Which was going on already at the time, but the idea was to make it faster, more efficient, minimize friction and less expensive.
A real hack idea for a new film of course would have been turning it into a zoom meeting or something. The documentarian approach is very much suited.
That sounds really interesting Sigur, do you know if it is on any streaming platforms?
The kind of thing I usually find deeply unpleasant to watch, but is actually quite important to do so - especially at the moment, with some of the challenges the world faces and the worrying slide towards populism.
Yus, it shows pretty well how inhumane politics are organized once they've become the norm.
Pretty sure the latest film isn't streaming anywhere except ZDF and ORF's websites for now (so can probably be watched via VPN, but won't have english subtitles). The english-language 2001 film named Conspiracy probably streams somewhere. It's a bit hard for me to look up because different countries stream different stuff, have different streaming platforms and so on. The 1984 film can be watched for free on youtube:
German language with English subtitles. I'm rewatching the 1984 version right now to see how it's different from the 2022 version. Both stick very close to the conference protocols (and basically run in real time since the meeting only took about 90 minutes). The banter before and after is a bit more dramatized of course. From what I read, the 2001 film Conspiracy sticks less close to the protocols, not the least due to language barriers, but I think they also tried to humanize Heydrich somehow in between. Not sure.
edit: Catching up on Cowboy Bebop (the original one, obviously). I enjoy it greatly. Seems like I have to shift my cut-off date for alright-to-watch anime back for yet another year.
This was definitely a different one! If you don't want to read this review, in one sentence I'll say "fethed-up version of the Princess Bride directed by Paul Verhoeven" - so go with that
I have been trying to watch this film for ages, it wasn't available for some time and only just arrived on streaming services (you can watch now on Apple and Amazon). It was apparently Paul Verhoeven's first English-language film, strarring Rutger Hauer, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Tom Burlinson. it's a historical fiction based in 16th century Europe, about a group of mercenaries (lead by Rutger Hauer) who are double-crossed by their paymaster. As revenge they kidnap a local wealthy family's daughter (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and hold up in a castle - carnage ensues.
What I will say is if you enjoy Paul Verhoeven films then you will probably like this one, even though it's an early work from him it has a lot of the hallmarks of very dark sense of humour, some satire and definite gross-out, revolting scenes. There are a couple of scenes in particular that are difficult to watch and I would say this film would probably not be possible to release today. Certainly, you can tell it's not a 'Hollywood' film by a British or American director, it's pretty quirky and the plot zig-zags in a way that can be quite surprising.
Rutger Hauer is great in the lead role (I will say protagonist - certainly not a hero!) and saunters through as a kind of Roy Batty - incidentally he is also joined by actor Brion James from Blade Runner, in amongst his band of rogues.
Finally, I really liked the way this film, while a-historical, painted that period as dirty, unheroic, unglamorous time where life was cheap and spent easily. The sets are pretty well made, considering this was probably made on quite a limited budget, and the pacing isn't too bad for a film that is 37 years old.
Will give a cautious recommend if you are after something a bit different, like Paul Verhoeven films, and don't have too thin a skin!
So the original The Prisoner is a f'ing classic and does not need remaking. I think my roommate managed to get like 3 term papers out of analyzing it. But sooner or later it had to happen and in 2009 it did.
I think it was Aristotle who said "If you aim to kill a king don't make a leaden paced inconsistent meandering remake that no one watched."
The first episode was properly decent. A man resigns from an Evil Big Data company and promptly wakes up in the desert meets Not Patrick McGoohan and finds himself in a village where everyone has a number instead of a name. Namibia substitutes for Wales in this remake and there's some great visuals.
Then they @#$% with mind for a while. And then it gets boring, then really boring, then you don't care, and then there's a twist and then you realize you don't care, and then you put on the DVD commentary to see if these people had any idea what they were doing and then you find out they did not and they were literally changing key plot points in the editing room.
The end.
ONE STAR. Could've gotten 2 stars but really if you're doing a remake of something awesome it either has to be really good or really horrible. No room for dull.
I didn't even know they remade that. The insanity. Was that just so somebody could keep their trademark going?
Remaking the Prisoner of all things. At this point I just feel bad for the people who put actual work and effort into these doomed-from-the-start projects (so not any of the studios folk). For the studios it's just a write-off, for the people involved it's their livelyhoods.
It's interesting though; the story fits our time really, really well, and using Evil Big Data company is correct there. Still, I think the show is just too iconic for being a 60s thing to be anything but that. Why don't they just make original shows? I'm actually pretty convinced that they made the horribly bad new MacGyver show and the I-don't-even-care-how-bad-it-is Lethal Weapon show to have people zapping on TV lure in by making them think (or hope) "oh, it's MacGyver. I could watch that.", only to find out, that it's the new one, but they hope by then people are weak enough not to turn off.
Last night I watched the first 15 minutes of Police Academy. Never liked those films much. I mean what I saw (haven't seen PA1 in aaaaages) wasn't that bad really. I mean it is bad, but it's not offensively bad, just a bit embarassing. I Never liked Michael Winslow's act in films. I'm sure he's mind-boggling on stage, but in films it always feels like a stuck-on gimmick.
Ok so, cards on the table, I'm not a fan of Kristen Stewart, but I felt there was enough here outside of that to be worth investigating.
I was wrong.
Essentially, by the time I was done I felt like I'd watched somebody play a video game for an hour and a half. The main character moves between locations, interacting with other characters and attempting to solve increasingly challenging problems to advance to the next section.
The plot wastes little time on exposition, I think there's actually no dialogue at all before the initial narrative event kicks off the action, and while this can sometimes be an effective way of sweeping the audience along, in this case I think it just fails to establish any stakes or allow the audience to invest in any characters.
I'm not someone who is generally bothered by such things, but I also feel special criticism should be levelled at managing to get both female leads (Stewart and a criminally under utilised Jessica Henwick) in their Ripley-esque pants for the final few scenes while allowing the male actor, who has been through exactly the same experiences, to remain in long sleeves and boxers.
Positives are largely visual, for a movie that pretty shamelessly rips off Aliens with an Abyss twist, it does a really good job of building an aesthetic based out of those two movies. I haven't seen a movie do functional, grubby Sci-Fi so well in quite some time. It also does a decent job in conveying what being alone in the water miles from the surface and sunlight must feel like, albeit only in fleeting moments.
Overall, it's not great, and you can probably get sufficient impression of what it does well from watching the trailer, but if you fancy seeing a visually impressive industrial sci fi production design and aren't offended by Stewart's smell-the-fart acting style too badly, at least it's only 90 minutes.
Basically one of the finest Werewolf films I’ve ever seen.
Being fairly low budget, the baddies tend to be more glimpsed than seen.
It’s well paced, has some decent squaddie humour. And in a real treat, we see Soldiers up against something supernatural/unknown, and not going to pot.
Also known as the one where he goes to Egypt. Or the one with the submarines.
Summary: Some dude kidnaps some nuclear submarines, so James Bond and this Russian chick have to find a guy, who tells them to find another guy, who leads them to this guy, who has the microfilm which has a clue which leads them to some dude who's kidnapping nuclear submarines. Also they have sex. And Jaws is in it. But they don't have sex with him.
Bits of amusement for me were Bond in full Laurence of Arabia regalia riding a camel to visit his buddy the Sheik who naturally lives in a tent next to the Pyramids. Driving from Cairo to Luxor in a few hours (versus 3-4 days) and traveling from Luxor back to Cairo but somehow ending up in Aswan which is in the opposite direction. Also MI6 keeps a secret base inside an ancient temple because no one would ever look in there. OH! and traveling from Egypt to Italy... by train.
But all geography sins are forgiven by this line:
(in the Sheik's tent, glancing at a harem girl) "When one is in Egypt, one should delve deeply into its treasures."
You know, the decline in story-telling happens in inverse to the increase in talent on screen. For example, the third one had the best "cast" but was the worst story-telling.
Also, the further away you go from the original, the less "edge" and gritty feel you get. By the third, the series has been white-washed and suburbanized.
I also glanced at the Blade series, but the first episode did not grab me at all.
Blade 2 has Ron Pearlman, and One Of Those Blokes Out of Bros. Which makes it grate.
Or even gr8 if you wanna be edgy.
It also doesn’t involve crap blood effects, and indeed the bad guy something something but not worrying it clearly can’t be the intended summonee on account his underling sort of casually murdered to death one of the vital ingredients before the ritual began.
I find that most of the blade movies have something to enjoy. The first one is a fairly solid comic book movie in the era before the MCU. Blade 2 at least had a cast of characters that were fun to watch on screen. Blade 3 had Ryan Reynolds stealing the show though I understand not everyone appreciates him doing so XD
That reminds me of when she “starred” in Tommyknockers. I remember some manufactured(?) controversy over her being in the TV movie…more than I remember her actual role in the TV movie.
Similarly disappointing was the final appearance of the aliens as some generic Pumpkinhead wannabes when the book described them more like hentai ALFs. If it weren’t for Jimmy Smits, that miniseries would have been a total waste.
Me too. Blade II is my favorite marvel movie, along with X2 and maybe the first Raimi's Spiderman. But I like the entire trilogy, including the third gakky movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Blade 3 had Ryan Reynolds stealing the show though I understand not everyone appreciates him doing so XD
It depends on whether you like him or not. I consider him the most obnoxious actor in history and I can't understand why people find him funny .
Loved Blade 1 and 2 (I know it is getting a reboot, they have got some serious work on if they want to equal or better those films)
The guy from Bros actually isn't a bad actor and I thought did a good job with the role, he's also quite good in Hellboy 2 in a similar kind of 'magic creature' part.
For the third one, I think I only watched it once when it was released in the cinemas, all I can remember from it is a little vampire dog!
Did my Blade reviews in this thread last year:
1 still stands up as a quality film.
2 is much worse than I had remembered it and isn't a good film.
3 is a poor Blade film but in isolation is a fun action flick.
Basically Lovecraft 101 with the collection of talking heads, it's ok but nowt new really, although his family being able to trace his line back to my Shire explains a lot about him and the place
Death to 2021
Managed to "outrage" the UK gutter press (which is basically all of it) with a crude joke about Phil the Greek (dec'd) which to be honest wouldn't have been out of place in the clumsy mainstream media, a tad Brooker light but as per the Netflix Blackmirrors I dont think the world is quite ready for Charlie's undiluted cunning but brutal comedy, still very funny with Hugh Grant and Ms Milioti being the standouts
Career Opportunities
Proof even legends have off days, feel like it was written for his usual suspects and they didn't get round to it, still observing 90 mins or so of Jennifer Connelly might be worth a go if that's one's bag
Goonies
Of course never say die, its showing its age but having seen it on release I will always have a soft spot for it, and remember no Goonies would have resulted in a very different Stranger Things
Managed to "outrage" the UK gutter press (which is basically all of it) with a crude joke about Phil the Greek (dec'd) which to be honest wouldn't have been out of place in the clumsy mainstream media, a tad Brooker light but as per the Netflix Blackmirrors I dont think the world is quite ready for Charlie's undiluted cunning but brutal comedy, still very funny with Hugh Grant and Ms Milioti being the standouts
I thought that program was really funny. I had to look up what the joke was again though to be reminded about it (haha). Crikey, the people getting offended really need to keep away from some of Brooker's books and articles then!
The show has definitely lost something from it not just being Charlie Brooker sat on a sofa with a camera pointing at him, and that deadpan/sarcastic delivery, but some of the cast on there (like you say Hugh Grant and I love Diane Morgan) now and the better production really add something too.
I watched the 2013 John Milius documentary again. Milius tells the story about this script he wrote about Judge Roy Bean, gave it Lee Marvin to read. According to Milius' telling Marvin read it while drunk, passed out at some point and left the script lying around, Paul Newman found it, rang up his studio to buy the script.
It was realized by John Houston. Milius (who initially wanted to direct it) wasn't happy with how it turned out, but ...well, it's Milius.
Anyway, I watched the film. Yup, it's very much a John Milius script, very much feels directed by John Houston, and made in the early 70s. It's a Western, taking place right before the turn of the 20th century. I went in knowing nothing about the plot or the historical figure, and that helped I think. I was surprised a fair amount during the first third, that's for sure.
Sure, the thing goes on for a bit too long, stuttering a little in terms of rhythm, and especially towards the end gets too much in love with the main character (who pretty much is an ass). Very much feels like a history of the US in general, so there are some parallels to draw there, but also a history of the US as told by John Milius in John Houston's pictures. That being said, it's good fun, and Paul Newman is great in it. Especially the first third or half or so is very, very funny (oftentimes a bit crudely so); showcasing the hypocracy of 'Judge' Roy Bean's reign.
If the combination of Milius, Houghes and Newman in one of the best later Westerns intrigues you, Watch It.
Also, watch the Milius (2013) documentary anyway. I find the guy really interesting. Well, the films he wrote are more interesting than the guy himself, I think. Either way, watch the documentary.
Sigur wrote: Aaaah, waitaminute, I may have heard of that, but it must have been ages ago. So Traci Lords is to Blade what Drew Berrymore is to Scream basically.
Yes..... now connect them to Kevin Bacon......
Red Notice
The Rock, Wonder Woman, and the guy who stole all the scenes in Blade III create a buddy/heist movie. There is a lot of globe trotting, hijinks and shenanigans. At the end of the day, it is a bit campy by design. Despite all the big name talent and globe-trotting the movie felt like a very expensive pilot to a very expensive series. It reminded me a bit of the Man from UNCLE remake from Guy Ritchie in tone and feel.
GI Joe Retaliation (the one with the Rock and Bruce Willis)
Saw this in the theaters soon after the Wonder Twins were born. I remembered the zipline ninjas and Big Bruce's House O'Guns. Turns out those were the only parts worth remembering.
Shame because they sure had a lot of talent in this, Bruce and Dwayne, Ray Park, Adrianne (Agent of SHIELD) Palicki, that guy from Game of Thrones, that other guy from that movie, lots of good folks. And just nothing worth watching out of it. Just using the classic cartoon theme in some way shape or form would have raised this a star or two.
Arnold Schwarzeneger in RAW DEAL
OK so Arnold is like infiltrating the mob or whatever and gets sent to kill the only guy who knows he's undercover and so he goes into rampage mode and kills everyone. A film most remembered for Arnold's custom gun.
It's not just that the film is totally lacking in drama or characters we care about, it's that fight choreography sucks. Just guys standing in the open firing guns. A lot bloodier than most 80s flicks but that does nothing to help it. The penultimate fight in a quarry is decent enough but the rest is awful.
Somehow in all my years of cable TV, VHS, and Blockbuster nights I never, ever saw this and I didn't miss anything. Ah well I got a few lines for my ongoing Arnold in 40k fanfic so there's that.
The worst bit is, per wikipedia, this is the film we got INSTEAD of Conan 3 from Arnold. Tough I still hold out hope for Conan the King staring Governor Schwarzeneger.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell, it's a vigilante/prison action film starring Dean Cain, Paul Wight and Michael Eklund. Directed by the Soska twins, written by Justin Shady. I mention the latter two (or three rather) because up to now I knew nothing of the Soska twins, but I'm very sure that Justin Shady is not the writer's real name.
Copdetectiveman MASON DANVERS (just one step away from Mason Storm and played Dean Cain) is forced to watch his wife getting beaten to death by bad people. He goes into the prison these people sit in to get his revenge. Warden (Eklund) and prison guards are evil, as are the evil inmates. Paul Wight is huge and is boss of the gang who killed the wife.
This sets the stage for a clichéed prisonrevengeactionfighty film. I generally don't like prisonfighty films much, because I often find them too violent. I can deal with Mean Machine or Tango and Cash, but that's about the extent to which I'll enjoy such films. However, I was intrigued by the cast. Paul Wight is huge and perfectly fine an actor for the roles he's predestined to play, Michael Eklund is playing the prison warden kinda like the baddie in The Professional (but of course just to 20% of the effect. He does a LOT of leaning down and talking real closely to people though. He's a close talker!).
I thought even back in 2015 Dean Cain only did films marketed towards Evangelical Christians in the US any more, so I was surprised to see him in this one. I'll always have a soft spot for Dean Cain. I mean he's Superman! And he played Santa Claus on Frasier. AND he starred in the Warhammer film alongside Jimmy! But yeah, I've never seen him in a good film. Actually, Vendetta probably is my favourite Dean Cain film now. In fact, this film kinda convinced me, that Dean Cain - for all his inherent prettiness - might make for a good action lead. He looks surprisingly grim in this film, and the action scenes work really well.
The somewhat interesting twist is that between Dean Cain and Paul Wight, the prison warden Eklund (he's got an evil name too, something like Snyder or something like that) is a third power factor, trying to cut deals with both men as he sees fit and furthers his own goals and so on. Especially the scenes between him and Wight's gang boss (did I mention that he's huge?) are pretty fun, as the warden has some leverage on Wight's character, so we see him going from defiant to worried to angry and all of that.
Again, it's not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It's full of clichées, the interesting bits aren't very clever at all, it's still very violent, but at least they didn't try to put comedy in there. For how basic a film this is, it's not bad. The three leads help, especially Dean Cain. He really surprised me there.
Don't Watch, because why would you. It's not horrible though and made me laugh here and there.
I re-watched a pretty poor film the other evening called Rat Race (which was an early 2000s re-imagining of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad world). The film hasn't aged well but one bit that was pretty amusing was a great helicopter chase sequence, where Dean Cain had cheated on his girlfriend (she is flying the helicopter) and she goes after him in his truck. Apparently it won a load of awards for stunt actions, film is probably worth watching for that sequence alone! It's one of the only movie appearances by him that I can think of.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Double tap of mediocre tonight...
Arnold Schwarzeneger in RAW DEAL
OK so Arnold is like infiltrating the mob or whatever and gets sent to kill the only guy who knows he's undercover and so he goes into rampage mode and kills everyone. A film most remembered for Arnold's custom gun.
It's not just that the film is totally lacking in drama or characters we care about, it's that fight choreography sucks. Just guys standing in the open firing guns. A lot bloodier than most 80s flicks but that does nothing to help it. The penultimate fight in a quarry is decent enough but the rest is awful.
Somehow in all my years of cable TV, VHS, and Blockbuster nights I never, ever saw this and I didn't miss anything. Ah well I got a few lines for my ongoing Arnold in 40k fanfic so there's that.
The worst bit is, per wikipedia, this is the film we got INSTEAD of Conan 3 from Arnold. Tough I still hold out hope for Conan the King staring Governor Schwarzeneger.
I agree this is probably one of the weakest of Schwarzeneggar's actions films, certainly for that period of time when he was at his peak. I most remember it for the brilliant trailer, "nobody gives Schwarzeneggar a raw deal!" cue him machine-gunning people.
That's the thing I don't get about many of these Netflix films - how come they cost so much money for results which often look like direct to video flicks with big name value stars? They really seem like something that's put together by an algorithm. But then my opinion on those films is entirely hypocritical, because I don't watch them. HOWEVER, I get them advertised to me, and that irks me in itself. I hate the golden egg!
Dean Cain was in Warhammer, I'd like to think that he was in some sort of die hard clone?, he certainly was in God's Not Dead 2 or Heaven is For Real or something like that. I just checked. Holy cow. Since 2020 he's been in 25 films (8 or 9 thereof in post-production). Loads of his role start with "pastor" in these films. To be honest, seems like he's a good'un. Or well connected to some crazy cult.
...
Just did a quick check. Interesting dude (in that complete blandness he embodies of course), but seems to be decent overall. He's got traction with the right-wingers, but nothing crazy, it seems. Doesn't really matter either. Still, he seems to be well in demand, which is nice.
Comedy spy thriller starring Bill Murray as Bill Murray, and a lot of now quite big name British actors.
It’s quite good fun, if clearly low budget. Plot is Bill Murray is visiting the U.K., and is meant to go on a live interactive street theatre thing, but ends up mistaken for a spy. From there the relative hilarity ensues.
Bill Murray is clearly having a great time in it, I’ll give it that much.
Take what I said about Spy Who Loved Me and turn it up to 11.
Some dudes steal a fething Space Shuttle so James Bond has to bed this girl in California, who sends him to bed this girl in Venice, who send him to bed this girl in Brazil during Carnival who puts him on a fething Space Shuttle into Space and then the Space Marines come and have a laser fight in Space and then he has sex with the second girl but now in Space.
Grade AA Bond Cheese.
Laser fight was shorter than my 7 year old self remembers though.
The best thing to come out of Moonraker were the Lasers in the Goldeneye Game.
Infinite ammo. Infinite ammo!
Have you any idea how I terrorised my foes as soon as I got one?
Z triggered more than Trump supporter presented with facts, though probably not quite so long because such an instance with a Moonraker laser had a definite end point.
Watched Belle at the pictures today, and it was bloody amazing. Beauty & The Beast meets The Matrix meets Macross Plus, but at its heart is a very down-to-earth story that is not in the realm of fantasy nor science fiction.
Went in all gangsta, came out trying not to cry...it was that good.
A very good anime film that's basically Speed Racer on steroids with gorgeous animation.
I'm kind of ashamed I've never heard of this movie. I had heard Madhouse went bankrupt back when and barely came out of it, but I didn't know the full story or that this film played into it.
Short, this film bombed hard at the box office. I assume it had to be a marketing failure because this is one of the best animated movies I've ever seen IMO.
The story is fairly generic, especially for a sports anime but the draw of this is the artwork. I really miss hand-drawn animation. No one really does it anymore and this was apparently one of the last animated films to use hand-drawn art in Japan when it released in 2009. That's the real draw for this one IMO. The action is over the top. The characters are standard fair but fun. The art is fantastic.
Actually, that might not be fair.
A lot of the style of the film is very familiar now, but this movie came out in 2009. The influence on subsequent works like Kill la Kill stands out really hard when watching it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The best thing to come out of Moonraker were the Lasers in the Goldeneye Game.
I'm sorry but I must disagree.
First of all there is the astronaut/CIA agent Dr. Holly Goodhead, another name that should not get past the language filters. Kyoto Secunda and her Clone Sister assumed it was because she was so smart and we'll just leave it at that.
But more importantly is the aptly-named Venice Coffin Assassin. When Bond is in Venice cruising around in his gondola (as one does) he passes a funeral boat. The coffin slowly opens and a dude sits up and throw a knife into Bond's Gondolier/MI6 contact and then throws a knife at Bond himself.
Spoiler:
(Don't worry, Bond throws the knife back and kills the assassin)
Which just raises so many questions. If you know which canal James Bond is going to be cruising down and have time to arrange a funeral boat with fresh flowers, why go with a knife thrower and not like a bomb or a speed boat full of guys with machine guns (which they do in the next scene). Why did the knife thrower kill the gondolier first? Was he somehow the greater threat in the picture?
Now the audience (and the James Bond Wiki) of course assumes that the Venice Coffin Knife Throwing Assassin was hired by Drax to kill Bond, but that's just an assumption. What if the Gondolier was the target and he just threw a knife at Bond as a warning? What if the Secret Guild of Venice Coffin Knife Throwing Assassin Undertakers is in the middle of a Hundred Year Vendetta against the Secret Guild of Venice Spy Gondolier Assassins and Bond's contact Franco was just the latest victim? Or what if the Venice Coffin Funeral Boat Knife Throwing Assassin wasn't an assassin at all but a Venician serial killer fond of throwing knives at random passers by?
The point being, Bond films never seem able to decide if he lives in a semi-realistic world where when you need to kill someone you send a speedboat full of guys with guns to kill him (which they do twice) or a bizarre operatic world where you send Knife Throwing Undertakers, Koreans with buzzsaw top hats and Kendo Masters with wooden swords to kill him.
Frankly I prefer the second world very much.
Now obviously when they finally start making films set in the Greater James Bond Expanded Cinematic Universe the first beneficiary should be Jaws, who is the stand out henchman in this film. But after that I am totally down for GJBECU: Venice Coffin Assassin The Motion Picture.
Addition:
The other stand out from Moonraker is the U.S. Space Marine Corps.
For the climax Bond is trapped in a Space Station so the Americans quickly send up a shuttle full of U.S.S.M.C. Drax sends out his goons in space suits, so the shuttle opens up and out comes like 100 guys in space suits with laser guns to fight them.
In the Greater James Bond Expanded Cinematic Universe does the United States just have shuttles full of guys at Vandenberg Air Force Base ready to launch on a moment's notice in case James Bond and Dr. Holly Goodhead need help?
Apparently they do.
So when the GJBECU streaming channel launches I definitely want a U.S. Space Marine Corps show. I see it as a one-set sitcom where the Space Marines sit around the U.S.S.M.C. rec room playing ping pong and swapping jokes waiting for the go call (which never comes). Basically Cheers meets MASH meets Waiting for Godot.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Producers (2005)
God I love this film. It’s a solid satire on the show biz industry and “Hollywood Accounting”.
The show they put on should by all rights be highly offensive, regardless of your political or religious preference.
That Mel Brooks himself is of course Jewish isn’t in itself an excuse. But good gravy he carries it.
He sends it all up. Every aspect of the film’s plot is made suitably ludicrous.
Just….watch it. It’s so, so good.
I watched the original Producers recently and thought it was ok at best. I have enjoyed the other Brooks movies I have seen so I was a bit disappointed. Is this worth a watch if I didn't enjoy the original?
Latest Ridley Scott's movie, with an all star cast. I admit, I only watched it because I adore Lady Gaga and I was curious about all the critiques about the accents.The important thing here is that italian americans don't sound like italians speaking in english. At all. For us they just sound like normal americans, just with a minor funny accent.
As an italian I can give my two cents: Adam Driver, Jeremy Irons and Al Pacino for the entire movie sound like english native speakers who occasinally try to sound something else, Jack Houston doesn't even try to speak with an accent. I think all of them actually believed that talking like italian americans was enough to do the part. Lady Gaga was ok and did a pretty good job, although in some moments she does sound like a russian, but she was also the one who had the best pronunciation for italian words (Adam Driver in particular was terrible, the couldn't even pronunce "Grazie" (Thanks) correctly), but it's Jared Leto who absolutely nailed it, he really managed to talk like a real italian. I mean like an italian would talk in english, especially in the 70s and 80s, when the movie is set.
I know the producers and the directors weren't interested in realism but rather they wanted immersion for the non italian audience (aka pretty much the entire world, lol) and they had to give the cast an accent; although for an italian it does sound very odd that italian characers who live in Italy talk in english with an accent and some occasional italian word or even a full phrase. I had the same "issue" with Pixar's Luca, and also Coco a few years ago.
Overall the movie is a perfect exercise of how cinema should be done, on any possible level (except for the accents ). I didn't mind it but it's a totally uninteresting story. It worths a watch I believe, mostly out of curiosity or just to see that great cast though.
The best use of language I ever saw was Mel Brook's To Be or Not to Be.
They spend the first 5 minutes of the film speaking Polish (including a full production of Sweet Georgie Brown in Polish) only for the Voice of God to announce that henceforth for the sake of everyone's sanity the film will be in English. The cast, in the middle of an argument in Polish, stop, look around, and continue in English.
I had a Johnny Dep/Tim Burton Double Feature this weekend.....
Dark Shadows
Eva Green steals the show, what little of it there is. She is electric! Too bad this is like.... 75% of a movie and can't decide how serious it wants to be. Big miss from Tim Burton. Very forgettable.
Sleepy Hollow
Now, this is a good who-dun-it movie set in late 18th century New England and full of the Gothic. Man Puritans were crazy, and we need more films to remind us of that!
Good stuff from Depp and Ricci. The other named actors are also fun. Notable for a non-Johnny Ricco Casper Van Diem! I guess there is also a certain Christopher Walken and Christopher Lee in it too.
Good stuff all around, and just campy enough at the end.
That is a shame about Dark Shadows - I love Eva Green so had had that on my list. Is it worth watching for just being a really big fan of hers?
Sleep Hollow I remember being a good film and Christopher Walken being perfectly cast, almost like he didn't really need makeup haha.
Matrix Revolutions (2021)
Ooh boy, where do I start.. Firstly, I will say the original film is definitely one of my favourite ever films. I went to the cinema 6 times (seriously) when it was first released. It's safe to say that, as a piece of entertainment, I can't think of any other films that had such an impact on me. I don't think I'm alone in this assessment and a lot of critics acknowledge that it was a seminal release that changed the industry.
The sequels I thought had a very difficult act to follow. I enjoyed them, but despite I think the single greatest continuous action sequence ever filmed in Reloaded (starting with the car chase and simultaneous fight sequence with the Merovingian's cronies) it disappears up it's own behind too often, and some of the SFX didn't work that well. The third film again I think had a very difficult act to follow. I don't think it's a bad film per se and it did wrap up the trilogy, but I thought was the weakest of the three.
So, with my reference of my feelings for the original, the new film! I have put in Spoilers as its still a very new film. But I haven't given away any major plot points.
Spoiler:
Firstly, I will say if you are a fan of the originals you should definitely watch it. It is an absolute love letter to the original. I will need to get it on disc and watch again, but I would say there are at least a dozen replicated shots and sequences from the original (same camera angles, or shots from one sequence in the original transposed into the new film).
It gets very close to breaking the 4th wall and actually crosses a few times, and is very conscious of the original films and what they mean to people. But, I think it manages to do a good job of trying to do something new. It doesn't just repeat the originals and wrap them in a new skin (The Force Awakens - I'm looking at you) but there are some new ideas and concepts, some new baddies, even some new good guys. It does feel like they have at least tried to move the story forward and develop the characters, while tapping into the nostalgia and fan service.
One area that didn't strike me as massively impressive (and part of this might be to do with seeing it on the small screen rather than the cinema) were some of the fight sequences and action sequences. They are beautifully filmed, but I don't think matched some of the martial arts and chase sequences of the original films.
Finally, Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss are lovely in it - you will feel like you are being re-acquainted with old friends after a long absence, and perhaps it is worth watching for that reason alone. So I'll give the film a 4/5 on that basis. If you weren't a super fan of the originals though, you might not feel the same way!
Pacific wrote: That is a shame about Dark Shadows - I love Eva Green so had had that on my list. Is it worth watching for just being a really big fan of hers?
Matrix Revolutions (2021)
Well, regarding Dark Shadows, I did not feel like I wanted my 2 hours of my life back BUT it really is not good. The conclusion is all over the place. Green is BY FAR the best thing in the movie, which is saying something as it also has Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Chloe Grace-Moritz in it; who are all very skilled performers.
Regarding Matrix:Revolutions, I put my thoughts in the thread dedicated to the film, but I will say the following:
- The main leads are great together
- The set-up of the movie is great
- The new human crew is..... forgettable (and the movie even makes a joke about it)
- The villains are underwhelming, even if the new Architect's take is very "post-truth" era
- The movie has somethings to say about our current moment compared to 1999
- The action is not nearly as good as the original trilogy, but the action is secondary. Bots are worse than agents.
- The music was a complete let down compared to the original
- This movie felt like it was made by a more mature creator
It is really hard to watch all four of the Matrix movies now and not make them into a Trans allegory, even if that is not the creators intent.
I've not seen Matrix Revolutions yet but I nonetheless have Strong Opinions about it being a trans allegory.
1-Given that both Wachowskis transitioned, and that the films are about finding the truth about yourself and the world... how can they not be?
2-Thing is though, every single of one of us has to play a role in life, every single one of us has to decide several times a day when to keep playing that role and when to step out. Calling it 'just' a trans allegory is I think too reductionist, it's about growing into something new beyond the limits you've been told about your whole life. And who among us cannot see that?
It's like when people say the X-Men about about racism or coming out as gay. You can see that yes. You can also see it as a metaphor for the generation gap (I am an alien to my parents, my kids will be aliens to me), puberty or just growth and aging in general. I didn't get laser eyes when I turned 13 but my body did some weird stuff.
So the whole idea of finding out this world is an illusion is we can move beyond it, but that the illusion is quite tempting and not without its upsides is I think the message of the Matrix. Whatever illusions we uncover or evolution we may go through in life.
Pacific wrote: That is a shame about Dark Shadows - I love Eva Green so had had that on my list. Is it worth watching for just being a really big fan of hers?
Sleep Hollow I remember being a good film and Christopher Walken being perfectly cast, almost like he didn't really need makeup haha.
I mean, if you're wanting to see certain assets on screen that she's rather famous for, this isn't the movie for you.
If you're a fan of her other acting skills, sure. . . Personally, I found Dark Shadows to be an entertaining enough use of time for the first view, although I doubt I'd go out of my way to watch it again
Haha no I am not too worried about that, I just find her really enchanting as an actress. She transformed Casino Royale for me and what a Bond girl could be (really the whole Daniel Craig character arc) and have always found she brings a lot to whatever role she plays.
Pacific wrote: That is a shame about Dark Shadows - I love Eva Green so had had that on my list. Is it worth watching for just being a really big fan of hers?
Matrix Revolutions (2021)
Regarding Matrix:Revolutions, I put my thoughts in the thread dedicated to the film, but I will say the following:
- The main leads are great together
- The set-up of the movie is great
- The new human crew is..... forgettable (and the movie even makes a joke about it)
- The villains are underwhelming, even if the new Architect's take is very "post-truth" era
- The movie has somethings to say about our current moment compared to 1999
- The action is not nearly as good as the original trilogy, but the action is secondary. Bots are worse than agents.
- The music was a complete let down compared to the original
- This movie felt like it was made by a more mature creator
I will say I agree with all of that!
Quite interesting comments there too Kid_Kyoto. I agree there is definitely a reflection of the creators in the film.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: I've not seen Matrix Revolutions yet but I nonetheless have Strong Opinions about it being a trans allegory.
Matrix has always been about a trans allegory, since the first movie. I read about the character called Switch that was originally a man in the real world and a woman in the matrix, which explained where her/his name came from, then they changed into an androginy woman in both worlds.
Trinity is also a quite masculine woman character.
Isn't the whole thing about Neo as a hero, and all those hollywood hero stories are about the hero going from zero to hero, ie changing?
One of the cool things about Matrix 1, and in that I very much agree with Blackie, was of course the whole thing being slightly post-gender, and post-everything in general. That whole thing was settled very early on by Neo meeting Trinity in person, claiming he thought she was a dude, she's not, and that's that. It was humans vs. machines. Could do with a bit of that nowadays. Everything was very much sexless, except for Mouse (and to a lesser extent Cypher, but his sexuality was pretty much reduced to reading code).
Of course the Switch character being a dude in the 'real world', using a female avatar would have been cool (and also very much in tune with how back then [still] we perceived the internet as something liberating), but it was alright in the grander scheme of the film, since otherwise Trinity would have been the only real-world female, which would have changed the whole dynamic a bit.
Well, I recently watched the Blade Trilogy, and Dark Shadows so last night I went back to the *ahem* (post-modern) source and watched Interview with a Vampire. I vaguely recall seeing it in the theatre and reading the book. RIP Anne Rice.
Anyway, this movie..... is ..... something.
Kirsten Dunst steals the show as Claudia (So she was a pre-teen at the time) and often out acts Pitt and Cruise. PItt is terrible in this film as Louis. He is wooden, dull, and brings nothing to the part. His character is a cypher to me, but is also the protagonist and is suppose to be the "heart of the film" but he comes across as weakness personified.
The big climax against the Theatre de Vampyres is boring. The "final fight" with Santiago is anti-climactic. The whole morale or message of the film is a muddled mess. It doesn't even look as good as it should due to the darkness everywhere and the sets are a bit wasted.
Cruise is Cruise, but he does not run in this film! Huge change in casting, I guess he must not have owned the rights, wrote the script, and produced the movie too.
Overall, this movie kinda sucks. However, it is also a bit of a product of its time. It is hard to recall the hype of this movie and this book in the way back machine. It was no Matrix, or Blair Witch, or The Crying Game; but there was a lot of hype. It makes me think a bit more about the more modern Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey hype.
It's most notable feature is as a supernatural pre-cursor to Brokeback Mountain.
Easy E wrote: Well, I recently watched the Blade Trilogy, and Dark Shadows so last night I went back to the *ahem* (post-modern) source and watched Interview with a Vampire. I vaguely recall seeing it in the theatre and reading the book. RIP Anne Rice.
Anyway, this movie..... is ..... something.
Kirsten Dunst steals the show as Claudia (So she was a pre-teen at the time) and often out acts Pitt and Cruise. PItt is terrible in this film as Louis. He is wooden, dull, and brings nothing to the part. His character is a cypher to me, but is also the protagonist and is suppose to be the "heart of the film" but he comes across as weakness personified.
The big climax against the Theatre de Vampyres is boring. The "final fight" with Santiago is anti-climactic. The whole morale or message of the film is a muddled mess. It doesn't even look as good as it should due to the darkness everywhere and the sets are a bit wasted.
Here's the thing. Louis being a wooden cypher and the moral/message of the film being muddled is... exactly true to the book. 'Weakness personified' is... harsh, but sort of actually fair. He depressed and actively suicidal (or, rather, looking for other people to kill him) after the death of his sister/wife (the movie changed it to wife, iirc? On the basis that it would seem less creepy than sister?). Now, why Lestat is fascinated by suicidal depression is another story, but that gets into the moral/message angle. Mostly there isn't one, other than the authors love of fetishizing broken gay boys. And incest and pedophilia (but that's mostly another series. Mostly- Armand's backstory is largely about the latter). But anyway, Louis is mostly there to be a passive witness to the horrors of 'eternal life,' but mostly he just needs to be punched in the face again and forced to do... anything.
I agree that the film really tried to replicate the book, sometimes for good and ill so you had the anti-climatic ending, but indeed that's how the book ends. It leaves things open ended for the sequels. Really the 'ending', rather than the burning of the crypts, is that the reporter (Christian Slater) even after everything that has been said to him by Louis, still wants to become a vampire. And the wrapping up of the history of Louis as retold to the reporter. I thought Pitts performance was a bit like his in Meet Joe Black and Ad Astra,; of just being inexpressive. Unfortunately I don't think he can pull it off in the same way as Ryan Gosling or Mark Rylance, I guess I forgive it a bit as his character in the book isn't very flowery and is a good counterpoint to Lestat.
Interestingly Anne Rice actually disavowed the film when she heard Tom Cruise had been cast as Lestat (baring in mind he is meant to be over 6' and blonde). But, after seeing him in the role she changed her mind and actually agreed that he had done a good job. I think he captured the arrogance and flair of Lestat really well, and was really the most interesting character in the books and film.
At the request of Kyoto Secunda Prime we watched the movie where the animals sing pop songs. It was... OK. At no time did my ears bleed nor do I think it gave it me cancer.
The 'plot' is some animals (presumably from Sing 1, who by the way, sing and wear clothes and stuff, I assume the hows and whys of that were answered in Sing 1, maybe they're the result of genetic experiments? I'm not up on my Greater Sing Cinematic Universe lore) want to put on a show and have to recruit Bono. In the meantime will the gorilla learn to dance? Will the elephant overcome her shyness? Will the pig overcome her fear of heights? Will the protagonists overcome obstacles in pursuit of their goal?
Lots and lots of songs, leaning heavily on 2000+ pop songs that I neither know nor care about.
It was an 'early bird' rental for $24 dollery doos, which is a lot, but if it gives the wonder twins some cred in the school yard it's money well spent.
Sigur wrote: Say what you will about Tom Cruise, but he'll play a good ageless, smug dandy with great potential for evil.
still think the chap in the much worse Queen of the Damned movie was a better Lestat
And whilst wee Mr C's hit rate is impressive (to my mind only 2 misses in the last 15 or so years, Mummy and War of Worlds) he's transcended acting to become a brand wherein its a Tom Cruise film rather than a movie with him in, also his collecting purty lasses for display purposes only is getting tiresome...
Jupiters Legacy
Way too slow and about 5 years too late, Chloe was distracting mind
This is a Wes Anderson version of a road trip comedy, but with a boat. Bill Murray plays the titular Steve Zissou, an oceanographer who is in the midst of several life changing events starting with the death of his best friend at the jaws of a mysterious shark described as a jaguar shark. The movie follows Steve try to avenge his friend while dealing with meeting a man who is supposedbly his son, a wife who he describes as on the rocks, and being a joke in his profession.
For starters, it is a Wes Anderson film so if you have strong opinions on his work, good or bad, this movie will probaly reinforce them. As for the actors, I think this is one of Bill Murrays best performances as he really seems to enjoy being Steve Zissou. He has a wonderful cast to work with Willem Daofe doing a great job in the role of his sidekick Klaus, Cate Blanchette as reporter doing a story on Steve, and Owen Wilson who may or may not be Steves son. Jeff Goldblum also appears as a rival of Steves and is confident and smug in all of his scenes.
This movie brings a lot to the table. While decidely a comedy it also has a heart beating underneath the surface and has a few moments of surprisng emotion. Another thing amazing thing in the movie is the music. There is a strong Bowie presence throughout the movie with many of his songs played as a backdrop or even performed by one of the cast members (Seu Jorge).
This movie has a fun and quirky soundtrack, creative visuals, interesting characters, and clever humor. I know its not a movie for everyone but for me it sits at the top of my list. Watch it and maybe you too can be on Team Zissou.
Jean Claude van Damme is on the run and joins the Foreign Legion in the 1920s (after some plot circling around the whole film, but it's not that interesting). Is shipped to Marocco to fight the Berber rebellion. You've probably seen it at some point; it's not half bad. Somewhat good cast of characters, a bit of interpersonal drama, cameraderie, evil platoon commander, interesting setting, satisfyingly well produced, all of that. I was pleased. It goes a bit different ways than you'd think it would at several poins, which I enjoyed.
The next day I looked the film up. It actually is a remake of March or Die, which is a film from the 70s and has a pretty mind-boggling cast: Terence Hill, Gene Hackman, Catherine Deneuve, Max von Sydow. Imagine that!
Anyway, Legionnaire. Watch It, if this sounds in any way interesting to you. It's one of van Damme's late 90s films, which in part are underrated I feel, because the crazy druggy phase seemed to wear off a bit and van Damme started to become a slightly more interesting actor. Also watch Inferno (I think it's called Desert Heat in some places); that's the one in which he's all drunk and wants to kill himself, but gets saved by his native american friend or something like that. Fun film. Always reminds me a little of Fire Down Below, but that's probably just due to the rural setting and the time of release. Inferno is much more fun than Fire Down Below.
90’s crime thriller, starring Roddy Piper. Bit low budget. Kinda low effort. Feels like an above average TV Movie.
It’s…alright. Not high art. Low budget, but not low effort.
Hey, how much Keeffe does this film have? Miles O'Keeffe! Wahey!
Ehem.
Anyway, I don't think I've seen that one, but it sounds pretty alright. Maybe I can track it down.
Marked Man - that sounds interesting! Not one I have heard of but have added to my watch list. I last saw Roddy in Hell Comes to Frog Town which.. I don't think I can bring myself to write about
Queen of the Damned - thought it was pretty poor but haven't seen it for many years. Always thought the Anne Rice vampire books would make a great series; you could have whole episodes going through some of the backstory of the different characters and then building up to the events of Queen of the Damned, the Body Thief and Menmoch the Devil etc.
The Invisible Man [2020]
Am I allowed to be critical of a film for it not following a plot path and style that I was hoping it would follow, but where the creator (or I suspect, many creators) had a different vision?
I really enjoyed the first 30 minutes of the film; lots of long tense shots of open spaces (Kubrick came to mind), Elizabeth Moss's character trying to escape and recover from an abusive relationship and being haunted by that person's memory.
I thought the film worked really well in that context and could have kept playing with the viewer for a lot longer - is the person real or not, or some sort of manifestation of her trauma?
The moment the movie 'flipped' and kind of gave you the answers I think it plunged downhill from there. Some quite flagrant plot holes, strange character behaviour and I didn't think the ending of the film matched the character of the rest of it and felt forced (I guess I could just insert "because Hollywood" here!) Overall I was probably more disappointed by what the film 'could' have been, had it taken a different route, rather than if the film had never offered any pretension about being anything else.
It did make me jump a couple of times regardless and bits of it had an 'It follows' vibe of the invisible assailant, so would give a 3/5 on that basis.
Never seen Queen of the Damned. I have seen Vampirey in Brooklyn though recently for the first time. It certainly is something. Anyway, we just had vampires tv shows, didn't we? Vampire Diaries (which as i hear was a big success) and True Blood(?). They still could make a great tv show out of Vampire:The Masquerade, what with all the intrigue and all. No idea about the current state of the whole White Wolf world, but V:tM could work without a problem. I'm sure it'll happen sooner or later.
Btw, following Legionnaire the other nicht I watched Inferno (1999).
It's on Youtube! How nice.
Jean Claude van Damme plays Eddie Lomax, driving into the desert on a motorbike, hella drunk and about to kill himself. Only thing he wants to do is give his old friend Danny Trejo, playing a native american, that motorbike as a present. He is getting pestered (not entirely without reason, to be fair) by the three sons of a local baddie and bully, who, in conjunction with a drug dealing biker gang, runs the nearby town. They shoot him down, take the motorbike, and leave him for dead. But Eddie Lomax isn't quite dead yet and wants to get the motorbike for his friend back.
Yojimbo ensues. Well, more like Last Man Standing. I would go as far though as to say that Inferno is better than Last Man Standing. It certainly is more fun and it's sillier. I really love the first few scenes of this film, which is also the reason that got me to claim (see the Legionnaire review above) that JCVD became a more interesting actor around that time. Most interestingly, Danny Trejo also plays a bit against type, by being a Wise Best Friend who also acts as a spiritual guide. Long stretches of the film we don't even quite know if he exists at all. Very, very interesting. There's a shift in tone though as Eddie Lomax enters the little town and basically returns to the world of the living
I read that in Legionnaire van Damme already had pushed for a more comedic tone. In Inferno, he got his wish, it seems. Backed by a very colourful and fun cast of townsfolk (Pat Morita, Vincent Schiavelli, Jamie Pressly in a very early role, Bill Erwin, ...) and very luckily heaps of equipment, van Damme cheerfully and competently blows things up and shoots people. There are some more tonal shifts, but it looks like van Damme really has fun playing silly little comedy bits here and there, up to the point at which he comes across as pretty dorky. Especially so in that scene in which he meets the love interest. It's cute though, because both of them are so overly smitten with each other. It's good fun. It's silly, it's incredibly easy to take offence with it, but I found it to be good fun.
If you watch one van Damme film of that era, make it Inferno (or Desert Heat, as it's called in the US I think). Watch It.
Later on he made some of the ultra gritty prison films which are all blue and grey. I don't care much for those. IIRC in the early 2000s he did Replicant, in which he's the clone of a serial killer or something like that. That one's said to be rather good, especially on van Damme's part. And he plays two roles in that film, so you know it's a good one.
Other notable 90s van Damme films: .) Double Impact (the gold standard of van Damme playing two roles, and a very fun film) .) Universal Soldier (of course. Dolph Lundgren's the real star there, but both work really well, and it's a cool action film. Loved Emmerich's commentary on the film as well) .) Time Cop (only saw it once or twice. It's not very good, but the premise is quite outlandish) .) The Quest (now that is a fun film, doing the old Bloodsport thing [loads of different martial artists going to an underground tournament. Basically Mortal Kombat, but without all the fantasy stuff] but with a slightly light-hear.ted adventure film bent) .) Sudden Death (I like Sudden Death. It's got a solid premise and great baddie too. It's basically Under Siege in a hockey stadium. Yeah, yeah, some describe it as a "Die Hard" knock-off, but it feels much more like Under Siege. Fun fact: The Germans remade that Sudden Impact and sat it in a football stadium [of course]. It's called Das Finale (otherwise known as The Final Game) and it's got Christoph Waltz as the bad guy. Btw, there's another version of Sudden Death starring Dave Batista, also set in a football stadium. AND Netflix are planning a 'humorous' remake. So we all know that that'll be crap, banking on a name that's popular with a handful of people. Anyway, watch Sudden Death. It's good.)
That's the one that's kinda like Battle Royale, but with 'ard men and women instead of schoolkids, right? Big bad dude is streaming it on The Internet.
There's a very nasty scene in which Vinnie Jones does something to a lady from across a valley or something. That film was alrighty, yeah. I just found Steve Austin pretty bland to be honest.
Trying to binge it all before it goes away at the end of the month.
Now it might be possible to make an interesting Punisher story, but this ain't it. Jon Bernthal just never interests me and half the season is about him. Charlie Cox is as good as ever, Electra and Stick are cool. Foggy and Karen (sorry not going to look up the actors) are great too. But the Punisher story just drags everything down.
Season 3 is looking up though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well crud.
Turns out Daredevil S3 follows 8 episodes of Defenders. Got till next week to see 7 more DDs and 8 Defenders.
Has it still got the really good camera work? I loved that about the first series; remember one fight sequence that goes on for a few minutes with the camera just following Daredevil as he walks around beating the crap out of everyone, but all in one unbroken take.
Unfortunately the story didn't do enough to keep me watching, although I keep wondering if I should revisit.
Sigur wrote: That's the one that's kinda like Battle Royale, but with 'ard men and women instead of schoolkids, right? Big bad dude is streaming it on The Internet.
There's a very nasty scene in which Vinnie Jones does something to a lady from across a valley or something. That film was alrighty, yeah. I just found Steve Austin pretty bland to be honest.
As an aside, any movie that has "The Rise of...." in its subtitle is bound to be terrible. This one is no exception.
It was fun seeing all the big names they brought into this movie, to make the movie they did. It has a few moments, and the set-piece in Paris is pretty fun..... even if you can't help but think of Team America: World Police during these scenes.
Overall, the villains are much more interesting than the heroes, and that is a big issue with this flick. Well, that and the cliched action story beats and over-the-top Stephen Sommers directorial style.
I did love how they stitched in a couple of G.I. Joe's taglines into the dialogue. Like many genre movies I watch now, I can;t help but think about how to make them into RPGs. This one would be easy.
I think the rule of thumb is: The dumber the plot, thje better it works for an RPG adventure.
Last night I watched most of Bee Movie again. It's perfectly fine. The second half drags a little, and seems a little jumbled, but it looks great, everybody does a perfectly okay job. I read that some loons took offence or made fun of the relationship between the bee and the lady in the film. Pretty insane. But people will be people.
Either way, it's not a bad film at all. It's perfectly nice and alright.
GI Joe films get a pass from me, because they’re pretty much exactly the sort of live action gimmicky “don’t think too hard or your brain will fall out” silly entertainment Ickle Me would’ve loved, had they been made during GI Joe’s 80’s heyday.
I mean, I get they’re not great films. But I’m pretty much sure the target age range would love them.
VFW
Random flick I found on Prime. Kind of assault on Precinct 13, via Hobo With A Shotgun. Buckets of silly gore. Paper thin plot. But pretty enjoyable all the same. As a freebie I certainly can’t complain, and perhaps one I’d rent to watch with friends on a movie night.
I say give it a watch if Grindhouse type movies are your sort of thing.
War for the Planet of the Apes (2017
Finally got round to this. And…it’s…kind of ok, I guess? Serkis is great as always. But the plot just feel somewhat flaccid. Given its title, there’s far too much silly knees bent running about business, and not enough war.
I mean…the Apes don’t really get involved in the War, outside of the opening and closing scene. And when it’s time for the big fight, it’s oomies vs oomies, with only a couple of ape assisted grenades, then a bloody big avalanche happens and squishes everyone because reasons.
It’s a shame. The first two are pretty solid, if arguably overly long (especially the second one) and this just feels like….well….when you’re caught short on your way home, finally get in and ensconced upon the porcelain throne, only to find the threatened Dirty Protest was in fact just a Little Tommy Squeaker all along. You’re still better off for it, and everyone enjoys a good fart. But you’re ultimately left disappointed, and perhaps slightly ashamed for reasons you can’t adequately explain.
The Harry Hill Movie
It’s daft. It’s colourful. It’s childish. Not everyone cup of tea, but far from being anyone’s cup of poison. I enjoyed it for what it is.
Made it through Daredevil S3 with 3 days to spare.
DD3 was good. I was a bit annoyed when they spent an episode on Not~Bullseye's childhood, but even that was good. Kingpin was awesome as ever. He gets a serious upgrade in power/manipulation, there's several scenes that are just chilling.
Disappointed with the comic book ending (everyone goes to jail/the hospital and can come back any time) but well it's a comic book show.
As a franchise, TCM has certainly wandered around without any real direction over the decades. Sequels, reboots, requels have all come and gone, but nothing has ever really captured that lightning back in the bottle that Tobe Hooper caught back in the 70s. (Although I have a certain nostalgia for the Jessica Biel version from back in the noughties.)
So, with such a complicated history, it perhaps makes sense to wipe the slate clean and ignore everything that's happened since the original and start telling a contemporary story that treats the events of the original as essentially urban folklore (complete with in-universe merchandise) in order to free up stroytelling potential.
Unfortunately, the story that's been chosen to be told isn't all that compelling, and despite the lofty pedigree, there's little on offer here to elevate this film above a thousand other slasher pictures.
Fundamentally hamstrung by unlikable protagonists, the film probably works best when viewed from the perspective of Leatherface, who's actions, instead of being those of a heartless psychopath, can actually be reasonably interpreted as those of a wronged and hurt individual, defending their home and avenging the loss of those they loved. Not to justify the body count or the wearing bits of other people, but don't be surprised if over the course of the film you find yourself rooting more for the bad guy than the irritating collection of millenial clichés that the film seems to expect you to.
The production values are good, the gore convincing without necessarily being as visceral or wince inducing as other less polished entries, but ultimately TCM 2022 is remarkable only in how utterly unremarkable it is. Your time would be better spent rewatching the original or the Jessica Biel remake.
I believe the studio sold this to Netflix rather than pursue a theatrical release, which is modern film production speak for "cutting your losses." Not in the least surprised if that's the case. I wouldn't have wanted to risk reclaiming the costs of a theatrical release with this movie either.
Azreal13 wrote: I believe the studio sold this to Netflix rather than pursue a theatrical release, which is modern film production speak for "cutting your losses." Not in the least surprised if that's the case. I wouldn't have wanted to risk reclaiming the costs of a theatrical release with this movie either.
It's a new alternative to Direct to DVD release that saves you the production cost of DVDs.
Yeah, I assume that's true. One more factor that certainly won't raise the profile of what's sold under the big red N.
Last night I happened across a pretty recent film.
I Am Vengeance: Retaliation (2020)
Granted, I didn't see all of it, but I think I got the gist. It's an action film starring Stu Bennett, Vinnie Jones, three blonde ladies. Two of whom are really hard to tell apart, especially since they wear the same black outfit, the same ponytail and they fight all the time. They fight in an impressive, action filmy manner, but a good while I wasn't sure who was who or who was the good one and who was the bad one.
I like Stu Bennett. I like Vinnie Jones. (and I liked the three blonde ladies alright). But the film is cheap as hell. There is very few people involved, and all of them constantly fight each other through abandoned industrial yards. I watched it on TV (where the interesting things happen and where you get to see things you wouldn't otherwise), and thus the German dubbed version. The quality of the dub is always an indicator of the budget as well, and this one was dubbed majorly cheaply. Really impressive. (btw, earlier that night I caught 2 minutes of Robin Hood 2018 on TV, in which the hero had this annoying squeaky voice every single male hero's got since a few years. Add to this the fact that it's Robin Hood 2018, and that was WAY enough to turn it off).
So yeah, Don't Watch. It's really cheap, it's not really good, the fighting's not bad at all, but I can't deal with a cheap film that's just that and otherwise is all grey.
Anything but grey is Rick & Morty. I saw that there's new episodes out on Netflix, and once more I decided to give it a whirl. Good to see that they're still doing exactly the same they've been doing all along (apart from that annoying series in which they did an overarching storyline). Is the show still so highly rated or have people mellowed yet? It seems like each episode's got an interesting idea (often an interesting one too), and then they feel like they have to add some main character being beaten up and then murdering people (is graphic violence even effective enough to warrant its existence in cartoon tv shows?) or some nostalgia act. Very often also a b-story about something that tries to establish some really ham-fisted emotion. But at its core, there sometimes are interesting concepts. With tons of faff over it. But I think I ranted about that show already.
Azreal13 wrote: I believe the studio sold this to Netflix rather than pursue a theatrical release, which is modern film production speak for "cutting your losses." Not in the least surprised if that's the case. I wouldn't have wanted to risk reclaiming the costs of a theatrical release with this movie either.
Was number 1 in the UK listings the other day though! So I guess it has done alright for them.
Ford vs Ferrari (also known as Le Mans '66) [2019]
This is a (mostly) accurate re-telling of the famous Le Mans race of 1966, where Ford (or the owner of Ford, Henry Ford II) was aggrieved by Ferrari following collapsed takeover talks, and strove to win on the world stage. It follows the events surrounding their lead driver, Christian Bale (who has a great/horrible Brummy accent) and owner of the Shellby Corba car company Carroll Shelby (played by Matt Damon in a stetson) and their attempts with Ford to win Le Mans, and stick one to Ferrari.
I will say that if you are into motorsports and racing films this is probably one of the best I have seen, right up there with Rush and the original Steve McQueen Le Mans film. Firstly; all of the cars are genuine, no CGI (other than the portrayal of the crashes - for obvious reasons if you look up the price of a Ferrari '66) and the racing sequences are superbly filmed. I saw in 4k through a decent sound-system and it really blows you away, with the engine notes and zoomed driver shots, really made me wish I had seen it on the big screen it must have been quite an experience.
Secondly, after doing some reading after watching the film, it is close enough in terms of historical accuracy. Apparently it does a fair job of representing both Ken Miles (Bale's character) and most of the events, with some of the characters combined (I think mostly the suits that seem to seek to derail the project at every moment) and a few events exaggerated, and blanks filled in, for entertainment purposes. But, this isn't a U-571, and you can watch the end of the film safe that it isn't going to be a typical hollywood bad-guys vanquished and good-guy gets the girl. I thought Director James Mangold did a great job (incidentally he also made Copland - Sly Stallone's best film I think, if you haven't seen that).
Overall: Even if you're not into cars or racing particularly you should enjoy because it's so well made and Bale is always worth watching. It will leave you with some strong emotions, and the time spend watching will race by.
4 / 5 (add 1 star if you are a petrol head or into racing)
Aye, I heard that this one's really good.I'd love to watch it some time.
As for #1 in the UK for that other film - was that according to Netflix' website? I don't trust a single thing that interface tells me. Would be interesting if they actually published viewing numbers.
I didn't like it but cars bore me as hell (didn't like Rush as well), and the plot wasn't inspiring at all. I was interested in it because I love the two leading actors and watch pretty much whatever they do, plus I always watch all the movies that are nominated for the academy award as best picture. The acting was very solid and the director did a great job, it's just the screenplay that didn't leave me any emotion.
I just have one real critique and that's, again, related to accents. There is at least one scene that is supposed to be funny in which Matt Damon "sabotates" the italian team during the race, leaving the mechanics yelling against each other in disbelief. My disappointment comes to the fact that their moves (in particular) and accents are typical of american guys trying to imitate italians. There's nothing italian in them, and that scene actually managed to irritate me. Some other minor characters that are supposed to be italians also speak very badly during the movie. They did Enzo Ferrari great though, and Remo Girone is an amazing actor.
Yes I did wonder about that scene during the film, it was a pretty low blow (and like you say a poor stereotype) - perhaps not a very smart thing to do, as I'm sure a lot of Italians will have watched the film, and that part was really just a cheap laugh for the Hollywood audience.
I liked how some of the executive (of both Ferrari and Ford) were portrayed. Really almost psychotic and treating people around them appallingly, but immensely driven. Apparently the scene where the Ford exec relays to Henry Ford what Ferrari has said about him did happen in real life, and then helped lead to Ford spending many millions of dollars to beat Ferrari at Le Mans - it had become personal!
Ford vs Ferrari (also known as Le Mans '66) [2019]
really made me wish I had seen it on the big screen it must have been quite an experience.
When this was announced I knew I was going to see it in theater (something I rarely do, and even more rarely do I take the missus with for. . . . reasons), My issue with theater sound systems is that they tend to have everything tuned way down and are overly reliant on their subs to get a deep wub wub thrum in your chest during, everything. This movie however, was fething PERFECT for that tuning, as it actually worked with the engine sounds rather than exaggerating them.
The most glaringly obvious thing they missed in the film was at the finish line, if you watch actual footage (IIRC you can see it on YT), there was no "dead heat" . . Bruce McLaren surged ahead, causing Miles to try the same, so the three Fords were somewhat strung out (though all within a couple tenths). The controversy is still there, and true, because of race rules at the time. In fact Ive seen some conspiracy theory types who contend that Miles' consistent lap times were such that the only reason he didn't win the race, were because organizers deliberately did not count a number of completed laps. Like, they are hunting down every scrap of record they can get their hands on to try and prove themselves right.
Ford vs Ferrari (also known as Le Mans '66) [2019]
really made me wish I had seen it on the big screen it must have been quite an experience.
When this was announced I knew I was going to see it in theater (something I rarely do, and even more rarely do I take the missus with for. . . . reasons), My issue with theater sound systems is that they tend to have everything tuned way down and are overly reliant on their subs to get a deep wub wub thrum in your chest during, everything. This movie however, was fething PERFECT for that tuning, as it actually worked with the engine sounds rather than exaggerating them.
The most glaringly obvious thing they missed in the film was at the finish line, if you watch actual footage (IIRC you can see it on YT), there was no "dead heat" . . Bruce McLaren surged ahead, causing Miles to try the same, so the three Fords were somewhat strung out (though all within a couple tenths). The controversy is still there, and true, because of race rules at the time. In fact Ive seen some conspiracy theory types who contend that Miles' consistent lap times were such that the only reason he didn't win the race, were because organizers deliberately did not count a number of completed laps. Like, they are hunting down every scrap of record they can get their hands on to try and prove themselves right.
Yes Ensis - I will put my comment in spoilers (I know that seems mental for something that happened 50 years ago, but there we go!)
Spoiler:
From what I had read, the organisers initially allowed Ford's request to finish in a dead heat win. However, they then reneged on that just before the end of the race. As McLaren's car passed the line very marginally ahead, he was declared victor. It seemed to me like people running the race who couldn't tell their arse from their elbow (looking at what happened in F1 in the last year, it seems very little has changed in that regard!)
Miles seems to have been very sanguine about the whole thing, and even wouldn't hear bad words spoken about Ford after the race - if the execs had ordered it, he would certainly have good reason to be bitter. Instead I think he was very grateful for being given the opportunity to race. I was glad to see he had been added to the motorsport hall of fame. Despite being a motorsport fan I hadn't really heard of the stories around the race before, so it was good to see them reaching a bigger audience with this film.
The latest Brannaugh film where he plays Poirot. Have to admit, I did not see Murder on the Orient Express even though I wanted to. Didn't get around to it. I also have not read any Agatha Christie novels.
This was beautifully shot. I was not surprised to see Ridley Scott as a producer as he knows how to shoot a great movie. There was some CGI to touch-up or put you in the right place/time; but nothing outrageous.
Everyone does a nice job. The only real question I had was why did the killer finish off witnesses and leave Poirot alone? Unsure.
Otherwise, I enjoyed the spectacle and the performances.
So, as noted Daredevil Season 3 doesn't make sense unless you see Defenders.
(Defenders in turn does not make sense unless you see Iron Fist and Daredevil S2, but too late for Iron Fist for now, besides the character is just not interesting)
And it's... OK.
With 4 heroes and their supporting casts and the Hand it feels overcrowded even with 8 episodes. It takes 2 or 3 episodes for the heroes to even meet which leads to some good fights and good character moments but I'm sure it's worth it. The finale is unfulfilling and I think the TV budget was too limiting. Even the Arrowverse shows manage more epic battles.
It might have worked better as Daredevil/Iron Fist show or even better a Power Man/Iron Fist show. Neither a big strong guy protecting Harlem, nor a millionaire kung fu dude interest me, but put these opposites together as Heroes for Hire in a shabby office off of Times Square, and yeah, that works.
Worth noting that Defenders features an evil ninja clan led by Sigourney Weaver, an undead Greek ninja, and a white blind karate sensei, and a white mystical kung fu master. Yeah it's true to the comics but it did give me a feeling that Marvel/Netflix is somehow unaware of the existence of Asian actors.
(Note: ignore the screen name, I'm Irish-American and have no particular dog in this fight, but even so it bugged me)
The latest Brannaugh film where he plays Poirot. Have to admit, I did not see Murder on the Orient Express even though I wanted to. Didn't get around to it. I also have not read any Agatha Christie novels.
This was beautifully shot. I was not surprised to see Ridley Scott as a producer as he knows how to shoot a great movie. There was some CGI to touch-up or put you in the right place/time; but nothing outrageous.
Everyone does a nice job. The only real question I had was why did the killer finish off witnesses and leave Poirot alone? Unsure.
Otherwise, I enjoyed the spectacle and the performances.
Well, Kenny Branagh is of course a fine actor.
But when it comes to Poirot, he ain’t David Suchet. And he ain’t David Suchet, I don’t give a rat’s ass!
Pacific wrote: Agree 100%, David Suchet will always be Poirot in my mind!
I like Branagh, but he always seems to be: Director, Producer, star actor (more than one role sometimes!)
Yeah, I'm kind of two minds when it comes to him. On the one hand he seems to LOVE filmmaking, and everything about it, and he does it. Which is really cool. On the other hand (and surely that goes hand in hand with the prior note), he's full of himself and maybe not that great with all his decisions. Apart from esteemed Easy E's review, I haven't heard much good about Death on the Nile.
Pacific wrote: Agree 100%, David Suchet will always be Poirot in my mind!
I like Branagh, but he always seems to be: Director, Producer, star actor (more than one role sometimes!)
Yes, I also grew up with him as Poirot and enjoyed him as well. However, things change and life moves on. I also liked the guy who played Sherlock in the old Mystery shows on PBS.
I will say this about Death on the Nile they were trying to "jazz it up" both literally and figuratively. One by putting in more Jazz music, and two by adding more "action" with a stupid WWI "origin of the Mustache" story and a chase scene. These all maybe part of the book/character, but I have suspicions they were added to make the movie a bit more.... intense or modern or something. They kind of stuck out as anachronistic to me.
I've watched Death on the Nile yesterday. Solid sequel, it's basically copy paste from the 1978 one, except for one of the characters dying instead of another one and the prologue. I liked it, although the 1978 one had a much greater cast and I still prefer it.
Everyone does a nice job. The only real question I had was why did the killer finish off witnesses and leave Poirot alone? Unsure.
Because the killer(s) wanted Poirot to clear him/her/them (no spoiler) by accusing someone else . The killer(s) thought it was a perfect plan that not even Poirot could unfold.
There was a really great Judge Dredd/2000AD comic I read once, where you had someone who looked like Angela Langsbury (from Murder She Wrote) who always seemed to be in the vicinity of murders being committed. Of course Dredd investigated and it was her all along as the serial killer
(Apologies it was much more funny in the comic than I have made it sound!)
It’s….pretty crap to be honest. Effects look dated, and frankly the Mila Jovovic nonsense ones were far more fun.
Yeah, I thlought so. Also, the casting on some characters looked ...inspired. But I'm not muchinto the whole story, so I couldn't comment on that.
Aaaanyway, with the Milla Jovowich films, especially the later ones from 3 on, you knew what you're in for. Mostly artificial looking, hyperstylized things revolving around Milla Jovowich. And I really don't mind that, because I really like looking at that. Few weeks ago I caught about 20 minutes of my favourite RE film, which is the one which is Milla Jovowich just walking from one stage to the next fighting zombies. I'm not sure if anybody really talks in the film at all. It's proposterous, but it looks good.
Not that I'd sit down and watch any of the RE films really. BTW, I watched one of the computer animated ones recently. I think it's two, and they're on Netflix. Very much elongated video sequences made by capcom and with that delightful Japanese view on Europeans and Americans. Also kinda boring. Don't Watch.
I’ve a soft spot for the original RE movies. For me, they come down just on the right side of “silly but they’re not pretending otherwise”.
They’re fun, and they’re not remake on remake. Each one adds a fresh new bit of silliness.
The new one though? Well, I’d watch it again, because it’s not awful. I just found the “oh hi Jill Valentine, hey yourself Albert Wesker” name dropping a bit…well I’ll say on the nose, though I’m not sure that quite the right phase.
I didn't even know of that film until a friend of mine (who's really into Resident Evil. Like caring about the backstory and stuff like that) told me about it. Never heard a peep elsewhere.
It’s alright. A pretty brutal scene in one bit. But….plot is paper thin. Still a fairly fun watch. Definitely well shot and directed. Just not that much to see, really.
I just watched Only Lovers Left Alive (2013), which is a cool vampire film. I'm not clever enough to fully appreciate it due to references I'm sure, but I like how it's about grown-ups and how people are really annoying, experiences are overrated and things are good. Watch It. It also has cool music and looks great.
So I was thinking. What are my top 5 vampire films?
.) Blade
.) Fright Night
.) Only Lovers Left Alive
.) Vampires
.) can't decide whether it's 30 days of night or Daybreakers.
Disclaimer: I haven't seen Lost Boys, I haven't seen Let Me In. I have seen Vampire's Kiss. No Nosferatu, because it's the proper grandaddy of them all.
RLM just released a video discussing Near Dark, which sounds like it might have thematic similarities with Only Lovers Left Alive. I haven’t seen it.
My favorite vampire movies tend to be movies with vampires in them, like Underworld or Monster Squad. I remember enjoying Fright Night and that movie where young Jim Carey becomes a vampire, but most vampire movies are not for me.
So I was thinking. What are my top 5 vampire films?
.) Blade
.) Fright Night
.) Only Lovers Left Alive
.) Vampires
.) can't decide whether it's 30 days of night or Daybreakers.
Disclaimer: I haven't seen Lost Boys, I haven't seen Let Me In. I have seen Vampire's Kiss. No Nosferatu, because it's the proper grandaddy of them all.
Which ones are yours?
Fright Night, the original from the 80s, is definitely my favorite vampire movie, I adore it. The remake is kinda ok though.
Blade II and From Dusk Till Dawn definitely in top 5, then of course Interview with a Vampire and Bram Stoker's Dracula. Those for sure, not necessarily in that order. Notable mention to The Omega Man, which was based on a great novel dealing with vampires while the movie changed those mutants. The remake, starring Will Smith, made them zombies instead. So it's not really a vampire movie, but the book that was adapted from was a vampire story and the mutants are still vampire-ish looking. I don't include it in my top 5 but I have to mention it, it's a really good movie starring Charlton Heston.
I liked Underworld I and II plus the prequel, Blade I and III, Carpenter's Vampires, 30 Days of Night, Let Me In (original), Lost Boys, What We Do in the Shadows, Only Lovers Left Alive and Nosferatu as well.
A modern day western starring Jeff Bridges and one of the Hollywood Chris' (don't ask me which one, they're all interchangeable to me). It's like No Country for Old Men, except that this film is good. The Chris is probably the weakest member of the cast, and even he's not bad. Definitely worth a watch if you find time.
Finally got to see that one. It's loosely based on an the actual case of Wilhelm Voigt. In 1906 he dressed up as a Prussian officer, took command of a bunch of soldiers, led them to Köpenick (outside Berlin) and stole a bunch of money from the town's treasury. Hhe was caught and spent a while in prison, but became a folk hero and eventually was pardonned by the Kaiser.
The story, based on Zuckmayer's stage play, was turned into film at least thrice (I think one of them was made fairly recently), the most famous one being the 1956 version though. Heinz Rühmann, terribly popular German actor between the 30s, 60s, plays the main role. Heinz Rühmann is a problematic figure because he was a big film star in the Nazi regime and almost wasn't cast in this film (which would be his come-back after the war) due to this fact.
Aaaanyway, the plot goes as such: Poor shoemaker gets out of prison after some low-key document fraud and tries to get a job. Everywhere he goes to find a job or new papers (which he lost or were taken away or something) he's greeted with "Where did you serve?". We're talking turn-of-the-century Prussia here; a wildly militarized society. And that's one of the things that struck me the most while watching this. It's basically Starship Troopers. And about as close to us here nowadays as Starship Troopers is as well; probably further away. Which brings up interesting ideas about current state of things, how they might develop and so on.
Anyway, the poor shoemaker is sent from job interview to job interview, in between he tries to get papers or even just a passport to leave Prussia and go somewhere else. Everywhere he's sent away because a.) He wasn't in the army, b.) he's an ex-convict. Without a job he can't get papers, without papers he can't get a job. He ends up desperate and back in prison, due to lack of any other literature he starts to learn Prussian field manuals, stuff goes on from there.
Another thing that struck me was the bureaucracy in an analogue world and how certain key figures held a LOT of local power. Maybe that's one tiny little bit that got better with digitalization? Not sure. Luckily I never had a run-in with a beaurocrat so far; people working for state agencies or whatever you call it have always been really, really nice.
The film not only shows several facettes of a militarized society in tragic-comedic ways, but at its core of course also talks about the difference a uniform, social standing and military tone makes. All of which seems very alien to us nowadays, with the people in power trying to appear like regular people in streetwear, and being obsessed with the how and where of communication/advertising. There's a scene in which an officer has a uniform tailor-made which I thought illustrates power structures very well: The tailor is very servile while taking the officer's measurements, cracking a few jokes, telling him how he'll look like a soldier prince or stuff like that. He's constantly talking, being very keen on selling his services of course, even though the officer's already made the choice of having the uniform made by him. At the very same time the tailor scolds his own son (who of course also is in the reserve army, but very reluctantly, preferring to read novels when he's not working at his father's tailor shop) with every other sentence. He tells him to stand straight, and how he'll never make officer or cut a great figure such as the officer who's getting his uniform made. Meanwhile he officer's himself is being friendly, non-threatening and jovial. So the power he holds is mainly consolidated by the ones below him, like the tailor, who in turn kicks down at his own son to reaffirm his own position in that whole social construct.
The film goes on, after some more rejections for work places or documents the poor shoemaker finally gets a letter in which he's told he's going to be expelled from the country. This is the final straw, the shoemaker basically snaps. He lost any trust in this system. After a quick dialogue between his brother-in-law (who just got a rejection for an officer's rank in the reserve army, despite the fact that it would have been 'his turn') the shoemaker leaves. <the big impostor part happens in which the shoemaker dresses up as an army captain, he steals the 4000 Mark and so on.
The police are looking for the fake Captain of Köpenick, it's a big news story. Eventually Voigt turns himself hin and returns almost all of the money. Things get weird as he meets the warden of the prison he's spent many years in, the chief of police, and a bunch of army officers. They all love the whole story, everybody jokes and laughs, Voigt is given nice brandy, is asked to put on the uniform again, and so on. It's interesting how these men who just saw their system easily turned on its head by some vagabond get such a kick out of the whole situation. They see no danger in this little man who basically made the army, the uniform and the police a mockery.
In the end Voigt ist pardonned by the Kaiser, we see some kids walking with him as a parade of soldiers passes by and Voigt walks off into the sunset in a very Chalpin-esque manner.
Heinz Rühmann, who plays the poor shoemaker Voigt, got a lot of praise for this role, and rightly so. In a review somebody wrote, that he fully immersed himself into this role and that this was miles away from the roles he played in his films under the nazi regime. I'm not very familiar with his earlier work, just having seen one or two films of his he did in the 30s, in which he also played underdogs, but in a very different way. The Captain of Köpenick very much is a post-war German film: excellent costumes, great colours, really solid stage actors, pretty up-beat and clean (although this one probably was pretty dark for the time), always with a little twinkle in its eye, but hinting at social realities in between. Rühmann is a charismatic dude who's easy to root for (at one point, for a little second, he's crying as he's led away by the police, which is pretty heart-breaking) in his struggles. Later on he went on to make even more family-friendly films, many of which were also hits with German audiences, but the fact that he was a big star under the nazi regime always stuck. The Captain of Köpenick is viewed as his best film and it's easy to see why.
Watch It, although I'm not sure if an English dubbed version gets the atmosphere across as well. Berlin/Prussian dialects play a bit of a role in defining the characters.>
Thanks! I had not heard of that one, and I like the snapshot at pre-WWI Prussia. I may have to look for it online.
Uncharted
It's like National Treasure only with less Nick Cage! This is a serviceable film, and much of it's ability to keep your attention will come from you tolerance of watching Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg mug for the camera. It is pretty standard action/adventure fare... and also completely skippable.
The Batman For the record, I can quote the Keaton Batman movie from memory as it was the first movie my family had on VHS. Therefore, I have seen it 100's of times.
This one sets a suitably grim vibe to the setting, uses audio and visuals to reinforce it, and then makes the story relatively low level and gritty. This Riddler is no Jim Carey, just a maladjusted accountant with a penchant for [b]Saw[/b[-esque murder.
That said, the best set pieces are all blown by the trailer. You have seen that before. That said, this movie is a pretty good take on Batman and does not bother re-hashing the origin story, which is GREAT news. However, it is still personal to Batman. That said, it is not really all that great of a mystery about what is going on, and Batman seems like he is chasing the obvious sometimes.
10/10 for setting and tone, the rest is much more mundane. Not bad for a street level hero flick, but it is hard not to compare it to Daredevil S1 for me. On the plus side, this is no Schumacher film.
Yeah, the German version of the film is on youtube for sure, not sure about any English subtitles or dub.
Your review of Uncharted echoes pretty much everything I heard about it. Somebody summed it up as "surprisingly un-crap", but very forgettable and by-the-numbers. I don't have any fond feelings towards the video games, so I guess I'll skip that one.
The Batman almost sounds interesting. I don't care all that much about Batman, but I do like Paul Dano doing things. Let's wait and see.
It’s alright. A pretty brutal scene in one bit. But….plot is paper thin. Still a fairly fun watch. Definitely well shot and directed. Just not that much to see, really.
Was glad you mentioned that, literally the only thing I can remember from that film is 'that one scene' !
So yeah, a hormonal 12 year old discovers he's really an extraterrestrial with god-like powers and proceeds to well, act like a hormonal teen and stalk girls and kill anyone who's wronged him. Evil 12 year old Superman should have a ton of potential but the directing is pedestrian and the plot utterly predictable. The last 5 minutes are the best part, teasing an evil Justice League. Might watch a sequel. Might.
I've watched the Potter series before but honestly don't recall that much about them, and after a rewatch of the first film I can see why: this is a completely forgettable film. The CGI doesn't stand up for a start. The child actors show some talent but over all are pretty weak (they certainly don't reach Culkin Home Alone levels of acting). The plot is all over the place and the conclusion is totally senseless: how did the plants get under the trap door; what is the chess board doing there; how did the mirror, which they've had easy access to for the whole film, get hidden under the trap door; his hands do that because of love!?!
Now I'm not saying this is a terrible film because I understand that, of all the series, this is a kids flick. But it is a pretty bad film.
Sure, but none of it is explained. I get that earlier in the story we are told the teachers have secured the stone, but why the plants, who put them there and how? Why a chess board, what's the frame of reference? Fluffy gets explained and that bit works. None of the rest of it makes any sense.
Henry wrote: Harry Potter and the philosopher's stone
I've watched the Potter series before but honestly don't recall that much about them, and after a rewatch of the first film I can see why: this is a completely forgettable film. The CGI doesn't stand up for a start. The child actors show some talent but over all are pretty weak (they certainly don't reach Culkin Home Alone levels of acting). The plot is all over the place and the conclusion is totally senseless: how did the plants get under the trap door; what is the chess board doing there; how did the mirror, which they've had easy access to for the whole film, get hidden under the trap door; his hands do that because of love!?!
Now I'm not saying this is a terrible film because I understand that, of all the series, this is a kids flick. But it is a pretty bad film.
For those who read the book and are fan of the IP that was a really good movie, probably one of the best about that saga. I watched it in theatres when it was released, 20 years ago as a 13-14yo kid and I was enthusiastic. The last movies are much worse, ending one in particular.
I agree about the child actors, all of them were (and still are) pretty bad. They were perfect look alikes for the characters they portrayed though.
The Office (US) is pretty funny. Never was keen on watching it because I've been a big fan of the original Office for many, many years and the US version being basically the more pleasant and long-running version (the original being unpleasant at times - but heart-warming when pleasant - and short being some of my favourite things about it) didn't appeal to me much.
But it's on Netflix now, and I'm dull and pretty much gave up on everything, so I like sitcoms to watch over and over. The Office works for that, and sometimes it's really funny too. The cast's also good, isn't it. Of course the story between Dwight and Angela is more interesting than Pam&Jim. That Jen character got extremely interesting before they just turned her into the most evil person in the world. But it's alright. It's a fun show.
Yeah, I assume that this is something that wouldn't appeal to everybody. My brother can't stand watching either the US or the UK version either.
I watched Near Dark (1987) now since you lot recommended it, and because it happened to be on tv recently.
That's a good vampire film, isn't it. Never seen it before, but I like Bigelow's films, and I like 1987 films. Not very keen on vampires in general, and this film works for that notion very well I think.
Watch It, I'd say it's one of the go-to films when it comes to vampires. The review is very short because everybody except me is familiar with the film anyway.
From my recollection, one of the most memorable of the films, so it must have done something good. On with the viewing...
From the opening notes of the intro, it's obvious that this film is running on a confidence that was absent in the previous entry. This is shown in the first adults we meet (the Dursleys and Weasleys) both setting a pace and a mood that continues through the film. Radcliffe and Grint must have had some acting lessons because they're ok (Grint is quite impressive at points), although Watson still has a long way to go before she stops looking like she's rehearsing for the school pantomime.
Now don't get me wrong, there's still moments that don't make any sense (a magic sword that's never been mentioned before saves the day?). But, if the first film is a very poor mash together of incoherent plot points, then this film is consistent, confident and has a flow that keeps the viewer engaged. A very good film.
Remember they’re just kids, some in their first movie roles. As child stars go, they’re really not that irritating. Indeed I understand Hermione’s over pronounciation of words is entirely consistent with how she’s described in the books?
Kyoto Secunda is reading the HP books so it seemed a good time to start the films. I pretty much agree with what's been said, some CGI doesn't hold up, the kids look right but have the acting skills of 11 year olds etc. But y'know it's up there with LotR for quality in bringing a world to life, the cast is just perfect (and the kids get better) and seeing it now it reminds me that Harry Potter does in fact earn its place in the canon.
First off it uses a classic story telling engine of the British boarding school (with a magic twist) which had been forgotten as a cliche so that when it hit a new generation they were totally unprepared for it. Kids are away at school, so no parents, deal with bullies and teachers and rules and somehow solve a mystery with their new best friends. It's a great setting that kind of disappeared after the 50s. (Titanic is the same, the Romeo and Juliet star-crossed tragic love affair had not been put in a major film since West Side Story and so it hit viewers with its full impact). Secondly they're books that grow up with the readers, becoming more complex and addressing new themes each year. Finally the kids are very authentic, almost to the point of being unlikable. Any parent or teacher will recognize them. And readers know that.
Kyoto Secunda is still fuming that Harry had blue eyes rather than green but is willing to look past that crime and enjoyed the film.
Midsommar
Didn't this get good reviews when it came out?
Can't someone make a horror film that doesn't give away the premise in the trailer?
Needed to be cut by like, an hour, but otherwise OK. If you're thinking about it, watch the first 20 minutes then skip to the 2 hour (!!) mark for the climax.
3rd night so it's:
Harry Potter and the prisoner of azkaban Well I'm damned if I remember anything about this one from the title alone, so here goes ...
This is the first film that feels like the director had a vision, rather than slavishly reproducing something that had been dumped in front of them. The colour palette, set design, a better blend of practical effects and CGI, humour that is a step above the slap stick of the first two. The change of Dumbledore is welcome too.
It also helps that Watson and Felton (Malfoy) have finally turned up and are acting at the same level as the main two boys.
But, the change in tone is quite dramatic. While the theme of the film is strong, all the excitement and buzz is drained from the series to be replaced with a punishing emotional tax. At least some things making zero sense is consistent - "she gave it to me in the first year" and we're supposed to just accept that?
This is a good film, but the lack of charm does slightly hold it back.
Harry Potter and the goblet of fire I do remember bits of this one, so it must have made an impression. But was it good or bad? ...
My word, everything is unbearably gloomy. Dour, glum, cloudy, rainy, muted colours of dullness. That fits the underlying theme of events (the carnage of puberty), but dear lord it is depressing. It takes about an hour before there's any respite and the mood becomes momentarily bearable. That said though, the action sequences are mighty impressive.
How many times over the last four movies have we heard "Hogwarts isn't safe any more"? It's just cliché at this point.
The acting is finally at a level that's worth commending. Radcliffe's earnestness captures the nature of the character and overcomes any failings he may have, Watson is doing fine and Grint is still the best of the three.
I'd like to say this was a good movie, the story and action are good enough, but the unending misery is too much. Technically better than the first film but the least enjoyable to watch.
Yesterday I spent most of the day at a wargames show. Came home, had dinner, collapsed. Woke up around 1am, right when The Bourne Identity started on TV. That's a good film, isn't it. Haven't seen any of the others beyond the second, but the Bourne Identity is really good. It's like the least American American action film.
A group of adventurous friends travel into the wilderness to explore some caves, in what happens to be their first time together since a tragedy befell one of them. As they make their way further underground, it becomes apparent that they're decidedly less alone than they should be.
One of those weird holes one often has in one's history this one. Despite regularly featuring highly in horror greats lists, I'd never seen more than a few minutes here or there.
I'm glad I finally got around to seeing the whole thing. It's an excellent example of how horror as a genre can do "less is more" with budget better than nearly other type of film. The chemistry between the girls and the individual performances all feel natural. Jump scares are used judiciously and not overplayed (something far too many get wrong.) The film looks amazing, using the pitch dark and monochrome lighting to real impact, and the sound design doesn't let the side down either, with some really meaty and visceral effects. Special mention to a very effective dream state/waking device that's deployed very successfully a couple of times and completely unseats the viewer from where they think they are.
Criticism probably comes most in that it does feel a little like two films joined together as it tries to transition from the opening scenes to the final acts, and those final acts are perhaps a little breathless and could perhaps use a little room to let the viewer and cast really come to grips with the horror of their predicament. The creatures themselves aren't all that original either, but they're splendidly brutal and efficient in their manner which offsets a lot of that.
It appears the sequel isn't on Netflix right now, but I'll be keeping an eye out, and even though it by all accounts offers diminishing returns (as is the way with most sequels,) I won't be waiting another 17 years to watch it!
Sigur wrote: The Bourne Identity started on TV. That's a good film, isn't it.
The Bourne Identity is the reason we never got another Die Another Day and instead we got Casino Royale.
I mean... we also ended up with Quantum of Solace and Spectre, but you can't have everything.
I was in my teens in the 90s and Britpop was everywhere. There's a scene in the Bourne Supremecy where, every time I see it, the lyrics run through my head:
"So I hit him on the head with the only things that were anywhere near me: a tin of baked beans and a Women's Weekly"
I love the physicality of those films.
Been binging Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Tried the first season ages ago, skipped to the second when DeVito appears (from what I've heard that's the norm with this show), and I honestly can't remember the last time I laughed so hard at a TV show.
Harry Potter and the order of the phoenix Is this the one with the crazy teacher?
Well this is a nice change. The film is dark without being miserable. Sinister without being hopeless. In fact, the whole story is hope in the face of desperation. That positivity is the offset to the despair that was absent in the previous film. A story of family against adversity.
The Potter films have always focused on death, yet against this constant doom the film makes space for music and colour and humour. The director does a nice job of adding the details without labouring them; "Nice one James"; Dumbledore's batting Harry aside.
There are no dull spots, the story shifts along at an even pace. And we're treated to one of the most spitefully bonkers bad guys in cinema history.
It's a close thing but I put this one just behind chamber of secrets. It's really good.
@Henry: Oh, that makes a lot of sense. Yeah, the fight scenes in that film are really good. No superhero stuff. I mean it sure it superhuman, but in the end Jason Bourne is a human being.
@Valkyrie: Sounds excellent! Some day I'll watch that show.
I just finished Arcane. It’s so good. It’s worth getting Netflix for a month just to watch that. The art is amazing, the characters compelling, and watching Powder change into Jinx just makes me shiver.
I’m sure it could be criticised over stuff, but I found it utterly spectacular.
Before the movie I'm drawing a blank, can't remember a thing about this...
...and after watching the movie I can see why. Important things happen yet they can't prevent this from being a regrettably beige movie. It isn't helped by having half an hour towards the end of the movie that makes absolutely no sense because, hey, why should we let the audience know what's going on, right?
That's it. That's all I got to comment on this half baked flick.
As a disclaimer, I generally dislike all time travel movies. This one is no different, BUT at least it doesn't take itself that seriously so it can ask you to overlook a lot of BS.
That said, your enjoyment of this movie 100% depends on your enjoyment of Ryan Reynolds style of comedy and acting. He is the main focus of the movie.
It was nice to see Jennifer Garner and Mark Ruffalo working together again. They are good together. Also has Gamorra in it (Zoe Saldana <sp>?).
Otherwise, a solid Netflix style movie. Nothing great, but not an abomination either. Workmanlike and competent enough, with a few fun moments and solid performers.
Bear with me, only two left.
Harry Potter and the deathly hallows, pt 1
While there's clearly not enough story here to warrant a film in its own right, that doesn't seem to matter. In many ways this plays more like a traditional film than the string of ridiculous events that has been the hallmark of this series. We're given time to feel for the heroes and there's some lovely lingering cinematic shots.
One thing that really stands out is the audio. Next time you watch it pay special attention to the sound effects, the music and the environment. They did a cracking job on this film.
While I don't think it's the best, of all the Potter films this is the one I would most happily watch again.
Henry wrote: Bear with me, only two left.
Harry Potter and the deathly hallows, pt 1
While there's clearly not enough story here to warrant a film in its own right, that doesn't seem to matter. In many ways this plays more like a traditional film than the string of ridiculous events that has been the hallmark of this series. We're given time to feel for the heroes and there's some lovely lingering cinematic shots.
One thing that really stands out is the audio. Next time you watch it pay special attention to the sound effects, the music and the environment. They did a cracking job on this film.
While I don't think it's the best, of all the Potter films this is the one I would most happily watch again.
Fully agree. Deathly Hallows pt 1 is not loved by the fandom, but I really dig it for the reasons you mentioned. It was interesting to see the trio outside of the school, with no teachers or magic mcguffins at every corner.
We made it to the end.
Harry Potter and the deathly hallows, pt 2
Sadly this is little more than a functional end to the series. There is emotional satisfaction to the conclusion and the events themselves are engaging enough. But the story only really happens in two places, the bank and the school, and it feels like an almost pedestrian plod to the end.
The choice of displaying black on black on black as the colour palette doesn't improve the situation.
We're left with a film who's good bits only work due to the heavy lifting done by the previous entries and is coasting toward the finish line.
The Harry Potter series So what's the conclusion? The series has merit as a technical achievement, but the erratic quality of the individual films doesn't elevate it as worthy of artistic praise.
In my order of preference:
Good The Chamber of Secrets - the complete kids wizarding adventure.
The Order of the Phoenix - complete wizarding adventure, but a bit more mature.
The Deathly Hallows, pt 1 - a proper movie that satisfies all the grown up bits in your head.
Okay The Prisoner of Azkaban - ticks all the right boxes but lacks the charm to really draw you in.
The Deathly Hallows, pt 2 - a workmanlike finale that deserves no higher praise than "it'll do."
Bad The Half Blood Prince - the hardest to categorise. Is it bad or merely okay? Would I ever want to watch it again? I've put it in the bad list, so you can probably guess.
The Philosopher's Stone - an un-loveable and forgettable mess.
The Goblet of Fire - impressive set pieces cannot rescue the relentless unpleasantness.
I apologize for high jacking the movie thread for a week.
This is a Pixar film that I had totally forgotten was every released! I can see why this one did not catch on as the subject matter is a bit heavy. The set-up takes about twice as long as it should, and the ultimate "moral" of the story is very light weight. Some of the structure of the film is also a bit dicey.
That said, I enjoyed it for what it was. I also enjoyed the use of the New York setting to help tell the story, the main character is very relatable and well rounded, and there is some nifty music too.
A cut above most of the films I have seen recently, but not Pixar's best movie. I still liked it for what it was and the heart it brought.
I only liked the first 3 movies. Deathly hallows part 1 in particular was one of the worst movies I've ever seen at the theatre, reminded me of Twilight, to the point that when I saw it I promised myself not to watch the sequel, although I did it anyway. Part 2 was also awful, but at least it was a relief since the franchise was finally over.
I find that the three leading actors are so terrible (and still are, Watson in particular) that they can be acceptable as kids, as people don't expect much from them. Most child actors are that bad. But as teens or young adults they're surprisingly bad. This in addiction to worse directors and worse writing made the late HP episodes really bland movies.
I've alwyas had the feeling that the movies were ok as long as they were simple child adventures. After the first three episodes they needed a much better cast and directors to work properly, not to mention that the books were much harder to adapt thanks to their content and lenght.
I think kids can be quite diverse in what scares them. As a grown up I still can't stand most jump-scare horror films but I love atmosphere horror.
Chamber has big spiders and the basilisk, but most kids would be ok with those. Hallows pt 1 has an unpleasant bit with the snake that's a bit jumpy (and they've started putting blood smears around too). And in the same film there's the bit between Bellatrix and Hermione. As it's not a jump-scare I'm not sure how scary it would be to a kid, but to an adult it's powerful in its horror. It's part of why I think that film is one of the best.
While baddies die at the end of nearly every film, goodies die at the end of nearly every film from Goblet onwards, and Hallows pt 2 pulls no punches in mowing down characters like they're new born chicks in a nugget factory. The hardest hitting are deaths at the end of Goblet, Half-blood and Hallows pt1. The series does not shy away from showing death and that's something only you as a parent can judge the appropriateness of.
You can probably tell that I'd recommend, if you are concerned, watch Hallows pt1 to see if your kids would be ok. The rest can be bleak at times but should be all right.
In my opinion this is the Terminator: Dark Fate of the Ghostbusters franchise; a much later sequel that was better than it had any right to be while still not holding a candle to the original duo, best enjoyed as a “what if” story than a direct, canon sequel. Competently made with a decent enough script, mostly good pacing, no terrible actors and a few standouts.
I’d recommend it with those caveats.
Now on to the nerdy nitpicking:
Am I the only ine who realized Egon might not have been telling the literal truth when shooting down Janine in the first movie? The producers clearly knew he wasn’t serious when he said “print is dead”…but took him at face value about collecting spores, molds and fungus? Taking everything at face value just to cram in some more call backs makes the film feel more childish.
There’s no way someone on the set for the ending didn’t mention Dragonball Z, the Cell Saga, and the final fireball fight where Goku’s ghost stands beside Gohan, right? That whole sequence feels like an homage (hopefully an homage).
They didn’t understand what made the first movie work, lore wise. Focusing on the “Sumerian” and rising dead instead of the “Rectification of the Vuldronaii” and “four-fold crossrip” aspects made the world feel smaller, the threat lessened. They reduced Gisler from some extra-universe Lovecraftian being only tangentially within the scope of human comprehension to a Buffy villain. Minor nitpick for most, I know, but the Vinz Clortho rant did so much for the imagination, and this movie has a dampening effect instead.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Nah thanks for the Harry Potter reviews, I read the books but only saw the first film or two and now Kyoto Secunda is reading the books.
Good to have some idea what's coming down the pike. In your opinion are any of them too scary for 9 year olds?
My five year old nephew watched Tremors and loved it, but I think some elements of HP are potentially scarier.
Strangely enough I never watched all of them until recently, despite having read all the books multiple times. Goblet of Fire, the film, really ticked me off.
1 - Fine. Nothing really scary.
2 - Also fine. The basilisk might be scary.
3 - Probably the best of the lot and last of the real children's friendly versions. It has a werewolf, but the werewolf looks goofy. I think the Dementors would be scarier, but fine for a nine-year old.
4 - It gets dark at the end and marks a tonal shift in both the books and the series. I would say it's less "scary" and more morally upsetting as Voldemort and his lackeys become prominent.
5 through 8 - Generally darker than the rest, but there's no real gore or horror. The scary elements tend to be more of the same, Dementors, Voldemort and company being evil, giant spiders, creepy-looking giant, Voldemort's snake might be creepy.
I agree that 1-3 are the best and it goes downhill in terms of creativity after that. They never become awful movies, but they never approach LotR in terms of translating the books into film.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henry wrote: I think kids can be quite diverse in what scares them. As a grown up I still can't stand most jump-scare horror films but I love atmosphere horror.
My 5 year old nephew shocked me when I found out he knew what jump scares were and apparently he's played Poppy Playtime which is a bit creepy, but it doesn't seem to frighten him all that much. I watched the TV version of The Exorcist at around 9/10 and managed to endure it, but couldn't get through the gore in John Carpenter's The Thing. You're correct, it depends on the kid.
NO, it's that OTHER Formula Movie that came out around the time Ford vs. Ferrari did. This one is directed by Ron Howard and stars Chris Hemsworth, Daniel Bruhl, and Olivia Wild.
It is a pretty standard racing movie. Everything I know about Formula One I learned watching Speed Racer, so nothing at all. James Hunt is the more passionate, live fast, die young type of driver vs. Nikki Lauda's more precise Moneyball driver. They compete to be world champion.
The film is structured in a way to make Hunt look like the protagonist of the film, but Nikki Lauda makes the more heroic choices. Strange flick in that sense. Odd structure and tonal choices, perhaps in order to teach some moral lesson? I don't know.
NO, it's that OTHER Formula Movie that came out around the time Ford vs. Ferrari did. This one is directed by Ron Howard and stars Chris Hemsworth, Daniel Bruhl, and Olivia Wild.
It is a pretty standard racing movie. Everything I know about Formula One I learned watching Speed Racer, so nothing at all. James Hunt is the more passionate, live fast, die young type of driver vs. Nikki Lauda's more precise Moneyball driver. They compete to be world champion.
The film is structured in a way to make Hunt look like the protagonist of the film, but Nikki Lauda makes the more heroic choices. Strange flick in that sense. Odd structure and tonal choices, perhaps in order to teach some moral lesson? I don't know.
Cars go vroom.
Uhh. . . rush is like, 10 years older than Ford vs. Ferrari
And uhh, its a fun movie. . . If you're a huge racing fan, the movie is interesting because Lauda and Hunt were indeed great rivals, this movie does bizarrely try to paint them in a similar light to todays Max and Lewis rivalry, where they genuinely do not like each other. But from Lauda (and Hunt's) interviews, they were actually really good friends off the track, however their personality traits on the track led to some great fireworks. And yeah. . . it's I guess sort of highlighting the 2 types of racing driver of that era, so kind of odd to make you feel like one is more the protagonist/hero than the other.
It's not a great deal older - 2013 vs 2019 for Ford Vs. Ferrari
I really enjoyed the film, and for many that are really into motorsport it highlighted two of the biggest names during the 'golden age' of the sport. I know what you mean about the rivalry - there was certainly a lot more bon homme between racers generally back then, I think simply because of the shared danger and mutual respect - even if you 'hated' your competitors (and you were there to beat them) you had to have respect for someone else who was putting their life on the line each time they sat in the car.
These days it is very different, much of the danger has gone and I'm not sure if it just because of that (probably because there is so much money involved also) but you don't have the same impression. You have shows like Drive to Survive and the media generally which tries to create antagonism and drama, but really there is a lot less space for personality and the individual skills and abilities of the competitors.
I think the motorbikes are still a little different as you do still have that danger, the rider can make more of a difference - and the capability to kill someone else if you ride badly. At least, that has been my impression of the differences between the two sports, and the people involved in the bikes feel a bit more endearing in that regard.
Anyway.. I thought a great film that captured their exploits really well. I know James Hunt's son was involved in the films creation, think Hemsworth did an admirable job (apparently he had to slim down a fair bit!)
There's a few films with similar names. This one is a British flick where a family Christmas goes horribly horrible and... Yeah that's it.
I'd heard good things about this film but for the life of me I don't know why. It's not bad. It's actually so inoffensive mediocre it's probably worse than bad and I honestly can't put a finger on why. The acting is actually pretty good in some parts. Way better than the film seems to deserve.
I guess if I had to put a word on it, it's cheap.
Everything about this movie is cheap. The drama is cheap. The characters are cheap. The cinematography is cheap. The scares are cheap. The movie kind of combines possession with home invasion and the end result is a solid yawn. I don't even know what the plot is to be honestly. Mostly it's just a cavalcade of 'scary thing happens' and no amount of full commitment by the cast is saving the blaise march of bad stuff that happens. Such a shame too. The actors really committed to their roles shockingly well. They just had nothing to work with.
Yeah, they even did self-aware cheesy fantasy films better in the 80s.
The plot is that evil king Cromwell of Arabia summons the devil to help him win a war against King Richard's good guys kingdom, but his youngest son Talon can flee with King Richard's awesome sword. Talon swears revenge.
It's not very good. It's very fun, but not very good. Lots of very fun wigs, loads of swordfighting (not that great), one VERY self-aware dude who looks a bit like OJ Simpson, a hero who's half-way between looking heroic and strapping and like a dork, some really good practical effects, and many, many characters too many, I thought. This one's been produced by a dude and his wife, and it fees like there is a TON of backstory to it which landed on the editing room floor. The plot is pretty all over the place, even though there's a fair amount of exposition here and there.
Watch It, if you're into that sort of film, and have seen all the others. It's alright fun overall, but it's hard to look past its obvious shortcomings in terms of the plot. Which is a weird thing for me to say, but that should tell you that there is some serious jumps and conveniences in there. On the plus side, there's some good actors here and there, mainly Simon MacCorkindale and the incomparable Richard Lynch.
The really fun thing is that the credits begin with the announcement of a sequel "coming soon". And it did come, in 2010, starring Kevin Sorbo, Ralf Möller and Michael Paré (Tom Cody!). We'll watch that one soon I hope.
Afterwards we watched the first 15 minutes or so of The Village. What a cool film that one is. Watch The Village.
Old school 80’s fantasy film. The effects are pretty typical of the day, but I still love them. I expected my son to think they were cheesy, but he was swept up and kept asking me how they did the effects. Still one of the greatest dragons in cinema.
As for the story, it’s decent. The acting is not award winning but full of bad ADR and ‘character’. The sets and locations are straight out of ,uh, the production equivalent of central casting.
If you’ve ever wanted to see young Emperor Palpatine incinerated by an animatronic dragon, this is the movie for you.
Great soundtrack, sort of interesting story, a bit meh but not a terrible film. Characters seemed like they tried exceedingly hard to be whacky. Jon Hamm was the best part of that movie. Hard to believe a real human being is called Ansel Elgort. Lily James just plays the same role in every movie she is in.
Enjoyment of film slightly marred by two ballistic missiles being shot down close to my hotel.
Olthannon wrote: Lily James just plays the same role in every movie she is in.
Yeah, I fall in love everytime I see her on screen, pretty much all her characters are my ideal girl . She's actually one of my favorite actresses.
Her latest work was portraying Pamela Anderson, which is extremely different from her typical roles, though.
I think she's a nice looking lass yes but I've yet to see her actually act, which to me is what matters. I have heard that Pam and Tommy show is good so I might give that a watch.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Olthannon wrote:
Enjoyment of film slightly marred by two ballistic missiles being shot down close to my hotel.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I’m sorry your viewing was marred by what?
Yeah.
The Gulf.
Makes me glad I'm in nice sane Cairo where there hasn't been a car bomb in at least 2 years. And cops with AK47s on every corner making me feel safe.
Yeah can't say I was entirely keen on it. They were shot down mid air but it still rattled the absolute bollocks out of the hotel. It's a 3 week stint here with work and I was thinking great, in and out. Just my sort of luck really.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Alien
A film we all know a lot about. But….one I’ve really not seen a great many times, let alone in one sitting.
As with many of my movie foibles there’s no real reason for that, let alone a good one. But fixing that right now.
Sadly for me I think Alien has hit a point where it has aged noticeably. I still enjoy it but I prefer Aliens.
I forgot I watched 2 films on the plane.
The Many Saints of Newark which I thoroughly enjoyed. Big Sopranos fan and the backdrop of the Newark riots was very interesting. It took me a long time to watch just because I've not had the time. Would love to see it again in the cinema.
And then because there wasn't much selection I mistakenly decided to watch Free Guy. Which although the idea of a freethinking AI NPC was cool and a more serious movie with that idea would be great, this was not. I did sort enjoy Taika Waititi just being an arsehole. A better movie like this already exists in The Truman Show. I think made considerably worse by the contrast from just having watched a very good film and then turning to this.
I think she's a nice looking lass yes but I've yet to see her actually act, which to me is what matters.
I don't think she's particularly attractive, although she's definitely nice enough on screen, but pretty much all the characters she portrayed are the (rare) kind of girls I always fall in love with.
The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society, Darkest Hour, Yesterday, The Dig, Little Woods (her character here was really different than the usual though), The Exception were all great performances.
Old school 80’s fantasy film. The effects are pretty typical of the day, but I still love them. I expected my son to think they were cheesy, but he was swept up and kept asking me how they did the effects. Still one of the greatest dragons in cinema.
As for the story, it’s decent. The acting is not award winning but full of bad ADR and ‘character’. The sets and locations are straight out of ,uh, the production equivalent of central casting.
If you’ve ever wanted to see young Emperor Palpatine incinerated by an animatronic dragon, this is the movie for you.
Its a weird film. I always had a hard time sitting through it, as parts of it are bizarrely dull and the first half is almost the platonic ideal of dragon/medieval/wizard tropes and cliches (virgin sacrifice lottery!) and then, suddenly, all the rails are gone.
But it lands right back on them, like the mine cart sequence in Indiana Jones.
I have to agree that the first half was the ideal for a Wizard and dragon movie. This rewatch, I picked up more of the backstory, with Christianity supplanting magic in the world, and the growing sense of loss that fills the movie, so not quite as dull as I remembered. There are also some twists in the first half and at the very end, while the middle chunk of the story is basically moving the pieces where they need to go with a bit of melancholy.
I rewatched Raiders and Temple of Doom with my son recently, and realized how much our society has changed since then. At least Last Crusade aged well.
Great soundtrack, sort of interesting story, a bit meh but not a terrible film. Characters seemed like they tried exceedingly hard to be whacky. Jon Hamm was the best part of that movie. Hard to believe a real human being is called Ansel Elgort. Lily James just plays the same role in every movie she is in.
Enjoyment of film slightly marred by two ballistic missiles being shot down close to my hotel.
6/10
I was going to say the extremely hollywood ending of that film kind of dropped it a few points
Spoiler:
("he did his time and was re-integrated into society" - and people take the piss out of the Chinese with Fight Club reworks?)
But I will say your ending certainly sounds a lot more dramatic! Jeez...
Once the film was over, I was not surprised to see it was a Michael Bey film. It really had all the hallmarks. Terrible editing, frenetic pace, "gear" focus, a flat nihilism, heroes made flat, and ogling camera.
I also have no idea what the deal is with Ryan Reynolds. He just does nothing for me as a leading man. I guess he is handsome, but he is not charming and actually has a anti-charisma of grating smugness. Huh, who knows?
I also have no idea what the deal is with Ryan Reynolds. He just does nothing for me as a leading man. I guess he is handsome, but he is not charming and actually has a anti-charisma of grating smugness. Huh, who knows?
I can't stand him either, and he repeats the same role over and over again. I guess americans like his style of acting and his way of making jokes, considering him cool. I don't think there's currently anyone as annoying as him on screen .
For me he’s a bit hit or miss. I really liked him In deadpool, the hit man’s bodyguard and the Adam Project, but red notice was just a bit annoying, and he wasn’t even that over the top in that one. It might depend on how invested he is in the project.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I like his way of making jokes and consider him cool. Really, I just skip a lot of his movies, so I tend to get him in small doses where he shines.
But seriously, most annoying actor? In a world with Jared Leto? You, sir, are grievously wrong.
Yeah, I get that. Different background I guess. I've seen 10ish movies with Reynolds and he never made me laugh once. In some of his older works (Definitely Maybe, Safe House, Paper Man, Smokin Aces...) I just thought he was an average actor. However it's since his most recent ones (Deadpool, Hitman Bodyguard, Hobbs/Shaw, Free Guy, Criminal, Self/less, 6 Underground) that I found him extremely annoying. In Life was ok at least.
I like Jared Leto instead, I think he's a really good actor although some of his characters were complete clowns. Written as such though, not always his fault. He's still a Golden Globe and Academy Award winner. And I'm quite shocked that he got two nominations and one win at the razzie awards for House of Gucci, since he was the only one who had a credible accent. Quote: Nomination for Worst Screen Combo: "Jared Leto: either his 17-pound latex face, his geeky clothes or his ridiculous accent"
Not particularly fond of Redmayne, but I liked him a lot in several movies and I thought he was perfect for those roles. Danish Girl, Les Miserables, Theory of Everything, Trial of the Chicago 7, and Fantastic Beast the first titles that come to my mind.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I like his way of making jokes and consider him cool. Really, I just skip a lot of his movies, so I tend to get him in small doses where he shines.
But seriously, most annoying actor? In a world with Jared Leto? You, sir, are grievously wrong.
Yeah, I get that. Different background I guess. I've seen 10ish movies with Reynolds and he never made me laugh once. In some of his older works (Definitely Maybe, Safe House, Paper Man, Smokin Aces...) I just thought he was an average actor. However it's since his most recent ones (Deadpool, Hitman Bodyguard, Hobbs/Shaw, Free Guy, Criminal, Self/less, 6 Underground) that I found him extremely annoying. In Life was ok at least.
I like Jared Leto instead, I think he's a really good actor although some of his characters were complete clowns. Written as such though, not always his fault. He's still a Golden Globe and Academy Award winner. And I'm quite shocked that he got two nominations and one win at the razzie awards for House of Gucci, since he was the only one who had a credible accent. Quote: Nomination for Worst Screen Combo: "Jared Leto: either his 17-pound latex face, his geeky clothes or his ridiculous accent"
Not particularly fond of Redmayne, but I liked him a lot in several movies and I thought he was perfect for those roles. Danish Girl, Les Miserables, Theory of Everything, Trial of the Chicago 7, and Fantastic Beast the first titles that come to my mind.
Yeah, we are coming from two orthogonal angles here, because I can’t imagine finding Jared Leto good or talented. He sucks the energy out of every scene he is in. His delivery is cringingly stilted. Who cares about accent accuracy if the actor talking makes you want to punch him with every gesture?
Also, look up some of his real life shenanigans. The man is a scumbag.
As for Reynolds…we just watched Free Guy last night, and he was delightful. He was charming and relatable. He delivered the jokes well without becoming a complete ham. He was also great in Deadpool. Now, I didn’t like him in Van Wilder, but that was a long time ago and he has developed as an actor since then.
To me, Redmayne is one of those actors who is so weird that he fits only certain specific roles. I haven’t seen Fantastic Beasts. Frankly, I don’t want to see Fantastic Beasts. As far as I am concerned, Redmayne should stick to playing evil psychopaths.
It's on Hulu and I remember it not being good but I had the time.
It's not good still. Actually decent enough up until the final act when the writer apparently ran out of ideas and fell back on the good old conspiracy to kill that makes zero sense and produces more witnesses than it would ever silence. It was pretty bad.
Decent enough I guess if you really like Top Gun or Iron Eagle.
It's on Hulu and I remember it not being good but I had the time.
It's not good still. Actually decent enough up until the final act when the writer apparently ran out of ideas and fell back on the good old conspiracy to kill that makes zero sense and produces more witnesses than it would ever silence. It was pretty bad.
Decent enough I guess if you really like Top Gun or Iron Eagle.
Is that the one where an AI Stealth Bomber correctly figures out our species kind of deserves if?
More like the AI Stealth Fighter decides the Maverick action hero is a role model and predictably starts fething gak up by taking matters into its own hands and ignoring orders.
When I put it like that, the movie could have made for a great deconstruction if the plot didn't go stupid in the last act.
Also, look up some of his real life shenanigans. The man is a scumbag.
I never put any attention if actors' real lives and I the only thing I know about Leto, outside of his acting career, is that he was or is a singer.
I watch them for their work, not because of who they are or what they do. I couldn't care less if Kevin Spacey, one of the best actors in history, molested someone or Johnny Depp beaten up his wife. In fact, I'd love to see them both again, justice should take its course in the appropriate rooms. I hated the fact that Gina Carano was axes by the Mandalorian just for a political tweet, not because of her acting skills. Cancel culture is a real shame.
New mini-review: Moonfall.
A friend of mine desperately wanted to see it so I joined him. It's the typical Emmerich's disaster movie, except it looks cheaper than usual and has with a twist in the middle of the movie which makes it much more sci-fi oriented. I think it's barely ok in the first half as a typical disaster movie with all the cliches, but absolutely terrible after the mistery is revealed. Overall pretty terrible movie, I'll probably forget it soon. Next time we'll see Ambulance.
I vividly remember watching the Stealth trailer at the cinema and knowing that I'd dislike that film. Years later I watched a few minutes, and found it has a certain trashy appeal, but certainly not enough. I also really dislike portraying military people (even if it's the US military) as childish idiots. I prefer to think that at least it should be adults. (Here's a pretty easy way to tell them apart: The ones wear sun glasses, the others don't.).
Yeah, it's a sucky film. I also really don't like Jessica Biel. Was she in one good film?
Concerning James Corden - I hear he's very annoying any way too present. Don't recall seeing him ever, but I hear bad things. While we're talking about people though - why is Jack Whitehall still around so much?
Of course the idea tickles me a little, but it would make soooo little sense from his point of view.
Last night I caught the last third of Rock ’n’ Roll Nightmare (1987) on TV. It's a rock&roll horror comedy, and very, very cheap. Self-aware to an extent, but not enough for what it is. Possibly. It was made by and stars the dude who made and starred in Zombie Nightmare, which of course all of us have seen several times, because a.) it stars young Dame Tia Carrere and b.) it's been featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000, which means we all have seen it at least thrice, because that is the law.
Rock&Roll Nightmare though is way beyond Zombie Nightmare in terms of trash and insanity. Do give it a whirl, if you think that's what you like to watch. It's kinda like the band meet (and bring girls) at a cabin to work on their new album, an ancient demon befalls them and kills them. Something like that. It's pretty weird, but not really weird.
After that, this glorious tv channel showed Boy Soldierz (the dudikoff one). Hadn't seen it in ages, but I had to turn off, because it's gotten too late. I know very little about Dudikoff's work beyond American Ninja/Fighter 1-3. But he's just so boring, isn't he.
Such a good film. Solid cast, interesting plot. Elements of John Hughes films, including a very blatant homage, a homage so blatant the scene it’s homaging cameos in the homage with Spidey calling it a “great film”.
Next up will be Far From Home, then of course No Way Home, because I’m having an indulgent day.
Sigur wrote: Years later I watched a few minutes, and found it has a certain trashy appeal, but certainly not enough
First time I heard of this it was on in the background in the t-bar at work. After 10 minutes I opined "I bet the Black guy does first." This was met with the usual "you can't say that!"
Guess who died first.
Trash can be quite predictable.
Jessica Biel was in a hit TV show and tried to jump to films, but it never really took because she really can not act. On an ensemble TV show, you can sort of hide that fact. In a movie you can not.
Even on the TV show she was really unmemorable. The other girl had a funnier face (Beverly whatsherface), the elder brother (Barry Watson?) had better stories (AND I think I even enjoyed that bogeyman film more than any of Biel's films) IIRC she was together with Justin Timberlake(?), which gave her come publicity and the starred in several really underwhelming films (I remember the film in which Nic Cage can look 3 seconds into the future, which is an interesting concept, but ended up meh and some Texas Chainsaw Massacre film directed by Michael Bay[?] which was very, very meh). And Blade 3 of course, which was crap.
...which brings us back to the Blade discussion!
Btw, that Academy Awards show had some serious wtf moments, didn't it? Celebrating the 30th anniversary of "white boys can't jump"!? Also, they can't tell me that that was Rosie Perez and not her daugher or something.
The whole thing with the one presenter calling some dudes back for testing and whatnot was really backwards and tacky (switching one gender for another is NOT making it any less backwards or in any way clever. It's like remaking hollywood films with the main cast switched for women. It's not empowering or anything, it's cheap, it's morally, conceptually and dramatically devoid of any idea or spark).
This is the movie Space Cop wishes it were. Tons of low budget charm, sharply-stupid dialogue, so-bad-it’s-brilliant acting, excessively over-the-top gore, intentionally awful dubbing, all the post-apoc/dystopian tropes, stop motion mixed with CGI…Manborg has it all. If you like Kung Fury, you need to see Manborg.
PS: The TIE Advanced panels on his armor really cracked me up.
PPE: After the credits there is at least one fake trailer. I don’t know if there are any after that because my wife had enough after 30 seconds of the BioCop trailer. (Fortunately, it’s on YouTube.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Never mind: looks like Youtube removed the BioCop trailer.
A movie about a young black girl going to a highly prestigious university and there's some spooky stuff too.
I like this movie. I appreciate that the horror elements are atmospheric more than jump scary. There's this brooding sense of dread to it. That something is not right. Unfortunately, it's a bit hindered by otherwise using a lot of generic scenes. Lights go out. Weird shadows. Inexplicable stuff. Honestly, a lot of stuff that seems like it's a set up to a jump scare but then there is no scare. Or at least, not the one you were expecting. It's clever at times but I think the set ups overplay themselves too much for their underplayed payoffs to really payoff.
I hesitate to call Master good because in a lot of parts its kind of clunky, but it's got some moments man. A bit of a hammer on an anvil sometimes but still. It's a movie that'll make you think. Big on that is that there's a severe air of authenticity to this film's themes. They're not hollow and they don't feel cheap even if the set ups don't always work. There's a sense that the makers of this film are speaking very much from personal experience. I think the hindrance is that, a lot of the time, Master feels like two separate movies. One, a drama about the intersection of expectation and circumstance, and a spooky ghost story that substitutes discrimination where the jump scares should be.
I appreciate how very much like Get Out this movie is. It's not as good as Get Out, but it's maybe a bit easier to wrap your head around what the film is trying to say. If you liked Get Out, I'd suggest trying Master.
Someone mentioned Bourne a couple of pages ago so let's do it!
The Bourne Identity This is it. The big one. The one that changed cinema history!
That's not me being hyperbolic, this literally changed the shape of action cinema. This came out the same year as Die Another Day, Brosnan's last hurrah as James Bond and a spectacular disaster of a movie. DAD was a mess of a film. The plot didn't matter - Bond is here, now he's here, now he's going to who cares where. Bond went where the script needed him to go for no reason other than they wanted cool visuals. And the action was laughable. With all the budget in the world they managed to make the biggest explosions seem small due to poor framing and forgetting the basics of cinema.
Now look at Bourne Identity and you have a tightly scripted plot. Bourne goes places because it makes sense for him to go there - this happens therefore Bourne goes here, which causes this to happen meaning Bourne now goes here. Everything flows.
And the action! Physical, grunty, close up and dirty. This was three years before Batman Begins boasted about it's up close and dirty fighting. And the framing! The mini scene is a masterpiece of action. All action when being filmed is done as safely as possible and that means the director has to create the illusion of tension and danger in a safe working environment. Good directors frame the shots so you feel the pace and speed without breaking the illusion, bad directors make fast chase scenes look slow and big explosions look tiny. The Bourne Identity feels fast throughout due to great framing.
And then, just before the credits roll, we get the two beats of synthesised strings that come to symbolise the end of magnificent action cinema. The Bourne Identity is by no means flawless, but it is damn good throughout and an important part of cinema history.
The Bourne Supremecy It would be difficult to be a better film than Bourne Identity so it's not a damning criticism to say that this doesn't quite live up to the original. While the plot and Bourne's actions do work there is a feeling of guided force, as though the writer couldn't quite get it to flow. We're encouraged to ignore the fact that some of the CIA's finest couldn't work out for themselves that an assassin they trained to the highest ability wouldn't make the stupid mistakes that lead them on to him.
Our lead antagonist is also pretty damn annoying with her behaviour and mannerisms in the situation room, acting like she's barely any better than the cheesy cack handed script that passed for fake tension in the "24" series. Until at the half way point Brian Cox' character gives her a one line put down that puts it all into context. It's pretty good writing.
Sadly the film doesn't quite stick the ending. Once we're finished in Berlin that's the plot wrapped up, but we end up heading to Moscow for a lengthy action sequence that doesn't really add anything of value. It isn't helped by the shonky camera work of the car chase scene making the action hard to follow and inducing headaches. Still a good film but has many obvious flaws.
The Bourne Ultimatum Picks up where the predecessor left off in both story and style, and that leads it towards being ok but nothing outstanding. We have to put up with the two cocks of the CIA preening at each other with more of the laughable "24" dialogue, in front of what, in the previous films, was a crack team bought together to overcome a formidable foe, but who have now been replaced by a faceless group of nobodies whacking away at keyboards, doing little more than being the target of that same inept "24" script. We get some good set pieces (Waterloo) and the plot is functional and a step above Bourne Supremecy.
So it's ok and little else.
And then we hit Tangier. This huge segment of the film is excellent from start to finish. Whatever came before is forgiven for its mistakes and everything that comes afterwards can ride the coattails, sticking the fingers up at whoever it likes, because this segment makes the film. It's brilliant.
Overall the first three Bourne films are highly recommended viewing. The sequals never hit the heights of the first, but they also don't ever drop below being good films. Go and rewatch them, they're well worth it.
Overall the first three Bourne films are highly recommended viewing. The sequals never hit the heights of the first, but they also don't ever drop below being good films. Go and rewatch them, they're well worth it.
IMHO, the 2 sequels fall short of the original film for one big reason: the deviation from the source materials.
Now, we all know that at times there are necessary deviations from book to film. Sometimes its because something just does NOT translate onto the screen at all. Sometimes its because the novelist left a giant gaping plot hole, and the film can sort of patch that up.
So, Bourne Identity is indeed a tight bit of story telling. The book is largely the same in that regard. . . However, the film scriptwriters (mind you, this is before the big period fun piece came along, such as Man from UNCLE, or Atomic Blonde, so that formula for making period spy flicks work in the modern age work just wasnt there yet) deviated from what was, at its heart, a cold-war era novel. I kinda feel like the film has been out long enough, and I know the book has as well, that I won't hide this in spoiler text (I'll also refrain somewhat from too many spoilers). . .
So, In Identity, you have a CIA super spy who has a classic video game trope happen to him (the God of War trope, ya know: do the tutorial section of the game in a godlike state, full abilities, etc. then have The Thing happen where the game releases you into the "real" game with nothing). . . he has "The Thing" happen to him, wakes up with no memory at all (obviously, he has muscle memory and all the skills, so bit different from video game protagonists) and as soon as people start coming after him, he has to reacquire his memory. . . Now, in the book, he was created specifically to hunt Carlos the Jackal. Which is a very, VERY cold war bit of novelist stuff. Movie goers at that time were no longer in the cold war frame of mind, so they changed him to this super assassin dude operating in a modern, non-bipolar world.
And because of that one huge change, it kind of makes the rest of the series hard to adapt to. . . I mean, you basically just cannot pick up book 2 of the trilogy books and write the script straight from it. You have to do some major tweaks because all of that cold war stuff is gone. I mean, don't get me wrong, I do like the films, and will on occasion watch them, but having grown up on the novels well before the films came out, it was somewhat disappointing the direction the overall films went, so I am not as enthusiastic as some folks.
Speaking of books vs films... Harry Potter and the Secret Room
Another Kyoto Secunda request (she's currently plowing through Order of the Phoenix) and I'll go with the consensus here. A perfectly serviceable adaptation of the book but not its own thing. Even at nearly 3 hours (we had to watch it over 2 nights) it feels like a lot of the plot does not get its due. The shocking reveal of who had the diary is not shocking since we've barely seen her. The shocking reveal about the Dark Arts teacher is not all that shocking since he's barely a tertiary character. They both had more presence in the book, I read it more than 15 years ago and even I could feel this as an abbreviated version.
It's a great example of why films are adaptations and you can't just use the novel as your script. Had Director Chris Columbus more freedom to adapt the book he might have changed the diary holder to a main character to give it more impact, or cut the twist entirely.
Thinking back to LotR it's strange they didn't do extended DVD versions of the films, it's not like they didn't have the audience to support them.
Kyoto Secunda's main complaint was that they changed the entrance of Dumbledore's office from 2 gargoyles to a griffon statue, and changed the password. To which I have only one thing to say...
For anyone not British, the Carry On films are something of a National Institution. Often shown as filler on TV, very fond of their innuendo and typically cheaply made.
This is their send up of Hammer Horror, and it’s really quite brilliant. Perhaps not the funniest of the bunch (that’s Carry On Dick if you ask me), but it’s a very solid Hammer spoof.
Plus, Fenella Fielding’s role as Valeria might’ve left quite the impression on me when I was wee!
Watch it if you get the chance, because it’s bloody good fun!
Oh to the modern mind the Carry On series most certainly has a wide variety of problematic comedy tropes.
However, as much as I’m a dirty lefty social justice warrior, I still think it’s of value to remember such things were acceptable at the time, and quite often comedy from that period was in fact punching upwards.
The best examples of that I can think of right now are the Goodies episodes South Africa and the episode the name of which escapes me sends up The (massively racist and frankly inexcusable) Black & White Minstrel show.
Both of those episodes, when viewed without their historical context are just outright offensive. But when you look into it, you can see they were coming from the right place, and attacking what they were sending up.
They’re very silly movies from a different era. Anyone seeking them out from these posts? Prepare for some genuinely in the modern era offensive material though. Just, don’t knock them for it.
I saw several of them when Austrian tv showed'em some time in the early 90s in the afternoon. Of course I'm sure that a lot of the innuendo and fun is lost in translation. Even though ....back then German dub studios were really good at adding their own jokes. Who knows.
Either way - I approve of enjoying old things.
The whole thing about context is very important indeed.
Carry on Cleo is a special one - they followed the hollywood epic Cleopatra around and borrowed some of the sets, then when they both came out together the Carry on out sold the epic in the UK by a long way!
For clarity? My argument of Context isn’t to deny that things weren’t offensive at the time, nor that people weren’t offensive.
More that the comedy of any given period works because it lampoons and jabs at the social norms.
Now. Some old comedy is absolutely lazy and plied it’s trade embracing negatives. But a lot of it punched upwards. Using the offensive tropes to point how utterly ridiculous given social norms can be.
And that is where the context comes in. The Goodies “South Africa” episode still has a significant level of cringe. But at the time? It was spot on,
Two high school students develop time travel. When one's brother is shot by police she tries and tries again to set things right.
It was... OK. Mostly watched it because the kids go to my old high school and their teacher is Michael J Fox. Lots of Guyanese characters too if, like me, you have an attachment there.
Otherwise... I mean it was OK. OK isn't bad right?
Kid_Kyoto wrote: When one's brother is shot by police she tries and tries again to set things right.
So it's another one of those recurring time loop films? I find those to be pretty hit and miss. The likes of Happy Death Day and Vantage Point (not a time loop, but the same thing being repeated) drag on a bit too much in the early part of the film, repeating what we've already seen with just too little of a change to be engaging. They usually pick up in the second half when the writer stops leaning on the gimmick and actually moves things forward.
I think Edge of Tomorrow is the gold standard for how to do the time loop trope. Enough similarity with previous loops but plenty of changes to keep the movie progressing.
So it's another one of those recurring time loop films? I find those to be pretty hit and miss. The likes of Happy Death Day and Vantage Point (not a time loop, but the same thing being repeated) drag on a bit too much in the early part of the film, repeating what we've already seen with just too little of a change to be engaging. They usually pick up in the second half when the writer stops leaning on the gimmick and actually moves things forward.
Nah not so much, it's more of a character piece, the 2 leads are reasonably charismatic.
It's also the sort of film that some folks would call woke, Spike Lee produced it and other than Michael J Fox I think every speaking character is black, Latino or Caribbean and of course part of the whole point is 2 kids from Brooklyn inventing time travel in their garage
But that's OK, it makes perfect sense, cause they went to the f'ing Bronx High School of Science and kids there can do that!
Like Paddington but with robots, splodes and s/fx in place of quirky charm, s'alright, which seems a recurrent theme with everything I've watched lately and would make a good slogan for Netflix, also it's not Jim Careys good film for this decade
I watched three films on the plane home and they were a mixed bunch.
Judas and the Black Messiah
A phenomenal film and one I wish I'd been able to see at the cinema. Great cast and well brought together. The pacing is really good and they stick close to real events. Of course it's a depressing film because it's based on real life. I think the worst of it was that Fred Hampton was only 21 when he was assassinated. I'm excited to see how Shaka King's directorial career progresses. I hope he continues to work with Lakieth Stanfield as they have collaborated in the past.
Next up was: Godzilla vs King Kong and you know what, it wasn't quite as bad as I thought. Was it good? Hard to say because my expectations were so low. I had watched one of the previous new Godzilla movies and I hated it. Godzilla was in it for 2 minutes. Nobody watches one of those movies because they give the slightest gak for the tiny little miserable humans down below. This one did a good job of having the giant creatures bashing each other. That's all I can ask for.
The last one was Suicide Squad ...
Bleughk. I have reached the stage where I dislike superhero movies almost as much as I hate Vikings. I didn't think that would be possible. Viola Davis was the one good thing about that film. Her character was at least interesting. Will Smith was okay as well, he can at least act. I don't fault Margot Robbie because it was her script and also being anything to do with Jared Leto which ruined that. I can't wait for superheroes to die. I don't think it will anytime soon because there's so much money in that genre now that it'll last for decades. I say this as someone who was even an extra in Avengers End Game. At one point years ago I liked Superhero movies. But that ship has sailed and sunk and is lying in the bottom of the Black Sea. is completely fine and operational.
What a pretentious, pointless, vacant piece of nothing. A ghastly film purely on account of the gaping chasm of emptiness taking up the space where the purpose of the film should have been.
What a pretentious, pointless, vacant piece of nothing. A ghastly film purely on account of the gaping chasm of emptiness taking up the space where the purpose of the film should have been.
Which one? New or old one?
I'd completely agree if your comment was about the new one, it's massively overrated and I'm a huge fan of Villeneuve's. Old one is even worse, much worse.
The 1984 film can be watched for free on youtube:
)
Tough I still hold out hope for Conan the King staring Governor Schwarzeneger.
. The killer(s) thought it was a perfect plan that not even Poirot could unfold.
