Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mortal Engines

Someone put a lot of work and energy into making this film. It honestly looks gorgeous and has an interesting Post-Apoc premise. However, some of the "mechanics" of the world they show do not really hold up to serious review, but neither does any Mad Max film. Hugo Weaving delivers the greatest hits of his famous style of line delivery as the main villain.

There is just one big issue with this movie. It is kind of derivative and could not stop reminding me of other movies, like Terminator, The Matrix, Star Wars, and LOTR. The last is particularly funny as old Pete Jackson was an exec Producer and helped fund this thing.

I think the biggest issue with this flick was probably that the source material comes from a YA Novel, and you can tell. Cool ideas and good visuals let down by base story-telling.

 Easy E wrote:
Mortal Engines

Someone put a lot of work and energy into making this film.

Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh were two (out of five) producers of the film according to Wikipedia.

 Easy E wrote:
Mortal Engines

Someone put a lot of work and energy into making this film. It honestly looks gorgeous and has an interesting Post-Apoc premise. However, some of the "mechanics" of the world they show do not really hold up to serious review, but neither does any Mad Max film. Hugo Weaving delivers the greatest hits of his famous style of line delivery as the main villain.

There is just one big issue with this movie. It is kind of derivative and could not stop reminding me of other movies, like Terminator, The Matrix, Star Wars, and LOTR. The last is particularly funny as old Pete Jackson was an exec Producer and helped fund this thing.

I think the biggest issue with this flick was probably that the source material comes from a YA Novel, and you can tell. Cool ideas and good visuals let down by base story-telling.

Also, they really cut down on some of the grit from the novel. Like, the description of Hester in the book is missing much of her nose, an eye, and her mouth is in a permanent sneer due to the scar across her face. It's basically a visual metaphor for the character as well, someone torn between their innate goodness and the ugliness of what the world has inflicted on her. But no way was Hollywood going to have the leading lady in a Young Adult film look like that.

 Easy E wrote:
Mortal Engines

Someone put a lot of work and energy into making this film. It honestly looks gorgeous and has an interesting Post-Apoc premise. However, some of the "mechanics" of the world they show do not really hold up to serious review, but neither does any Mad Max film. Hugo Weaving delivers the greatest hits of his famous style of line delivery as the main villain.

There is just one big issue with this movie. It is kind of derivative and could not stop reminding me of other movies, like Terminator, The Matrix, Star Wars, and LOTR. The last is particularly funny as old Pete Jackson was an exec Producer and helped fund this thing.

I think the biggest issue with this flick was probably that the source material comes from a YA Novel, and you can tell. Cool ideas and good visuals let down by base story-telling.

As a fan of the books, I'm still hoping someone eventually looks past what a gigantic flop the movie was, and has another go but as a TV series this time.
And give Hester an actual scarred face dang it!

First Blood

Another of those classic movies you’d really think I’d have seen by now. But this is my first time.

Some of the action (Police station fisticuffs) is a bit dated, but you can see why this is such a classic. And an interesting portrayal of PTSD and a possible psychotic break. It almost feels like an inverted Slasher Flick, where he keeps offing people because they just won’t leave him alone, rather than some twisted personal agenda.

I can also see its influence on other media, such as A-Team (Vietnam vets and injustice), and a definite colouring of the action in Predator.

Now I have seen the last two flicks in this series, and whilst there’s the common theme (Rambo vs anyone intent on getting their head kicked in), this is much more grounded. Quite possibly because of its era and what you could get away with portraying.

Think I’ll get their rest of the series to chart it’s increasing silliness.

Not sure if I need this to talk about First Blood, but...

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Not sure if I need this to talk about First Blood, but...

Spoiler:

In the book, Rambo kills himself.

[spoiler]He originally did as well but they changed it. The scene was shot and everything and can be found in extra features or probably youtube. The book also had the feature of changing perspective from Rambo to the Sheriff each chapter and you get discover that they were both traumatized by war. Korean War for the Sheriff and Vietnam for Rambo.

Had to finish off First Blood today, as needed sleep.

It’s a cracking film from beginning to end. Neither pro nor anti-war, but strongly pro-Veteran.

My sole grumble is that it’s never really explained just why he received such a shoddy reception, or why folks in that town might not warm to the jacket and flag he’s wearing.

However, I temper that criticism by me being a Brit, and living in 2025. So I’m happy to assume there’s a culturally accepted undertone there which audiences at the time would’ve just Got.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rambo, First Blood Pt2

OK, this one is sillier than the first. But, as 80’s meathead vs anyone that’s naughty and a bit bored of being alive flicks go? It’s barely silly. Because silliness is all relative.

How silly?

In modern terms, where we have stylised but fairly realistic action? I’d give this 5 Sillies out of 10. His exploding arrows being of wildly varying payload, conveniently inattentive baddies who always forget how to shout or scream when the story needs Rambo to slip away.

But, for an 80’s action flick? With infinite ammo, bullet proof, improbably accurate, teleporting Goodies being the norm? I’d have to say this is more 2, perhaps 2.5 Sillies out 10. And pretty much all those Sillies come in the third act.

Of course, everyone has their own Silly-O-Meter, and your readings may differ from mine.

It’s a good bit more violent and Killy than the first, and doesn’t really have as strong as message.

But it is good fun. Bad Guys Go Boom, After Proving They Deserve To Go Boom. And Splat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And in other “how can you watch such crap, and be so happy” news?

I’ve discovered 88 Films have a collection of remastered Slasher Flicks. And I’ve now a pile of them to get through.

Don't forget Rambo: The Force of Freedom to get the full Rambo experience. It's just 65 half hour episodes (that Google says is on Google Play).

Rambo 3

OK. I was lead to believe this one was far sillier than its actual level of silliness of Really Not That Silly At All, Perhaps A Bit Less Silly Than Rambo 2.

The main silliness comes from the premise. Which due to what happened in its future ended up even more silly.

But the action itself is again quite restrained for its era. Possibly more so than Rambo 2, as at least he’s not knacking things with the The Bow And Arrow Of Conveniently Varying Payload.

Pretty enjoyable all the same, if not really anything new. It does suffer from Bloody Stupid Bad Guys though.

Modern scale? 4.5 Sillies out of 10.

80’s scale? I’d say 2 to 2.5 Sillies out of 10, but for different reason than Rambo 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And now?

Rambo

I bloody love this film. As I now the first three kinda bucked the trend of 80’s Action Movies? This kinda bucks the 00’s/10’s Action Movie. They’re not satires of the art, just unafraid to be their own thing.

Sure the series is very formulaic. But for each entry? It’s a genuinely superior example of the genre. And whilst not particularly constant? There is an ongoing thread of John Rambo. Everything he’s done stays done, and weighs on him.

I had an interesting double feature today:

Bone Tomahawk and Hostiles. Both of which are modern westerns. The first has Kurt Russel with glorious Hateful 8 facial hair, and the second has Christian Bale. Bale is also sporting a glorious mustache. I honestly think they could have dubbed his dialogue in and you wouldn't be able to tell thanks to that luscious 'stache!

Despite the facial hair, these are both pretty powerful movies dealing with some heavy stuff. Stuff about othering, Manifest Destiny and its scars, and psychological horror.
Pacing is critical for both of them. Westerns can be depressing as Feth.

As a side note, where I live looks almost exactly like the terrain you see in both movies, but especially in first half or Hostiles so that struck very close to home for me.

Hostiles is a serious movie that is attempting to be more than entertainment. Bone Tomahawk is more grindhouse of the two. I think I could spend a lot more time talking about Hostiles and what it is trying to say, but this is the mini-review section.

Haven't watched Bone Tomahawk, but I did watch Hostiles. It's very good. Grim, but good.

Regarding grim new Westerns: I also watched Seraphim Falls, which is a pretty interesting thing.


Regarding Bale in Westerns: the 3:10 to Yuma remake is one of my favourite western films by now.

Food of the Gods

1970’s movie based on an H P Lovecraft H G Wells tale, in which mystery goo bubbling up to the surface makes animals, when mixed with their feed, grow to ludicrous size.

All animals. Rats and bugs as well.

The effects are pretty crap, but the film mostly works as cheap B-Movie creature features go. Certainly I’ve seen far worse.

I think I enjoyed that one. I believe the book was H G Wells. Not eldritch enough for Lovecraft

Ahh, quite right! I’ll leave my error, lest your post make no sense.

The sequel has one of those all time great clips to watch without context.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ahh, quite right! I’ll leave my error, lest your post make no sense.

You could also use the rarely seen strikethrough .

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My sole grumble is that it’s never really explained just why he received such a shoddy reception, or why folks in that town might not warm to the jacket and flag he’s wearing.

However, I temper that criticism by me being a Brit, and living in 2025. So I’m happy to assume there’s a culturally accepted undertone there which audiences at the time would’ve just Got.

Yeah, it's very much a product of the time. In 1982, there was far less need to explain to audiences that Vietnam vets were badly treated.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Rambo 3

OK. I was lead to believe this one was far sillier than its actual level of silliness of Really Not That Silly At All, Perhaps A Bit Less Silly Than Rambo 2.

I suspect that in the cultural zeitgeist, a large amount of the perceived silliness in Rambo 3 comes from Hot Shots 2.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The sequel has one of those all time great clips to watch without context.

There’s a sequel???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ahh, quite right! I’ll leave my error, lest your post make no sense.

You could also use the rarely seen strikethrough .

Ooh, nice one!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though dodgy as Food of the Gods is? It’s another reason I love my horror movies.

Basically, not that long before my lifetime, the effects readily available and budget friendly were pretty basic. And whilst FOTG isn’t exactly going to convince anyone, I can appreciate the camera trickery and screen compositing behind it being genuinely the best they could do/afford.

And I’ll still take that over cheap, shoddy CGI, as at least with compositing you need to think about what you’re doing and what you want to achieve.

Jason and the Argonauts

Yes, the classic Harryhausen one.

You know, I forgot that this was basically a B-movie made by Italians on the cheap starring no one of note.

This is just a vehicle for Harryhausen's craft.

Venom, The Last Dance

£7.99 on Prime.

I’m so, so confused. This is not a good film. The plot is very silly. The CGI is pretty terrible. The tone can be so jarring, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s a mash up of two or three different movies.

But, dammit, whenever Tom Hardy is on screen? It’s really, really enjoyable. Eddie and Venom’s bickering really works for me.

Also, what an odd concentration of British actor! Not to mention “hey, you’ve already been in a Marvel movie”.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Venom, The Last Dance

£7.99 on Prime.

I’m so, so confused. This is not a good film. The plot is very silly. The CGI is pretty terrible. The tone can be so jarring, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s a mash up of two or three different movies.

But, dammit, whenever Tom Hardy is on screen? It’s really, really enjoyable. Eddie and Venom’s bickering really works for me.

Also, what an odd concentration of British actor! Not to mention “hey, you’ve already been in a Marvel movie”.

He was also in Star Trek: Nemesis and was Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. I have yet to see him act poorly in a film, even if the film around him is sad.

So that’s it finished.

It does kind of find its feet in the back half, and importantly is a fun movie. Mediocre overall? Yes. But fun mediocre.

Certainly I’m not feeling short changed off my £7.99.

I do have an improvement suggestion.

Yeah, the general premise of the movie was dumb as heck, but it was a thoroughly enjoyable watch.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

He was also in Star Trek: Nemesis and was Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. I have yet to see him act poorly in a film, even if the film around him is sad.

I hated his take on Bane, but largely just because of the voice. Having seen interviews where he explained what he was going for, I get the intention of it, but it just sounded silly, and robbed Bane of any real menace.

I couldn’t take Bane seriously, as he sounded like Boni out the Trapdoor.

10 seconds into this.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So that’s it finished.

It does kind of find its feet in the back half, and importantly is a fun movie. Mediocre overall? Yes. But fun mediocre.

Certainly I’m not feeling short changed off my £7.99.

I do have an improvement suggestion.

Spoiler:

Making the Xenophage near indestructible was a mistake. I’d have gone with the self replicating swarm. That would’ve given the symbiotes an excuse to go ham against near insurmountable odds, and still allow a set piece “get them all in one place then asplode all at once”.

But as it is? The fight, whilst nice and easy to follow on screen, just didn’t work, as it felt like the symbiotes were just sacrificing for no gain with no plan.

To reply to your Venom spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, the general premise of the movie was dumb as heck, but it was a thoroughly enjoyable watch.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

He was also in Star Trek: Nemesis and was Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. I have yet to see him act poorly in a film, even if the film around him is sad.

I hated his take on Bane, but largely just because of the voice. Having seen interviews where he explained what he was going for, I get the intention of it, but it just sounded silly, and robbed Bane of any real menace.

It was better than the previous live-action Bane from Batman & Robin...
"Bomb.... Bomb...."

 Lathe Biosas wrote:


It was better than the previous live-action Bane from Batman & Robin...
"Bomb.... Bomb...."

I mean... Yes, but that's a pretty low bar.

The take on Bane is a bit of an odd case as they kept changing the voice in post production. There was the original which they changed before the test screening (might have been the IMAX preview of the plane hijack scene) which got bad feedback so they changed it again before wide release and still was sticking point.

I just looked up who played Bane in Batman & Robin, and it was Jeep Swenson (1957-1997). He passed away the year Batman & Robin came out.

 Easy E wrote:
Jason and the Argonauts

Yes, the classic Harryhausen one.

You know, I forgot that this was basically a B-movie made by Italians on the cheap starring no one of note.

This is just a vehicle for Harryhausen's craft.

As a Harryhausen vehicle, it’s pretty darn good. It doesn’t have the big climactic monster-on-monster battle like his first two Sinbad movies, but the skeletons make up for it.

One thing I love about classic stop motion effects is that they neatly sidestep the myriad complaints about “bad effects” that modern movies have to deal with. “Captain America had a couple blue screen/CGI scenes that weren’t photorealistic enough to confuse my brain? Trash! I can tell the dinosaurs aren’t really there? Worst movie ever!” “Two clay monsters herky-jerking around with compositing outlines? Now I’m not distracted from the story!”

Barely related note, but has anyone seen the horror movie Stop Motion? Is it worth a watch?