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.

It was in the theatre in my town for two weeks.

My wife and I were planning to go see it, because she will gladly watch anything with Jason Statham in it. I will too.

However, by the time we opened an evening to see it, it was gone.

Edit: I learned that Fall Guy lost about $50 Million dollars! If definitely did not deserve to bomb like that!

Sister Act

It’s just a marvellous film. Not the funniest comedy I’ve ever seen, but it’s not going for crazy bip bip wibble loonie. It’s gentler than that, whilst not falling into RomCom dreariness. I’m sure there’s a proper term for it, but I can’t think of it right now.

Feel Good Comedy, maybe? But that still feels like it’s selling the film and the performances short.

I bloody love it.

I think it’s the way the Nuns and Sister Mary Clarence bring a form of redemption to each other. She helps them modernise and better relate to their diocese. They help her find firmer footing and great purpose.

Whilst I’m not religious myself, it feels like how it should all work in almost a Pratchett way. All things affecting the other and becoming better and healthier and happier.

What about the sequels?

Watching the second today

Sinners

One of the first things I was taught about screenwriting, is if you want to make an original idea; take an existing idea and change a key aspect of it. So, change the setting, change a key plotpoint, change the main character, etc. Take an idea like the Seven Samurai, and put it in the Old West or Space. Often times, these simple changes will completely change the plot, characterizations, and dialogue, and will lead to even bigger differences in theme, sub-text, and symbolism naturally.

That brings us to Sinners. If you look at the bare-bones story and plot of Sinners it is obviously a re-skin of another popular movie. We have two brothers who are criminals that hole-up in a dance hall with a cast of ne'er-do-wells, and things spiral when baddies show-up. However, the simple act of changing this to 1932 Mississippi in the Delta.... well that changes everything about this movie.

I am glad I saw it. One thing I DO NOT need is a sequel or prequel to this movie. It tells the full story it wants to tell. Not as horrific, not as actiony, and not as spicy as I was expecting; but the characters and how it all unfolds was satisfying to me. Great long, post-credits scene that really is essential to closing out the story too.

 Easy E wrote:
Sinners

One of the first things I was taught about screenwriting, is if you want to make an original idea; take an existing idea and change a key aspect of it. So, change the setting, change a key plotpoint, change the main character, etc. Take an idea like the Seven Samurai, and put it in the Old West or Space. Often times, these simple changes will completely change the plot, characterizations, and dialogue, and will lead to even bigger differences in theme, sub-text, and symbolism naturally.

That brings us to Sinners. If you look at the bare-bones story and plot of Sinners it is obviously a re-skin of another popular movie. We have two brothers who are criminals that hole-up in a dance hall with a cast of ne'er-do-wells, and things spiral when baddies show-up. However, the simple act of changing this to 1932 Mississippi in the Delta.... well that changes everything about this movie.

I am glad I saw it. One thing I DO NOT need is a sequel or prequel to this movie. It tells the full story it wants to tell. Not as horrific, not as actiony, and not as spicy as I was expecting; but the characters and how it all unfolds was satisfying to me. Great long, post-credits scene that really is essential to closing out the story too.

Yeah, this is one I'd be likely be unhappy if they decide to try and make a prequel or sequel of. That said I've heard the director/writer whatever wants to do more movies in the universe and as long as they are separate from THAT vampire and THAT specific setting I'm here for it. It was just a great self contained story.

Mate, I’d watch Paint Dry if it was directed by Ryan Coogler.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Mate, I’d watch Paint Dry if it was directed by Ryan Coogler.

Is it odd that his worst film was the only one that didn't have Michael B. Jordan in it.

Mission Impossible

Putting my extreme distaste for the peculiarly soulless Tom Cruise and giving this a whirl.

It’s very mid 90’s actioner, isn’t it? And as it’s continuing to this day, I’m intrigued as to how it’s modernised. So I could be persuaded to try the others.

No idea how 90s Mission Impossible is, but I liked it for following the themes I admittedly only half remembered from the show that I probably never saw completely. I was less thrilled with the novelty format of the second movie. I don't remember what it was. Storytelling, camera work, I don't know. Something bothered me about it. Might have just been me at the time, too. Might have been John Woo was too John Woo and didn't keep the feel of the first movie and the show enough for my liking. Regardless, the low point for me was the third one. Because J.J. Abrams. I thought the series picked up again after that and liked the next two.

That's as far as I've seen them, I think. For action and spy nonsense fans I think the series is worth watching, so I'd say stick with it. Especially since Mission Impossible is fundamentally team based and at its best it's not all Tom Cruise all the time. Also as I am of the opinion that the 00's were a low point for action movies and the genre got more competent again around ten years ago, I'd expect the newer entries I haven't seen to be worthwhile as well.

This message is brought to you by the dude who's trying to remember something he hasn't seen in ten or so years.

I can't say I have a problem with Tom Cruise myself. What I can say is that I watched Tropic Thunder last night and the movie wouldn't be half as good without him.

The first four M:I movies had four very different directors, Brian DePalma, John Woo, JJ Abrams, Brad Bird, each with a very different tone. Three was the most mainstream, stylistically, but has a fun performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman. The fourth, Ghost Protocol, is the one that really set the mold for the rest of the series with the awe inspiring stuntwork and really kicking off the series embracing a narrative continuity. The films following that really all have a consistent tone and quality to the filmmaking.

The first three films are three separate movies with a central character that shares the same name.

It is kind of like how The Fast & Furious went from a single low stakes street level car heist movie to a connected series of fantasy films.

For me, the appeal of the MI movies was the excellent ensemble cast and the increasingly over the top but well executed stunts.

MI:2

About 20 minutes in, and whilst like the first, it’s pretty average fare for its era? It’s pushing into the realms of Egosploitation, where Hunt is just sort of the best at absolutely everything and everyone comments how pretty he is etc.

It’s not fully in that realm, but it’s going closer to it than even the cheesiest Bond film.

What is of interest here is whilst Tom Cruise has typically aged well? He looks noticeably older here, just four years after the first movie. Not old, just older.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We do get John Woo’s signature Doves in the last bit. Except they’re mangy pigeons, the Rats of the Sky.

Which to be honest, I’d say sums this film up in an oddly poetic way.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
MI:2

About 20 minutes in, and whilst like the first, it’s pretty average fare for its era? It’s pushing into the realms of Egosploitation, where Hunt is just sort of the best at absolutely everything and everyone comments how pretty he is etc.

It’s not fully in that realm, but it’s going closer to it than even the cheesiest Bond film.

What is of interest here is whilst Tom Cruise has typically aged well? He looks noticeably older here, just four years after the first movie. Not old, just older.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We do get John Woo’s signature Doves in the last bit. Except they’re mangy pigeons, the Rats of the Sky.

Which to be honest, I’d say sums this film up in an oddly poetic way.

As much as I like the Mission Impossible films, that's something that's always irked me about them, and something I miss from the original series too, instead of a Planner Guy putting together a team of experts, Hunt is not only the Planner Guy he's pretty much all the other Guys as well.
I'm surprised he didn't take over the Tech Guy and Femme Fatale roles too.

Gonna leave the others for another weekend I think. I’ve done well with my eyes not vomiting in protest at two films starring Tom Cruise, but my tolerance is wearing thin there.

There’s just something about him. Like, he puts all this effort in, does hit own stunts and that, but the end results are just him looking soulless in different circumstances.

How apt that we talk about MI films right now! This weekend I was at an event in Germany, had an overnight stay at a hotel. So I watched some TV at the hotel after having sat up for the show. Mission Impossible - Fallout (2018) happened to be on, and I remembered recently hearing that this was people's favourite film out of the series and tauted as one of the best action films of the past decades, and I hadn't watched an M:I film since the third. So I gave it a go, and I was not disappointed. The film goes on for about 900 hours, but there's always stuff happening, and most of it is rather pleasant. I'm extremely suspicious of Henry Cavill, but this film just worked on most levels I thought. Somehow Cruise comes across as extremely competent, but also kinda human, which is a weird thing to say about Cruise, but it works. Neato. Watch It.

As a stark contrast, I watched the first half of Black Adam (2022) right after that. It starts with a very long and very unnecessary, narrated bit about the background of Black Adam and the crown of wotsit. Then we get a sequence about how a lady archeologist, her brother and his pals go to look for that place where the crown of wotsit is supposed to be. These scenes and characters feel like they're right out of the Michael Bay textbook. Then Black Adam appears and kills all the baddies. It all looks like a video game sequence, and very unimpressive. There's a lot of magic and shouting and effects, and it was deeply boring. In contrast, Tom Cruise slipping off a rope in Mission Impossible Fallout made me actually gasp in front of that tv. There's 20 times bigger things happening in Black Adam, and it's just boring and generic and fake. But hey, they occasionally play random pop songs from 40 years ago along with a few scenes, because that other film that made a bajillion dollaridoos did it. And it's as cheap and boring and backwards as that always is. A new film made for kids and young audiences in general supporting the rather strong theory that in terms of music NOTHING has happened since 2004 is just sad.

Then the film stops and a whole different superhero film starts, which is about the X-Men by another name and they're kinda fun and colourful (a young lady who looks cool when superpowerin' and seems to get a charming relationship going with the boy who looks like deadpool, but actually is Ant-Man, but he can only get big. Sadly, he also seems to fill the role of all the comic relief, but it un-annoying. Then there's the stern, and no-nonsense (and thus boring as all hell) man, BUT he's got the most ridiculous outfit when being a superhero. And a little rotating morning star as a weapon to boot. He's the funniest looking guy. The one to give the group dignity is Pierce Brosnan who plays a wizard with a golden hat. He's cool, but it's impossible to say what exactly he can do and can't.). The group are introduced ham-fistedly, but the only way bad superhero films know how to do it, and then they have to go catch Black Adam because he kills everybody all the time, because he's angry and boring.

This opens up some interesting ideas about those people in that fictional African country being opressed by foreign mercenaries (not sure who's in power there, but probably their employer), some of the people there view Black Adam as a great leader and their saviour from foreign oppression because that's kinda his backstory; he did that 2500 years ago already. But doesn't really care about the peoplenow. I'm not even sure what motivates him at all. On the other hand, there's this kinda shady group of X-Men-by-another-name who are sent by some wealthy supergovernment/secret service/whatever to catch Black Adam and get him to Superhero prison because he's a big risk to peace and kills people all the time without caring. But the people of that country never asked for these x-men to show up. Very interesting question. It's kinda implied, and maybe even spelled out at some point, but not really mentioned again. Instead we get to see The Rock's back and face a lot. Sometimes he just kills people, sometimes he kills people and they put some sort of humour in as well. But Black Adam is such a big chunk of god-like nothing that it's just weird. He's a weird mix of really bland and unevenly presented. Then I had to turn off the TV and go to sleep.

Oof. Black Adam sounds like a real stinker.

I just watched Rogue One again after finishing Andor. Still a great film. The final land-air-space battle is just wonderful. Yes I could pick all kinds of holes in it, but I really don’t want to as it just delivers pure awesomeness straight into my brain.

I wouldn’t say that I have any greater understanding of Cassian’s position in the film, as I think Luna did a great job originally of portraying depth and meaning to the character. However, I am also delighted that the series did t lead to wild inconsistencies in the character during his journey and development.

Great stuff all round.

Yeah, the bits of Black Adam that weren't Black Adam were excellent. I would watch the hell out of a Justice Society movie with that cast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flinty wrote:
I wouldn’t say that I have any greater understanding of Cassian’s position in the film, as I think Luna did a great job originally of portraying depth and meaning to the character. However, I am also delighted that the series did t lead to wild inconsistencies in the character during his journey and development.

The one comment I have seen that I agree with is that the series really highlights Cassian's saviour complex, which goes a long way to explaining why he bonds so quickly with Jyn without having to add in a romance angle. It's by no means essential to the movie, but it's a nice addition.

And, of course,

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, the bits of Black Adam that weren't Black Adam were excellent. I would watch the hell out of a Justice Society movie with that cast.

Agreed. The JSA are the best (only?) reason to ever watch this movie.

ccs wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, the bits of Black Adam that weren't Black Adam were excellent. I would watch the hell out of a Justice Society movie with that cast.

Agreed. The JSA are the best (only?) reason to ever watch this movie.

No. The best part was a teaser for a movie that will never be made... when shows up.

That would never have turned into a movie, because the Rock's Black Adam isn't allowed to lose. That's why he's in his own movie as an antihero instead of showing up as a Shazam villain.

Sister Act 2

Take the same formula, but apply it to Fish Out Of Water Inspirational Teacher tropes.

Being a sequel it’s expected some of the charm and novelty of the original will have worn off. But it’s still there, and the heart definitely remains.

Of interest is a young, pre-Fugees Fame* Lauryn Hill in the cast.

Had thought it was entirely pre-Fugees, but nope. Founded 1990, Sister Act 2 1993, hit the big time 1996.

My wife and I are slowly watching every Romantic Comedy on D+. Why? Because we can, that's why! We are only at the Bs, so this should take us..... a lifetime.

Beautiful Disaster

Pretty raunchy flick about a poker protege who runs-a-way to college and meets cute with a..... <checks notes>.... bare-knuckle, illegal fighter and sparks fly.

There is some really bad made-up drama in the middle of this film, and the in the climax the introduce a gangster sub-plot which leads to the big finish.

I would say it is a mix of a Rom-Com and a Late-Night Sex Comedy from the early Aughts. If that is your thing... go for it. However, I am pretty sure no one on this board is going to watch it!

Now if they teamed up to fight crime, I might watch it

"He's a genetically engineered alcoholic rock star with no name. She's a plucky bisexual snake charmer operating on the wrong side of the law. They fight crime!"

Coming back to Sister Act 2

And it shares a certain DNA with Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, and other inspirational teacher movies.

See, when we meet the kids, they’re presented as disaffected, overly rebellious and perhaps Too Thick To Thrive. Especially Bill S Preston and Ted Theodore Logan Esq.

But really, as I’ve said before? They’re just kids being failed by a One Size Fits Some educational system. Switched off because none of it seems to relate to their life and that.

Yet, when someone turns up with the guile and skill to repackage the lessons in ways they’ve an established interest in? Much Better Results Occur. And from there a little self confidence and eyes slightly wider to world occur.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And like a Gremlin, temporarily escaping its box to raid the fridge, caught green handed by the kitchen light switching on? I too an emerging from my comfort zone of tacky horror, good horror, tacky sci-fi and a bunch of films which apparently suck but I really enjoy all the same….


I’ve decided to have a season of indeterminate length of 80’s Feel Good Hit Movies.

First up, Three Men And A Baby

Only just bunged it on. But I’ll share with you my dim recollection of this essentially being Friends but with wit, warmth and for our cast, a Visible Means Of Financial Support.

Will come back with a recently informed verdict.

WAIT! Spock directed this? Nice

 Quixote wrote:

ccs wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, the bits of Black Adam that weren't Black Adam were excellent. I would watch the hell out of a Justice Society movie with that cast.

Agreed. The JSA are the best (only?) reason to ever watch this movie.

No. The best part was a teaser for a movie that will never be made... when

Spoiler:

Superman

shows up.

You hardly need the spoiler tag concerning Superman showing up in the credits scene.
Maybe that 1st week of release there in '22, but not here 3 years on....

ccs wrote:

 Quixote wrote:

ccs wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, the bits of Black Adam that weren't Black Adam were excellent. I would watch the hell out of a Justice Society movie with that cast.

Agreed. The JSA are the best (only?) reason to ever watch this movie.

No. The best part was a teaser for a movie that will never be made... when

Spoiler:

Superman

shows up.

You hardly need the spoiler tag concerning Superman showing up in the credits scene.
Maybe that 1st week of release there in '22, but not here 3 years on....

Sorry. Didn't want to ruin the only good part of that God awful movie.

Just picked up Zack Snyder's R-Rated Justice League. About an hour in, and it's amazing how much better it is that the dumpster fire that was released by Joss Wedon. Wonder why Joss chopped out Green Lantern, Zeus, Aries, and Darksied?

Have a ways to go... I'll report in when I'm finished.

Watched a Working Man.

Not quite sure why I watched all of it really. Blandest most obvious borefest of a shooter I think I’ve ever seen. Not one part of it made any sense, and I couldn’t care less about any of the characters.

And quite apart from anything, something as massive as an M14 seems like a poor choice for FISH.

 Quixote wrote:

Just picked up Zack Snyder's R-Rated Justice League. About an hour in, and it's amazing how much better it is that the dumpster fire that was released by Joss Wedon. Wonder why Joss chopped out Green Lantern, Zeus, Aries, and Darksied?

Keep in mind a lot of what wound up in the final Snyder cut wasn't actually in the original cut, as the movie wasn't finished when Whedon took over. Snyder had to add a whole bunch of stuff in to get his version finished.

I would honestly struggle to pick which version of the JL movie I like more... Whedon's is an inconsistent frankenstein of a movie, and leans heavily into my least favourite aspect of the Justice League as a group - Superman is the only one who actually needs to be there. Snyder's does a better job of making everybody relevant, but is overly long and takes itself way too seriously. Neither wind up on the list of movies I feel a need to rewatch any time soon.

 Flinty wrote:
Watched a Working Man.

Not quite sure why I watched all of it really. Blandest most obvious borefest of a shooter I think I’ve ever seen. Not one part of it made any sense, and I couldn’t care less about any of the characters.

And quite apart from anything, something as massive as an M14 seems like a poor choice for FISH.

Yeah I saw that film. I'm normally down for a "mindless action fest" but this really felt disjointed and not just mindless but the kind of unthinking that just makes you spot the odd right there and then.

Most action films you can pull apart if you really pay attention and review it after; but you can enjoy them as an experience and flow. But this film just kept making me mentally pause an go "wait that - that doesn't make sense" right whilst watching it.