The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: Crudblud on December 02, 2013, 07:12:47 PM

Title: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 02, 2013, 07:12:47 PM
You know the deal: post about a film or series you have seen recently.

12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet)

This film is widely regarded as an American classic anyway, so there's really nothing for me to say that hasn't already been said. It has a great script, tight direction and excellent performances, and is surely one of the best directorial debut features of all-time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: DuckDodgers on December 02, 2013, 07:19:41 PM
I watched Aliens 3 and Alien Resurrection over the weekend.  I'm pretty sure I caught the bad end of an Aliens marathon. 
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Alchemist21 on December 02, 2013, 07:23:16 PM
You know the deal: post about a film or series you have seen recently.

12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet)

This film is widely regarded as an American classic anyway, so there's really nothing for me to say that hasn't already been said. It has a great script, tight direction and excellent performances, and is surely one of the best directorial debut features of all-time.

One of the few good movies I've actually seen.  It's a great example that a solid script and dialogue can make a great movie without the need for action-packed scenes of kissy-kissy romantic side stories.

There was a '97 remake that I haven't seen.  I wonder if it's as good as the '57 version.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 02, 2013, 07:59:01 PM
You know the deal: post about a film or series you have seen recently.

12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet)

This film is widely regarded as an American classic anyway, so there's really nothing for me to say that hasn't already been said. It has a great script, tight direction and excellent performances, and is surely one of the best directorial debut features of all-time.

One of the few good movies I've actually seen.  It's a great example that a solid script and dialogue can make a great movie without the need for action-packed scenes of kissy-kissy romantic side stories.

There was a '97 remake that I haven't seen.  I wonder if it's as good as the '57 version.

I haven't seen it either. It's directed by William Friedkin and it has quite a cast, but it just seems kind of pointless given that the original isn't dated at all.

I watched Aliens 3 and Alien Resurrection over the weekend.  I'm pretty sure I caught the bad end of an Aliens marathon. 

Yeah, it's a shame the way that series went. I actually haven't seen Alien 3, but Resurrection ranges between boring, idiotic and just-plain-bad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Alchemist21 on December 02, 2013, 08:00:26 PM
boring, idiotic and just-plain-bad.

This sounds like the Carrie remake.  Every character in that movie was an idiot imo.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on December 02, 2013, 08:01:56 PM
You know the deal: post about a film or series you have seen recently.

12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet)

This film is widely regarded as an American classic anyway, so there's really nothing for me to say that hasn't already been said. It has a great script, tight direction and excellent performances, and is surely one of the best directorial debut features of all-time.

One of the few good movies I've actually seen.  It's a great example that a solid script and dialogue can make a great movie without the need for action-packed scenes of kissy-kissy romantic side stories.

There was a '97 remake that I haven't seen.  I wonder if it's as good as the '57 version.

I haven't seen it either. It's directed by William Friedkin and it has quite a cast, but it just seems kind of pointless given that the original isn't dated at all.

I watched Aliens 3 and Alien Resurrection over the weekend.  I'm pretty sure I caught the bad end of an Aliens marathon. 

Yeah, it's a shame the way that series went. I actually haven't seen Alien 3, but Resurrection ranges between boring, idiotic and just-plain-bad.

I'm in the minority, but I actually quite liked the assembly cut of Alien 3. Though none of them come close to how I feel about Alien, which is simply an amazing cinematic experience.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on December 02, 2013, 08:29:54 PM
12 Angry Men is one of my favourite movies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on December 05, 2013, 08:01:45 AM
I allowed myself to watch human centerpiede 1and 2. I won't do that again. I never thought I would see a better shock film then 'a Serbian film'. Watch a Serbian film if you havnt seen it. But it's pretty heavy.

No, don't watch that movie. Absolute piece of shit. It wasn't even shocking, just terribly fucking boring and uninteresting.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on December 05, 2013, 08:07:47 AM
Movies don't shock me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 05, 2013, 09:24:45 AM
You know the deal: post about a film or series you have seen recently.

12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet)

This film is widely regarded as an American classic anyway, so there's really nothing for me to say that hasn't already been said. It has a great script, tight direction and excellent performances, and is surely one of the best directorial debut features of all-time.

Loved 12 Angry Men and saw a performance of it at the theatre a few weeks ago. It was a pretty intense performance, with all of the cast on stage all of the time, with no breaks apart from the interlude. The only bit of stage wizardry was the table in the middle which very, very slowly rotates, which helps create that sense of clausterphobia and frustration which does get lost in a big wide theatre instead of the uncomfortably close shots used in the film.

Just watched the 'Peadogeddon' episode of Brass Eye again this morning. Still as funny and relevant as it was in '97.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 05, 2013, 04:58:27 PM
I allowed myself to watch human centerpiede 1and 2. I won't do that again. I never thought I would see a better shock film then 'a Serbian film'. Watch a Serbian film if you havnt seen it. But it's pretty heavy.

Honestly A Serbian Film was just kind of silly. One of those horror films in which bad things happen because the lead is dumb. I get that it's supposed to be an allegory for the treatment of the Serbian people by the government, but it's just so over the top that like The Human Centipede it is essentially a comedy. In fact, the whole thing could be a set-up for the "the aristocrats" joke. As far as allegorical horror/exploitation films go, I think Salo and Cannibal Holocaust are far better.

Loved 12 Angry Men and saw a performance of it at the theatre a few weeks ago. It was a pretty intense performance, with all of the cast on stage all of the time, with no breaks apart from the interlude. The only bit of stage wizardry was the table in the middle which very, very slowly rotates, which helps create that sense of clausterphobia and frustration which does get lost in a big wide theatre instead of the uncomfortably close shots used in the film.

Just watched the 'Peadogeddon' episode of Brass Eye again this morning. Still as funny and relevant as it was in '97.
That sounds really good, I can't imagine how it would look on stage, but I'm definitely interested based on what you say here.

Also Brass Eye is one of my favourite things.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 05, 2013, 05:14:19 PM
Martin Shaw played the juror who voted 'not guilty' and it was fairly awesome. The only things which let it down were limitations of the medium itself, you just can't create the same clausterphobia in a room big enough to seat hundreds. I was just hugely impressed that they were able to perform what is essentially one long dialogue for an hour and a bit before the interlude, then repeat that and keep it edge-of-your-seat gripping.

The only one who struggled was the actor from M.A.S.H (I think) who played the old juror, he visibly struggled with a couple of lines and needed a little prompting from his colleagues. It actually helped reinforce the image of the doddering old man he was playing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on December 05, 2013, 06:28:22 PM
Cannibal Holocaust is great. I recommend.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Adolf Hipster on December 06, 2013, 06:29:07 PM
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

I was sort of disappointed. They dumped a lot of the nice minor details and tended to rush things, often poorly emphasizing aspects of the story that were elaborated on much better in the book. It was still good, though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on December 06, 2013, 07:39:50 PM
House of Cards...

Started of slow but I loved the last few episodes, Kevin Spacey is great as well. Eager to watch season 2 in like two days when it comes out.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: bj1234 on December 06, 2013, 09:12:47 PM
Mary Poppins
My 3 year old loves the dancing penguins.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on December 08, 2013, 02:48:05 AM
David Lynch's Hotel Room
Finally watched all 3 episodes. It doesn't come close to Twin Peaks for me, but it's still one of the better shows I have seen. Amazing atmosphere and some really great dialogue. I liked the 1st and 3rd episodes the best. I still feel like I missed some details, so I will be going back and watching it again soon.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 08, 2013, 02:50:01 AM
David Lynch's Hotel Room
Finally watched all 3 episodes. It doesn't come close to Twin Peaks for me, but it's still one of the better shows I have seen. Amazing atmosphere and some really great dialogue. I liked the 1st and 3rd episodes the best. I still feel like I missed some details, so I will be going back and watching it again soon.
This about sums up my feelings regarding the series, too.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on December 08, 2013, 09:34:02 AM
Waiting for Godot
Watched a film version of the play about 2 men waiting endlessly for a man named Godot. It all takes place in one bleak location containing one leafless tree, but it could not be more enthralling. The performances were particularly astounding and I really fell in love with the characters. I found it to be not only hilarious, but also a very moving existential piece. I'm not really sure how to fully describe my feelings for it, it's definitely something you would have to experience for yourself. This is certainly one of the best things I have experienced and I highly recommend it.
I also really hope to see a live performance of it one day.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on December 09, 2013, 06:00:46 PM
Anyone watch Homeland? The second season was pretty shit but it got a lot better in season three, i think. Last nights episode was good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on December 10, 2013, 10:03:12 PM
Kick Ass 2 and it was no where near as good as the first.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 11, 2013, 08:59:26 PM
I agreed to go and see Disney's new movie Frozen not knowing it was a two hour-long musical. Someone else paid for me so whatever. It's a typical Disney fantasy with princes and princesses and talking snowmen and trolls and castles and songs about true love and following your heart and all that crap, it delivers on the comedy front with the usual tight slapstick and one-liners, and the visuals and animation are top notch. If you like Disney's Aladdin type stuff this is going to be right up your alley, and it comes with a cool short called Get A Horse which combines Steamboat Willie era animation and modern CG in some pretty inventive ways, it does get a little redundant before too long, but while it's good it's good. Overall, Frozen is a highly competent and tight piece of work that doesn't feel half as long as it actually is.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 12, 2013, 08:55:09 AM
Apparently the fairytale Frozen is based on actually featured a female hero trying to rescue a platonic male friend. it's a shame they went down the traditional Disney route.

I've been watching Prison break lately, while I loved the complex plan and trying to wok out what the symbols meant as they were introduced, I really wish they didn't have the ridiculous presidential conspiracy in the background - I don't care about the misadventures of the lawyers, I want to see Scofield try to avoid being shanked as he creeps into an intricately designed area of the prison.

The second series started well but the damn conspiracy is starting to take up too much screen time again. Agent mahone was a great character in his own right - and watching the cat-and-mouse between Scofield and him would have been really interesting to follow. Why did they have to over-complicate his character?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 12, 2013, 10:14:51 AM
Apparently the fairytale Frozen is based on actually featured a female hero trying to rescue a platonic male friend. it's a shame they went down the traditional Disney route.
Actually, the old Disney formula has been spiced up with a few subversions and twists. It's not groundbreaking or anything, but it's certainly different enough to make it stand out among the Disney princess back catalogue.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 12, 2013, 05:05:35 PM
Apparently the fairytale Frozen is based on actually featured a female hero trying to rescue a platonic male friend. it's a shame they went down the traditional Disney route.

I've been watching Prison break lately, while I loved the complex plan and trying to wok out what the symbols meant as they were introduced, I really wish they didn't have the ridiculous presidential conspiracy in the background - I don't care about the misadventures of the lawyers, I want to see Scofield try to avoid being shanked as he creeps into an intricately designed area of the prison.

The second series started well but the damn conspiracy is starting to take up too much screen time again. Agent mahone was a great character in his own right - and watching the cat-and-mouse between Scofield and him would have been really interesting to follow. Why did they have to over-complicate his character?

I loved that show, but alas, it succumbed to sequelitis very quickly.  They should have just kept it to two seasons and toned down the conspiracy subplot a good deal - it had to be there to a degree, of course, because you can't beat the classic story of the innocent man in jail - but it's way too complicated, and the writers just kept pulling more new dimensions and motivations for them out of their asses as the show went on.  As a result of all this stretching the plot out, the latter two seasons aren't nearly as good as the first two.  They're not all bad, admittedly - the characters are still great, the cast is still great, the directing is still great, etc. - but it's just unrecognizable as the show it was when it began.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 16, 2013, 01:02:27 PM
Leviathan (Lucien Castaing-Taylor)
Cameras mounted upon a fishing trawler are submerged in gull-blanketed waters, splattered with fish guts, buried under piles of catch, and other fun things in this intense, wordless, non-narrative filmic essay on the harshness of life at sea.

The Third Man (Carol Reed)
Like when I watched 12 Angry Men, I'm left writing a review of a film about which no more can really be said. A well beloved classic of film noir and deservedly so.

Frozen (Chris Buck)
Surprisingly good Disney musical, offering enough twists to their usual formula to make the usual tight visuals, gags and songwriting more than just a case of going through the motions.

Westworld (Michael Crichton)
Proto-Terminator in which mustachio'd vacationer does battle with bald android gunslinger. Great fun from Crichton, who apparently has a thing for deadly theme parks.

Caligula (Tinto Brass)
Disowned by writer Gore Vidal and lead actor Malcolm McDowell, among others, Caligula is an ever escalating orgy of madness that transcends its obvious and manifold flaws to become a grand and absurd comedy. Features a notable performance from the late Peter O'Toole as the wretched Tiberius.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 16, 2013, 02:15:16 PM
Quote
but it's way too complicated, and the writers just kept pulling more new dimensions and motivations for them out of their asses as the show went on.

This. A thousand times this.

A perfect example was an episode last night.

[spoiler alert]

Link's Dad reveals that there's a super-secret file which will clear his son's name and the doctor, Sarah, must possess it. Cue The Company kidnapping Sarah and torturing her to get the file.

All this would be fine if, two episodes ago, Agent Kim wasn't berating Kellerman for wasting time using Sarah to get to the escapees. He was told to leave her alone and focus on Link's son. I don't mind writers adding ridiculous plot-twists (especially in this show) but at least make them coherent with the rest of the series.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 17, 2013, 10:30:49 AM
Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch)
I first saw this some years ago and was totally perplexed by it. Seeing it now with fresh eyes I feel like it makes a lot more sense and actually contains, as Lynch insists, a linear narrative. With this clearer perspective on the narrative I was able to sit back and enjoy Lynch's mastery of atmosphere, suspense, abstraction, character development and overall direction which have come together to form one of his finest works, and a definite masterpiece of modern American cinema.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 17, 2013, 04:56:32 PM
Are you a Lynch fan in general, Crapblood?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 18, 2013, 05:04:14 AM
Are you a Lynch fan in general, Crapblood?
I count several of his films among my favourites, including Wild at Heart which is my absolute favourite film. So yeah, I guess I am.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on December 18, 2013, 08:15:16 AM
Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch)
I first saw this some years ago and was totally perplexed by it. Seeing it now with fresh eyes I feel like it makes a lot more sense and actually contains, as Lynch insists, a linear narrative. With this clearer perspective on the narrative I was able to sit back and enjoy Lynch's mastery of atmosphere, suspense, abstraction, character development and overall direction which have come together to form one of his finest works, and a definite masterpiece of modern American cinema.

So glad to hear this, I completely agree. It was my second and third viewings that solidified Mulholland Dr. as my favorite film (now tied with The Master, of course). It is such a beautiful, and heartbreaking film. At this point I am usually in tears by the ending, even though it's still hard for me to describe what the film is in words.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on December 19, 2013, 09:14:47 AM
Rashomon (Akira Kurosawa)
Woah. This was a wonderful film. An incredibly captivating film about 4 completely different recollections of the same set of events. At first the films feel so simple, but the nature of truth becomes more complicated and intruiging as it moves from one story to the next. The cinematrography was also great, helping create the perfect mood, especially during the sequences in the woods. What really stuck out to me though, was the editing, and the way it was used to explore each story.
I was greatly impressed by this film, and I am definitely looking forward to seeing Kurosawa's other work.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 19, 2013, 08:04:38 PM
Midnight in Paris (Woody Allen)
A really good recent Woody Allen film starring Owen Wilson... who'd-a thunk it? The typical Allen formula is given a strange new twist that offers up some of his smartest writing in a good while, well performed by a solid cast taking on some very big characters.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 20, 2013, 07:15:54 PM
Lost Highway (David Lynch)
Following on from my success with Mulholland Dr., I decided to rewatch another particularly enigmatic Lynch feature in the hope that it too would make much more sense. This time around I was able to let the analytical part of my mind relax and just roll with it, and the narrative seemed to flow a lot better even if I didn't necessarily understand what was going on much of the time. As with Mulholland, the power of the atmosphere is constant, but as dark as that film gets, this one is almost pitch black all the way through to me. I thought it was a masterpiece the first time I saw it, but now I am sure of it.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Miloš Forman)
I wonder why I didn't see this a long time ago, but I'm glad I waited, as I don't think I would have been sensitive or patient enough to really get into this as a teenager. I would have missed the warmth and humour of the characters, the more subtle elements of their interactions and relationships, and the wonderfully balanced ending, which is both sad and joyful, but without falling prey to the bogus sentimentality it so easily could have. Like so many films I love, it walks a tonal tightrope with, perhaps not exactly surety, but determination.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 20, 2013, 10:59:42 PM
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Miloš Forman)
I wonder why I didn't see this a long time ago, but I'm glad I waited, as I don't think I would have been sensitive or patient enough to really get into this as a teenager. I would have missed the warmth and humour of the characters, the more subtle elements of their interactions and relationships, and the wonderfully balanced ending, which is both sad and joyful, but without falling prey to the bogus sentimentality it so easily could have. Like so many films I love, it walks a tonal tightrope with, perhaps not exactly surety, but determination.
This one I did see as a teenager in a film class. I remember becoming pretty emotional at the end. I've been wanting to go back and watch it but it affected me so much the first time that I'm kinda scared.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 26, 2013, 12:48:23 AM
Dead Ringers (David Cronenberg)
Cronenberg is well known for his special effects creations like the living typewriters from Naked Lunch and Seth Brundle's gradual transformation into The Fly, but here the effects you don't see are at the centre of the drama as Jeremy Irons acts opposite himself in dual lead roles. A lot of people paint Cronenberg as an expressly cerebral filmmaker who gives little attention to emotion in general, and yet his remake of The Fly and this film are shining counterexamples to that assessment, not to mention The Brood, a heartfelt nightmare inspired by his divorce and resulting custody battle. I love Cronenberg's work in general, as you may have guessed, but this one is my favourite overall.

The Elephant Man (David Lynch)
A lot of people have made a meal about how this film is "different" from much of Lynch's other work, comparing it more to his Disney-funded The Straight Story than something like Blue Velvet, yet it contains many of his typical themes; the rot lurking beneath the polished surface of polite society, the confusion and misery of the downtrodden and misunderstood, deep emotional trauma, protagonists not in control of their own lives even at the best of times. Throw in the characteristic "body horror" and black and white industrial photography of Eraserhead and as far as I'm concerned it's very much a Lynch joint, and one of his best.

The Dead Zone (David Cronenberg)
Back with the other Dave, and this time he's joined by a psychic Christopher Walken in this adaptation of the Stephen King novel. Is it faithful? I don't know! I haven't read anything of his besides The Stand and The Dark Tower. It plays much more as a supernatural thriller than a horror film, and is full of that smell-it-a-mile-away Kingian cheese that I love when it's handled well, which it is here. Walken steals the show with his classically bizarre line delivery, but credit should also go to Martin Sheen, who gives a wonderfully big performance as a corrupt politician, and Herbert Lom in his understated role as Dr Weizak.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 26, 2013, 10:13:36 PM
The Dead Zone (David Cronenberg)
Back with the other Dave, and this time he's joined by a psychic Christopher Walken in this adaptation of the Stephen King novel. Is it faithful? I don't know! I haven't read anything of his besides The Stand and The Dark Tower. It plays much more as a supernatural thriller than a horror film, and is full of that smell-it-a-mile-away Kingian cheese that I love when it's handled well, which it is here. Walken steals the show with his classically bizarre line delivery, but credit should also go to Martin Sheen, who gives a wonderfully big performance as a corrupt politician, and Herbert Lom in his understated role as Dr Weizak.

O: As a huge Stephen King fan, I am interested.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on December 27, 2013, 08:38:40 AM
The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 27, 2013, 02:54:41 PM
The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.

I heard it was mostly fanfiction that had nothing to do with the book.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on December 27, 2013, 03:26:14 PM
Christopher Walken is great in everything.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 27, 2013, 07:51:16 PM
The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.
I really disliked it. I enjoyed the first one more if just for the character development. The second seemed cheap and shallow. I thought the river barrel scene was ridiculous. And the audience I was in kept laughing during really inappropriate times simply because the whole movie had a goofy "don't take me seriously" vibe. Like when Bilbo says "mine" for the first time when grabbing the ring... How is that funny?

Kili/Tauriel, Smaug, and Gandalf using magic were the only decent parts in a way too drawn out movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on December 27, 2013, 07:59:07 PM
The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.

I heard it was mostly fanfiction that had nothing to do with the book.

All of Jackson's movies are mostly fan fiction. Making a good movie out of the books is near impossible.

The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.
I really disliked it. I enjoyed the first one more if just for the character development. The second seemed cheap and shallow. I thought the river barrel scene was ridiculous. And the audience I was in kept laughing during really inappropriate times simply because the whole movie had a goofy "don't take me seriously" vibe. Like when Bilbo says "mine" for the first time when grabbing the ring... How is that funny?

Kili/Tauriel, Smaug, and Gandalf using magic were the only decent parts in a way too drawn out movie.

Uh, there's more characters in the second and the dwarves don't receive any more development than they did in the first. The only thing I agree with here is that it went too long, 2 hours 40 minutes is too long for this movie. And your audience is retarded.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 27, 2013, 08:29:57 PM
Yes, there are more characters but that doesn't have anything to do with character development. And it certainly seems like Thorin and Bilbo are not as prevalent as they were in the first movie.

We probably get to know Tauriel the best, but she's not even in the books.

The audience was stupid but so was the over the top goofy-comedy of the movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on December 27, 2013, 08:32:57 PM
I'm glad I don't give a fuck about these films.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on December 27, 2013, 09:23:48 PM
Yes, there are more characters but that doesn't have anything to do with character development. And it certainly seems like Thorin and Bilbo are not as prevalent as they were in the first movie.

We probably get to know Tauriel the best, but she's not even in the books.

More characters were developed.

Quote

The audience was stupid but so was the over the top goofy-comedy of the movie.

Have you seen the first movie?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 27, 2013, 09:41:49 PM
Yes, there are more characters but that doesn't have anything to do with character development. And it certainly seems like Thorin and Bilbo are not as prevalent as they were in the first movie.

We probably get to know Tauriel the best, but she's not even in the books.

More characters were developed.

Quote

The audience was stupid but so was the over the top goofy-comedy of the movie.

Have you seen the first movie?
Having more characters does not equal character development. Like I already said it was extremely shallow and each character had basically one emotion throughout the whole movie.

The first one had its comic relief as well. It's something I generally dislike about the movies. But it didn't have a 30 min barrel ride of a bouncy fat dwarf.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on December 27, 2013, 09:46:28 PM
Omg racist
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 27, 2013, 09:47:12 PM
I dunno, as far as I can recall the book was pretty goofy too. That's one of the things I was hoping Jackson would make sure to do with the films, rather than making it broody mcbroodwalking like the LotR. That said, I do think the goofiness was over the top, as you say, but I definitely don't think the goofy atmosphere is a flaw or a bad thing. I liked the whole barrel section, it was one of the less boring parts of the film. I remember finding that part funny in the book, though I might be crazy, so I'm glad it was equally as silly in the film. I loved Bilbo's moment of realization after he pushed them all off into the river.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lemon on December 27, 2013, 09:50:09 PM
Ah people that examine movies. If you sat down and enjoyed it, it's good. No need to examine everything.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 27, 2013, 09:51:53 PM
I dunno, as far as I can recall the book was pretty goofy too. That's one of the things I was hoping Jackson would make sure to do with the films, rather than making it broody mcbroodwalking like the LotR. That said, I do think the goofiness was over the top, as you say, but I definitely don't think the goofy atmosphere is a flaw or a bad thing. I liked the whole barrel section, it was one of the less boring parts of the film. I remember finding that part funny in the book, though I might be crazy, so I'm glad it was equally as silly in the film. I loved Bilbo's moment of realization after he pushed them all off into the river.
It's true that the book is geared more towards kids. (Or at least it's the one we were forced to read in middle school.) But I was hoping for the broody mcbroodwalking.

And Lemon, I didn't enjoy it so I was explaining why.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lemon on December 27, 2013, 09:52:35 PM
And Lemon, I didn't enjoy it so I was explaining why.

Aye, carry on.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on December 27, 2013, 10:08:41 PM
Just watched A Clockwork Orange.

Very Kubrickious. Loved the score. Even the synthesized bits were Bach. The old guy in the wheelchair reminded me of Hector Salamanca from Breaking Bad when he got angry. Overall, I'd give it an 8.4/10. I received the movie as a Christmas gift. It came with The Shining and 2001. I'll rewatch both of those soon.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on December 28, 2013, 01:29:01 AM
I dunno, as far as I can recall the book was pretty goofy too. That's one of the things I was hoping Jackson would make sure to do with the films, rather than making it broody mcbroodwalking like the LotR. That said, I do think the goofiness was over the top, as you say, but I definitely don't think the goofy atmosphere is a flaw or a bad thing. I liked the whole barrel section, it was one of the less boring parts of the film. I remember finding that part funny in the book, though I might be crazy, so I'm glad it was equally as silly in the film. I loved Bilbo's moment of realization after he pushed them all off into the river.
It's true that the book is geared more towards kids. (Or at least it's the one we were forced to read in middle school.) But I was hoping for the broody mcbroodwalking.

And Lemon, I didn't enjoy it so I was explaining why.

The Hobbit is a kids book so the movie is for kids. Treating the retaking of Erebor the same as the war of the ring would be foolish, one is a simple adventure and the other concerns the fate of the world. Jackson has also shoe horned in Sauron and some very brief "my precious" forshadowing, so calling the movie overly goofy is odd.

In the first movie, you had barely any character development. Bilbo and Thorin had their arch, and that was about it as everyone else was either already established or received very little screen time (the dwarves).

The second movie established Beorn, the elves, laketown (bard and the mayor), and Smaug while giving some more development to a few of the dwarves. There wasn't really an arch, but the movie was already packed with subplots anyway.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 28, 2013, 02:11:36 AM
And all of these character "establishments" were really shallow. You're not going to convince me otherwise. The movie focused on CGI sequences and a love story which never existed in the book.

The ring foreshadowing was still done with quirkiness, which is why my dumb audience laughed at it. It was overly goofy.

But you're right that the movie is for kids and I just can't get into it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on December 28, 2013, 03:09:28 AM
And all of these character "establishments" were really shallow. You're not going to convince me otherwise. The movie focused on CGI sequences and a love story which never existed in the book.

So basically it's the first movie :)

The ring foreshadowing was still done with quirkiness, which is why my dumb audience laughed at it. It was overly goofy.

But you're right that the movie is for kids and I just can't get into it.

lol, how was it quirky? No one in my theatre laughed. SPOILERS:

Bilbo killed a baby spider standing on the ring, then picked the ring up and whispered "MY precious" or some such. Nothing about that scene was funny, if anything it was a bit sad and depraved (which I felt was what Jackson was going for). Your audience was retarted.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on December 28, 2013, 03:32:27 AM
I watched Kingdom of Heaven today.

Overall, it's a 7.5/10. It seems Ridley Scott was reminiscing on Gladiator with this one, at least in the battle sequences. The fights were absolutely phenomenal. I like how he uses blood. Orlando Bloom did fairly well, but his pathetic excuse for facial hair made him seem a delicate flower next to some of the beards he fought against. There were some excellent shots, about 3 or 4 in particular where I immediately reviewed them after they happened.

My only complaint was that I felt like I was watching the movie from battle to battle. The between segments were nice, but the action was what made the movie for me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: markjo on December 28, 2013, 03:57:41 AM
The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.

I heard it was mostly fanfiction that had nothing to do with the book.
Originally it was supposed to be 2 movies, but when it got expanded to 3, they wound up drawing from other Tolkien books to act as filler.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on December 28, 2013, 04:17:21 AM
It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous.  I mean, seriously.  It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle.  They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.

So much of the first movie was filler.  I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours.  Give me a fucking break.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on December 28, 2013, 04:20:50 AM
It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous.  I mean, seriously.  It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle.  They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.

So much of the first movie was filler.  I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours.  Give me a fucking break.

I don't see how they could turn it into a single movie. 2 movies maybe, but not 1. Too much crap happens, you would have to jump directly from event to event in order to fit it all in, leaving no time for anything else.

I'd prefer 3 bloated movies to 1 awful one.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on December 28, 2013, 04:24:47 AM
It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous.  I mean, seriously.  It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle.  They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.

So much of the first movie was filler.  I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours.  Give me a fucking break.

I don't see how they could turn it into a single movie. 2 movies maybe, but not 1. Too much crap happens, you would have to jump directly from event to event in order to fit it all in, leaving no time for anything else.

I'd prefer 3 bloated movies to 1 awful one.

So I imagine you must have really hated the original LOTR trilogy since they crammed so much into a single trilogy.  I mean, given that it's five fucking times as long as The Hobbit in print but about the same length on screen.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on December 28, 2013, 05:00:59 AM
It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous.  I mean, seriously.  It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle.  They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.

So much of the first movie was filler.  I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours.  Give me a fucking break.

I don't see how they could turn it into a single movie. 2 movies maybe, but not 1. Too much crap happens, you would have to jump directly from event to event in order to fit it all in, leaving no time for anything else.

I'd prefer 3 bloated movies to 1 awful one.

So I imagine you must have really hated the original LOTR trilogy since they crammed so much into a single trilogy.  I mean, given that it's five fucking times as long as The Hobbit in print but about the same length on screen.

The original trilogy was also nothing like the books. It was completely rearranged for pacing, and whole events were removed and changed to fit within the movies. It's impossible to make a 100% faithful movie out of the books, what matters is whether the movies are good. And they are.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 28, 2013, 05:26:39 AM
And they are.
NO!  >o<
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 28, 2013, 05:29:24 AM
It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous.  I mean, seriously.  It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle.  They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.

So much of the first movie was filler.  I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours.  Give me a fucking break.

I don't see how they could turn it into a single movie. 2 movies maybe, but not 1. Too much crap happens, you would have to jump directly from event to event in order to fit it all in, leaving no time for anything else.

I'd prefer 3 bloated movies to 1 awful one.

So I imagine you must have really hated the original LOTR trilogy since they crammed so much into a single trilogy.  I mean, given that it's five fucking times as long as The Hobbit in print but about the same length on screen.

The original trilogy was also nothing like the books. It was completely rearranged for pacing, and whole events were removed and changed to fit within the movies. It's impossible to make a 100% faithful movie out of the books, what matters is whether the movies are good. And they are.

Not to mention that about 95% of the LotR books were Tolkien telling you what the rocks beneath their feet looked like, so once you cut out all that and Tom Bombadil's fifty pages of singing there was substantially less plot to cover.

That said, I do think it should've been two movies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 28, 2013, 05:33:19 AM
Not to mention that about 95% of the LotR books were Tolkien telling you what the rocks beneath their feet looked like
I have been saying this exact same phrase for so long now. It's why I could never finish the trilogy, I got so tired of the excruciatingly detailed descriptions.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on December 28, 2013, 06:27:05 AM
Okay, I'll allow that the excruciating detail of the LOTR series makes a difference, but I can't imagine it makes that much of a difference.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on December 28, 2013, 06:49:21 AM
It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous.  I mean, seriously.  It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle.  They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.

So much of the first movie was filler.  I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours.  Give me a fucking break.

I don't see how they could turn it into a single movie. 2 movies maybe, but not 1. Too much crap happens, you would have to jump directly from event to event in order to fit it all in, leaving no time for anything else.

I'd prefer 3 bloated movies to 1 awful one.

So I imagine you must have really hated the original LOTR trilogy since they crammed so much into a single trilogy.  I mean, given that it's five fucking times as long as The Hobbit in print but about the same length on screen.

The original trilogy was also nothing like the books. It was completely rearranged for pacing, and whole events were removed and changed to fit within the movies. It's impossible to make a 100% faithful movie out of the books, what matters is whether the movies are good. And they are.

Not to mention that about 95% of the LotR books were Tolkien telling you what the rocks beneath their feet looked like, so once you cut out all that and Tom Bombadil's fifty pages of singing there was substantially less plot to cover.

That said, I do think it should've been two movies.

SPOILERS:

No idea how they would have made 2 movies out of it. Hobbit 2 doesn't slow down very often, and even if you trim out all of the extra scenes and characters, I think it would still have 2 hours left. Some people were even bitching that not enough time was spent in places like Murkwood. We only got up to Smaug going at Laketown, so there's plenty of ground to cover in a third movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 01, 2014, 06:06:10 PM
The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (Werner Herzog)
Classically indescribable Herzog takes the true story of Kaspar Hauser and uses it to conduct a social experiment, allowing the audience to see Western civilisation through the eyes of a true alien. Tragic, touching, astounding and funny, the character of Hauser fits perfectly with Herzog's idiosyncratic filmmaking style. A near masterpiece.

Blade Runner (Ridley Scott)
Ridley Scott has always been a great worldbuilder, even in his worst films, but here he manages to strike a balance between worldbuilding and storytelling he has seldom replicated, helped in no small part by a great performance by Rutger Hauer as the all-too-human replicant Roy Batty. However, the least believable romance captured on film since Moment By Moment casts a nagging shadow over the second half.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 01, 2014, 06:22:31 PM
And of course, it inspired one of the better sidequests of F3.  But that's its own thread, let's not derail this one.  Yes, it is a fine movie.  I first watched when I was pretty young, and I remember being really bored, but now that I'm older I can appreciate the intelligence and subtlety behind it a lot more.  I think I may have been expecting an action movie before I first saw it, which is just another part of my youthful foolishness.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 01, 2014, 06:34:10 PM
And of course, it inspired one of the better sidequests of F3.  But that's its own thread, let's not derail this one.  Yes, it is a fine movie.  I first watched when I was pretty young, and I remember being really bored, but now that I'm older I can appreciate the intelligence and subtlety behind it a lot more.  I think I may have been expecting an action movie before I first saw it, which is just another part of my youthful foolishness.

Yeah, Kaspar Hauser is an unusual film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 01, 2014, 08:27:25 PM
hehehehe very funny

Also, modern medical opinions have taken a fairly skeptical view of Kaspar Hauser's claims.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 02, 2014, 12:53:08 AM
hehehehe very funny

Also, modern medical opinions have taken a fairly skeptical view of Kaspar Hauser's claims.
You looked that up just for me, didn't you? Oh sadaam... <3

also

Wild at Heart (David Lynch)
Seen it a million times, still captivates me like no other film can. Watch it right now.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on January 02, 2014, 09:07:55 PM
Watched season one of American Horror Story. I watched season 2 (Asylum) a while back, i thought that was definitely better. The first season was a jumbled incoherent mess, and was dumb. However, Jessica Lange is a great actress, imo.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 03, 2014, 01:51:00 AM
Death Wish (Michael Winner)
Unlike the reputation the Death Wish name would later come to hold by merit of its increasingly bloody and ridiculous sequels, the original is actually quite a reasonable and dare I say realistic thriller that sees a well-to-do man driven to vigilantism by a senseless attack on his family. A substantial portion of the film is spent developing Charles Bronson's now iconic character, and as such the switch from mild mannered office worker to streetcleaner extraordinaire is understandable, helped further in the believability department by the fact that he isn't gunning down hundreds of criminals with a magic never-need-to-reload gun in the manner of a Stallone or Schwarzenegger. Highly entertaining throughout.

Transmorphers (Leigh Scott)
What happens when you take the cast of Eastenders and insert them into FMV sequences from an unreleased Command & Conquer game? Transmorphers may be the closest we will ever come to discovering the answer to this pertinent question.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on January 03, 2014, 02:59:14 AM
Watched season one of American Horror Story. I watched season 2 (Asylum) a while back, i thought that was definitely better. The first season was a jumbled incoherent mess, and was dumb. However, Jessica Lange is a great actress, imo.

It was dumb, but it was fun dumb.  Season 2 was definitely much better.  I feel like Season 3, at least so far, is more on par with the first than the second.  And Jessica Lange is always awesome.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on January 03, 2014, 03:03:28 AM
I feel like Lange's performance overshadowed of the main roles, I don't know the actor's name but I thought Tate was a good, well played character. Them and the maid are who made the dumb show fairly decent. In fact I thought the leads were not very good, especially the mother. Lange was fantastic in Asylum as well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on January 03, 2014, 07:46:37 PM

Wild at Heart (David Lynch)
Seen it a million times, still captivates me like no other film can. Watch it right now.

I just watched it finally. It is certainly a wild film. I really enjoyed it, though still not as much as my favorite Lynch films.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on January 10, 2014, 03:35:22 AM
I've been watching a lot of Louie on Netflix. It really is a brilliant show. I love Louis C.K.'s stand-up. All his specials are great. He writes, directs, and stars in a sitcom as a fictional version of himself, and his shitty, awkward life. The show intelligently intertwines stand-up bits that are usually loosely related to the theme of the episode. A little more slow paced humor than the traditional sitcom, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on January 11, 2014, 12:33:11 AM
Her (Spike Jonze)

This film is definitely something special. I had been waiting to see this for the last few years, and it really blew me away. Joaquin Phoenix was amazing as usual, as well as Amy Adams. Spike Jonze's direction was great, but so was his writing. I certainly am looking forward to him writing more of his films. The cinematography definitely stood out, and was used very effectively. I also really loved the music and the score by Arcade Fire.
Her is a very beautiful experience that is heartbreaking and sad, but also incredibly uplifting and hopeful. I felt a strong personal connection to this film, and I was in tears through a good amount of it. But when it was over and the credits were rolling, I just sat there feeling better than I have in a long time. I have to see it again soon.


I loved this film very much and I strongly recommend it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 27, 2014, 08:03:40 AM
Out of the Past (Jacques Tourneur)
Good but not quite great film noir with Robert Mitchum as a seemingly well to do man on the run from his shady past. Some really fine performances, particularly from Kirk Douglas, and a pretty complex plot make for entertaining viewing, but ultimately I was left feeling that it didn't quite come together.

A History of Violence (David Cronenberg)
Unlike Mitchum, Viggo Mortensen's seemingly well to do man has managed to suppress all memories of his shady past and now leads a quiet life in a small town, complete with wife and kids and a job running a local diner. A lot of people think Cronenberg left horror behind entirely in the 2000s, but this is just as much a horror story as The Fly or Videodrome, and like those films is a meditation on the psychology of personal transformation, the animalistic side of man and man's potential for extreme violence. The plot is very straightforward, alarmingly so by Dave's usual standards, but this is a very internal film where the inner workings of the characters are the focus above all else.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 27, 2014, 10:01:36 AM
Inside Llewin Davis

A bitter, scathing but funny slice of life of a failed musician atty the birth of the folk music scene in new York. as always, the coen brothers have struck gold.

Hopefully it doesn't win an Oscar, though. Considering the nature of the film it would be strangely inappropriate.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 28, 2014, 08:22:35 PM
Wild Palms (Various directors overseen by Oliver Stone)

It's 2007, which as we all know was a time of rampant crypto-fascism and televisual brainwashing in which people in inane sitcoms are projected onto your couch and you have sex with them through the magic of drugs. Maybe that didn't happen, maybe it did and we were too busy hallucinating cathedrals to notice, but if we were ever in that alternate future-past we would all be having nightmares about rhinoceroses and getting shouted at by Robert Loggia because of Brad Dourif's sunglasses — or something — and really, who doesn't lay awake at night wishing they could live that life?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on January 29, 2014, 07:45:33 PM
Wild Palms (Various directors overseen by Oliver Stone)

It's 2007, which as we all know was a time of rampant crypto-fascism and televisual brainwashing in which people in inane sitcoms are projected onto your couch and you have sex with them through the magic of drugs. Maybe that didn't happen, maybe it did and we were too busy hallucinating cathedrals to notice, but if we were ever in that alternate future-past we would all be having nightmares about rhinoceroses and getting shouted at by Robert Loggia because of Brad Dourif's sunglasses — or something — and really, who doesn't lay awake at night wishing they could live that life?

I must see this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on February 06, 2014, 06:18:12 AM
12 Years A Slave. It was powerful, and probably the best film I've seen all year (although I haven't seen as many as I would have liked). The only thing I didn't like about it was the soundtrack, which kept distracting me as it sounded exactly like Inception. Big surprise when it turns out that Hans Zimmer scored it. He needs to do less movies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on February 06, 2014, 06:20:52 PM
12 Years A Slave. It was powerful, and probably the best film I've seen all year (although I haven't seen as many as I would have liked). The only thing I didn't like about it was the soundtrack, which kept distracting me as it sounded exactly like Inception. Big surprise when it turns out that Hans Zimmer scored it. He needs to do less movies.
I really want to see this one. I almost convinced A&A to go down to New Orleans with me for a weekend so I could try and celebrity hunt. I even had the address to the plantation mapped out on my phone.

But really, I just love the idea of New Orleans. It's so old and rich in culture.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on February 09, 2014, 07:17:27 PM
Breakfast at Tiffany's (Blake Edwards)
I finally saw it and loved it so much that I watched it again less than an hour later.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 10, 2014, 02:51:47 AM
Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman)

Second viewing, now have no qualms calling it an absolute masterpiece, and definitely one of the greatest films of our time. The late Philip Seymour Hoffman gives a masterful performance as the increasingly decrepit playwright Caden Cotard, who takes advantage of his MacArthur Fellowship grant to mount an unprecedented production which becomes a living, breathing simulacrum of his own life.

A History of Violence (David Cronenberg)

Watched it with commentary this time, the sheer volume of insight the director offers into everything going on in the film is quite staggering. The subtlety of Viggo Mortensen's performance in particular is highlighted in this viewing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 19, 2014, 02:15:19 PM
Men Behind the Sun (Mou Tun Fei)

Graphic depiction of the horrors inflicted on Chinese prisoners by the Japanese military at Unit 731. From the very beginning, it is quite obvious that this is a serious drama about political history, and I think its common mislabelling as an exploitation film is most unfortunate. The entire purpose of an exploitation film is to exploit (no, really?!) for the purposes of entertainment a particular thing, whether it's Nazi war crimes or rape or extreme violence or even the death of Bruce Lee, Men Behind the Sun, on the other hand, is more in line with Schindler's List, a serious and sincere attempt to document an historic case of extreme brutality. It's not perfect, the English dub is especially grating, but it is a harrowing and worthwhile film which has a serious message.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 19, 2014, 02:43:50 PM
The entire purpose of an exploitation film is to exploit (no, really?!) for the purposes of entertainment a particular thing, whether it's Nazi war crimes or rape or extreme violence or even the death of Bruce Lee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkPyFz3_ApY
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 19, 2014, 03:54:36 PM
The entire purpose of an exploitation film is to exploit (no, really?!) for the purposes of entertainment a particular thing, whether it's Nazi war crimes or rape or extreme violence or even the death of Bruce Lee

<Clones of Bruce Lee>

Off the top of my head I can think of Bruce Lee Fights Back From the Grave, Exit the Dragon, Enter the Tiger and New Fist of Fury to go with that one. Good old Bruceploitation.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on February 19, 2014, 03:59:41 PM
I don't think New Fist of Fury can be considered Bruceploitation since Jackie Chan's character in that movie was not supposed to be Bruce Lee or any of Bruce's characters, and they didn't try to make him look like Bruce either. It was just a sequel to Fist of Fury.
I know Lo Wei tried to marked Chan as "the new bruce lee" with this film, but it wasn't like the real Bruceploitation movies where they outright marketed their character AS Bruce Lee himself.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 19, 2014, 09:42:34 PM
I don't think New Fist of Fury can be considered Bruceploitation since Jackie Chan's character in that movie was not supposed to be Bruce Lee or any of Bruce's characters, and they didn't try to make him look like Bruce either. It was just a sequel to Fist of Fury.
I know Lo Wei tried to marked Chan as "the new bruce lee" with this film, but it wasn't like the real Bruceploitation movies where they outright marketed their character AS Bruce Lee himself.
Oh, that's right... I'll concede that one, then. I just remembered it as Bruceploitation because of the name, I guess.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 24, 2014, 04:57:51 PM
Dr Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick)

It was good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on March 01, 2014, 12:59:24 AM
Berberian Sound Studio (Peter Strickland)
I really don't know what was going on in this film, but it was a very enjoyable film experience.
I will see again.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on March 01, 2014, 06:42:31 PM
Stranger Than Paradise (Jim Jarmusch)

A wonderful exploration of the state of being alone and being lonely, wanting people around oneself but wanting them to leave once they are there. The minimalist plot and languid pacing offer up a meditative 90 minutes of bizarre, absurdly funny and often poignant interactions. I really like it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on March 01, 2014, 10:34:27 PM
Dr Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick)

It was good.

Love Dr Strangelove.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 10, 2014, 08:55:13 PM
I've just finished a marathon of those Marvel universe movies, as I had tragically fallen behind in the last few years.  The only ones I skipped over were the Hulk one and the third Iron Man, because I heard they were kind of underwhelming.  Anyway, the second Thor movie was the last one I watched, so, thoughts.  You know you've got a pathetic villain when the hero's mother, of all people, can kick his ass in a fight.  Also, Kat Dennings still isn't funny.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on March 11, 2014, 12:16:01 AM
Hulk was actually pretty good. Ironman 3 was terrible. I liked Thor 2 more than the first; it felt like a more compelling story.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 11, 2014, 12:39:55 AM
The villain still sucked.  I know that Loki was a hard act to follow, but it's like they made no effort at all with him.  He was just some guy.  Some boring, uninteresting, unimpressive guy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on March 11, 2014, 05:40:52 AM
Now watch them again. All of them.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on March 11, 2014, 06:00:07 AM
Hulk was actually pretty good. Ironman 3 was terrible. I liked Thor 2 more than the first; it felt like a more compelling story.

Why do people hate IM3 so much?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 11, 2014, 01:11:07 PM
Hulk was actually pretty good. Ironman 3 was terrible. I liked Thor 2 more than the first; it felt like a more compelling story.

Why do people hate IM3 so much?

I think it's because of the infamous little fakeout that they pulled with the Mandarin.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on March 16, 2014, 01:51:40 AM
I thought it was hysterical.  Ben Kingsley killed in that role.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on March 16, 2014, 02:42:51 AM
Hulk was actually pretty good. Ironman 3 was terrible. I liked Thor 2 more than the first; it felt like a more compelling story.

Why do people hate IM3 so much?

I think it's because of the infamous little fakeout that they pulled with the Mandarin.

I always thought that was one of the best parts of the film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on March 16, 2014, 03:22:39 AM
Just watched Castle. And yeah I have been drinking.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 16, 2014, 03:29:56 AM
Hulk was actually pretty good. Ironman 3 was terrible. I liked Thor 2 more than the first; it felt like a more compelling story.

Why do people hate IM3 so much?

I think it's because of the infamous little fakeout that they pulled with the Mandarin.

I always thought that was one of the best parts of the film.

Well, I think that the Mandarin would have made for a far better villain than Generic Corporate Douchebag #7734.  Especially seeing how the previous two movies had already given us generic corporate douchebags as villains.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on March 22, 2014, 03:32:49 AM
Just watched Free to Play, the documentary about professional Dota 2 players made by Valve. It was pretty good for a doco made by a game developer. Little bit too short, and some parts of it felt like they were throwing way too much content at you too quickly. But otherwise, it was a pretty compelling view of what professional players go through to compete. The source film maker shots were great as well, especially the final Dendi play with Puck.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 09, 2014, 05:43:51 PM
Blackfish- A documentary about the plight of orcas in captivity mostly at Seaworld in Orlando, FL.  Surprisingly moving and at points downright shocking.  I highly recommend it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 09, 2014, 06:00:31 PM
Blackfish- A documentary about the plight of orcas in captivity mostly at Seaworld in Orlando, FL.  Surprisingly moving and at points downright shocking.  I highly recommend it.
I read a pretty great unbiased article on how the movie basically relies on an appeal to emotion, assumptions, and people who are not real animal behavioralists.

I don't want to watch it for those reasons. I feel like it's probably going to be some truths mixed in with a lot of untruths in the fashion of PETA.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 09, 2014, 06:44:47 PM
One of the key people interviewed is a whale researcher who testified in the successful suit against Seaworld (who incidentally is careful to say they can draw no certain conclusions from the attacks of the primary whale featured), and then trainers who worked and in a lot of cases witnessed the attacks.  To be sure, Seaworld has often not been forthright, and often demonstrably lied, in a lot of important ways.  That being said, there is also a strong appeal to emotion.  Does not bother me at all and it is a good watch.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 09, 2014, 07:05:40 PM
One of the key people interviewed is a whale researcher who testified in the successful suit against Seaworld (who incidentally is careful to say they can draw no certain conclusions from the attacks of the primary whale featured), and then trainers who worked and in a lot of cases witnessed the attacks.  To be sure, Seaworld has often not been forthright, and often demonstrably lied, in a lot of important ways.  That being said, there is also a strong appeal to emotion.  Does not bother me at all and it is a good watch.
Yeah, it makes sense that Seaworld would lie. I'm sure they do questionable things, the article was not biased toward either side, like I mentioned. What is scary is that I don't think you have to have much experience or that much training before getting into a tank with the animals. But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.

My qualm with appealing to emotion is that they will forego accuracy and facts in lieu of just getting a reaction from people. It's what PETA does and I hate it. Any documentary that goes that route I automatically dislike it. It's a good tactic to get people invested in a cause without promoting any skepticism so then you get a lot of people up-in-arms without doing any research.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 09, 2014, 07:22:58 PM
But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.

Thats not really true.  The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do.  They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.

My qualm with appealing to emotion is that they will forego accuracy and facts in lieu of just getting a reaction from people. It's what PETA does and I hate it. Any documentary that goes that route I automatically dislike it. It's a good tactic to get people invested in a cause without promoting any skepticism so then you get a lot of people up-in-arms without doing any research.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 09, 2014, 07:43:11 PM
But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.

Thats not really true.  The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do.  They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.
That's not dismissing what I said, the context of those 2 aspects is important. I can't pick it apart more than that, but let me just link you to the article.

http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/blackfish-film
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 09, 2014, 07:44:23 PM
But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.

Thats not really true.  The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do.  They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.
That's not dismissing what I said, the context of those 2 aspects is important. I can't pick it apart more than that, but let me just link you to the article.

http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/blackfish-film

So you're basing your opinion on a backwoods internet article? Shouldn't you just watch the documentary yourself?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 09, 2014, 08:21:56 PM
But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.

Thats not really true.  The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do.  They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.
That's not dismissing what I said, the context of those 2 aspects is important. I can't pick it apart more than that, but let me just link you to the article.

http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/blackfish-film

So you're basing your opinion on a backwoods internet article? Shouldn't you just watch the documentary yourself?
There are a lot of articles that say exactly the same things. Why would I want to watch people being attacked by orcas?

I'm not saying it's all fabricated lies, I rather just research it myself than watch a movie length PETA ad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 09, 2014, 08:27:48 PM
But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.

Thats not really true.  The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do.  They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.
That's not dismissing what I said, the context of those 2 aspects is important. I can't pick it apart more than that, but let me just link you to the article.

http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/blackfish-film

So you're basing your opinion on a backwoods internet article? Shouldn't you just watch the documentary yourself?
There are a lot of articles that say exactly the same things. Why would I want to watch people being attacked by orcas?

I'm not saying it's all fabricated lies, I rather just research it myself than watch a movie length PETA ad.

Well you seem to have made up your mind that that is what it is, but if I may, its not.  Its greyer than people make it out to be. 
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 09, 2014, 08:35:23 PM
But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.

Thats not really true.  The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do.  They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.
That's not dismissing what I said, the context of those 2 aspects is important. I can't pick it apart more than that, but let me just link you to the article.

http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/blackfish-film

So you're basing your opinion on a backwoods internet article? Shouldn't you just watch the documentary yourself?
There are a lot of articles that say exactly the same things. Why would I want to watch people being attacked by orcas?

I'm not saying it's all fabricated lies, I rather just research it myself than watch a movie length PETA ad.

Well you seem to have made up your mind that that is what it is, but if I may, its not.  Its greyer than people make it out to be. 
I just said I wasn't saying that. My only point is that it's not the full truth; that my only qualm with it is that it makes pretty bold statements and portrays everything in a way that gets people emotionally involved in something that's not necessarily true. It's why I dislike documentaries that try and rally people behind a cause.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on April 09, 2014, 08:44:34 PM
troll hunter

Deliciously tongue-in-cheek mockumentary in the style of Blair witch.. I got a few of the references but I'm sure there were more subtle nods to nordic folklore than I know - even with Humon Comic's tutoring.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 09, 2014, 08:53:23 PM
troll hunter

Deliciously tongue-in-cheek mockumentary in the style of Blair witch.. I got a few of the references but I'm sure there were more subtle nods to nordic folklore than I know - even with Humon Comic's tutoring.
I couldn't pick up on much of the folklore, but I loved it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 09, 2014, 08:57:20 PM
I'm not saying it's all fabricated lies, I rather just research it myself than watch a movie length PETA ad.

You mean, you'd rather have someone else research it than research it yourself.

Researching the documentary yourself would require you actually watching it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on April 09, 2014, 09:00:18 PM
troll hunter

Deliciously tongue-in-cheek mockumentary in the style of Blair witch.. I got a few of the references but I'm sure there were more subtle nods to nordic folklore than I know - even with Humon Comic's tutoring.
I couldn't pick up on much of the folklore, but I loved it.

I got the billy goats gruff, the food eating contest, the big noses, the hall of the mountain king, turning to stone in sunlight, living under bridges.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 09, 2014, 09:23:37 PM
But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.

Thats not really true.  The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do.  They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.
That's not dismissing what I said, the context of those 2 aspects is important. I can't pick it apart more than that, but let me just link you to the article.

http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/blackfish-film

So you're basing your opinion on a backwoods internet article? Shouldn't you just watch the documentary yourself?
There are a lot of articles that say exactly the same things. Why would I want to watch people being attacked by orcas?

I'm not saying it's all fabricated lies, I rather just research it myself than watch a movie length PETA ad.

Well you seem to have made up your mind that that is what it is, but if I may, its not.  Its greyer than people make it out to be. 
I just said I wasn't saying that. My only point is that it's not the full truth; that my only qualm with it is that it makes pretty bold statements and portrays everything in a way that gets people emotionally involved in something that's not necessarily true. It's why I dislike documentaries that try and rally people behind a cause.

Are you Rushy's alt or something?  You have made up your mind that this doc is rallying people to a cause without knowing anything but someone else's interpretation of the doc.  You say they seem unbiased, but you do not really know that.  That is why I said you sound you like you made up your mind. 
But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.

Thats not really true.  The doc points out that attacks in the wild on humans by orcas is almost entirely unheard of and that orcas are extremely social animals that likely have as strong if not stronger emotional lives than humans do.  They also show orcas mercilessly hunting seals, so any construing of the films portrayal of orcas as merely fun-loving animals is not really accurate.
That's not dismissing what I said, the context of those 2 aspects is important. I can't pick it apart more than that, but let me just link you to the article.

http://melissaasmith.hubpages.com/hub/blackfish-film

So you're basing your opinion on a backwoods internet article? Shouldn't you just watch the documentary yourself?
There are a lot of articles that say exactly the same things. Why would I want to watch people being attacked by orcas?

I'm not saying it's all fabricated lies, I rather just research it myself than watch a movie length PETA ad.

Well you seem to have made up your mind that that is what it is, but if I may, its not.  Its greyer than people make it out to be. 
I just said I wasn't saying that. My only point is that it's not the full truth; that my only qualm with it is that it makes pretty bold statements and portrays everything in a way that gets people emotionally involved in something that's not necessarily true. It's why I dislike documentaries that try and rally people behind a cause.

You sound like you have made up your mind, regardless of what you say you are doing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 09, 2014, 09:25:19 PM
What a surprising turn of events... rooster is Rushy's alt.  :o
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 09, 2014, 09:52:01 PM
On further shittiness by Sea World:

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/01/sea-world-accused-of-fishy-pr-practices-rigging-blackfish-poll.html
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 09, 2014, 10:02:14 PM
A typical board meeting at SeaWorld:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8z7-DIa1As
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 09, 2014, 10:17:03 PM
On further shittiness by Sea World:

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/01/sea-world-accused-of-fishy-pr-practices-rigging-blackfish-poll.html

" It would appear curious then, with so much public outcry, that in a Dec. 31 Orlando Business Journal poll asking readers whether or not “CNN’s Blackfish documentary [had] changed [their] perception of SeaWorld” 99 per cent of respondents claimed "No."

Sensing something fishy, the newspaper investigated and discovered that a single Internat Protocal Address (IP Address) was responsible for 54% of the votes.

That IP, verified by several third-party IP tracking websites according to the publication, belonged to SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment. "


Wow Seaworld, next time use a proxy.  ::)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 09, 2014, 10:20:46 PM
I'm not saying it's all fabricated lies, I rather just research it myself than watch a movie length PETA ad.

You mean, you'd rather have someone else research it than research it yourself.

Researching the documentary yourself would require you actually watching it.
I didn't mean research the movie, I meant researching claims against Sea World. I don't need to watch a doc for that.

I've seen enough meat and food documentaries to know it's not something I'd want to watch. My only point here was to introduce a bit of skepticism which many people don't do, especially when it comes to abusing animals.

I've read several articles about Tilikum and Sea World in general so it's not just one person that I'm getting all my perspective from.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on April 10, 2014, 01:25:17 AM
But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.

But I think they explain the reasoning for this. Orcas are pretty intelligent, social animals that roam across thousands of miles. Stick them in a tiny tank and make them splash fat 5-year-olds every day and they might get pissed off. It's not hypocritical to say that different causes give different effects.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 10, 2014, 03:27:43 AM
But the article made a great point of how the movie portrays the orcas as fun-loving peaceful animals when in the wild, (which is a nice fantasy). But they also mentioned how the movie was hypocritical in glorifying orcas in the wild when it suits them but also showing them as vicious predators when it suited them.

But I think they explain the reasoning for this. Orcas are pretty intelligent, social animals that roam across thousands of miles. Stick them in a tiny tank and make them splash fat 5-year-olds every day and they might get pissed off. It's not hypocritical to say that different causes give different effects.
I didn't explain it very well since I was paraphrasing from that article I read a couple weeks ago. You should read it if you've seen the movie, it was pretty interesting.

Most articles on the topic don't really rail against the main points of the movie, just how they're presented and the fallacies it uses.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on April 10, 2014, 03:38:57 AM
I didn't explain it very well since I was paraphrasing from that article I read a couple weeks ago. You should read it if you've seen the movie, it was pretty interesting.

Most articles on the topic don't really rail against the main points of the movie, just how they're presented and the fallacies it uses.

Yeah I read it. Kind of true in that the film does play the emotion card, and that it does seem to anthropomorphise orcas a little too much. If I was in open water and someone told me orcas were near by I wouldn't go "Wooo they're so friendly" and start slapping the water's surface. Some of the people in that documentary remind me of Timothy Treadwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Treadwell).

But all those things being said. Seaworld do seem like assholes and orcas really shouldn't be there.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 10, 2014, 03:43:57 AM
I'm not really an anti-captivity person, but I really don't like any animals being trained to do shows.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Thork on April 10, 2014, 08:30:32 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzsrooteAZw

I love Cyanide & Happiness soooo much! lol.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 10, 2014, 10:04:38 PM
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58795.msg1550210#msg1550210

Quote
Okay, Thork.  This isn't the "Post YouTube videos" thread.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on April 10, 2014, 10:49:03 PM
It's not necessarily cruel to keep an animal in captivity or teach it to do tricks.

Dogs are a good example. If I released a pet dog into the wild it would be cruel.

Same goes with any animal that has only known captivity all it's life.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 10, 2014, 10:55:18 PM
It's not necessarily cruel to keep an animal in captivity or teach it to do tricks.

Dogs are a good example. If I released a pet dog into the wild it would be cruel.

Same goes with any animal that has only known captivity all it's life.
Dogs are not a good example, really. Some animals do better in captivity while others do not. For example, apparently great white sharks are terrible in captivity. Animals that have been domesticated are very different to forcing tigers, lions, elephants, orcas, and dolphins to do tricks.

But for animals that do well in captivity, I see no reason why they shouldn't be- especially if it helps conservationism. There are zoos that really should be shut down though. I've been to some pretty sad and depressing ones that really shouldn't have any animals.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 11, 2014, 02:27:14 AM
Can we all please just shut the fuck up about the animals already?

Anyway, I have watched The Incredible Hulk.  It was okay, I guess.  It was certainly an improvement over that horrific one Ang Lee gave us back in 2003, the one that had this priceless scene in it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSGXERUKBj4
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 11, 2014, 02:29:49 AM
Can we all please just shut the fuck up about the animals already?

Anyway, I have watched The Incredible Hulk.  It was okay, I guess.  It was certainly an improvement over that horrific one Ang Lee gave us back in 2003, the one that had this priceless scene in it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSGXERUKBj4
Why, Eric Bana? Why did you ever agree to do such a shit fest?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 11, 2014, 07:10:08 AM
I never understood why Ang Lee's Hulk was so bad. It was a pretty average movie, besides the Hulk looking kinda shit. But it was ages ago. I didn't think the Edward Norton one was any better. Funnily enough, Ruffalo in the Avengers was easily the best portrayal so far despite the movie not even being about him.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 11, 2014, 01:14:44 PM
It was overly long, slow, dull, angsty, and sorely lacking in excitement.  The Norton one wasn't great, but at least there they understood that what audiences wanted to see was action, not a deep psychological drama.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 11, 2014, 04:54:07 PM
Soo about those animals...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on April 12, 2014, 09:06:37 AM
Watched Brazil again last night. Still a wonderfully weird film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 21, 2014, 07:10:17 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/M0cVrud.jpg)

Surprisingly entertaining.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 23, 2014, 09:05:50 PM
As you've all no doubt heard, Captain America: The Winter Soldier was great!  My one big issue with it was (I'll try to keep this fairly vague to avoid spoilers) the rehashing of HYDRA as antagonists.  The movie was of course trying to be politically relevant, and that's great, but I think the message would have resonated a lot more strongly if the villains hadn't been dressed up as black-flag-waving, mustache-twirling supervillains.  For example, they could have been portrayed as, you know, fallible human beings.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 23, 2014, 09:44:22 PM
I liked that Robert Redford actually took a role in one of these superhero movies, and did quite well. Also nice to see the Russo brothers (Community and Arrested Development) capable of handling such a big project.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 23, 2014, 10:53:09 PM
The first one was so awful I didn't bother seeing Winter Soldier. I'm surprised that I've been hearing nothing but good reviews, but I'm still too traumatized from the first one.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 23, 2014, 11:22:26 PM
The first one was not as bad that. Winter Soldier is in Dark Knight league for me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 24, 2014, 12:39:49 AM
The first one was not as bad that. Winter Soldier is in Dark Knight league for me.
Hey now, you can't tell me how horrible I thought it was. I was either falling asleep or laughing at how awful it was. I was actually shocked at how terrible Hugo Weaving was as Red Skull. It was the worst movie I'd seen in awhile.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 24, 2014, 12:46:50 AM
The first one was not as bad that. Winter Soldier is in Dark Knight league for me.
Hey now, you can't tell me how horrible I thought it was. I was either falling asleep or laughing at how awful it was. I was actually shocked at how terrible Hugo Weaving was as Red Skull. It was the worst movie I'd seen in awhile.

I have also seen the first Captain America movie. I also thought it was terrible. It is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 24, 2014, 01:13:54 AM
The first one was not as bad that. Winter Soldier is in Dark Knight league for me.
Hey now, you can't tell me how horrible I thought it was. I was either falling asleep or laughing at how awful it was. I was actually shocked at how terrible Hugo Weaving was as Red Skull. It was the worst movie I'd seen in awhile.
The first one was not as bad that. Winter Soldier is in Dark Knight league for me.
Hey now, you can't tell me how horrible I thought it was. I was either falling asleep or laughing at how awful it was. I was actually shocked at how terrible Hugo Weaving was as Red Skull. It was the worst movie I'd seen in awhile.

I have also seen the first Captain America movie. I also thought it was terrible. It is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Both of you need to see more movies.  There are a vast quantitu of kife films out there that make Captain America look like "Au Bou du Souffle".
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 24, 2014, 02:10:22 AM
I dunno, I think "one of the worst movies" is...yikes. You must not have seen many movies at all. :P

I thought the first Captain America was alright, though. It's supposed to be really cheesy and I don't think a lot of people realized that; it stuck to the tone of the original comics very closely. I know a lot of people who were upset that it was "too silly" and "not serious" and crap, because apparently everything needs to be dark and gritty now and we can't just have cheesy fun...à la the 1960s Batman show, or even the Tim Burton Batman films. Or, really, the comics.

But yeah, I thought Winter Soldier was a much, much better film, and the Marvel fangirl in me was very satisfied with it, the nods to other Marvel comics and all the little easter eggs sprinkled throughout. The moment when the Winter Soldier punched Cap's shield sent shivers down my spine. Also, I loved what they did with Zola in the supercomputer, because his actual robotic display form would have been really, really stupid to see in live-action...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 24, 2014, 02:48:17 AM
I thought the first Captain America was alright, though. It's supposed to be really cheesy and I don't think a lot of people realized that; it stuck to the tone of the original comics very closely. I know a lot of people who were upset that it was "too silly" and "not serious" and crap, because apparently everything needs to be dark and gritty now and we can't just have cheesy fun...à la the 1960s Batman show, or even the Tim Burton Batman films. Or, really, the comics.

And:

broody mcbroodwalking

It's also worth pointing out that they don't stick to that pulpy, forties-inspired style for the sequel - which makes sense, seeing how it's not set in the forties anymore.  So if the goofy tone was what you naysayers disliked about the first one, rest assured that you won't see it here.

Anyway, this is the greatest Captain America film of them all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0KwKXTSADw
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 24, 2014, 02:48:48 AM
I dunno, I think "one of the worst movies" is...yikes. You must not have seen many movies at all. :P
Technically, I said "one of the worst movies I had seen in awhile." So I hope you're just talking to Ghost.

But it was still bad. I just don't care much for comic book movies in general, hell I didn't even like The Avengers that much so. :/
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 24, 2014, 03:24:18 AM
I dunno, I think "one of the worst movies" is...yikes. You must not have seen many movies at all. :P
Technically, I said "one of the worst movies I had seen in awhile." So I hope you're just talking to Ghost.

But it was still bad. I just don't care much for comic book movies in general, hell I didn't even like The Avengers that much so. :/

But Loki
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 24, 2014, 03:57:33 AM
Technically, I said "one of the worst movies I had seen in awhile." So I hope you're just talking to Ghost.

But it was still bad. I just don't care much for comic book movies in general, hell I didn't even like The Avengers that much so. :/

Yeah, that was towards Ghost.

And ahh, well there's your problem. :P


It's also worth pointing out that they don't stick to that pulpy, forties-inspired style for the sequel - which makes sense, seeing how it's not set in the forties anymore.  So if the goofy tone was what you naysayers disliked about the first one, rest assured that you won't see it here.

This is trufax.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 24, 2014, 10:59:27 AM
Rooster accidentally saw Captain America (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103923/) and thought it was The First Avenger.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 24, 2014, 11:57:04 AM
Fuck. I forgot to go see it. I had planned on going to the last screening to avoid a crowded theatre, and now they don't show it in my town any more. :(
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 24, 2014, 12:46:35 PM

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xzkti8_s3e15-bsg-a-day-in-the-life_lifestyle
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 24, 2014, 12:57:40 PM
Rooster accidentally saw Captain America (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103923/) and thought it was The First Avenger.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103923/board/thread/217578565
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 24, 2014, 02:36:30 PM
Rooster accidentally saw Captain America (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103923/) and thought it was The First Avenger.
No. And it was shit. I bet the Captain America you're linking to was better.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 24, 2014, 04:30:56 PM
I still think the movie's shit too.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 24, 2014, 07:24:54 PM
Or maybe you just have shit taste.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 24, 2014, 08:45:53 PM
Rooster accidentally saw Captain America (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103923/) and thought it was The First Avenger.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103923/board/thread/217578565

It's funny because in the 1990 version, Captain America's main superpower is stealing cars from innocent people. Honestly, the first avenger was a fine movie and you guys are completely wrong. I'm not sure how you can hate an average movie so much.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 24, 2014, 09:36:19 PM
Or maybe you just have shit taste.

If you are claiming that its a good movie then you're the one with shit taste. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it in the theater or I would have sued for emotional stress and damages.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 24, 2014, 10:59:02 PM
Or maybe you just have shit taste.

If you are claiming that its a good movie then you're the one with shit taste. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it in the theater or I would have sued for emotional stress and damages.

Your reaction is further evidence that you have poor judgement.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 25, 2014, 02:19:24 AM
Awful. Just awful.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 25, 2014, 02:56:58 AM
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.

This reminds me of that debate about porn with rooster.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 25, 2014, 03:03:47 AM
Rooster has unpopular opinions
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 25, 2014, 03:05:39 AM
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.
- I think the movie is good.
- I don't think the movie is good.

This reminds me of that debate about porn with rooster.

Isn't that how most discussions go around here? It's terrible.

Also, I think porn is terrible.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 25, 2014, 03:11:45 AM
Worst fucking movie of all time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2014, 03:19:17 AM
Worst fucking movie of all time.

(http://doublefeatureshow.com/images/covers/the-room.jpg)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 25, 2014, 03:21:36 AM
No, The Room is awesome compared to the first Captain America movie. Take that back. Your opinion is wrong.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2014, 03:25:50 AM
You're tearing me apart!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 25, 2014, 03:37:52 AM
Oh hi doggie
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on April 25, 2014, 03:58:32 AM
The Room isn't even that bad. After Last Season is a serious contender for worst film ever made.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 25, 2014, 04:16:25 AM
Not the Dungeons and Dragons movie? Wait, no, that's an awesome movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on April 25, 2014, 04:29:10 AM
Finished a rewatch of Twin Peaks and The X-Files . Now Mad Men again. I haven't watched a new film in some time. Sad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 25, 2014, 04:32:36 AM
What about The First Avenger was bad, besides "red skull sucked"? I honestly found Hugo Weaving fine, as Marvel movies aren't known for their strong villains. Evans was good, Atwell was good, the setting was enjoyable and the action was good. The ending was a bit dumb, but every big action movie has a big dumb ending. I can't understand how people can hate the movie. It's not offensive nor is it terribly made.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 25, 2014, 04:53:39 AM
It just sucked. That's why its a bad film. I'd watch it again and give you a more detailed review on how it sucked, but having seen it once... why would I subject myself to it again? That's a waste of time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 25, 2014, 05:05:58 AM
It just sucked. That's why its a bad film. I'd watch it again and give you a more detailed review on how it sucked, but having seen it once... why would I subject myself to it again? That's a waste of time.

Well, you've convinced me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 25, 2014, 05:08:52 AM
 8)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 25, 2014, 05:10:05 AM
What's wrong with The First Avenger? I bet Roosroos is just mad because they portrayed Chris Evans as a scrawny little skinny guy in the first half of the film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 25, 2014, 11:19:14 AM
I'm not into Chris Evans but I think he makes a decent Captain.

It's been awhile, but my main problem with it was the acting and the plot. A movie can't get by on action or budget alone in my opinion. And really, if the acting is bad then I'll probably hate it. The love interest was awful, Bucky was awful, and Hugo was awful in that role. His German accent was ludicrous.

And generally, I just don't care for comic book campy-ness.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2014, 11:31:58 AM
And generally, I just don't care for comic book campy-ness.

The confirmation bias is strong in this one.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 25, 2014, 11:49:31 AM
I don't think he was trying to pull off a german accent to begin with.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 25, 2014, 12:19:53 PM
I don't think he was trying to pull off a german accent to begin with.
Yes, he was. He even said that he didn't enjoy the role.

And while I don't generally like campy comic book movies, Captain America was particularly bad. I don't like Spiderman at all but at least the acting is better.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 25, 2014, 12:33:38 PM
First off, people, The Room is a masterpiece and you're all terrible for suggesting it's anywhere near "bad".

Secondly, I guess Captain America just comes down to opinion, since you don't like comic book campy and I thought the acting was fine, especially for campy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on April 25, 2014, 01:31:33 PM
A movie can't get by on action or budget alone in my opinion.

This has been the problem with every Marvel film over the last 10+ years. Prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2014, 01:46:01 PM
A movie can't get by on action or budget alone in my opinion.

This has been the problem with every Marvel film over the last 10+ years. Prove me wrong.

Robert Downey Jr.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on April 25, 2014, 01:52:14 PM
Millionaire invents power suit. Takes cockish smarm to new altitudes.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 25, 2014, 01:52:50 PM
What's wrong with some mindless entertainment?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on April 25, 2014, 02:00:24 PM
it not entertainment if it mindless.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 25, 2014, 02:07:21 PM
Of course it is.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2014, 02:48:20 PM
Millionaire invents power suit. Takes cockish smarm to new altitudes.

I don't see where the problem is.  You can make anything sound trite if you want to treat it like that.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 25, 2014, 06:14:22 PM
The only Marvel movies I liked were the Thor movies and the first Iron Man.

I'm just biased with Thor because I love mythology, I actually read the Thor comics, and I love Hemsworth/Hiddleston. And I liked Iron Man because the story had more substance and wasn't just plain mindless action.

But I would never own one of these movies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on April 25, 2014, 06:20:47 PM
Millionaire invents power suit. Takes cockish smarm to new altitudes.

I don't see where the problem is.  You can make anything sound trite if you want to treat it like that.

Kind of. The point is nothing significant happens. He's a rich smarmy dick to begin with and he's a rich smarmy dick at the end. This reflects comic books accurately. Comic books are soap operas that can never end.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 25, 2014, 06:30:27 PM
I'm also in the same boat as Rooster. I don't like the basic superhero archetype or story because most of them feel like silly soap operas with men in tights that oftentimes take themselves too seriously. However, I will like a superhero movie if it's entertaining to watch, either from the action scenes or sometimes comedic elements in the movie. While The First Avenger does have these things, it doesn't do any of them well. That's why it's a bad movie. The action scenes are superfluous and any comedy in the movie is utterly destroyed by the terrible delivery of all the actors in the film. Iron Man sucks too, for the same reasons.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 25, 2014, 08:39:32 PM
Mindless action is great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 25, 2014, 11:21:23 PM
The First Avenger wasn't mindless. They took a good shot at replicating the 40s. Half of the movie looks like a picture taken during WWII. The acting is bad? What the shit. I realise interpretation of good acting is somewhat arguable, but that criticism sounds like grasping at straws. It sounds like you guys went in there not liking it and left the same, which is fine, but you don't need to justify it with silly claims.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 25, 2014, 11:24:51 PM
you don't need to justify it with silly claims.

We do when you ask us to justify our position.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2014, 11:33:02 PM
you don't need to justify it with silly claims.

We do when you ask us to justify our position.

They need not be silly.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 12:57:11 AM
you don't need to justify it with silly claims.

We do when you ask us to justify our position.

I wanted to know how people could hate an average movie so much. Hate is a pretty strong emotion. Turns out the reason is "just becuz".
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 01:00:51 AM
The First Avenger wasn't mindless. They took a good shot at replicating the 40s. Half of the movie looks like a picture taken during WWII. The acting is bad? What the shit. I realise interpretation of good acting is somewhat arguable, but that criticism sounds like grasping at straws. It sounds like you guys went in there not liking it and left the same, which is fine, but you don't need to justify it with silly claims.
What the shit yourself, mate.

You have no fucking idea how I went into the movie. I thought it would be fine. I love the 40s. I can enjoy a Marvel movie (they're never great but they can still be alright). But the acting was fucking awful. Hugo Weaving was surprisingly awful and he's one of my favorites. He even didn't like doing the role cause he couldn't get into such a shallow, unchallenging character (paraphrasing).

So next time you ask for my opinion on why I think a movie sucks, how bout you just accept what I'm saying rather than disregard it and make up your own ideas or belittle our thoughts down to "just becuz". Jesus fuck.

/angryrant

Can we move on? This discussion is literally going nowhere.

I've been watching the RiffTrax version of the Harry Potter movies. They're decent. The guys are definitely not in their MST3K prime, but they still have great moments.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 01:09:35 AM
But the acting was fucking awful.

Welp, I don't think anyone is going to substantiate this beyond "Hugo weaving didn't like the role" (which I recall having read, but I can't seem to find his actual quote regarding the role).
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 01:16:21 AM
But the acting was fucking awful.

Welp, I don't think anyone is going to substantiate this beyond "Hugo weaving didn't like the role" (which I recall having read, but I can't seem to find his actual quote regarding the role).
I'm sorry, did you want me to break down the highs and lows of everyone's performance from a movie that had me falling asleep 3 years ago? They were all forgettable. The plot was forgettable. It was campy beyond belief. It didn't hook, engage, or thrill me in any way. The lines were delivered with such shallow feeling that I could almost see the words written on paper.

I'm sorry you missed the points we made in early posts. And also a pretty movie set in the 40s doesn't mean the action isn't mindless.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 01:27:27 AM
I'm sorry, did you want me to break down the highs and lows of everyone's performance from a movie that had me falling asleep 3 years ago? They were all forgettable.

Forgettable doesn't equate to "fucking awful". Many movies have forgettable plots, characters and acting, but they're not awful or even bad movies. Transformers 3 was a good example, I was falling asleep during that, but I don't hate the movie.

It didn't hook, engage, or thrill me in any way.

Well, that's just your taste, which is totally fine. No reason to say the acting is awful though.

And also a pretty movie set in the 40s doesn't mean the action isn't mindless.

No, but it means the movie wasn't mindless. They put thought into how they wanted the movie to look.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 26, 2014, 01:30:04 AM
As desperately anxious as I am for this horrible, horrible conversation to be moved on from, I am curious about the Hugo Weaving thing, because the most I've found is basically "I don't think they'd want me to return, and I'm not really sure if I'd want to, though I enjoyed the experience" and "that kind of film is not necessarily my thing". I'm not saying you're lying or something, but either you're thinking of something else or extrapolating a lot from nothing.

Quote
During a recent conversation with Collider, Weaving was asked whether he had any plans to return to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As most actors are signed on to multi-picture deals, it seemed like a fair question, but Weaving gave the impression he wanted to put put some distance between himself and his role in Captain America: The First Avenger.

“I think the tendency, with those films, would be to probably not bring a villain back. They might for The Avengers, but I didn’t think I’d be in Captain America 2 or 3. I don’t think Red Skull will be there,” Weaving said. “And it’s not something I would want to do again.”

With that being said, Weaving made it clear he has no hard feelings toward Marvel and is glad he joined the project. But he also said he hopes he won’t be asked back.

“I did sign up for a number of pictures and I suppose, contractually, I would be obliged to, if they forced me to, but they wouldn’t want to force someone to do it, if they didn’t want to,” he said. “I think I’ve done my dash with that sort of film. It was good to do it and try it out, but to be honest, it’s not the sort of film I seek out and really am excited by. As an actor, to do all sorts of different films is great. It stretches you in different ways. But, I increasingly like to go back to what I used to always do, which is to get involved with projects that I really have a personal affiliation with.”
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 01:43:36 AM
No. The movie fucking sucked and everyone who says otherwise is wrong.


Also, Snupes, from that quote can you not infer that he disliked the role? Or does he have to specifically state that he hates the role in order for you to accept it?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 26, 2014, 02:02:14 AM
Also, Snupes, from that quote can you not infer that he disliked the role? Or does he have to specifically state that he hates the role in order for you to accept it?

I infer that he wasn't fond of it and wouldn't necessarily want to come back, but that's a far cry from "he didn't like doing it because he couldn't get into such a shallow, unchallenging character" and the like, it just sounds to me like he wasn't particularly interested in the role but that he didn't necessarily dislike it. Why are you so hostile about this?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 02:21:57 AM
Because I'm trolling. I've never even seen the movie. My cover is blown now.  >:(
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 02:59:58 AM
Because I'm trolling. I've never even seen the movie. My cover is blown now.  >:(

Maybe you should watch a sped up version of the movie so you understand what you're talking about, you casual.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 26, 2014, 03:23:44 AM
Because I'm trolling. I've never even seen the movie. My cover is blown now.  >:(

I don't appreciate being lied to. My feelings are hurt. :[

Watch a speedrun of it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 26, 2014, 03:26:14 AM
Because I'm trolling. I've never even seen the movie. My cover is blown now.  >:(

I don't appreciate being lied to. My feelings are hurt. :[

Watch a speedrun of it.

Captain America is badly designed.  All he does is dodge or block with his shield.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 03:33:01 AM
Look, it's not my problem you didn't hate Transformers 3. That's another one I hated.

Plots, characters, and acting are what's important to me. Not action or budget. I honestly can't believe you can still like a forgettable movie, but we can't all love the same things. And you're insanely immature for not allowing my opinion that the acting and writing was terrible. I don't understand how anyone can like the movie but I'm not interested in hearing a thesis on why you do. I just accept that you do and we have different tastes.

And Snupes, it's pretty clear that Hugo is saying he didn't like the role in a very tactful way. I assume it's because the character didn't challenge or interest him, I mean, that's typically why a great actor doesn't like a certain role.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 26, 2014, 03:38:00 AM
Look, it's not my problem you didn't hate Transformers 3. That's another one I hated.

Plots, characters, and acting are what's important to me. Not action or budget. I honestly can't believe you can still like a forgettable movie, but we can't all love the same things. And you're insanely immature for not allowing my opinion that the acting and writing was terrible. I don't understand how anyone can like the movie but I'm not interested in hearing a thesis on why you do. I just accept that you do and we have different tastes.
 

Who are you talking to?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 03:39:36 AM
I've already said that I think the acting was perfectly fine, just about everything was because it was a pretty average movie. You're a very angry person, Rooster.

Look, it's not my problem you didn't hate Transformers 3. That's another one I hated.

Plots, characters, and acting are what's important to me. Not action or budget. I honestly can't believe you can still like a forgettable movie, but we can't all love the same things. And you're insanely immature for not allowing my opinion that the acting and writing was terrible. I don't understand how anyone can like the movie but I'm not interested in hearing a thesis on why you do. I just accept that you do and we have different tastes.
 

Who are you talking to?

Me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 03:50:16 AM
I didn't ask your opinion on the acting cause I don't care.

I'm only angry because you're a very dense person and it's really frustrating when people become obsessed with my opinions.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 26, 2014, 03:52:41 AM
And Snupes, it's pretty clear that Hugo is saying he didn't like the role in a very tactful way. I assume it's because the character didn't challenge or interest him, I mean, that's typically why a great actor doesn't like a certain role.

I agree with the former, but not necessarily with the latter sentence. Maybe it didn't interest him, sure, but there are a plethora of reasons other than it being badly-written or something like that, so I guess we'll just have to disagree there.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 03:58:49 AM
And Snupes, it's pretty clear that Hugo is saying he didn't like the role in a very tactful way. I assume it's because the character didn't challenge or interest him, I mean, that's typically why a great actor doesn't like a certain role.

I agree with the former, but not necessarily with the latter sentence. Maybe it didn't interest him, sure, but there are a plethora of reasons other than it being badly-written or something like that, so I guess we'll just have to disagree there.

Quote
but to be honest, it’s not the sort of film I seek out and really am excited by.

"This is really well written, but I typically don't like this sort of thing and please don't ask me to do it again."
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 04:12:03 AM
I didn't ask your opinion on the acting cause I don't care.

I'm only angry because you're a very dense person and it's really frustrating when people become obsessed with my opinions.

I was addressing your claim of TFA relying on action sequences, when I felt the movie didn't rely on them. Hugo Weaving said in another quote that he prefers productions he has personal ties to, so that's probably one reason he didn't enjoy TFA.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 26, 2014, 05:01:35 AM
And Snupes, it's pretty clear that Hugo is saying he didn't like the role in a very tactful way. I assume it's because the character didn't challenge or interest him, I mean, that's typically why a great actor doesn't like a certain role.

I agree with the former, but not necessarily with the latter sentence. Maybe it didn't interest him, sure, but there are a plethora of reasons other than it being badly-written or something like that, so I guess we'll just have to disagree there.

Quote
but to be honest, it’s not the sort of film I seek out and really am excited by.

"This is really well written, but I typically don't like this sort of thing and please don't ask me to do it again."

I can't tell if you're snarking or if you're agreeing with me. That's basically what I'm saying I think he meant, yes.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 26, 2014, 05:33:34 AM
Roosroos is mad and angry. She is angry and mad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 09:04:47 AM
Hugo Weaving said in another quote that he prefers productions he has personal ties to, so that's probably one reason he didn't enjoy TFA.

Also because it sucked.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on April 26, 2014, 09:48:19 AM
I don't know about anyone else but there are times when I want to watch a film that doesn't use too much brain power. The Avengers etc... falls into that category nicely for me.

There are also times when I fancy a film that has more depth to it.

It all depends on my mood really.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 03:16:29 PM
I don't know about anyone else but there are times when I want to watch a film that doesn't use too much brain power. The Avengers etc... falls into that category nicely for me.

There are also times when I fancy a film that has more depth to it.

It all depends on my mood really.
Sure, sometimes that's the case. TFA still wouldn't make that cut.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 26, 2014, 03:27:14 PM
Hey guys, superhero movies...are bad. :P
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 03:44:35 PM
Hey guys, superhero movies...are bad. :P
Some are alright. DC is definitely better. X-Men is better than the Avenger series. And graphic novel movies are pretty great, but graphic novels have better writing than comic books.

Spawn may be the worst tho.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 26, 2014, 05:13:53 PM
Hey guys, superhero movies...are bad. :P
Some are alright. DC is definitely better. X-Men is better than the Avenger series. And graphic novel movies are pretty great, but graphic novels have better writing than comic books.

Spawn may be the worst tho.

I for one am eager to see Ben Affleck don the Batsuit.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 05:15:28 PM
And graphic novel movies are pretty great, but graphic novels have better writing than comic books.

Most "graphic novels" are just comic books shoved into a big collection. I'm guessing you don't read much.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on April 26, 2014, 05:18:20 PM
Short argument:

I don't like this film and my opinion is fact.

Personally I don't care either way - I heard bad reviews for TFA and CapAm was never my cup of tea so I didn't bother to see it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 05:33:03 PM
Short argument:

I don't like this film and my opinion is fact.

Personally I don't care either way - I heard bad reviews for TFA and CapAm was never my cup of tea so I didn't bother to see it.
Whoa, I never said it was fact. I definitely don't ever feel that way about my opinions. I've clearly said that it's the way I feel but I accept that people like it. I know TFA rates as a good movie, I just don't see it though. Everyone else was all bent out of shape and needed an acceptable reason why I feel the way I do.

And yes, I do read graphic novels and some comic books. While they may be collections, they're generally written better because they don't suffer the need to keep things going for years so they are very different. V for Vendetta, Watchmen, Frank Miller's stuff - it's all a lot darker and less campy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 26, 2014, 05:33:18 PM
Hey guys, superhero movies...are bad. :P
X-Men is better than the Avenger series.
no
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 05:35:17 PM
And yes, I do read graphic novels and some comic books. While they may be collections, they're generally written better because they don't suffer the need to keep things going for years so they are very different. V for Vendetta, Watchmen, Frank Miller's stuff - it's all a lot darker and less campy.

Indeed. My favorite graphic novel is probably Ronin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronin_(DC_Comics)). But I've read V for Vendetta, Watchmen, and some other graphics novels by Frank Miller.

My favorite comic series would probably be The Sandman series, by Neil Gaiman.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 26, 2014, 05:37:27 PM
The Thor movies are bad.  What silly stories.  What unlikable characters.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 05:42:39 PM
The Thor movies are bad.  What silly stories.  What unlikable characters.
omg I must go on the offensive for 3 pages while you explain in detail how you can dislike a movie I like!!!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 26, 2014, 05:48:42 PM
I wish you had done that.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 05:58:31 PM
Hey guys, superhero movies...are bad. :P
X-Men is better than the Avenger series.
no

Yeah, I've given up at this stage. "I like Xmen more than the Avenger series" is how I'll read it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on April 26, 2014, 06:08:41 PM
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 06:08:50 PM
Hey guys, superhero movies...are bad. :P
X-Men is better than the Avenger series.
no

Yeah, I've given up at this stage. "I like Xmen more than the Avenger series" is how I'll read it.
That's how you should always read it cause it's almost like entertainment and art are subjective or something. Crazy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 06:10:50 PM
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.

It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 06:13:21 PM
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.

It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?
Because his dad was of the firm belief that the world wasn't ready for something like Superman and Clark was raised believing the same. Saving his dad would have revealed him to the crowd.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 26, 2014, 06:14:52 PM
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.

It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?

When people say this it feels like they did not actually watch the movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on April 26, 2014, 06:15:03 PM
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.

It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?

It had something to do with the world not being ready for someone like Clark Kent.

I don't know why Clark didn't rescue the dog instead of his dad though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 26, 2014, 06:15:59 PM
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.

It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?

It had something to do with the world not being ready for someone like Clark Kent.

I don't know why Clark didn't rescue the dog instead of his dad though.

Clark was taking care of his mom.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 06:16:21 PM
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.

It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?
Because his dad was of the firm belief that the world wasn't ready for something like Superman and Clark was raised believing the same. Saving his dad would have revealed him to the crowd.

In Smallville Clark Kent saves people in front of crowds all the time. He's faster than a "speeding bullet".... no one would even see him do it. The fact that he let his father die in such a trivial way goes against everything Superman stands for. It's his adoptive father. Any other version of Superman would have saved him in that situation.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 26, 2014, 06:18:28 PM
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.

It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?
Because his dad was of the firm belief that the world wasn't ready for something like Superman and Clark was raised believing the same. Saving his dad would have revealed him to the crowd.

In Smallville Clark Kent saves people in front of crowds all the time. He's faster than a "speeding bullet".... no one would even see him do it. The fact that he let his father die in such a trivial way goes against everything Superman stands for. It's his adoptive father. Any other version of Superman would have saved him. This is why Man of Steel sucks.

It's an origin story. Superman does not stand for anything yet. The movie goes through great pains to establish how superman comes to stand for the things he does.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 06:19:19 PM
Oh well the movie isn't based on Smallville so that might have confused you.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 26, 2014, 06:24:12 PM
Somehow I got the feeling that they were trying to make young Clark look like Tom Welling though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 26, 2014, 06:28:04 PM
Doesn't Superman kill about a million people in the final battle in that movie?  Also, the product placement was incredibly obnoxious.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 06:31:11 PM
The movie goes through great pains to establish how superman comes to stand for the things he does.

No it doesn't. I would have to watch it again to give examples, but the development of Superman was handled poorly in my opinion.

Oh well the movie isn't based on Smallville so that might have confused you.

I know that, but Superman is Superman. His character is similar across different media. I appreciate your snarkiness though, seems to be a trademark of yours.

Doesn't Superman kill about a million people in the final battle in that movie?  Also, the product placement was incredibly obnoxious.

No, but he does help destroy a good portion of Smallville and ends up snapping someone's neck, which is weird for Superman.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 06:35:25 PM
Somehow I got the feeling that they were trying to make young Clark look like Tom Welling though.
Henry Cavill and Tom Welling resemble each other so that would make sense.

I never did a body count for the final battle, but it seemed realistic. Superman was matched by General Zod so breaking away to save people while still winning the fight  seems improbable.

And Ghost, don't let the snarkiness rustle your jimmies. This Superman was supposed to be a bit darker and more conflicted than other versions. He went to great lengths to hide who he was. Plus, when he was that young we don't really know the extent of his power development. He might not have been that fast yet.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on April 26, 2014, 06:46:11 PM
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.

It was alright. Jonathan Kent's death was moronic. Clark could have easily saved him, why didn't he?

It had something to do with the world not being ready for someone like Clark Kent.

I don't know why Clark didn't rescue the dog instead of his dad though.

Clark was taking care of his mom.

His Mum didn't need taking care of.

I thought they were trying to make superman more vulnerable and human like compared to the other films about him.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 26, 2014, 08:44:09 PM
Doesn't Superman kill about a million people in the final battle in that movie?  Also, the product placement was incredibly obnoxious.

Yeah, I still wish they had more of a focus on him helping people during the battle, going out of his way to put himself at risk for something as simple as getting one or two people out of harm's way, rather than throwing people through Arby's and stuff.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 26, 2014, 08:51:47 PM
They wreck a lot of Metropolis yes, but if you are doing a realistic version of Superman what else would happen?  Superman is on his heels for a lot of the fight and there is a bunch of immovable object/unstoppable force type physics happening.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 08:55:16 PM
I just didn't like how grim and serious the whole thing was. It's a Superman movie, yet I had next to no fun watching it. I even winced when people in metroplis were levitated and smashed on the ground. What the hell is that doing in Superman?

They wreck a lot of Metropolis yes, but if you are doing a realistic version of Superman what else would happen?  Superman is on his heels for a lot of the fight and there is a bunch of immovable object/unstoppable force type physics happening.

This is a fairly common argument. It's not hard to imagine that they simply fought elsewhere, or Superman moved the fight elsewhere. In any case, the final 40 minute destruction sequence was just 1 of many problems.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 08:55:42 PM
And Ghost, don't let the snarkiness rustle your jimmies. This Superman was supposed to be a bit darker and more conflicted than other versions. He went to great lengths to hide who he was. Plus, when he was that young we don't really know the extent of his power development. He might not have been that fast yet.

Jonathan's death was forced. It felt like forced character development, which just ends up feeling cheap.

"We need to motivate Supes, wut do?"
"Oh lets kill Jonathan Kent in tornado. Lol. supes will be sad and his character will develop lol"

His death could have had so much meaning, like in other adaptions of the Superman mythos, but no. Man of Steel is disappointing to say the least, but at least the fight scenes were entertaining.

(http://i.imgur.com/nPqKjWl.jpg)

Derp.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 09:14:42 PM
I just didn't like how grim and serious the whole thing was.
I think this is ultimately why we don't see eye to eye when it comes to comic books movies.

I would hazard a guess that people who already liked Superman didn't care for the movie and the people who didn't care for Superman before liked the movie. From my experience that's what it seems like at least and for precisely the reasons that Snupes and Vindictus are pointing out.

Jonathan's death was forced. It felt like forced character development, which just ends up feeling cheap.
Do you think it might have felt forced because it was a flashback? Just curious.

I don't have a lot to compare it to since I've never been into the Superman series. But I guess they wanted it as a freak accident where Clark had to make a decision whether to hide or reveal himself. It still felt realistic to me just because freak accidents don't leave a lot of time for decision making and Clark fell back on what he was taught (hiding his powers). Right before Jonathan died they had an argument on what Clark should do, the guilt of calling him out as not actually being his father was probably a factor when he listened to Jonathan's judgement. Throughout the movie that theme is persistent; he loves humanity and will do whatever he can to protect it, but he also fears that they will reject him.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 09:18:18 PM
he loves humanity and will do whatever he can to protect it, but he also fears that they will reject him.

Then logically he would have saved Jonathan Kent... unless in the next Superman movie we find out that Supes from Man of Steel is actually Bizzaro Supes. I would support this plot twist.

I know I'm not making convincing arguments as to why I disliked this part so much, but it's also a movie and ultimately subjective.

I just didn't like how grim and serious the whole thing was. It's a Superman movie, yet I had next to no fun watching it. I even winced when people in metroplis were levitated and smashed on the ground. What the hell is that doing in Superman?

I liked the tone of the film. I feel like comics don't show enough violence to begin with, especially older comics. Showing a villain straight up smash a human being into blood and dust makes the villain seem more realistic... also it makes it more satisfying when that villain gets what s/he deserves. I hate all the "I HAVE A DEATH RAY" villains, because they're not threatening.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 09:22:42 PM
he loves humanity and will do whatever he can to protect it, but he also fears that they will reject him.

Then logically he would have saved Jonathan Kent... unless in the next Superman movie we find out that Supes from Man of Steel is actually Bizzaro Supes. I would support this plot twist.

But then this:
It still felt realistic to me just because freak accidents don't leave a lot of time for decision making and Clark fell back on what he was taught (hiding his powers). Right before Jonathan died they had an argument on what Clark should do, the guilt of calling him out as not actually being his father was probably a factor when he listened to Jonathan's judgement.

Hence, conflicted feelings. During that small time frame he instinctively fell back on what he was taught which is a very real human thing to do.
 
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Thork on April 26, 2014, 09:26:40 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqziQX7eEv0#t=77

Poor cow is dropping hints all over the place, but he just wants to play pool.


*Also, pizzaplanet, I asked this video to start 77 seconds in. The plugin ignores this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 09:27:00 PM
Hence, conflicted feelings. During that small time frame he instinctively fell back on what he was taught which is a very real human thing to do.

Clark Kent is not human. He was rebellious toward his adoptive father to begin with, although he did respect him completely. Which might prompt him to disobey his advice, like he had done in the past. I suppose the argument could be made that Supes has a human's moral code since he was not aware of his alien nature at the time of Jonathan's death, or was he? I forget.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2014, 09:39:38 PM
Hence, conflicted feelings. During that small time frame he instinctively fell back on what he was taught which is a very real human thing to do.

Clark Kent is not human. He was rebellious toward his adoptive father to begin with, although he did respect him completely. Which might prompt him to disobey his advice, like he had done in the past. I suppose the argument could be made that Supes has a human's moral code since he was not aware of his alien nature at the time of Jonathan's death, or was he? I forget.
He knew he was an alien at that point. But does Superman typically not act like a human with human morals?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 09:46:56 PM
I didn't like Superman before MoS and I still don't find him a terribly interesting hero. Never read any comic books. I don't see how they're relevant to the movies. I guess it took them a tent pole movie to realise that they can't do an enjoyable, hyper realistic, broody superman. Maybe it was just Goyer's shitty writing and Afleck's addition will improve things.

Either way, I'm looking forward to the sequel, hopefully it finally launches things for DC. It's funny to point out the failure of WB to capitalize as Disney has, but after a while it's just sad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 09:52:11 PM
I didn't like Superman before MoS and I still don't find him a terribly interesting hero. Never read any comic books. I don't see how they're relevant to the movies. I guess it took them a tent pole movie to realise that they can't do an enjoyable, hyper realistic, broody superman. Maybe it was just Goyer's shitty writing and Afleck's addition will improve things.

Either way, I'm looking forward to the sequel, hopefully it finally launches things for DC. It's funny to point out the failure of WB to capitalize as Disney has, but after a while it's just sad.

I recommend watching Smallville. I thought Superman was the worst superhero ever before watching it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 09:59:32 PM
Aquaman is the worst superhero ever. I just don't find Superman terribly interesting. I'm aware of some good Superman stories, but I prefer heroes who have flaws in their powers. Plus I've loved iron man since I was a kid so I'm inherently biased.

I have watched some Smallville but it was years ago. I only remember the hot brunette love interest..
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 10:01:49 PM
I have watched some Smallville but it was years ago. I only remember the hot brunette love interest..

Lana Lang? She's the fucking worst.

And yeah, Aquaman is the worst superhero ever. I'm glad we agree on something. Interestingly enough, Aquaman is in several Smallville episodes and is portrayed with a dumbass surfer-esque persona, like he should be because he fucking sucks.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on April 26, 2014, 11:37:54 PM
Le Plaisir (Max Ophüls)

Ophüls is one of those directors who frames every shot like a painting, the sheer beauty of the camera work in this particular film even makes up for parts in which the middle story (of three, after Guy de Maupassant) starts to drag. I don't think it's a dramatic masterpiece, but it is good, and simply as a piece of cinema it is masterful.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 27, 2014, 05:35:10 AM
I just didn't like how grim and serious the whole thing was. It's a Superman movie, yet I had next to no fun watching it. I even winced when people in metroplis were levitated and smashed on the ground. What the hell is that doing in Superman?

That you require certain material or tone in a superman movie is your own bias that you should not project on to Man of Steel

Quote
They wreck a lot of Metropolis yes, but if you are doing a realistic version of Superman what else would happen?  Superman is on his heels for a lot of the fight and there is a bunch of immovable object/unstoppable force type physics happening.

This is a fairly common argument. It's not hard to imagine that they simply fought elsewhere, or Superman moved the fight elsewhere. In any case, the final 40 minute destruction sequence was just 1 of many problems.
It's not hard to imagine and it is much less interesting for them to fight in a say , a cornfield. Kal-El was fighting a trained soldier. He could not choose the location.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 27, 2014, 07:22:33 AM
That you require certain material or tone in a superman movie is your own bias that you should not project on to Man of Steel

That's true, but I felt it ruined the movie for me. When you leave a superhero movie feeling like you just watched 9/11, then there's something wrong. The Avengers did citywide destruction without making me feel like killing myself.

It's not hard to imagine and it is much less interesting for them to fight in a say , a cornfield. Kal-El was fighting a trained soldier. He could not choose the location.

That's true. I guess they could have just scaled down the buildings falling on people and Superman throwing Zod through buildings for no reason. Another thing that bugs me about the movie was the Superman had like 30 years of getting used to his powers, Zod had like 1 week. So him being a general doesn't mean squat, really.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 27, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
Being a general does mean something. Zod was born and raised to be the best soldier. He had the intense discipline, focus, and combat knowledge to pick up on his powers faster than Clark.

I don't think there's something wrong with having a realistic superhero movie with human deaths. I'm glad they exist so people like me can enjoy them while people like you can enjoy the light hearted Avengers stuff.

Speaking of grim, I just finished all the episodes of Attack on Titan and I'm considering reading more into the mangas.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on April 27, 2014, 04:27:51 PM
7th Heaven (Frank Borzage)

Classic silent romance with Janet Gaynor as the abused sister of an alcoholic criminal of some sort. She is rescued from one of her sister's attacks by a sewer cleaner and circumstances force her to pose as his wife, the rest pretty much goes from there. It's often crazily melodramatic, plenty of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but there's a magic captured in the combination of visuals, music and text, such that I found myself willingly going along with it no matter what happened.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on April 27, 2014, 04:39:38 PM
pool.

There are so many fouls committed in that clip I'm surprised he doesn't get thrown out.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 27, 2014, 04:44:27 PM
Speaking of grim, I just finished all the episodes of Attack on Titan and I'm considering reading more into the mangas.

I started watching Attack on Titan a few days ago, is it worth finishing?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 27, 2014, 06:47:36 PM
Speaking of grim, I just finished all the episodes of Attack on Titan and I'm considering reading more into the mangas.

I started watching Attack on Titan a few days ago, is it worth finishing?
I think it's great. The story is interesting and the action looks great. The plot moves fast in the beginning so they move up to cadets really quickly.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 27, 2014, 09:07:53 PM
Being a general does mean something. Zod was born and raised to be the best soldier. He had the intense discipline, focus, and combat knowledge to pick up on his powers faster than Clark.

I don't think there's something wrong with having a realistic superhero movie with human deaths. I'm glad they exist so people like me can enjoy them while people like you can enjoy the light hearted Avengers stuff.

Speaking of grim, I just finished all the episodes of Attack on Titan and I'm considering reading more into the mangas.

I don't shy away from heavy and dark movies. They were trying to emulate Batman in a Superman movie and I think they failed miserably. Not because Superman is supposed to be happy or anything, it just wasn't fun. Even TDK was fun.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on April 27, 2014, 09:19:38 PM
I thought the superman film before the man of steel with Brandon Routh had a good twist to it as well. I don't know why they didn't carry it on a bit more.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 27, 2014, 09:38:12 PM
Being a general does mean something. Zod was born and raised to be the best soldier. He had the intense discipline, focus, and combat knowledge to pick up on his powers faster than Clark.

I don't think there's something wrong with having a realistic superhero movie with human deaths. I'm glad they exist so people like me can enjoy them while people like you can enjoy the light hearted Avengers stuff.

Speaking of grim, I just finished all the episodes of Attack on Titan and I'm considering reading more into the mangas.

I don't shy away from heavy and dark movies. They were trying to emulate Batman in a Superman movie and I think they failed miserably. Not because Superman is supposed to be happy or anything, it just wasn't fun. Even TDK was fun.
I guess I just don't understand where you're coming from then.

Fun isn't really a word I would ever use to describe a heavy/dark movie. I like TDK and Man of Steel, but neither of them were my definition of fun.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 27, 2014, 10:55:39 PM
The lighthearted fun nature of previous Superman movies is one of the things that turned me off from Superman to begin with.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 27, 2014, 10:56:00 PM
Oh, and his costume.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on April 29, 2014, 06:00:08 PM
Sideways (Alexander Payne)

I was initially not too impressed with Sideways, beginning as it does in a very shallow “two dudes hit the road to par-tay!” mode, but this is eventually eased off as the film shifts into darker, sometimes even metaphysical territory. I think in context the opening is given something of a get out of jail free (maybe more like a get out of jail for £10) card by the much richer second half, in which the apparent shallow qualities of the former are given some depth and meaning.

The film does suffer from a tonal imbalance, where it can't quite decide if it wants to be a light hearted buddy movie or an absurdist black comedy, and there are helpings of both coming at the audience in awkward rhythms which I don't think the writer/director is quite able to pull off. I think this is also in part down to the acting, which is highly uneven, like the actors have emotional on/off switches they keep accidentally knocking against the furniture during conversations.
 
There are, conversely, scenes that are both cleverly written and movingly portrayed. One very intimate interaction between Paul Giamatti and Virginia Madsen, ostensibly about why they like their favourite wines, has a subtlety and complexity that the film manages to reach only in its very best moments, and this can leave some other parts of the film feeling a little dull by comparison.

The problems with this film cannot be solely attributed to the uneven writing and acting, much of the time I found the music to be far and away the worst offender, often becoming intrusive in scenes that would have been better silent. A lot of the more poignant or even funny moments, even in the scene I mentioned above, are abruptly foreshortened by incoming music “bits”, and I use that word because there doesn't seem to be a score so much as a pool of stock bits they dip into from time to time.

Watching Sideways, there is this nagging feeling I can't quite shake, and the feeling is that I'm watching a “serious” film which borrows some of the aesthetic values of '90s teen comedy. For me it does have enough good stuff in it to outweigh the bad overall, and it did make me laugh out loud many times, but it is not the film it seems to want to be, and I think many of its themes, particularly depression, anxiety, loneliness, and writing, have all been explored better by Charlie Kaufman in his films Adaptation and Synecdoche, New York

Ultimately, Sideways is pretty good, but it should be great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 01, 2014, 05:53:47 PM
Stop trying to raise the intellectual level of the discussion, Crudblud.  This thread is now for bitching about superhero movies.

Speaking of which, I finally saw Iron Man 3.  It wasn't as bad as I had heard.  There was some good action, mainly at the end, the humor worked for the most part, and I especially liked the way they put the focus on Tony Stark himself being the hero, not the basically-indestructible suit of armor that happens to have him inside it.  Even the subplot with the kid I thought was pretty well-handled, and that could have backfired in a major way.

The main problem I had with it, however, was the basic premise, or the conflict.  It's just generic corporate douchebaggery.  That's it.  That's really all there is to it.  A generic corporate douchebag is greedy and wants more money, therefore conflict of the movie.  Oh, and I guess there's an element of personal revenge in it, because Tony...snubbed him at an event several years ago.  That makes it even dumber.  They could have made a point about terrorism, or maybe even the utilitarian ideal that they hinted at the start of the movie with the Extremis virus, but no, let's just go with generic corporate douchebaggery.  Bleh.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Kanye_West on May 01, 2014, 05:57:01 PM
Dawg, I been watchin' HOUSE lately. That nigga be off tha hook, na'meen?

Oh its tachychardia. Nevermind, he's hemorrhaging. Must be cancer. Nvm. CANCER and LUPUS that he got from PIPE DUST IN ASIA.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 01, 2014, 06:13:52 PM
Yes, let's continue to lower the intellectual level.

Iron Man 3 is alright.
Arrested Development is funny.
Yay
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2014, 06:19:36 PM
Yes, let's continue to lower the intellectual level.

Iron Man 3 is alright.
Arrested Development is funny.
Yay

Rooster still cannot get it right on superhero movies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 01, 2014, 06:56:10 PM
I agree with "alright [sic]" as a judgment of the movie.  It seems fair.  It wasn't as bad as either of the Hulk movies, but neither was it Avengers-quality.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 01, 2014, 07:27:57 PM
Is Iron Man 3 the one with the fake Mandarin? That movie was literally the worst.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Kanye_West on May 01, 2014, 07:50:33 PM
Is Iron Man 3 the one with the fake Mandarin? That movie was literally the worst.

HAAANH You actually watch that shit nigga??!?!?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 01, 2014, 08:20:43 PM
Yes, it's the one with the fake Mandarin.  Killian's weak "No, I'm the real Mandarin!" was, I suspect, a last-minute change they threw in to try and placate fans who would have received the actor revelation poorly.  Nobody bought it, of course.  It's obvious that they simply decided to sacrifice the Mandarin as a villain just so they could pull their "clever" little twist.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2014, 09:36:17 PM
Yes, it's the one with the fake Mandarin.  Killian's weak "No, I'm the real Mandarin!" was, I suspect, a last-minute change they threw in to try and placate fans who would have received the actor revelation poorly.  Nobody bought it, of course.  It's obvious that they simply decided to sacrifice the Mandarin as a villain just so they could pull their "clever" little twist.

Which is a terrible way to tell a story.  Clever is the death of good story-telling.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 01, 2014, 09:41:21 PM
Yes, it's the one with the fake Mandarin.  Killian's weak "No, I'm the real Mandarin!" was, I suspect, a last-minute change they threw in to try and placate fans who would have received the actor revelation poorly.  Nobody bought it, of course.  It's obvious that they simply decided to sacrifice the Mandarin as a villain just so they could pull their "clever" little twist.

Which is a terrible way to tell a story.  Clever is the death of good story-telling.

Not always. But it does come off as extremely desperate in most cases.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 01, 2014, 10:33:57 PM
I also thought that the bad guys being turned into super-strong fiery demons was a bit of a stretch for a movie like this, handwaving about the virus aside.  Iron Man's corner of the universe is supposed to be sci-fi, not fantasy.  Fighting monsters like that in his own movie just seems wrong, in the same way that seeing Thor clacking away at a keyboard in his movie would be wrong.

And Rebecca Hall's character was absolutely pointless.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2014, 10:46:16 PM
The representation of the virus' effects was true to the comic books afaik.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 01, 2014, 11:49:19 PM
Yes, let's continue to lower the intellectual level.

Iron Man 3 is alright.
Arrested Development is funny.
Yay

Rooster still cannot get it right on superhero movies.
Sorry, not sorry.

There was better character development. I still think Avengers is better than Iron Man 3 but it's not as bad as Captain America is all I'm saying.

I really like Robert Downey Jr. and Guy Pierce as actors so that's always to a movie's advantage.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 02, 2014, 12:42:46 AM
The representation of the virus' effects was true to the comic books afaik.

They weren't worried about being true to the comics when they turned the Mandarin into a joke!  Anyway, they should have at least toned it down a little.  It just didn't fit the sci-fi setting to have all that silly fire-breathing and whatnot.

Time to change the subject, because I'm the boss of this thread and I can totally do that.  Is anyone looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film))?  That's the one they teased at the end of Thor: The Dark World with Benicio del Toro playing that Mugatu-meets-Liberace-meets-Billy-Idol guy.  Here's a trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B16Bo47KS2g

This looks awfully risky, even for Marvel.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 02, 2014, 01:01:57 AM
Risky? How so?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 02, 2014, 01:25:48 AM
I mean it looks like a movie that would be really easy to fuck up.  For example, there's a talking raccoon.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 02, 2014, 01:26:42 AM
Anything involving anthropomorphic raccoons is risky.

Edit: Saddamn it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2014, 01:41:39 AM
I mean it looks like a movie that would be really easy to fuck up.  For example, there's a talking raccoon.

Agreed.  It is either a flop or amazing.  The preview looks decent and it should be important to introducing either elements of the 2nd Avengers movie or the 3rd(!) if that is when they plan on doing the Thanos story.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 02, 2014, 01:41:56 AM
Rocket Raccoon is a playable character in Marvel vs. Capcom 3.  The only game he's ever been in... Guardians or the Galaxy is announced a year or so afterwards. Coincidence?


Am I excited? Hell no. 90% of Marvel films are trash. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 02, 2014, 01:52:55 AM
The second Avengers movie is going to be about Ultron, so I doubt there'll be much of a connection to this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2014, 01:54:52 AM
The second Avengers movie is going to be about Ultron, so I doubt there'll be much of a connection to this.

Probably, but then you never know with these crazy marvel bastards.  Maybe Ultron is Thanos in disguise.

On another note, did anyone get excited at the mention of Dr. Strange in Captain America 2?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 02, 2014, 07:01:32 AM
I don't get why they decided to bother with this Guardians of the Galaxy thing. Who the hell knows anything about them? It's probably going to turn out like Green Lantern with all these goofy looking characters.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on May 02, 2014, 07:07:26 AM
I guess they figured out that anything they ever churned out would turn in a profit, so maybe they're testing that with this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 02, 2014, 08:00:39 AM
I guess they figured out that anything they ever churned out would turn in a profit, so maybe they're testing that with this.

This could either lead to great things or just awful awful terrible things.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on May 02, 2014, 11:41:19 AM
I guess they figured out that anything they ever churned out would turn in a profit, so maybe they're testing that with this.

This could either lead to great things or just awful awful terrible things.

Well, we already have the awful awful terrible things.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 02, 2014, 12:05:27 PM
I'm more curious to see how parks and rec guy does.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 02, 2014, 12:06:02 PM
They weren't worried about being true to the comics when they turned the Mandarin into a joke!  Anyway, they should have at least toned it down a little.  It just didn't fit the sci-fi setting to have all that silly fire-breathing and whatnot.

Yet...you were disappointed they didn't actually have the ridiculous character with ten super-magical-powers rings? I was delighted by the twist because a) the Mandarin is stupid, and b) they would've had to pull some really dumb strings to make him realistic or "sci-fi" at all.

Also, I'm looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy because the Guardians of the Galaxy are awesome
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 02, 2014, 12:37:57 PM
Also, I'm looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy because the Guardians of the Galaxy are awesome
It's not a popular comic, so it can't be good! >o<
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 02, 2014, 12:45:59 PM
Yet...you were disappointed they didn't actually have the ridiculous character with ten super-magical-powers rings? I was delighted by the twist because a) the Mandarin is stupid, and b) they would've had to pull some really dumb strings to make him realistic or "sci-fi" at all.

It's less the faithfulness to the comics that concerns me and more if what goes into the movie is interesting in its own right.  Ben Kingsley as a terrorist leader was interesting.  Guy Pearce as the same generic corporate douchebag that we've seen a million times before (including in the previous two films) was not.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 02, 2014, 01:06:00 PM
Guy Pearce is never interesting.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 02, 2014, 01:18:27 PM
Pearce was good in L.A. Confidential, probably the best performance in the whole film, in fact.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 02, 2014, 01:37:03 PM
No actor could have made such a generic villain interesting.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2014, 04:41:56 PM
No actor could have made such a generic villain interesting.

Daniel Day Lewis could. Prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 02, 2014, 04:45:44 PM
They weren't worried about being true to the comics when they turned the Mandarin into a joke!  Anyway, they should have at least toned it down a little.  It just didn't fit the sci-fi setting to have all that silly fire-breathing and whatnot.

Yet...you were disappointed they didn't actually have the ridiculous character with ten super-magical-powers rings? I was delighted by the twist because a) the Mandarin is stupid, and b) they would've had to pull some really dumb strings to make him realistic or "sci-fi" at all.

Also, I'm looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy because the Guardians of the Galaxy are awesome


I'm aware of the Iron Man 3 plot, but how was the movie advertised? Did it tease a "real" Mandarin just to reveal that he's fake when you watch the movie, or was this known from the start?

The whole situation kind of reminds me of Metal Gear Solid 2's release, how everyone thought that Solid Snake was the playable character but it turned out to be a different guy (http://i.imgur.com/sHbLE3F.jpg).
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 02, 2014, 05:17:10 PM
Kingsley was very heavily hyped as being the Mandarin.  Someone link a trailer, I'm on my phone.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2014, 06:27:16 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muIsc5lIEyQ
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 02, 2014, 07:23:51 PM
Okay, now that's one not just misleading, it's downright dishonest.  He never said half of that shit in the movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 02, 2014, 07:27:03 PM
Good ol' bait 'n switch.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Onix on May 02, 2014, 07:37:22 PM
Rocket Raccoon is a playable character in Marvel vs. Capcom 3.  The only game he's ever been in... Guardians or the Galaxy is announced a year or so afterwards. Coincidence?


Am I excited? Hell no. 90% of Marvel films are trash. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

I think it is a coincidence. Now his inclusion in MvC3 definitely didn't keep him from the big screen, but I doubt it influenced it. Raccoon is (probably, I dont read comics) a recognizable and somewhat-famous Marvel character. Which is why he was probably put in MvC3. But I would think the real reason is that comic movies are huge now. Probably one of the biggest trends in movies in the past 15 years. Pretty much since X-Men. But they're running out of characters. They're making a god damn Antman movie for crying out loud. So its not surprising at all that RR is in a movie.

On another note, I had no idea about this movie. I'm really interested in them putting Chris Pratt as the lead. From the trailer...he still seems just like Andy from PnR. Who's he playing? Comic fans, does he seem like a good fit?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 02, 2014, 07:51:17 PM
Raccoon is (probably, I dont read comics) a recognizable and somewhat-famous Marvel character.

He's not popular, he's actually very obscure... Not many know of his existence, outside hardcore marvel fans of course. That's why people are concerned, because Guardians of the Galaxy is relatively unknown. Damn, Rocket Racoon was introduced as a main character in the comics only in 2008 (although he's been around since 76, but as a minor nobody character), so that didn't leave much time for people to discover him and his team either.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Onix on May 02, 2014, 08:01:00 PM
Raccoon is (probably, I dont read comics) a recognizable and somewhat-famous Marvel character.

He's not popular, he's actually very obscure... Not many know of his existence, outside hardcore marvel fans of course. That's why people are concerned, because Guardians of the Galaxy is relatively unknown. Damn, Rocket Racoon was introduced as a main character in the comics only in 2008 (although he's been around since 76, but as a minor nobody character), so that didn't leave much time for people to discover him and his team either.

I just don't think some Hollywood bigwigs were like...Rocket Raccoon is in this fighting game, lets put him in a movie. I feel like if that were the case we would've seen a Nova movie or Hawkeye or something like that before Rocket Raccoon.

I could be wrong, I dunno, lol.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 02, 2014, 08:12:37 PM
Raccoon is (probably, I dont read comics) a recognizable and somewhat-famous Marvel character.

He's not popular, he's actually very obscure... Not many know of his existence, outside hardcore marvel fans of course. That's why people are concerned, because Guardians of the Galaxy is relatively unknown. Damn, Rocket Racoon was introduced as a main character in the comics only in 2008 (although he's been around since 76, but as a minor nobody character), so that didn't leave much time for people to discover him and his team either.

I just don't think some Hollywood bigwigs were like...Rocket Raccoon is in this fighting game, lets put him in a movie. I feel like if that were the case we would've seen a Nova movie or Hawkeye or something like that before Rocket Raccoon.

I could be wrong, I dunno, lol.

No, I know. I was just messing around. It's just a weird coincidence. I think they did it mostly because, like I said, Rocket Raccoon was introduced as a somewhat main character in his own series in 2008, and MvC3 came out about the same time so they just threw him in there for lulz or whatever. Keep in mind, Marvel does control part of the Marvel Vs. Capcom series, it's not all just Capcom. They probably had the Guardians of the Galaxy movie in the works before MvC3 was released, and Marvel themselves decided to put him in MvC3 just to raise awareness. This is all speculation, of course.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 03, 2014, 04:13:28 AM
The Ant-Man movie will be the best of them all.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 03, 2014, 10:22:57 AM
Surely.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 04, 2014, 04:35:16 AM
The Ant-Man movie will be the best of them all.

It's directed by Edgar Wright. His entire filmography (aside from one young college project) is Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and The World's End. It can't be bad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 04, 2014, 01:13:30 PM
The Ant-Man movie will be the best of them all.

It's directed by Edgar Wright. His entire filmography (aside from one young college project) is Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and The World's End. It can't be bad.

Based on that list I'd expect it to be somewhere between mediocre and terrible. I want to like Wright and Pegg and friends, as I do think they are talented, but none of them has managed to live up to the early promise they showed in Spaced.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on May 04, 2014, 02:59:00 PM
Shaun of The Dead were good. Hot Fuzz and Worlds End were just remakes of the same film. Scott Pilgrim were good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 04, 2014, 03:57:27 PM
Crudblud is just being a balkno.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 04, 2014, 04:07:38 PM
Crudblud is just being a balkno.
Crudblud is the balkno of movies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 09, 2014, 07:20:38 PM
moar superhero movies

I watched The Amazing Spider-Man.  It was pretty good, although I don't know why it was hyped as being the grittier, more realistic take on Spider-Man, given how silly it was (the crane scene at the climax was the utter worst).  It was interesting the way they kind of nerfed him in comparison to the Raimi movies.  I always thought that he was a bit too overpowered in those.  Anyway, part of the reason I wanted to watch this was because I heard that its sequel was hilariously awful, so I guess that one's next.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on May 09, 2014, 11:11:32 PM
grittier, more realistic

Every sequel that ever gets made says that. Apart from Care Bears 2: Return to Cuddle Land.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 10, 2014, 12:10:23 AM
Not a sequel, a reboot.

Also, the Bing product placement was hilarious.  Not quite as ridiculous as this, but still, pretty funny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHuZ5qrYX4
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on May 10, 2014, 10:39:29 PM
reboot

Sorry that's a trigger word please can a mod intervene I feel too upset
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 20, 2014, 12:06:44 AM
I heard that its sequel was hilariously awful, so I guess that one's next.

And so it was.  Probably the best thing I can say about it is that the effects were fantastic.  Apart from that, it's a mess, particularly the writing.  Peter and Gwen's on-off relationship is annoyingly repetitive, Electro's villainous motivation is extremely weak, Paul Giamatti has a terrible cameo, the Green Goblin has about five minutes of screentime (that's not an exaggeration), and the whole conspiracy subplot involving Peter's parents doesn't add anything to the story.  Oh yeah, and the last ten minutes or so where they try to set up their cinematic universe Marvel-style is just sad.  They really don't have the material for that.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 21, 2014, 12:23:44 AM
Watched The Wolf of Wallstreet. Sucked.

Sucked big time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on May 21, 2014, 08:05:22 AM
Watched The Wolf of Wallstreet. Sucked.

Sucked big time.

What didn't you like?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 21, 2014, 01:10:36 PM
I heard that its sequel was hilariously awful, so I guess that one's next.

And so it was.  Probably the best thing I can say about it is that the effects were fantastic.  Apart from that, it's a mess, particularly the writing.  Peter and Gwen's on-off relationship is annoyingly repetitive, Electro's villainous motivation is extremely weak,  Paul Giamatti has a terrible cameo, the Green Goblin has about five minutes of screentime (that's not an exaggeration), and the whole conspiracy subplot involving Peter's parents doesn't add anything to the story.  Oh yeah, and the last ten minutes or so where they try to set up their cinematic universe Marvel-style is just sad.  They really don't have the material for that.

It wasn't very good
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 21, 2014, 05:04:48 PM
Watched The Wolf of Wallstreet. Sucked.

Sucked big time.

What didn't you like?

The shear amount of debauchery was unnecessary. It's awkward having to sit through sex scenes that do absolutely nothing for the plot. I understand that those type of scenes established how fucked up Leonardo's character was, but I gathered that much without the ridiculous amount of nudity. It seemed like most of those scenes were thrown in for shock value.  Plus, there was no moral to the story at all. You figure he would be punished to some extent for his insane crimes, but no... he spends 12 months in what basically amounts to a summer camp, then gets out scott free. I guess the fact that I'm discussing it means the film did its job, but I still didn't enjoy watching it.

Wall Street and the sequel Money Never Sleeps did what this movie was trying to do, just 10x better.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 21, 2014, 05:26:44 PM
It's a dark comedy. I thought it was hilarious even though I wanted to be disgusted. And justice doesn't always work the way you want it to in real life.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 21, 2014, 05:42:54 PM
It's a dark comedy. I thought it was hilarious even though I wanted to be disgusted. And justice doesn't always work the way you want it to in real life.

I'm aware of the genre, still doesn't make it a good film. Did you really find it hilarious? Your sense of humor obviously differs from mine. I thought it was superficial and trite, it relied on shock value for laughs which is just lazy, imo.  Dr. Strangelove is really the only good example of black comedy that actually does it right.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 21, 2014, 06:14:11 PM
I wouldn't call it shock value. The scene where he tries to drive on those ludes is really funny but not shocking. In fact I didn't think anything really seemed shocking. But I know you're easily offended by nudity and depictions of sex which is why you said you don't like Game of Thrones. And that's fine, just don't expect everyone to define it as shock value.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 21, 2014, 07:50:14 PM
I wouldn't call it shock value. The scene where he tries to drive on those ludes is really funny but not shocking. In fact I didn't think anything really seemed shocking. But I know you're easily offended by nudity and depictions of sex which is why you said you don't like Game of Thrones. And that's fine, just don't expect everyone to define it as shock value.

Maybe it's a personal problem. I don't know. It is what it is.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 21, 2014, 08:21:37 PM
Plus, there was no moral to the story at all. You figure he would be punished to some extent for his insane crimes, but no...

Stories should not have to have any 'moral'. They should be allowed to just be stories as well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 21, 2014, 08:58:32 PM
Plus, there was no moral to the story at all. You figure he would be punished to some extent for his insane crimes, but no...

Stories should not have to have any 'moral'. They should be allowed to just be stories as well.

I agree. I just tacked that on there to make it seem worse than it is.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on May 21, 2014, 09:02:42 PM
Plus, there was no moral to the story at all. You figure he would be punished to some extent for his insane crimes, but no... he spends 12 months in what basically amounts to a summer camp, then gets out scott free.

The film is relying on your morality, not its own. You should be shocked to learn that bankers got off largely scot free for fucking up the planet for a good many years. You should come out of the cinema and say "lol but that didn't really happen did it lol" Then get angry when you find out it did. (In fact I'm not sure any bankers/traders/agents had been to jail before the film was made).

NB I haven't seen this film because I don't like stories about dragons.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 21, 2014, 09:22:22 PM
Plus, there was no moral to the story at all. You figure he would be punished to some extent for his insane crimes, but no... he spends 12 months in what basically amounts to a summer camp, then gets out scott free.

The film is relying on your morality, not its own. You should be shocked to learn that bankers got off largely scot free for fucking up the planet for a good many years. You should come out of the cinema and say "lol but that didn't really happen did it lol" Then get angry when you find out it did. (In fact I'm not sure any bankers/traders/agents had been to jail before the film was made).

NB I haven't seen this film because I don't like stories about dragons.

That's exactly how it makes you feel. I guess it accomplishes its goal well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 21, 2014, 10:50:42 PM
And if you're learning for the first time that people on Wall Street get off easy then I can see how it's shocking. It certainly makes me angry but I felt the movie was exaggerated enough to just make it funny imo. Plus, if you need justice, just remember that they are some of the most unhappy, fucked up people in the world.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on May 21, 2014, 11:10:44 PM
It's a dark comedy because there are people who spent $30 on the blu-Ray to see how the general public gets fucked over and then get upset about it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 21, 2014, 11:16:06 PM
If people are paying full price to buy a movie they've never seen before then they've got the money to blow and are probably not the ones who get upset about salesmen mentalities.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 21, 2014, 11:34:46 PM
It's a dark comedy because there are people who spent $30 on the blu-Ray to see how the general public gets fucked over and then get upset about it.

I spent exactly $0 watching this movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on May 22, 2014, 05:40:23 AM
It's a dark comedy because there are people who spent $30 on the blu-Ray to see how the general public gets fucked over and then get upset about it.

I spent exactly $0 watching this movie.

I know, don't worry.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 25, 2014, 01:04:30 AM
The Ant-Man movie will be the best of them all.

It's directed by Edgar Wright. His entire filmography (aside from one young college project) is Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and The World's End. It can't be bad.

Alas, this is no longer true:

http://time.com/112453/edgar-wright-marvel-ant-man/
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 25, 2014, 05:33:03 AM
...wat

Well, there goes any inclination of me being vaguely excited about that movie. I can't wait for another mediocre Paul Rudd comedy
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 25, 2014, 05:35:55 PM
Down By Law (Jim Jarmusch)
Great.

Dead Man (Jim Jarmusch)
Really good.

Lolita (Stanley Kubrick)
Good bits, bad bits, a bit too hokey over all. Vaguely positive.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 25, 2014, 06:16:14 PM
...wat

Well, there goes any inclination of me being vaguely excited about that movie. I can't wait for another mediocre Paul Rudd comedy

But it's not a comedy.

WILL THIS BE MARVEL'S FIRST FLOP?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 25, 2014, 09:10:05 PM
Last night I had a prophetic dream. Paul Rudd was cast to play the 13th Doctor. Then this happens...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 25, 2014, 09:34:46 PM
Just watched X-Men: Days of Future Past. Fucking wonderful. I had so much doubt about this movie (thanks in part to what I thought was terrible casting for Pietro/Quicksilver), but it blew all that out of the water. The movie was powerfully-directed, had some incredible acting, magnificent pacing and just handled itself extremely well. Evan Peters was the perfect Quicksilver and now I actually have doubts that Whedon's Quicksilver will be able to be a better one even though before seeing this I thought it was going to be the other way around. All his scenes were apparently shot at 3600 frames per second or something, and it gives some of the best scenes of the film. Seeing how Quicksilver sees the world is brilliant and exciting and just reminds me why I was so enchanted with him and his powers as a child; he was my favourite character for a long time (and remains one of my top few). He was also just really entertaining in general, most of his scenes were pretty funny.

James McAvoy as a young Xavier who gave up his powers because he couldn't handle experiencing other peoples' suffering was excellent and probably the most moving part of the film. This is also the closest we've gotten to classic Wolverine since the first few movies, and the fact that they managed to bring back so many old faces added a lot to the film. I wish we got to see more of Ellen Page as Shadowcat; she plays a very important role in the film, but it leaves her very little room to act or anything. And apparently Anna Paquin's Rogue was going to play a more promininent role but got cut down to a cameo in post-production which sucks a lot.

Overall, it handled the "Days of Future Past" timeline from the comics staggeringly well, far more so than I thought a film would be able to. How ruthless it was with its characters and willingness to ignore star power or favouritism to show the terribleness of the world they were in made added a lot, I think, particularly in how it didn't hesitate to brutally show the death of even the biggest characters. It was kind of stunning and, in a morbid way, refreshing. It wasn't scared to pull any punches.

I was disappointed that, while they had Quicksilver, they didn't have his sister, Scarlet Witch. Well, there was a moment where he was holding his younger sister (though they're supposed to be twins, so I don't know if it was her), which...I genuinely hope wasn't Wanda (Scarlet Witch), because in the Ultimate Marvel comics they also fall in love and everything, which makes watching him hold young her in his lap a really weird kind of awkward. It's admittedly one of the more interesting comic storylines, but I don't want those kind of thoughts in my head while he's got his little sister in his lap, creepy incestuous pedophila is not something I'm ready for in Marvel stories

Anyway...moving on from that...yeah, I liked the movie a lot. Minor spoilers about the end: It was really nostalgic and sort of dream-like to see all the old, original X-Men finally reunited again. Scott, Jean, all the original incarnations of characters like Beast, Professor Xavier, etc. It felt like a weird, warm, fuzzy trip a decade or so into the past, which is oddly fitting for this film.

So yeah, I was very surprised and pleased with this movie. Also, the post-credits scene hints at Apocalypse, which I've been waiting for a long time to see in an X-Men film already. So it's about time. I'll be interested to see the Avengers version of Quicksilver too, but knowing that Aaron-Taylor Johnson (a.k.a. the main character from Kick-Ass) will be playing him originally excited me, yet after seeing how bland he was in Godzilla (which I honestly thought was, otherwise, a very good movie) I'm not sure I'm really looking forward to it much anymore.

The one other shitty thing is that Channing Tatum is announced to be playing Gambit in the next X-Men film. This sucks. Gambit is my favourite X-Men character and he's supposed to be all sleek and suave and French and charming, not...fucking Channing Tatum. >:[ Even the guy who played him crappily in X-Men Origins: Wolverine would've been preferable.

EDIT: Oh, a couple other thoughts I forgot to put down. I forgot to mention that Blink's portrayal in the film was awesome and one of the most exciting powers to see in action. It was like seeing the portal gun from Portal being put to use with X-Men powers. The second thing was that while the film had some wonderful CGI, it also had some exceedingly shitty CGI. Colossus, Sunspot and Iceman in particular. When Colossus goes all metal he looks like the T-1000's liquidy state, looking like he was probably rendered in the same era as well. Sunspot and Iceman's forms (all flamey and all icy, respectively) look like they're from a video game. It's really weird.

The only other thing I was really disappointed with was the Sentinels, which look so modernized and overly sleek. I was hoping for at least a slight nod to their creepy, unsettling origins design-wise. Peter Dinklage was great as Trask, Jennifer Lawrence was okay as Raven/Mystique, and Patrick Stewart/Ian McKellan were good as Professor X/Magneto but didn't really get any chance to shine, which is unfortunate because they're fucking Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan and should be showcased in any film they're in. The bits of screentime they did get were great. I think that's about all the bases covered. All the little nods to other mutants were great, I much prefer this film's version of Toad to the older films', seeing Ink in the film was about the last mutant cameo I ever expected, and Warpath was extremely disappointing because he just seemed like a really fit, athletic guy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 25, 2014, 10:52:24 PM
tl;dr
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 26, 2014, 12:02:09 AM
I just saw it as well and pretty much agree with everything said.

I really loved Quicksilver, but I already thought Evan Peters was great. I was also disappointed with the look of the sentinels and I kinda wish the story didn't focus so much on Raven/Mystique but I can understand that she was the personification of the overall theme.

I really wish Rogue had been a bigger character, she and Nightcrawler are my favorites. Speaking of which, I want Nightcrawler back. A better one. Alan Cumming was alright but he wasn't flirty or energetic enough.

I forgot about Chatum being the next Gambit. I laughed a lot when I heard about that one.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 26, 2014, 01:45:45 AM
There are too many superhero franchises out there. >o<  I haven't seen any of these X-Men movies since the original trilogy.  Should I watch them?  I've heard they're all good except for X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 26, 2014, 01:47:11 AM
I thought the X-Men movie with young baldy and cool badass anti-hero was really good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 26, 2014, 01:48:26 AM
First Class is good and you kind of have to watch it to understand this one.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 26, 2014, 01:49:57 AM
First Class is good and you kind of have to watch it to understand this one.

Is Future Past a sequel to First Class?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 26, 2014, 01:59:12 AM
First Class is good and you kind of have to watch it to understand this one.

Is Future Past a sequel to First Class?

Yes.

There are too many superhero franchises out there. >o<  I haven't seen any of these X-Men movies since the original trilogy.  Should I watch them?  I've heard they're all good except for X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

X3 was also crap.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 26, 2014, 02:05:52 AM
There are too many superhero franchises out there. >o<  I haven't seen any of these X-Men movies since the original trilogy.  Should I watch them?  I've heard they're all good except for X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

X3 was also crap.

Yes, it was.  I had been referring to the movies since the original trilogy, because I've already seen them.  I probably should have made that a bit more clear, though.

Also, who owns the rights to Quicksilver?  I don't understand how two rival studios can be waving around the same character like this.  Surely one of them should be suing the other by now?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 26, 2014, 02:12:29 AM
Probably because he's not quite as big as the other heroes.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 26, 2014, 02:13:29 AM
Here's an explanation, actually:

http://www.thegeektwins.com/2014/04/why-is-quicksilver-in-two-movies-x-men.html

I guess it makes sense.  Sort of.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 26, 2014, 02:53:38 AM
I really wish Rogue had been a bigger character, she and Nightcrawler are my favorites. Speaking of which, I want Nightcrawler back. A better one. Alan Cumming was alright but he wasn't flirty or energetic enough.

Ffff definitely. I love Nightcrawler. ;o; I was sad because when Wolverine first said he knew someone who could break into the Pentagon unnoticed, my immediate first thought was actually Nightcrawler. :[


There are too many superhero franchises out there. >o<  I haven't seen any of these X-Men movies since the original trilogy.  Should I watch them?  I've heard they're all good except for X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Yes. This is the best of the bunch, though. But you definitely want to see all of them to understand it.


Is Future Past a sequel to First Class?

It's a sequel to every X-Men movie made up to this point, pretty much. But more narrowly, it's basically a sequel to X-Men: First Class and X3: The Last Stand at the same time. It deals with both the past and present and alternate timelines. It's great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 26, 2014, 03:06:15 AM
I thought they meant Nightcrawler too! But then I realized it couldn't possibly be him considering his origins.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 26, 2014, 10:25:07 PM
X-Men was not so good. They tried to pack too much into one story and did not concentrate on Phoenix like it appeared they would.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 27, 2014, 02:42:36 AM
Sony needs to sell the Spider-Man film rights back to Marvel.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 27, 2014, 02:48:08 AM
Saddam, you're becoming really good at being the first person on the Internet to say things.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 27, 2014, 04:38:35 AM
Sony needs to sell the Spider-Man film rights back to Marvel.

Fucking hell, you have no idea how much I agree with this, regardless of Vindictusnark. Marvel has such an amazing universe and continuity going that, as far as I can think of, has never really been quite done before in film, at least not in such a huge way. I'm just so eternally crushed that Spider-Man won't be in the Avengers like he should; can you imagine Joss Whedon writing Spidey's wit and jabs alongside Iron Man like he should be doing? And if they got the X-Men rights again...fuck, this pisses me off even more because in the comics Spider-Man and Wolverine are so Goddamn amazing together, they're a historical comic book duo. But we won't see them on-screen together because stupid idiotic studios I hate them so much
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 27, 2014, 08:29:54 AM
Spiderman would be another token Joss Whedon character, just like every other hero. Except it suits Spiderman more than it suits Thor.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 27, 2014, 08:28:24 PM
Snupes, you're the Marvel expert.  Tell me, have the Fantastic Four ever not sucked?  I ask because all I know about them is that they had three terrible movies and now there's a reboot coming out.  Go away superhero franchises.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 27, 2014, 08:30:38 PM
Hasn't every superhero sucked at one stage of their comic book lives?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 27, 2014, 08:43:20 PM
Sure, but I'm wondering what it is specifically about the Fantastic Four that keeps tripping filmmakers up.  Same with the Punisher.  Three attempts, all of them duds.  What gives?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 27, 2014, 08:49:58 PM
Bad directors/writers. e.g. Batman & Robin, Man of Steel.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on May 27, 2014, 09:26:45 PM
I watched Fargo yesterday at the recommendation of a family member after I told him I was going to school in Minnesota. I don't know why I haven't watched it before; it was phenomenal.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: The Terror on May 27, 2014, 09:28:02 PM
Film or TV series?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on May 27, 2014, 09:32:29 PM
film. I will probably end up watching the show at some point.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on May 27, 2014, 09:32:33 PM
Sure, but I'm wondering what it is specifically about the Fantastic Four that keeps tripping filmmakers up.  Same with the Punisher.  Three attempts, all of them duds.  What gives?

Y'see I prefer the Punisher films to the Spidey shite we get crammed down our throats every 6 months.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on May 27, 2014, 10:09:01 PM
I went to see Locke on the weekend, a fantastic little film starring Tom Hardy and Olivia Coleman.

The film is watching a man's life fall apart through a series of phone calls as he drives to London to be there for a birth of a child he didn't want or mean to happen. very real, very painful and also funny in times as he tries to manage a multi-million pound construction project through his inept assistant.

It's not big on action, there's no great plot twists or eye-popping special effects - if anything, it's most similar to 12 angry men and has a similar sense of claustrophobia and stress.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 27, 2014, 10:32:21 PM
The way you describe it reminds me of Buried, with Ryan Reynolds. The entire thing takes place in a coffin/box underground and is incredibly claustrophobic. I wonder if there are more films like it, 'cause I (really uncomfortably) enjoyed that experience.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 28, 2014, 04:13:23 AM
But I already answered you, Saddam.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 28, 2014, 06:44:39 AM
I watched Fargo yesterday at the recommendation of a family member after I told him I was going to school in Minnesota. I don't know why I haven't watched it before; it was phenomenal.

If you liked that, I recommend Blood Simple, Barton Fink, The Man Who Wasn't There and A Serious Man by the same directors.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on May 28, 2014, 06:38:06 PM
The way you describe it reminds me of Buried, with Ryan Reynolds. The entire thing takes place in a coffin/box underground and is incredibly claustrophobic. I wonder if there are more films like it, 'cause I (really uncomfortably) enjoyed that experience.

I haven't seen Buried, but the premise is similar.

Locke is more like people-watching. The audience is simply eavesdropping on an ordinary man having an ordinary, but devastating series of phone calls. It's Tom Hardy's subtle acting which makes it, he may be becoming one of my favourite actors.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 28, 2014, 06:46:30 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/8pz7pko.jpg)\

Pom Poko. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pom_Poko)
Great Ghibli movie about a bunch of Japanese Raccoon Dogs trying to save their forest. It is pro-environment but it's not pushy, and it's hilarious. Explains a good deal about Japanese mythology, specifically the tanuki. Probably my favorite Studio Ghibli movie, perhaps tied with Princess Mononoke.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on May 29, 2014, 03:54:05 AM
I watched Fargo yesterday at the recommendation of a family member after I told him I was going to school in Minnesota. I don't know why I haven't watched it before; it was phenomenal.

If you liked that, I recommend Blood Simple, Barton Fink, The Man Who Wasn't There and A Serious Man by the same directors.

Barton Fink is great. I have seen a few other Coen brothers films. Which of these do you recommend most urgently?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on May 29, 2014, 07:23:51 PM
Quote
Great Ghibli movie about a bunch of Japanese Raccoon Dogs trying to save their forest. It is pro-environment but it's not pushy, and it's hilarious. Explains a good deal about Japanese mythology, specifically the tanuki. Probably my favorite Studio Ghibli movie, perhaps tied with Princess Mononoke.

So... it's a Japanese Animals of Farthing Wood?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on May 29, 2014, 10:01:39 PM
(http://i58.tinypic.com/euk8y1.jpg)

About as unfunny as the first. Contains maybe 4 laughs. Will Ferrell isn't really that good. This needs to stop.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 30, 2014, 02:20:25 AM
In a shocking twist, I have watched something non-superhero related; namely, the two Hobbit movies.  I quite liked the first one.  Padded at times, yes, and we could have done without those scenes with Radagast, but still enjoyable.  As everyone in the world has already pointed out, they didn't feel the need to be all broody mcbroodwalking, and the movie was stronger for it.  Like the way they kept to the silly tone of the scenes with the trolls and the Great Goblin, and didn't just depict them as monsters incapable of normal speech.  That was a pleasant surprise.

The second one, though, was not so good.  My biggest issue with it was all the LotR shit they shoved in, especially with Gandalf at Dol Guldur.  I watched this movie because I wanted to see The Hobbit.  I didn't watch it because I wanted to see LotR Episode One: The Phantom MenaceThe Hobbit is its own story.  It's not a "prequel" to LotR, and giving it that treatment not only distracts from the main story, but weakens the film overall by rehashing elements that were so ubiquitous in LotR.  It was fanfiction, and not even good fanfiction.  Jackson was so preoccupied with whether or not he could show us these scenes that he didn't stop to think if he should.

There were a few other things I didn't like about the movie, although nothing quite so major.  Legolas's technically-flawless, pitch-perfect combat prowess is fun to watch at first, just like in LotR, but starts to get annoying as your suspension of disbelief slowly fades and you realize you're watching someone's Mary Sue self-insertion fantasy - again, just like in LotR.  The overly-long climax with Smaug wore itself out after a while, too, and the dwarves' constantly whipping elaborate traps and escape methods out of their asses was a bit too much of a stretch - uh, no pun intended.  One thing that I honestly didn't mind too much was the love triangle subplot.  It wasn't fantastic or anything, but for whatever reason, it just didn't bother me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 30, 2014, 03:31:20 AM
You're just hoping for a dwarf sex scene. Admit it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on May 30, 2014, 04:10:00 AM
I agree with Saddam about the second Hobbit movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 30, 2014, 05:30:36 AM
The barrel axe spin scene made me chortle. Well, everything Bombur did made me chortle. In both films.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 30, 2014, 06:54:36 AM
Gandalf actually went to Dol Guldur though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 30, 2014, 08:04:39 AM
The barrel scene was the best part of the second movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 30, 2014, 08:25:44 AM
Yeah, I quite liked the barrel scene. First time I saw it I actually laughed.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: The Terror on May 30, 2014, 09:19:06 AM
Terminator Legolas needs moar screen time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 30, 2014, 10:17:13 AM
Gandalf actually went to Dol Guldur though.

Yeah but, unless I'm mistaken, you don't read about it in the book aside from some sort of aside where Gandalf mentions where he went vaguely.

Snupes, you're the Marvel expert.  Tell me, have the Fantastic Four ever not sucked?  I ask because all I know about them is that they had three terrible movies and now there's a reboot coming out.  Go away superhero franchises.

They're one of the cheesiest superhero franchises and have proven difficult to seriousify really well. I think they could potentially make a good film, they just need someone who isn't terrible making it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 30, 2014, 03:58:33 PM
I think they should stop with this "gritty realism" bullshit and make a superhero movie. Be cheesy, over the top, camp, whatever, you're making movies about dudes in full body spandex with magical powers, embrace it or go and do something else.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 30, 2014, 04:36:59 PM
Gandalf actually went to Dol Guldur though.

Yes, but the timing is a little off - he went there before the events of The Hobbit, not during them, and I don't like how it was portrayed.  Maybe this is just my own personal interpretation of the story, but I always imagined it as being a quiet, dark, and sad scene in which Gandalf finds Thrain, realizes that he can't save him, but promises to pass on the key and map to Thorin and help him retake Erebor.  Everyone sniffles and we have an Oscar clip, etc.  What Jackson did, being all BOOM ACTION FLASHING LIGHTS SO EPIC just seems all wrong.

Snupes, you're the Marvel expert.  Tell me, have the Fantastic Four ever not sucked?  I ask because all I know about them is that they had three terrible movies and now there's a reboot coming out.  Go away superhero franchises.

They're one of the cheesiest superhero franchises and have proven difficult to seriousify really well. I think they could potentially make a good film, they just need someone who isn't terrible making it.

How about the guy who directed Chronicle?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 30, 2014, 05:15:21 PM
Finally, I'm not the only one who liked the first Hobbit more than the second.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 30, 2014, 05:43:40 PM
Finally, I'm not the only one who liked the first Hobbit more than the second.

However, you remain the only one who doesn't like superhero movies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on May 30, 2014, 05:45:39 PM
Finally, I'm not the only one who liked the first Hobbit more than the second.

However, you remain the only one who doesn't like superhero movies.

Nah.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 30, 2014, 05:47:48 PM
You hate everything, balkno.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 30, 2014, 05:50:37 PM
Superhero movies aren't deep, complex and intellectually challenging enough for the mature viewers such as balkno.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 30, 2014, 06:24:11 PM
I think they should stop with this "gritty realism" bullshit and make a superhero movie. Be cheesy, over the top, camp, whatever, you're making movies about dudes in full body spandex with magical powers, embrace it or go and do something else.
The Avenger movies are the type of cheese you're looking for.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 30, 2014, 10:42:31 PM
X-men was alright, I don't think it's worth the reviews people have been giving it. It was really weird when Eric decided randomly to kill Mystique after believing Wolverine's 100% true story about time travel. Bunch of other issues that come up because of time travel, but that's expected. It wasn't a dumb movie, but it helped if you just turn your brain off and watch. The Quicksilver scene was probably one of the best parts of the movie.

Also, has anyone stayed for the after credits sequence? Because I couldn't be bothered.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 30, 2014, 10:58:39 PM
X-men was alright, I don't think it's worth the reviews people have been giving it. It was really weird when Eric decided randomly to kill Mystique after believing Wolverine's 100% true story about time travel. Bunch of other issues that come up because of time travel, but that's expected. It wasn't a dumb movie, but it helped if you just turn your brain off and watch. The Quicksilver scene was probably one of the best parts of the movie.

Also, has anyone stayed for the after credits sequence? Because I couldn't be bothered.
Yeah, it's just a snippet of the villain from next movie which the title gives away. You can find it on youtube if you care.

I believed Eric's choice. He may like Mystique but he's way more concerned about the well-being of mutants, it would be worth it to kill her with what he knew of her involvement.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 31, 2014, 12:31:40 AM
His decision to kill her wasn't that crazy, it was that he instantly believes Wolverines story. They gave screen time to convincing charles, and even that was too little I felt.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 31, 2014, 12:34:31 AM
Well in the mutant world I'm sure time travel wouldn't be as unbelievable as it is to us. Once Charles's powers came back then they would be all in. Plus, Logan wanted Charles to read his mind to see he was telling the truth before he knew his powers weren't working which seems like a good indication of honesty.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 31, 2014, 12:39:14 AM
I think they should stop with this "gritty realism" bullshit and make a superhero movie. Be cheesy, over the top, camp, whatever, you're making movies about dudes in full body spandex with magical powers, embrace it or go and do something else.

Absolutely agree. This is why I liked Captain America: The First Avenger and, really, the Marvel universe in general.


How about the guy who directed Chronicle?

Oh, hm, maybe. He strikes me as way too gritty for The Fantastic Four (one guy is a genius whose superpower is stretching, for Christ's sake), but I don't know of any of his other work. He's very talented, at least, and I'd trust him more than most people.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 31, 2014, 04:35:00 AM
Being dark and gritty can work.  Nolan did it well with the Dark Knight trilogy, and of course I did it even better with my eternally-unfinished magnum opus The Sequel, although that didn't really have any superheroes...no, scratch that, it totally did.  Anyway, it's more of a risk, and it's a lot easier to make fun of when it goes terribly wrong, but I don't think it's right to be saying that superheroes should be silly as a rule.  Even Man of Steel could have worked, perhaps if it had narrowed its scope a bit and focused on telling an origin story, taking its time with relatable situations and naturalistic character development, rather than quickly bolting through all that so we could see an hour's worth of mindless carnage and hilarious product placement.  Bleh.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 31, 2014, 08:22:18 AM
"Could work", yeah, but I have a feeling The Fantastic Four would be impossibly difficult to make effectively "dark and gritty". I guess we'll see.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 31, 2014, 05:22:02 PM
Being dark and gritty can work.  Nolan did it well with the Dark Knight trilogy, and of course I did it even better with my eternally-unfinished magnum opus The Sequel, although that didn't really have any superheroes...no, scratch that, it totally did.  Anyway, it's more of a risk, and it's a lot easier to make fun of when it goes terribly wrong, but I don't think it's right to be saying that superheroes should be silly as a rule.  Even Man of Steel could have worked, perhaps if it had narrowed its scope a bit and focused on telling an origin story, taking its time with relatable situations and naturalistic character development, rather than quickly bolting through all that so we could see an hour's worth of mindless carnage and hilarious product placement.  Bleh.

Batman works in that mode, though I don't think Nolan's trilogy is a masterpiece by any stretch, they are quite baggy and often pretentious. I for one would like to see a return to the noir style of Batman: The Animated Series, it's dark and moody but it also allows for a more heavily stylised approach. This is why I think Tim Burton's attempts are the best so far, they tread the fine lines between serious and dull, style and camp very well, and they genuinely feel like comic book movies rather than high concept action flicks.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 01, 2014, 03:24:17 AM
http://screenrant.com/thanos-josh-brolin-marvel/

What a strange choice.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 01, 2014, 05:59:04 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/WlrJTL1.gif)

Josh Brolin
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on June 01, 2014, 06:00:38 AM
Er, he definitely looks the part. Especially with some makeup. Does it matter though? Thanos isn't going to be part of the next Avengers is he?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 01, 2014, 12:58:53 PM
The same article says he will.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on June 01, 2014, 01:21:53 PM
Likely only in a teaser unless they want to make an awful movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on June 01, 2014, 01:55:24 PM
I can absolutely see Josh Brolin as Thanos. I think that's a great choice. I wonder, will he just be doing the voice, since we've already seen Thanos? Because either way...he's got the perfect face shape for Thanos, and I think with some post-production modification his voice would be perfect as well. I'm actually really pleased with this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: The Terror on June 01, 2014, 03:28:16 PM
Penny Dreadful.

Billie Piper can't do an Irish accent very well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 01, 2014, 07:08:59 PM
Penny Dreadful.

Billie Piper can't do an Irish accent very well.

Does she play a call girl in that too?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: The Terror on June 01, 2014, 08:21:01 PM
I think so. It was difficult to decipher anything she said but she did have sex with a rich guy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 02, 2014, 01:42:35 AM
Why am I not surprised?


Anyways, I just got back from seeing the new X-Men movie. It was entertaining. They really fucked up with the Sentinels though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 02, 2014, 02:18:22 PM
This is why I think Tim Burton's attempts are the best so far, they tread the fine lines between serious and dull, style and camp very well, and they genuinely feel like comic book movies rather than high concept action flicks.

Style over substance! >o<  Even though I'm not a comic book fan by any means, I can't forgive the first movie for stomping roughshod all over Batman lore.  You've got Batman nonchalantly and deliberately slaughtering people, Alfred letting visitors in to the Batcave, the Joker having a very detailed origin story that strips away all mystery from the character, not to mention including the fact that now he's the one who killed Batman's parents.  Bleh, I say.  Bleh.  And the second movie was just shit.  I don't know why it seems to be so adored by critics and fans.  It's more like a parody of superhero films than a superhero film itself.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on June 02, 2014, 03:16:46 PM
Also, no Red Hood.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 04, 2014, 02:47:49 PM
I watched X-Men Origins - Wolverine.  It sucked.  Also, while I'll reiterate that I'm no comic book fan, I'm pretty damn sure that Deadpool isn't even remotely similar to how he was depicted in this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on June 04, 2014, 03:24:53 PM
He's not. That was the biggest failure in that movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 04, 2014, 09:24:20 PM
Uh, are there supposed to be subtitles for the foreign dialogue in X-Men: First Class?  I thought I might just not be seeing them because I'm streaming it, but I've looked this up, and apparently a few other people have had the same issue.  Was this movie intended for polyglots?

That annoying little detail aside, it was a good movie.  I'm glad that they took the risk of not making it be all about Wolverine again, although his brief cameo was hilarious.  That being said, I must say that the movie came across as kind of sexist.  More so than the other films in the series, I mean.  The women do hardly any fighting, most of them go bad by the end, and they seem to spend a lot of time in their underwear.  And the penultimate scene with MacTaggart reinforcing her superiors' image of her being a dumb lovesick little girl didn't really help things either.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on June 04, 2014, 09:32:07 PM
There were no foreign subtitles in the one I downloaded.
I didn't like it very much, and I hated the way they made Charles and Mystique to be childhood friends. It's also strange how Erik and Charles part ways so early even though they're still working together in the early 90's in the third film when they visit Jean Grey, both of them aged and Charles still being able to walk.

PLOTHOLES
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 04, 2014, 10:03:35 PM
It's also strange how Erik and Charles part ways so early even though they're still working together in the early 90's in the third film when they visit Jean Grey, both of them aged and Charles still being able to walk.

They have an on again-off again kind of relationship.

And yes Saddam, the 60s were a sexist time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 04, 2014, 11:03:22 PM
Simply portraying sexism is one thing, but portraying it and reinforcing it within the context of the movie is another.  That's the big issue with that scene - the men are apparently justified in writing her off as a silly girl who's just sighing about some guy, because that's exactly what she's presenting herself as.  There's no reason why she couldn't have handled her memory wipe with some dignity or professionalism, or even why she really needed to have her memory wiped at all.  Didn't Xavier trust her to keep his secrets?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 05, 2014, 12:07:16 AM
Simply portraying sexism is one thing, but portraying it and reinforcing it within the context of the movie is another.  That's the big issue with that scene - the men are apparently justified in writing her off as a silly girl who's just sighing about some guy, because that's exactly what she's presenting herself as.  There's no reason why she couldn't have handled her memory wipe with some dignity or professionalism, or even why she really needed to have her memory wiped at all.  Didn't Xavier trust her to keep his secrets?
Are you saying it's sexist to be a silly girl sighing about a man?

Not all women have to be dignified or professional.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on June 05, 2014, 12:32:06 AM
Not all women have to be dignified or professional.

But it helps.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on June 05, 2014, 04:54:56 AM
It's also strange how Erik and Charles part ways so early even though they're still working together in the early 90's in the third film when they visit Jean Grey, both of them aged and Charles still being able to walk.

They have an on again-off again kind of relationship.
Is this established int the new movie? And how is Charles able to walk in that scene? Is he wearing metal underwear that are controlled by Magneto?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on June 05, 2014, 05:02:01 AM
Hank is giving him a plot serum™ that allows him to walk while conveniently preventing the use of his powers.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 05, 2014, 01:40:42 PM
Simply portraying sexism is one thing, but portraying it and reinforcing it within the context of the movie is another.  That's the big issue with that scene - the men are apparently justified in writing her off as a silly girl who's just sighing about some guy, because that's exactly what she's presenting herself as.  There's no reason why she couldn't have handled her memory wipe with some dignity or professionalism, or even why she really needed to have her memory wiped at all.  Didn't Xavier trust her to keep his secrets?
Are you saying it's sexist to be a silly girl sighing about a man?

Not all women have to be dignified or professional.

But she was a CIA agent making a report to her superiors.  It wasn't a good time to be reminiscing about being kissed!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 05, 2014, 02:46:48 PM
Were there even women agents in the CIA in the 60s? Maybe she ruined it. All the men were like, "see, this is why we can't have women here."
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 06, 2014, 04:38:45 AM
NO U

Also:

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/06/03/doctor-strange-director-marvel-scott-derrickson/

I don't know anything about this Doctor Strange fellow.  Is this a good thing, comic book nerds?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on June 06, 2014, 10:29:27 AM
Ick...that's an awesome thing, but I'm not fond of their directorial choice.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on June 06, 2014, 11:37:16 AM
NO U

Also:

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/06/03/doctor-strange-director-marvel-scott-derrickson/

I don't know anything about this Doctor Strange fellow.  Is this a good thing, comic book nerds?

Awesome character. Don't know the director's work but the genre they are going for is obvious.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 06, 2014, 09:58:29 PM
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/scott_derrickson/

It doesn't seem like he has a lot to his name, and what he does have doesn't look too great.

And now I have watched The Wolverine.  Again, I'd have liked some subtitles for the scenes in which people spoke Japanese, but still, it was quite good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 06, 2014, 10:01:08 PM
And now I have watched The Wolverine.  Again, I'd have liked some subtitles for the scenes in which people spoke Japanese, but still, it was quite good.
Really? That's the only one I haven't seen just because the previews made it look so cheesy. Maybe just because I don't think the Canuck looks like he belongs with a bunch of katana-wielding Japanese.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on June 06, 2014, 10:11:25 PM
NO U

Also:

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/06/03/doctor-strange-director-marvel-scott-derrickson/

I don't know anything about this Doctor Strange fellow.  Is this a good thing, comic book nerds?

Christ they'll be doing that guy that shoots clock hands out of his arms next.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on June 06, 2014, 10:27:35 PM
Melancholia (Lars von Trier)

This was only my second viewing and I loved it a lot more than the first. Very few films have affected me emotionally the way this film has. It is an experience that I highly recommend, though obviously it's not a film for most people.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 06, 2014, 10:50:27 PM
NO U

Also:

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/06/03/doctor-strange-director-marvel-scott-derrickson/

I don't know anything about this Doctor Strange fellow.  Is this a good thing, comic book nerds?

All my knowledge of him comes from Marvel vs Capcom 3. Apparently his main nemesis is Dormammu, and also Shuma Gorath. Both of which are from someplace called the Dark Dimension, which is pretty much the Marvel equivalent of Hell. Doctor Strange has an interesting backstory, and the whole Dark Dimension is a cool idea as well. The movie will probably translate terribly and be a disaster; shitting on lore and making stuff up, like most Marvel films. This will be doubly true if Johnny Depp is cast to play Doctor Strange.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 07, 2014, 05:33:34 PM
And now I have watched The Wolverine.  Again, I'd have liked some subtitles for the scenes in which people spoke Japanese, but still, it was quite good.
Really? That's the only one I haven't seen just because the previews made it look so cheesy. Maybe just because I don't think the Canuck looks like he belongs with a bunch of katana-wielding Japanese.

It wasn't really cheesy as far as superhero movies go, with the exception of a giant robot that appears in the last act and really feels out of place.  As for the Japanese setting, I think they handled that fairly well.  They don't go down the ridiculous "going native"/white savior road à la The Last Samurai, at least.  Oh, and the female characters actually did things and added to the story rather than just sitting around in their underwear.

/Tumblr
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 07, 2014, 05:38:18 PM
I like going native movies, I thought The Last Samurai was a good one. They didn't refer to Tom Cruise as the last samurai so that's a plus.

But adding a dash of Japanese flavor to a sci-fi movie just seems like a cheap formula. But I guess I'll watch it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 07, 2014, 05:43:58 PM
I love The Last Samurai.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 07, 2014, 06:50:05 PM
I like going native movies, I thought The Last Samurai was a good one. They didn't refer to Tom Cruise as the last samurai so that's a plus.

But adding a dash of Japanese flavor to a sci-fi movie just seems like a cheap formula. But I guess I'll watch it.

I love The Last Samurai.

How very subliminally racist of you.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 07, 2014, 08:29:47 PM
Wolverine fighting generic samurai/ninja characters and then a samurai robot seems more racist than Tom Cruise slowly being enculturated.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 07, 2014, 08:53:59 PM
Wolverine fighting generic samurai/ninja characters and then a samurai robot seems more racist than Tom Cruise slowly being enculturated.

How are depictions of samurai racist exactly? I don't see your point.

Samurai are a huge part of Japanese history.

I haven't seen the movie, so I might not know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on June 07, 2014, 09:16:13 PM
I saw Edge of Tomorrow on Friday. It was pretty damn good. The only things I didn't like was that they watered down Tom Cruise and Blunt's overpowered characters, and changed some of the details of the mimics from the book. Otherwise, the action was great and didn't get repetitive. Surprisingly, there was a lot of humour and it worked to help ease the more boring parts of the movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 07, 2014, 09:20:20 PM
Because it's taking one aspect of their culture/history and using it as a stereotype.

I'm just speaking broadly not about The Wolverine specifically as I haven't seen it yet either.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 07, 2014, 09:25:22 PM
Because it's taking one aspect of their culture/history and using it as a stereotype.

I'm just speaking broadly not about The Wolverine specifically as I haven't seen it yet either.

So any movie covering any period between the Heian period and the Meji Era is racist now?  ???


Does this apply to other things? Are all movies about basket ball racist because of blacks?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 07, 2014, 09:45:53 PM
Because it's taking one aspect of their culture/history and using it as a stereotype.

I'm just speaking broadly not about The Wolverine specifically as I haven't seen it yet either.

So any movie covering any period between the Heian period and the Meji Era is racist now?  ???

Does this apply to other things? Are all movies about basket ball racist because of blacks?
That's clearly not what I'm saying otherwise I would think The Last Samurai is racist. It's more like if every black person in every movie were a basketball player. Or if every American Indian in every movie were some kind of spirit healer.

But I'm not getting into another argument with you. You refuse to read context.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 07, 2014, 09:59:19 PM
Because it's taking one aspect of their culture/history and using it as a stereotype.

I'm just speaking broadly not about The Wolverine specifically as I haven't seen it yet either.

So any movie covering any period between the Heian period and the Meji Era is racist now?  ???

Does this apply to other things? Are all movies about basket ball racist because of blacks?
That's clearly not what I'm saying otherwise I would think The Last Samurai is racist. It's more like if every black person in every movie were a basketball player. Or if every American Indian in every movie were some kind of spirit healer.

But I'm not getting into another argument with you. You refuse to read context.

I'm not ignoring context. I just don't understand how a depiction of samurai equals racism.

Am I missing something? Honest question. You haven't really explained your point. Are you trolling?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 07, 2014, 10:06:56 PM
At the heart of every FES argument is rooster.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 07, 2014, 10:16:51 PM
When there are Japanese in a sci-fi/action movie they are usually either samurai, ninja, or experts in karate.
When Native Americans are in sci-fi they are usually related to some kind of spirit monster or old legend.

This is taking an aspect of their history and making it all they are ever associated with. It is a stereotype. Historically accurate films depicting time periods are not relevant to this point.

At the heart of every FES argument is rooster.
Then this place would be so boring without me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 07, 2014, 10:28:46 PM
I don't think every Japanese person in the film was a samurai/ninja/or martial arts expert. Your point is irrelevant. Samurai are something that Japan is known for. It makes sense to incorporate these elements into a movie that's set in Japan. Would you rather they portray Japan as America instead?

If what you're saying is correct then it is a two way street. Americans are usually portrayed as dumbass, arrogant, gun-slinging assholes. Chinese are usually portrayed as martial arts experts. Indian people are usually portrayed as Vishnu worshiping convenient store workers. Europeans are usually portrayed as pompous dandies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on June 07, 2014, 10:35:06 PM
I think every single japanese character in The Wolverine were some kind of martial artist, well maybe except the ladies who cleaned him up, but who knows?.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 07, 2014, 10:38:18 PM
Samurai are something that Japan is known for. It makes sense to incorporate these elements into a movie that's set in Japan. Would you rather they portray Japan as America instead?
wow

Quote
If what you're saying is correct then it is a two way street. Americans are usually portrayed as dumbass, arrogant, gun-slinging assholes. Chinese are usually portrayed as martial arts experts. Indian people are usually portrayed as Vishnu worshiping convenient store workers. Europeans are usually portrayed as pompous dandies.
Exactly and they are stereotypes.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on June 08, 2014, 02:39:12 AM
At the heart of every FES argument is rooster.

Without her it'd be one giant circle jerk.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 08, 2014, 04:07:44 AM
Aww you guys. :3
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 08, 2014, 04:22:56 AM
You aren't too bad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 08, 2014, 05:22:34 AM
Anyway, Wolverine doesn't spend the entire movie fighting stereotypical ninja warriors.  There is a gang of them in the movie, and it is pretty silly, but they aren't really in it for all that long.  They show up a couple of times during the third act and then mysteriously just kind of go away to leave Wolverine and his ladies to fight the main couple of villains.  Most of the people that Wolverine fights during the buildup are pretty generic thugs that are a part of some Yakuza subplot.

Also, I maintain that The Last Samurai is, well, maybe "racist" is a bit too strong a word, but it's racially problematic, at the very least.  It's like Hollywood thinks that no one will be interested in seeing any kind of strange or foreign culture unless we have a white male lead to see us through it.  I understand that the fish-out-of-water setup is a tried-and-true formula, and that audiences usually want a relatable protagonist, but even if we let that slide, there's still the unpleasant theme of dominance pervading the whole thing.  It can't just be a simple character study of our hero, a learning experience for him to return to his own life a little wiser from; no, he always masters the culture.  He always becomes better than everyone else in the tribe at every aspect of their lifestyles, and emerges as their savior and/or leader.  They couldn't do a thing for themselves.  No, only this benevolent white messiah could set them free.

Still, I must admit that as far as patronizing white savior movies go, The Last Samurai isn't too bad.  The worst of those films tend to be the ones that don't involve the hero going native, but instead rescuing the helpless people of color from bad situations or lifestyles, like The Blind Side or The HelpThe Blind Side in particular...ugh.  That piece of shit is more racist than The Birth of a Nation.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 08, 2014, 06:04:18 AM
Also, I maintain that The Last Samurai is, well, maybe "racist" is a bit too strong a word, but it's racially problematic, at the very least.  It's like Hollywood thinks that no one will be interested in seeing any kind of strange or foreign culture, unless we have a white male lead to see us through it.  I understand that the fish-out-of-water setup is a tried-and-true formula, and that audiences usually want a relatable protagonist, but even if we let that slide, there's still the unpleasant theme of dominance pervading the whole thing.  It can't just be a simple character study of our hero, a learning experience for him to return to his own life a little wiser from; no, he always masters the culture.  He always becomes better than everyone else in the tribe at every aspect of their lifestyles, and emerges as their savior and/or leader.  They couldn't do a thing for themselves.  No, only this benevolent white messiah could set them free.

Still, I must admit that as far as patronizing white savior movies go, The Last Samurai isn't too bad.  The worst of those films tend to be the ones that don't involve the hero going native, but instead rescuing the helpless people of color from bad situations or lifestyles, like The Blind Side or The HelpThe Blind Side in particular...ugh.  That piece of shit is more racist than The Birth of a Nation.
Yes, and I will agree with that. Whites saving people from others or from themselves is a huge theme. When I had my ridiculous "Native Americans in Sci-Fi" class (taught by an archaeologist of course) that was one of the big themes. Whitey would come in and instantly be accepted into the tribe and he would save the day. The Last Samurai isn't as terrible as that since he doesn't actually save anyone, but nonetheless it does follow the formula. I remember the best show we watched that kicked that theme to the curb was an episode of Star Trek TNG, Jounrey's End. It was a dispute between some human American Indians and Cardassians and in the end the Traveler said "have faith in their abilities to solve their problems on their own." There were still a lot of stupid stereotypical elements though, but I did like that line. Unfortunately, the dumb theme continues.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 10, 2014, 03:39:00 AM
I've watched the first few episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.  Honestly, it's not as terrible as you might have heard, it's just, well, not great.  It's hokey, it's clichéd, and at times it comes across a little fanficcy, like when they make pointless references to elements from the movies.  It's as if they're saying to the audience, "Remember, this is being made by - sort of - the same people who made the movies, so it must great by association!"  Like I said, though, it's not bad, and I've heard it actually becomes quite good later on in the season.  So, if you're a big fan of the movies and want to see more of the universe or whatever, you might want to check it out.  Just don't be expecting something that delivers on the level of the movies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on June 10, 2014, 09:28:56 PM
Jack Reacher.

I only watched it out of spite because they (The Conspiracy) kept taking it down off Usenet. Pretty mediocre film. I have no idea why Werner Herzog was in it. Google complete agrees with me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on June 11, 2014, 01:41:45 AM
I've watched the first few episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.  Honestly, it's not as terrible as you might have heard, it's just, well, not great.  It's hokey, it's clichéd, and at times it comes across a little fanficcy, like when they make pointless references to elements from the movies.  It's as if they're saying to the audience, "Remember, this is being made by - sort of - the same people who made the movies, so it must great by association!"  Like I said, though, it's not bad, and I've heard it actually becomes quite good later on in the season.  So, if you're a big fan of the movies and want to see more of the universe or whatever, you might want to check it out.  Just don't be expecting something that delivers on the level of the movies.

A TV show budget can't deliver an experience on the same level as an action movie budget?  How surprising.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 13, 2014, 03:13:30 AM
Holy shit, Sif is in this show.

(http://i.imgur.com/sKCoP55.jpg?1?2561)

That joke was just for Blanko.  But seriously, she does guest star in one episode.  I guess if you're going to go fanficcy, you might as well get someone from the movies to show up and give things an air of authenticity.  It certainly beats having a bunch of mundane agents just sitting around and talking wistfully about how awesome the Asgardians are and how hot Thor is.  And Jaimie Alexander is at least believable as a super-powered alien/pseudo-goddess, which is more than I can say for Peter MacNicol.  Yes, I did say Peter MacNicol, and yes, it is as bad as it sounds.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on June 13, 2014, 03:19:09 AM
Only Balkno has played dark souls
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 13, 2014, 03:23:03 AM
Only Balkno and sadaam have, actually.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on June 13, 2014, 07:47:40 AM
I'm literally an expert on Dark Souls because I've been to /r/darksouls like twice.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 15, 2014, 04:24:19 AM
Anyway, as the end of the season draws near and the HYDRA element from Captain America: The Winter Soldier becomes the main focus, the quality of the show has increased considerably.  But just like with Winter Soldier, I don't like the fact that they feel the need to emphasize that this is HYDRA, not SHIELD, which has totally been infiltrated and destroyed by now, and yes, this HYDRA is indeed the same puppy-kicking, mustache-twirling group that Red Skull led back in WW2, and that's how we know they're the bad guys.  It almost entirely undercuts any political message they're trying to send about authoritarianism, or freedom being sacrificed in the name of security, or whatever.  There's just no real parallel between HYDRA and the shenanigans that our governments have been up to in recent years.  With SHIELD, there certainly is, and they might have had something good if they had just kept it at that.  But no, instead we're supposed to look at these idiots yelling "Hail Hydra!" and totally see the NSA there.  Right.

Okay, I'll talk about something that other people actually saw, X-Men: Days of Future Past.  I thought it was good, but not quite the masterpiece that all the critics seem to think it is.  For one thing, even with this whole timeline-merging thing, there are still some pretty glaring plot holes and continuity errors.  Why is Xavier alive?  When did the world turn into an apocalyptic wasteland, given that it was just fine when we last saw it in The Wolverine?  Did it take the government forty years to create the Sentinels after Trask was killed?  And didn't Trask say that the Sentinels were made out of some kind of plastic, or some other non-metal substance?  But when they're revealed, they're metal.

Also, Magneto sucked.  I don't mind that he's an antagonist - that kind of comes with the territory for him - but everything he did was so illogical, so myopic, and so objectively stupid that he was incredibly annoying to watch.  Magneto is a radical with a very different moral code to the heroes, yes.  But he's not an idiot who has no understanding of consequences.  And speaking of consequences, why does Magneto keep managing to avoid them at the end of every movie?  He hasn't faced any negative repercussions for his actions since the first film, and all jokes aside, this is something that's really beginning to frustrate me, maybe on a psychological level or something.  Would it really ruin the franchise if we could just get to see this asshole get his comeuppance every once in a while, rather than just having him exit stage left yelling "I'll get you next time!" after every movie?

Oh, and one more thing, the movie repeats the urban legend about how JFK was apparently killed with a curving bullet, and therefore, hint hint, he must have been killed by a different shot.  The way they talk about it is a very amusing take on the theory, but in reality, there was nothing unusual about the shot that killed JFK.  Not really a critique of the film itself, but it's such a common misconception that I felt I had to correct it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on June 15, 2014, 05:14:46 AM
Because of this thread I am now watching Battlestar Galactica. For some reason any time I saw commercials on SciFi channel for it, I thought it would be cheesy and never watched it.


The show is amazing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 15, 2014, 06:25:32 AM
I could never get over the cinematography/shaky cam.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on June 15, 2014, 08:25:47 AM
Okay, I'll talk about something that other people actually saw, X-Men: Days of Future Past.  I thought it was good, but not quite the masterpiece that all the critics seem to think it is.  For one thing, even with this whole timeline-merging thing, there are still some pretty glaring plot holes and continuity errors.  Why is Xavier alive?  When did the world turn into an apocalyptic wasteland, given that it was just fine when we last saw it in The Wolverine?  Did it take the government forty years to create the Sentinels after Trask was killed?  And didn't Trask say that the Sentinels were made out of some kind of plastic, or some other non-metal substance?  But when they're revealed, they're metal.

Xavier was alive at the end of The Last Stand. There was an amazingly comic-book/soap opera explanation, but he was alive. The simpler answer is that a lot of that movie was retconned in this one, because Bryan Singer didn't do that one and didn't want a lot of it to happen. The sentinels didn't come about for a while for one reason or another, or maybe they did but were locked up, who knows. And how do you know the sentinels are metal? Just because they look metal-ish?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on June 15, 2014, 12:27:34 PM
Anyway, as the end of the season draws near and the HYDRA element from Captain America: The Winter Soldier becomes the main focus, the quality of the show has increased considerably.  But just like with Winter Soldier, I don't like the fact that they feel the need to emphasize that this is HYDRA, not SHIELD, which has totally been infiltrated and destroyed by now, and yes, this HYDRA is indeed the same puppy-kicking, mustache-twirling group that Red Skull led back in WW2, and that's how we know they're the bad guys.  It almost entirely undercuts any political message they're trying to send about authoritarianism, or freedom being sacrificed in the name of security, or whatever.  There's just no real parallel between HYDRA and the shenanigans that our governments have been up to in recent years.  With SHIELD, there certainly is, and they might have had something good if they had just kept it at that.  But no, instead we're supposed to look at these idiots yelling "Hail Hydra!" and totally see the NSA there.  Right.
I watch SHIELD.

You're right that they want to separate them but shield as it existed was hydra.  Coleson has to rebuild it from the ground up because it was so full of hydra.  Go back to the roots in essence.
And they did mention the "hail hydra" as being silly.


Okay, I'll talk about something that other people actually saw, X-Men: Days of Future Past.  I thought it was good, but not quite the masterpiece that all the critics seem to think it is.  For one thing, even with this whole timeline-merging thing, there are still some pretty glaring plot holes and continuity errors.  Why is Xavier alive?  When did the world turn into an apocalyptic wasteland, given that it was just fine when we last saw it in The Wolverine?  Did it take the government forty years to create the Sentinels after Trask was killed?  And didn't Trask say that the Sentinels were made out of some kind of plastic, or some other non-metal substance?  But when they're revealed, they're metal.

Also, Magneto sucked.  I don't mind that he's an antagonist - that kind of comes with the territory for him - but everything he did was so illogical, so myopic, and so objectively stupid that he was incredibly annoying to watch.  Magneto is a radical with a very different moral code to the heroes, yes.  But he's not an idiot who has no understanding of consequences.  And speaking of consequences, why does Magneto keep managing to avoid them at the end of every movie?  He hasn't faced any negative repercussions for his actions since the first film, and all jokes aside, this is something that's really beginning to frustrate me, maybe on a psychological level or something.  Would it really ruin the franchise if we could just get to see this asshole get his comeuppance every once in a while, rather than just having him exit stage left yelling "I'll get you next time!" after every movie?

Oh, and one more thing, the movie repeats the urban legend about how JFK was apparently killed with a curving bullet, and therefore, hint hint, he must have been killed by a different shot.  The way they talk about it is a very amusing take on the theory, but in reality, there was nothing unusual about the shot that killed JFK.  Not really a critique of the film itself, but it's such a common misconception that I felt I had to correct it.
Saw that too.

Xavier has done a lot of "ha ha I'm not dead" in the comics. I think his count is 3 or 4.
Each time he just shows up and says "oh I didn't die I just made you think I did so I could go on a secret mission which I'll never talk about." Or "nope, it was a shape shifter that looked like me and I didn't bother telling you I was alive because you needed to fight without me."
And of course they introduced his brain dead twin brother who was kept on life support his entire existence.  This was done so Xavier could beam his mind into the body during one of his apparent deaths.
Yes its all comic cannon. 

As for the sentinels.  (Assuming you mean originals) why would you think they're made of metal?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 15, 2014, 05:42:01 PM
Because of this thread I am now watching Battlestar Galactica. For some reason any time I saw commercials on SciFi channel for it, I thought it would be cheesy and never watched it.


The show is amazing.

Join the club.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on June 15, 2014, 06:05:56 PM
I am now watching Battlestar Galactica. ... The show is amazing.

Incorrect.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on June 15, 2014, 06:25:25 PM
Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 15, 2014, 09:09:16 PM
About the Sentinels, it seemed to me as though Magneto was controlling them.  They started, I don't know, almost posing with him when he first showed up, flying around him in some odd formation, and then they only attacked the other mutants and completely ignored him.  Maybe I misinterpreted that scene?

I watch SHIELD.

You're right that they want to separate them but shield as it existed was hydra.  Coleson has to rebuild it from the ground up because it was so full of hydra.  Go back to the roots in essence.
And they did mention the "hail hydra" as being silly.

We are the cool kids.  That's good.  But I'm not sure what you're addressing here.  I'm not criticizing the writing as being logically inconsistent or having plot holes or anything, I just don't like the overall idea.  It's like Marvel is trying to have their cake and eat it too - they want to give us silly escapist entertainment in which the heroes fight over-the-top villains in ridiculous circumstances, but they also want to be deep and intelligent and deliver sharp social commentary.  Maybe there's a way to balance those two approaches, but if there is, I don't think they've found it yet.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 15, 2014, 09:55:45 PM
lol, you forgot the scene where he put the metal from the train tracks throughout their bodies so he could control them, you boob.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 17, 2014, 03:12:06 AM
Also:

http://comicsalliance.com/bryan-singer-sexual-assault-rape-allegations-x-men-apocalypse-fired/

dun dun dun
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on June 17, 2014, 09:21:43 AM
This is the first I've heard of any lawsuit.
And why a lawsuit and not criminal charges?  Last I checked abusing a minor was illegal.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on June 17, 2014, 09:38:11 PM
Quote
a $75,000 lawsuit

Strangely low.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on June 18, 2014, 01:52:32 PM
I am now watching Battlestar Galactica. ... The show is amazing.

Incorrect.


Incorrect.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 19, 2014, 02:53:52 AM
Here, have another trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CqymRQ1uUU
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 19, 2014, 06:09:26 AM
I watched Fargo yesterday at the recommendation of a family member after I told him I was going to school in Minnesota. I don't know why I haven't watched it before; it was phenomenal.

If you liked that, I recommend Blood Simple, Barton Fink, The Man Who Wasn't There and A Serious Man by the same directors.

Barton Fink is great. I have seen a few other Coen brothers films. Which of these do you recommend most urgently?

Missed this post thanks to the deluge of superhero crap. Probably A Serious Man and Blood Simple.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on June 19, 2014, 06:18:52 AM
I watched Fargo yesterday at the recommendation of a family member after I told him I was going to school in Minnesota. I don't know why I haven't watched it before; it was phenomenal.

If you liked that, I recommend Blood Simple, Barton Fink, The Man Who Wasn't There and A Serious Man by the same directors.

Barton Fink is great. I have seen a few other Coen brothers films. Which of these do you recommend most urgently?

Missed this post thanks to the deluge of superhero crap. Probably A Serious Man and Blood Simple.

I also agree with these two recommendations.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 19, 2014, 01:26:03 PM
The deluge of superhero crap will never end.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on June 19, 2014, 05:23:07 PM
The Diary of Anne Frank (Jon Jones)

Now my preferred adaptation of her story, this was surprisingly good. I felt this was not only a more accurate depiction of Anne and her feelings, but also much more emotional. As someone who is somewhat obsessed with Anne Frank and her story, I am very happy to have this miniseries.

Godzilla (Gareth Edwards)

While not perfect, I really enjoyed this.

House (Nobuhiko Obayashi)

Holy shit. What a strange and amazing experience.

Magnolia (Paul Thomas Anderson)

I have seen many times of course, but this is one of the best films I have ever seen.

2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)

Watched again for the first time in like 10 years, this is an incredible and mesmerizing film. Though I am sad it took me this long to watch it again, I simply couldn't have fully appreciated this film back then. I may even like it better than Eyes Wide Shut.

The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese)

I liked this overall I think, but I think I will have to watch it again. I at least like it better than a lot of Scorsese's more recent work, but I've never really been such a huge fan of his.

Wild Strawberries
(Ingmar Bergman)

One of my very favorites of all time and it never fails to make me cry. I am a huge fan of the Bergman films I have seen, but I need to see a lot more of his work. I will do that soon.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 20, 2014, 12:33:40 AM
The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese)

I liked this overall I think, but I think I will have to watch it again. I at least like it better than a lot of Scorsese's more recent work, but I've never really been such a huge fan of his.

I'm not a big Scorsese fan either, I respect his knowledge and craftsmanship and his film preservation efforts, but overall his films don't tend to work so well for me. One film of his I really love is The King of Comedy, I think you might like it too.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on June 20, 2014, 04:10:26 AM
The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese)

I liked this overall I think, but I think I will have to watch it again. I at least like it better than a lot of Scorsese's more recent work, but I've never really been such a huge fan of his.

I'm not a big Scorsese fan either, I respect his knowledge and craftsmanship and his film preservation efforts, but overall his films don't tend to work so well for me. One film of his I really love is The King of Comedy, I think you might like it too.

I will try to watch it soon.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on June 20, 2014, 04:49:43 AM
Considering two of its main characters were played by well-known comedians, that was a deeply disturbing movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on June 20, 2014, 09:42:10 AM
Quote
2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)

Watched again for the first time in like 10 years, this is an incredible and mesmerizing film. Though I am sad it took me this long to watch it again, I simply couldn't have fully appreciated this film back then. I may even like it better than Eyes Wide Shut.

I couldn't get on with 2001. Stylistically, it's wonderful, but there is so much which is simply incomprehensible unless you've read the novel. The ending is the obvious example, but HAL's breakdown isn't explored as deeply as I'd have liked.

Also, watching a man's face being lit with different colours for fifteen minutes does not an exciting scene make unless you're high.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on June 20, 2014, 04:37:03 PM
I watched Fargo yesterday at the recommendation of a family member after I told him I was going to school in Minnesota. I don't know why I haven't watched it before; it was phenomenal.

If you liked that, I recommend Blood Simple, Barton Fink, The Man Who Wasn't There and A Serious Man by the same directors.

Barton Fink is great. I have seen a few other Coen brothers films. Which of these do you recommend most urgently?

Missed this post thanks to the deluge of superhero crap. Probably A Serious Man and Blood Simple.

Miller's Crossing never gets enough love. Probably my favorite performances by Turtutrro and Gabriel Byrne.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 23, 2014, 06:57:49 PM
I decided to watch Stargate: SG-1 because I'm a fan of Richard Dean Anderson.  I fell asleep about half-way through the pilot. I was a bit disappointed that they didn't convince James Spader to stay as Daniel Jackson, because James Spader plays a much more convincing absent-minded professor.

Anyone else a fan of this series?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on June 23, 2014, 08:35:30 PM
I was.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 23, 2014, 08:55:50 PM
I'm a fan of Richard Dean Anderson

Play Fallout.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 23, 2014, 09:16:29 PM
I'm a fan of Richard Dean Anderson

Play Fallout.

I've played all of them with the exception of the Fallout: Tactics because it looked shitty.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 23, 2014, 10:30:41 PM
I'm a fan of Richard Dean Anderson

Play Fallout.

I've played all of them with the exception of the Fallout: Tactics because it looked shitty.

It's worth a look if you like X-COM type squad tactics games, but it's nowhere near as good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on June 24, 2014, 06:20:01 AM
I don't know whether to go see Transformers 4 or not. I know it's probably going to be shit but I need to see it for myself to find out.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2014, 10:19:35 AM
I decided to watch Stargate: SG-1 because I'm a fan of Richard Dean Anderson.  I fell asleep about half-way through the pilot. I was a bit disappointed that they didn't convince James Spader to stay as Daniel Jackson, because James Spader plays a much more convincing absent-minded professor.

Anyone else a fan of this series?
I am.
The first season sucks.  It gets much better, trust me.

Also, I find Michael shanks to be better at the role.  Especially later on.  It jus takes a while for the show to figure out what it wants to do.
The last season sucks.(last two maybe). But the Arc of Truth is good. (End movie 1)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 24, 2014, 02:28:25 PM
I don't know whether to go see Transformers 4 or not. I know it's probably going to be shit but I need to see it for myself to find out.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_age_of_extinction/

Yes, it's shit.  No viewing is required.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 24, 2014, 04:40:25 PM
I decided to watch Stargate: SG-1 because I'm a fan of Richard Dean Anderson.  I fell asleep about half-way through the pilot. I was a bit disappointed that they didn't convince James Spader to stay as Daniel Jackson, because James Spader plays a much more convincing absent-minded professor.

Anyone else a fan of this series?
I am.
The first season sucks.  It gets much better, trust me.

Also, I find Michael shanks to be better at the role.  Especially later on.  It jus takes a while for the show to figure out what it wants to do.
The last season sucks.(last two maybe). But the Arc of Truth is good. (End movie 1)

I watched it a bit more last night. Everything you're saying is consistent with what I've read about the series. Shanks is starting to grow on me a bit, but I still prefer Spader. It'll be interesting to watch Shanks transform Daniel into his own character instead of a poor imitation of Spader's performance.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on June 24, 2014, 07:34:34 PM
I don't know whether to go see Transformers 4 or not. I know it's probably going to be shit but I need to see it for myself to find out.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_age_of_extinction/

Yes, it's shit.  No viewing is required.

Usually the ratings go down over time, but it's risen from 50% to 57%. That suggests it's shit enough to not bother watching since I usually don't bother with movies below 60, but I'm still undecided. I might work around paying for it. Can't believe it goes for 160 minutes though, what the fuck were they thinking?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on June 26, 2014, 04:30:20 PM
True Detective

Watch it, because it's fucking great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 26, 2014, 05:12:02 PM
Went to see Richard Wilson in a performance (public dress rehearsal) of Beckett's Krapp's Last Tape at the Crucible theatre last night. Aside from what I would call an over-accentuation of comedy during the silent opening, it was a damn fine performance. Wilson really communicates the isolation and misery of Krapp, but also offers up an almost sprightly counter-performance as the voice of his younger self, though tinged with a sense of denial that tells of the man he is to become. The direction and set design are very well done, it's in the round and the set is a closed-in room, amplified, on a very slowly rotating platform, the use of light and sound to convey things not said is very effective.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 28, 2014, 04:36:19 AM
I have watched Celebration Day.  Sneer about dadrock all you like, but it was great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 28, 2014, 06:11:32 AM
Just watched The Big Lebowski. It was strange. I don't know if I liked it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on June 28, 2014, 07:25:51 AM
Just watched The Big Lebowski. It was strange. I don't know if I liked it.

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

It's a film for fans of their movies, a cult film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on June 28, 2014, 12:41:20 PM
Just watched The Big Lebowski. It was strange. I don't know if I liked it.

Watch it again.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on June 28, 2014, 04:41:13 PM
I thought The Big Lebowski was a pretentious film. It tried too hard to be funny and seems like it was made solely so people would call it a cult film. It was trying to be weird and unique, but just ended up too try-hard and unfunny for my tastes.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on June 28, 2014, 06:47:28 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/28kznDV.jpg)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on June 29, 2014, 01:23:32 AM
They didn't make it to be a cult film, it just became a cult film. They made it purely as a Coen brothers movie, if that makes any sense.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 29, 2014, 02:40:56 AM
It makes sense to me.

I love The Big Lebowski. His jellies crack me up every time because I had a pink pair as a child and they could pinch something awful.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: The Terror on July 14, 2014, 10:49:47 PM
I watched the first episode of Extant. It seemed pretty dull.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 16, 2014, 04:13:07 AM
Deluge of superhero crap:

http://marvel.com/news/movies/2014/6/7/22643/director_peyton_reed_and_writer_adam_mckay_join_marvels_ant-man

http://screenrant.com/ant-man-director-peyton-reed-discussion/

Will this guy do better than Edgar Wright?  Probably not, but whatever.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on July 16, 2014, 08:03:29 AM
What? They're not having Hank Pym to be Ant-Man? They're jumping straight to Scott Lang? Why?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 17, 2014, 02:05:59 AM
God, I've watched so many things and I'm so behind.

Most relevantly and importantly, I've been watching the anime WataMote (full title: Watashi ga Motenai no wa dō Kangaetemo Omaera ga Warui!). It's basically a dark comedy about a girl suffering from incredibly severe social anxiety and possibly some form of depression, and just her going through high school and trying to deal with her problems. I'd heard that people who can relate to her absolutely love the show so I decided on a whim to start watching.

Lo and behold, I love it. It's scary how much I can identify with her and the situations she gets into and has to deal with. The show is obviously a quite exaggerated and stylized version of that sort of stuff, but that's what makes it entertaining rather than just depressing. The animation is superb, and I love the way it changes on a whim to dramaticize a situation or something. It's really beautiful. So blahblah I love the show and need moar. I'm four episodes in and it's twelve episodes long, so I am sad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: markjo on July 17, 2014, 02:55:32 AM
After watching anime for a while, I've come to an inescapable conclusion: Japan's anti-drug laws aren't working.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on July 17, 2014, 09:27:24 AM
After watching anime for a while
Go do some old man stuff already, old man.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: markjo on July 17, 2014, 12:29:49 PM
After watching anime for a while
Go do some old man stuff already, old man.
Old people can't watch cartoons?  ???
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on July 17, 2014, 05:14:51 PM
After watching anime for a while
Go do some old man stuff already, old man.
Old people can't watch cartoons?  ???
Only if they are old classic Disney of Looney Tunes cartoons.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on July 25, 2014, 04:17:13 PM
There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson)

My second viewing of this film comes after six years. I greatly enjoyed it the first time, when some friends and I stumbled upon it on a now defunct pay-per-view movie channel for the bargain price of literally one pence. I have no idea why it was available so cheap considering it was a major Academy Award contender that received high critical acclaim on opening, but it was that cheap and by god we took advantage of that fact. We were laughing along heartily with Daniel Day-Lewis's insane performance that only gets crazier as we head to the denouement, but this second time I was alone, able to sit and appreciate without distraction this masterfully directed, wonderfully scored and brilliantly acted character piece. I won't say much about the content of the film, because I want to encourage as many people as possible to get it and watch it and experience it for themselves, it deserves your attention if you haven't already seen it. And if you have seen it why not watch it again? There's so much more that I picked up on a second time around that I wholeheartedly recommend multiple viewings.

I do hope to do a proper analysis of the ending at some point, but that will take time, not something to be done off-hand like this little write-up.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on July 25, 2014, 04:29:33 PM
There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson)

My second viewing of this film comes after six years. I greatly enjoyed it the first time, when some friends and I stumbled upon it on a now defunct pay-per-view movie channel for the bargain price of literally one pence. I have no idea why it was available so cheap considering it was a major Academy Award contender that received high critical acclaim on opening, but it was that cheap and by god we took advantage of that fact. We were laughing along heartily with Daniel Day-Lewis's insane performance that only gets crazier as we head to the denouement, but this second time I was alone, able to sit and appreciate without distraction this masterfully directed, wonderfully scored and brilliantly acted character piece. I won't say much about the content of the film, because I want to encourage as many people as possible to get it and watch it and experience it for themselves, it deserves your attention if you haven't already seen it. And if you have seen it why not watch it again? There's so much more that I picked up on a second time around that I wholeheartedly recommend multiple viewings.

Heck yes! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I will probably be watching it again soon myself, along with many other PTA films.

I do hope to do a proper analysis of the ending at some point, but that will take time, not something to be done off-hand like this little write-up.

If you did this I would really love to read it. I thought about doing an analysis of The Master, but I really am not good at that sort of thing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 25, 2014, 04:38:02 PM
I watched The World's End.  It was good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 26, 2014, 12:00:55 AM
I watched The World's End.  It was good.

If by "good" you mean "amazing".
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on July 26, 2014, 05:59:33 PM
I saw Hercules.

I love Dwayne Johnson so for that alone it was good. The previews were a little misleading since it stripped the mythology aspect and made it a realistic story. Overall, meh. It was good for what it was. I was hoping for the straight mythological story though.

I did see a preview for Exodus before the movie. I'd love to see that one.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 27, 2014, 12:02:38 AM
I saw Hercules.

I love Dwayne Johnson

steroid's  >o<
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 27, 2014, 03:29:32 AM
http://io9.com/brett-ratners-hercules-is-a-lie-dont-fall-for-it-1610881361
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on July 27, 2014, 03:51:55 AM
http://io9.com/brett-ratners-hercules-is-a-lie-dont-fall-for-it-1610881361
Actually, I think that seems like an interesting take on it, at least the idea that Hercules is more myth than man. But then, no take on Hercules beats this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOJoLaxokzM
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 27, 2014, 04:09:21 AM
http://io9.com/brett-ratners-hercules-is-a-lie-dont-fall-for-it-1610881361
Actually, I think that seems like an interesting take on it, at least the idea that Hercules is more myth than man. But then, no take on Hercules beats this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOJoLaxokzM

Magnificent.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 01, 2014, 11:20:30 AM
So I just finished watching an anime called 'Attack on Titan' or 'Shingeki no Kyojin'. It's well paced, original, has complex character development and isn't terribly tropey (which is probably the nicest part, really). The creators aren't afraid to kill off characters and the battle scenes in it are pretty intense and enjoyable to watch. It's also fairly recent, as it was just released last year. It was one of those TV shows that I wasn't sure about to begin with, but ended up binge watching it after I got a few episodes in.

So I'm not sure if anyone around here watches anime, but I'd recommend this. It's on Netflix.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 01, 2014, 01:07:02 PM
Yeah, I've watched it.

It does get a bit slow in places but the story is great. And I do love that they're not afraid to kill characters cause it makes it all more stressful to watch.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on August 01, 2014, 02:34:37 PM
http://io9.com/brett-ratners-hercules-is-a-lie-dont-fall-for-it-1610881361
Actually, I think that seems like an interesting take on it, at least the idea that Hercules is more myth than man. But then, no take on Hercules beats this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOJoLaxokzM

Sentimental favorite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEHeqz-zbwM
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 01, 2014, 10:28:01 PM
Oh, for fuck's sake:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSzeFFsKEt4

What an ungainly, awkward title.  Who thought that was a good idea?  And the effects just look awful.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on August 01, 2014, 10:31:50 PM
Something about the use of the word "the" in one title really bothers me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 01, 2014, 11:39:57 PM
Oh, for fuck's sake:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSzeFFsKEt4

What an ungainly, awkward title.  Who thought that was a good idea?  And the effects just look awful.

Because big armies n stuff bring in more people. Durrr Saddam. Looks like they wreck Smaug in the first 10 mins, then 40 minutes of build up with more Sauron tomfoolery before the final 60 minute (120 minute in extended edition) battle.

Yeah, I've watched it.

It does get a bit slow in places but the story is great. And I do love that they're not afraid to kill characters cause it makes it all more stressful to watch.

Awesome. It does tend to slow down, but I felt the slower sections really made you love the fights, which were extremely fast paced with people flying all over the place like spiderman.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 02, 2014, 12:34:08 AM
Oh yeah, the action is great. I tried to read further with the manga but the art isn't very pleasing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 02, 2014, 02:08:03 AM
I tried reading the manga last night as well, and I agree; I think the anime is much more enjoyable. I might keep reading in my spare time just because I really want more details on the titans and characters. The next season is so far away as well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on August 02, 2014, 03:46:01 PM
What an ungainly, awkward title.  Who thought that was a good idea?

Surely "The Battle of the Five Armies" is exactly the right subtitle for the next Hobbit movie?  What else were they going to call it? 

"The Hobbit: The Finale"?
"The Hobbit: Back to the Shire"?
"The Hobbit: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been"?
"The Hobbit: Endgame"?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on August 02, 2014, 03:50:53 PM
So what are the five armies? Is this something they pulled out of their asses?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on August 02, 2014, 04:44:39 PM
What an ungainly, awkward title.  Who thought that was a good idea?

Surely "The Battle of the Five Armies" is exactly the right subtitle for the next Hobbit movie?  What else were they going to call it? 

"The Hobbit: The Finale"?
"The Hobbit: Back to the Shire"?
"The Hobbit: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been"?
"The Hobbit: Endgame"?

Er...

"The Hobbit: There and Back Again"
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on August 02, 2014, 04:52:16 PM
What an ungainly, awkward title.  Who thought that was a good idea?

Surely "The Battle of the Five Armies" is exactly the right subtitle for the next Hobbit movie?  What else were they going to call it? 

"The Hobbit: The Finale"?
"The Hobbit: Back to the Shire"?
"The Hobbit: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been"?
"The Hobbit: Endgame"?

Excellent point. Since you came up with a few retarded alternatives, I now believe that "The Battle of the Five Armies" is the only possible combination of English words that could describe this movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 02, 2014, 06:38:38 PM
The Hobbit: The Final Movie and the Conclusion to the Trilogy
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on August 02, 2014, 06:51:06 PM
What an ungainly, awkward title.  Who thought that was a good idea?

Surely "The Battle of the Five Armies" is exactly the right subtitle for the next Hobbit movie?  What else were they going to call it? 

"The Hobbit: The Finale"?
"The Hobbit: Back to the Shire"?
"The Hobbit: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been"?
"The Hobbit: Endgame"?

Er...

"The Hobbit: There and Back Again"

Oh, that would have been pretty good.

In all seriousness I still like the title.  I think it's catchier than Saddam gives it credit for and perfectly embodies the main story of the movie.  And even if it is a bit unwieldy, maybe that's even appropriate on a meta level for what they've done with the movies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on August 02, 2014, 09:09:06 PM
Here's an idea: it's one book called The Hobbit, make one movie and call it The Hobbit. I know it's already too late for that, but god damn, why do they feel the need to have it match up to LOTR in terms of duration? Maybe there will be a fan edit which is just the events from the book and not the million minutiae of the appendices PJ decided to throw in for no conceivable reason, I would probably watch that.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 02, 2014, 09:49:23 PM
You know why. Money.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on August 02, 2014, 10:19:07 PM
What an ungainly, awkward title.  Who thought that was a good idea?

Surely "The Battle of the Five Armies" is exactly the right subtitle for the next Hobbit movie?  What else were they going to call it? 

"The Hobbit: The Finale"?
"The Hobbit: Back to the Shire"?
"The Hobbit: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been"?
"The Hobbit: Endgame"?

Er...

"The Hobbit: There and Back Again"

Oh, that would have been pretty good.

In all seriousness I still like the title.  I think it's catchier than Saddam gives it credit for and perfectly embodies the main story of the movie.  And even if it is a bit unwieldy, maybe that's even appropriate on a meta level for what they've done with the movies.
That's because that's what it was originally called. :l They inexplicably renamed it to "The Battle of Five Armies" a little while back after the second film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on August 02, 2014, 10:26:24 PM
Okay, well I'm sure they had a reason.  Maybe they didn't want future generations to look at the title, recognize that it's what Tolkein called the original story, and assume that they would have actually turned such a massive tome into a single movie.  I know such a scenario seems far-fetched but people can be dumb like that.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 03, 2014, 05:25:52 AM
So what are the five armies? Is this something they pulled out of their asses?

No, it was in the book.  It refers to the men, elves, dwarves, orcs, and wargs.  It's still a very silly, kiddy name for a battle that you'd expect to find in a book like The Hobbit and not in LotR.  In fact, I was very surprised when I was reading LotR and a character referred to the battle by name.  I would have expected Tolkien to quietly retcon the name into something more dignified and adult-sounding, like the way he changed "goblins" to "orcs."

Anyway, it's a terrible name for a movie, and there's nothing justifying it.  They've already got all the seats filled by virtue of the fact that it's The Hobbit.  Nobody is going to base their decision on whether or not to see it by the subtitle.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on August 03, 2014, 06:58:18 AM
So I saw Guardians of the Galaxy today (well, technically yesterday now). It was Marvelous (he he)

Really though, I loved it. I was a little worried it wouldn't be that great, but it's a really wonderfully fun and funny film. It's an awesome mix of action and comedy, and almost every time it starts to head toward some action movie/space film/movies-in-general cliché, it subverts it in a fun way and makes you (well, me) laugh instead. I definitely want to see it again. Star Lord was hilarious, but even more so were Rocket and Groot (not to mention Rocket is adorable and awesome). Drax was far funnier than I expected him to be, too. The only disappointing thing is Gomora because there's really nothing special about her character-wise; everyone else in the main cast stands out in some ways, but she really doesn't.

I'm way too tired for a detailed review—I just gave up trying to sleep after laying in bed trying to for ~6 hours—but tl;dr: I was very pleasantly surprised and loved it. I wish I wasn't as tired as I was when I saw it, because the movie is fast-paced as all hell at points and was difficult for me to keep track of sometimes, but yeah. It was great and I want to see it agian.

Oh, and earlier this week I saw Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, which was amazing as well. Surprisingly emotional and very, very well-done.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 03, 2014, 01:57:55 PM
The only disappointing thing is Gomora because there's really nothing special about her character-wise; everyone else in the main cast stands out in some ways, but she really doesn't.

She is green.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on August 03, 2014, 02:21:30 PM
So I saw Guardians of the Galaxy today (well, technically yesterday now). It was Marvelous (he he)

Really though, I loved it. I was a little worried it wouldn't be that great, but it's a really wonderfully fun and funny film. It's an awesome mix of action and comedy, and almost every time it starts to head toward some action movie/space film/movies-in-general cliché, it subverts it in a fun way and makes you (well, me) laugh instead. I definitely want to see it again. Star Lord was hilarious, but even more so were Rocket and Groot (not to mention Rocket is adorable and awesome). Drax was far funnier than I expected him to be, too. The only disappointing thing is Gomora because there's really nothing special about her character-wise; everyone else in the main cast stands out in some ways, but she really doesn't.

I'm way too tired for a detailed review—I just gave up trying to sleep after laying in bed trying to for ~6 hours—but tl;dr: I was very pleasantly surprised and loved it. I wish I wasn't as tired as I was when I saw it, because the movie is fast-paced as all hell at points and was difficult for me to keep track of sometimes, but yeah. It was great and I want to see it agian.

Oh, and earlier this week I saw Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, which was amazing as well. Surprisingly emotional and very, very well-done.
I saw this yesterday too.  Agreed.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: The Terror on August 03, 2014, 08:22:15 PM
What an ungainly, awkward title.  Who thought that was a good idea?

Surely "The Battle of the Five Armies" is exactly the right subtitle for the next Hobbit movie?  What else were they going to call it? 

"The Hobbit: The Finale"?
"The Hobbit: Back to the Shire"?
"The Hobbit: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been"?
"The Hobbit: Endgame"?

"The Hobbit: Dragon Dies in the First Ten Minutes"
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 03, 2014, 09:26:32 PM
I do really want to see Guardians of the Galaxy. Mostly because I like raccoons.

I will return once I've seen it to complain about how it does not properly capture the comic source material.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on August 06, 2014, 03:46:36 AM
The Virgin Suicides (Sofia Coppola)

Still one of my favorite films eva.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 06, 2014, 04:46:52 AM
I watched the first few episodes of Breaking Bad, partially to stop friends and family from constantly pestering me with "Did you watch Breaking Bad yet?  Did you watch Breaking Bad yet?," but mainly because I've heard so many good things about it that I finally had to see what the fuss was about.  I'm sure that most of you have probably already watched the show, so I won't bother writing elaborate reviews for it or anything.  We all know by now that it's a great show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on August 06, 2014, 05:09:31 AM
Breaking Bad is pretty great. If you aren't convinced after the first couple episodes, rest assured. Every season is better than the last, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on August 06, 2014, 05:15:29 AM
Breaking Bad is pretty great.

It is really great and I love the whole thing.

I watched the first few episodes of Breaking Bad, partially to stop friends and family from constantly pestering me with "Did you watch Breaking Bad yet?  Did you watch Breaking Bad yet?," but mainly because I've heard so many good things about it that I finally had to see what the fuss was about.  I'm sure that most of you have probably already watched the show, so I won't bother writing elaborate reviews for it or anything.  We all know by now that it's a great show.

What did you think, and will you continue watching?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 06, 2014, 05:50:16 AM
It's great, I'm definitely going to watch it all.  My one main issue with it so far - and yes, I know that this is a really original criticism and I'm literally so brave for pointing it out - is the wife, Skyler.  It's not because I'm sexist and I can't stand to see a strong female character who challenges her husband or whatever accusation it is that the actress herself has made (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/opinion/i-have-a-character-issue.html); it's because she's an incredibly unlikable character with nothing interesting or enjoyable to her.  Any time she appears onscreen, the smile drops right off my face, because I know it's just going to be another killjoy moment.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 06, 2014, 06:14:26 AM
What makes Breaking Bad so good? I watched a few episodes and felt it was too melodramatic. It was hard to take seriously. Are the artsy camera angles supposed to evoke some sort of emotional reaction from me? Because all I feel is disdain.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 06, 2014, 06:56:09 AM
Vauxy is literally a poor man's Rushy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 06, 2014, 07:10:32 AM
No really. I don't see the appeal. What exactly is so amazing about Breaking Bad?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 06, 2014, 07:45:19 AM
Compelling story centered around a character that's easy to empathize with. Great acting across the board.

And yeah, fuck skyler. Designed to be annoying, which makes it worse.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 06, 2014, 10:14:42 AM
I grew to like Skylar more as Walt became more of an asshole.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on August 06, 2014, 12:24:37 PM
It's great, I'm definitely going to watch it all.  My one main issue with it so far - and yes, I know that this is a really original criticism and I'm literally so brave for pointing it out - is the wife, Skyler.  It's not because I'm sexist and I can't stand to see a strong female character who challenges her husband or whatever accusation it is that the actress herself has made (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/opinion/i-have-a-character-issue.html); it's because she's an incredibly unlikable character with nothing interesting or enjoyable to her.  Any time she appears onscreen, the smile drops right off my face, because I know it's just going to be another killjoy moment.

Have any of the plot elements been spoiled for you by the internet? 

What makes Breaking Bad so good? I watched a few episodes and felt it was too melodramatic. It was hard to take seriously. Are the artsy camera angles supposed to evoke some sort of emotional reaction from me? Because all I feel is disdain.

Yes, the emotional appeal of the show is in its many artsy camera angles. You're just not sophisticated enough to understand them.

No really. I don't see the appeal. What exactly is so amazing about Breaking Bad?

The artsy camera angles.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 06, 2014, 09:16:57 PM
The angles weren't that "artsy".
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on August 06, 2014, 09:26:56 PM
The angles weren't that "artsy".

No, I have no idea what he's talking about.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on August 07, 2014, 02:04:17 AM
It's great, I'm definitely going to watch it all.  My one main issue with it so far - and yes, I know that this is a really original criticism and I'm literally so brave for pointing it out - is the wife, Skyler.  It's not because I'm sexist and I can't stand to see a strong female character who challenges her husband or whatever accusation it is that the actress herself has made (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/opinion/i-have-a-character-issue.html); it's because she's an incredibly unlikable character with nothing interesting or enjoyable to her.  Any time she appears onscreen, the smile drops right off my face, because I know it's just going to be another killjoy moment.

I felt that way about Marie (Hank's wife).  I was pretty much indifferent to Skyler for a long time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on August 07, 2014, 04:09:51 PM
Breaking Bad is pretty great. If you aren't convinced after the first couple episodes, rest assured. Every season is better than the last, in my opinion.

I thought S4 dragged a little in the middle, then it picked up in a big way.

I started off hating Skyler, but she became better as


[SPOILERS]




She became more and more drawn into Walt's world. When she started to become as scheming, manipulative and dark as Walt had become. I've just started S5 and am enjoying the refreshing return to the feel of the earlier seasons, with Walt and Jesse cooking by themselves, without the 'support' of the Cartel behind them. Also, Mike's great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 07, 2014, 04:15:13 PM
We have actual spoiler tags, you know.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 07, 2014, 04:17:29 PM
Yeah, sure. Hate the woman who is trying to get by with a shady, downright villainous husband and only like her when she helps him out against her morals.

Pfft, men.  ::)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 07, 2014, 04:28:18 PM
Yeah, sure. Hate the woman who is trying to get by with a shady, downright villainous husband and only like her when she helps him out against her morals.

Pfft, men.  ::)

Irrelevant.  Her worth as a character is the issue, not her worth as a human being in RL terms.  Don't be like those people who say "What do you mean GTA is sexist?  The men in these games are terrible people, therefore the games aren't sexist!"
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on August 07, 2014, 04:34:51 PM
Yeah, sure. Hate the woman who is trying to get by with a shady, downright villainous husband and only like her when she helps him out against her morals.

Pfft, men.  ::)

Although her frustration with Walt is entirely justified, when the main drama in an episode is about Walt and Jesse trying to survive psychopathic druglords, Skyler's complaints just come across as whiny.

She became really good in her own right when she started to take control, to use her financial skills, start juggling the lies to Hank and the family, holding off the IRS... basically being an active character rather than one merely acted upon.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on August 07, 2014, 04:37:08 PM
Yeah, sure. Hate the woman who is trying to get by with a shady, downright villainous husband and only like her when she helps him out against her morals.

Pfft, men.  ::)

Well, it can be generalized simply as being "this character is annoying when she's not sympathetic towards the character the audience is sympathetic towards." That sexist implication is just a side effect of how the characters happen to be.

Honestly though, I think Breaking Bad just has a major issue with one-dimensional characterization. Contrast that with something like Mad Men where nearly every character can be either a massive cunt or genuinely likable depending on the circumstances, and none of it ever feels out of place.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 07, 2014, 04:43:13 PM
I was just teasing.

I thought all of her complaints were justifiable personally, from her POV Walt is changing drastically and she has no idea why. And Walt's family life becomes more important to the story in the last season.

I don't see it as a sexist issue either. I just think it's easy to forget how everything plays out in Skyler's life when we see everything Walt is doing. She's confused, frustrated, depressed, etc.

As far as characterization goes, Mad Men does a much better job with it. I felt that BB could have done Walt's downward spiral better. It seemed like a switch was a flipped and he turned psycho.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on August 07, 2014, 04:55:54 PM
I just think it's easy to forget how everything plays out in Skyler's life when we see everything Walt is doing. She's confused, frustrated, depressed, etc.

It's easy to forget because we never see her as being anything else. All they really needed to do was start the show off by having her appear as likable and sympathetic, yet instead we're immediately presented with the contrast between an overworked dad and a generally useless housewife. It's not as much "Walt's ruining the family dynamic that he's fighting to preserve" as it is "Walt's escaping the family dynamic because it sucks shit and being a drug kingpin is way more interesting for the audience". As a result we simply don't care about his family life and when Skyler is acting reasonably frustrated, it doesn't resonate with the audience because we don't want to see that part of the story, and she comes across as a "bitch" instead.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 07, 2014, 05:28:14 PM
As a result we simply don't care about his family life and when Skyler is acting reasonably frustrated, it doesn't resonate with the audience because we don't want to see that part of the story, and she comes across as a "bitch" instead.
Yes, that is what I'm addressing. People forget that her frustrations are reasonable and she's not simply a bitch, plain and simple. We see the story from Walt's POV mostly so when she complains to him, she's complaining to the audience and the first reaction is to think she's a bitch even though from her POV it's all totally justifiable.

Why wasn't she working at first? She used to do accounting and then stopped but got a job when Walt lost his teaching one. I don't think Walt even wanted her working. I wouldn't really call that useless. But you're right in that she wasn't really supposed to offer any more to the story other than motivation and then to push Walt away.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on August 07, 2014, 05:45:56 PM
Yes, but it's the showmakers' job to make sure that we understand that her motivations are justifiable. Audiences don't base their preferences on afterthoughts or rational analysis, it's effectively entirely based on how the characters come across as they are watching the show and as such it's emotionally driven. I just think it's pointless to remark thinks like "people forget that..." when having the audience "forget" things in the first place is a failure on the showmakers' behalf.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 07, 2014, 05:51:19 PM
when having the audience "forget" things in the first place is a failure on the showmakers' behalf.
Agreed. I'm just rationalizing her character because it's just what I tend to do for shows and movies in general. I try and put myself in everyone's POV, but I agree that the writers could have done a better job overall with characterization.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on August 07, 2014, 11:04:41 PM
Mad Men

Did you watch season 7 part 1 yet?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 08, 2014, 01:51:40 PM
Guardians of the galaxy. Wasn't as good as reddit nerds thought it was.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on August 08, 2014, 02:13:39 PM
Mad Men

Did you watch season 7 part 1 yet?

No, but Very Soon Now
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 08, 2014, 04:46:44 PM
Guardians of the galaxy. Wasn't as good as reddit nerds thought it was.
Really?

Even my Facebook feed is blowing up, "zomg best Marvel movie evar!" But I'll be seeing it tomorrow anyway.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 08, 2014, 09:49:35 PM
Guardians of the galaxy. Wasn't as good as reddit nerds thought it was.
Really?

Even my Facebook feed is blowing up, "zomg best Marvel movie evar!" But I'll be seeing it tomorrow anyway.

It was a good movie, but Reddit is praising it as the second coming of Jesus. People have even been saying crazy things like it's better than the Avengers.

My only complaints are that the script is a bit weak in some places, there's a bunch of times when characters talk basically pure exposition that would be extremely weird in context (since we're in a wacky universe there needs to be some of this, I think Starlord would have been a better vehicle for audience but he wasn't quite used that way). And the villain is really, really weak. It kind of works for the movie because it gives plenty of focus on the main crew, but I think I would have preferred a stronger villain with more screen time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on August 08, 2014, 09:52:21 PM
Why do you even know what Reddit thinks about things
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 08, 2014, 09:53:06 PM
Because I'm brave enough to frequent /r/movies, which is covered in jizz laden GotG threads.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on August 08, 2014, 09:55:15 PM
masochism = brave ok
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 08, 2014, 09:57:16 PM
There can occasionally be good discussion in there, but since there's so many people it can get pretty retarded as well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 08, 2014, 11:47:32 PM
Has anyone seen Boyhood? The guys at RLM hated it (http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-boyhood-and-guardians-of-the-galaxy/), but most critics seem to love it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on August 09, 2014, 12:14:51 AM
Guardians of the galaxy. Wasn't as good as reddit nerds thought it was.
Really?

Even my Facebook feed is blowing up, "zomg best Marvel movie evar!" But I'll be seeing it tomorrow anyway.

It was a good movie, but Reddit is praising it as the second coming of Jesus. People have even been saying crazy things like it's better than the Avengers.

My only complaints are that the script is a bit weak in some places, there's a bunch of times when characters talk basically pure exposition that would be extremely weird in context (since we're in a wacky universe there needs to be some of this, I think Starlord would have been a better vehicle for audience but he wasn't quite used that way). And the villain is really, really weak. It kind of works for the movie because it gives plenty of focus on the main crew, but I think I would have preferred a stronger villain with more screen time.
A nearly unkillable Hitler is a weak villain?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 09, 2014, 12:17:10 AM
Guardians of the galaxy. Wasn't as good as reddit nerds thought it was.
Really?

Even my Facebook feed is blowing up, "zomg best Marvel movie evar!" But I'll be seeing it tomorrow anyway.

It was a good movie, but Reddit is praising it as the second coming of Jesus. People have even been saying crazy things like it's better than the Avengers.

My only complaints are that the script is a bit weak in some places, there's a bunch of times when characters talk basically pure exposition that would be extremely weird in context (since we're in a wacky universe there needs to be some of this, I think Starlord would have been a better vehicle for audience but he wasn't quite used that way). And the villain is really, really weak. It kind of works for the movie because it gives plenty of focus on the main crew, but I think I would have preferred a stronger villain with more screen time.
A nearly unkillable Hitler is a weak villain?

Not physically weak, weak as a character. He basically just wanted to kill everyone because reasons, and had a ridiculous amount of resources to do it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on August 09, 2014, 12:36:22 AM
Guardians of the galaxy. Wasn't as good as reddit nerds thought it was.
Really?

Even my Facebook feed is blowing up, "zomg best Marvel movie evar!" But I'll be seeing it tomorrow anyway.

It was a good movie, but Reddit is praising it as the second coming of Jesus. People have even been saying crazy things like it's better than the Avengers.

My only complaints are that the script is a bit weak in some places, there's a bunch of times when characters talk basically pure exposition that would be extremely weird in context (since we're in a wacky universe there needs to be some of this, I think Starlord would have been a better vehicle for audience but he wasn't quite used that way). And the villain is really, really weak. It kind of works for the movie because it gives plenty of focus on the main crew, but I think I would have preferred a stronger villain with more screen time.
A nearly unkillable Hitler is a weak villain?

Not physically weak, weak as a character. He basically just wanted to kill everyone because reasons, and had a ridiculous amount of resources to do it.
Again, Space Hitler.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 09, 2014, 04:19:30 AM
Then yes. Another thing I forgot is that this is another marvel movie driven by a macguffin.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 09, 2014, 04:35:42 AM
I've been binging True Blood. It's terrible, stupid, and addicting.

It's why I posted Robert Kazinsky in the what you'd hit thread. He was alright in Pacific Rim but he made the boring 6th season watchable.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 09, 2014, 05:34:41 AM
I've been binging True Blood. It's terrible, stupid, and addicting.

It's why I posted Robert Kazinsky in the what you'd hit thread. He was alright in Pacific Rim but he made the boring 6th season watchable.

I can't even watch that show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 09, 2014, 05:39:06 AM
I don't know a single man that can.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 09, 2014, 05:39:52 AM
I don't know a single man that can.

I might have to start watching it now.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 09, 2014, 05:45:36 AM
I don't know a single man that can.

I might have to start watching it now.
Before you do let me warn you. Kazinsky may have been the hottest guy but he was the dumbest character (aside from Bill becoming the vampire god), he was a faerie/vampire half breed. Yeah. Faerie vampire.

But he was a day walker because of it so whenever I watch Blade again I'll think about how Wesley Snipes must be a faerie vampire.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on August 09, 2014, 03:29:19 PM
I don't know a single man that can.

How many men in relationships can?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 09, 2014, 03:43:50 PM
I don't know any man that can.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on August 09, 2014, 05:50:34 PM
Has anyone seen Boyhood? The guys at RLM hated it (http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-boyhood-and-guardians-of-the-galaxy/), but most critics seem to love it.
I haven't seen it, but like most of Linklater's other films I'm guessing it's for people who enjoy Richard Linklater films. I'm fortunate enough to be one of those people, so I'm looking forward to it hitting BD.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 09, 2014, 08:57:00 PM
I watched GotG.  It was good.  The villain was lame.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 09, 2014, 10:44:28 PM
Has anyone seen Boyhood? The guys at RLM hated it (http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-boyhood-and-guardians-of-the-galaxy/), but most critics seem to love it.
I haven't seen it, but like most of Linklater's other films I'm guessing it's for people who enjoy Richard Linklater films. I'm fortunate enough to be one of those people, so I'm looking forward to it hitting BD.

Yeah, they did mention that. Jay at least liked most of it, as he said he enjoys Linklater's films.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 11, 2014, 05:32:29 AM
I saw Guardians of the Galaxy today.

Really overhyped. 4/10. My main issue was that it didn't follow the comics accurately, followed by the completely generic soundtrack consisting of "best of the oldies! 98.9!!!". Also, the characters were shallow with barely any backstory.

Regardless, still the best Marvel movie I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 11, 2014, 07:00:21 AM
I saw Guardians of the Galaxy today.

Really overhyped. 4/10. My main issue was that it didn't follow the comics accurately, followed by the completely generic soundtrack consisting of "best of the oldies! 98.9!!!". Also, the characters were shallow with barely any backstory.

Regardless, still the best Marvel movie I've ever seen.

>not hans zimmer
>generic sound track

But really, the comics mean jack shit. It makes no difference how loyal movies are to their source material, only how well they're constructed as movies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 11, 2014, 07:47:44 AM


I saw Guardians of the Galaxy today.

Really overhyped. 4/10. My main issue was that it didn't follow the comics accurately, followed by the completely generic soundtrack consisting of "best of the oldies! 98.9!!!". Also, the characters were shallow with barely any backstory.

Regardless, still the best Marvel movie I've ever seen.
But really, the comics mean jack shit. It makes no difference how loyal movies are to their source material, only how well they're constructed as movies.

That explains why Marvel hasn't made a good movie since well... ever.

Correction, Spiderman 3 was pretty good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 11, 2014, 09:25:29 AM
epic bait
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 11, 2014, 04:50:55 PM
Well, one point in my first post still stands: it was the best Marvel movie I've ever seen.

I actually really liked it. It pains me because I couldn't find much to bitch about. Chris Pratt was great, like I suspected he would be, and Rocket was awesome.

The biggest issue, like others have stated, was the villain and the "chase the macguffin" plot (although this was lampshaded a few times, which I appreciated). The movie was so much fun that it was hard to care about the conventional storyline and shallow villain. I would have liked more Thanos screentime, but whatever. Knowhere was also a really cool setting, something you'd see out of Doctor Who or something.

I haven't seen Avengers or many Marvel movies recently, but isn't an infinity stone the driving force behind a few different recent Marvel movies?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 11, 2014, 04:55:59 PM
I haven't seen Avengers or many Marvel movies recently, but isn't an infinity stone the driving force behind a few different recent Marvel movies?
Yeah, so there are three (or four depending on who you ask) stones accounted for.

Tesseract = space
Aether = reality
Loki's scepter = mind
And the orb in Guardians = power
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 11, 2014, 05:02:14 PM
Then yes. Another thing I forgot is that this is another marvel movie driven by a macguffin.

The Infinity Stones are not MacGuffins!  Well, okay, they kind of are, but they're not just interchangeable plot coupons.  They all do different things, and they're probably all going to reappear in the future.

EDIT: What a strange coincidence, the most recent two posts touched on this subject.  Anyway, yes, it's rumored that Loki's scepter contains the mind stone, but hasn't been confirmed.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 11, 2014, 05:13:18 PM
So, what? That's like 3+ movies based around chasing macguffins?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 11, 2014, 05:17:20 PM
So, what? That's like 3+ movies based around chasing macguffins?
Just 3 movies.

I really want an infinity gauntlet movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 11, 2014, 05:18:19 PM
Four if you include the first Captain America, but that didn't really drive the plot in the way that MacGuffins typically do, it was more incidental to the story.

I really want an infinity gauntlet movie.

The gauntlet was briefly shown in the first Thor movie.  Did you see it?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 11, 2014, 05:20:46 PM
Four if you include the first Captain America, but that didn't really drive the plot in the way that MacGuffins typically do, it was more incidental to the story.

The First Avenger? That was literally one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

How dare you even bring that up.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 11, 2014, 05:58:00 PM
Four if you include the first Captain America, but that didn't really drive the plot in the way that MacGuffins typically do, it was more incidental to the story.

I really want an infinity gauntlet movie.

The gauntlet was briefly shown in the first Thor movie.  Did you see it?
Yes I did. Did you guys notice Warlock's cacoon at the Collector's?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 11, 2014, 07:35:45 PM
On the notion of Howard the Duck.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 11, 2014, 07:42:49 PM
On the notion of Howard the Duck.

There's already a canon film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_the_Duck_(film)) on the subject.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on August 11, 2014, 08:15:53 PM
I would have liked more Thanos screentime, but whatever.

I'm liking him having little tease scenes in the movies, because it's going to be all the more exciting when he's finally the main antagonist.


So, what? That's like 3+ movies based around chasing macguffins?

That depends on how you define "MacGuffin" for this. Some people use it as a generic term for "any object a film's plot revolves around", whereas others use the definition of an ultimately meaningless item (like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction) that's meant to drive the film without actually mattering or being important in the overall plot or continuity. If you mean the former then yes, but if you mean the latter then no.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 11, 2014, 08:24:29 PM
I would have liked more Thanos screentime, but whatever.

I'm liking him having little tease scenes in the movies, because it's going to be all the more exciting when he's finally the main antagonist.


So, what? That's like 3+ movies based around chasing macguffins?

That depends on how you define "MacGuffin" for this. Some people use it as a generic term for "any object a film's plot revolves around", whereas others use the definition of an ultimately meaningless item (like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction) that's meant to drive the film without actually mattering or being important in the overall plot or continuity. If you mean the former then yes, but if you mean the latter then no.


The Infinity stone falls into the former. I usually just ignore macguffins altogether, but an entirely different trope is used in GotG. I can't remember the trope name, but it goes something like this: character is in possession of said macguffin, doesn't understand the macguffin until later, and then gets into an unwinnable situation in which the macguffin ultimately resolves.

Deus ex Macguffin?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 11, 2014, 08:46:56 PM
That's pretty much The Avengers too.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2014, 08:56:15 PM
So, what? That's like 3+ movies based around chasing macguffins?
Just 3 movies.

I really want an infinity gauntlet movie.
Avengers 3.
That's the rumored Infinity Gauntlet movie.  Hence why they put each stone into every single move.

By the time Avengers 3 rolls out, all of them will be shown and Thanos will suddenly have all of them.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 16, 2014, 02:13:14 PM
Avengers 3.
That's the rumored Infinity Gauntlet movie.  Hence why they put each stone into every single move.

By the time Avengers 3 rolls out, all of them will be shown and Thanos will suddenly have all of them.

We literally just went over how they've only appeared in four of the movies.

Also, these movies have enough white male leads.  Where are all the women and/or people of color?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: The Terror on August 16, 2014, 02:19:57 PM
Well, the Hulk is green.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on August 16, 2014, 06:24:04 PM
Avengers 3.
That's the rumored Infinity Gauntlet movie.  Hence why they put each stone into every single movie.

By the time Avengers 3 rolls out, all of them will be shown and Thanos will suddenly have all of them.

We literally just went over how they've only appeared in four of the movies.
Point.  Sorry, I was thinking wrong.  But they are putting the gems in a lot of their movies, especially since Thor 1.

Gauntlet in Thor 1
Gem of Space in both Captain America 1 and Avengers 1
Gem of Reality in Thor 2
Gem of Power in Guardians of the Galaxy
Gem of Mind is rumored to be in Loki's staff in Avengers 1

So that leaves 2 more gems. 

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 16, 2014, 09:03:31 PM
Where are all the women
The kitchen

and/or people of color?
Ferguson, MO
OH SNAP YOU GUYS :D
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on August 17, 2014, 04:21:08 AM
Also, these movies have enough white male leads.  Where are all the women and/or people of color?

They aren't hero material.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on August 17, 2014, 04:23:44 AM
Is there even such a thing as a black female hero?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 17, 2014, 04:54:33 AM
Is there even such a thing as a black female hero?
Storm
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on August 17, 2014, 02:15:47 PM
Storm

Name an X-men movie where Storm played the lead role.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 17, 2014, 03:15:30 PM
He didn't ask if a black female hero played as the lead protagonist.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on August 17, 2014, 03:52:24 PM
He didn't ask if a black female hero played as the lead protagonist.

Where did I say he did?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 17, 2014, 05:25:09 PM
She never did play a lead in any of the live action movies, I don't know about cartoons. But she is a black female hero.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on August 17, 2014, 05:27:14 PM
She never did play a lead in any of the live action movies, I don't know about cartoons. But she is a black female hero.

Which is probably what lead Saddam to this:

Also, these movies have enough white male leads.  Where are all the women and/or people of color?

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on August 17, 2014, 06:34:08 PM
wow gr8 point rush
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 17, 2014, 06:40:04 PM
mkaaay, so here we are. What a fun circle.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 17, 2014, 07:56:30 PM
"The Batman of Africa" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batwing_(DC_Comics))
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on August 17, 2014, 07:57:47 PM
mkaaay, so here we are. What a fun circle.

Roosroos still doesn't know how to FES.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 17, 2014, 08:05:25 PM
Rush still doesn't know how to roosroos.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on August 17, 2014, 08:29:24 PM
Rush still doesn't know how to roosroos.

This is true, but not relevant to my previous statement.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on August 17, 2014, 08:37:13 PM
Posting like Rushy does is not how to "FES". I think we can pretty much all agree that he's one of the most annoying.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on August 17, 2014, 08:43:14 PM
Posting like Rushy does is not how to "FES".

Who said it was?

I think we can pretty much all agree that he's one of the most annoying.

Learn to English.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on August 17, 2014, 08:48:05 PM
Posting like Rushy does is not how to "FES".

Who said it was?

I think we can pretty much all agree that he's one of the most annoying.

Learn to English.

Yeah, like this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on August 17, 2014, 09:01:05 PM
Yeah, like this.

Roosroos is better at this than you.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on August 17, 2014, 09:06:51 PM
What's "this"?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 17, 2014, 09:15:56 PM
When are you two going to admit your undying love and homosexual attraction for each other?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on August 17, 2014, 11:19:38 PM
What's "this"?

Quote from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/this
pronoun, plural these
[th eez] (Show IPA)
1. (used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as present, near, just mentioned or pointed out, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis):
This is my coat.
2. (used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., referring to the one nearer in place, time, or thought; opposed to that):
This is Liza and that is Amy.
3. (used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., implying a contrast or contradistinction; opposed to that):
I'd take that instead of this.
4. what is about to follow:
Now hear this! Watch this!

adjective, plural these
[th eez] (Show IPA)
5. (used to indicate a person, place, thing, or degree as present, near, just indicated or mentioned, or as well-known or characteristic):
These people are my friends. This problem has worried me for a long time.
6. (used to indicate the nearer in time, place, or thought of two persons, things, etc.; opposed to that).
7. (used to imply mere contradistinction; opposed to that).
8. (used in place of an indefinite article for emphasis):
I was walking down the street when I heard this explosion.
adverb
9. (used with adjectives and adverbs of quantity or extent) to the extent or degree indicated:
this far; this softly.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on August 18, 2014, 12:16:40 AM
Kick Ass anyone?  He's a dude but we all know who gets the job done.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on August 18, 2014, 05:41:39 PM
Nymphomaniac (Lars von Trier)

This was an excellent fucking film overall, and I loved it. Charlotte Gainsbourg was of course great, but I was also very impressed by Christian Slater's performance. Uma Thurman was also a standout. The cinematography was gorgeous, and the editing overall. Some of the editing felt weird, and I'm not sure if it's due to the length being cut down. I still need to see the full uncut version if it becomes available. Like many von Trier films, this was a very intensely emotional film for me. While most people would be put off by its length and content, I was fully hooked and it really didn't feel that long. I look forward to whatever Lars von Trier brings us next.


The Fisher King (Terry Gilliam)

It was kind of good overall, but I wasn't really too into the film. Though, I really loved the performances of Jeff Bridges, Robin Williams, and Amanda Plummer.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 20, 2014, 12:43:22 AM
I'm almost caught up on The Leftovers. Anyone watching it? It's a pretty depressing, character driven show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: model 29 on August 20, 2014, 06:41:07 AM
Watched 'Russian Ark' tonight.

Very interesting film.  I'm impressed by the sheer logistics of they pulled off with everything that's going on and the fact that the entire movie is a single 96 minute take.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on August 20, 2014, 08:19:08 AM
Watched Captain America The Winter Soldier last night. Was alright. I thought Strucker was going to be the main villain in this one. At least he appeared in the mid-credits scene.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on August 20, 2014, 04:24:24 PM
Watched Captain America The Winter Soldier last night. Was alright. I thought Strucker was going to be the main villain in this one. At least he appeared in the mid-credits scene.

....
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 20, 2014, 04:52:04 PM
The contribution of Vauxhall.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on August 20, 2014, 05:04:41 PM
Indeed.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: markjo on August 20, 2014, 06:18:49 PM
Also, these movies have enough white male leads.  Where are all the women and/or people of color?
Blade.  Catwoman.  Spawn.  Elektra. Hancock. Vampirella.  Wonder Woman (TV series).
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: The Terror on August 21, 2014, 04:26:11 PM
Marvel could make a film of the storyline where the Punisher turned black.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 21, 2014, 05:04:13 PM
Punisher movies have always been terrible.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: markjo on August 21, 2014, 05:54:39 PM
Marvel could make a film of the storyline where the Punisher turned black.
Black Panther is supposed to be in development.  Of course, whether or not it ever gets made is a different story.
http://screenrant.com/black-panther-movie-development-update-phase-4-5/
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 21, 2014, 08:55:04 PM
Hollywood usually doesn't like to give black people lead roles unless it's Denzel, Will Smith, or, God help us, Eddie Murphy.  Fortunately, I can't see any of them in this role.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on August 21, 2014, 08:56:05 PM
What about Morgan Slaveman?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on August 22, 2014, 01:06:20 AM
Hollywood usually doesn't like to give black people lead roles unless it's Denzel, Will Smith, or, God help us, Eddie Murphy.  Fortunately, I can't see any of them in this role.

Hey, Eddie Murphy is a good actor, he's just been in some shit lately.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on August 22, 2014, 03:06:51 AM
"lately"
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on August 22, 2014, 03:13:56 AM
"Hey"
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: The Terror on August 22, 2014, 11:12:36 AM
Marlon Wayans as Black Panther?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: markjo on August 22, 2014, 01:07:22 PM
If Damon Wayans can be Blank Man, then why not?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6Cr-6Mm8Pa8/UDrPrZeHAPI/AAAAAAAAA0Y/B7m4aTFQU8E/s320/0004339606549_500X500.jpg)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on August 22, 2014, 01:50:52 PM
Hollywood usually doesn't like to give black people lead roles unless it's Denzel, Will Smith, or, God help us, Eddie Murphy.  Fortunately, I can't see any of them in this role.

Idris Elba ftw
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: The Terror on August 22, 2014, 03:52:13 PM
I watched the first episode of Bojack Horseman. I was disappointed, it was basically a bog standard story of a faded celebrity. Maybe the series will get better.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 22, 2014, 04:15:56 PM
Hollywood usually doesn't like to give black people lead roles unless it's Denzel, Will Smith, or, God help us, Eddie Murphy.  Fortunately, I can't see any of them in this role.

Idris Elba ftw

but he's Heimdall
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on August 23, 2014, 01:08:52 AM
But Saddam, Heimdall is the only one who ever showed any form of intelligence among Asgardians. 
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 23, 2014, 02:12:38 AM
Yeah, the All-Mother was a total dunce.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 27, 2014, 02:30:56 PM
Since Saddam thinks The Leftovers is Left Behind, I'll write more of a review.

2% of the population suddenly goes missing at the same time and the show takes place three years later. People aren't coping very well with what happened. There's not a lot of religion involved. Sure, some people think it was the Rapture or whatever, but terrible people went missing so not a lot of people buy into it.

The writing is great, it's largely character driven since the show is about the darker side of human emotions and interactions. Weird things happen to the protagonist to make it seem like he might be going crazy. In the last couple of episodes it's been addressing that more directly and kind of leaves you with a "what the fuck is happening" feeling.

The only people I know who are into The Leftovers were also the people who were into True Detective if that tells you anything about the nature of the show. You get a notion that maybe something more is happening but it's not explicitly said.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on August 27, 2014, 04:08:45 PM
Perfect Blue (Satoshi Kon)
Classic psychological thriller in which a pop idol transferring to a career in acting becomes the victim of a bizarre personal vendetta. It's a great piece of animation and uses the format to convey a disorienting world in which you can never be sure what is actually happening. Fans of David Lynch in particular will dig this, I think, and it bears similarities to his films Mulholland Dr. and Inland Empire though was made before either of them.

Paprika (Satoshi Kon)
Lively Gilliam-esque science fiction in which dreams and reality merge. It looks great and as a collection of individual set pieces is quite enthralling, but I was left feeling that it didn't come to much more than that. This was Kon's last completed feature before he died and I can't help but feel it is not the last hurrah one would want from such an imaginative director (hopefully his half-complete Dreaming Machine will be finished soon). The soundtrack is also nauseating and badly mixed with dialogue at times, which was no small source of annoyance. It's not terrible, it just doesn't work.

Hausu (Nobuhiko Kobayashi)
Japanese haunted house movie which might be the craziest thing I've ever seen. In addition to the bizarre and often hilarious death scenes, it has a sense of humour that switches from slapstick to the macabre to pure absurdism. Watch it.

Melancholia (Lars von Trier)
The thing that stood out to me most, perhaps, besides the tasteful use of CGI which is really quite breathtaking  at times, is how funny it is. I did have a problem with the handheld camera work, which I understand is one of Trier's trademarks, but apart from that I have nothing bad to say about it. It's certainly the best disaster movie I've ever seen, and that's probably because it's not about survival, it's about total unavoidable destruction. Again, despite it being about that, it's funny, hilarious even, and in a wholly intentional way.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on August 27, 2014, 11:22:20 PM
Hugo (Martin Scorsese)
Magic realism on the birth of cinema. Magic is definitely part of what it's about, comparing cinema, automata, and magic shows via the work of Georges Méliès - the famous director of silent films like Le Voyage dans la Lune, which figures prominently through the film - and indeed the experience is quite a magical one, often taking on the quality of fairytale with its broad characters and cheeky sense of humour. The clockwork sequences are magnificent to behold, from the clock towers in the train station to the inner workings of Hugo's automaton, and the warm colours of the clockwork cogs and gears are contrasted with the bleak Parisian Winter beating outside. It's definitely a visual feast, and the story and characters are heart-warming without being cloying, no mean feat for a cinéaste par excellence like Scorsese, especially not when he is writing a gushing love letter to cinema as he is here. Hugo is up there with The King of Comedy as one of my very favourite of his works, which might not appear to be saying much as I find his highly acclaimed works Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas to be quite dreadful, but it is meant sincerely, he is at the top of his game here.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on August 29, 2014, 12:00:57 AM
Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick)
Second viewing, still don't get it. I do honestly believe it's great, because it draws me in effortlessly, but I still don't get it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 29, 2014, 01:29:03 AM
I find his highly acclaimed works Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas to be quite dreadful

hipster
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on August 29, 2014, 01:20:52 PM
I find his highly acclaimed works Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas to be quite dreadful

hipster

>liking hugo, a highly acclaimed, hugely mainstream, oscar winning movie
>hipster

Come on Saddam, you can do better than this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 04, 2014, 12:52:55 AM
Let the Right One In (Tomas Alfredson) - Very good

The Shining (Stanley Kubrick) - Great

Room 237 (Rodney Ascher) - Okay

La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc (Carl Th. Dreyer) - Very good
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on September 04, 2014, 03:14:32 AM
Let the Right One In (Tomas Alfredson) - Very good

The Shining (Stanley Kubrick) - Great

Room 237 (Rodney Ascher) - Okay

La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc (Carl Th. Dreyer) - Very good

You're getting lazy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 04, 2014, 06:01:34 AM
Let the Right One In (Tomas Alfredson) - Very good

The Shining (Stanley Kubrick) - Great

Room 237 (Rodney Ascher) - Okay

La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc (Carl Th. Dreyer) - Very good

You're getting lazy.

I'm not feeling wordy at the moment.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on September 04, 2014, 10:04:27 PM
Eddie Murphy

The 90s called they want their lead black actor back.

Also

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=black+actors&tbm=isch
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on September 05, 2014, 02:38:07 AM
Leon: The Professional

Aside from some logical flaws, it was excellent. Gary Oldman was Psychotic, young Natalie Portman was creepy as hell, and that guy from The Pink Panther was badass.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 05, 2014, 03:04:49 AM
that guy from The Pink Panther

If you only know of Jean Reno from his role in that shitty movie, you are doing something terribly wrong.

Also, I binge-watched the first half of Breaking Bad's second season today.  The first season was good and all, but it's only now that I've really gotten hooked.  Skyler still sucks.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on September 05, 2014, 03:35:34 AM
that guy from The Pink Panther

If you only know of Jean Reno from his role in that shitty movie, you are doing something terribly wrong.

Also, I binge-watched the first half of Breaking Bad's second season today.  The first season was good and all, but it's only now that I've really gotten hooked.  Skyler still sucks.

She was my least favorite character.

I have watched the first half of the second season of Hannibal. Don't know what I think of it rally. It uses a lot of  obvious tricks to create mood and the narrative is very loose but Hannibal is great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on September 05, 2014, 04:00:59 AM
that guy from The Pink Panther

If you only know of Jean Reno from his role in that shitty movie, you are doing something terribly wrong.


I was 10 when that movie came out, it was right up my alley >o<

Also, watch moar BB.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: fappenhosen on September 05, 2014, 09:17:56 PM
Skyler still sucks.

The whole sister storyline blows dead dicks.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 06, 2014, 01:30:56 AM
Inkheart (Iain Softley)

Owing much to the work of Terry Gilliam and the underrated Neil Gaiman penned Stardust, this seems like something I would like a lot, and that's why it was so disappointing to find myself checking the time and sighing at the thought of having 20 more minutes to go till the end. Although the basic premise of being able to read a page from a book aloud and have the things in it come into the real world is interesting, it seems under-utilised. Our lead is Mortimer, a "silvertongue" who can bring books to life, one day he is plunged into battle with the villains of a fantasy novel, but he never thinks it's a good idea, despite being surrounded by books in most scenes, to bring a couple of appropriate titles along for ammunition? It feels like a flimsy excuse to drag the story out for longer than is necessary, and for that reason I say this is an 80 minute film that lasts for 100.

The acting ranges from good to passable. Brendan Fraser, who I think is unfairly dismissed by most people, does a good job in the lead role, Andy Serkis is menacing enough as the smooth talking but rather unhinged villain, and Eliza Bennett is a believable female lead. It's really only Paul Bettany and his clunky accent, woefully mismatched with the dialogue (lots of "we gotta do this" "we gotta long road ahead of us" "you gotta read the book" gotta gotta gotta etc.), which is kind of off putting. It's actually a reminiscent of some of the dialogue/accent combinations in Skyrim, and that's not a good thing. Part of the blame lies with the characters themselves, they seem very much "to type", and while this is understandable from the perspective of some of them being taken right out of old fantasy stories, for me it just doesn't work.

The music is generic to say the least, but perfectly functional, which is impressive enough. The special effects are quite well done for the most part: extended shots of the Minotaur from the tale of Theseus which look quite believable, and the flying monkeys from Oz and so on, all fine. The Shadow, an original monster from the titular Inkheart book, looks pretty good too as it billows smoke and ash with every move, though I can't stop thinking it looks a bit like the Balrog from Lord of the Rings had an accident involving a giant fire extinguisher.

While it has good ideas, a decent cast, and good special effects, Inkheart seems to have a difficult time coming together into a genuinely satisfying film. As a fantasy "epic" it simply does not have the strength of its convictions and ends up being a severely flawed piece of work, but not in a charming way like the aforementioned Stardust, which I recommend checking out, along with Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, as quality contemporary alternatives that have more to offer.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 08, 2014, 01:08:26 PM
Zodiac (David Fincher)

Slow burn paperwork drama with a bit of blood added for contrast here and there. Fincher's usual gloss is on full display and for most of the film acts as a kind of detaching presence, leaving the audience a couple of steps removed from the drama. While the characters felt kind of flat for me (liking Animal Crackers isn't a character trait, I'm sorry, it just isn't) I did find myself eventually becoming engrossed in the plot, which isn't so much about the Zodiac Killer as it is about what obsession can do to people. It's a flawed piece, but it is entertaining throughout, and Fincher's visual style is as slick and pretty as ever.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 08, 2014, 01:39:40 PM
I love that one. It follows the book pretty well and it makes you feel like you're the one investigating the Zodiac killer.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on September 09, 2014, 03:00:48 AM
Has anyone else seen Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai? Excellent film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 10, 2014, 07:02:06 AM
The Dish (Rob Sitch)

Comedy drama about Australian involvement in the TV broadcast of the Apollo 11 mission, based on actual events. "Actual events" is where the problem lies, while there are considerable departures from recorded history it never really goes for broke to deliver satire or even farce. Obviously this was not the intention of the people who made the film, which is fine, but I feel it would have benefited from a more subversive approach à la Dr. Strangelove. What we get instead is a sort of cosy parochial feelgood piece in which the eccentricities of Australian behaviour meet the procedural constraints of NASA, and it feels like many opportunities for big laughs concerning this ramshackle professionalism in the face of bureaucracy were missed as the whole thing comes to a somewhat unpleasantly romantic conclusion.

Having said all that, I don't think it's a bad film. It's well shot (I especially appreciated the number of shots the titular dish received, the size and beauty of the machinery is the visual highlight of the film) and well acted, and I laughed quite a few times. I'm sure I missed some of the humour in the script owing to my not being familiar with Australian comedy, but I felt that it was fairly functional in that regard nonetheless. Overall I'd say it's an okay film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on September 10, 2014, 09:05:40 AM
I'm not sure what Australian comedy is. Drop bear jokes?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 10, 2014, 10:17:29 AM
I'm not sure what Australian comedy is. Drop bear jokes?
By Australian comedy I mean humour specific to Australian culture, which I really don't know much of anything about.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 10, 2014, 03:10:56 PM
Australian comedy mainly consists of saying "Oi!" and jokes about kangaroos.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on September 10, 2014, 07:16:54 PM
We need an expert Australian to tell us.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on September 11, 2014, 12:39:24 AM
Just finished watching Spike Jonze's Her. I'd been wanting to see this ever since the first previews came out (partly because Arcade Fire did the score) and have avoided pretty much everything about it since.

Now that it's over, I'm not really sure what I think. The film's cinematography was gorgeous (most of the time) to a crazy extent. The acting was amazing, and Joaquin in particular was just wonderful as all hell. I often found myself stepping outside of the film for a moment, so to speak, just to admire how good he was at portraying his character and just how sincere he seemed. Scarlett Johansson was very good as Samantha, but to be honest I wasn't as enthralled with her performance as a lot of people seem to have been.

As for the story itself, I'd say the first hour or so I really really loved, but from there on I don't think it was as interesting. The premise is great—man falls in love with an intelligent OS—and it holds up very well for a while, but towards the end it feels like it sort of decays into a more traditional love story and I just kinda found myself being less enraptured by what's happening and becoming less emotionally invested. When I of all people am not crying at very sad parts, something's wrong. While the specifics of their relationship and troubles were fascinating and for all intensive porpoises should have made it feel like more than any other romantic film, it really didn't in that last 30-45 minutes. Everything felt, more or less, relatable to more usual problems and while that's great for analogizing the relationship to any other human relationship, it also meant that it felt overly familiar and less interesting and exciting.

Of course, this is just me and clearly most people disagree with me, but yeah, I don't know if I loved it or just thought it was good. But it was definitely gorgeous to look at and hear, and featured probably the only sex scene I've found kind of beautiful, so that's definitely an achievement. :P
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 12, 2014, 03:06:13 PM
In the Company of Men (Neil LaBute)

LaBute's debut casts him in somewhat different light to "the guy who made that film with Nicolas Cage punching women while wearing a bear costume", even if the subject matter isn't necessarily all that different. The story concerns two men who are heading out of town on business for six weeks, while waiting for a flight they, going through messy break-ups and wanting revenge on women, make a pact to find a lonely fragile woman, wine and dine her separately, and then break her heart for the sake of hurting her. I don't want to give much else away because I really think people should just see it, it's definitely the most brilliant satire I've seen in a long time, and not only has major laughs but tangible pain and sadness, often in the same moment. It's a really great piece of work.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on September 12, 2014, 04:08:27 PM
In the Company of Men (Neil LaBute)

LaBute's debut casts him in somewhat different light to "the guy who made that film with Nicolas Cage punching women while wearing a bear costume", even if the subject matter isn't necessarily all that different. The story concerns two men who are heading out of town on business for six weeks, while waiting for a flight they, going through messy break-ups and wanting revenge on women, make a pact to find a lonely fragile woman, wine and dine her separately, and then break her heart for the sake of hurting her. I don't want to give much else away because I really think people should just see it, it's definitely the most brilliant satire I've seen in a long time, and not only has major laughs but tangible pain and sadness, often in the same moment. It's a really great piece of work.

A movie one should avoid seeing with their significant other at all costs.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 14, 2014, 05:33:39 PM
First season of Black Sails. A political drama with the most historically accurate pirates I've ever seen. This show actually makes me interested to learn more about them. They use a historian on set so they just nail the time period. Plus, the characters are very well written. It just looks fantastic as well.

It can be a bit boring with the more political moments, but after two episodes you get really sucked into the plot. I just finished it yesterday but I'm already re-watching it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 14, 2014, 06:38:54 PM
But that's on Starz and has Michael Bay as a producer.  Both Starz and Michael Bay are terrible.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on September 14, 2014, 07:03:38 PM
They have physicists working on The Big Bang Theory but that show still sucks.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 14, 2014, 07:57:41 PM
But that's on Starz and has Michael Bay as a producer.  Both Starz and Michael Bay are terrible.
Starz is fine. Michael Bay is just the producer which means they've got a lot of money. He's not a director so there are no dumb explosions.

They have physicists working on The Big Bang Theory but that show still sucks.
That's cause the comedy is dumb.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on September 14, 2014, 08:02:31 PM
I think The Big Bang Theory is funny. Bring it on, haters.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 14, 2014, 08:09:06 PM
I think The Big Bang Theory is funny. Bring it on, haters.
So do I, actually.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on September 14, 2014, 08:10:49 PM
Both of you are terrible.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on September 14, 2014, 08:13:21 PM
I think The Big Bang Theory is funny. Bring it on, haters.

The first two seasons are really great, but after that it's just endless relationship dramas. Why does Sheldon even have a fucking girlfriend? They changed his character at that point, and the show is far worse because of it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on September 14, 2014, 09:11:53 PM
The first two seasons are really great, but after that it's just endless relationship dramas. Why does Sheldon even have a fucking girlfriend? They changed his character at that point, and the show is far worse because of it.

Why are you looking for deep and thoughtful character development in a sitcom?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 14, 2014, 09:25:51 PM
TBBT is objectively terrible.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on September 14, 2014, 09:35:27 PM
TBBT is objectively terrible.

Incorrect. It is funny as fuck.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on September 14, 2014, 09:36:01 PM
The first two seasons are really great, but after that it's just endless relationship dramas. Why does Sheldon even have a fucking girlfriend? They changed his character at that point, and the show is far worse because of it.

Why are you looking for deep and thoughtful character development in a sitcom?


Because good sitcoms do it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on September 14, 2014, 09:38:26 PM
Because good sitcoms do it.

A good sitcom is funny. That is the only criteria.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on September 14, 2014, 09:48:54 PM
Poorly-coded N64 emulator ehehehehe
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on September 14, 2014, 09:55:14 PM
Blackface for nerds

Srsly though, terrible show. Doesn't even get its nerd facts right. I try to watch and they fuck up a Super Mario 64 reference. What shits.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on September 14, 2014, 09:56:33 PM
The first two seasons are really great, but after that it's just endless relationship dramas. Why does Sheldon even have a fucking girlfriend? They changed his character at that point, and the show is far worse because of it.

Why are you looking for deep and thoughtful character development in a sitcom?

I'm not. I want the exact opposite of that.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on September 14, 2014, 10:33:07 PM
The first two seasons are really great, but after that it's just endless relationship dramas. Why does Sheldon even have a fucking girlfriend? They changed his character at that point, and the show is far worse because of it.

Why are you looking for deep and thoughtful character development in a sitcom?

I'm not. I want the exact opposite of that.

Shallow and thoughtless character development? Then The Big Bang Theory is perfect for you! :^)))
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on September 14, 2014, 10:44:25 PM
The first two seasons are really great, but after that it's just endless relationship dramas. Why does Sheldon even have a fucking girlfriend? They changed his character at that point, and the show is far worse because of it.

Why are you looking for deep and thoughtful character development in a sitcom?

I'm not. I want the exact opposite of that.

Shallow and thoughtless character development? Then The Big Bang Theory is perfect for you! :^)))
I would like Sheldon to be the same character he was when they first started the show. Ambiguously asexual, eccentric, neurotic, and somewhat chauvinistic at times. It was very funny. They introduced Amy and toned down his character x100. Now we get to watch Sheldon, the Jewish guy, and every other damn character bicker with their girlfriends/wives, with the occasional "aweeeeee so cute they totally love each other" moment.  Maybe I was spoiled by the masterwork that is Seinfeld, because I usually hold most sitcoms to that standard of excellence. Foolish, I know.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on September 14, 2014, 11:12:03 PM
Blackface for nerds

Srsly though, terrible show. Doesn't even get its nerd facts right. I try to watch and they fuck up a Super Mario 64 reference. What shits.

WELL YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE BARENAKED LADIES DID THE INTRO AND WIL WHEATON ON THE SHOW PLUS THEY HAVE PHYSICS GUYS GET THE MATH RIGHT

edit: derp
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on September 15, 2014, 12:57:42 AM
I'm currently watching a show called Continuum (apparently there is a SyFy show that goes by this name, I am talking about the Canadian one). It started off pretty dull and overdone "erma gawd, we went back in time!!!1!!1!" but the story depth is getting a lot better and I am now starting season 2.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1954347/

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on September 15, 2014, 01:24:09 AM
Synopsis sounds really lame.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 15, 2014, 01:39:12 AM
I am a tough guy, not a nerd, so I am not offended by their depictions of nerds.  What I am offended by is how obnoxious and unfunny it is.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on September 15, 2014, 01:53:23 AM
B-B-B-B-BAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on September 15, 2014, 01:30:18 PM
the masterwork that is Seinfeld

This is the sort of person that watches and enjoys TBBT
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on September 15, 2014, 01:53:32 PM
I have been watching the original 1978 Battlestar Galactica, and its follow-up, Galactica 1980. I only have an episode and a half to go of the latter (the second-last episode seems to be broken halfway through, so I wasn't able to watch the end).

Battlestar Galactica starts off being literally Star Wars, but gets consistently better throughout its first (and only) season. The latter half is mostly good, particularly after Sheba joins the Galactica. On the whole, it feels like a cross between Star Trek (the original series) and Star Wars, and is much recommended. The overarching plot concerns a group of spacefaring humans from a distant galaxy who are all but extinct after a terrible war, and seek to find their distant cousins on Earth. The series ends with them receiving a transmission of the Apollo 11 moon landing.

Then they made the absolutely terrible decision to bring it back two years later, set an unspecified number of decades after the original, after they have found Earth. They dropped most of the original cast, and replaced them with completely unmemorable characters who don't seem to have any personality beyond making markjokes at every opportunity. None of the characters have clear motives for their actions, and the story is told by narrating everything that's about to happen before it actually does. What little isn't foretold is filled in with sci-fi cliches, so the entirety of every episode after the narration is completely pointless.

Oh, and did I mention that the main plot of the series involves a renegade Galactican who travels back in time with the intention of messing with history, yet there are never any visible effects of his actions in the present? How about the fact that Earth gravity is weaker than Galactican gravity, leading to the absolutely hilarious scenes where the protagonists escape law enforcement by leaping into the treetops? Oh, and one of them "accidentally" robs a bank because he thinks pulling out a laser pistol and pointing it at someone holding a bag full of money is a completely innocent gesture. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

I'll leave you with one of the more memorable scenes from Galactica 1980:


http://ftp.steven-mcdonald.id.au/galactica_children.webm
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on September 15, 2014, 02:23:04 PM
The first two seasons are really great, but after that it's just endless relationship dramas. Why does Sheldon even have a fucking girlfriend? They changed his character at that point, and the show is far worse because of it.

Why are you looking for deep and thoughtful character development in a sitcom?


Because good sitcoms do it.

Some do, some don't.  Seinfeld never really developed character, simply adjusted their circumstances, same with Cheers, MASH, Friends.  All of these were wildly successful in some form.  Rushy is right; the most important criteria for a sitcom is the laugh.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 15, 2014, 03:55:27 PM
Inland Empire (David Lynch)

Anyone who knows me knows I love me some David Lynch. When I first saw Inland Empire a few years ago I had no idea what I was watching, it seemed like a half-baked mish mash of scenes put together by a computer algorithm, some grand statement "I am experimental" from Lynch, who had gone so far with his previous films that there was no way to top them but to, in the tradition of James Joyce, create a final (though from Lynch, I sincerely hope there are more features to come) work so beyond what had come before it that it would keep people guessing for years, decades, centuries to come.

With Lynch it is so very often the second time around that makes a viewer realise the brilliance of the work, whether it is understanding the dream narrative of Mulholland Dr. or unravelling the mystery of "Fred" in Lost Highway, the second viewing can often come across like an essay on the first. Inland Empire goes one step further, it is singular among Lynch's work in that the second viewing is not so much an answerer of questions but a window to an entirely different film. I may still not understand the symbols, the interjections, the parallel narratives, but rather than coming out of it confused I came out uplifted.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on September 15, 2014, 08:30:07 PM
TBBT is objectively terrible.

Incorrect. It was funny as fuck.

fix'd

The first season was awful, when it was just "Hehe, aren't nerds funny" jokes, then it got better until it reached its natural stopping point which was Howard getting married. Until then all the characters were different, they were together because they were outcasts and they could get away with being dicks because they were naive.

Now, pretty much all the male cast are interchangeable and the female cast are differentiated purely by their one character trait: Penny-Stupid, Amy-Socially awkward, Bernadette... erm... controlling, maybe?

Time to let it die peacefully.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on September 15, 2014, 08:35:26 PM
TBBT cast make $1million an episode, and people eat it up. The show's not going anywhere. But I agree with all your points.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on September 16, 2014, 02:05:47 AM
I can also say that I like the show despite an avid physics teacher telling me he met the actor who plays Sheldon and was disappointed to find out the guy was a dick in real life (not the funny kind). This was a while ago, right when the show's first season was airing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on September 16, 2014, 02:07:50 AM
I think The Big Bang Theory is funny. Bring it on, haters.

Why am I not surprised?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on September 16, 2014, 06:12:36 PM
I can also say that I like the show despite an avid physics teacher telling me he met the actor who plays Sheldon and was disappointed to find out the guy was a dick in real life (not the funny kind). This was a while ago, right when the show's first season was airing.

He's not only a dick. He also likes it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: markjo on September 16, 2014, 07:59:07 PM
Blackface for nerds

Srsly though, terrible show. Doesn't even get its nerd facts right. I try to watch and they fuck up a Super Mario 64 reference. What shits.
Fact checking a sitcom. (http://i43.tinypic.com/2nq74gy.jpg)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 16, 2014, 08:25:54 PM
Even in a discussion about this stupid show, markjo still provides the worst post.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on September 16, 2014, 08:31:11 PM
Even in a discussion about this stupid show, markjo still provides the worst post.

Incorrect.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on September 20, 2014, 07:37:28 PM
I finished Galactica 1980. I hereby unhesitatingly declare that it is, without a doubt, the worst TV series I have ever made the mistake of deciding to watch.

Every single episode makes its plot painfully obvious from the start. The original Battlestar Galactica included previews of the episode to come at the start too, but just enough to give the viewer an appetite for things to come. 1980 gives away everything at the start.

Part of the problem is that they never introduce any significant complications. The good guys come up with a plan, they execute it, the bad guys practically trip over their own toes, and the plan is successful. But it doesn't feel like a victory when there was nothing in their way at any point.

I honestly wish they'd never tried to bring it back. The original Battlestar Galactica stands quite well on its own.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on September 20, 2014, 07:44:57 PM
What about the 2004 series?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on September 20, 2014, 07:46:02 PM
What about the 2004 series?

2004 series is amazing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on September 21, 2014, 11:16:31 AM
What about the 2004 series?

That's up next.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on September 21, 2014, 01:22:19 PM
What about the 2004 series?

That's up next.

I started that one but never finished, even though I meant to. I should watch it soon as well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on September 21, 2014, 07:07:25 PM
Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Instantly one of my favorite horror films. Polanski's ability to create suspense is phenomenal.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on September 21, 2014, 07:23:46 PM
What about the 2004 series?

That's up next.
Are you going to watch the Stargate franchise some time?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Daniel Jackson on September 21, 2014, 07:30:58 PM
What about the 2004 series?

That's up next.
Are you going to watch the Stargate franchise some time?

Great series. I recommend it with the highest honors. Take it from me, the real Daniel Jackson.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 25, 2014, 01:26:06 AM
I have finished the fourth season of Breaking Bad.  Apparently this is where the show jumped the shark.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on September 25, 2014, 04:25:50 AM
I have finished the fourth season of Breaking Bad.  Apparently this is where the show jumped the shark.
Disagree
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on September 26, 2014, 09:30:59 PM
I have finished the fourth season of Breaking Bad.  Apparently this is where the show jumped the shark.

It starts with one of my favorite scenes I have ever seen on a TV show (Gus visits the lab) and has an awesome ending (Gus visits the hospital) and the in between was excellent.  What was too much for you?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 26, 2014, 09:47:50 PM
I have finished the fourth season of Breaking Bad.  Apparently this is where the show jumped the shark.

It starts with one of my favorite scenes I have ever seen on a TV show (Gus visits the lab) and has an awesome ending (Gus visits the hospital) and the in between was excellent.  What was too much for you?

I thought it was great.  What I meant was that I've heard from a few people that the final season is a big step down from the rest of the show's quality.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on September 27, 2014, 07:07:16 AM
What about the 2004 series?

That's up next.
Are you going to watch the Stargate franchise some time?

Perhaps. I generally decide what I'm going to watch next after I finish watching the last thing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 27, 2014, 10:24:12 AM
What about the 2004 series?

That's up next.
Are you going to watch the Stargate franchise some time?

Perhaps. I generally decide what I'm going to watch next after I finish watching the last thing.

And this time you are deciding to watch Twin Peaks. Thanks.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 29, 2014, 06:26:33 PM
I have now finished Breaking Bad.  While I'm sure that most of you have probably already watched it (at least out of those of you who would be interested in watching such a show), I still feel like sharing my thoughts.  No spoilers, I promise.

First of all, the setting is great.  It would have been easy for these guys to move it a little bit to the west and set it in Los Angeles because we don't have nearly enough TV shows, movies, etc. set in fucking Los Angeles these days, or move it a little bit to the east and set it in Texas and give us a bunch of yee-haws and cowboy hats.  Instead, they took a chance on a setting that we don't see too often, with an interesting culture and a look and feel that fits the show perfectly.  It's a modern Western of sorts, but one that's written so well that it avoids almost all of the clichés that most Westerns suffer from.

Speaking of the writing, it's fantastic.  What particularly stands out about it (and the directing) is the blend of gritty realism and occasional bursts of - let's face it, complete and utter silliness.  The goofy montages with the offbeat, jarring music.  Walter pulling ridiculous solutions to his problems out of his ass with SCIENCE!  Saul is basically a cartoon character.  Gus is pretty much a Bond villain.  I could go on, but the point is that this isn't a bad thing.  It actually plays a vital role in livening up the show and making it entertaining as well as compelling.  Most importantly of all, it never - well, almost never - overplays this element and make the story seem too far-fetched.

I was somewhat disappointed with the final season.  A lot of it is just filler, and the new antagonists were really, really lame.  I won't go into more detail because spoilers oh no, but I'm sure those of you who have yet to watch this will see what I mean when you get around to that part.  Still, it was a reasonably satisfying conclusion to the series, and with the finale in particular I was especially glad to see that they kept it nice and straightforward, with none of that stupid, "deep," abstract bullshit that certain other shows concluded with.

I'm not sure if I have anything else to say about it.  I tried to avoid talking about things that the critics and reviewers have already discussed to death, which is why I'm not bothering with praising Bryan Cranston's performance or whatever.  Anyway, the show is gud, watch it if you haven't already.

tl;dr Snape kills Dumbledore
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on September 29, 2014, 06:34:23 PM
tl;dr Snape kills Dumbledore

You son of a bitch.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on October 06, 2014, 10:16:35 AM
What about the 2004 series?

That's up next.

Now downloading obtaining through legitimate and above-board means. I'll be watching the opening mini-series shortly.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on October 06, 2014, 06:53:38 PM
Gone Girl (David Fincher)

This film was way better than I had expected and I think it is one of Fincher's best works.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on October 06, 2014, 07:16:58 PM
What about the 2004 series?

That's up next.

Now downloading obtaining through legitimate and above-board means. I'll be watching the opening mini-series shortly.

Have fun.  Its my fave <3
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 06, 2014, 07:49:47 PM
Gone Girl (David Fincher)

This film was way better than I had expected and I think it is one of Fincher's best works.

https://deadline.com/2014/10/twin-peaks-series-showtime-david-lynch-mark-frost-845804/

Twin Peaks is coming back with new episodes in 2016.

Thought you might be interested.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on October 06, 2014, 08:05:38 PM
Gone Girl (David Fincher)

This film was way better than I had expected and I think it is one of Fincher's best works.

https://deadline.com/2014/10/twin-peaks-series-showtime-david-lynch-mark-frost-845804/

Twin Peaks is coming back with new episodes in 2016.

Thought you might be interested.

He has already been informed.

IT WAS ALL ME
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 06, 2014, 08:06:35 PM
I really don't know how I feel about new episodes of Twin Peaks... I'm conflicted.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on October 06, 2014, 09:07:11 PM
I really don't know how I feel about new episodes of Twin Peaks... I'm conflicted.
As far as I'm concerned: it's new shit from David Lynch — I am happy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on October 06, 2014, 10:20:47 PM
I really don't know how I feel about new episodes of Twin Peaks... I'm conflicted.
As far as I'm concerned: it's new shit from David Lynch — I am happy.

Same. I am excited!!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 07, 2014, 12:12:39 AM
I wonder if it will continue the cliffhanger of the original series, or maybe it will do a timeskip with all new characters?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 07, 2014, 12:37:22 AM
Didn't you read the article you linked?

Quote
The new Twin Peaks will be set in the present day, more than two decades after the events in the first two seasons.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on October 07, 2014, 12:44:21 AM
Enter the Void (Gaspar Noé)

All the camera tricks in the world can't save this ponderous bloated nothing of a film from its own putrescence. Aside from the actually quite good opening section, this is how the film goes: the camera swirls around a room for a bit, someone says something, the camera zooms into a light source or something else, there's a trippy light show, then we're in another scene in which the exact same thing happens. After a while the formula gets boring, and Noé realises this, so he throws a bunch of sex scenes in there as if to say "look, I know, and I'm sorry, here's something else" and then that goes on for way too long instead.

Occasionally, the picture goes to black, no sound or anything. Every time that happened I was thinking surely I have been sat here for 160 minutes already, there can't be more? and the numbness of my buttocks seemed to confirm this. No sooner has the thought occurred than the camera starts swirling about again, showing me more people I don't care about doing things that aren't interesting. Maybe if it had been better acted I could have tolerated the rest, but this is ostensibly a bunch of "street" characters played by people who have apparently never even been near a street. It's dreadful, the dialogue frequently lapses into "hey man, you got the stuff, yeah? Hardcore!"

It's a shame, the basic premise of seeing through the eyes of the dead as possibly imagined in Bardo Thodol is interesting enough, and the camera style, while it stops being impressive after about the second or third time it does its little swirl and zoom routine, and stops being interesting around the same time, would have been fine if the content lived up to the idea. Unfortunately it was impossible for me to care about 90% of what was presented to me on the screen, and the 10% I was interested in was swept away in the tidal wave of fancy camera tricks and CGI and neon lights and naked people. This is an exhausting film not because it is intense but because it cannot stop throwing stuff at you: here's some stuff, look at that stuff, do you want more stuff? here's some more stuff LOOK AT ALL THIS FUCKING STUFF!!! Apart from all that it's a really straightforward film that probably could have been told more effectively without the ghost camera swirly zoomy stuff-throwing sex-having nonsense that is this two and a half hours of my life I'll never get back.

Early on in the film, one character tells another that his drug dealer is a pervert who smears his own excrement on the back of his sex partners' heads. I would rather have seen a film about that guy than this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 07, 2014, 01:02:49 AM
Didn't you read the article you linked?

Quote
The new Twin Peaks will be set in the present day, more than two decades after the events in the first two seasons.

Nope.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on October 07, 2014, 07:51:28 AM
Enter the Void (Gaspar Noé)

All the camera tricks in the world can't save this ponderous bloated nothing of a film from its own putrescence. Aside from the actually quite good opening section, this is how the film goes: the camera swirls around a room for a bit, someone says something, the camera zooms into a light source or something else, there's a trippy light show, then we're in another scene in which the exact same thing happens. After a while the formula gets boring, and Noé realises this, so he throws a bunch of sex scenes in there as if to say "look, I know, and I'm sorry, here's something else" and then that goes on for way too long instead.

Occasionally, the picture goes to black, no sound or anything. Every time that happened I was thinking surely I have been sat here for 160 minutes already, there can't be more? and the numbness of my buttocks seemed to confirm this. No sooner has the thought occurred than the camera starts swirling about again, showing me more people I don't care about doing things that aren't interesting. Maybe if it had been better acted I could have tolerated the rest, but this is ostensibly a bunch of "street" characters played by people who have apparently never even been near a street. It's dreadful, the dialogue frequently lapses into "hey man, you got the stuff, yeah? Hardcore!"

It's a shame, the basic premise of seeing through the eyes of the dead as possibly imagined in Bardo Thodol is interesting enough, and the camera style, while it stops being impressive after about the second or third time it does its little swirl and zoom routine, and stops being interesting around the same time, would have been fine if the content lived up to the idea. Unfortunately it was impossible for me to care about 90% of what was presented to me on the screen, and the 10% I was interested in was swept away in the tidal wave of fancy camera tricks and CGI and neon lights and naked people. This is an exhausting film not because it is intense but because it cannot stop throwing stuff at you: here's some stuff, look at that stuff, do you want more stuff? here's some more stuff LOOK AT ALL THIS FUCKING STUFF!!! Apart from all that it's a really straightforward film that probably could have been told more effectively without the ghost camera swirly zoomy stuff-throwing sex-having nonsense that is this two and a half hours of my life I'll never get back.

Early on in the film, one character tells another that his drug dealer is a pervert who smears his own excrement on the back of his sex partners' heads. I would rather have seen a film about that guy than this.

I agree with everything here. Major dissapoint
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 07, 2014, 05:49:56 PM
I've watched the first four episodes of True Detective.  I don't want to sound like I hate it, because I don't, but I have to say that I'm disappointed by how incredibly clichéd it is, especially with the two main characters.  I won't go into detail because spoilers, but come on, I've seen these guys before.  We all have, and I was hoping that a show that's been this acclaimed might have been in part because it showed a bit more originality with the plot and characters.  Clearly, that wasn't the case.

Anyway, I like it overall, the acting is fantastic, and I'm interested to see where the story is going, so I'm definitely going to watch the second half.  It just seems to me that in this day and age, we ought to be moving past some of these tired clichés.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 10, 2014, 04:56:58 PM
I quite like the new Superman Man of Steel film.

Ugh.
It's the only Superman movie I've liked. But I don't really care for Superman.

I've watched the first four episodes of True Detective.  I don't want to sound like I hate it, because I don't, but I have to say that I'm disappointed by how incredibly clichéd it is, especially with the two main characters.  I won't go into detail because spoilers, but come on, I've seen these guys before.  We all have, and I was hoping that a show that's been this acclaimed might have been in part because it showed a bit more originality with the plot and characters.  Clearly, that wasn't the case.

Anyway, I like it overall, the acting is fantastic, and I'm interested to see where the story is going, so I'm definitely going to watch the second half.  It just seems to me that in this day and age, we ought to be moving past some of these tired clichés.
You're cliched and I hate you. Cohle and Hart forever. ♥

Honestly, I can see the cliches but I think there's originality there as well. Hart is made to be relate-able. He's the good ole boy we all know exists even if we don't know personally. That in itself is a tired character, but he's way more likable than they usually are. He's not stupid and he's a lot more honest and vulnerable than the classic good ole boys. And I can't think of any characters off the top of my head who are like Cohle. Certain broad aspects are cliched like the loner cop deal, but when looking closer at specifics I don't see any cliches. Plus I really enjoy the way they interact. Most of the time when there are two very different cops it's a comedy, but in True Detective sometimes they truly hate each other. Well, maybe not on Cohle's part but Hart definitely seems to hate Cohle at times. And yet, a deep deep bond develops there as they work on a long, emotionally draining, and repulsive case. It's a great relationship.

It's a modern Noir, so by definition it has a lot of classic elements. I think the writing is great, but really, it's the acting that makes it. Maybe Hart wouldn't have been as likable if it wasn't for Harrelson and maybe Cohle wouldn't have been as haunting if it wasn't for McConaughey. Maybe it was their chemistry that made it. The second season will decide that for me, I suppose.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on October 10, 2014, 07:24:08 PM
I think it's a bit of a stretch to accuse the two main characters of being cliched. I didn't even care anyway, the show was put together very well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 11, 2014, 11:40:48 PM
Finally getting around to watching Parks and Rec and I love it. The boyfriend always wants to watch The Office so it's nice to have a better comedy to watch instead.

I posted Justin Theroux in the Post What You'd Hit thread but I think he's a downgrade from Louis CK. But hey, I love gingers and cops so Dave is just great. 
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 14, 2014, 04:53:21 PM
I'm now on season 7 of Stargate SG-1. This is a really great series. It can be cheesy at times, but it's constantly fun to watch and they explore some interesting sci-fi concepts. I'm ready to see Anubis dead, and I feel like they really missed some great opportunities with ascended Daniel Jackson. But I'm guessing there was a real-world reason why Michael Shanks wasn't a regular in season 6, which probably limited his screen-time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on October 14, 2014, 04:56:35 PM
Enjoy the one remaining good season.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 14, 2014, 05:31:03 PM
:(

Is Atlantis any good? SGU?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on October 15, 2014, 04:58:13 AM
Atlantis is good. SGU is not.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 15, 2014, 04:17:32 PM
Since Halloween is soon - anyone want to recommend some good scary movies?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on October 15, 2014, 11:46:58 PM
I'm now on season 7 of Stargate SG-1. This is a really great series. It can be cheesy at times, but it's constantly fun to watch and they explore some interesting sci-fi concepts. I'm ready to see Anubis dead, and I feel like they really missed some great opportunities with ascended Daniel Jackson. But I'm guessing there was a real-world reason why Michael Shanks wasn't a regular in season 6, which probably limited his screen-time.
1. Prepare to be disappointed.
2. Yeah.... about that.

Atlantis is good. SGU is not.
I loved SGU.  It's really all about what you like.  I enjoyed the people drama mixed with the "oh shit our ship sucks".  Think "The Walking Dead" but instead of zombies it's a ship that could stop working any moment.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 16, 2014, 07:55:47 AM
I'm now on season 7 of Stargate SG-1. This is a really great series. It can be cheesy at times, but it's constantly fun to watch and they explore some interesting sci-fi concepts. I'm ready to see Anubis dead, and I feel like they really missed some great opportunities with ascended Daniel Jackson. But I'm guessing there was a real-world reason why Michael Shanks wasn't a regular in season 6, which probably limited his screen-time.

I used to love SG1, but the others are right, you're cresting the peak now.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on October 16, 2014, 01:20:22 PM
I think Atlantis is worth watching though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 18, 2014, 07:28:33 PM
Fury

It does not romanticize war at all. It focused on how the horrors of total war transformed men. Norman (Lerman) joins the tank crew to introduce naive innocence and humanity into the veteran, almost heartless, crew. There are moments when you see glimpses of the men they used to be before WWII started, even "Coon-Ass" who seems like a mindless beast in the movie. Even during the quiet moments, something will happen to remind you that they're in Germany and surrounded by the enemy.

The soundtrack was awesome too. Very heavy and dark with lots of subtle German chanting.

It made me want to read All Quiet on the Western Front again. It was emotionally hard-hitting from start to finish.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Jack1704 on October 18, 2014, 07:32:58 PM
I started watching a few US programmes such as SGU and then it just stopped.

I used to love Journeyman but that only lasted 1 series, oh and Alcatraz.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 19, 2014, 05:46:23 PM
I've finished True Detective.  Sorry to the fans of the show here, but I can't really say that I thought it was very good.  I was tentatively approving of it earlier, as you might remember, but I was honestly giving it the benefit of the doubt based on its impressive technical competence, intriguing style, and a decent first couple of episodes.  From there, it all went downhill.  For all its weight, all its gravitas, all its grim seriousness, this show doesn't amount to much more than a stock serial killer hunt, one that's stretched out over eight very long, dull, slow hours.  Along the way, it hits pretty much every predictable cliché there is.  All the cop clichés are here.  All the serial killer clichés are here.  It even strives to fall in line with the standard "Golden Age" tropes, like douchebag protagonists, painful-to-watch family melodrama, and women seldom being more than interfering family members or disposable sex objects. 

And all this stuff would be fine, if the show had any self-awareness and tried to have some fun along the way, but it doesn't.  It's consistently dark, depressing, humorless, and joyless, and yet doesn't have a decent story that might make it worth sitting through all the doom and gloom.  The combination of clichés and weight is truly strange.  It's like it tried to have it both ways - be fun, and at the same time be deep and emotionally compelling, but somehow they screwed it up and ended up with the worst of both worlds - it's hackneyed, and at the same time it's pretentious wangst.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on October 19, 2014, 06:54:21 PM
I would like a detailed cliche list from tvtropes.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 19, 2014, 07:47:39 PM
I would like a detailed cliche list from tvtropes.
There's a lot of tropes, but none that I think are shallow enough to seem like lazy cliche writing. I love The black and gray morality theme myself. And the lack of strong female characters doesn't bother me since a) Hart is a man whore and b) Cohle is damaged beyond repair. Everyone sucks. And it's just about 2 guys, one being a good ole boy so is bound to be sexist anyway.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on October 19, 2014, 08:47:28 PM
Just saw Fury. Fucking hate it
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 19, 2014, 09:20:31 PM
Just saw Fury. Fucking hate it

Go on.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 19, 2014, 09:52:07 PM
Just saw Fury. Fucking hate it
boo

I'm curious why you hate it. It has solid good ratings.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on October 20, 2014, 03:28:40 AM
Okay, so this isn't just just watched, but I saw the first two seasons of Louis C.K.'s Louie fairly recently. Overall impression positive! When it's funny, it's very funny, though I found the second season to be a bit too heavy handed when it came to more serious topics, and the USO episode in particular had some cringe sentimental moments, almost to the point that I felt like I was watching Scrubs or something. However, the episode with Doug Stanhope proved that C.K. can write an affecting scene without going overboard, so I hope any revisits to Serious Land in future seasons follow that same approach.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on October 20, 2014, 04:08:16 AM
Okay, so this isn't just just watched, but I saw the first two seasons of Louis C.K.'s Louie fairly recently. Overall impression positive! When it's funny, it's very funny, though I found the second season to be a bit too heavy handed when it came to more serious topics, and the USO episode in particular had some cringe sentimental moments, almost to the point that I felt like I was watching Scrubs or something. However, the episode with Doug Stanhope proved that C.K. can write an affecting scene without going overboard, so I hope any revisits to Serious Land in future seasons follow that same approach.

I'm glad you like it so far!! I think the "serious" bits get a lot better as it goes on—actually, I think everything basically gets better, especially in season 4. Seasons 1, 2 and 3, for me, feel like he's sort of going all over the place and trying everything out, seeing what sticks and what works, then season 4 (imo) feels like he's got a firm grasp of it and decides to make a cohesive season with what he's learned.


Just saw Fury. Fucking hate it
boo

I'm curious why you hate it. It has solid good ratings.

Alright, well, my initial post was kind of reactionary, purposely so, and in the moment. I genuinely felt hatred and wanted to post that to see for myself how it held up later. It's kind of interesting. I mean, I genuinely was very upset at the movie, but in a good way. It was an amazing movie. Semi-spoilers ahead, so don't read further if you want to see it (which I do recommend you do). I can't stand most war movies, it's all so overdone and everything is romanticized and it's damn near impossible to not be generic and clichéd, but Fury was a fucking impressive film. I loved it as a movie, but I hated it down to the marrow in my bones because it was a disgusting movie. And that's a good thing, it's supposed to be—that just means it served its purpose, in my eyes. War is hell, and that movie sold it for me more than any other film, story or writing ever has before it. I hated the people, I hated their reserved demeanors towards what they were doing, I hated the joy they found in it, I hated how they personified an entire country as "more pigs to kill", I hate how they took an innocent kid and rubbed his face right into the dirt, blood and tears until he was just as apathetic towards (and even pulled into) the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of people, I hated seeing, more and more as the movie went on, that all the people I hated were just like him, went through the same process as him and were all really just as scared as him. I hated that movie. And because of that, I loved it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 20, 2014, 04:33:27 PM
Alright, well, my initial post was kind of reactionary, purposely so, and in the moment. I genuinely felt hatred and wanted to post that to see for myself how it held up later. It's kind of interesting. I mean, I genuinely was very upset at the movie, but in a good way. It was an amazing movie. Semi-spoilers ahead, so don't read further if you want to see it (which I do recommend you do). I can't stand most war movies, it's all so overdone and everything is romanticized and it's damn near impossible to not be generic and clichéd, but Fury was a fucking impressive film. I loved it as a movie, but I hated it down to the marrow in my bones because it was a disgusting movie. And that's a good thing, it's supposed to be—that just means it served its purpose, in my eyes. War is hell, and that movie sold it for me more than any other film, story or writing ever has before it. I hated the people, I hated their reserved demeanors towards what they were doing, I hated the joy they found in it, I hated how they personified an entire country as "more pigs to kill", I hate how they took an innocent kid and rubbed his face right into the dirt, blood and tears until he was just as apathetic towards (and even pulled into) the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of people, I hated seeing, more and more as the movie went on, that all the people I hated were just like him, went through the same process as him and were all really just as scared as him. I hated that movie. And because of that, I loved it.
Gotcha, that makes more sense. It was a rough movie and I am really glad they didn't romanticize it all.

As someone who is fascinated with WWI and WWII front line stories, this movie did the experience a lot more justice.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 20, 2014, 09:03:41 PM
I think Atlantis is worth watching though.

I disagree.

In addition, I really don't recommend Gotham. In a way, I feel sorry for the production team, they've clearly spent a lot of time and effort making Gotham look and feel right, somewhere between Burton and Nolan's Batman - art deco and modern, that they seem to have forgotten to get actors who can act or writers who can write dialogue.

A big disappointment.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 20, 2014, 09:08:29 PM
I think Atlantis is worth watching though.

I disagree.

In addition, I really don't recommend Gotham. In a way, I feel sorry for the production team, they've clearly spent a lot of time and effort making Gotham look and feel right, somewhere between Burton and Nolan's Batman - art deco and modern, that they seem to have forgotten to get actors who can act or writers who can write dialogue.

A big disappointment.

Oh, go on.  Tell us more about this awful writing/acting.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on October 20, 2014, 09:17:05 PM
Atlantis may not be as interesting as SG-1 with it's lack of mythological references and interesting villains. But it does have some good characters (as well as bad ones, but SG-1 has its share of terrible character as well *chough*Suemantha Carter*chough*).McKay is heaps more fun to watch than Carter ever was, and the two final seasons were better than the two final SG-1 seasons.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 21, 2014, 01:55:09 AM
I've begun watching Gotham, and so far it is ridiculous, stupid, and quite entertaining.  The fake New York accents are truly awful, though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on October 21, 2014, 02:31:58 PM
I've begun watching Gotham, and so far it is ridiculous, stupid, and quite entertaining.  The fake New York accents are truly awful, though.
They aren't supposed to be New York accents, they are Gotham accents. Get your facts straight.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 21, 2014, 04:38:58 PM
Atlantis may not be as interesting as SG-1 with it's lack of mythological references and interesting villains. But it does have some good characters (as well as bad ones, but SG-1 has its share of terrible character as well *chough*Suemantha Carter*chough*).McKay is heaps more fun to watch than Carter ever was, and the two final seasons were better than the two final SG-1 seasons.

Are the main villains in Atlantis the Ori?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Jack1704 on October 21, 2014, 07:31:23 PM
Atlantis may not be as interesting as SG-1 with it's lack of mythological references and interesting villains. But it does have some good characters (as well as bad ones, but SG-1 has its share of terrible character as well *chough*Suemantha Carter*chough*).McKay is heaps more fun to watch than Carter ever was, and the two final seasons were better than the two final SG-1 seasons.

Are the main villains in Atlantis the Ori?
It starts off with the wraith ad then replicators.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on October 21, 2014, 10:14:17 PM
And then back to Wraith.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on October 23, 2014, 09:05:26 AM
Next Avengers trailer just dropped, looks pretty good. Like Ultron's look and voice. Lots of typical trailer cool shots like Hulk vs Hulk armour. Pretty much zero plot spoilage but this is only a preliminary trailer.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on October 24, 2014, 03:45:42 PM
Children of Men

Same director that did Gravity, Alfonso Cuarón. He really likes his long takes. This was my favorite scene from the movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfBSncUspBk

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 26, 2014, 10:27:22 PM
Well, they fucked up Teal'c's character a good bit in season 8. Just finished the episode where he is living in his own apartment and gets arrested for homicide. O'neil is now the brigadier general of the SGC and Suemantha Carter is the commander of Sg-1. When does the new commander show up?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 26, 2014, 10:40:32 PM
Well, they fucked up Teal'c's character a good bit in season 8. Just finished the episode where he is living in his own apartment and gets arrested for homicide. O'neil is now the brigadier general of the SGC and Suemantha Carter is the commander of Sg-1. When does the new commander show up?

Stop watching it right now. Let the show stay in your memory as a thing of greatness. Don't let the shitty later seasons ruin it all for you.

McKay is heaps more fun to watch than Carter ever was

What? McKay is the single most annoying character ever created in fiction. I would honestly rather watch thousands of hours of jar-jar binks movie clips stitched together than watch that idiot say a single line.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 26, 2014, 10:44:29 PM
Is it really that bad? It's interesting watching them change the formula a little.

Although Teal'c's insistence that he's from Mozambique and obsession with displaying African artifacts in his apartment did leave a sour taste in my mouth. Samantha Carter's relationship with Pete is shallow. The only reason I'm sticking around is because I like watching O'neil break basic protocol every episode as commander of the SGC.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 27, 2014, 01:25:18 AM
Is it really that bad? It's interesting watching them change the formula a little.

Although Teal'c's insistence that he's from Mozambique and obsession with displaying African artifacts in his apartment did leave a sour taste in my mouth. Samantha Carter's relationship with Pete is shallow. The only reason I'm sticking around is because I like watching O'neil break basic protocol every episode as commander of the SGC.

O'Neill's status as brigadier general is to prep the audience on him leaving the show. After he is gone, well, it all goes to shit. I'm not sure of the exact cause of it; maybe its the writers running out of ideas, Amanda Tapping getting older, Richard Dean Anderson not acting anymore, all the above, hell maybe I just don't plain like the later seasons. They just, you know, suck balls.

I didn't like Atlantis either, but that is mainly because of McKay. I had hoped he died in the pilot or something. Stargate Universe was an okay show but it didn't match up with the rest of the stargate series (it took itself very seriously, which isn't the norm for a stargate series).
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 27, 2014, 01:31:10 AM
Well, I plan on watching the entire franchise. It deserves that much. I can tell the quality of the writing has gone down, even as early as season 7.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 27, 2014, 01:33:06 AM
Well, I plan on watching the entire franchise. It deserves that much. I can tell the quality of the writing has gone down, even as early as season 7.

Oh it gets bad before Richard Dean Anderson leaves, but that's like comparing a rainy day to a cat 5 hurricane. Yeah the rainy day sucks, but it doesn't really suck that much.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 27, 2014, 01:34:25 AM
I've heard Universe described as Battlestar Galactica(reboot)-lite. For a show that relies on humor to lighten the mood I'm interested in Universe's change in tone, but I am cautious as well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 27, 2014, 01:52:56 AM
I've also seen a few new episodes of The Walking Dead. My impressions are pretty negative. Seems like the writers can't think of what to do next, and the biggest new threat (and obvious source of story material) has been quickly eliminated. Now we get to watch Rick's group slowly become more jaded and barbaric as if it's some revolutionary new concept that's supposed to hold my attention because it's so philosophically deep. This show really takes itself too seriously.

I can honestly say that I did enjoy the first two seasons, with the 2nd season being better than the first ... But what has come after that is just monotonous storytelling and lack of direction. -2/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 27, 2014, 01:59:36 AM
Zombie survival stories always run out of juice in very little time. I'm surprised it has lasted this long.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 27, 2014, 02:04:12 AM
Zombie survival stories always run out of juice in very little time. I'm surprised it has lasted this long.

Well the first 2 seasons are heavily character based, which is what I think made it enjoyable to watch. I have never been a fan of the zombie survival genre in any form of media, as it's all the same crap over and over.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 27, 2014, 02:10:02 AM
I've never heard anyone say anything positive about that show, ever.  It seems like everyone watches it, and then they all go online and rant about how awful it was.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 27, 2014, 03:06:11 AM
I've never heard anyone say anything positive about that show, ever.  It seems like everyone watches it, and then they all go online and rant about how awful it was.
I like it.

Me and my friends are playing a fantasy Walking Dead game where we choose our "teams" every week.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 27, 2014, 03:16:03 AM
Why do you like it?

And yes Saddam, it is entertaining to watch a train wreck in progress. This is humans 101.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 27, 2014, 04:33:35 AM
Surely not for season after season.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 27, 2014, 04:35:45 AM
I know plenty of people that genuinely enjoy watching it. They're the same kind of people that Rooster described. I think the fun is guessing who gets ate next or something. I watched a few episodes but to me it is just a generic zombie survival show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on October 27, 2014, 07:21:47 AM
Play DayZ and experience the Walking Dead for yourself.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on October 27, 2014, 11:47:35 AM
Or plat Telltale's amazing Walking Dead games that are infinitely more enjoyable than watching the show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 27, 2014, 01:35:48 PM
What is a "generic zombie survival show"? Are there a lot of these things around that I don't know about?

I like the Walking Dead because I've grown attached to the characters and the writing is acceptable. I personally haven't seen too much bitching from people since the end of second season. The whole barn shit was definitely the worst and turned off a lot of people I think.

I need to catch up to the last two episodes, but someone told me they're following a new plot branch from the comics so I don't know where the "writers don't know what to do next" theory is coming from. They have on-going canon material to work from so they shouldn't run out of ideas any time soon.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 27, 2014, 05:40:25 PM
The writers used to write original content loosely based off the comics. You're telling me that they're now just blatantly lifting from the comics? Then you're telling me you don't understand how the writers are running out of ideas?

I haven't read the comics, because like I said: I don't like the zombie survival genre. It's one of the most brainless genres out there (no pun intended). There's always zombies popping up for no explainable reason. Why are there zombies? Virus. Where did it come from? Someone either created it as an experiment or it fell from space. Is it stoppable? No, we're all doomed. What do we do? Camp out until we are overrun and some of us die, then rinse/repeat. Oh no, one of my family has turned! So drama.

And do you honestly not know of any other zombie survival media? We weren't talking about just TV shows, but the whole genre itself. Games, TV, movies, etc. Its getting ridiculous.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 27, 2014, 06:40:33 PM
To be fair, it was Rushy who originally specified "shows," and it's true that's there's only one zombie show.  Well, I suppose there's that new one that's on the Siffy channel, but good luck finding anyone who'll admit to watching that.  I agree with you that all the zombie shit is tired and needs to go away, though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 27, 2014, 07:09:34 PM
I don't consider the term "show" to specifically cater to television series.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on October 27, 2014, 11:39:15 PM
I don't consider the term "show" to specifically cater to television series.

What else were you referring to, then? Shows on Broadway?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 28, 2014, 12:15:45 AM
What else were you referring to, then? Shows on Broadway?

I was referring to pretty much all media portraying a zombie survival story. "Show" might have been poor word choice, but it doesn't have to specifically refer to television series.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 28, 2014, 12:34:56 AM
Why is zombie stuff so popular? That's the real question. I understand the "Who's going to die next?" line of thinking... but that usually doesn't apply to movies and games.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 28, 2014, 12:40:40 AM
Why is zombie stuff so popular? That's the real question. I understand the "Who's going to die next?" line of thinking... but that usually doesn't apply to movies and games.

They're an easy infinite hoard of "bad guys" that no one could have any real moral quandary about killing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 28, 2014, 12:42:05 AM
Why is zombie stuff so popular? That's the real question. I understand the "Who's going to die next?" line of thinking... but that usually doesn't apply to movies and games.

They're an easy infinite hoard of "bad guys" that no one could have any real moral quandary about killing.

Yes, but that should get boring after a movie or so.

Why has it become such a pop culture phenomenon? I see all these people dressing up like zombies and going to cons like it's the next best thing to godhood.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 28, 2014, 12:50:45 AM
Yes, but that should get boring after a movie or so.

Well, it most obviously did not.

Why has it become such a pop culture phenomenon? I see all these people dressing up like zombies and going to cons like it's the next best thing to godhood.

You'd have to ask some expert in sociology. Try google.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 28, 2014, 03:46:07 PM
The writers used to write original content loosely based off the comics. You're telling me that they're now just blatantly lifting from the comics? Then you're telling me you don't understand how the writers are running out of ideas?
They are still sticking to the same premise. There are common plot threads they follow but it's not exactly the same. If it were, a lot of the people still on the show should already be dead. They're not running out of ideas...  they're writing a show based off the comics. It's not a crazy concept to understand.

Quote
I haven't read the comics, because like I said: I don't like the zombie survival genre. It's one of the most brainless genres out there (no pun intended). There's always zombies popping up for no explainable reason. Why are there zombies? Virus. Where did it come from? Someone either created it as an experiment or it fell from space. Is it stoppable? No, we're all doomed. What do we do? Camp out until we are overrun and some of us die, then rinse/repeat. Oh no, one of my family has turned! So drama.
Well it's quite different from that. It was never said to be a virus.. the comics left it intentionally vague and almost hinting to some divine plan or something, I dunno. There is a lot of inner group drama and drama/action with other people which is really the most interesting part of the show. I don't really care about zombies myself. My favorite before Walking Dead was probably 28 Days Later just because sprinting infected people are terrifying. But this one is really more for the drama with the occasional macabre action.

Quote
And do you honestly not know of any other zombie survival media? We weren't talking about just TV shows, but the whole genre itself. Games, TV, movies, etc. Its getting ridiculous.
I was responding to Rushy's use of the word "show". Why are you so worked up over this? Horror themes get recycled all the time - vampires are another good example of this. And look at how many possession movies there are. The classics will always be re-used. Get over it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 28, 2014, 04:04:51 PM
They're lifting material from a comic. Is it safe to say that they ran out of ideas before they even started?

The comics hint that it is divine punishment?
I hate to be a Rushy here, but that's not so clever and has been done before as well. I guess intentionally leaving it vague was their point, but that just goes to show that they knew it was a stupid generic premise from the get go and didn't want to justify it. I like my stories to make sense (at least in universe sense) and have a proper resolution. The Walking Dead lacks both things.


And no wonder I've always disliked the horror genre.

I would like to see a zombie story told from the point of view of the zombies, maybe show them grouping up and scheming to take down the humans because they're viewed as stains on the Earth or something.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 28, 2014, 04:49:24 PM
They're lifting material from a comic. Is it safe to say that they ran out of ideas before they even started?
I'm coupling the show and the comics together here. Their writing material comes from the comics so they're not going to get stuck with no more plot threads to follow is what I mean by "run out of ideas".

Quote
The comics hint that it is divine punishment?
I hate to be a Rushy here, but that's not so clever and has been done before as well. I guess intentionally leaving it vague was their point, but that just goes to show that they knew it was a stupid generic premise from the get go and didn't want to justify it. I like my stories to make sense (at least in universe sense) and have a proper resolution. The Walking Dead lacks both things.
Yeah, I won't defend this. I don't know if there will be a proper resolution to the big problem. There are definitely resolutions to the various sub-plots though.

Quote
And no wonder I've always disliked the horror genre.
That's fine.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 28, 2014, 05:30:20 PM
Horror themes get recycled all the time - vampires are another good example of this. And look at how many possession movies there are. The classics will always be re-used. Get over it.

As a general concept (as opposed to a specific franchise, like Twilight), neither vampires or possessions are anywhere near as popular as zombies.  And in any case, at least the archetypes of most other horror themes can be actual characters, with intelligence and reasonable motivations and such.  Zombies - at least the most common variant that we keep seeing over and over again - are inherently one-dimensional creatures, basically animals rather than people.  If you've seen one, you've seen them all.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 28, 2014, 05:35:53 PM
As a general concept (as opposed to a specific franchise, like Twilight), neither vampires or possessions are anywhere near as popular as zombies.  And in any case, at least the archetypes of most other horror themes can be actual characters, with intelligence and reasonable motivations and such.  Zombies - at least the most common variant that we keep seeing over and over again - are inherently one-dimensional creatures, basically animals rather than people.  If you see one, you've seen them all.

I don't know about all this. I agree with zombies being very one-dimensional... but vampires are pretty popular. From Bram Stoker to Anne Rice to Stephenie Meyer, to Buffy the Vampire Slayer... etc.

I think zombos are more popular for now, but it seems to fluctuate among the masses..
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 28, 2014, 05:43:25 PM
All those works came out in different time periods, and the vampires were portrayed differently in every one.  Perhaps I should have specified that there's never really been a craze about vampires or the like that's measured up to the absurd following zombies have gotten over the past...eight or nine years, is it?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 28, 2014, 08:00:31 PM
Horror themes get recycled all the time - vampires are another good example of this. And look at how many possession movies there are. The classics will always be re-used. Get over it.
Zombies - at least the most common variant that we keep seeing over and over again - are inherently one-dimensional creatures, basically animals rather than people.  If you've seen one, you've seen them all.
It's true they don't have any personality to them, but there are variants.

You have slow zombies and running zombies. Virus zombies, voodoo zombies, and supernatural zombies. Zombies that can shoot guns and zombies that just bounce into things. Maybe there are others I'm missing, I don't watch a lot of zombie stuff. As I said before, I'm not really into them. I like Walking Dead for the drama between other human factions but I'm just really into post-apocalyptic stories in general for that same reason.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 28, 2014, 08:03:47 PM
Horror themes get recycled all the time - vampires are another good example of this. And look at how many possession movies there are. The classics will always be re-used. Get over it.
Zombies - at least the most common variant that we keep seeing over and over again - are inherently one-dimensional creatures, basically animals rather than people.  If you've seen one, you've seen them all.
It's true they don't have any personality to them, but there are variants.

You have slow zombies and running zombies. Virus zombies, voodoo zombies, and supernatural zombies. Zombies that can shoot guns and zombies that just bounce into things. Maybe there are others I'm missing, I don't watch a lot of zombie stuff. As I said before, I'm not really into them. I like Walking Dead for the drama between other human factions but I'm just really into post-apocalyptic stories in general for that same reason.

I feel like they should have dragged out the Terminus story line a bit longer because I felt it had a lot of potential and was actually somewhat interesting.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on October 28, 2014, 09:02:51 PM
Zombie comes and family is kill oh no. Find friends and then zombie is kill, but sometimes new friend is kill too. Find safety for a bit. Friend is kill by friend because no food. Friend is kill before he become zombie. Very sad. More zombie is kill. The end, yawn.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 28, 2014, 09:10:19 PM
Zombie comes and family is kill oh no. Find friends and then zombie is kill, but sometimes new friend is kill too. Find safety for a bit. Friend is kill by friend because no food. Friend is kill before he become zombie. Very sad. More zombie is kill. The end, yawn.

WE HAVE TO GET TO CDC/WASHINGTON/ARMY BASE/PRISON lol zombos closing in gotta sacrifice the farm animals lulz OH NO friend is showing signs of barbarism time to ostracize frum da grup
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on October 28, 2014, 09:38:56 PM
You guys are so jaded and wise.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 28, 2014, 09:50:39 PM
PHEW! we finally made it to the CDC/WASHINGTON/ARMY BASE/ ETC. this is grea-.... OH GOD THEY'RE TRYING TO KILL US
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on October 28, 2014, 10:10:07 PM
Louie [Season 3]

Whatever problems I had with the previous two seasons, all is made up for by this. It mixes comedy and drama in a manner best described as "bravura", it's bold and fearless in its mish-mash of materials, and from a directorial standpoint Louis C.K. seems really to have matured immensely. Great performances from guests like Parker Posey, Robin Williams, F. Murray Abraham, David Lynch, and others (including some seriously good recurring performances from the child actors) also help the show with their consistently high quality and approaches one might not expect — consider Williams in a reserved performance where his nuanced facial expressions do most of the talking. Snupes tells me that the best is yet to come, I don't want to get my hopes up for an even better season four, but if it can maintain season three's level it's gold.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on October 28, 2014, 10:20:24 PM
I used to like the Walking Dead but not anymore.  Once they hit the Prison I was like "Hey, this is great.  Defensible walls, fences, fields, and enough supplies to feed/house hundreds of people.  What could go wrong?"  Then they threw in the Governor shit.

And really, why haven't they seen more survivors?  And more easily defended buildings?  A school, for example, is usually nice and easy to defend.  Lots of rooms, nice thick doors, and a cafeteria full of food.  That school in Season 2: Perfect spot. 

Or what about traps?  I saw ONE zombie attractor/trap and it was designed to just capture them.  WTF?  Is it really that hard?  I played Half-Life 2 and that had better zombie traps than the walking dead.



Sorry, ranting.  Long story short: Zombie movies have stupid people.  Except Zombieland.  They only have two stupid girls who aren't dumb enough to leave their guns when they go on the rides.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 29, 2014, 01:39:21 AM
I used to like the Walking Dead but not anymore.  Once they hit the Prison I was like "Hey, this is great.  Defensible walls, fences, fields, and enough supplies to feed/house hundreds of people.  What could go wrong?"  Then they threw in the Governor shit.
Good. Who wants to watch a show about a group of people surviving a zombie apocalypse in a prison? That's not entertaining.

Quote
And really, why haven't they seen more survivors?  And more easily defended buildings?  A school, for example, is usually nice and easy to defend.  Lots of rooms, nice thick doors, and a cafeteria full of food.  That school in Season 2: Perfect spot.
Hordes are what ruin everything. Even if you have an easily defended building you'd probably have to make runs to get food and other supplies. Especially since any stored food would spoil quickly with no electricity and you can only rely on limited canned food for so long. And if a horde decides to camp outside your building then you will most likely not be too successful staying alive for an extended period of time.

I don't know if you know this but it's hard work staying alive. You usually have to be by fresh water and hunt/grow food. You can't really do these things in a fortress.

Quote
Or what about traps?  I saw ONE zombie attractor/trap and it was designed to just capture them.  WTF?  Is it really that hard?  I played Half-Life 2 and that had better zombie traps than the walking dead.
A video game had better traps than real life? That shit craycray.
The guy who set up the traps was/is insane. He set up the traps and killed them later at his convenience. And again- hordes. Traps won't stop a horde.


I have a really difficult time seeing Lord Dave with his newborn baby making it through a zombie apocalypse.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on October 29, 2014, 02:29:37 AM
I used to like the Walking Dead but not anymore.  Once they hit the Prison I was like "Hey, this is great.  Defensible walls, fences, fields, and enough supplies to feed/house hundreds of people.  What could go wrong?"  Then they threw in the Governor shit.
Good. Who wants to watch a show about a group of people surviving a zombie apocalypse in a prison? That's not entertaining.

Quote
And really, why haven't they seen more survivors?  And more easily defended buildings?  A school, for example, is usually nice and easy to defend.  Lots of rooms, nice thick doors, and a cafeteria full of food.  That school in Season 2: Perfect spot.
Hordes are what ruin everything. Even if you have an easily defended building you'd probably have to make runs to get food and other supplies. Especially since any stored food would spoil quickly with no electricity and you can only rely on limited canned food for so long. And if a horde decides to camp outside your building then you will most likely not be too successful staying alive for an extended period of time.

I don't know if you know this but it's hard work staying alive. You usually have to be by fresh water and hunt/grow food. You can't really do these things in a fortress.

Quote
Or what about traps?  I saw ONE zombie attractor/trap and it was designed to just capture them.  WTF?  Is it really that hard?  I played Half-Life 2 and that had better zombie traps than the walking dead.
A video game had better traps than real life? That shit craycray.
The guy who set up the traps was/is insane. He set up the traps and killed them later at his convenience. And again- hordes. Traps won't stop a horde.


I have a really difficult time seeing Lord Dave with his newborn baby making it through a zombie apocalypse.

Hords?  HA!  Hords are dumb.  If I'm trapped in my own apartment building, I'm mostly screwed against a hord but only because it's a fort.  Steel door, narrow hall, one way entrance, and second floor.  I'd probably break the window open, use power cables to create a rope, and drop heavy stuff on them over and over again.  Probably by sharpening the wooden chair legs into spikes.  Maybe use some of my computer stuff.  They aren't exactly light.  And metal.  With pointy edges.


Of course, I would have ran into the school I work for if given time.  Why?  Because I have all the keys, the doors are solid steel, the walls brick, and the windows, while fragile glass, can be sealed off from every room that's accessible to the outside.  Also, well water and a septic system.  Steam run heat.  Lots of food.  Also the glass windows are fairly small, aside from the rescue windows.   The school also has everything from flammable gas to battery operated power tools.

But how do I get past a zombie hord?
Loud noises.  Take a smoke alarm, rig it up as a makeshift beeper, stick a timer, then either throw it or place it somewhere far away.  Zombies are stupid.

Hell, after a month of decomposition, a good truck will crush any hord to jelly.  I'm not worried.  As long as I stay far away from NYC anyway.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 29, 2014, 02:34:56 AM
Hords?  HA!  Hords are dumb.  If I'm trapped in my own apartment building, I'm mostly screwed against a hord but only because it's a fort.  Steel door, narrow hall, one way entrance, and second floor.  I'd probably break the window open, use power cables to create a rope, and drop heavy stuff on them over and over again.  Probably by sharpening the wooden chair legs into spikes.  Maybe use some of my computer stuff.  They aren't exactly light.  And metal.  With pointy edges.


Of course, I would have ran into the school I work for if given time.  Why?  Because I have all the keys, the doors are solid steel, the walls brick, and the windows, while fragile glass, can be sealed off from every room that's accessible to the outside.  Also, well water and a septic system.  Steam run heat.  Lots of food.  Also the glass windows are fairly small, aside from the rescue windows.   The school also has everything from flammable gas to battery operated power tools.

But how do I get past a zombie hord?
Loud noises.  Take a smoke alarm, rig it up as a makeshift beeper, stick a timer, then either throw it or place it somewhere far away.  Zombies are stupid.

Hell, after a month of decomposition, a good truck will crush any hord to jelly.  I'm not worried.  As long as I stay far away from NYC anyway.

da fuq is a hord
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 29, 2014, 02:37:13 AM
Horde*

Yep, you can easily combat them all while every surviving human leaves you alone and lets you keep supplies all to yourself. So easy.  ::)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on October 29, 2014, 02:50:25 AM
Hords?  HA!  Hords are dumb.  If I'm trapped in my own apartment building, I'm mostly screwed against a hord but only because it's a fort.  Steel door, narrow hall, one way entrance, and second floor.  I'd probably break the window open, use power cables to create a rope, and drop heavy stuff on them over and over again.  Probably by sharpening the wooden chair legs into spikes.  Maybe use some of my computer stuff.  They aren't exactly light.  And metal.  With pointy edges.


Of course, I would have ran into the school I work for if given time.  Why?  Because I have all the keys, the doors are solid steel, the walls brick, and the windows, while fragile glass, can be sealed off from every room that's accessible to the outside.  Also, well water and a septic system.  Steam run heat.  Lots of food.  Also the glass windows are fairly small, aside from the rescue windows.   The school also has everything from flammable gas to battery operated power tools.

But how do I get past a zombie hord?
Loud noises.  Take a smoke alarm, rig it up as a makeshift beeper, stick a timer, then either throw it or place it somewhere far away.  Zombies are stupid.

Hell, after a month of decomposition, a good truck will crush any hord to jelly.  I'm not worried.  As long as I stay far away from NYC anyway.

da fuq is a hord
It's like a Horde except Dave can't spell for shit.


Horde*

Yep, you can easily combat them all while every surviving human leaves you alone and lets you keep supplies all to yourself. So easy.  ::)
If we go by The Walking Dead that would be all... what?  12 people in a 50 mile radius?

Of course, most people aren't violent evil people.  They're desperate and scared but that's when you offer them food and shelter and, more importantly, a plan.  And if I got enough survivors together, we could easily make supply runs, keep the lines safe (armored vans/trucks/school buses), and build a lovely community.

It also helps that I'm in an area with a lot of farms.  So being able to build walls around the farms shouldn't be a big deal.   Even if it's just some solid chain link fences.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 29, 2014, 02:52:40 AM
Of course, most people aren't violent evil people. 

You funny guy, dave.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 29, 2014, 02:53:50 AM
Hordes break fences. Your plan falls apart as soon as you add new elements.

Most people aren't evil but most are selfish and greedy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 29, 2014, 02:55:07 AM
I could use Eve Online and DayZ as examples, but those games might just be naturally full of psychopaths. I can never be quite sure.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 29, 2014, 03:06:20 AM
Guys, zombies aren't real. Stop being that guy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 29, 2014, 03:07:14 AM
Guys, zombies aren't real. Stop being that guy.

You're not real.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 29, 2014, 03:07:37 AM
Obviously the solution would be to live on a houseboat and fish for food.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 29, 2014, 03:12:41 AM
Have fun with scurvy.

This conversation is way more fun than the ongoing Stargate crap.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on October 29, 2014, 03:14:00 AM
Fury was pretty great, right up until the ridiculous final battle.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 29, 2014, 03:23:38 AM
Fury was pretty great, right up until the ridiculous final battle.

Didn't know you were into animals, PP.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on October 29, 2014, 10:15:51 AM
All this talk about zombies makes me wonder: where do they all come from?
I get that some people are bit but run away and die.  But they're isolated and easy to spot.  The people who are bit but can't get away are eaten right?  So how do they become a zombie?  Especially when you have a group of zombies attacking a group of humans.  If the humans are overrun, they should be ripped apart and chowed down on.  Just like the horse in walking dead.

And with people who are scared, anyone who looks sick gets isolated quick.  And maybe shot.


So where do all these almost prestine (unchewed) zombies come from?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 29, 2014, 01:07:34 PM
All this talk about zombies makes me wonder: where do they all come from?
I get that some people are bit but run away and die.  But they're isolated and easy to spot.  The people who are bit but can't get away are eaten right?  So how do they become a zombie?  Especially when you have a group of zombies attacking a group of humans.  If the humans are overrun, they should be ripped apart and chowed down on.  Just like the horse in walking dead.

And with people who are scared, anyone who looks sick gets isolated quick.  And maybe shot.


So where do all these almost prestine (unchewed) zombies come from?
Depends on the story.

In Walking Dead everyone is already infected with the virus, you just have to die. Shane was the one who made this clear. Rick shot him and then zombieShane.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on October 29, 2014, 03:55:54 PM
All this talk about zombies makes me wonder: where do they all come from?
I get that some people are bit but run away and die.  But they're isolated and easy to spot.  The people who are bit but can't get away are eaten right?  So how do they become a zombie?  Especially when you have a group of zombies attacking a group of humans.  If the humans are overrun, they should be ripped apart and chowed down on.  Just like the horse in walking dead.

And with people who are scared, anyone who looks sick gets isolated quick.  And maybe shot.


So where do all these almost prestine (unchewed) zombies come from?
Depends on the story.

In Walking Dead everyone is already infected with the virus, you just have to die. Shane was the one who made this clear. Rick shot him and then zombieShane.
Except the rest of the world didn't die of natural causes all at once.  How did they die? 
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 29, 2014, 04:04:41 PM
No zombie story using viruses makes sense because we already have a "zombie" virus called rabies and even before the vaccine it did not kill the entire planet in a matter of months.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 29, 2014, 04:07:46 PM
Depends on the story.

In Walking Dead everyone is already infected with the virus, you just have to die. Shane was the one who made this clear. Rick shot him and then zombieShane.
Except the rest of the world didn't die of natural causes all at once.  How did they die? 
Shane was shot, so that right there is not a natural cause. In fact, a lot of people are shot. Did you ever see Shane's flashback to the hospital? Once there was a zombie outbreak inside the building the SWAT team just started shooting everyone. And let's not forget about how many suicides there would be. I imagine people would die from standard illnesses without proper medical care. Then a lot could have died from starvation, exposure to the elements, or even in a mob stampede during the initial panic. Without access to our comfortable lifestyles I would assume a lot of people would actually die from natural causes. But it seems most people who survive all that seem to die from a stray bite or two (happens a lot in the show at least) and die from the resulting infection/blood loss.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on October 29, 2014, 04:11:21 PM
No zombie story using viruses makes sense because we already have a "zombie" virus called rabies and even before the vaccine it did not kill the entire planet in a matter of months.

And there could never ever be a virus any worse than rabies. Not even in fiction.

Source: sarcasm
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 29, 2014, 04:18:50 PM
All this talk about zombies makes me wonder: where do they all come from?
I get that some people are bit but run away and die.  But they're isolated and easy to spot.  The people who are bit but can't get away are eaten right?  So how do they become a zombie?  Especially when you have a group of zombies attacking a group of humans.  If the humans are overrun, they should be ripped apart and chowed down on.  Just like the horse in walking dead.

And with people who are scared, anyone who looks sick gets isolated quick.  And maybe shot.


So where do all these almost prestine (unchewed) zombies come from?
Depends on the story.

In Walking Dead everyone is already infected with the virus, you just have to die. Shane was the one who made this clear. Rick shot him and then zombieShane.
Except the rest of the world didn't die of natural causes all at once.  How did they die?

This is an interesting question and possibly a huge plot hole.

Where did the initial wave come from? Did God just flip a switch?

If everyone has the zombie virus then why weren't people turning before the initial outbreak?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 29, 2014, 04:47:21 PM
This is an interesting question and possibly a huge plot hole.

Where did the initial wave come from? Did God just flip a switch?

If everyone has the zombie virus then why weren't people turning before the initial outbreak?
It's not technically a plot hole since we just travel with the group and they don't know everything.

Just because the big picture storyline is not completely laid out for the viewer from start to finish doesn't mean it's a plot hole. It's more an unanswered question than a plot hole.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 29, 2014, 04:54:33 PM
This is an interesting question and possibly a huge plot hole.

Where did the initial wave come from? Did God just flip a switch?

If everyone has the zombie virus then why weren't people turning before the initial outbreak?
It's not technically a plot hole since we just travel with the group and they don't know everything.

Just because the big picture storyline is not completely laid out for the viewer from start to finish doesn't mean it's a plot hole. It's more an unanswered question than a plot hole.

I doubt the story will answer this question either, because it doesn't really make sense... unless everyone got infected at the same time, which would either be an act of God or some sort of space dust virus that somehow contaminated the entire Earth's atmosphere (but the Earth's atompshere doesn't really allow for things like that to survive the trip down, unless it was carried by a meteor). Either way, it's kind of a difficult issue to reconcile with a serious answer because it's so silly. I'm sure the writers of the comics and the show don't know how it started, and they will probably never touch on it. So that kinda makes it a plot hole, unless they plan on answering this question later on.

Many zombie movies/shows/whatever have these kind of plot holes, but the writers try to disguise them as "mysteries to be answered later on" but are never actually answered. Resident Evil is one of the exceptions to this, so is 28 Days Later (which is a pretty good film for the zombie genre, great music too).
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 29, 2014, 07:19:37 PM
I think they do hint at the God theory. But even if it is never answered.. I'm not sure if that does qualify as a plot hole. I always see them as contradictory explanations/occurrences, so not knowing something doesn't equate to a plot hole. I could be wrong, but that's just how I always interpreted it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 29, 2014, 07:44:51 PM
I think they do hint at the God theory. But even if it is never answered.. I'm not sure if that does qualify as a plot hole. I always see them as contradictory explanations/occurrences, so not knowing something doesn't equate to a plot hole. I could be wrong, but that's just how I always interpreted it.

It does when the writers don't know how it happened either. It's usually considered shitty writing in most mediums when the main focus of the plot is unexplained. It is intentionally left vague and unanswered because the writers themselves do not know how it started. That, to me, is a plot hole. Especially when the vague explanation we are given (everyone has the virus) creates more questions than it answers. If they never plan on addressing these questions (why did the outbreak happen all at once?) then that is a plot hole.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on October 29, 2014, 07:56:13 PM
A plot hole is something relevant to the plot that is missing or inconsistent, like in Iron Man 3, everyone seems to fit perfectly in to the armor designed specially to fit Tony Stark.

For me, the answer to the question of where the zombies came from is kind of irrelevant, unless they want to make that a story arc.  For the record, I think they should, because the "we are survivors" story line is wearing very thin.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 29, 2014, 07:58:23 PM
A plot hole is something relevant to the plot that is missing or inconsistent, like in Iron Man 3, everyone seems to fit perfectly in to the armor designed specially to fit Tony Stark.

For me, the answer to the question of where the zombies came from is kind of irrelevant, unless they want to make that a story arc.  For the record, I think they should, because the "we are survivors" story line is wearing very thin.

"Everyone has the virus" was a small storyarc in the first two seasons. The questions brought up from that are never explained.


I think this might be why I generally don't like zombie stuff.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 29, 2014, 09:10:17 PM
like in Iron Man 3, everyone seems to fit perfectly in to the armor designed specially to fit Tony Stark.
Yes, that is a plot hole.

But if we're shown a very narrow perspective then I don't see how it's considered a plot hole. Like in The Road - we experience the apocalypse and the new world through the eyes of a man and his son. We never find out what really happened but how can we expect some random dude to know all the answers? So if the random guy doesn't know what happened then neither do we. To me, that's not a plot hole.

It's not to say the writers don't know. Maybe they do. Or maybe it just doesn't matter because we have such a narrow perspective of the story.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 29, 2014, 09:14:40 PM
Or maybe it just doesn't matter because we have such a narrow perspective of the story.

Seems like pretty lazy writing to me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 29, 2014, 09:16:25 PM
Or maybe it just doesn't matter because we have such a narrow perspective of the story.

Seems like pretty lazy writing to me.
It's really just a style of story-telling and they're generally my favorites, but okay.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on October 29, 2014, 11:26:54 PM
No zombie story using viruses makes sense because we already have a "zombie" virus called rabies and even before the vaccine it did not kill the entire planet in a matter of months.

This is probably bait, but your an retart anyway.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on October 29, 2014, 11:29:47 PM
No zombie story using viruses makes sense because we already have a "zombie" virus called rabies and even before the vaccine it did not kill the entire planet in a matter of months.

This is probably bait, but your an retart anyway.

We already have a dedicated thread for this bait in CN.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 30, 2014, 12:37:58 AM
Apparently everything I say becomes "bait" after an argument ensues and I dominate every poster in the thread.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on October 30, 2014, 12:48:43 AM
Apparently everything I say becomes "bait" after an argument ensues and I dominate every poster in the thread.

It's because you're bad at arguing, so you usually pick a little irrelevant detail out of someone's post to argue about instead of staying on topic. So, now it seems like a lot of forum goers are just calling you a troll or a pedant and leaving it at that. That's pretty much what you are anyway.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 30, 2014, 01:01:31 AM
shit's personal now
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 30, 2014, 01:06:13 AM
It's because you're bad at arguing, so you usually pick a little irrelevant detail out of someone's post to argue about instead of staying on topic. So, now it seems like a lot of forum goers are just calling you a troll or a pedant and leaving it at that. That's pretty much what you are anyway.

why u mad bro
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 30, 2014, 02:22:22 AM
All right, that's enough of that.  Behold, not one, but two deluges of superhero crap:

http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/10/marvel_vs_dc_comics_which_movi.html
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 30, 2014, 02:30:31 AM
Quote
"Black Panther" (Nov. 3, 2017)

Uhh.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 30, 2014, 02:32:12 AM
I had no interest in Doctor Strange until Benedict Cumberbatch was announced as the titular character.

Now I must see it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 30, 2014, 01:37:04 PM
Just started watching Firefly. I can see why it was cancelled, the budget spent on every episode must have ben enormous.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on October 30, 2014, 01:43:58 PM
Just started watching Firefly. I can see why it was cancelled, the budget spent on every episode must have ben enormous.
Yep.  Just look at all the top tier actors, the elaborate sets, and the realistic special effects.  Undeniably expensive...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 30, 2014, 01:46:52 PM
Just started watching Firefly. I can see why it was cancelled, the budget spent on every episode must have ben enormous.

It was cancelled due to a lot of little things that added up. Writing errors, budget issues (this was not a big problem though) and time slotting competition all matched the stars up to result in cancelling the show. Make sure you watch Serenity after you complete the series.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 30, 2014, 01:56:22 PM
Quote
"Black Panther" (Nov. 3, 2017)

Uhh.

Uhh what?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 30, 2014, 02:04:15 PM
Quote
"Black Panther" (Nov. 3, 2017)
Uhh.
Uhh what?

Well, it just depends. Is the superhero's name literally Black Panther? That would be a really bad thing to do. If the movie is about a villain named Black Panther then that would probably be better.

Either way it is a strange movie title that has connotations outside of comic books. I would never name a comic book movie Ku Klux.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 30, 2014, 02:31:48 PM
(http://comicbookrealm.com/cover-scan/c840da4d342a29827b6c907c03a76f80/xl/marvel-black-panther-issue-2.jpg)

The Black Panther's name predates the October 1966 founding of the Black Panther Party.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 30, 2014, 02:47:49 PM
The Black Panther's name predates the October 1966 founding of the Black Panther Party.

Yes, and the word "gay" simply means to be happy. Sure have been a lot of people declaring themselves to be happy lately. I heard even the CEO of Apple is happy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 30, 2014, 04:21:57 PM
It's a proper noun, though. He's been in comics for fifty-odd years and is established in the marvel canon as 'Black Panther'
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 30, 2014, 04:40:36 PM
It's a proper noun, though. He's been in comics for fifty-odd years and is established in the marvel canon as 'Black Panther'

I'd honestly never heard of him before now, but I still say its a strange hero to make a movie about.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on October 30, 2014, 05:16:16 PM
All right, that's enough of that.  Behold, not one, but two deluges of superhero crap:

http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/10/marvel_vs_dc_comics_which_movi.html

Yes. I can't express my excitement with these announcements, particularly the Inhumans. Black Bolt omg


I had no interest in Doctor Strange until Benedict Cumberbatch was announced as the titular character.

Now I must see it.

Really? I'm the other way around. I love Benedict Cumberbatch a lot, but I don't like the casting.


I'd honestly never heard of him before now, but I still say its a strange hero to make a movie about.

He's awesome though, T'Challa and Wakanda are fun to say
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 30, 2014, 05:44:22 PM
Given the success of GotG, I think it's safe to say that there is officially no source material in the world that Marvel can't potentially turn into a hit.  And it's great that a black guy and a lady are going to be able to helm their own movies.  Diversity for all!

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on October 30, 2014, 06:55:14 PM
Just watched the four episodes of The Flash. I haven't watched Arrow, and nor do I care to, but it doesn't look like it's necessary anyway.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 30, 2014, 07:14:38 PM
Firefly. I have the series on DVD. It's entertaining but I don't think it deserves the large cult following that it has.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 30, 2014, 07:44:41 PM
I like Firefly a lot, but I hate everyone who wears a Jayne hat.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on October 30, 2014, 08:00:26 PM
^ haters
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 30, 2014, 09:24:37 PM
Firefly. I have the series on DVD. It's entertaining but I don't think it deserves the large cult following that it has.

trolololol

I like Firefly a lot, but I hate everyone who wears a Jayne hat.

I never quite understood the fascination with the hat.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 30, 2014, 09:32:29 PM
People are only obsessed with Firefly because of its "tragic" cancelation. The show was too expensive, broadcast out of order, and is clearly a loose rip off of Cowboy Bebop.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on October 30, 2014, 09:35:19 PM
People are only obsessed with Firefly because of its "tragic" cancelation. The show was too expensive, broadcast out of order, and is clearly a loose rip off of Cowboy Bebop.

Okay.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on October 30, 2014, 09:53:26 PM
People are only obsessed with Firefly because of its "tragic" cancelation. The show was too expensive, broadcast out of order, and is clearly a loose rip off of Cowboy Bebop.

The setting maybe. The things that make Bebop great are not present in Firefly. The things that make Firefly great are not ripped from Bebop.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 30, 2014, 09:59:10 PM
People are only obsessed with Firefly because of its "tragic" cancelation. The show was too expensive, broadcast out of order, and is clearly a loose rip off of Cowboy Bebop.

The setting maybe. The things that make Bebop great are not present in Firefly. The things that make Firefly great are not ripped from Bebop.

What exactly makes Firefly great?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 30, 2014, 10:00:25 PM
Why do you own the DVD set if you don't think it's great? Do you just like wasting money?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on October 30, 2014, 10:15:53 PM
Why do you own the DVD set if you don't think it's great? Do you just like wasting money?

I like it? I have the movie too.

I just think it's a bit overrated, is all. The characters are shallow personified tropes and the story is pretty plain. But it is very fun to watch and is entertaining. The main problem is that it was so short lived, the universe is bland and the characters are not properly developed and seem predictable because of it. I'm sure most of these problems would have been alleviated provided that it didn't get canceled, but I'm not going to praise it for what it could have been.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 31, 2014, 01:51:27 AM
There's nothing wrong with cliche so long as they do it right. I love the characters regardless of how predictable they are because they worked really well together.

It was great because the ideas came together really well. It was light and fun but with some good heart to it. There's not a lot of shows like that, especially not in the sci-fi genre.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on October 31, 2014, 02:18:38 AM
There's nothing wrong with cliche so long as they do it right. I love the characters regardless of how predictable they are because they worked really well together.

It was great because the ideas came together really well. It was light and fun but with some good heart to it. There's not a lot of shows like that, especially not in the sci-fi genre.
This.

The characters were cliched but they made the chiches work with each other. 
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 31, 2014, 08:29:52 AM
There's nothing wrong with cliche so long as they do it right. I love the characters regardless of how predictable they are because they worked really well together.

It was great because the ideas came together really well. It was light and fun but with some good heart to it. There's not a lot of shows like that, especially not in the sci-fi genre.

I think it's because we haven't had a light hearted space opera (that wasn't Star Trek) for years. Farscape was probably the last one that was any good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on November 01, 2014, 05:15:02 PM
Just started SG-1 season 9. Ummm...

What does everyone think about Cameron Mitchell? Oh, and Vala? I really hope Vala does not stick around. I absolutely loathe her character with every fiber of my being. She's too extreme to the point of unbelievable, she's oversexualized and needs to put some damn clothes on, and she's another typical "dark girl with a dark past" thing that has been played over and over ad nauseum. Just another mary sue character in a show that is already full of mary sues. I have a feeling she is going to be on the show for the remainder of it's run, and that's no good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on November 03, 2014, 04:23:07 AM
Saw the new Walking Dead. Even worse than the previous episode. Its wonderful watching this terrible show slowly crash and burn. Hahahahhaa.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 03, 2014, 04:41:13 AM
Except that the seasons have steadily gone up in ratings...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on November 03, 2014, 05:00:32 AM
Ratings? Lol.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on November 03, 2014, 08:00:13 AM
Community is the worst show ever.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on November 03, 2014, 08:25:09 AM
Vindictus, you are as dumb as his avatar has have been having me thinks he is.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on November 03, 2014, 11:20:30 AM
Just started SG-1 season 9. Ummm...

What does everyone think about Cameron Mitchell? Oh, and Vala? I really hope Vala does not stick around. I absolutely loathe her character with every fiber of my being. She's too extreme to the point of unbelievable, she's oversexualized and needs to put some damn clothes on, and she's another typical "dark girl with a dark past" thing that has been played over and over ad nauseum. Just another mary sue character in a show that is already full of mary sues. I have a feeling she is going to be on the show for the remainder of it's run, and that's no good.
She's in S10 and both movies as well. Worst character. I wouldn't have been so bothered about her being as sexualised as she is if they had picked a younger actress though. I think Mitchell is pretty cool, but he's not O'Neill.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 06, 2014, 02:09:55 AM
OMG TWO SECONDS OF ANT-MAN FOOTAGE

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Ant-Man-Just-Released-Its-First-Footage-Check-It-Our-Here-68052.html
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on November 06, 2014, 01:39:47 PM
Just started SG-1 season 9. Ummm...

What does everyone think about Cameron Mitchell? Oh, and Vala? I really hope Vala does not stick around. I absolutely loathe her character with every fiber of my being. She's too extreme to the point of unbelievable, she's oversexualized and needs to put some damn clothes on, and she's another typical "dark girl with a dark past" thing that has been played over and over ad nauseum. Just another mary sue character in a show that is already full of mary sues. I have a feeling she is going to be on the show for the remainder of it's run, and that's no good.
In like Vala.  Specifically the Vala/Daniel interaction.

Cameron tries to be O'Neil and that's why he sucks for a while.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: jroa on November 06, 2014, 01:49:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLqqZmNFa_A
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on November 06, 2014, 10:52:49 PM
Just started SG-1 season 9. Ummm...

What does everyone think about Cameron Mitchell? Oh, and Vala? I really hope Vala does not stick around. I absolutely loathe her character with every fiber of my being. She's too extreme to the point of unbelievable, she's oversexualized and needs to put some damn clothes on, and she's another typical "dark girl with a dark past" thing that has been played over and over ad nauseum. Just another mary sue character in a show that is already full of mary sues. I have a feeling she is going to be on the show for the remainder of it's run, and that's no good.
In like Vala.  Specifically the Vala/Daniel interaction.

Cameron tries to be O'Neil and that's why he sucks for a while.

I'm about half way through season 9. I'm glad Vala is not in every episode, but I still let out a big sigh whenever she does grace the screen with her barely clothed presence..

I'm starting to like Mitchell because he is just like O'Neil. I've heard he was the captain or something in Farscape, and I've heard a lot of complaints that he's pretty much the same character in SG-1. He's got this weird expression that's always on his face that is somewhat endearing, but his range as an actor does seem a bit limited.

I'm kinda interested in Farscape now. Has anyone seen it? Any good?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on November 07, 2014, 07:45:56 AM
I haven't seen Interstellar yet, but what are the opinions on it?

The discussion thread on /r/movies is filled with praise for it and any dissent is getting downvoted (big surprise!), even though most reviews I've read so far are pretty lukewarm about the movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on November 07, 2014, 08:00:14 AM
I haven't seen Interstellar yet, but what are the opinions on it?

The discussion thread on /r/movies is filled with praise for it and any dissent is getting downvoted (big surprise!), even though most reviews I've read so far are pretty lukewarm about the movie.

I've learned that reddit is usually not a good place to get unbiased reviews.

Just pirate it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on November 07, 2014, 11:15:58 AM
Farscape is good but kinda weird most of the time. The Vala actress is a main character in it too, but she plays a much less retarded character. Although, her wardrobe isn't much better than in Stargate half of the time, especially in the later seasons but the more serious character makes it more tolerable. Yes, Ben Browder plays the central main character. He's pretty much like Mitchell, except he's a scientist with sideburns instead of a military officer.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on November 07, 2014, 06:33:21 PM
I haven't seen Interstellar yet, but what are the opinions on it?

The discussion thread on /r/movies is filled with praise for it and any dissent is getting downvoted (big surprise!), even though most reviews I've read so far are pretty lukewarm about the movie.

I am going to see it tonight in imax.  Will try and post some thoughts tonight.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on November 08, 2014, 04:02:32 AM
Just watched Insterstellar and despite the numerous plot holes or massaging of laws of physics, it was very good.  The science fiction portion tried to keep it as plausible as it could be managed, and it was very gratifying to see a movie use the silence of space to good effect and to deal with the problems posed by relativity to space travel. 

I enjoyed all the performances except maybe the one surprise cameo and Matthew McConaughey in particular brought all the depth and urgency to the story that you could want.

The ending almost lost me as it got a bit abstract, and I thought that it would not pay off the relationships set up in the beginning, but I was pleasantly surprised at the conclusion.  It was a very moving ending and ultimately posed a lot of good questions about the complexities of choosing between your own interests vs those of the greater good.

Some here will happily note that the film references the Apollo missions as a hoax designed to bankrupt the Soviet Union.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on November 09, 2014, 09:02:04 PM
Interstellar (Christopher Nolan)

This was an incredible film experience, and I loved it. I will try to write a lot more about it soon when I have time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on November 09, 2014, 10:03:48 PM
Interstellar (Christopher Nolan)

This was an incredible film experience, and I loved it. I will try to write a lot more about it soon when I have time.

fghugghgghh I think it might be my all-time favourite movie, I loved the shit out of it and ajlgug

The visuals were incredible, the realistic rendering of wormholes and black holes and the "fourth dimension" insofar as humans can understand it was aghahg and the music was simply amazing and gorgeous and the whole movie was gorgeous and I love this movie i want to see it againann
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on November 09, 2014, 10:21:23 PM
I saw Interstellar and thought it was god awful. Am I missing something? Sorry Nolan, but you're not Stanely Kubrick.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on November 09, 2014, 10:30:34 PM
Vauxhall: Nope, people just have opinions.

Anyway, more rambling time now that I'm feeling slightly more coherent:

Interstellar. Wow. I think that may be the greatest film I've ever seen, for me. It was gorgeous on every single level...visually, aurally, even in the story... The realistic renderings of wormholes, black holes, the "fourth dimension" and tesseracts...God damn, just...as someone who loves science, particularly physics and space, to death...this film is the crowning moment of sci-fi, I think. It's a science fiction film that really, *genuinely* LOVES science and it shows. No half-assed special effects just to have big explosions and crap, no, this film is gorgeous because of its realism. I don't think people really *grasp* how *gorgeous* and amazing space is. We're fed this halfhearted crap by sci-fi films that we just take for granted now, but this film goes the whole damn mile to show you exactly what space is, how grand and expansive and unimaginably beyond imagination it is. When they're going through that wormhole...something we've seen in dozens of films, but when they're doing it here and it's modeled by a real physicist, rendered for hundreds of hours with complex algorithms to make sure it's accurate...it's beyond anything I've ever seen before.

And the music...and the absolute lack of it at times... I could go on for hours. It's absolutely beautiful. Minimal when it needs to be, and extremely loud and shrill when the film would benefit most...then dead silent in the vast expanse of space. It's chilling.

Then, finally, the story. I don't want to spoil anything, but god. I'll be the first to admit that the film forgoes realism at various points for the sake of film, and that it even veers into hypothetical—or sheerly tangential—territory at times, it's all worth it. This movie, man...this movie.  I haven't cried at a movie in a good while, but this one made me cry two and a half times. Once sort of early on I cried from Matthew McConaughey's amazing performance, then I teared up later on. Then afterwards, as I left the theater, I just started crying again...partly because it was just so amazing to me, but also because it got me thinking about the world so much.

Everyone should have to see this. THIS is the amazing, *real* stuff we're missing out on when we cut NASA funding because it's "not important". Not important? Do you forget who we are? Like they say in the film, humans are explorers, it's in us, our fate is not to die on this planet, it's to go beyond and yet we're letting ourselves be held back because people are so obsessed with the goddamn materialism and petty squabbles and attachments here. We're so short-sighted that we think it's better to pollute the hell out of this planet and then dismiss any solutions as "not worth it", or "too costly" or "unnecessary". Honestly, after this film...that line of thinking really disgusts me. It's actually really, really saddening...I want to see space, other planets, new discoveries and exploration. I don't want humanity to doom itself to a pathetic life of bitching between vaguely-different political parties or stupid fights about how people shouldn't be equal because everyone's so damn scared of change. I don't want humanity to have this amazing start where we colonized an entire planet, scraped the edge of space by sending men to the Goddamn *moon*, only to flicker out and die because we were too short-sighted, selfish and obsessed with immediate gain to continue our legacy. It's legitimately hard not to cry about, just looking up into the sky and knowing that we should be up there, we should be doing everything in our power to be among the fucking stars and just doing things we'd have never imagined possible before. I want that more than anything. I think this film, more than anything, has solidified my desire to get into science, to be a physicist. Hopefully I have the drive to do it. But, above all, I really hope more people see this movie and open their eyes to what we should be doing.

Our destiny is not on this planet. Earth should really just be our stepping stone to greater things. Our destiny is out there.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on November 10, 2014, 12:20:32 AM
But the film wasn't terribly (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/2014/11/interstellar_science_review_the_movie_s_black_holes_wormholes_relativity.html) realistic. I've also seen criticism of the script, and heavy handed nature of the story telling. By all accounts, it's not even Nolan's best film, let alone the best film ever. Although I'm yet to see it, I have been interested in hunting down more critical opinions since gushing reviews are bloody useless.

Just about the only thing I've seen everyone agree on is McConaughey's performance.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on November 10, 2014, 12:42:27 AM
But the film wasn't terribly (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/2014/11/interstellar_science_review_the_movie_s_black_holes_wormholes_relativity.html) realistic. I've also seen criticism of the script, and heavy handed nature of the story telling. By all accounts, it's not even Nolan's best film, let alone the best film ever. Although I'm yet to see it, I have been interested in hunting down more critical opinions since gushing reviews are bloody useless.

Just about the only thing I've seen everyone agree on is McConaughey's performance.

Sci-fi is never realistic. Sounds like they're trying to poke holes in the film by nitpicking.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on November 10, 2014, 12:53:54 AM


But the film wasn't terribly (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/2014/11/interstellar_science_review_the_movie_s_black_holes_wormholes_relativity.html) realistic. I've also seen criticism of the script, and heavy handed nature of the story telling. By all accounts, it's not even Nolan's best film, let alone the best film ever. Although I'm yet to see it, I have been interested in hunting down more critical opinions since gushing reviews are bloody useless.

Just about the only thing I've seen everyone agree on is McConaughey's performance.

Okay...? I'm not trying to convince anyone it's great so your words are kinda wasted on me, I don't really judge whether it was one of his "best films" based on what other people say. I think it's easily his best. Also, it's pretty damn realistic as far as sci-fi goes.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on November 10, 2014, 01:00:51 AM
Was gonna see Interstellar but decided on Nightcrawler because it seemed likemore fun. Going to see it in a bit.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on November 10, 2014, 01:04:44 AM
But the film wasn't terribly (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/2014/11/interstellar_science_review_the_movie_s_black_holes_wormholes_relativity.html) realistic. I've also seen criticism of the script, and heavy handed nature of the story telling. By all accounts, it's not even Nolan's best film, let alone the best film ever. Although I'm yet to see it, I have been interested in hunting down more critical opinions since gushing reviews are bloody useless.

Just about the only thing I've seen everyone agree on is McConaughey's performance.

Nit-picking plot holes is an ego exercise at best. Don't get me wrong, I do it; I did it with Interstellar even though I am pretty much in Snupes' camp. This movie had a giant heart to it, the plot was interesting and even somewhat relevant politically if you care about that sort of thing. It explored tough questions about parenthood, sacrifice, humanity  there was so much good in this movie, that taking the piss because they didn't accurately portray the energetically of a black hopes accretion disc is kind of petty. I think a lot of the science was good and Neil de Grasse Tyson agreed. But go see it for all the things Snupes talked about.  it is very worthy on all fronts.

I want to know how they did all the sets on Mann's planet. Awesome scenery.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on November 10, 2014, 01:05:21 AM
Was gonna see Interstellar but decided on Nightcrawler because it seemed likemore fun. Going to see it in a bit.

Heard it was also awesome. Great time for movies, bad time to be a parent.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on November 10, 2014, 01:25:50 AM


But the film wasn't terribly (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/2014/11/interstellar_science_review_the_movie_s_black_holes_wormholes_relativity.html) realistic. I've also seen criticism of the script, and heavy handed nature of the story telling. By all accounts, it's not even Nolan's best film, let alone the best film ever. Although I'm yet to see it, I have been interested in hunting down more critical opinions since gushing reviews are bloody useless.

Just about the only thing I've seen everyone agree on is McConaughey's performance.

Okay...? I'm not trying to convince anyone it's great so your words are kinda wasted on me, I don't really judge whether it was one of his "best films" based on what other people say. I think it's easily his best. Also, it's pretty damn realistic as far as sci-fi goes.

Even better than TDK, and his earlier films?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on November 10, 2014, 01:42:06 AM
Yeah.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on November 10, 2014, 02:00:39 AM
Vauxhall: Nope, people just have opinions.

Anyway, more rambling time now that I'm feeling slightly more coherent:

Interstellar. Wow. I think that may be the greatest film I've ever seen, for me. It was gorgeous on every single level...visually, aurally, even in the story... The realistic renderings of wormholes, black holes, the "fourth dimension" and tesseracts...God damn, just...as someone who loves science, particularly physics and space, to death...this film is the crowning moment of sci-fi, I think. It's a science fiction film that really, *genuinely* LOVES science and it shows. No half-assed special effects just to have big explosions and crap, no, this film is gorgeous because of its realism. I don't think people really *grasp* how *gorgeous* and amazing space is. We're fed this halfhearted crap by sci-fi films that we just take for granted now, but this film goes the whole damn mile to show you exactly what space is, how grand and expansive and unimaginably beyond imagination it is. When they're going through that wormhole...something we've seen in dozens of films, but when they're doing it here and it's modeled by a real physicist, rendered for hundreds of hours with complex algorithms to make sure it's accurate...it's beyond anything I've ever seen before.

And the music...and the absolute lack of it at times... I could go on for hours. It's absolutely beautiful. Minimal when it needs to be, and extremely loud and shrill when the film would benefit most...then dead silent in the vast expanse of space. It's chilling.

Then, finally, the story. I don't want to spoil anything, but god. I'll be the first to admit that the film forgoes realism at various points for the sake of film, and that it even veers into hypothetical—or sheerly tangential—territory at times, it's all worth it. This movie, man...this movie.  I haven't cried at a movie in a good while, but this one made me cry two and a half times. Once sort of early on I cried from Matthew McConaughey's amazing performance, then I teared up later on. Then afterwards, as I left the theater, I just started crying again...partly because it was just so amazing to me, but also because it got me thinking about the world so much.

Everyone should have to see this. THIS is the amazing, *real* stuff we're missing out on when we cut NASA funding because it's "not important". Not important? Do you forget who we are? Like they say in the film, humans are explorers, it's in us, our fate is not to die on this planet, it's to go beyond and yet we're letting ourselves be held back because people are so obsessed with the goddamn materialism and petty squabbles and attachments here. We're so short-sighted that we think it's better to pollute the hell out of this planet and then dismiss any solutions as "not worth it", or "too costly" or "unnecessary". Honestly, after this film...that line of thinking really disgusts me. It's actually really, really saddening...I want to see space, other planets, new discoveries and exploration. I don't want humanity to doom itself to a pathetic life of bitching between vaguely-different political parties or stupid fights about how people shouldn't be equal because everyone's so damn scared of change. I don't want humanity to have this amazing start where we colonized an entire planet, scraped the edge of space by sending men to the Goddamn *moon*, only to flicker out and die because we were too short-sighted, selfish and obsessed with immediate gain to continue our legacy. It's legitimately hard not to cry about, just looking up into the sky and knowing that we should be up there, we should be doing everything in our power to be among the fucking stars and just doing things we'd have never imagined possible before. I want that more than anything. I think this film, more than anything, has solidified my desire to get into science, to be a physicist. Hopefully I have the drive to do it. But, above all, I really hope more people see this movie and open their eyes to what we should be doing.

Our destiny is not on this planet. Earth should really just be our stepping stone to greater things. Our destiny is out there.

omg I agree with all of this so much! It definitely my favorite of Nolan's films at this point.
I am going to see it again now
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on November 10, 2014, 03:30:05 AM
Short Cuts (Robert Altman)

I don't even know what to say. I loved it. It sits along side Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia (a film it clearly inspired) and Todd Solondz's Happiness in breadth, humour, sadness and frankness, not to mention duration. If you like either of those films and you haven't seen this yet, you really owe it to yourself to check it out.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on November 10, 2014, 08:55:46 AM
Watched The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel on the weekend. Such a good film with one of the best casts I've ever seen; also, an absolutely perfect depiction of India and its culture.

I've been to that step-well in Jaipur, too. Amazing place.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on November 11, 2014, 03:31:42 AM
The Player (Robert Altman)

More Altman, who I'm really starting to like as a director and want to explore more thoroughly ASAP. A totally different film to Short Cuts, The Player is a fairly easy going but effective satire of Hollywood, with plenty of laughs and some gripping scenes of suspense. Altman's directorial mastery is shown up front in the form of an almost ten minute long single take full of movement and featuring at least ten different conversations weaving in and out of each other. It's really well made stuff, and Tim Robbins gives a great performance as Griffin Mill, a petty and manipulative studio executive who starts receiving harassing postcards in the mail from an anonymous writer. Would make a great double feature preceding Neil LaBute's considerably tougher In the Company of Men.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on November 13, 2014, 05:49:39 PM
The Untouchables (1987)

Phenomenal. Extremely well written. Probably my favorite gangster movie. Capone's character was great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Jack1704 on November 14, 2014, 02:18:41 PM
Watching JEREMY KYLE
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on November 15, 2014, 09:35:56 PM
Play Time (Jacques Tati)
Brilliantly orchestrated comedy from Tati, with so many sight gags, prat falls, and weird noises that after a while one becomes lost in a whirlwind of almost balletic humour. Unfortunately it starts to outstay its welcome for me after the first 60 minutes, and I found myself becoming restless in my seat waiting for it to finish. While it's good, it's great, but there is not enough to keep it interesting for its two hour runtime.

The Long Goodbye (Robert Altman)
Low key take on the Philip Marlowe character with Elliott Gould in a slick yet dishevelled, wisecracking and spaced-out lead performance that must surely have had some influence on late '90s neo-noir such as The Big Lebowski and Cowboy Bebop. It's always entertaining and always goes places you aren't expecting. Apart from that, watch out for Sterling Hayden giving a fantastic performance as a washed up Hemingway type who walks with the weight of heavy and dark secrets on his shoulders.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on November 21, 2014, 06:03:34 PM
Finished Stargate SG-1. And, damn, am I glad that's over. There are way too many things wrong with Season 10 to list them all.



One thing that bothered me specifically: The Asgard. They didn't get a proper send-off. "We're dying, here's our knowledge. I gotta go now." That was it. The Asgard are easily the coolest alien race in the Stargate series, and this was not the correct way to handle their entire race's extinction. Just stupid. The entire episode was just retarted. Everyone is stuck in a time dilation field, they all age about 60 years, and then at the very end of the episode they figure out how to make a reset button. And Vala and Daniel Jackson hook up (?!?!?!). Outrageous. I'm guessing they were expecting to make a Season 11 because this finale fucking sucked as a series ender.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on November 21, 2014, 06:27:57 PM
Don't listen to Ghost and watch Atlantis too. Even though you should have started already when SG1 Season 8 started.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on November 21, 2014, 06:35:18 PM
Finished Stargate SG-1. And, damn, am I glad that's over. There are way too many things wrong with Season 10 to list them all.



One thing that bothered me specifically: The Asgard. They didn't get a proper send-off. "We're dying, here's our knowledge. I gotta go now." That was it. The Asgard are easily the coolest alien race in the Stargate series, and this was not the correct way to handle their entire race's extinction. Just stupid. The entire episode was just retarted. Everyone is stuck in a time dilation field, they all age about 60 years, and then at the very end of the episode they figure out how to make a reset button. And Vala and Daniel Jackson hook up (?!?!?!). Outrageous. I'm guessing they were expecting to make a Season 11 because this finale fucking sucked as a series ender.

I told you to stop watching them. I tried to save you. This is your own fault.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on November 21, 2014, 06:42:47 PM
Don't listen to Ghost and watch Atlantis too. Even though you should have started already when SG1 Season 8 started.

Already started. So far it's much better than Season 9-10 of SG-1. I'll keep you posted.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on November 24, 2014, 05:02:36 AM
Just watched Interstellar. I share Snupes' sentiment almost exactly, so I won't repeat what she's already said. I did think it was funny that <spoilers> when Cooper and Murph are being questioned, and Cooper asks for assurance that he won't be killed... and one of the people at the table says something to the effect of "Haha, we're NASA!" as if that were supposed to be reassuring. I had to remind myself that the average globularist audience member wouldn't realize that there isn't a more sinister agency on the surface of this flat earth.</spoilers>

tl;dr cum awn TARS
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on November 24, 2014, 08:32:40 PM
I really like Stargate Atlantis so far. John Sheppard is a badass to the nth degree. Just finished the episode where he single-handedly thwarts the Genii's plan to take over Atlantis. Probably the best episode I've seen so far. Although, Rodney and Sheppard are the only interesting things about Atlantis right now. The secondary characters seem a bit weak and underdeveloped so far.

Oh, and Teyla seems like a female version of Teal'c. Pretty unoriginal.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 24, 2014, 09:13:54 PM
I'm still watching Gotham.  I don't know why.  It's really not very good.  I guess I just feel obliged to because it's Batman.  Well, sort of Batman.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on November 25, 2014, 04:39:50 PM
I really like Stargate Atlantis so far. John Sheppard is a badass to the nth degree. Just finished the episode where he single-handedly thwarts the Genii's plan to take over Atlantis. Probably the best episode I've seen so far. Although, Rodney and Sheppard are the only interesting things about Atlantis right now. The secondary characters seem a bit weak and underdeveloped so far.

Oh, and Teyla seems like a female version of Teal'c. Pretty unoriginal.
Yeah I don't like her either. Seems like she's there only for the "we need a strong female character or else it's sexist" factor.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on November 28, 2014, 11:45:48 AM
Nightcrawler (Dan Gilroy)

It is a good
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on November 28, 2014, 06:55:45 PM
Taxi Driver (Scorsese)

A great film documenting gradual and painful isolation, but I am not sure how I feel about the ending. Part of me feels like Travis liberated himself from his mania by liberating Iris from Matthew. The two characters seemed like parallels to me. Iris was trapped by her affection for Matthew, leading a lonely, hopeless life, and deep down feeling a need to escape. Travis' obsession and subsequent rejection with Betsy would lead to the same feelings. After Travis went apeshit and freed Iris, he seemed free from his obsession with Betsy. They were able to have an amiable conversation in the cab without Travis acting like a creep.

However, I can't help but think that the friendly Travis we see at the end is just a crazy killer who has let off some steam. After all, he did just try to assassinate a politician. It could only be a matter of time before tension builds within him again. But next time, he won't be seen as the hero.

It almost seems more appropriate for Travis to have died in the shootout.

Either way, it's an excellent film. Would recommend.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 28, 2014, 10:37:43 PM
Finally saw Interstellar.

I really enjoyed it. The story had me totally riveted up until the black hole. But even that wasn't cheesy enough for me to dislike it.
I don't agree with the theme of leaving the planet or have any fascination with space (I'm a historian after all), but it was still a great story and beautifully made.

Also, 10/10 would hit McConaughey
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on November 28, 2014, 11:49:00 PM
Why don't you agree with leaving the planet
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 28, 2014, 11:50:41 PM
Why don't you agree with leaving the planet
The atmosphere here is pretty good LOL XD
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on November 29, 2014, 12:25:57 AM
It's harder to leave than it is to stay.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 29, 2014, 12:37:27 AM
Why don't you agree with leaving the planet
Well IF we cause the destruction of the planet then I think we should go down with it.

We're from Earth, why not die out with Earth? I also think humans are kinda terrible. I wouldn't wish us on any other planet.
I generally see humans as a really intelligent, terrible animal driven by instincts. I don't have very lofty ideals of evolution/adaptation.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on November 29, 2014, 12:43:48 AM
Why don't you agree with leaving the planet
Well IF we cause the destruction of the planet then I think we should go down with it.

We're from Earth, why not die out with Earth? I also think humans are kinda terrible. I wouldn't wish us on any other planet.
I generally see humans as a really intelligent, terrible animal driven by instincts. I don't have very lofty ideals of evolution/adaptation.

Your opinion is wrong.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on November 29, 2014, 12:46:46 AM
Did not expect that kind of edge from Rooster. Confirmed for a 15y/o high schooler attempting philosophy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on November 29, 2014, 12:47:51 AM
Who's to say that Earth was even our original home planet?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on November 29, 2014, 02:10:20 AM


Why don't you agree with leaving the planet
We're from Earth, why not die out with Earth?

I don't really think those two things correlate at all
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 29, 2014, 04:09:35 AM
I watched the first film of the Star Trek reboot, the one from 2009.  It wasn't awful, but I can't say it was very good either.  They did a few things well, I'll grant.  Spock was good, Bones was good, and I liked how they tied it into the previous continuity with Nimoy showing up.  But there was one enormous flaw that ruined the movie for me, and his name was James T. Kirk.  Kirk sucked.  He really, really sucked.  He was an annoying, unlikable, obnoxious, unpleasant asshole whose constant douchebaggery was inexplicably rewarded with promotion and unwarranted praise throughout the entire film.  The logic of this movie seems to be that hey, this is Kirk, instantly recognizable as the hero of the franchise, and therefore, he doesn't need to actually act like a hero to gain the audience's loyalty.  Or like a competent officer.  Or even like a decent human being.  Well, it doesn't work like that.

And before anyone starts with crap like "But Shatner's Kirk was the exact same," or "You can't just have a handsome nice guy running around being heroic," or "He is persistent and a heroic," don't.  Because no, he wasn't, yes, you can, and no, he isn't.  Shatner played Kirk as being supremely confident, yes.  But, and here's the key difference between them, his Kirk could walk the walk as well as talk the talk.  He wasn't always right, but he proved again and again that he was a brilliant tactician, a great leader, and a loyal friend.  He earned every ounce of smugness that he ever displayed.  Pine's Kirk did not.  He's a cocky little bastard right from the start of the movie, long before he ever did anything worthwhile, and even by the end of it, he still hadn't done much to be proud of.  If anyone was the real hero of this film, it was Spock.  Like I said, he was handled very well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on November 29, 2014, 04:26:14 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/upgjJNQ.gif)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 29, 2014, 04:55:14 AM
Yes.  This is what I do.  I wait until long after the movies come out before I watch them myself and offer my opinions on them so as to appear original in my criticisms.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 29, 2014, 07:42:27 AM
Did not expect that kind of edge from Rooster. Confirmed for a 15y/o high schooler attempting philosophy.
It's the exact opposite of that.

I don't understand the whole "meant" to leave idea. That suggests destiny which I don't believe in at all. I'm aware that people think we're a really special, but I don't by into that. We're just violent animals with large frontal lobes.
It's not philosophy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on November 29, 2014, 07:46:27 AM
But we are special, simply because we alone have the means to leave our own planet.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on November 29, 2014, 07:54:55 AM
But we are special, simply because we alone have the means to leave our own planet.

Going to have to agree with this. Eventually our resources will dwindle and we'll be forced between resettling on a different planet or extinction. Probably not in our lifetimes, but still. It will happen provided we don't kill each other or aliens enslave us and/or kill us all. It's not make believe.

Also, It has nothing to do with destiny. It's just plain ol science.

Do not take this as if I am supporting this awful film though. It really has no redeeming factors in my opinion.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on November 29, 2014, 08:23:27 AM
That's another good point, I don't remember if I had a whinge about the destiny crap in the movie. It was only there for the first 20 minutes or so, but it was annoying. The implication that we're going to the stars anyway because it's our future devalues the accomplishment that space travel is. We're not born for space travel at all, it takes a shit load of hard work and sacrifices to get there. It's strange that a movie so pro-science completely ignored that in favour of lame "its arr destany" lines.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on November 29, 2014, 09:29:41 AM
What? The movie is all about hard work and sacrifices.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on November 29, 2014, 10:22:23 AM
What? The movie is all about hard work and sacrifices.

Yes, which is why it's weird to shoehorn the destiny garbage in while Cooper is still meandering around on Earth.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 29, 2014, 03:16:43 PM
What? The movie is all about hard work and sacrifices.

Yes, which is why it's weird to shoehorn the destiny garbage in while Cooper is still meandering around on Earth.
Yep. That is probably what bugged me most about the movie. But it was still great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 30, 2014, 04:47:50 AM
And now I've watched Into Darkness.  Kirk isn't a shithead in this movie, which I appreciated.  Apart from that, it sucked.  I'll admit that I've never been a particularly huge fan of Star Trek - at most, I've seen some of the movies and a handful of episodes - but even I can't help feeling offended by this.  It's an incredibly stupid, incredibly generic, homogeneous blockbuster without an ounce of uniqueness, creativity, or thematic similarity to the original franchise.  And even though it's full of what I'd normally call fanservice, like the quotes and reenactments of scenes from The Wrath of Khan, none of it feels respectful.  In fact, it comes across more like a mean-spirited parody than anything else.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on November 30, 2014, 05:06:27 AM
Khan in the series was Indian. Dark skinned. In the movie, Khan is a pale skinned Benedict Cumberbatch.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 30, 2014, 05:32:58 AM
I am aware.  I would complain about it, but honestly, the real issue with Khan is that they shouldn't have bothered rehashing him in the first place.  Or if they absolutely felt compelled to put him in, then they ought to have let him take center stage as the villain.  Awkwardly juggling him with RoboCop so they could give us their oh-so-insightful political message of "terrorism is bad, mmkay," didn't work out well at all.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on November 30, 2014, 05:36:40 AM
I thought Into Darkness sucked too. Khan felt like a joke. I agree with Saddam, they should have left him out of it completely.

Actually, they should just stop making Star Trek movies altogether. Make a new series please.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on November 30, 2014, 05:59:41 AM
I thought Into Darkness sucked too. Khan felt like a joke. I agree with Saddam, they should have left him out of it completely.

Actually, they should just stop making Star Trek movies altogether. Make a new series please.

They are, it's called Star Wars.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on December 01, 2014, 08:44:32 PM
Mean Streets (Scorsese)

Very good. I prefer Scorsese's older stuff to the new, although I do love the new.

Having watched Taxi Driver recently, it's interesting to contrast character development in these two films, as they were made around the same time. One models gradual isolation resulting in madness, while the other models mounting pressure from multiple angles resulting in a somewhat similar madness. Both end with a bang, so to speak. Great stuff.

What I don't understand is his tendency to flood bar scenes with intense red lighting. It's annoying as hell. I don't know what effect he was going for other than creating a feeling of danger, but there's gotta be a better way.



No Country for Old Men (Coen Brothers)

Phenomenal. I finally got around to seeing this, and was in no way disappointed.

While the ending was initially puzzling, it was very fitting. It helps to consider the sheriff as the character we get to really dig into, not Llewelyn. Consider the name of the film after all. It's not about Llewelyn's ordeal: stumbling across the cash, evading Anton, and trying (failing) to save himself and his wife. Rather, it is about the sheriff's struggle to continue, given the awful nature of his job, and his sort of existential pondering at the end. This is wrapped up nicely in the ending scene with the ex-sheriff dude in the wheelchair.

Anton is easily one of my favorite characters in any Coen brothers film, rivaled only by Charlie Meadows in Barton Fink. He's just so intense, so precise, so recklessly stable. Early in the movie, we get to see all that he does, and we get a good idea for how his character will respond in certain situations. Then, once we have that idea, we are often left following other characters, left to our own conclusions about what exactly he is doing. The death of the Mosses is not surprising in retrospect. The film is about the sheriff, and Anton is not a character that loses.

One thing in particular that I can't make sense of is Anton's car crash at the end. If anybody has any insight into that scene, feel free to enlighten me. I was thinking that maybe it reflected 'chance' or fate, as Anton often used a coin flip to determine the life or death of people he happened across. I can't really see anything beyond that.

Definitely my favorite Coen brothers film so far. 9.5/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on December 04, 2014, 07:41:44 PM
Nightcrawler

Great film. Jake Gyllenhaal's performance was just phenomenal. Direction felt a little underwhelming at times, but it was sufficient enough to maintain tension where it was needed.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: jroa on December 04, 2014, 08:04:47 PM
Watch SGU.  It is teh shit
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on December 04, 2014, 09:34:57 PM
Nightcrawler

Great film. Jake Gyllenhaal's performance was just phenomenal. Direction felt a little underwhelming at times, but it was sufficient enough to maintain tension where it was needed.


The end was lazy lazy filmmaking. Gyllenhaal however was fantastic.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on December 05, 2014, 12:54:47 AM
Nightcrawler

Great film. Jake Gyllenhaal's performance was just phenomenal. Direction felt a little underwhelming at times, but it was sufficient enough to maintain tension where it was needed.

I agree.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on December 05, 2014, 05:43:27 AM
Nightcrawler

Great film. Jake Gyllenhaal's performance was just phenomenal. Direction felt a little underwhelming at times, but it was sufficient enough to maintain tension where it was needed.


The end was lazy lazy filmmaking. Gyllenhaal however was fantastic.

Yeah, I agree about the ending. ***SPOILERS*** I thought it would end where the door to the editing room shuts behind him, but then it just continues with unnecessary exposition and the awkward interrogation scene which just shows how Lou gets away with everything with zero repercussions. It was just way too convenient and it went on for too long. All it really needed to do was cement Lou as an irredeemable sociopath by showing him interacting with the station crew unphased by the events and his partner's death, which is exactly what they did and which is where I thought the film should have ended.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on December 05, 2014, 06:11:39 AM
!!!Spoilers!!!!


The sequence where he filmed the death of his partner, and when he turned in the tapes to the station, brilliantly shot, but it seems the movie was just too short, so they added 15 minutes of things happening for no reason and abruptly ending the film leaving the audience being unsure as to what the message really was. I dunno, I just feel like a movie like this needs a solid conclusion to really cement the themes.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on December 05, 2014, 06:18:03 AM
What about the 2004 series?

That's up next.

Finally finished the 2004 Battlestar Galactica series (except The Plan, but I'm going to leave that for a while because the ending of the main series was just so awesome). If you're planning to read this post any further, you should expect spoilers.

Galactica is difficult to compare with other sci-fi I'm familiar with, because it's just so... different. I like that its relationship with modern civilisation is kept a secret until the very last episode, because it makes that aspect of the show all the more poignant when it finally arrives. Overall, it was much darker than any other sci-fi I've seen, tending to focus on the negative traits of humanity much moreso than the feel-good Star Trek franchise and friends.

I also really enjoyed the lack of a clear distinction between good and evil. In Trek, you're (nearly) always supposed to think the humans are good and the Klingons/Romulans/Dominion/Kazon are evil, although (to its credit) Trek sometimes does subvert that theme. But Galactica regularly portrays people who are regarded as heroes committing unspeakable acts of cruelty, balanced out with enough acts of kindness to avoid tipping the good/evil balance the other way. By the second season, I had already lost the sense of who was right and who was wrong, and had learned to expect that any of the characters could turn against their own people, given the opportunity.

That's not to say that I like it better than Trek. I find the Star Trek universe makes a very good example of what we should strive for, but the Battlestar Galactica universe is a much better commentary on the darker side of human nature. It manages to deliver a striking commentary on modern society and religion without coming across as cheesy; no easy feat, given the number of cliches bouncing around in sci-fi in this area.

I'm tempted to watch it all again at some point, just because of the density of content. There are a lot of little things that are easy to miss; for example, the music is very intricate and detailed (and even has its own Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Battlestar_Galactica_%282004_TV_series%29)), which tended to register subconsciously moreso than consciously on my first watch. Another running theme that I found quite striking once I noticed it was the tendency of people in positions of power to have discussions that impact the entire fleet (especially those forced to work overtime refining fuel, for instance) while indulging in heavy drinking in their comfortable offices. That's generally something most sci-fi goes to great lengths to avoid depicting, and I appreciate the fact that Galactica makes a point of showing it on a regular basis, while never quite drawing attention to it.

That was a bigger wall of text than I intended, but I really did like it a lot. It's a show that boldly goes where no sci-fi has gone before, and thus feels much less like a Star Trek rehash than a new breed of sci-fi. 10/10 would watch again.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on December 05, 2014, 12:20:09 PM
Stargate next.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 05, 2014, 12:44:54 PM
Parsifal: Are there boobs in it?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on December 05, 2014, 12:46:12 PM
There's boobs and vaginas in the first Stargate episode.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 05, 2014, 01:42:21 PM
Maybe you guys should consider starting a Stargate topic.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 05, 2014, 03:59:53 PM
There's boobs and vaginas in the first Stargate episode.
So it's literally Game of Thrones in space
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on December 05, 2014, 06:21:36 PM
I started watching Farscape a few nights ago because I needed a break from Stargate. It's pretty interesting, but also very campy. I've only watched 2 episodes so far (the pilot, and the one with the bugs). I didn't realize it was made by the Jim Henson company. The puppets are kind of off-putting and uncanny valley at times, which I have mixed feelings about. I'm sure I'll get used to it, but I have never been a big fan of puppets of any kind in media. Although, they do make Farscape feel a lot more unique when compared to other televised space operas. I like Claudia Black's character here much better than her character in Stargate SG-1, and that also applies to Ben Browder's character.

It's not a very long series, so I will probably finish it shortly. So far so good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on December 06, 2014, 01:23:14 PM
Just watched Iron Man as part of a deal where Snupes would listen to Atom Heart Mother and Meddle. It was the worst pile of crap I've endured in years. The plot was boring, the gags were predictable, the one-liners weren't funny, the physics was unrealistic and the villains were walking cliches.

That leaves the remaining feature of the film, which is heavy things moving around at high speeds, shooting fire and causing explosions. Maybe I'd have liked it more if I was 14 and got off on seeing people get killed in repetitive and uncreative ways, but that just doesn't do it for me at 25.

0/10, would buy it if the frisbees were all sold out.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 06, 2014, 01:26:44 PM
literally balkno
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on December 06, 2014, 01:27:45 PM
*snicker*
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 06, 2014, 02:44:43 PM
That was actually more positive than I expected
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on December 20, 2014, 10:11:56 PM
Happened to catch an episode of The Blacklist, starring James Spader. Pretty terrible, except for Spader's performance as a criminal mastermind. I could see myself watching it solely because of him, but without him this show would be heaps of fail and try-hard. It's too similar to some other shows on tv already. It's like White Collar but more mature and less pandering to fangirls. The female lead is Megan Boone, and she's pretty hard to watch. Maybe it's her character, or the overabundance of melodrama surrounding her character. I'm not sure. Maybe I'm just a sexist. Yeah, that's probably it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on December 20, 2014, 10:15:28 PM
Spader is good in everything.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on December 20, 2014, 10:15:45 PM
Spader is good in everything.

Truer words have never been typed.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Daniel Jackson on December 20, 2014, 10:18:41 PM
Spader is good in everything.

Mostly everything, but I am still the real Daniel Jackson.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on December 20, 2014, 10:27:26 PM
Fuck off, Vauxy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 22, 2014, 08:14:05 PM
2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)

It's been screening for a few weeks across the UK as part of the BFI's Days of Fear and Wonder classic science fiction season (other films shown include Blade Runner (Ridley Scott) and Silent Running (Douglas Trumbull (who was in charge, insofar as anyone is in charge on a Kubrick film besides Kubrick himself, of 2001's incredible special effects))) and I finally had the time to go and see it with a friend of mine. I don't really have much to say about it, it's been praised beyond reason in the 46 years since its release, other than to say that I love the film. I remain unconvinced of the idea that viewing a film in a cinema is superior to seeing it at home, save for the bone rattling sound of a good cinema system (possibly the best way to hear Ligeti), but I'm very glad I went to see it, it loses none of its impact the second time around.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on December 23, 2014, 06:39:20 PM
I had been meaning to look into Paul Thomas Anderson's films for a long-ass time, and a couple weeks ago I finally got around to watching The Master, with it having been near the top of my to-watch list due to Foxy and Crudblud having had hyped it up for me. And because it was great and I felt dumb for not having seen it earlier, in the past few days I got around to watching every other full-feature film he's made. So I thought I'd write up some short reviews for them, listed in the order in which I saw them.

The Master (2012)

It's a small-scale character study set in the 1950s, focusing on a drifting alcoholic WWII soldier who can't get a grip on his life, and his coming to get involved with a religious cult not too dissimilar to scientology. There's not too much to say about it, but at the same time there's so much to say about it that it's too difficult to articulate. At its simplest it's a neat and well executed character study, and it doesn't need to be anything more than that. I've read a lot of posts that go way more in-depth on thematic analysis, even drawing some startingly accuracte analogies to Freudian psychology. But without having considered any of that shit in my viewing of it, I still thoroughly enjoyed it for the realistic actions of the main characters and how they interact with each other, the magnificent performances from Phoenix and Hoffman, and the gorgeous cinematography, in part thanks to the film having been shot in 70mm, that portrays the period in beautiful vivid colours. 9/10

There Will Be Blood (2007)

Everyone's already praising it, so might as well join the club. It shows a much bigger character ark than the subdued character study in The Master, starting from Daniel Plainview's humble beginning as a miner, through his growth as a charming businessman, and finally as a crazy recluse holed up in his mansion. But for such a huge story to go through in two and a half hours, it really doesn't feel like it's missing anything. Every action feels justifiably motivated within the framework of the story, and without a doubt much of that is achieved by Daniel Day-Lewis' magnificent performance. Paul Dano deserves much praise as well as the evangelical pastor.

Once again, Anderson nails the aesthetic of the period, with all of its oily grittiness and dry plains. It's just an all around very well executed film. 9/10

Magnolia (1999)

So, this film has a lot going on. The narrated intro really sets you up for an expectation for a deeply layered, tangled story involving a large cast of characters, but what I ultimately felt at the end of it was just that there were six, give or take, stories that were at best tangentially connected. It feels more like most of the work on trying to make this network of stories work was done in editing, because this film has a habit of not following any particular story for a lengthy period of time. On several occasions the film falls into a groove of having rapid shots of the different stories cycled through with the same music playing consistently throughout the sequence. Usually this sort of thing is used at the climax of the story and for only a brief moment, but here they go on for 20-30 minutes, and just to move the stories forward. It's too exhausting to watch, and to me it seems to only serve the purpose of creating an illusion of interconnectivity, but ultimately I found it to be detrimental more than anything else. This all sounds pretty negative, but the individual stories themselves are all quite great and the characters are well fleshed out, so it does have that going for it.

There's a magnificent idea hidden in this film, and with better execution it could have been a magnificent film, but it missed its mark by too much. It does feel like the sort of film that improves on repeat viewings, so maybe it's too early for me to give cohesive view on it. 7/10

Boogie Nights (1997)

It's a really fun film, until it stops being quite so fun. Anderson really proves himself as a master of the craft with his use of long shots and soundtrack to establish a mood with perfection. The beginning scene in the night club with its establishment of characters, the party at Jack's house where we're familiarised with the rest of the cast, and the murder-suicide scene at the New Year's party all demonstrate excellent uses of long shots to establish the mood, vibe and atmosphere of the 70s, without ever sacrificing on plot progression. For the first half of the film it feels like it never misses a beat.

Then it turns to the 80s, which mainly focuses on the downfall of the cast of characters. This is where the film starts to feel like it's no longer playing to its strength. Perhaps it was inevitable for the sake of the plot, but the vibe that drove the first half of the film goes largely missing, replaced by the depictions of the characters hitting rock bottom. It's all still very well made, but a part of me feels like it wasn't necessary for the film to take that route. 9/10

Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

It's an Adam Sandler film that wasn't made by Adam Sandler. It's lightly comedic, lightly romantic, and it features Adam Sandler. There's a strange, off-putting atmosphere to it, with its clinical aesthetics punctuated by bright spotlights and lens flares, as well as the ”experimental” sounding soundtrack, that makes everything feel like it's in a dream-like state.

Despite being characterized as a romantic film (I guess?), I found it difficult to see it as that. I was so lightly invested in the romantic interest character that it felt more like a way to motivate Sandler's character's actions than serve the purpose for an actual romantic plot. Hoffman makes an appearance as the ”antagonist” of the film, and his performance is my favourite thing in it, so it's a shame we don't see more of him. Other than that, I didn't really think much of this film. It's just things happening, and me not being all that invested in the characters. 6/10

Hard Eight (1996)

Not much to say about this one. It feels like exactly what it is, a debut feature film from a young filmmaker. There's some high notes in here, but most of them happen in the establishment of the story. The story itself, concerning a hostage situation, is poorly played out and feels unnecessary. The film works at its best when it's about gambling, so it really should have just stuck to being about gambling. Given how amateurish this film feels, it's really quite remarkable how Boogie Nights, which was released only a year later, feels like it's made by an extremely talented and experienced filmmaker. 5/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 25, 2014, 01:48:48 AM
I just got back from watching the last Hobbit movie.  It's about as bad as you've heard, and the reasons why should be obvious.  What's left of the story is basically split into two subplots; one in which Thorin turns paranoid and possessive due to something they call "dragon fever," and the other being the big battle referenced in the title.  The first one is stupid, boring, and doesn't have a very good payoff.  The second one is even more stupid, but at least it looks cool, and fortunately that's where the bulk of the film is spent.  As far as garish, over-the-top, spectacular, CGI-fest battle scenes go, this movie does them very well.  If you can watch a movie and be satisfied with seeing that and little else, it's safe to say you'll like this one.

Considering how much filler and extraneous material - for lack of a better word, fanfiction - that they added, it's interesting that I really only actively disliked a couple of them.  One of them was the character Alfred, whom you might remember as being the Master's toady in the last movie.  He's basically a ripoff of Wormtongue from LotR, and he keeps constantly showing up just to remind everyone what a slimy douchebag he is.  There's literally no point to his frequent appearances.  He's not funny, he's not a foil to anyone, he's just...there.  The movie doesn't even show him getting killed or anything.  My other main issue is the same one that I had with the last film, all the foreshadowing of LotR.  The story of LotR has already been told.  It took three very long movies to do it, but now it's complete.  It does not need to be told some more.  And yet this movie continues to flash Sauron's fiery eye, play ominous music whenever the camera is on the Ring, and have characters drop vague hints about the dark power that is rising or whatever.  For fuck's sake, Jackson, the film is called The Hobbit.  The story you're telling should be the story of The Hobbit.  Why can't you fuck off with the LotR shit already?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on December 26, 2014, 02:36:46 AM
Just watched Big.

Still a fantastic movie after all these years. Really great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 26, 2014, 10:15:24 PM
The Great McGinty (Preston Sturges)

While funny in spots (possibly three), it's not all that great. It's too flimsy to be a good satire, too serious to be a good comedy, and too silly to be a good drama. The best parts of the film may be Brian Donlevy's snappy dress sense, and the tropical bar scenes, which are too few and too far between. In fact, had the screenplay gone a different way, the "banana republic" setting could have made for a fine noir mystery as McGinty's past catches up with him, but the backstory itself is not very interesting.

JFK (Oliver Stone)

It's hard to be an Oliver Stone fan, mainly because he's nuts and the films he makes are often pure distillations of that, full of street preacher intensity and a dogmatic pressing for "the truth", whatever that may be. JFK is one such film, taking the Jim Garrison inquiry into the Kennedy assassination as the absolute truth on the matter and pulling pretty much everyone in the world except Lee Harvey Oswald into a massive conspiracy. The first half is definitely the strongest, as a series of bizarre characters played by such actors as Joe Pesci, John Candy, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, and Kevin Bacon are introduced and connected to the madness, with some great eccentric performances being delivered in the process. Kevin Costner is a good fit for the lead, whose lines, delivered in what I assume to be Yat dialect, start off hammy ("I'm ashamed to be an American today.") veer into Alex Jones "wake up sheeple" territory, but with at least some semblance of sanity beneath them, and by the end of the film I did come to sympathise with him and his cause, even if in reality the whole thing may be nonsense — but isn't that the joy of a good conspiracy theory, that the crazier it gets the more enticing it becomes? I saw the directors cut, which comes in at a whopping 3hr20m duration, but it never really felt like it was dragging, and that's no mean feat. It's definitely an entertaining film, and while craziness abound from very early on it is never so dense as to require a huge amount of effort to follow.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 27, 2014, 02:57:31 AM
JFK is a well-put together film, but as a true historical account, it's crap, and both it and Garrison's original, ahem, "investigation" have been very extensively debunked over the years.  If anyone's interested in learning more, here's a great website that goes into a lot of detail about it:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkmovie.htm

Here's my favorite article from the site:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon5.htm

Quote
In an effort to get Garrison's story into focus, I asked him the motive of the Kennedy conspirators. He told me that the murder at Dallas had been a homosexual plot.

"They had the same motive as Loeb and Leopold, when they murdered Bobbie Franks in Chicago back in the twenties," Garrison said. "It was a homosexual thrill-killing, plus the excitement of getting away with a perfect crime. John Kennedy was everything that Dave Ferrie was not — a successful, handsome, popular, wealthy, virile man. You can just picture the charge Ferrie got out of plotting his death."

I asked how he had learned that the murder was a homosexual plot.

"Look at the people involved," Garrison said. "Dave Ferrie, homosexual. Clay Shaw, homosexual. Jack Ruby, homosexual."

"Ruby was a homosexual?"

"Sure, we dug that out," Garrison said. "His homosexual nickname was Pinkie. That's three. Then there was Lee Harvey Oswald."

But Oswald was married and had two children, I pointed out.

"A switch-hitter who couldn't satisfy his wife," Garrison said. "That's all in the Warren Report." He named two more "key figures" whom he labeled homosexual.

"That's six homosexuals in the plot," Garrison said. "One or maybe two, okay. But all six homosexual? How far can you stretch the arm of coincidence?"

The homo tension.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on December 27, 2014, 08:00:56 AM
Quote
He told me that the murder at Dallas had been a homosexual plot.

Haha, what?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on December 27, 2014, 08:28:04 AM
Funny how JFK glosses right over those bits.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 29, 2014, 08:27:59 PM
The Muppets (James Bobin)

I have to admit, despite it being no secret that I love the shit out of The Muppets, I was a bit reluctant to watch this, and the opening scene did nothing to assuage my doubts and fears about a return of something that, to be fair to villain Tex Richman, does seem terribly outdated now. How stupid I was! After all this time The Muppets still have all the charm, wit, and madness that characterised the classic TV show. While the plot may give a little too much of the limelight to the human stars, the cast of classic Muppet puppets, plus some new ones, also have plenty of time to do what they do best. The voice cast is also, as expected, absolutely astounding, with some new names doing spot-on imitations of the original cast.

The film isn't perfect. Ill-executed musical numbers such as the Amy Adams disco bit and Chris Cooper's money rap, no matter how clever I can believe they looked on paper, came out of left field and not in a good way, but these parts are few and far between. Then again, that may be the point; after all, a large chunk of the film revolves around satirising the idea that family entertainment in the tradition of old-timey variety shows is a thing of the past, yet when they try to change that at all the film is poorer for it. The show (and I call it that because really it really is so close to the variety show feel of the original Muppet Show, rather than most of the Muppet feature films of the past) has some great numbers too, such as Am I a Man, or a Muppet?, and a finale that subverts so many expectations as to redeem any problems encountered earlier in the film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on December 29, 2014, 08:39:30 PM
"Man or Muppet" was written by Bret McKenzie (Flight of the Conchords) and won an Oscar, I believe.

Great song.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on December 30, 2014, 06:41:14 AM
Anyone
I just got back from watching the last Hobbit movie.  It's about as bad as you've heard, and the reasons why should be obvious.  What's left of the story is basically split into two subplots; one in which Thorin turns paranoid and possessive due to something they call "dragon fever," and the other being the big battle referenced in the title.  The first one is stupid, boring, and doesn't have a very good payoff.  The second one is even more stupid, but at least it looks cool, and fortunately that's where the bulk of the film is spent.  As far as garish, over-the-top, spectacular, CGI-fest battle scenes go, this movie does them very well.  If you can watch a movie and be satisfied with seeing that and little else, it's safe to say you'll like this one.

Considering how much filler and extraneous material - for lack of a better word, fanfiction - that they added, it's interesting that I really only actively disliked a couple of them.  One of them was the character Alfred, whom you might remember as being the Master's toady in the last movie.  He's basically a ripoff of Wormtongue from LotR, and he keeps constantly showing up just to remind everyone what a slimy douchebag he is.  There's literally no point to his frequent appearances.  He's not funny, he's not a foil to anyone, he's just...there.  The movie doesn't even show him getting killed or anything.  My other main issue is the same one that I had with the last film, all the foreshadowing of LotR.  The story of LotR has already been told.  It took three very long movies to do it, but now it's complete.  It does not need to be told some more.  And yet this movie continues to flash Sauron's fiery eye, play ominous music whenever the camera is on the Ring, and have characters drop vague hints about the dark power that is rising or whatever.  For fuck's sake, Jackson, the film is called The Hobbit.  The story you're telling should be the story of The Hobbit.  Why can't you fuck off with the LotR shit already?

There's a lot of additions to these films that are really weird, and I can't help but wonder why Jackson decided to include some of them. Is he just a shit editor? Are the studios breathing down his neck? Does he just want to make money? It's pretty obvious he still cares, because the movies are crafted well and many small details (like Bilbo seeing elf spirits when he puts the ring on) are included. But there's so much crap that just didn't need to be there at all.

In any case, I found myself agreeing with the RLM guys once again on this movie. It's probably the best of the bunch, but while the third LOTR movie had me on an emotional rollercoaster, this one failed to make me feel anything outside of very fleeting moments in the final battle. I just didn't care about any of the characters.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 31, 2014, 04:25:47 AM
I have a different issue, though, and maybe the comparison to that issue is why I don't really mind all the additions to the story they've done.  To me, the action scenes have been the big weakness of this series, in all three films.  I said that they were done well earlier, but that needs some qualifying.  They're done well in a technical sense, in the sense of visual spectacle, and sometimes they're even pretty creative.  But they're not done well from a storytelling perspective.  In the LotR movies, the battles felt so much more real.  It was probably due to lots of subtle details like the lighting and makeup as well as the directing, but there was a lot more connection to the characters.  You could tell when they were supposed to be injured, when they were tired, when they were desperate, etc.  They may not have been "realistic," per se, but there was always at least one foot firmly planted in reality.

Needless to say, there's none of that in the Hobbit movies.  I was going to call the battle scenes cartoony, but that's not fair to cartoons.  They're more like video games than anything else.  They're bombastic, they're over-the-top, and it's impossible to maintain even a shred of suspension of disbelief for them.  And because they're so silly and so detached from the story, they get old very quickly, and then they just drag.  Compare that to watching a few talented actors have a dialogue about some event that happened long ago to provide background.  Both scenes are technically padding, but one of them is much more bearable than the other.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 31, 2014, 09:47:51 PM
Maps to the Stars (David Cronenberg)

Is it great, stupid, both? I don't know, man. It has some great and terribly powerful moments, then seems to shift around oddly, as if it's hiding something. I don't doubt that it is good, after all Cronenberg has built the latter half of his career on films that are difficult and challenging in ways that make them easy to dismiss as misfires, but then you think about them the next day, as I did with his previous film Cosmopolis, and a whole other dimension becomes apparent. This is one I have to see again, because there's something else there that I'm just not getting. On the absolute downside, I never thought I'd be criticising a Cronenberg movie for bad special effects, but there's one CGI shot in this movie and it stinks! Cronenberg... bad effects... how?!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 01, 2015, 12:43:39 AM
Snake Eyes (Brian de Palma)

I'm pretty much sold on any Nicolas Cage movie by virtue of it having Nicolas Cage in it, he is my favourite actor, hands down. And this is a really fun little movie, with slick camera work and great pacing (Gaspar Noé take note, you can have both) that makes the 90 minute runtime breeze by in what felt like 30. The plot, once laid bare, is pretty silly, but Cage delivers a great high energy performance typical of his '90s era work and Gary Sinise provides good counterplay.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 03, 2015, 01:29:04 AM
Burn After Reading (Ethan and Joel Coen)

This comedy of extreme errors takes a little while to get going, but once the ridiculously deluded characters begin to weave around each other the film becomes rather enjoyable. It's not first-rate Coen Brothers material, and a lot of the gags, especially early on, feel like a case of going through the motions. I did find myself laughing a lot more during the second half of the film, as the actions of the characters start to veer towards Fargo territory in their insanity, but the real let-down in terms of comedy is the under use of J.K. Simmons, who really nails every line with excellent timing and delivery but only has two brief scenes. It's a decent film that kept me reasonably entertained, I won't deny I expect more and better from the Coens, but it's a well made, well acted piece with plenty of good laughs once it gets rolling.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 04, 2015, 02:40:09 AM
Iron Man (Jon Favreau)

Iron Man is a difficult film to talk about, not because it's complex or terribly unique, but because it really didn't make much of an impression on me. Things I liked included the suit assembly sequences, which were nicely detailed, and the final line transitioning into the end credits, which was the only humorous part that really worked for me. Aside from that it was pretty much things blowing up and people talking for two hours. It wasn't bad, but I can't imagine I will remember much of it when I wake up tomorrow.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on January 04, 2015, 03:02:07 AM
Synecdoche, New York (Kaufman, 2008)

This is a film I saw for the first time a week ago and I decided to watch it again because it begs to be seen at least twice. There's a lot of finer details in the film that I missed on my first viewing that could be analyzed to death, but Kaufman was really careful about not having analyzing be necessary for this film to be understood. It's ultimately very explicit about its central themes and my second viewing more than anything made me realize how every scene very deliberately fits in presenting those central themes and ideas. The fine subtle details this film is filled with are great for rewarding repeat viewings as well, and I'm sure I'll be seeing this one again. All in all it's a very ambitious film and Kaufman did a stellar job in executing it, with the performances from Hoffman and the other people being all-around great as well. 9/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 04, 2015, 03:17:09 PM
Inside Llewyn Davis (Ethan and Joel Coen)

If Iron Man left almost no impression on me, Inside Llewyn Davis left an impression, but I'm not sure what it was. I really like the film, it has a typically bizarre Coen sense of humour, but it is also heartfelt in a way I'm not sure I've seen them do before. That's not to say it's sentimental, it has a kind of neutrality about it, almost like a Todd Solondz film, and never really tells you what to feel about the lead. I will have to see it again, as it does seem like there's a whole other layer to this thing that one simply cannot get on first viewing, but I'm already content to call it one of the very best recent (as in past couple of years) films that I've seen.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 05, 2015, 01:46:38 AM
<Crudblud> I might watch more Marvel movies in future to see if they get better
<beerdo> just watch them in the right order
<Crudblud> I've got them ordered by release date
<beerdo> Yes
<Crudblud> Which means if I want to do a capeshit odyssey my next film is The Incredible Hulk

No, Crudblud, no!  Don't watch that one.  It's entirely skippable.  I mean, you might want to watch it if you're a huge fan and want to see them all, but it's probably the worst of the MCU so far.  Or maybe the one that follows that one, Iron Man 2, is the worst.  It's hard to choose between them.  Anyway, for a newbie taking their baby steps in the vast world of capeshit, you don't need to start off on such a mediocre note.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on January 05, 2015, 01:53:07 AM
Shut up, sadaam
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on January 05, 2015, 01:56:22 AM
beardo is the true king of capeshit
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on January 05, 2015, 05:23:38 AM
I'm Batman.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 05, 2015, 02:36:29 PM
Inside Llewyn Davis (Ethan and Joel Coen)

If Iron Man left almost no impression on me, Inside Llewyn Davis left an impression, but I'm not sure what it was. I really like the film, it has a typically bizarre Coen sense of humour, but it is also heartfelt in a way I'm not sure I've seen them do before. That's not to say it's sentimental, it has a kind of neutrality about it, almost like a Todd Solondz film, and never really tells you what to feel about the lead. I will have to see it again, as it does seem like there's a whole other layer to this thing that one simply cannot get on first viewing, but I'm already content to call it one of the very best recent (as in past couple of years) films that I've seen.

I loved ILD, the soundtrack is one of the very few movie soundtracks that I've bought
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 05, 2015, 03:48:40 PM
I agree, it's a great film. The music is very good, and I was especially impressed, as so many have been, by the fact that Oscar Isaac and others actually play and sing the music live instead of having a pre-recorded take added in post-production.

Blow Out (Brian de Palma)

Typical de Palma: stylish as fuck with little to offer in the way of script and performance. It's a shame, too, as the idea of having to reconstruct an assassination from recorded sound alone is pretty interesting, but the plot just doesn't lead up to much. Some scenes display a good sense of humour, but often it takes itself too seriously for its own good, and the cheesy music more clashes with than counterbalances this so that there is an uncomfortable tonal imbalance that is distancing and distracting in a clumsy way. John Lithgow gives the best performance in the film, putting on a variety of voices and acting creepy, but there is little suspense in his scenes, and the great visuals can only do so much to make up for the "why am I bored?" factor in the final act.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on January 05, 2015, 08:53:16 PM
Altered States (Ken Russell)

Creepy, I loved it. The ending sequence was the best made part.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 07, 2015, 03:54:07 PM
I watched the premiere of Agent Carter, and it was great.  The 1940s setting is realized very well, the characters are fun and distinctive, and Hayley Atwell in particular is excellent as the lead.  And even though there is a fun, lighthearted feel to the show, it's definitely not as goofy as something like the first Captain America.  All in all, it's a great start for Marvel's first female-led adaptation.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 08, 2015, 12:38:26 AM
The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese)

Finally, a Scorsese picture about assholes that I actually enjoyed watching. It is a film that, with its 180 minute runtime and relentless nature, totally embodies the excess of the characters, their giant houses, yachts, private planes, quaalude and cocaine fuelled parties, and their belief in their own infallibility, their own immortality. Having said that, it is a remarkably easy film to watch, although DiCaprio's smug face and thousand-dollar suits are on display in almost every shot, there is a sense of being removed from the madness ever so slightly so that one sees it for the ludicrous comedy that it is. It is excessive, but it is also controlled, never chaotic. I don't think it's the great film I heard about when it was released, but it is good, and a good three-hour film is no mean feat.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on January 08, 2015, 09:20:13 PM
I've been rewatching Twin Peaks. Just got to the Season 2 episode "Lonely Souls". It's a really great episode, and probably my favorite after rewatching it. The scene where BOB murders someone (name not added in case of spoilers) is really well done and chilling to watch. I am not easily unnverved, but that scene freaks me out a bit which immediately earns it my respect. I feel like this was a turning point for the series, in that it actually starts to pick up and become engrossing to watch. Whereas before, the show was interesting and fun enough to watch due to the humor and weird elements, but the story was somewhat lacking and boring in some respects. It's weird that the ratings started to decline at this point because in my opinion, after "Lonely Souls", the show goes nowhere but up.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on January 08, 2015, 09:34:33 PM
I've been rewatching Twin Peaks. Just got to the Season 2 episode "Lonely Souls". It's a really great episode, and probably my favorite after rewatching it. The scene where BOB murders someone (name not added in case of spoilers) is really well done and chilling to watch. I am not easily unnverved, but that scene freaks me out a bit which immediately earns it my respect. I feel like this was a turning point for the series, in that it actually starts to pick up and become engrossing to watch. Whereas before, the show was interesting and fun enough to watch due to the humor and weird elements, but the story was somewhat lacking and boring in some respects. It's weird that the ratings started to decline at this point because in my opinion, after "Lonely Souls", the show goes nowhere but up.

That's funny, because that's virtually the opposite of my opinion. Lonely Souls is my least favourite episode because it's where the show jumps the shark and completely ruins the feeling of mystery for the rest of the show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on January 08, 2015, 09:38:34 PM
I've been rewatching Twin Peaks. Just got to the Season 2 episode "Lonely Souls". It's a really great episode, and probably my favorite after rewatching it. The scene where BOB murders someone (name not added in case of spoilers) is really well done and chilling to watch. I am not easily unnverved, but that scene freaks me out a bit which immediately earns it my respect. I feel like this was a turning point for the series, in that it actually starts to pick up and become engrossing to watch. Whereas before, the show was interesting and fun enough to watch due to the humor and weird elements, but the story was somewhat lacking and boring in some respects. It's weird that the ratings started to decline at this point because in my opinion, after "Lonely Souls", the show goes nowhere but up.

That's funny, because that's virtually the opposite of my opinion. Lonely Souls is my least favourite episode because it's where the show jumps the shark and completely ruins the feeling of mystery for the rest of the show.

How does revealing the identity of the killer equal jumping the shark? Is it because the murders are now associated with supernatural entities? That is hinted at throughout the entire series starting from season 1 episode 1. I feel like it adds even more mystery to the show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on January 08, 2015, 09:52:52 PM
I've been rewatching Twin Peaks. Just got to the Season 2 episode "Lonely Souls". It's a really great episode, and probably my favorite after rewatching it. The scene where BOB murders someone (name not added in case of spoilers) is really well done and chilling to watch. I am not easily unnverved, but that scene freaks me out a bit which immediately earns it my respect. I feel like this was a turning point for the series, in that it actually starts to pick up and become engrossing to watch. Whereas before, the show was interesting and fun enough to watch due to the humor and weird elements, but the story was somewhat lacking and boring in some respects. It's weird that the ratings started to decline at this point because in my opinion, after "Lonely Souls", the show goes nowhere but up.

That's funny, because that's virtually the opposite of my opinion. Lonely Souls is my least favourite episode because it's where the show jumps the shark and completely ruins the feeling of mystery for the rest of the show.

How does revealing the identity of the killer equal jumping the shark? Is it because the murders are now associated with supernatural entities? That is hinted at throughout the entire series starting from season 1 episode 1. I feel like it adds even more mystery to the show.

No, it was because it was very premature and done purely in attempt to save the ratings, which didn't work out. The issues with season 2 run much deeper than that though, so it's not entirely to blame, but to me Lonely Souls seemed like the point where they were clearly desperate to get some direction back to the show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on January 08, 2015, 10:06:27 PM
No, it was because it was very premature and done purely in attempt to save the ratings, which didn't work out. The issues with season 2 run much deeper than that though, so it's not entirely to blame, but to me Lonely Souls seemed like the point where they were clearly desperate to get some direction back to the show.

Jumping the shark usually refers to a show that has added ridiculous plot elements or weird twists (in an attempt to save ratings), but ultimately fails the show. Now, I know this sounds almost exactly like what Twin Peaks did, but I don't think that's the case. Revealing Laura Palmer's murderer doesn't really fit this description. There was pressure to reveal the killer from everyone, which is what prompted it. But really, Laura Palmer's murderer had to be revealed at some point. It's not really jumping the shark when the entire series sort of hints that the killer is BOB, so the supernatural/ridiculous elements were already there the whole time.

I agree that some people might find the reveal to be anti-climatic, or that it kills their desire to keep watching the show. But that is not jumping the shark. Jumping the shark would be revealing that Laura Palmer's killer was Agent Cooper or something equally ridiculous.

I like the show enough to look past most of the shortcomings in season 2, like the dragged out plot points and new tacked on story elements. Windom, for one, who I feel like was added just to add more intrigue to the show after the big reveal. Regardless, I enjoy watching the show because of the characters and the setting, and of course the supernatural elements, which still manage to intrigue me.

Regarding direction, it seems like the show never had much direction to begin with. Most people watched to find out who Laura Palmer's murderer was, which was the main driving force of the first season. But outside of that the plot points and general direction of the show was all over the place.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 08, 2015, 10:47:09 PM
As someone who is currently watching the show, I appreciate the lack of spoilers.  Please continue to not spoil things, or if you feel that you absolutely must, use the tags.  Anyway, I enjoy the show, but it's mainly the characters I'm watching it for, not the story.  It's certainly not just so I can find out who the murderer was.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on January 09, 2015, 01:47:38 AM
As someone who is currently watching the show, I appreciate the lack of spoilers.  Please continue to not spoil things, or if you feel that you absolutely must, use the tags.  Anyway, I enjoy the show, but it's mainly the characters I'm watching it for, not the story.  It's certainly not just so I can find out who the murderer was.

I will stop writing about it for now to avoid spoiling anything else for you. Let us know when you are finished so that we can have a discussion about it. The ending certainly lends itself well to fan theories.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 09, 2015, 05:54:24 PM
Season 2 is the same show with the surface stripped away — if anything, Laura Palmer served as a way in to the setting, not the point. The reveal, while it wasn't the best possible outcome, and indeed Lynch and Frost intended for it to never happen, allowed for a greater exploration of the central idea, which is basically parody and deconstruction of the soap opera format. I get why people so strongly dislike the second season, but I think the truth is that they liked the surface elements more than the actual purpose of the show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on January 09, 2015, 07:59:26 PM
it's where the show jumps the shark

I think the real moment the show jumps the shark is when Nadine throws a man about 50ft without breaking a sweat. I just watched the episode where this happens, and I can't get over how fucking stupid it is.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on January 10, 2015, 12:46:43 AM
Watched the South Korean film Snowpiercer last night. A bit heavy handed with the socio-political themes and the CGI was a tad cheap looking, but besides that a very fun film. Chris Evans did well despite not deviating too far from the Cpt. America character, and so did a few of the other lesser known actors. Not sure how they could afford the big actors like John Hurt, Ed Harris and Tilda Swinton, but I definitely appreciated their presence. The costume and set designers did a damn good job.

Definitely recommend it if you're looking for a smart action movie, and violence/light gore doesn't turn you off.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on January 10, 2015, 01:17:09 AM
Yi Yi: A One and a Two (Edward Yang, 2000)

It's a three-hour long glimpse into the lives of a middle-class Taiwanese family without a central plot to speak of. That premise alone might scare people off, but this film is filled to the brim with genuine observations of humanity that don't fail to evoke emotion. Yang's cinematography is particularly impressive: this is the sort of film where virtually every shot is aesthetically striking in some way. It's definitely not a film for everyone, but in my books it's a near-masterpiece. 9/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 11, 2015, 12:21:04 AM
The Zero Theorem (Terry Gilliam)

Essentially operating under the guise of a lesser Brazil, Gilliam's latest takes on the paradox of isolation in a world connected by fibre optics, the atomisation of society, the transcendence of faceless corporations from the geographic to the facets of our personal lives. This is combined with classic Gilliam themes: an oddball protagonist, a dreamer of dark things, subservient to a purposely generic higher power, and longing for escape; the question of whether what is real is what's out there or what's inside oneself; omnipresent Big Brother style surveillance. Indeed, much has been made of the script's apparent fecklessness in rehashing old stuff, and yet none of it really feels old, is that because it's timeless or rather because this film is genuinely new? Am I just happy that one of my favourite directors is still somehow able to obtain funding for projects probably no one else would touch? It's true, no one makes films like Gilliam, no one has the same perspective as Gilliam, and while he may not always make masterpieces he always offers something that no one else could provide. Well, here, I say, he has not remade but rethought the concepts of Brazil for another time and place, not an imagined future but the present, its digital clockwork externalised and pervasive, a vortex of information controlled by unseen hands. In The Zero Theorem Gilliam reaches for the heights of his greatest work, and almost makes it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on January 12, 2015, 03:31:25 AM
Enter the Void (Gaspar Noé, 2010)

It's visually stimulating and technically impressive for sure, but the script is dumb and the story goes absolutely nowhere. Everything that happens seems to only happen for the purpose of showcasing the film's visuals, which would actually be quite fine - but with a running time of a staggering 2 hours and 40 minutes, it's already exhausted its potential halfway through. It may have worked with a more significant story or more varied use of visuals, but as it is, the swoops into light sources and shots of going through walls repeated ad nauseum lose their effectiveness much too quickly to withstand the film's length. It's worth seeing for the sheer uniqueness, amazing camerawork and great audiovisual design, but you may as well stop watching at the 90-minute mark before its strengths start becoming tedious. 5/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 15, 2015, 04:43:31 AM
http://redlettermedia.com/best-of-the-worst-supergirl-captain-america-1990-and-roger-cormans-fantastic-four/

Funny.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on January 15, 2015, 04:58:40 AM
All of their BotW are funny :)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on January 15, 2015, 07:01:45 AM
Essentially operating under the guise of a lesser Brazil, Gilliam's latest takes on the paradox of isolation in a world connected by fibre optics, the atomisation of society, the transcendence of faceless corporations from the geographic to the facets of our personal lives.

I just watched Brazil! Great stuff.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 15, 2015, 09:01:16 AM
Essentially operating under the guise of a lesser Brazil, Gilliam's latest takes on the paradox of isolation in a world connected by fibre optics, the atomisation of society, the transcendence of faceless corporations from the geographic to the facets of our personal lives.

I just watched Brazil! Great stuff.

Brazil is one of my favourite films.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 15, 2015, 06:27:57 PM
Essentially operating under the guise of a lesser Brazil, Gilliam's latest takes on the paradox of isolation in a world connected by fibre optics, the atomisation of society, the transcendence of faceless corporations from the geographic to the facets of our personal lives.

I just watched Brazil! Great stuff.

Brazil is one of my favourite films.

In total agreement with you fine fellows.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 17, 2015, 11:14:11 AM
I still need to see Twelve Monkeys (which is on my shelf), and Time Bandits.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on January 19, 2015, 07:21:29 AM
Catching up on what 2014 had to offer.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (Alejandro González Iñárritu)

I had high expectations and I was kinda let down by it. It shares similarities with the cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki's previous film Gravity in that it has little substance beyond its neat camera work. The psychological struggles of a superhero icon of the past trying to stay relevant in Broadway seem to be buried somewhere in this film, but because of the film's obsession with the illusion of seamlessness has it zipping around and catching up on everyone, the end result feels more like a disjointed sequence of independent scenes that show what the characters are like but the viewer doesn't get to really know them. There are plenty of "great moments", but it felt like there was more to it than what was ultimately delivered. 7/10

Whiplash (Damien Chazelle)

This was really good. It doesn't miss a beat (sorry) and it's packed with intensity, but it also shows just enough restraint that it doesn't come across as hammy. Miles Teller's character shows genuine development and J.K. Simmons delivers some of the best verbal abuse since There Will Be Blood. The music itself is beautifully used as a storytelling device, and it speaks volumes about character relations and at times creates bigger emotional investment than the script itself does. 9/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on January 19, 2015, 07:36:12 AM
Master of the Flying Guillotine (Jimmy Wang)

Rewatching one of my favorite grindhouse films.

Physics-defying martial arts, flying guillotines, poorly translated English subtitles, all clearly on the lowest of low budgets makes for an excellent viewing experience.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 21, 2015, 11:31:30 PM
The Story of Film: An Odyssey (Mark Cousins)

15 hour documentary covering cinema from the 1890s to the 2000s, described by the director as a tasting menu of world cinema. It's pretty exhaustive in its attempt to cover the history of film from a global perspective, and introduced me to cinematic traditions I had no idea existed, such as those of Iran and Egypt, and the cinema of India beyond cheesy Bollywood musicals, not to mention a shitload of Japanese cinema that I'm excited to see for myself, in addition to the often untold story of women working behind the camera as screenwriters and directors. It's really good, and if you're looking for an introduction to a wider world of cinema beyond Hollywood it should be just the thing for you. Some people find Cousins' distinctive enunciation and writing style off-putting, but ultimately the man is a vault of cinema knowledge and well worth persevering with past any initial hang-ups.

Lost in Translation (Sofia Coppola)

It's a very funny film with a kind of bittersweet thing going on, Bill Murray and Scarlett Johannsson both give really good performances, but honestly I find that's all I have to say about it: it's funny, somewhat sad, and well made. I liked it a lot while it was on the screen, but it's definitely not something I'd go out of my way to see again.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on January 21, 2015, 11:34:17 PM
Where did you watch The Story of Film?  Netflix?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on January 21, 2015, 11:43:59 PM
How do I downloaded movies??
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on January 21, 2015, 11:49:26 PM
How can I see my penis again??

Fixed.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on January 21, 2015, 11:50:48 PM
That's just mean.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 22, 2015, 12:13:59 AM
Where did you watch The Story of Film?  Netflix?
I found it by accident in a shop as a DVD set for £13. I don't have Netflix, so I don't know if it's on there.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on January 22, 2015, 01:23:43 AM
Rama, you are hilarious.

Thanks!

Where did you watch The Story of Film?  Netflix?
I found it by accident in a shop as a DVD set for £13. I don't have Netflix, so I don't know if it's on there.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on January 22, 2015, 01:24:18 AM
I don't think I typ-

... Hmmm
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on January 22, 2015, 03:58:59 PM
Where did you watch The Story of Film?  Netflix?
I found it by accident in a shop as a DVD set for £13. I don't have Netflix, so I don't know if it's on there.

It is on Netflix indeed. I have been meaning to watch it myself.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on January 22, 2015, 10:51:18 PM
Apparently the fairytale Frozen is based on actually featured a female hero trying to rescue a platonic male friend. it's a shame they went down the traditional Disney route.

I've been watching Prison break lately, while I loved the complex plan and trying to wok out what the symbols meant as they were introduced, I really wish they didn't have the ridiculous presidential conspiracy in the background - I don't care about the misadventures of the lawyers, I want to see Scofield try to avoid being shanked as he creeps into an intricately designed area of the prison.

The second series started well but the damn conspiracy is starting to take up too much screen time again. Agent mahone was a great character in his own right - and watching the cat-and-mouse between Scofield and him would have been really interesting to follow. Why did they have to over-complicate his character?

I loved that show, but alas, it succumbed to sequelitis very quickly.  They should have just kept it to two seasons and toned down the conspiracy subplot a good deal - it had to be there to a degree, of course, because you can't beat the classic story of the innocent man in jail - but it's way too complicated, and the writers just kept pulling more new dimensions and motivations for them out of their asses as the show went on.  As a result of all this stretching the plot out, the latter two seasons aren't nearly as good as the first two.  They're not all bad, admittedly - the characters are still great, the cast is still great, the directing is still great, etc. - but it's just unrecognizable as the show it was when it began.

It sounds like Lost with less seasons.

I watched Birdman and quite liked it.  They did a great job of presenting the seething egos of the characters, and the camera work to impart the feeling of being on stage was very good.  A little heavy-handed directorially, but it is nice to see something that creative on screen, and doubly nice to see Michael Keaton do his thing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on January 23, 2015, 08:19:23 AM
Do they reference Batman at all in it?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2015, 01:16:49 PM
Do they reference Batman at all in it?

No. 0/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on January 23, 2015, 06:13:44 PM
The Venture Bros.

I never really gave this show a chance when it first came out, but have been watching it on Netflix and loving it so far. Lots of cool pop culture references, and interesting characters. The Ventures Bros' naive stupidity is really the highlight of the show, I think. Their constant stupid remarks and ignorance is great. For example, Dr. Venture's skin falls off and Dean says "if you put that under your pillow the Tooth Fairy would give you a grand!", and the fact that they die a lot is also very amusing. It's a rip off of Johnny Quest and a few other older american cartoons, and as someone who grew up with that junk it's interesting to see how their satirize it. The show actually features Johnny Quest as an embittered adult junkie who scorns his parents for everything they put him through on the original show, and I think Race Bannon and a few other characters are in it as well. Totally recommend this show if you're bored and have nothing better to watch.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on January 23, 2015, 06:30:50 PM
I love Venture Brothers. I own the first two seasons on DVD.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on January 23, 2015, 06:32:23 PM
I love Venture Brothers. I own the first two seasons on DVD.

Netflix only has the first 2 seasons. I guess Adult Swim does this on purpose to drive sales of DVDs or raise ratings on their network... but in actuality it only promotes piracy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on January 23, 2015, 07:54:56 PM
Netflix only has the first 2 seasons.
Yeah, I've noticed that. I still haven't seen any of the other seasons... maybe one day.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 24, 2015, 05:35:01 AM
I finished Twin Peaks.  I was going to write a few paragraphs on my overall impression of the show, but the last episode irritated me.  What the hell was up with that?  I feel like Lynch just slapped me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 24, 2015, 12:01:01 PM
I finished Twin Peaks.  I was going to write a few paragraphs on my overall impression of the show, but the last episode irritated me.  What the hell was up with that?  I feel like Lynch just slapped me.
I wonder how they're going to handle that ending in the new season. Not just because a crazy amount of stuff could happen in the 25 year gap, but also because Frank Silva is dead. They're going to have a lot of trouble getting around being unable to show BOB unless they use stock footage, which would look awfully cheap but might actually work well in a Lynchian kind of way.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on January 24, 2015, 05:49:58 PM
I finished Twin Peaks.  I was going to write a few paragraphs on my overall impression of the show, but the last episode irritated me.  What the hell was up with that?  I feel like Lynch just slapped me.
I wonder how they're going to handle that ending in the new season. Not just because a crazy amount of stuff could happen in the 25 year gap, but also because Frank Silva is dead. They're going to have a lot of trouble getting around being unable to show BOB unless they use stock footage, which would look awfully cheap but might actually work well in a Lynchian kind of way.

There's so much we don't know about BOB and the Black Lodge that they could get someone else entirely to represent BOB. I don't think that's completely ridiculous.

Laura Palmer's "I will see you again in 25 years" quote is interesting. I wonder if they're doing this on purpose. I've read that Kyle is back, but I hope it's just not in the form of his old Black Lodge-self. I could see Lynch pulling some crap like that.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 24, 2015, 08:30:12 PM
I finished Twin Peaks.  I was going to write a few paragraphs on my overall impression of the show, but the last episode irritated me.  What the hell was up with that?  I feel like Lynch just slapped me.
I wonder how they're going to handle that ending in the new season. Not just because a crazy amount of stuff could happen in the 25 year gap, but also because Frank Silva is dead. They're going to have a lot of trouble getting around being unable to show BOB unless they use stock footage, which would look awfully cheap but might actually work well in a Lynchian kind of way.

There's so much we don't know about BOB and the Black Lodge that they could get someone else entirely to represent BOB. I don't think that's completely ridiculous.

Laura Palmer's "I will see you again in 25 years" quote is interesting. I wonder if they're doing this on purpose. I've read that Kyle is back, but I hope it's just not in the form of his old Black Lodge-self. I could see Lynch pulling some crap like that.

I dunno, Silva's portrayal is so iconic that I don't think fans would go for someone else playing BOB, at the same time they can't really shrug their shoulders and say "oh, that guy? He just went away." It's a tricky situation. Maybe if BOB just becomes some invisible force that is suggested but never actually shown it could work, but it would be difficult to convincingly change the character from a physical being who appears to his victims to a malevolent spirit operating entirely from the shadows. Bottom line is they're going to have to pull off something amazing.

As for Cooper, I doubt they would get Kyle back just to have him sit around drinking viscous black coffee in an armchair and talk backwards. He might be introduced in the Black Lodge but find a way out, maybe 25 years is some kind of sentence he's serving there. Of course, this is all speculation and may turn out to be totally wrong, which is more than likely given that Lynch is, well... Lynch.

Also, "see you in 25 years" probably didn't mean anything at the time, but they've obviously planned the new season to play into that line. What it means and what they're going to do with it I don't know, but I'm really excited to find out.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on January 24, 2015, 08:45:46 PM
At first I was skeptical, but after rewatching Twin Peaks I'm very excited about the new series as well. I hope we see more of Phillip Jeffries, played by David Bowie of course. His small part in the movie is one of the most intriguing parts of the series for me. What the hell was going on there?

I agree about Silva. It's a shame that he's dead. AIDs, was it? Regardless, they're going to have to figure out a way to do something about BOB. The most likely scenario is that they will replace BOB with an equally malevolent entity.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 26, 2015, 03:53:18 AM
Okay, time to say some stuff.  The general consensus on the quality of Twin Peaks over time seems to be that the first season is the best, and then it steadily declines throughout the second season, especially after Laura Palmer's killer is revealed.  I agree that the first season is superior to the second, but I actually think that the show improved after they wrapped up Laura's story.  It's strange that Lynch and Frost were originally planning to never (or at least not until the final episode) reveal Laura's killer, because the fact is that the mystery surrounding her doesn't have all that much story to it.  It's fairly complex, sure, but enough to span a show's entire lifespan?  No way.  The first few episodes of the second season demonstrate how limited that plot was the most.  Like, Donna meets this weird guy who knew Laura, finds out that she left a super-secret second diary with him, and then she has to figure out how to steal it?  Come on, there's adding new dimensions to a story, and then there's just spinning your wheels.

Anyway, the best part of the show isn't the story at all, but the delightfully eccentric and colorful cast of characters.  Almost all of them, with just a few exceptions, are great, but Kyle MacLachlan as our hero, Dale Cooper, is the best.  On paper, a character like this simply shouldn't work.  An inch to the left or right, and he'd either be an implausible Mary Sue or a ridiculous clown that nobody could take seriously, but through a combination of writing and acting, they hit just the right balance with him.  His quirky personality makes him genuinely likable, and his virtuosity makes him genuinely admirable.  And it's nice to know that a show doesn't actually need to have an angsty broody mcbroodwalking douchebag for a protagonist to be great.

Now I'm going to baw about a few characters.  Nadine sucked.  She was annoying and unfunny, her storyline made no sense, she took time away from better characters, and her bizarre super-strength was never once explained.  Leo was also terrible.  He goes from being a one-note douchebag to a one-note retard...and that's about it.  The Log Lady's log had more personality than him, and arguably more acting talent than the guy who played him.  Finally, Josie was a disappointment, largely because she started out being interesting, but it soon became clear that the writers had no idea what to do with her, and all the plot threads connected to her just seemed to fizzle out.  I still don't know whether she was supposed to be an antagonist or a victim, and frankly, I don't think the writers do either.

tl;dr: The show was great, my nitpicks aside.  If you haven't already, watch it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on January 26, 2015, 05:52:08 AM
You mentioned terrible characters. I thought Nadine was pretty terrible but also endearing. James, on the other hand, was awful. At least to me. I feel like they tried too hard to keep him relevant. The whole side story about him getting roped into a murderous love triangle was completely unnecessary and didn't tie into the plot in any way whatsoever. Maybe I just hated the actor, but I feel like the show could have been better if they phased him out completely after the reveal of Laura Palmer's killer.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on January 29, 2015, 03:43:33 AM
I haven't been writing reviews for a while so I'll just recap with r8s on films I've seen since probably my last review, excluding the two 2014 ones.

Wild Strawberries (Ingmar Bergman, 1957)

A fun road trip film with great dialogue. It just werks. 8/10

Persona (Ingmar Bergman, 1966)

It's a great psychological drama with a stunning performance from Bibi Andersson. I really have to see it again before tackling any actual interpretation of it. 9/10

Paris, Texas (Wim Wenders, 1984)

It's just a well made film with compelling characters and performances, and its last 30 or so minutes are really engaging despite its disregard of the typical preach of "show, don't tell". 8/10

12 Monkeys (Terry Gilliam, 1995)

Gilliam's direction has a quality to it that's hard not to appreciate, and it's refreshing to see a time travel film that keeps it relatively straightforward. 8/10

The Holy Mountain (Alejandro Jodorowsky, 1973)

All of this symbolism, oh god. It's a really nice film visually and I enjoyed watching it, but I didn't get much else out of it. Another one I should probably see again. 7/10

The Big Lebowski (Ethan and Joel Coen, 1998)

Pretty funny and surprisingly clever, but not really impressive. 7/10

Chungking Express (Wong Kar-wai, 1994)

Endearing little slice-of-life with two separate stories set in Hong Kong. It just werks. 9/10

Fallen Angels (Wong Kar-wai, 1995)

Essentially a companion piece to Chungking Express. Follows a very cimilar concept, but it's a bit more hit or miss. I didn't find it to be quite as realized as its predecessor, but if you enjoyed Chungking Express, then this is worth checking out as well. 7/10

Being John Malkovich (Spike Jonze, 1999), Adaptation. (Spike Jonze, 2002), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry, 2004)

I'm rating these ones together because they're all written by Charlie Kaufman, who wrote and directed Synecdoche, New York which I watched and reviewed earlier and loved the shit out of. These are all stellar films and deserve a solid 9/10, and the directors Kaufman chose to collaborate with did a great job with executing his vision. I think Synecdoche is still the most realized of Kaufman's works and my personal favourite, but it's safe to say that Kaufman has proven to be one of my favourite screenwriters. Since I gave them all the same rating, I'll just recap the films in order of personal preference: Synecdoche > Eternal Sunshine > Adaptation > Being John Malkovich

The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2011)

It's Enter the Void all over again. Really, almost all of my criticisms of it are applicable to this one as well. Great cinematography, but the story is just as obnoxiously self-indulgent and just about as non-existent. It's just two hours of shots of suburban life in the 50s mixed with some nice but unnecessary visuals of the evolution of life and the universe. 5/10

A Serious Man (Ethan and Joel Coen, 2009)

Despite its dark subject matters, this film still managed to be really funny. The Coen bros did a mighty fine job of extracting humor from tragic situations, just carefully enough to never cross over to tonally inappropriate. It's also worth noting that this film looks really good visually, which was an unexpected but pleasant surprise. 9/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on January 29, 2015, 07:01:51 AM
I watched the first episode of Twin Peaks the other day. I can't get over the soundtrack.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 30, 2015, 07:29:44 PM
Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson)

I have to say I'm disappointed to see just how much of the source material isn't in here. It really affects the pacing, and the story isn't helped much by it either, especially not when the characters have a tendency to mumble their way through their lines. I understand budgetary constraints will have affected Anderson's choices in terms of what had to be cut, but it seems like most of my favourite parts aren't in there. Of course this is all from one viewing (in the cinema, which I find distracting), and I do intend to see it a bunch of times before making my mind up, but right now it's a middling film for me. There is the possibility that Pynchon, as many have long thought, doesn't translate well to film, or maybe Anderson has just bitten off more than he can chew here.

Also a couple of people walked out halfway through, which I've never seen before, so that was kind of amusing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on February 01, 2015, 03:22:58 PM
Apocalypse Now Redux (Francis Ford Coppola)

I watched this mainly because I wanted to get the jokes in the OpenBSD 5.6 release artwork, which uses this film as its theme. It was a pretty good film, though it dragged on quite a lot (I'm going to watch the original cut at some point, and hopefully that will be better paced). I didn't know what to expect, and for some reason I had gotten the impression that it would be more action-oriented, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

I'll definitely be watching it again at some point, as I'm sure there are lots of things I didn't pick up on the first time (partly because I started watching it quite late, so I was pretty tired by the end).
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 02, 2015, 12:25:38 AM
Human Nature (Michel Gondry)

An often overlooked Charlie Kaufman-penned behavioural comedy which is certainly original, but not among his strongest work. Or, to clarify, it's great for the first 70 minutes or so, then it starts to double back on itself a few too many times and just tips the balance in the wrong direction. It does have many moments of the Kaufman-esque wonder that anyone who is familiar with his writing will recognise instantly, and it is as imaginative as anything else he's done, but it seems to me that it outsmarts even itself in the end and cannot quite hold the delicate tonal balance it reaches for. Whether this is down to Kaufman's script or Gondry's direction is debatable, it could be said that the latter is to blame for the endgame tonal issues, or that the former at the last moment becomes constricted by attempting to reach the logical conclusion after perhaps making too many passes beforehand, but I think in essence it is earnest in its intentions and overall a fine and inventive piece of filmmaking.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on February 02, 2015, 12:04:36 PM
Seinfeld

Watched all nine seasons back-to-back. When it's good, it's really good, but there are also lengthy runs of a dozen bad episodes where it just did nothing for me (I recall the first half of season 5 being a bit of a snooze). Overall, I enjoyed it more than most sitcoms, primarily because it doesn't take itself too seriously. In fact, it quite often makes fun of itself, especially with regard to the in-universe sitcom Jerry (a parody of itself, where the fictional Jerry character in the show makes a show about himself).

It ended just at the right moment, at least; I found that season 9 was substantially weaker than any previous ones, and the subtlety that made the early seasons so great had all but evaporated.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on February 08, 2015, 12:54:21 PM
12 Monkeys (Terry Gilliam)

Caution: Spoilers!

This is the second Gilliam film I've watched (after Brazil), and while it doesn't quite capture the same exquisite oxymoron of humour and tragedy that made its elder brother so memorable, it stands quite well on its own. Unmistakeably a Gilliam, it is driven by a harsh contrast between two realities very similar to that found in Brazil, albeit this time coming closer to sci-fi and farther from dystopic satire. Indeed, the majority of the film is set in what was its own contemporary period (the 1990s), and while the dystopic future in which the framing narrative is set is a major driving force for the plot, very little is actually shown of that world.

Ultimately, and what makes this and Brazil both masterpieces in my opinion, Gilliam keeps the film interesting by his use of constant ambiguity. Right from the beginning, not enough information can be discerned in order to provide a firm sense of narrative. As the film progresses, conflicting pieces of information are given to the viewer; is the protagonist really a time traveller, or is he simply insane? This ambiguity is enhanced later in the film, when Cole himself appears to finally believe that he is insane, just as his psychiatrist (and, later, lover) begins to believe his story.

The film ends on a somewhat less ambiguous note than Brazil, with the most obvious conclusion being that Cole is indeed from the future, but there is still sufficient uncertainty to provoke speculation after viewing. And that's really the best I could hope for.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 08, 2015, 02:36:52 PM
Caution: Spoilers!
>not using the spoiler tag
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on February 09, 2015, 10:40:05 AM
>spoiling a movie nearly older than me
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on February 09, 2015, 04:36:43 PM
Jupiter Ascending

It wasn't good. I think that about sums it up.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on February 09, 2015, 05:07:48 PM
Jupiter Ascending

It wasn't good. I think that about sums it up.
Yes, but did Sean Bean die?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on February 09, 2015, 05:54:58 PM
Jupiter Ascending

It wasn't good. I think that about sums it up.
Yes, but did Sean Bean die?

Of course he did.  It is built in to his contracts now.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on February 10, 2015, 07:25:13 AM
I've been binge watching History Channel's Ancient Aliens series. Really brilliant stuff. Watching them leap through hoops and play mental gymnastics with literal strawmen is quality entertainment.

I feel like this show will become a cult classic in time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on February 10, 2015, 07:38:19 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/tft4bWb.jpg)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on February 10, 2015, 07:31:00 PM
Jupiter Ascending

It wasn't good. I think that about sums it up.
Yes, but did Sean Bean die?

no
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on February 13, 2015, 01:02:33 AM
Has anyone watched this show called The Slap? It's literally about someone slapping someone else's child and the fallout that occurs because of it. I couldn't help but laugh every time I saw a commercial for this piece of crap on television. Apparently it's a remake of an Australian television series based on a book with the same premise. I guess we can blame Vindictus for this god awful stain on our pop culture collective.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on February 13, 2015, 01:45:36 AM
Has anyone watched this show called The Slap? It's literally about someone slapping someone else's child and the fallout that occurs because of it. I couldn't help but laugh every time I saw a commercial for this piece of crap on television. Apparently it's a remake of an Australian television series based on a book with the same premise. I guess we can blame Vindictus for this god awful stain on our pop culture collective.

It aired on the ABC so I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. What retarded US producers do with it, I couldn't care less.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 13, 2015, 01:57:43 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui1YlTPlW_8

It looks awful.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on February 13, 2015, 02:03:59 AM
Syler: I just slapped your kid

Mom: I can't believe you just slapped my kid

The Slap

*fade to black*
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on February 13, 2015, 02:06:08 AM
I like Zachary Quintas, but will not watch that show
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on February 13, 2015, 02:07:20 AM
I hope it carries on for 15 seasons and becomes increasingly retarded. Through a complicated series of events, a powerful drug cartel sides with the pro-slappers and and ancient guild of assassins sides with the anti-slappers, or something.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on February 13, 2015, 02:55:37 AM
I don't know, looks like compelling must-see appointment television to me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on February 14, 2015, 02:13:27 AM
Trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3_gvBTjUhY) for Guillermo Del Toro's new movie, Crimson Peak, just came out. Looks cool so far.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on February 14, 2015, 05:48:45 PM
I'm definitely going to be seeing it. I love del Toro and Hiddleston.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on February 14, 2015, 07:34:57 PM
I'm definitely going to be seeing it. I love del Toro and Hiddleston.

I figured ;)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 15, 2015, 04:24:48 AM
http://marvel.com/news/movies/24062/sony_pictures_entertainment_brings_marvel_studios_into_the_amazing_world_of_spider-man

omg capeshit
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 15, 2015, 12:02:52 PM
http://marvel.com/news/movies/24062/sony_pictures_entertainment_brings_marvel_studios_into_the_amazing_world_of_spider-man

omg capeshit
This has nothing to do with the topic, mods pls move thx.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 15, 2015, 06:10:48 PM
No, this is the Official Capeshit Thread.  Personally, I'm worried about the thought of Sony's grubby hands mucking up the MCU.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 16, 2015, 10:35:02 AM
Has anyone watched this show called The Slap? It's literally about someone slapping someone else's child and the fallout that occurs because of it. I couldn't help but laugh every time I saw a commercial for this piece of crap on television. Apparently it's a remake of an Australian television series based on a book with the same premise. I guess we can blame Vindictus for this god awful stain on our pop culture collective.

I think that as a miniseries (or standard-length British drama of about 6 episodes) it could work quite well, exploring the stresses and strains of a suburban community, intergenerational conflicts, the changing nature of parenting, the expectations on parents and what happens if they fail to live up to them.

My guess is that it isn't that good, though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 20, 2015, 11:08:56 PM
Shattered Glass (Billy Ray)

Shattered Glass tells the story of Stephen Glass, a writer for The New Republic about whom all is not quite right.  He seems to live a charmed life always at the centre of unbelievable and fantastic happenings, but hints start to show through his cheerful demeanour that he is walking a tight rope between reality and fantasy.  Hayden Christensen is not a brilliant actor, but nowhere near as bad as his Star Wars tenure would lead one to believe, and while he does falter in some of the more intense scenes he is overall quite good here.  I feel like both he and co-star Peter Sarsgaard could have used a more confident and experienced director than first-timer Billy Ray to guide them through the more psychologically complex elements of their relationship.

Though competently acted and produced, that's all it is, a competent film, unfortunately so given the interesting subject matter.  It's a good story with plenty of twists and and air of paranoia and fragility, but there is a lack of something, the directorial confidence and experience I spoke of, which refuses it the edge it needs to be a great feature film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dionysios on February 23, 2015, 07:07:01 AM
'The Grand Illusion' (1937)

A marvelous political classic, it indicts western democracies who think themselves so different from National Socialism. Goebbels called it the worst movie ever made.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 25, 2015, 05:42:06 AM
Agent Carter concluded tonight.  Will there be another season of it at some point?  I have no idea, but even if there isn't, this was great just as its own self-contained little story.  I encourage all the MCU fans here to check it out.  It's only eight episodes, or about six hours of content, but they make every minute of it count.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on February 25, 2015, 07:29:18 AM
Love Exposure (Sion Sono, 2008)

So, this film is really hard to condense - it's four hours long, for one, but mostly it's due to its thematic complexity and the ways it uses to tackle said themes. How often can you say that a film explores concepts of Catholic guilt and sin with panty-shot voyeurism? A lot of what this film is about sounds quite ridiculous on paper, but it handles it expertly - it deals with a lot of heavy and serious subject matters, but approaches them with a sardonic sense of humor that doesn't come across as off-tone.

Despite what the running time would suggest, this film is anything but slow. In fact, it would be hard to imagine all of its intertwined themes being tackled in a shorter running time, yet despite that its narrative is amazingly coherent and tightly paced for what it is. I loved it, and it's definitely earned a spot as one of my favourite films. 9/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on February 25, 2015, 11:32:53 AM
heavy and serious subject matters
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 25, 2015, 05:26:43 PM
The Act of Killing (Joshua Oppenheimer)

Although it is a documentary, this must be one of the most surreal films I've ever seen. The director approached several members of the Indonesian death squads tasked with rooting out and killing communists and Chinese in the 1960s, and asked them to recreate their own massacres and executions as fiction for the big screen. They happily agreed to do so. I don't really want to say much more about it (honestly I'm not sure that I could even if I did want to) because I think this is a film people need to see for themselves, it is harrowing in ways no fiction film could ever be.

N.B.: I saw the theatrical cut, which is just under two hours, there is also a 160 minute director's cut available. I'm not sure I'll be ready to face a longer version of this for a good while.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on February 26, 2015, 04:18:30 AM
Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2014)

I guess I share the common sentiment in that this film is pretty hard to follow, with most major plot advancements being introduced with mumbled delivery. A lot of it contributes well to an atmosphere of weed-induced haziness and post-Manson paranoia, but the film is too fixated on plot to really sink into its vibe - it really just feels like there was too much source material to cover for a feature-length film. I guess this is the sort of film that improves on repeat viewings, but for now I'm giving it a 7/10.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 26, 2015, 01:02:46 PM
Putney Swope (Robert Downey)

Yes, Iron Man's oft-ignored dad used to be a filmmaker (might still be, though he hasn't directed anything in ten years, it seems), creating some of the most insane satires of the 1960s. Here, an advertising company holds an impromptu secret vote for succession after the boss suddenly keels over and dies in the middle of a meeting, and almost everyone votes for the board's token black man Putney Swope as a joke, each believing the others would not be crazy enough to do so. Swope fires all but one of the white employees and leads the company down a bizarre path that is outwardly righteous but inwardly corrupt, and is the main subject of the satire on advertising, greed, politics, and the stereotypical portrayals of black people in movies at the time. It's really good, standing alongside De Palma's Greetings as one of the best underground films of the 1960s.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 26, 2015, 01:10:06 PM
Swope made some of the best ads in the history of fake ads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLF1Erk1_rQ
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 26, 2015, 05:19:52 PM
Swope made some of the best ads in the history of fake ads.

My favourite is the Fan-a-way advert.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjrXVjpAXjE
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on February 28, 2015, 08:06:27 AM
The Act of Killing (Joshua Oppenheimer, 2012)

Watched this on Crudblud's recommendation as well. Overall, a fascinating look into the psyche of killers, and it's the brutal honesty of all of it that makes it as effective and unique as it is. Without spoiling too much, the last 20 minutes or so are absolutely stellar – so perfect in a narrative sense that it could be scripted, yet I know that no actual script could make the same impact. It's one of the best endings to a film I've ever seen and emotionally draining in a way that I've never felt before watching a film. There were parts where I wasn't totally invested into it, but the ending more than made up for it. 8/10

Drive (Nicolas Winding Refn, 2011)

Not my first time seeing this, but I felt like watching something fun (you can probably guess why), which this film certainly is. It's pretty much entirely due to Refn's absorbing neo-noir style that this film achieved the cult-like fame it did – you could take the exact same script and with a different director it would most likely turn into something completely unremarkable. There's some action and a love interest, that's pretty much  it as far as story is concerned. But you're really into it for the atmosphere and seeing Ryan Gosling be a real human bean and a real hero. 7/10

The Hunt (Thomas Vinterberg, 2012)

A man is wrongly accused of sexually abusing a child, leading his community into mass hysteria and himself into persecution. The script and performances are fantastic and they make the whole scenario presented seem totally believable and terrifying, especially given anyone could be a victim of being falsely accused and persecuted. This is a great film to watch if you want to feel like shit. 9/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on February 28, 2015, 12:27:35 PM
The analysing of films.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on March 02, 2015, 01:43:04 AM
Yi Yi: A One and a Two (Edward Yang)

Finally got around to seeing this one after Blanko's recommendation some weeks (or longer?) ago. The thing that really stands out for me about this film is the cinematography, the way it uses windows and mirrors to distort space is really inspired and adds a lot of vital visual content to a film that could have easily been televisual in nature. Yang often seems to take inspiration from Ozu, using space very economically and keenly applying pauses in the action to emphasise layers of meaning beyond the superficial. It is a heartfelt, quality piece of filmmaking through and through. Yang walks a tightrope between the heavy and the banal, and never falls into the safety net of cheap emotionalism, or perhaps it is better to say that he strips banality away in order to find something more profound in the ostensibly simple drama. Unlike some longer films which ponderously plod along to little effect or purpose, right now Tarkovsky springs to mind, Yang and his fine cast earn every minute of the film's near three hours.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on March 06, 2015, 04:09:42 AM
The Hourglass Sanatorium (Wojciech Jerzy Has)

Boasting some of the best visuals of any film I've ever seen, this strange trip through a mental maze of oddly lit decrepit buildings sort of comes off somewhere between the narrative sensibilities of Lynch, the cinematography of Gilliam, and the "colour sense" of Argento. I don't really know what any of it is about, but the beautiful sets, atmosphere, and cryptic lyricism of the dialogue kept me hooked all the way through. I think this film is going to stick in my memory for a very long time, and for all the right reasons.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on March 13, 2015, 05:06:07 PM
The Hunt (Thomas Vinterberg, 2012)

A man is wrongly accused of sexually abusing a child, leading his community into mass hysteria and himself into persecution. The script and performances are fantastic and they make the whole scenario presented seem totally believable and terrifying, especially given anyone could be a victim of being falsely accused and persecuted. This is a great film to watch if you want to feel like shit. 9/10
I missed this review before, but I have been wanting to see this. I figured it had to be decent with Mads Mikkelsen as the lead.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on March 14, 2015, 12:20:38 PM
Dracula Untold. I liked it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on March 23, 2015, 02:13:21 PM
Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson)

A secondary viewing of most films will confirm near enough one's general feeling about them.  Inherent Vice is no exception to this general rule.  On my first viewing I gave a lukewarm response, owing mainly to the liberal cuts made to the plot of the source novel by Thomas Pynchon, which I had read some months before the film's theatrical release and loved.  It was my opinion then that it was not a good adaptation, which is about as kind as I could hope to be to any attempt from any director to turn the prose of one of America and the world's greatest writers of fiction into a visual language.  The thing with a Pynchon novel is that for all its mystery, unanswered questions, deep unidentified longing, and zany humour, there is never a moment that the prose becomes ponderous, ill fitting, devoid of lucidity and flow, alienating to the reader, even when found in its strangest, wildest, most impenetrable habitats. Inherent Vice the novel is not among his most complicated of plot, dense in subject matter, or broad in scope, its action takes place in a relatively small enclosed geographical space, and is played out by a paucity of characters in comparison with most of his books, yet even this most graciously straightforward offering proves to be too much for the big screen to handle.  The cuts which so abhorred me on first viewing were not so much an issue on the second, budget must be taken into consideration, and no one could do a direct translation of pinecone scratchings into celluloid without a figure well into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet I can still only extend my respect to Paul Thomas Anderson for having the guts to take on Pynchon and fail, for it is not within me to call this a good adaptation.  So much of what makes the novel work is in the prose, here lost to visual references which, unless viewing the piece as a frame by frame still gallery, are likewise lost to the rushing current of a film trying to fit everything into a tight temporal framework.

But the real question is not whether Inherent Vice is a good adaptation, no sane Pynchon fan (there are a couple out there, somewhere, I'm sure) would expect any one of his novels to work well on screen, but is it a good film?  My answer to that question is:  yes, mostly.  I can fall into neither one of the camps of love and hate that make up its present status in the pop culture, nor can I walk the middle road of apathy, because I like this film, mostly.  “Mostly” is the crux of the issue.  A few bum notes ring hard through the film's hazy beach mélange:  great-reading, sloppy-speaking novelesque dialogue peeks out from behind naturalistic doper talk, as if the actors are on a pivot between two extremes, that of exhaling clouds of mumbled but with attentive listening coherent phonemes, and that of verbatim enunciating with great exactitude a sentence from page one-hundred-something — the script or the speaker's fault, who can say?  Sudden bouts of expository verbal diarrhoea, more than tangentially related to the prior concern, while contained in an odourless fashion, trip up the pacing of the film in ways avoided on the page, interspersed with jokes timed to obscure rhythms that sometimes hit their mark, sometimes don't, like everyone's phasing in and out of each other's conversational space at all times, occasionally snapping back into awareness and pausing like emerging from a deep meditative apnea. The sum effect, not as one might assume the engendering in the viewer a feeling of being stoned, but of being taken outside and asked to watch voyeur-like through the window.  Inherent Vice is a film whose flaws keep it at a distance, very slight, and occasionally hard to put your finger on, but there and distracting.

So what are we saying here, it's a good film that isn't all that good? Well, no, it's just that what's bad about it tends to be in the foreground, while what's good about it, though by far the majority of its contents, is often glanced at an angle, in the distance, through dense fog.  I sense an attempt, somewhere in there, to make up for the missing pieces of the source material by embodying the nature of the source author, to always be hinting, suggesting at the moreness of what's out there, but Anderson as a director is simply not there yet, still a journeyman in the adaptation trade, but with an ambition that demands respect and admiration, for I dare say no one could have done a better job.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 23, 2015, 03:19:54 PM
The thing with a Pynchon novel is that for all its mystery, unanswered questions, deep unidentified longing, and zany humour, there is never a moment that the prose becomes ponderous, ill fitting, devoid of lucidity and flow, alienating to the reader

I beg to differ.  What I read of Mason & Dixon suggested that it was all of those things, all of the time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on March 23, 2015, 05:28:13 PM
The thing with a Pynchon novel is that for all its mystery, unanswered questions, deep unidentified longing, and zany humour, there is never a moment that the prose becomes ponderous, ill fitting, devoid of lucidity and flow, alienating to the reader

I beg to differ.  What I read of Mason & Dixon suggested that it was all of those things, all of the time.

With such a limited frame of reference it seems odd that you would imagine yourself to have any grasp on the matter at all.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on March 24, 2015, 02:02:09 AM
The thing with a Pynchon novel is that for all its mystery, unanswered questions, deep unidentified longing, and zany humour, there is never a moment that the prose becomes ponderous, ill fitting, devoid of lucidity and flow, alienating to the reader

I beg to differ.  What I read of Mason & Dixon suggested that it was all of those things, all of the time.

With such a limited frame of reference it seems odd that you would imagine yourself to have any grasp on the matter at all.

I think the fact that you included "never a moment" in the statement Saddam responded to makes his response worth consideration, at the very least.  Maybe you should add the clause "who is already used to his ponderous and alienating prose" at the end for clarification.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on March 24, 2015, 06:25:10 AM
The thing with a Pynchon novel is that for all its mystery, unanswered questions, deep unidentified longing, and zany humour, there is never a moment that the prose becomes ponderous, ill fitting, devoid of lucidity and flow, alienating to the reader

I beg to differ.  What I read of Mason & Dixon suggested that it was all of those things, all of the time.

With such a limited frame of reference it seems odd that you would imagine yourself to have any grasp on the matter at all.

I think the fact that you included "never a moment" in the statement Saddam responded to makes his response worth consideration, at the very least.  Maybe you should add the clause "who is already used to his ponderous and alienating prose" at the end for clarification.

Saddam didn't say "it was alienating for a moment," he said "it was all of those things, all of the time." My wording is not the issue.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on March 24, 2015, 06:36:07 PM
I just watched the two Hercules movies from 2014. The Dwayne Johnson one was clearly the winner of the two.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on March 24, 2015, 06:49:01 PM
I just watched the two Hercules movies from 2014. The Dwayne Johnson one was clearly the winner of the two.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the other one. Did that other one even make it to theaters?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 24, 2015, 06:54:10 PM
I just watched the two Hercules movies from 2014. The Dwayne Johnson one was clearly the winner of the two.

But still falling short of the sublime beauty that is Lou Ferrigno punching a bear into space.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on March 24, 2015, 07:11:45 PM
Has anyone seen Metropolis? I watched it a few days ago. Visually stunning, and the soundtrack was amazing. I totally recommend it to any anime fans out there.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on March 24, 2015, 08:22:29 PM
I just watched the two Hercules movies from 2014. The Dwayne Johnson one was clearly the winner of the two.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the other one. Did that other one even make it to theaters?
no idea
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 25, 2015, 08:25:28 PM
I'm watching Arrow.  It's far better than it has any right to be.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on March 25, 2015, 08:26:10 PM
Saddam is a 17y/o girl.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 25, 2015, 10:08:52 PM
Yes, there are many elements of the show that seem to be geared towards young women, like the soapy melodrama and gratuitous scenes of our star working out while shirtless (Steroids! >o<), but I think there's enough action and brutal violence to justify straight men watching it as well.  I especially like the very detailed origin story that unfolds bit by bit with every episode via flashbacks.  It's probably the most in-depth origin story that I've ever seen in capeshit.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on March 25, 2015, 10:12:11 PM
Green Arrow is not supposed to be emo dark and gritty and that's what makes The Flash the better show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on March 25, 2015, 11:19:16 PM
Yes, there are many elements of the show that seem to be geared towards young women, like the soapy melodrama and gratuitous scenes of our star working out while shirtless (Steroids! >o<), but I think there's enough action and brutal violence to justify straight men watching it as well.  I especially like the very detailed origin story that unfolds bit by bit with every episode via flashbacks.  It's probably the most in-depth origin story that I've ever seen in capeshit.

This is the most sexist post I have ever read.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on March 25, 2015, 11:23:37 PM
Yes, there are many elements of the show that seem to be geared towards young women, like the soapy melodrama and gratuitous scenes of our star working out while shirtless (Steroids! >o<), but I think there's enough action and brutal violence to justify straight men watching it as well.  I especially like the very detailed origin story that unfolds bit by bit with every episode via flashbacks.  It's probably the most in-depth origin story that I've ever seen in capeshit.

This is the most sexist post I have ever read.

Really? Remember Raist? Also how is it sexualist?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on March 25, 2015, 11:43:13 PM
Raist was a seasoned PUA that regularly pounded pussy on the weekend.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 28, 2015, 03:42:38 AM
Green Arrow is not supposed to be emo dark and gritty and that's what makes The Flash the better show.

The effectiveness of any capeshit franchise's tone - no matter which one they go with - is more important than its faithfulness to the source material.

Yes, there are many elements of the show that seem to be geared towards young women, like the soapy melodrama and gratuitous scenes of our star working out while shirtless (Steroids! >o<), but I think there's enough action and brutal violence to justify straight men watching it as well.  I especially like the very detailed origin story that unfolds bit by bit with every episode via flashbacks.  It's probably the most in-depth origin story that I've ever seen in capeshit.

This is the most sexist post I have ever read.

It's their marketing, not mine.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on March 28, 2015, 02:21:52 PM
The Blues Brothers (John Landis)

I was motivated to watch this again for the first time in years by its usage as the theme for the OpenBSD 5.7 (http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#57) release art and song. The release typically ships with a variety of jokes based on the theme (usually appropriated lines from the film), so it helps if I'm familiar with the original work.

This film is one of those over-the-top, ludicrously silly films that never even attempts to take itself seriously. It parodies the unrealistic nature of action flicks by taking the close shaves and overengineered pursuits to preposterous extremes; at one stage during the extended car chase that leads up to the film's climax, this is even lampshaded as the police authorise "unnecessary violence" in the capture of the elusive Blues Brothers.

The duo for which the film is named consists of two men with a penchant for making enemies of just about everyone they meet, as well as a happy-go-lucky attitude that, by rights, should make them the easiest pair of troublemakers to apprehend. Instead, they spend the entire film sending police cars, other bands, hotels, petrol stations and the entire city of Chicago into mayhem as they make unbelievable getaways, seemingly effortlessly.

This isn't a film that can be taken seriously, but for the hyperbolic comedy it aims to be -- in the same genre as such classics as Dude, Where's My Car? and Anchorman -- it is a thoroughly enjoyable film. It also features various well-known singers, such as Ray Charles and Aretha Franklin, and musical performances that make up in spirit what they lack in depth. I won't call it a great film, but I enjoyed it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dionysios on April 02, 2015, 05:56:30 AM
'Dumb and Dumber' probably belongs on that list as this film's 1990's equivalent.
Love the protest scene in Illinois:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ktmNEWwH69s
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on April 03, 2015, 01:55:09 AM
I just finished The Sopranos. That was probably my favorite series finale of all time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 03, 2015, 02:48:16 AM
I just finished The Sopranos. That was probably my favorite series finale of all time.

No.  It was a dumb, pretentious, unsatisfying non-ending that completely abandoned the show's core elements in favor of a shallow and transparent stab at artsiness.  It wasn't deep.  It wasn't clever.  You don't "get it."  There is nothing to get.  It was just meaningless bullshit.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on April 03, 2015, 03:11:47 AM
I just finished The Sopranos. That was probably my favorite series finale of all time.

No.  It was a dumb, pretentious, unsatisfying non-ending that completely abandoned the show's core elements in favor of a shallow and transparent stab at artsiness.  It wasn't deep.  It wasn't clever.  You don't "get it."  There is nothing to get.  It was just meaningless bullshit.

So you really didn't get it? It wasn't supposed to be very deep - it was actually quite literal.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on April 03, 2015, 04:37:14 AM
The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy

It was shit.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on April 06, 2015, 07:42:55 PM
Blade Runner. Based off of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick. Also, the inspiration for what I consider to be the best video game ever, Snatcher. I went into the movie with high expectations, possibly unreasonably high, and the movie let me down. Many characters have the same name as in the book, and several times exact quotes are used. However, the film deviates significantly from there. The tone is completely different and the movie lacks symbolism and thematic elements that are critical to the book. It is hard to get too specific without spoilers, so I will leave it at that for now. Had I watched the movie before reading the book, I would probably would have enjoyed it more simply as the cult classic it has become.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 06, 2015, 07:46:32 PM
You're not qualified.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on April 07, 2015, 03:23:30 PM
Interstellar (Christopher Nolan)

Finally got around to watching it. I enjoyed it, but it certainly did not live up to the hype. A friend of mine touted its scientific realism, which, having seen the movie, annoys me. Sure, it was fun, but it was sci-fi to the core.


8 1/2 (Federico Fellini)

A very fun movie. Dramatic and melancholy at the surface, but comedic at the heart. I have more Fellini to watch, but I think I should have watched others before this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on April 08, 2015, 06:05:41 AM
I started watching The Wire recently. It's one of the few shows that realistically portrays computer usage, so that's a plus.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 08, 2015, 06:12:23 AM
I started watching The Wire recently. It's one of the few shows that realistically portrays computer usage, so that's a plus.

Does it show real operating systems or fake ones?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on April 08, 2015, 06:26:57 AM
Real ones. There's actually an entire episode where McNulty just looks into the camera and explains why UNIX isn't Linux for an hour.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 08, 2015, 06:27:44 AM
Thas shouldn't take an hour.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on April 08, 2015, 06:30:21 AM
Well, it does. It's a pretty slow paced show, but the payoffs are well worth it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 08, 2015, 06:38:12 AM
I've heard so much crap about The Wire. Is it really deserving of "greatest show of all time"?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on April 08, 2015, 06:46:53 AM
I've heard so much crap about The Wire. Is it really deserving of "greatest show of all time"?

I haven't even finished the first season yet, so I couldn't tell you. I do really like what I've seen so far, though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 08, 2015, 11:50:20 AM
The Wire is great.  A critic described it as being the funkiest cop show on television.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 08, 2015, 03:37:32 PM
The great thing about the Wire is the complete lack of glamor in it.  You really feel like a heroin dealer in Baltimore when you are watching it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 10, 2015, 06:06:14 PM
Who else is binge-watching fucking Daredevil right now?  And if you're not, do so immediately.  It is awesome and kicks all kinds of ass.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 10, 2015, 06:07:12 PM
Who else is binge-watching fucking Daredevil right now?  And if you're not, do so immediately.  It is awesome and kicks all kinds of ass.

I'm planning on starting it tonight.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 10, 2015, 07:14:50 PM
Who else is binge-watching fucking Daredevil right now?  And if you're not, do so immediately.  It is awesome and kicks all kinds of ass.

I will get on that today as well.  I am currently watching Bloodlines which is also awesome.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2015, 08:34:00 PM
I finally got around to seeing Interstellar and I have to say it was very good. I'm not sure how anyone completely hated this movie; especially considering I know quite a few people who did.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on April 12, 2015, 08:36:27 PM
Because they're level 99 contrarians. You wouldn't understand.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2015, 08:41:43 PM
I couldn't devil's advocate criticize this movie even if I wanted to. The characters were good, the science was astute, the plot offered real problems the entire time other than manufactured nonsense and for the first time ever the AI robots didn't end up being evil assholes.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on April 12, 2015, 08:44:27 PM
What about love being a metaphysical force?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 12, 2015, 08:46:26 PM
Yes, such astute science, like the magical space stations being conjured out of nowhere at the end of the movie and how being sucked into a black hole means you get to go on a whimsical journey through dimensions to see your loved ones.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on April 12, 2015, 09:04:17 PM
Again, Saddam, Cooper's journey to Murph's room was not a natural phenomenon caused by the black hole. The tesseract is man-made.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on April 12, 2015, 09:11:38 PM
I finally got around to seeing Interstellar and I have to say it was very good. I'm not sure how anyone completely hated this movie; especially considering I know quite a few people who did.

I didn't hate it, but it's not exactly difficult to imagine why people would. It's basically just a massive exposition dump with plot progression being dictated by contrivances.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on April 12, 2015, 10:09:07 PM
I couldn't devil's advocate criticize this movie even if I wanted to. The characters were good, the science was astute, the plot offered real problems the entire time other than manufactured nonsense and for the first time ever the AI robots didn't end up being evil assholes.


gr7 b7 m7
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2015, 10:23:45 PM
Yes, such astute science, like the magical space stations being conjured out of nowhere at the end of the movie and how being sucked into a black hole means you get to go on a whimsical journey through dimensions to see your loved ones.

Like PP2000 said, love had nothing to do with it. It was a man-made construct. Also at the end, what do you mean the station came from nowhere? They showed that massive space station like thirty minutes into the movie, they couldn't get it into space without the equation that apparently allows you to ignore gravity.

It's basically just a massive exposition dump with plot progression being dictated by contrivances.

You just described every movie ever created.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on April 12, 2015, 10:25:02 PM
It's basically just a massive exposition dump with plot progression being dictated by contrivances.

You just described every movie ever created.

Quiet, you don't even watch movies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2015, 10:30:08 PM
It's basically just a massive exposition dump with plot progression being dictated by contrivances.

You just described every movie ever created.

Quiet, you don't even watch movies.

That doesn't change the fact the you just described all movies simultaneously as a justification for someone to hate it. It's like saying "they hate the movie because it is a movie." Are you saying that the only people who could have hated Interstellar just hate movies in general?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on April 12, 2015, 10:38:16 PM
It's basically just a massive exposition dump with plot progression being dictated by contrivances.

You just described every movie ever created.

Quiet, you don't even watch movies.

That doesn't change the fact the you just described all movies simultaneously as a justification for someone to hate it. It's like saying "they hate the movie because it is a movie." Are you saying that the only people who could have hated Interstellar just hate movies in general?

Uh, no, I'm saying you're wrong in your insinuation that all movies are like that.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 12, 2015, 10:38:47 PM
Yes, such astute science, like the magical space stations being conjured out of nowhere at the end of the movie and how being sucked into a black hole means you get to go on a whimsical journey through dimensions to see your loved ones.

Like PP2000 said, love had nothing to do with it. It was a man-made construct. Also at the end, what do you mean the station came from nowhere? They showed that massive space station like thirty minutes into the movie, they couldn't get it into space without the equation that apparently allows you to ignore gravity.

It's basically just a massive exposition dump with plot progression being dictated by contrivances.

You just described every movie ever created.

ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2015, 10:49:51 PM
Uh, no, I'm saying you're wrong in your insinuation that all movies are like that.

How so? What kind of movie has no exposition or contrivance? Are you suggesting there exists a movie that both naturally occurred and has no meaningful information portrayed in it? I'm starting to think you have no idea what you said.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on April 12, 2015, 10:55:51 PM
Uh, no, I'm saying you're wrong in your insinuation that all movies are like that.

How so? What kind of movie has no exposition or contrivance? Are you suggesting there exists a movie that both naturally occurred and has no meaningful information portrayed in it? I'm starting to think you have no idea what you said.

No, that's not what I said at all. Why are you trying to rush me when I'm only trying to help you?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2015, 11:11:28 PM
No, that's not what I said at all. Why are you trying to rush me when I'm only trying to help you?

You made a pointless comment about how people would only hate Interstellar if they hate movies in general. That isn't helping. If anything your presence in this thread made it ostensibly worse.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 12, 2015, 11:28:14 PM
I finally got around to seeing Interstellar and I have to say it was very good. I'm not sure how anyone completely hated this movie; especially considering I know quite a few people who did.

Christopher Nolan.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 13, 2015, 06:50:43 AM
Some of the fight scenes in Daredevil are really well done. I especially liked the fight scene at the end of episode 2.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 13, 2015, 12:16:59 PM
Some of the fight scenes in Daredevil are really well done. I especially liked the fight scene at the end of episode 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B66feInucFY

Most directors would probably have gone in really close with a shaky handheld and edited the hell out of all the fight scenes so they showed up onscreen as a confusing mess of flailing limbs.  I like how they were all coherent in this show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 13, 2015, 12:55:19 PM
I wonder if that's Cox doing all the fighting himself, or if it's a double.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 13, 2015, 01:06:18 PM
Some of the fight scenes in Daredevil are really well done. I especially liked the fight scene at the end of episode 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7fYIMEQ1Xw

Most directors would probably have gone in really close with a shaky handheld and edited the hell out of all the fight scenes so they showed up on screen as a confusing mess of flailing limbs.  I like how they were all coherent here.

Not only was this fight well shot but the acting was awesome with daredevil being so exhausted he can barely keep his hands up. The image of him as an animal cornered in the neighborhood he is protecting is really effective I think. I also loved the storyline with his father in this episode. Nothing too innovative, but a really authentic telling of a classic tale.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 13, 2015, 03:39:25 PM
I wonder if that's Cox doing all the fighting himself, or if it's a double.

I was wondering the same thing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 13, 2015, 03:54:20 PM
I wonder if that's Cox doing all the fighting himself, or if it's a double.

His double was almost certainly the one doing all the fancy kicks and flips.  Honestly, I think they may have gone a little overboard with the stunts.  They always seemed to clash in a jarring way with Daredevil's more lo-fi style of martial arts.  And while I'm on the subject of criticizing the show, Cox's American accent wasn't all that great.  It wasn't awful, but you could always hear the British influence creeping around the edges of it, and he didn't sound even remotely like a New Yorker.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 13, 2015, 04:11:03 PM
For what it's worth, I thought he was American and I usually notice bad accents. He definitely didn't sound like a New Yorker, though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 13, 2015, 04:44:47 PM
I don't even know what a New Yorker is supposed to sound like as opposed to any other north stater.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 13, 2015, 05:13:46 PM
He sounds a little more New England, but meh, I could care less.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 13, 2015, 05:49:10 PM
I don't even know what a New Yorker is supposed to sound like as opposed to any other north stater.

Like a f**king asshole.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 13, 2015, 05:58:34 PM
I could care less.

f**king

Ugh.  Talk normally, you two.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 13, 2015, 06:03:07 PM
I could care less.

f**king

Ugh.  Talk normally, you two.

Can you not infer what word I'm using?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on April 13, 2015, 06:07:35 PM
Is Vauxy turning into Th*rk?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 13, 2015, 06:10:56 PM
I d**'t th**k t***'s a*  acc***te c********n, Blanko
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 13, 2015, 06:38:16 PM
On a more related note, why doesn't Daredevil kill people? I know he's supposed to be a good guy, and that killing would "make him no better than the villians", but seriously... some of these situations could simply be averted by killing people. I'm tired of Batman-esque heroes. I would like to see a superhero story that isn't scared of showing the good guy killing the villains once and awhile. Granted, I haven't watched the entire season of Daredevil yet, but this seems to apply so far.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on April 13, 2015, 06:43:15 PM
Actually, Batman does kill people, it just doesn't happen very often.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 13, 2015, 06:44:49 PM
Actually, Batman does kill people, it just doesn't happen very often.

And he cries about it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 13, 2015, 06:45:27 PM
They should acquire The Punisher and make a show set in MCU.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 13, 2015, 07:23:30 PM
On a more related note, why doesn't Daredevil kill people? I know he's supposed to be a good guy, and that killing would "make him no better than the villians", but seriously... some of these situations could simply be averted by killing people. I'm tired of Batman-esque heroes. I would like to see a superhero story that isn't scared of showing the good guy killing the villains once and awhile. Granted, I haven't watched the entire season of Daredevil yet, but this seems to apply so far.

They actually address this in the ninth episode, when Matt attempts to make this kind of utilitarian-type argument in favor of killing the Kingpin.  The priest he's confiding in quotes the Bible: "Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is the righteous man who gives way before the wicked" (Proverbs 25:26).  To put it another way, the cost of not remaining morally upright wouldn't just be to Matt's soul, but the well-being of the same community he's trying to protect.

They should acquire The Punisher and make a show set in MCU.

They already have the rights to the Punisher.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 13, 2015, 07:26:09 PM
On a more related note, why doesn't Daredevil kill people? I know he's supposed to be a good guy, and that killing would "make him no better than the villians", but seriously... some of these situations could simply be averted by killing people. I'm tired of Batman-esque heroes. I would like to see a superhero story that isn't scared of showing the good guy killing the villains once and awhile. Granted, I haven't watched the entire season of Daredevil yet, but this seems to apply so far.

They actually address this in the ninth episode, when Matt attempts to make this kind of utilitarian-type argument in favor of killing the Kingpin.  The priest he's confiding in quotes the Bible: "Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is the righteous man who gives way before the wicked" (Proverbs 25:26).  To put it another way, the cost of not remaining morally upright wouldn't just be to Matt's soul, but the well-being of the same community he's trying to protect.

The well being of the community would increase significantly if the Kingpin was killed, though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on April 13, 2015, 07:27:10 PM
They actually address this in the ninth episode, when Matt attempts to make this kind of utilitarian-type argument in favor of killing the Kingpin.  The priest he's confiding in quotes the Bible: "Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is the righteous man who gives way before the wicked" (Proverbs 25:26).  To put it another way, the cost of not remaining morally upright wouldn't just be to Matt's soul, but the well-being of the same community he's trying to protect.

If killing the kingpin would cost the community he's trying to protect, then what was Matt's argument in favor of killing him?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 13, 2015, 07:27:55 PM
At what point is a general capeshit thread made?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 13, 2015, 07:37:27 PM
Ugh.  Talk normally, you two.

U wot m8?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 13, 2015, 08:03:54 PM
They already have the rights to the Punisher.
Source?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 13, 2015, 08:29:23 PM
The well being of the community would increase significantly if the Kingpin was killed, though.

Maybe.  Or maybe it would be just trading one devil for another.

If killing the kingpin would cost the community he's trying to protect, then what was Matt's argument in favor of killing him?

Basically what Vauxy said, that it would save the lives of anyone that he would have killed in the future.

They already have the rights to the Punisher.
Source?

This is old news, bro.  A fan like you should have kept on top of it:

http://io9.com/marvels-got-the-blade-punisher-and-ghost-rider-movie-r-493113182
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 13, 2015, 08:31:37 PM
Do you really think I visit those type of sites?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on April 13, 2015, 08:35:56 PM
Basically what Vauxy said, that it would save the lives of anyone that he would have killed in the future.

A sound argument. What, then, is the cost to the community if the kingpin is killed?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on April 13, 2015, 08:47:01 PM
"Lest you become a monster" arguments are really just excuses for the writers to keep the villains around as long as possible to provide future stories and drama. It's a great thing to think about, but Daredevil killing the Kingpin does not immediately make Daredevil evil or just as bad as the Kingpin in any way whatsoever.

Anyone with common sense knows that eliminating the monster is always better than leaving the monster to burn down more villages.

Daredevil knows that killing the Kingpin would stop a lot of crime in Hell's Kitchen, and by refusing to kill him he is essentially letting more murders and violent crimes happen. Even if the Kingpin was replaced by another evil person, they can be eliminated as well. The smart thing to do would be to sever the organization at its roots and expose the city's corruption, then kill the Kingpin. This would make it harder for another person to take his place, and if someone did their power would be far less reaching than Kingpin's.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 13, 2015, 10:16:09 PM
Well, if you haven't finished watching it yet, then I probably shouldn't try to analyze or defend the decisions that Daredevil ends up making and/or the consequences that result from them.  All I meant to say is that the show does address the idea that he could use lethal force, as well as the moral and social ramifications of doing so.  They don't just take it for granted that he's not going to kill people because of course superheroes don't kill people or whatever.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: The Ellimist on April 13, 2015, 11:17:38 PM
Edge of Tomorrow. One of Tom Cruise's best
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 14, 2015, 01:46:26 AM
I watched The Lego Movie.  It's definitely the funniest movie I've seen in a long time.  I never would have guessed that Morgan Freeman could be so hilarious.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on April 14, 2015, 02:09:55 AM
I am like six episodes or so from being done with my drunken How I Met Your Mother binge. Mad feels yo.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: EnigmaZV on April 14, 2015, 08:29:07 PM
The last season is terrible. Just terrible.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on April 15, 2015, 09:18:29 PM
Just watched http://earthsky.org/earth/sperm-whale-meets-deep-sea-vehicle
Who doesn't like whales?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on April 15, 2015, 11:20:51 PM
2015: A Capeshit Odyssey continues!


The Incredible Hulk (Louis Leterrier)

Okay, so despite being told to skip this I actually kind of enjoyed the experience. It feels less like capeshit and more like a kind of comic book meets Toho kind of thing, as big dudes of curious pigmentation battle it out in the big city while onlookers scream and try to avoid the oncoming barrage of flying cars and rubble. The CGI looks cartoonish in a lot of places (esp. Tim Roth's superspeed legs and Gollum-esque "enhanced" body), but both the Hulk and the Abomination maintain just enough facial detail from their human forms to be somewhat believable, and the big fight scene at the end has satisfying weight and chunkiness. The action sequences work; the locations are well shot most of the time, especially Rocinha; the film even manages to contain a handful of genuine laughs as well as some so-bad-it's-good moments such as Hulk clapping out the flames on an exploding helicopter.

The performances range from good to questionable to me wondering why they bothered to give them lines half the time. The always good Ed Norton turns in a likeable, sympathetic lead, while Tim Roth seems out of place spewing American dialogue with a London accent (even though we already know he can do an American accent (see: Reservoir Dogs), so why did his character need to be English?), and Liv Tyler is quite nice to look at but almost nothing is done with her character and she spends most of the film whispering "Bruce" with a concerned look on her face (although when she does get a chance to actually act she's pretty good). It's really in the smaller characters that the best roles are found, and Tim Blake Nelson steals the show with his very animated and comic little performance as a scientist of questionable ethics and priorities.

I wouldn't put it up there at the top of the action genre, but I found it pretty entertaining and consistently so, the body horror overtones are nicely handled and add a little weight to what is essentially two masses of polygons slapping each other vigorously. So yeah, better than Iron Man for sure.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 16, 2015, 01:03:18 AM
two masses of polygons slapping each other vigorously.
(http://i.imgur.com/okF2W0f.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/okF2W0f.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/okF2W0f.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/okF2W0f.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/okF2W0f.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/okF2W0f.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/okF2W0f.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/okF2W0f.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/okF2W0f.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/okF2W0f.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/okF2W0f.gif)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 16, 2015, 01:32:12 AM
Better than iron man? That's interesting..
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 16, 2015, 03:32:49 AM
Huh. Didn't expect that.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on April 16, 2015, 12:17:14 PM
The World (Jia Zhangke)

Following a discussion between Blanko and myself concerning our general ignorance of mainland Chinese cinema, as opposed to that of Hong Kong or Taiwan, I decided to check out Jia Zhangke, whose work I had heard about through Mark Kermode. This film is a meandering, strangely compelling look at two people who work at a theme park in Beijing, one is a security guard while the other is a costumed performer. The park itself provides a great backdrop, full of scaled down replicas of famous landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower, London Bridge, the pyramids of Giza etc., and the at times documentarian look and feel of the film adds to its sense of authenticity. Despite this, Zhangke indulges in a little surrealism, including sudden transitions from live action to animation and some unusual sound mixing.

The narrative jumps around a lot and often I had a little difficulty recognising certain characters and why they were there, but this adds to the implied hustle and bustle of the location, you never know who will appear next. Like the park's monuments, this feels like an aspect of the big city recreated in miniature. The film is not heavy on plot, instead, as I said, taking an almost documentary approach and simply following the characters, allowing them to interact slowly and naturally. It might be a little bit too long overall, but I doubt I could think of anything to cut from the 140 minute runtime, every scene has a certain atmospheric necessity and removing some of them I'm sure something would seem amiss. Overall I like it a lot, and I'm looking forward to seeing more of Jia Zhangke's work.

Huh. Didn't expect that.
Honestly I'm not sure what's supposed to be so bad about it. It's not a great film, but I don't understand why both you and Saddam suggested I skip it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 16, 2015, 01:20:11 PM
I don't know, I didn't find it very fun at all aside from some of the Hulk bits and Tim Blake Nelson. I remember the rest making me want to sleep.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on April 18, 2015, 12:52:53 AM
Iron Man 2 (Jon Favreau)

I was not looking forward to returning to The Metal Guy Chronicles, and while it wasn't the endurance test I was expecting, I'd be hard pressed to say it was much better than Iron Man, although it is, ever so slightly, more entertaining. Tony Stark is as unlikeable as ever, but this time he is dying because he tried to put the New York Palladium in his chest - not a smart move, Tony - so he's kind of sympathetic, sort of, except he doesn't seem to be in any distress, he just has some varicose veins. Well, he was in his mid 40s when they made this, so it's understandable. Meanwhile, and stop me if you've heard this one before, Mickey Rourke is a physicist. Take some time and think that over, because he's actually a computer programmer, and a robotics expert, and a street fighter, or... He's basically this film's Ivan Drago, sporting ludicrous hair on various sections of his gnarled head and speaking in a passable - to my non-Eastern Bloc ears - Russian accent. He also has electric whips that can zap speeding race cars to shit from metres away but cannot electrify water for some reason. Rounding out the cast are Gwyneth Paltrow as Hard Businesswoman With a Soft Heart, Scarlett Johansson as Martial Arts Woman in Skin-Tight Bodysuit, Don Cheadle as African American Iron Man, and Sam Rockwell as Diet Tony Stark.

The CGI doesn't look as cartoonish as that of The Incredible Hulk, but it also has a certain flimsiness to it that makes the impacts in the big fight scenes seem kind of unimpressive, despite the apparent level of destruction occurring on screen. Apart from that there's really nothing off technically, and the film maintains its predecessor's saturated gloss and slick camera work. Overall, another well made but totally uninteresting movie about shit blowing up and "don't try this at home, kids!" science experiments such as creating a new element by putting pipes in a wall. Same old, same old.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 18, 2015, 02:31:41 AM
Originally, there were plans for the movie to explore Tony's personal issues - most notably, his alcoholism - in a serious and mature manner, as the comics have sometimes done.  But then the meddling studio executives stepped in and said something along the lines of, "Oh no, we can't be realistically depicting alcoholism and its consequences in these movies!  We'd scare off the family audience, and we might even get saddled with an R rating!"  (This logic also came into play during the writing of Iron Man 3.)  So instead we just got to see Tony's hedonistic douchebaggery in all its unpleasant excess, which I'm sure was far more appropriate for younger viewers. ::)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 18, 2015, 07:05:51 AM
I like his hedonistic douchebaggery...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on April 23, 2015, 04:08:06 AM
I've been lazy with reviewing films recently, so once again I'll just recap a lot of them at once.

In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-wai, 2000)

The theme of unrequited love was explored in Chungking Express, and is revisited here, this time in Hong Kong of 1960s. The handheld camerawork and low production values are replaced with more static shots, but in a lot of ways it displays Wong's maturity as a director – his control of space and framing is masterful, reminding me a lot of Edward Yang's Yi Yi in that aspect. A simple yet effectual drama, that much like Chungking Express, just works. 9/10

Guilty of Romance (Sion Sono, 2011)

Coming from being very impressed by Love Exposure, I found this one to be quite a disappointment. In many ways it's just as silly, but being framed in sort of a horror story it takes itself a lot more seriously, and as a consequence is a lot less self-aware and I feel it lacks the purpose in its absurdity that Love Exposure had. It's basically live-action anime, really. 6/10

Three Times (Hsiao-Hsien Hou, 2005)

Three short films set in three different time periods. Much like Edward Yang, another Taiwanese contemporary, Hou displays an affinity for engimatic and restrained narratives, but in the format of short films it feels like his stories don't have the time come out fully fleshed out. His directing style is impressive, however, with shots having a distinct style and control of space matching the time periods of each of the three stories. All in all, a little disappointing, but nonetheless promising first look into this director's work. 6/10

Still Life (Jia Zhangke, 2006)

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this one. I expected a romantic drama, but the narrative seems to only frame the almost documentarian look into the construction of Three Gorges Dam and the destruction it left in its wake. The visuals are fantastic: grand natural vistas are juxtaposed with urban decay in long panning shots. The narrative is incredibly low-key; I can understand what they were going for, but it feels restrained almost to a fault, and that's why I'm a little on the fence on this one. 7/10

Gummo (Harmony Korine, 1997)

A fascinating look into the lives of poor white Midwestern trash. It's essentially a collection of vignettes, accentuated by off-camera recordings of locals and VHS-quality footage. Brutally honest and coming across as almost hyperrealistic and surreal, it's constantly on the line of being insulting in its portrayal of poor America, but it's nonetheless very sincere. 9/10

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (Andrew Dominik, 2007)

An expertly made docu-drama, with the plot outline conveniently covered in its verbose title. It seems to suffer a fair bit from ”adaptation syndrome”, in that a lot of its narrative is accomplished through compromise; there are a lot of expositionary scenes that wouldn't be out of place in a book, but in a film format cause the pacing to feel a little erratic and make the running time a bit too long, and the narration seems to only serve to purpose of filling narrative gaps and feels often completely unnecessary. I don't want to fault the film too much for it, because there's a lot to love about it. It's expertly shot, the script is solid, and Casey Affleck provides an amazing performance as the titular young coward. With a little bit of restraint used in editing, this film could have perhaps been amazing, but as it is I'll only go as far as to call it great. 8/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 23, 2015, 02:20:38 PM
Blanko wanted romantic drama. What an old lady.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 23, 2015, 02:30:25 PM
I think The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is a really underrated movie. Or at least, I hardly know anyone that's seen it, but I really enjoyed it.

I like Blanko's taste.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on April 23, 2015, 02:42:11 PM
Blanko wanted romantic drama. What an old lady.

I'm sorry, I guess I should be a manchild and watch explosions all day :^)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 23, 2015, 08:57:19 PM
The Avengers: Age of Ultron
The perfect film. 10/10. Best movie in the history of cinema. No joke.

It's regrettable that I couldn't stick around for the post-credits scenes, because I desperately had to go take a piss.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 23, 2015, 09:22:51 PM
There was no post-credits scene, only a mid-credits one.  Also, I don't understand why pretty much everywhere else is getting it before America does.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 23, 2015, 09:23:49 PM
sadaam
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on April 23, 2015, 11:44:55 PM
Holy Motors (Leos Carax, 2012)

This is a film that is either completely open to interpretation, or completely defying it. It centers around a man riding a limousine throughout Paris, attending "appointments" that have him act out different parts, the purpose of which remains a complete mystery. The film's captivating visuals and a thick dream-like atmosphere are punctuated by the narrative hinting at its nature, only barely giving you the slightest idea of what is really going on, only to throw you off completely, again and again - all while keeping you constantly interested with the implication of an eventual explanation, which never arrives. At the end of it I have no idea what to make of it, but 30 minutes after I'm still completely absorbed in the experience. I can only imagine that sensation of wonderment and confusion is what they were aiming for, and it's difficult to imagine a film that manages to accomplish it as expertly. 10/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 23, 2015, 11:51:37 PM
There was no post-credits scene, only a mid-credits one.  Also, I don't understand why pretty much everywhere else is getting it before America does.

Because fuck you, that's why. I'm sick and tired of getting shit days and sometimes weeks after the US. Usually we get the Marvel films first so I'm happy that's still the case.

And yeah, I think AoU was on par or better than the original. It felt a bit convoluted, and suffered from being the middle setup movie (so no one could die due to sequel plans), but besides that it was arguably better than the original in every way. There was also probably a bit too much Whedon wise cracking going on, but I can't fault lots of humour so long as it's not extremely irritating.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 24, 2015, 09:46:20 AM
Hulk was best Hulk again.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 24, 2015, 06:17:26 PM
X-Men: Days of Future Past
Eh, was ok, but felt extremely underwhelming after having see Age of Ultron, and the severe lack of Wolverine fight scenes was extremely disappointing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 24, 2015, 08:49:17 PM
How would you compare the Quicksilver in the two movies? I got the feeling that most people like DoFP Quicksilver more, whereas I felt AoU Quicksilver had more character and was utilized significantly better.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 24, 2015, 08:52:54 PM
I preferred the Avengers version. He more accurately resembled the comic character physically, and he wasn't as annoying as the X-Men version, although that one has a more accurate origin. Actually being a mutant and being the son of Magneto.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 24, 2015, 09:19:30 PM
The Quicksilver in DoFP had the worst wig in the entire history of wigs.  He looked like he had just stuck a mop on his head.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 24, 2015, 09:56:46 PM
Quite
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 25, 2015, 08:24:25 PM
http://screencrush.com/avengers-2-dvd-blu-ray/

Thank God. Biggest problem was a lack of screen time. Hopefully now we can see what the hell Thor did in the pool, while listening to Whedon wheeze out commentary.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on April 26, 2015, 07:43:30 PM
Thor (Kenneth Branagh)

Actually kind of not bad at all, even pretty good at times. The whole thing does have the air of overgrown children in plastic suits playfighting in their backyard (never let it be said that Marvel does not know their audience), imagining fantastic worlds and creating stories about banishments, rescues, evil plots etc., but it's done with a certain spirit and vivacity that lifts it above the sort of film-by-committee style of Favreau's Iron Man. Branagh's camera style occasionally leaves something to be desired, falling over into sterotypical modern action territory with shaky handheld nonsense right from the get-go, in addition to some really awkward Dutch angles which he uses to show us... Natalie Portman looking pretty? Really, Ken? My main criticism however is that the over-reliance on CGI makes a lot of stuff look and feel terribly synthetic, and mostly what has stuck with me since finishing the film is questions like: how cool would the giant fire breathing robot have been as a practical effect using animatronics? And others the answers to which we may never know.

Character wise, Thor is actually a likeable hero. Not from the get-go, but he has an arc, and Chris Hemsworth plays him in a charming manner that reeks of valiant fairytale princes and knights, which is highly appropriate. I hate to keep bringing up Metal Guy, especially when I've already done it once earlier in the review, but the differences between the arcs of Thor and Tony Stark are quite interesting to compare. Stark's progression goes: rich asshole > rich asshole with a conscience > rich alcoholic asshole with a conscience; but Thor grows from an arrogant, warlike, power hungry manchild into a respectable, noble, and selfless defender of the people he comes to love. Obviously he has to change rather quickly in the time he has to spare, since there's nary a moment of the film's just under two hours that goes by without a pratfall, action sequence, or INTENSE ACTING!!! (not to mention one or two "Hulk claps out the flames" moments, such as the hammercopter technique), but it's handled rather well. Other performances I liked were Stellan Skarsgård as Old Scientist of Unidentifiable Ethnicity, Anthony Hopkins as One Eyed Man with Loud Stick, and Idris Elba as Comically Segregated Black Dude. The female side of the cast is a little flimsy, not because of the actors but because they aren't really given much to do. For example, Natalie Portman's job is to look serious and say science-y things, then ogle Thor's muscles and act embarrassed when he catches her in the act. Jaimie Alexander as Sif is the major exception, but she is literally generic warrior maiden who spent her life trying to prove that she is just as strong as the men and what have you.

You can tell I liked this more than other MCU offerings so far because I have run on into a whole third little paragraph here. It's pretty good, and I feel like Branagh's involvement has helped with that, I don't wish to present a dichotomy between "serious filmmaking" and "mere entertainment," because that's just silly and unfair, but I do feel like his history with Shakespeare, and his understanding of fantasy, mythology, and how to direct action, helped keep this from being a stodgy and dull, and it was silly in good way, not in a "I want to find the address of the people who wrote this and punch them" way. The hammercopter thing will never not be really fucking stupid, however. So yeah, MCU confirmed for getting better over time, I guess, or at least I hope so.

Next time on 2015: A Capeshit Odyssey: Nazis with bad skin conditions.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2015, 08:06:12 PM
No thoughts on Loki?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on April 26, 2015, 08:21:59 PM
Hiddleston's performance apparently did not make much of an impression on me, because I actually forgot he was in the film. That's probably a better answer to your question than any attempted recollection could provide.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on April 26, 2015, 08:22:56 PM
The female side of the cast is a little flimsy, not because of the actors but because they aren't really given much to do. For example, Natalie Portman's job is to look serious and say science-y things, then ogle Thor's muscles and act embarrassed when he catches her in the act. Jaimie Alexander as Sif is the major exception, but she is literally generic warrior maiden who spent her life trying to prove that she is just as strong as the men and what have you.

Considering how many le wiminz I know that ogle Chris Hemsworth I daresay it'd be more weird for her not to.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 26, 2015, 08:48:26 PM
Hiddleston's performance apparently did not make much of an impression on me, because I actually forgot he was in the film. That's probably a better answer to your question than any attempted recollection could provide.
He was the whole ending. Did you even watch the movie?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on April 26, 2015, 09:08:40 PM
Hiddleston's performance apparently did not make much of an impression on me, because I actually forgot he was in the film. That's probably a better answer to your question than any attempted recollection could provide.
He was the whole ending. Did you even watch the movie?
No, I just go around reviewing movies I haven't watched based on Wikpedia plot synopses.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on April 26, 2015, 09:51:54 PM
My exploration of Taiwanese second new wave cinema continues! This time we're looking at Tsai Ming-liang, a Malaysian-born director that nonetheless is ostensibly of major significance to Taiwanese cinema, having risen to recognition for his exploration of urban alienation in Taipei, spanning multiple films.

Rebels of the Neon God (Tsai Ming-liang, 1992)

A brilliant debut. Set amidst the neon lights of Taipei, the titular "rebels" are two youths: one already with a rebellious background, making his living in petty theft, having to come to terms with himself when he's confronted with the opportunity of a loving relationship; another a social outcast who disappoints his family by dropping out of school, and sets out on an act of revenge against the other youth for breaking his father's car's side view mirror. It's full of great characterisation and rich subtext, and the "neon god" that is Taipei is beautifully shot, capturing amazingly the urban lifestyle the film portrays.

Although the film is truly gorgeous, unfortunately much of it was lost to the poor print quality of the copy I watched. Bad tracking, audio popping and other such issues plagued the experience. On the bright side, the film has very recently been restored and is now being played in select cinemas in the US. If any of you Americanites get the opportunity to go see it in cinemas, I highly recommend it! Here's to hoping I'll get to enjoy an eventual Bluray release, at least. 9/10

Vive L'Amour (Tsai Ming-liang, 1994)

This is where Tsai's reputation as a minimalist becomes very apparent. Shots that span minutes displaying only subtle character interactions, minimal use of dialogue, and very little camera movement in general; I'm not typically one to criticise for minimalism, but Tsai's utilisation of it is definitely very excessive here. Tsai does very little to get the viewer invested in the characters, and when the surprisingly emotionally loaded ending rolls around, it's hard to muster the empathy and emotional investment the film expects, when it has done almost nothing to build up to it.

The film is quite interesting in concept; a salesman (conveniently with the same name as the main character from Rebels of the Neon God, and played by the same actor) finds a key to the apartment of a real estate agent, and begins living there without the knowledge of the resident. Meanwhile, a one-night stand of the agent begins doing the same. There's a fair amount of good dark comedy involved, and Tsai shoots the interiors of the luxurious apartment incredibly well, but as discussed above, Tsai's lack of restraint does make it a bit of a challenging watch. 6/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on April 28, 2015, 03:57:48 AM
The Avengers (Joss Whedon, 2012)

Blanko is watching capeshit? Whaaaat? Okay, maybe I was curious enough to see what the fuss is all about. Despite my constant mocking of capeshit, I actually hadn't seen any of it besides a few of Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies and The Dark Knight. I was inspired by Crudblud's courageous endeavour to at least give one movie a shot. I picked this movie because it had all the characters in it and had the highest RT score. If that's not good enough of a reason, too bad! So...

Let Capeshit Odyssey 2: Electric Boogaloo begin! ...and end, because I'm not watching any more of this shit.

Honestly, I went into it with the best of intentions. I kind of expected to come out of it thinking it's at least a technically competent movie and if I didn't like it (okay, I was never going to actually like it), it would simply be because of personal preference. Maybe I would even give it a fair score, like a 7/10 or something. I didn't get even that. I tried.

So, the movie spends literally an hour just setting up our core cast. The expositionary dialogue is constantly infused with terrible screenwriting tropes: the zany jokes, mocking of each other's abilities, and dramatic one-liner responses keep the audience reminded on who all the characters are and what they do about five times over, when one would suffice, given that these characters have very little character. At other times we get inconsequential technobabble. The script is occasionally self-aware enough to play on its tropes for comedic effect, but ultimately most of the comedy is entirely unintentional. It also seems to me that Whedon is not very good at getting good performances out of his actors, because there wasn't a single one I found convincing. There were a few actors whose work I've genuinely enjoyed in other films, so it's sad to see them perform at this level.

When the obligatory exposition is out of the way, we finally get to the point that seems like the end of the first act when the stock villain escapes, but this movie is not one to care about smooth pacing and plot progression, so we're actually well past the halfway mark and ready to enter the Big Final Battle stage. When we finally get to the point where our ensemble of heroes can actually work together as an ensemble, most of the cast is instantly relegated to fighting disposable, non-threatening robots while a couple get to do something important and take down the stock villain. When the stock villain is taken down, another threat is shoehorned in just so we can witness disposable robots being destroyed in completely interchangeable scenes for ten more minutes.

It's really weird to me that in a medium where the main characters can do incredible things, most of the action is just... punching. Captain America just punches robots, Scarlett Johansson punches robots, Thor swings his hammer around and punches robots - you get the idea. Iron Man and the guy shooting arrows are the only two characters that actually do anything interesting at all. It's not like there's any remarkable choreography to their punching either, it's all shot in a very vanilla style, and there are no actual set pieces for the characters to fight in. The cinematography in general looks like a TV show. It's not engaging and it all just blends into a blur of fast-cut shots.

When all is said and done, I'm not sure I've learned anything about capeshit. There's no real reason another capeshit movie would repeat the mistakes this one made. At its core, capeshit will always have to aim for the young demographic so kids buy toys and re-enact all the cool action scenes from the movies - but given that this is the most critically acclaimed movie in the MCU, am I supposed to think that this is as good as it gets? 4/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 28, 2015, 04:21:26 AM
You just don't "get it", balkno.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on April 28, 2015, 04:25:32 AM
inb4 it was actually satire
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 28, 2015, 04:27:45 AM
The Avengers (Joss Whedon, 2012)

Blanko is watching capeshit? Whaaaat? Okay, maybe I was curious enough to see what the fuss is all about. Despite my constant mocking of capeshit, I actually hadn't seen any of it besides a few of Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies and The Dark Knight. I was inspired by Crudblud's courageous endeavour to at least give one movie a shot. I picked this movie because it had all the characters in it and had the highest RT score. If that's not good enough of a reason, too bad! So...

Let Capeshit Odyssey 2: Electric Boogaloo begin! ...and end, because I'm not watching any more of this shit.

Honestly, I went into it with the best of intentions. I kind of expected to come out of it thinking it's at least a technically competent movie and if I didn't like it (okay, I was never going to actually like it), it would simply be because of personal preference. Maybe I would even give it a fair score, like a 7/10 or something. I didn't get even that. I tried.

So, the movie spends literally an hour just setting up our core cast. The expositionary dialogue is constantly infused with terrible screenwriting tropes: the zany jokes, mocking of each other's abilities, and dramatic one-liner responses keep the audience reminded on who all the characters are and what they do about five times over, when one would suffice, given that these characters have very little character. At other times we get inconsequential technobabble. The script is occasionally self-aware enough to play on its tropes for comedic effect, but ultimately most of the comedy is entirely unintentional. It also seems to me that Whedon is not very good at getting good performances out of his actors, because there wasn't a single one I found convincing. There were a few actors whose work I've genuinely enjoyed in other films, so it's sad to see them perform at this level.

When the obligatory exposition is out of the way, we finally get to the point that seems like the end of the first act when the stock villain escapes, but this movie is not one to care about smooth pacing and plot progression, so we're actually well past the halfway mark and ready to enter the Big Final Battle stage. When we finally get to the point where our ensemble of heroes can actually work together as an ensemble, most of the cast is instantly relegated to fighting disposable, non-threatening robots while a couple get to do something important and take down the stock villain. When the stock villain is taken down, another threat is shoehorned in just so we can witness disposable robots being destroyed in completely interchangeable scenes for ten more minutes.

It's really weird to me that in a medium where the main characters can do incredible things, most of the action is just... punching. Captain America just punches robots, Scarlett Johansson punches robots, Thor swings his hammer around and punches robots - you get the idea. Iron Man and the guy shooting arrows are the only two characters that actually do anything interesting at all. It's not like there's any remarkable choreography to their punching either, it's all shot in a very vanilla style, and there are no actual set pieces for the characters to fight in. The cinematography in general looks like a TV show. It's not engaging and it all just blends into a blur of fast-cut shots.

When all is said and done, I'm not sure I've learned anything about capeshit. There's no real reason another capeshit movie would repeat the mistakes this one made. At its core, capeshit will always have to aim for the young demographic so kids buy toys and re-enact all the cool action scenes from the movies - but given that this is the most critically acclaimed movie in the MCU, am I supposed to think that this is as good as it gets? 4/10

ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Also, the Chitauri aren't robots.  They're live creatures, albeit with a sort of cybernetic connection to one another and their mothership.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on April 28, 2015, 04:28:55 AM
Also, the Chitauri aren't robots.  They're live creatures, albeit with a sort of cybernetic connection to one another and their mothership.

I don't care.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 28, 2015, 04:33:28 AM
What did you think of the Spider-Man movies and The Dark Knight?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 28, 2015, 04:35:54 AM
Spider-Man movies a shit
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on April 28, 2015, 04:37:35 AM
The Spiderman movies were alright, I guess. I was prime capeshit age when I last saw them, mind you. At the very least Spiderman has something resembling a character arc, and his ability to swing around the city is intrinsically much cooler than anything in The Avengers, so I would probably still like them more.

The Dark Knight was a solid 7/10.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on April 28, 2015, 09:33:11 AM
but given that this is the most critically acclaimed movie in the MCU, am I supposed to think that this is as good as it gets? 4/10

The Dark Knight was a solid 7/10.

(http://i.imgur.com/jWNRoeb.jpg)

Also, The Winter Soldier is arguably the best MCU movie thus far.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 28, 2015, 10:00:17 AM
Also, The Winter Soldier is arguably the best MCU movie thus far.
Incorrect. Age of Ultron is.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 28, 2015, 11:19:34 AM
I didn't care for The Avengers either. My favorites are the Batman movies, Guardians, and X-Men movies (not all of them but some of them) . Growing up, the only comic book I liked was Spawn but they had to go and completely ruin the movie.

But the Avenger stuff looks like it's supposed to just be fun and campy and bright. For the love of god, do not watch Captain America.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on April 28, 2015, 11:20:19 AM
shudup
quit hating fun
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 28, 2015, 01:40:26 PM
The Avengers is probably my favorite MCU movie so far, but I'd put Winter Soldier at second.  The action in that movie is some of the best in the series, especially with how Cap fights, the story deviates from the typical wrangling over a magical MacGuffin that sadly seems to be becoming a little predictable at this point, and it introduces a slightly darker and more grounded tone while still remaining fun and entertaining.  That last point was something that Man of Steel failed at miserably, and so far it doesn't look like Batman v Superman is going to do much better at it.  Marvel is going to take over DC's claimed niche.  Here, have an intriguing article:

http://www.themarysue.com/daredevil-v-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-angst/
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 02, 2015, 02:24:13 AM
The Avengers is wonderful. I'm taking my nephew to see Age of Ultron with me this summer, so over the past week I've been catching him up on everything Marvel. All that's left is Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy. It's been nice rewatching these, though Thor: The Dark World was a hell of a drag. Iron Man 3 was better than I remembered,I actually laughed quite a bit. I'm nor sure what my favourite is. At the moment probably The Winter Soldier, but hopefully that changes on Sunday.

Also I really need to watch Adaptation. soon...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on May 02, 2015, 08:26:41 AM
Also I really need to watch Adaptation. soon...

Do it now
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 02, 2015, 08:27:39 AM
Once I'm done catching up with all things Marvel, I shall.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 02, 2015, 07:37:23 PM
On Blanko's recommendation, I have watched the first season of Mad Men.  While it steadily improved over the course of the season, it got off to a somewhat rocky start, and that's largely due to the characters, who are mostly a bunch of terrible, unlikable people.  Now, I know a lot has been made of how this show portrays women, and I do appreciate that it doesn't itself try to glamorize sexism or present it as morally acceptable, but how the characters treat women is so cartoonish and over-the-top that I just couldn't take it seriously.  The biggest example of this is the psychologist who says virtually nothing to his female patient during their sessions, but reports on everything to her husband.  That makes about as much sense as diagnosing the wife with a headache and giving her husband an aspirin.  That detail isn't there to be historically accurate (because it certainly isn't), it's there for shock value, to provide an extra little twirl of the mustache.  Sexism is a serious issue, and exaggerating it in such a goofy way doesn't help anyone.

In the same vein, it's hard to like most of the men at Sterling Cooper, because they all start off with the exact same dominant personality trait of "sneering misogynistic asshole."  As the show continues and we learn more about them, they become more sympathetic and likable, but again, I wish it hadn't taken so long to get there.  And it's not just the men who suck - Betty Draper is probably my least favorite character so far.  To be fair, though, that's less because of the writing and more because they seem to have hired a mannequin to play her, rather than, you know, an actual actress.  Don is pretty cool, though.  And I really enjoy the advertising element of the show, like how they explore the psychology behind it and discover which techniques are more effective than others.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 02, 2015, 07:45:21 PM
I don't feel like they really are exaggerating the sexism of the 50s and early 60s all that much. You can tell it was pretty awful just by looking at advertisements alone.

That being said, the characters do develop a lot and you feel sympathetic towards all of them at some point or other. Except for Pete, he is just terrible.
Peggy and Don are my favorite when they're together. Their relationship is just so great and surprisingly healthy. They respect and support each other as the show goes along and it gives you a lot of the warm fuzzies.

There was a point where I kinda stopped watching cause I just got tired of watching Don spiral out of control and sleep with everyone, but it picked up again.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on May 02, 2015, 09:56:20 PM
Being There (Hal Ashby)

By far the best movie I have seen this year. Peter Sellers' performance was spectacular; he made the ridiculous story line seem plausible.

9/10

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 02, 2015, 10:35:53 PM
2015: A Capeshit Odyssey!

Captain America: The First Avenger (Joe Johnston)

Craptain Ameroids vs. Colonel von Eczemann, the fight of the century! I have to say up front I actually liked this film, and I'm sure that has more than a little to do with the 1940s setting, captured in all its USO glitz, sentimentality, and optimistic escapism. It's cheese, but it's a vintage cheese with a certain aroma, not a mass-produced cheddar on a supermarket shelf. The actors are well cast, Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell, Hugo Weaving, and Tommy Lee Jones make for a formidable quartet with fine chemistry, and the always good Toby Jones plays his sly weasel character with aplomb. The action is intense, helped by the increase of on screen violence and blood compared with previous MCU titles, which lends it the genuine air of a war movie, yet the tonal balance is not lost, and the film maintains its hopeful 1940s naivete all the while. It also helps that the action sequences aren't shot like a small earthquake is going off on set.

The first part of the film deals to some degree with heightism and in a fairly realistic way, as Steve Rogers is routinely picked on by men and ignored by women due to his short stature. His courage and integrity do not falter through all the harsh treatment he is given, but ultimately of course the solution is to grow a foot taller and get #swole. I am fairly short myself, and while I don't have a problem with the eventual transformation from skinny little dweeb to tall muscular hero, I did find Steve Rogers' situation at the start of the film very familiar and it would be nice to see the initial situation examined a little bit more seriously instead of being used as joke fodder. That said, Captain America: The First Avenger is the best MCU entry I've seen so far, the bar was not particularly high (no pun intended), but this far exceeds previous Marvel efforts for sure. Given that so much of what I liked about the film was tied up in the alternate history 1940s setting, the cheesy veneer and hokey optimism of the era it depicts, I feel like it might be the peak of the franchise for me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 02, 2015, 11:27:47 PM
inb4roosroos
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 03, 2015, 01:48:52 AM
It seems like this is a joke.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 03, 2015, 01:49:56 AM
no you just hate fun
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 03, 2015, 02:18:18 AM
It seems like this is a joke.

I think it's a joke too. First Avenger is an awful movie. All around.

A movie aficionado of Crudblud's caliber would never praise it in such a way.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 03, 2015, 02:25:12 AM
Well the fine quartet with chemistry is what seems to give it away. I've seen people say more or less everything else, but I've never seen anyone praise Weaving's performance.

But on a related note, Ultron was surprisingly good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 03, 2015, 02:38:22 AM
Well the fine quartet with chemistry is what seems to give it away. I've seen people say more or less everything else, but I've never seen anyone praise Weaving's performance.

But on a related note, Ultron was surprisingly good.

Surprisingly? Every Marvel movie has viewers and reviewers peeing their pants these days. Nothing surprising about it.

Throw James Spader into the mix and you have a grand masterpiece.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 03, 2015, 03:12:22 AM
Obviously, I mean I'm surprised that I liked it. I know everyone else seems to get wet over capeshit. But I'm one of the few that didn't care for the first Avengers.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 03, 2015, 10:57:33 AM
You just hate fun.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 03, 2015, 11:44:01 AM
It seems like this is a joke.
It seems like this is a joke.

I think it's a joke too. First Avenger is an awful movie. All around.

A movie aficionado of Crudblud's caliber would never praise it in such a way.
Well the fine quartet with chemistry is what seems to give it away. I've seen people say more or less everything else, but I've never seen anyone praise Weaving's performance.

It's a joke because other people don't agree with me?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 03, 2015, 01:47:35 PM
Quit being such a Me-Too, Vauxy.  You're seriously sounding like you haven't even seen the movie at all.  And quit trying to wind roosroos up, beardo.  It's okay to not like things.

And for what it's worth, a lot of reviewers did praise Weaving's performance.  Obviously he wasn't going to be winning any Oscars with it, but as a silly, scenery-chewing villain in a silly film, plenty of people thought that he was a lot of fun to watch.  But again, it's okay to disagree.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 03, 2015, 02:22:47 PM
I thought Weaving was great, because it was cheesy and fun.

I'm really glad you liked it, Crudblud. I kinda thought you'd like Cap'n 'Murica, it's good fun and a nice change from the rest. It is one of the more underrated of my beloved capeshit films. This feels like making my friend play all the Zelda games, probably with the same results.

Man, capeshit is great. Marathoning all these movies with my nephew has me so squeediddly pumpedywumptious. Ultron in three hours!!!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 03, 2015, 02:25:27 PM
I shall be seeing Ultron in a few hours too, and am fully prepared to blast it in a rambling review.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on May 03, 2015, 02:57:56 PM
Quit being such a Me-Too, Vauxy.  You're seriously sounding like you haven't even seen the movie at all.

Reminds me of someone else I know.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 03, 2015, 03:23:29 PM
I thought Weaving was great, because it was cheesy and fun.

I'm really glad you liked it, Crudblud. I kinda thought you'd like Cap'n 'Murica, it's good fun and a nice change from the rest. It is one of the more underrated of my beloved capeshit films. This feels like making my friend play all the Zelda games, probably with the same results.

Yeah, from what I've read it seems like people didn't get that it was supposed to be cheesy as fuck. I really dug that aspect of it, however.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 03, 2015, 04:08:36 PM
Quit being such a Me-Too, Vauxy.  You're seriously sounding like you haven't even seen the movie at all.

Reminds me of someone else I know.

I hardly think that me passing tentative judgments on movies based on their critical reception is comparable to Vauxy's "Yeah, what she said!" style of debate.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 03, 2015, 04:56:41 PM
I am now in the theater. My heart is pounding, I have been waiting for this day for my whole life. I feel like a giddy little girl again
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on May 03, 2015, 06:26:58 PM
3 Women (Robert Altman, 1977)

I wouldn't be surprised if this film had a direct influence on David Lynch in the making of Mulholland Drive. There are numerous similarities - the dream-like atmosphere (in fact, this was actually inspired by a dream Altman had), the naive girl moving to California for work who becomes attached to another female character, and the emergent identity shift/merge between the two characters. Lynch is more keen to rely on the tried-and-true "plot twist moment" method, but Altman lets his psychological drama unfold in a more subtle manner - suggesting something more surreal and asking to be interpreted, but never fully relying on it, as on the surface he is merely revealing more about his characters. Altman utilises improvisation to sell his characterization, and it works especially well on Shelley Duvall's performance. 9/10

Amour (Michael Haneke, 2012)

An emotionally devastating portrayal on how to deal with the suffering of a loved one, and how to come to terms with dying. It's hard to not get emotionally invested and bummed out as Haneke moves through the motions of hardships, humiliations, and the feelings of uselessness involved in being a crippled old person, but it's really mostly achieved through concept alone - I have to give Haneke credit for tackling this subject, but his execution of it at times crosses into cheap emotionalism, and his flat direction doesn't sell it all that well either. Regardless, it's hard to deny that it's a powerful and moving film. 8/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 03, 2015, 06:42:37 PM
Quit being such a Me-Too, Vauxy.  You're seriously sounding like you haven't even seen the movie at all.  And quit trying to wind roosroos up, beardo.  It's okay to not like things.

And for what it's worth, a lot of reviewers did praise Weaving's performance.  Obviously he wasn't going to be winning any Oscars with it, but as a silly, scenery-chewing villain in a silly film, plenty of people thought that he was a lot of fun to watch.  But again, it's okay to disagree.

I've seen the movie and it sucks. Stop making assumptions.

Can I not have opinions now? Gd Saddam fuck off
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on May 03, 2015, 06:58:02 PM
Age of Ultron: Oh my god, last time we sent a nuke through a wormhole, but this diesel trailer is too much to handle for us. And bad philosarobot who was actually right about everything but gets boyscout'd by Captain America.

7.5/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 03, 2015, 07:59:35 PM
I've seen the movie and it sucks. Stop making assumptions.

Can I not have opinions now? Gd Saddam fuck off

It's precisely because you haven't expressed any real opinion of your own that I'm raising the possibility (which is all I'm doing; I'm not making assumptions) that you haven't actually seen it.  Posts like these struck me as being almost deliberately provocative in how vague and generic they are:

I have also seen the first Captain America movie. I also thought it was terrible. It is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

It just sucked. That's why its a bad film. I'd watch it again and give you a more detailed review on how it sucked, but having seen it once... why would I subject myself to it again? That's a waste of time.

I'm sorry if I got the wrong signals.  But look at it from my perspective - you have to admit that a silly troll where you talk about a movie you haven't seen and see how long you can keep up the pretense is totally the kind of thing you'd do.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 03, 2015, 08:12:46 PM
I see no way to prove that I've seen it though. I could tell you about the plot or my impression of the characters, but I could easily get that information from a google search and you would not know the difference. Basically, I didn't like the movie. If you have a problem with that, I'm sorry.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 03, 2015, 08:41:00 PM
That's fine, and I wasn't asking for proof.  I believe you.  Now let's hug and make up, as well as bond over our agreement that Man of Steel was still dumb.

(http://i.imgur.com/nPqKjWl.jpg)

Derp.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 03, 2015, 09:23:57 PM
I don't understand how a movie trying to be cheesy makes it any better, but okay.

For the record, I also dislike Sharknado so there.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 03, 2015, 10:31:38 PM
I don't understand how a movie trying to be cheesy makes it any better, but okay.

For the record, I also dislike Sharknado so there.

Unintentional cheese feels amateurish whereas intentional cheese (I.e. campiness) can lighten up subject matter, be self-effacing and add humor.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 03, 2015, 10:33:58 PM
That's fine, and I wasn't asking for proof.  I believe you.  Now let's hug and make up, as well as bond over our agreement that Man of Steel was still dumb.

(http://i.imgur.com/nPqKjWl.jpg)

Derp.

Yeah, that scene is the worst. Forgiven.

And Rama, now we just have to determine if The First Avenger is intentional cheese or unintentional cheese. I'm going with the latter, because the tone of the film is mostly serious, especially the parts with Red Skull.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 03, 2015, 11:12:12 PM
I don't understand how a movie trying to be cheesy makes it any better, but okay.

For the record, I also dislike Sharknado so there.
Because some people like movies that are intentionally cheesy, probably?

Anyway, Age of Ultron...oh my lord. What a work of art. Easily my favourite Marvel film. I'm way too tired to get into too much detail, but it was damn great. I actually agree with Blanko that the first Avengers' fight scenes were a letdown in terms of choreography and uniqueness, so it's wonderful that this one takes those and ratchets them up by a factor of infinity. They were just a delight and thrill to watch, and now that they didn't have to  set up the team, they got to spend all the time actually making a movie with them.

Ultron was great, but his very first appearance was his most impactful for me. His presence was incredible, the atmosphere was genuinely mystifying and a little intimidating. His appearance was perfect. I sort of wish they'd kept that time with him, how imposing a figure he was, but I'm not sure how long it could've been sustained.

So yes, absolutely loved it. It sets up a lot of exciting things, too...though the omg-Black-Panther??? tease made me sad. And aside from Ant-Man, no new Marvel for a year. How will I live? :"[
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 03, 2015, 11:17:48 PM
Because some people like movies that are intentionally cheesy, probably?
That still doesn't make me understand why it makes it better. It just tells me that people like it for some reason. There's a difference between accepting people like cheese and understanding it. So we don't need the snark, snarkytails. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 03, 2015, 11:27:26 PM
Snark is always necessary. My phone tried to correct "snark" to "anal", so that was almost hilarious.

But I mean, I don't know what else to say. People like different kinds of things, intentional cheesiness is just silly, grin-producing and fun. If you like campy stuff, it's delightful. I guess I'm not sure what you're looking for in an answer.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 04, 2015, 12:57:52 AM
Snark is always necessary. My phone tried to correct "snark" to "anal", so that was almost hilarious.

But I mean, I don't know what else to say. People like different kinds of things, intentional cheesiness is just silly, grin-producing and fun. If you like campy stuff, it's delightful. I guess I'm not sure what you're looking for in an answer.
That's okay, it wasn't really a question anyway.

Also, anal is always necessary.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 04, 2015, 03:58:42 AM
All right, so now I've seen AoU, and while I agree that it was a great movie, it's not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination.  They really just crammed way too much shit into this movie, leading to a lot of scenes - mainly the ones dealing with plot and character - feeling incredibly rushed.  The first act suffers from this especially.  In the space of about twenty minutes, the following things happen: The Avengers attack the HYDRA base and defeat Strucker, meet Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, and recover Loki's scepter; Tony and Bruce agree to create Ultron and then go ahead and do just that, and Ultron turns hostile.  And like I said, there are a lot of character moments that seem to be resolved way too quickly.  The decision to create Ultron - and Vision too - should have been a lot more controversial in the movie.  That's an issue that should be getting at least several minutes of focus, not a thirty-second montage.  The personal issues regarding their histories and identities that the characters struggle with are brought up and dismissed very quickly as well.  It really feels like the movie was just zipping through these elements to get to the action, and I was awfully disappointed by that.

Speaking of the action, though, I have no complaints there.  Okay, scratch that.  I do have one complaint - the climax largely being taken up by the Avengers fighting an army of robotic enemies.  Wow, haven't seen that one before!  Keep upping the ante, Whedon!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 04, 2015, 06:22:42 AM
But Saddam they had a big fight together and like the camera panned around them and the music was going BWAARP and I had a boner.

My major beef was the rushed nature of the movie, although I'm not sure how much was Whedon's fault and how much was Marvel trying to set up the next 34928392 sequels. Thor's bath scene in particular was just stupid. They got Skarsgard back and gave him a credit for like 30 seconds of screen time, which leads me to believe the final cut will be much more comprehensive.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 04, 2015, 06:41:17 AM
All right, so now I've seen AoU, and while I agree that it was a great movie, it's not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination.  They really just crammed way too much shit into this movie, leading to a lot of scenes - mainly the ones dealing with plot and character - feeling incredibly rushed.  The first act suffers from this especially.  In the space of about twenty minutes, the following things happen: The Avengers attack the HYDRA base and defeat Strucker, meet Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, and recover Loki's scepter; Tony and Bruce agree to create Ultron and then go ahead and do just that, and Ultron turns hostile.  And like I said, there are a lot of character moments that seem to be resolved way too quickly.  The decision to create Ultron - and Vision too - should have been a lot more controversial in the movie.  That's an issue that should be getting at least several minutes of focus, not a thirty-second montage.  The personal issues regarding their histories and identities that the characters struggle with are brought up and dismissed very quickly as well.  It really feels like the movie was just zipping through these elements to get to the action, and I was awfully disappointed by that.

Speaking of the action, though, I have no complaints there.  Okay, scratch that.  I do have one complaint - the climax largely being taken up by the Avengers fighting an army of robotic enemies.  Wow, haven't seen that one before!  Keep upping the ante, Whedon!
no your wrong
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on May 04, 2015, 06:25:19 PM
Today we'll look at Krzysztof Kieślowski's Three Colors trilogy of films. The films are named after the colours of the French flag, with each film being loosely based on the ideals presented in the French national motto: liberty (Blue), equality (White) and fraternity (Red). Aside from a few cameos and shared motifs, the films share no narrative continuity.

Three Colors: Blue (1993)

The theme of liberty is explored in the form of a widow abandoning her former life in favour of one free of attachments to her former family, after having lost it in a car crash. I can only admire Kieślowski's direction, as we witness the widow's settlement to her new life through constantly varying and fascinating perspectives and liberal handheld camerawork. He's like a better version of Terrence Malick, using his techniques much more economically and efficiently, always knowing how to keep the viewer engaged. Overall, there's very little at fault in this one. It's an extremely solid portrayal of an ideal. 9/10

Three Colors: White (1994)

This one is often singled out as the weakest part on the trilogy, and it's pretty apparent why. It doesn't really seem to know what it wants to be; I guess it's meant to be a black comedy, but Kieślowski frankly doesn't have much of a comedic sense, the plot is pulling in all kinds of directions with new developments coming out of nowhere and character motivations left extremely vague, and even the stylistic approach is replaced by more conventional and static cinematography. I don't really understand what happened here, it doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the trilogy at all. 6/10

Three Colors: Red (1994)

This one is back to form; the style and sense of purpose both reinstated. All of these films have coloured motifs matching the titles, but this one is very noticeably a red film, with nearly every shot containing something red, or being set in a location decorated red. The story follows a model who comes to bond with a retired judge through unlikely circumstances, as well as a man who becomes a judge over the course of the film and his relationship with a woman. The two stories are interconnected and draw parallels to each other, and the way Kieślowski follows these two stories is amazing: shots overlooking the streets of Paris, observing both of our main characters through their apartment windows in single cuts. It's not quite as phenomenal as Blue, but it's definitely still a great accomplishment in its own right. 9/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 05, 2015, 07:27:20 PM
[In AoU] no one could die due to sequel plans

lolwut?  Quicksilver died.  Which I actually kind of liked, seeing how the MCU has an irritating habit of pretending to kill characters off and then bringing them back later.  And I'm also glad they didn't kill off - "fridge," if you will - Scarlet Witch instead.  For feminist ramblings on what I'm talking about, see here (http://fanlore.org/wiki/Women_in_Refrigerators).
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 05, 2015, 07:34:19 PM
[In AoU] no one could die due to sequel plans

lolwut?  Quicksilver died.  Which I actually kind of liked, seeing how the MCU has an irritating habit of pretending to kill characters off and then bringing them back later.  And I'm also glad they didn't kill off - "fridge," if you will - Scarlet Witch instead.  For feminist ramblings on what I'm talking about, see here (http://fanlore.org/wiki/Women_in_Refrigerators).

Considering who the villain is in the next Avengers movie, life and death could very well be quite malleable concepts.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 05, 2015, 08:19:49 PM
Speaking of Thanos, the mid-credits scene annoyed me at first.  It didn't seem to make any sense, what with the Infinity Gauntlet being in a very secure place in Asgard, and that there was no way Marvel could justify him having casually stolen it off-screen or whatever.  But then I read this (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Big-Secret-Behind-Infinity-Gauntlet-According-Marvel-Kevin-Feige-71192.html), and now I am satisfied.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 05, 2015, 08:22:35 PM
I'm not very familiar with the infinity gauntlet; is the glove itself magical?  Or is it just the stones?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 06, 2015, 12:06:40 AM
[In AoU] no one could die due to sequel plans

lolwut?  Quicksilver died.  Which I actually kind of liked, seeing how the MCU has an irritating habit of pretending to kill characters off and then bringing them back later.  And I'm also glad they didn't kill off - "fridge," if you will - Scarlet Witch instead.  For feminist ramblings on what I'm talking about, see here (http://fanlore.org/wiki/Women_in_Refrigerators).

He was introduced in the same movie, so he doesn't count. It annihilates the tension when the big boys talk about "blood on the floor" in the final fight, but basically no one bites the dust (or even really gets hurt). Not that it matters, as the final fight was enjoyable enough and the death scene was done well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on May 06, 2015, 10:58:37 PM
Millennium Mambo (Hou Hsiao-Hsien, 2001)

I mentioned in my Three Times review that Hou's slow, naturalistic style would be better suited for a feature-length format, and based on this film it definitely seems to be the case. Some of you may remember that I had an issue with Tsai's minimalism in Vive L'Amour, but here Hou really shows how to utilise it effectively; the average shot length in this film is in the multi-minute range, and most of it has no dialogue or very little of it. Instead most of this ostensibly simple coming-of-age story is told through occasional narration and subtle character interactions and movements, and it works entirely thanks to Hou's fucking phenomenal direction; the actors are constantly moving thoughout shots and so is the camera, snapping in and out of focus, moving into close-ups to display emotion and fluidly moving out again to progress the scene, and utilising space so creatively that the constraints of small apartments (which is what most of the film is set in) practically disappear. Combined with the mixture of neon colors, beautiful use of focus, naturalistic acting, and a soundtrack comprising of dreamy dance music, Hou masterfully sets you in the atmosphere of fleeting youth at the dawn of the millennium in a big city, which is ultimately what this film is all about. Fantastic film. 10/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 12, 2015, 05:00:14 AM
The Avengers (Joss Whedon)

More like Dross Whedon. Jesus Christ what a piece of shit. But seriously I thought this was pretty good. I don't like it as much as Captain America, but clearly Whedon knows how to tell a joke, and the ones he drops throughout the big action sequences that abound in the third act keep it from becoming non-stop explodey punchy bangy crashy zoomy anus. Also, who knew, it turns out Mark Ruffalo can act, and Tom Hiddleston can make an impression, sort of. Tony Stark is as annoying as ever, and, oboy, Iron Mangina 3 is the next destination on the Odyssey (s)hit list, but it turns out he's pretty vital, a little too vital, even, to the team. Half the story seems to revolve around him doing cool shit while the rest of the team stands around punching Chimichangas. Okay, not everyone can fly, not everyone has an armament checklist to match Arsenal Gear, but still. And I guess I'm being a little unfair, since the action is more spread out across the board, although let's be honest, there's only so much you can do with a bow and arrows, and Iron Mandela is in your face with red and yellow danger colours at all times, so it's only natural that he would be a more prominent feature in retrospect than Black Body Warmer Guy or Bipedal American Flag.

It was admittedly neat seeing a lot of characters from different films brought together in a single feature, and Whedon manages to balance screen time well over all, without feeling like he's trying to juggle too many things. Not only that, he seems to have gotten the characters as they were in the other films, which gives The Avengers an air of authenticity, and a cohesion with the rest of the MCU that avoids making the film, as it easily could have been, a gimmicky monster mash type affair. It's a solid action movie helmed by someone who seems to care about the source material, and not in a "Zack Snyder cares about Watchmen" kind of way.

P.S.: Harry Dean Stanton always improves whatever he's in, even if it's just a cameo.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 12, 2015, 05:50:55 AM
^ Yay !! !  !!! I'm always excited when someone whose opinion I value likes stuff that is dear to me.

Dredd (Pete Travis, 2012)

Decided to watch this on a whim while other stuff downloaded and I was going through my previous computer's "stuff to watch" folder. I never thought Karl Urban would be able to star in something that actually makes me wish it would last longer. So far, that is still true. I expected a bit more out of this movie than I got. It was a fun action movie, and surprisingly gorgeous at times, but not much more. The bit worth focusing is "surprisingly gorgeous at times". Within the film there's a drug tellingly called "Slo-Mo": you take the drug and it feels like life goes by at 1% of its regular speed. During these moments, the whole film goes into extreme slow motion and the music slows down to a hundredth of its speed right with it. It's about the only real highlight of the film. Everything gets overexposed, gorgeous and atmospheric...even when bullets are passing through peoples' heads.

Anyway, I can't keep a thought longer than a few moments anymore, so I forget what else I was going to say about the movie. It was alright. Wouldn't watch it again, but the soundtrack was actually pretty great.


Moonrise Kingdom (Wes Anderson, 2012)

I neeed to stop really wanting to see things. This was really disappointing as well. Don't get me wrong, it was a good film, just not nearly as phenomenal as I'd heard and expected. The whole first two-thirds of the film were kind of a drag, and most of that is because the film relies heavily on child actors. The kids in this are good, for child actors, but...maybe other people can look that over, but for me it's really, really jarring. It bothers me. Add that to the fact that much of the narrative and momentum relies on them and emotional moments, and it was just a dead, hour-long slog that I could not get into.

Now, the last third of the film...well, it gets completely ridiculous. It was wonderful. I feel like I watched two movies here. One that bored me to death (despite being very pretty) and one that was what I wished Moonrise Kingdom would have been, that I was utterly enthralled with.

The characters (mainly the adults) are one of the movie's strongest points. They're almost all caricatures, and each of them plays their characters whole-heartedly and exactly exaggeratedly enough to be compelling yet amusing. I'm not much a fan of Ed Norton, but seeing him play an over-eager boy scout leader is great, especially the more ridiculous the situations get. The movie's real highlight for me, though, is the music. Holy goddamn hell does this movie have amazing music. Even if the last third hadn't picked it up and given me something to enjoy, I still would have sat through it just for the peculiar, wonderfully-done soundtrack. Even if you have no interest in the move itself, I would recommend giving the soundtrack a listen because it is great and really good and it's great

So yeah.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 12, 2015, 02:24:42 PM
The Avengers (Joss Whedon)

More like Dross Whedon. Jesus Christ what a piece of shit. But seriously I thought this was pretty good. I don't like it as much as Captain America, but clearly Whedon knows how to tell a joke, and the ones he drops throughout the big action sequences that abound in the third act keep it from becoming non-stop explodey punchy bangy crashy zoomy anus. Also, who knew, it turns out Mark Ruffalo can act, and Tom Hiddleston can make an impression, sort of. Tony Stark is as annoying as ever, and, oboy, Iron Mangina 3 is the next destination on the Odyssey (s)hit list, but it turns out he's pretty vital, a little too vital, even, to the team. Half the story seems to revolve around him doing cool shit while the rest of the team stands around punching Chimichangas. Okay, not everyone can fly, not everyone has an armament checklist to match Arsenal Gear, but still. And I guess I'm being a little unfair, since the action is more spread out across the board, although let's be honest, there's only so much you can do with a bow and arrows, and Iron Mandela is in your face with red and yellow danger colours at all times, so it's only natural that he would be a more prominent feature in retrospect than Black Body Warmer Guy or Bipedal American Flag.

It was admittedly neat seeing a lot of characters from different films brought together in a single feature, and Whedon manages to balance screen time well over all, without feeling like he's trying to juggle too many things. Not only that, he seems to have gotten the characters as they were in the other films, which gives The Avengers an air of authenticity, and a cohesion with the rest of the MCU that avoids making the film, as it easily could have been, a gimmicky monster mash type affair. It's a solid action movie helmed by someone who seems to care about the source material, and not in a "Zack Snyder cares about Watchmen" kind of way.

P.S.: Harry Dean Stanton always improves whatever he's in, even if it's just a cameo.

You never liked Mark Ruffalo?  Have you seen Zodiac?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 12, 2015, 03:08:04 PM
The Avengers (Joss Whedon)

More like Dross Whedon. Jesus Christ what a piece of shit. But seriously I thought this was pretty good. I don't like it as much as Captain America, but clearly Whedon knows how to tell a joke, and the ones he drops throughout the big action sequences that abound in the third act keep it from becoming non-stop explodey punchy bangy crashy zoomy anus. Also, who knew, it turns out Mark Ruffalo can act, and Tom Hiddleston can make an impression, sort of. Tony Stark is as annoying as ever, and, oboy, Iron Mangina 3 is the next destination on the Odyssey (s)hit list, but it turns out he's pretty vital, a little too vital, even, to the team. Half the story seems to revolve around him doing cool shit while the rest of the team stands around punching Chimichangas. Okay, not everyone can fly, not everyone has an armament checklist to match Arsenal Gear, but still. And I guess I'm being a little unfair, since the action is more spread out across the board, although let's be honest, there's only so much you can do with a bow and arrows, and Iron Mandela is in your face with red and yellow danger colours at all times, so it's only natural that he would be a more prominent feature in retrospect than Black Body Warmer Guy or Bipedal American Flag.

It was admittedly neat seeing a lot of characters from different films brought together in a single feature, and Whedon manages to balance screen time well over all, without feeling like he's trying to juggle too many things. Not only that, he seems to have gotten the characters as they were in the other films, which gives The Avengers an air of authenticity, and a cohesion with the rest of the MCU that avoids making the film, as it easily could have been, a gimmicky monster mash type affair. It's a solid action movie helmed by someone who seems to care about the source material, and not in a "Zack Snyder cares about Watchmen" kind of way.

P.S.: Harry Dean Stanton always improves whatever he's in, even if it's just a cameo.

You never liked Mark Ruffalo?  Have you seen Zodiac?

Yes.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 12, 2015, 05:53:32 PM
lol
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 13, 2015, 01:00:21 AM
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles)

Welles's classic film noir is fucking weird. Everyone stumbles around doing weird shit, Charlton Heston plays a Mexican, Orson Welles garbles ever other line in one of the most bizarre and intentionally off-the-rails performances I've ever seen, and Henry Mancini's score swaggers its way into the action and lingers around like a drunken onlooker. Right from the start, with one of the best tracking shots I've ever seen, I was drawn into the film's strange border world between Mexico and the US, where the people are crazy and Orson Welles is crazier. Easily in the top two best films I've seen so far this year.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on May 13, 2015, 04:09:03 AM
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles)

Welles's classic film noir is fucking weird. Everyone stumbles around doing weird shit, Charlton Heston plays a Mexican, Orson Welles garbles ever other line in one of the most bizarre and intentionally off-the-rails performances I've ever seen, and Henry Mancini's score swaggers its way into the action and lingers around like a drunken onlooker. Right from the start, with one of the best tracking shots I've ever seen, I was drawn into the film's strange border world between Mexico and the US, where the people are crazy and Orson Welles is crazier. Easily in the top two best films I've seen so far this year.

I watched the opening shot of that about a week ago. It's incredible. I need to see it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 14, 2015, 04:01:24 AM
Iron Man 3 (Shane Black)

I say without a trace of humour, sarcasm, or irony (although I guess that is a pun) that Hominem Metallum Tertius is a pretty fucking solid action movie with fluid storytelling, worthwhile characters with good chemistry, and humour that works. Even Tony Stark, who is noticeably shaken following on from his experiences in The Avengers, comes across rather sympathetic; his wisecracks, one liners, and snarky attitude are written so as to be desperate and pathetic in a way that really humanises the character, which is a great boon for a series I had not until now been enjoying very much. Maybe the first two movies would have benefited from such a treatment of the character, maybe they had lowered my expectations for Iron Manganese Lithium to the point that I enjoyed it just because it wasn't dull as fuck, but I think really this slow progression over the course of several features actually works out for the character very well.

A lot of people complained about the way the Mandarin was used in this film, but I thought it was hilarious. Ben Kingsley doing a sort of Russell-Brand-in-thirty-years'-time act (I thought it was particularly apposite how they had that character underlying a phony revolutionary figure who spouts very flimsy rhetoric and analogies) was the comic highlight of the film. He gets to showcase his chops and brilliant timing, and it was pretty clever how his phony accent slips a few times in the hijack broadcasts. Guy Pearce makes for a good slimy villain, at times reminding me of Kirk Douglas in Jacques Tourneur's Out of the Past, and his introduction was very understated and well acted enough that I didn't even recognise him at first. The plot, partly taken from a Warren Ellis Iron Man story (even before I read up about the source, the whole thing had a very Ellis feel to it), was neat, and its threads tied together across the 130 minute runtime very smoothly, and there was little that didn't make sense, although there were a few parts that seemed to be there just because bang zoom kaboom punch vagina.

I'd put it on par with Captain America: The First Avenger, much as it surprises me to say so. The guys behind the MCU are on a roll, it seems, so let the Odyssey continue.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 14, 2015, 06:04:15 AM
W-wha... no.. this is all wrong..
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vongeo on May 14, 2015, 06:23:17 AM
Listen to me, that little witch is messing with your mind. You're stronger than her, you're smarter than her. You make her family line look like
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 14, 2015, 07:07:10 AM
W-wha... no.. this is all wrong..

(http://giant.gfycat.com/FlamboyantAdorableErne.gif)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 16, 2015, 04:22:47 AM
I finished Twin Peaks.  I was going to write a few paragraphs on my overall impression of the show, but the last episode irritated me.  What the hell was up with that?  I feel like Lynch just slapped me.
I wonder how they're going to handle that ending in the new season. Not just because a crazy amount of stuff could happen in the 25 year gap, but also because Frank Silva is dead. They're going to have a lot of trouble getting around being unable to show BOB unless they use stock footage, which would look awfully cheap but might actually work well in a Lynchian kind of way.

Quoting so that this is relevant: The Twin Peaks revival looked like it was dead in the water after Lynch tweeted about stepping down due to budgetary problems, but now it is back on with Lynch directing all episodes and for a longer season than the original nine episode plan. So excited!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 16, 2015, 02:26:30 PM
Crudblud-When are you watching CA:WS?  I want to know what you think of my favorite MCU film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 16, 2015, 11:06:31 PM
Crudblud-When are you watching CA:WS?  I want to know what you think of my favorite MCU film.
I have The Dark World to watch first, and I'll probably watch it tonight, so maybe Winter Soldier will be some time next week.

also...

His Girl Friday (Howard Hawks)
Classic fast talking anti-romantic comedy with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell as a divorced couple who both work in the newspaper business. Solid, fast paced, darkly humorous at times and with a great central cast, the film rips along through 90 minutes in what feels like less than an hour. I really dug it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 17, 2015, 03:27:56 AM
Thor: The Dark World (Alan Taylor)

Eh... my reaction to this was lukewarm. The story feels like it was taken from a collaborative concept album by Linkin Park and Dragonforce: there are elves, there is darkness, there is also flying blood. I dunno, man, flying blood, it makes things dark or something. Meanwhile, Loki sits around not doing stuff or maybe he is doing something and he might be evil or he might not be, then he is evil, then he isn't, then he might be evil again, and I think I stopped caring about half way through the film whether he was or not. Everyone else is basically the same character they were in the previous film, so there's not much to talk about in that regard. Not much to talk about in general, it's Thor doing Thor stuff, and Christopher Eccleston slumming it as a villain even less remarkable than Loki in the original Thor, and Kat Dennings being cute. The best performance in the entire film is Benicio del Toro being flamboyant as fuck, but that's a mid-credits scene, which really shouldn't count as part of the film itself.

Eh...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 17, 2015, 04:25:06 AM
It's not a question of whether Loki is evil or not. It's just whether or not you can trust him. Guy is god of mischief and all. Sometimes he helps and sometimes he doesn't. You don't question it you just accept it.

Although, in the comics Thor always trusts Loki. He just loves him too darn much.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 17, 2015, 06:01:12 AM
Thor: The Dark World (Alan Taylor)

Eh... my reaction to this was lukewarm. The story feels like it was taken froma collaborative concept album by Linkin Park and Dragonforce, there are elves, there is darkness, there is also flying blood. I dunno, man, flying blood, it makes things dark or something. Meanwhile, Loki sits around not doing doing stuff or maybe he is and he might be evil or he might not be, then he is evil, then he isn't, then he might be evil again, and I think I stopped caring about half way through the film whether he was or not. Everyone else is basically the same character, not much to talk about. Not much to talk about in general, it's Thor doing Thor stuff, and Christopher Eccleston slumming it as a villain even less remarkable than Loki in the original Thor, and Kat Dennings being cute. The best performance in the entire film is Benicio del Toro being flamboyant as fuck, but that's a mid-credits scene, which really shouldn't count as part of the film itself.

Eh...

This very accurately echoes how I feel about the movie. Not a fan of it. Sitting through it a third time while I guided my nephew through the MCU was a drag.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 17, 2015, 10:37:32 AM
Thor: The Dark World, as well as Age of Ultron, are the only MCU films I've only watched once. Both for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 17, 2015, 06:42:51 PM
I didn't think that TDW was awful, but it's definitely the weakest of the MCU's "phase two" movies, and currently bears the distinction of having the lowest approval rating (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/thor_the_dark_world/) of the entire MCU on Rotten Tomatoes.  Still, I'm certain it'll at least be better than Taylor's latest film, that awful-looking Terminator reboot starring Emilia Clarke (because GoT is really big right now, and they've got to capitalize on that!) and the generic lughead whom nobody liked from that Die Hard sequel that nobody liked (because Hollywood just knows for a fact that he's a rising star, even if audiences simply haven't grasped that yet!)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 17, 2015, 09:17:28 PM
Who also played a Terminator in the last Terminator, which is confusing
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 17, 2015, 10:32:11 PM
Who also played a Terminator in the last Terminator, which is confusing
What?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 18, 2015, 02:42:59 AM
I didn't think that TDW was awful, but it's definitely the weakest of the MCU's "phase two" movies, and currently bears the distinction of having the lowest approval rating (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/thor_the_dark_world/) of the entire MCU on Rotten Tomatoes.  Still, I'm certain it'll at least be better than Taylor's latest film, that awful-looking Terminator reboot starring Emilia Clarke (because GoT is really big right now, and they've got to capitalize on that!) and the generic lughead whom nobody liked from that Die Hard sequel that nobody liked (because Hollywood just knows for a fact that he's a rising star!)

"make her boobs HUGE" (http://i.imgur.com/RxcQNO7.jpg)
- Terminator Genisys poster guys
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 18, 2015, 03:18:56 AM
I love how none of the marketing so far seems to give a fuck about how blatantly they're giving away a plot detail that will presumably be treated as a major twist in the movie.  Are they desperate or something?

Who also played a Terminator in the last Terminator, which is confusing
What?

I would say that Snupes is confusing Jai Courtney and Sam Worthington, but let's face it, there is essentially no difference between these two bland and charisma-free Australian wannabe action stars:

(http://i.imgur.com/SUnSJU1.jpg)

Hell, maybe they really are the same person.  Worthington did seem to fade away just as Courtney suddenly entered the public eye.  I'm sure this kind of thing is possible.  For example, I'm still not convinced that Alex Jones isn't a joke character that Bob Odenkirk invented one day.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 18, 2015, 03:28:27 AM
Except that they don't look alike aside from being white muscular males with shaved heads.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 18, 2015, 03:44:53 AM
I'm still not convinced that Alex Jones isn't a joke character that Bob Odenkirk invented one day.
Do you think he can turn from skinny to fat at will too?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 18, 2015, 03:56:56 AM
Except that they don't look alike aside from being white muscular males with shaved heads.

They're literally identical.  Literally.

I'm still not convinced that Alex Jones isn't a joke character that Bob Odenkirk invented one day.
Do you think he can turn from skinny to fat at will too?

He might just wear a fatsuit.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 18, 2015, 04:00:52 AM
They're literally identical.  Literally.
Literally no. Look at the eyes, the nose, the ears, the chin and jawline. There's nothing identican between these two men, and I'd say Jai Courtney has a much more dopey face too, and Worthington seems to have a bit of that Eastwood scowl going on.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 18, 2015, 04:14:07 AM
Prince did it with Lenny Kravitz, so I don't doubt Saddam's theory.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 18, 2015, 04:30:31 AM
Quit taking my silly comments seriously. >:(
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 18, 2015, 05:04:41 AM
The serious tension
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 18, 2015, 07:30:09 AM
I also thought Jai was in the last terminator, although that's probably because Sam Worthington was playing the same Attractive White Male role that Jai does.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 18, 2015, 10:39:15 AM
Oh wow, I've been mixing them up this whole time. They're both such generic tough white action star
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 18, 2015, 10:44:35 AM
Jai is hideous. He has a gross fat head. And I've also never seen him in anything.
Worthington is actually attractive because his head is of a normal size and he does do a great squinty scowl.

Worthington was also the guy in Avatar so he has one big movie under his belt already. I don't think Jai has done anything really noteworthy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 18, 2015, 11:26:04 AM
Oh yeah, I know them both and I realize they don't actually look super-alike, it's more just their genre and style. They play the exact same kind of characters and both have a really generic look.

I have a little bias towards Jai because he was in a Die Hard movie, and the latest ones are my guilty pleasure even though I realize they aren't very good...I just love Die Hard a lot

Also,


Mad Max: Fury Road (George Miller, 2015)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but this was an amazing movie, and I don't mean just as a dumb action movie. I mean, it kind of is, but in a very self-aware way. I'm way too high on medication right now to describe what I feel accurately, and combining that with how fucked up my mind and thinking abilities are after the accident I think this is literally the best the description is going to get.

But still, it's a really, really good movie. The action is all really well-done, and the majority of the film is all practical effects (at least so I hard), which ends up being very impressive. The most surprising part is just how beautiful the movie and its cinematography is, from the weird speeds parts are filmed at that are reminiscient of some older films to the extreme colouring in many parts of the film. The characters are surprisingly fleshed-out and likeable despite not having much time to know them, and a lot is conveyed through very few words. Even the actual hand-to-hand fighting is really unique in parts, and honestly the film never lost my interest, which is very rare for me. Most films, even if I like them, can't quite manage that. And I'll admit, it's nice watching a fun action movie that doesn't feel the need to inject one-liners in every moment that would fit.

So yeah, to be honest I would really recommend this movie, ideally in 3D since the effects are done very well and immersively (to me, especially in the sandstorm part), but I understand some people really just can't stand 3D so it's fantastic without it as well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 18, 2015, 12:40:35 PM
We were going to see Mad Max yesterday but that fell through. The trailers have gotten him really excited about it but I loved the originals. The post apocalyptic dystopia setting is my thing.

This movie seems to have the same feel of the originals so in my mind there was no doubt it would be great. I just have to actually see it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 18, 2015, 01:19:39 PM
I'll wait for the blu-ray rips for that one.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on May 18, 2015, 01:25:38 PM
Mad Men (2007-2015)

My favourite show on television is now over.

(http://i.imgur.com/JxrNmYu.png)

What I find really compelling about this show is that it really takes full advantage of the television serial format, and what I mean by that is that it never falls into a loop of having episodes that simply progress the plot or are simply there to fill time. Every episode is a contained narrative, yet every episode is a part of a larger narrative and a development in someone's character arc. There are no bad or "filler" episodes, and Matthew Weiner's uncompromising vision really shines through every moment of it. The amount of character depth, symbolism, foreshadowing, call backs and parallels that exist in this show is staggering. It's very patient in its methods too, with many plot elements being set up seasons in advance. And of course, it's all explored through the underlying themes and political climate of its time period. There are a lot of acclaimed shows I haven't seen yet (The Sopranos, The Wire), but until I get to those I'm willing to claim that this is the best television I've ever seen and may even be as good as it gets.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 19, 2015, 06:17:11 PM
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (Anthony & Joe Russo)

Cap is thrust into a world of paranoia as shady forces threaten to give up a lot of other people's liberty to gain a little security for themselves. I have more problems with this film than I did with First Avenger. The fight scenes seem to be shot by a Parkinson's addled five year old on a sugar rush and edited by someone with ADHD, and it's a shame that the action element of the film is so marred by this almost Michael Bay aesthetic, because it really took me out of the film while it was going on, especially when the rest of the film is shot perfectly well. The Winter Soldier himself is also an issue, despite his back story he really just feels like a generic heavy and I had a difficult time giving a shit about him because of that.

Overall I'd say it's slightly lesser than the original in terms of quality overall, but the conspiracy stuff was very engaging, the sense of paranoia worked well, and the humour, when it wasn't trying to be glib and referential, was serviceable. I really like that Cap out of all the MCU sub-series seems to focus on melding capeshit with other genres, the first was a war movie, and this one's a conspiracy thriller, and it is the surprising flexibility of the main character that makes it work. The tonal shift from First Avenger to Winter Soldier is surprising but well handled, and while the film is considerably less goofy than its predecessor, it makes for a fitting follow-up.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 20, 2015, 01:45:19 PM
Syndromes and a Century (Apichatpong Weerasethakul)

Thailand, where people will give you money to shoot a bunch of stuff that kind of has a plot in a hospital plus some random shit that has nothing to do with anything. This is a fucking weird film, made even weirder by the fact that so much of it is completely mundane, and to talk about it isn't really going to get the point across, so I don't really have much to say about it that's worth saying. It's a perplexing collection of scenes (or maybe sequences is a better word) that are at least thematically related, for the most part, and some of them (one sequence in particular) are atmospheric to the point of being ungodly creepy, while others are just kind of there and I don't know why. I like it, but I'm not sure why, I'm not even sure what it is.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 22, 2015, 04:53:39 PM
I'm on season 2 of Hannibal. Pretty good series, and I like the guy that plays the titular character. Has anyone else watched this show? Impressions?

I feel like it convolutes itself a bit too much at times, and the pacing is also a little weird. It relies too heavily on dream-sequences and hallucinations for narrative purposes, which can make it seems kind of pretentious sometimes. The show has its flaws, but I'm still watching it and excited about the episodes to come, so it's obviously doing something right.  I haven't read any of the books or seen the movies about Hannibal Lecter, so being completely ignorant of the source material is also helping me appreciate the series more, probably moreso than someone who already knows what is going to happen. I feel like I'm watching it mostly because Mads Mikkelsen is so perfect for the role that it seems meant to be. Watching him simply converse with non-main characters is exciting by itself.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on May 24, 2015, 03:25:42 AM
Tokyo Story (Yasujirō Ozu, 1953)

I really don't know how to feel about Ozu. His style just seems to... mundane. And not even in a way that is eccentric or endearing, unlike in the film I'm about to review next. Ozu diverts very rarely from his trademark shot composition: extremely low camera height, single point perspective and no camera movement whatsoever. Frequent use of shot-reverse shot for one-on-one conversations where the people only look ever so slightly off camera. Aside from his occasional use of ellipsis, his storytelling is very straightforward. The film is essentially a commentary on post-war urbanisation in Japan, told through an elderly couple visiting Tokyo, who find that their children have no time for them. Only their widowed daughter-in-law treats them with hospitality. I guess it's good for what it is, but I didn't find it very interesting. 7/10

Café Lumière (Hou Hsiao-Hsien, 2003)

This film was made as an homage to Ozu, and sure enough, there are some indirect references here. An affinity for trains is a prominent one - I'm pretty sure that a certain shot of a passing train in this film is shot in the exact same location as another in Tokyo Story. Use of ellipsis is another, although this is a prominent Hou trademark as well. Lack of camera movement is typical for Hou as well, but here in Ozuan fashion he also occasionally places his camera at a very low height. This makes for some interesting compositional decisions, as the wider aspect ratio makes it serve an entirely different purpose as what Ozu used it for.

The references to Tokyo Story are there, but it's not really a Tokyo story itself; although it is set in Tokyo as well, there isn't an actual story in it. Instead I would characterise it as a portrait of everyday life in modern Japan, painted with vignettes from the life of Yoko, a writer who is obsessed with a Taiwanese composer, and her endearing encounters with a bookshop keeper who is obsessed with recording the sound of trains. The motif of generational shift is repeated here with Yoko's parents, who don't know how to respond to Yoko's intention to raise the child she is expecting by herself.

What keeps this film from falling into the realms of mundanity has a lot to do with cinematographer Mark Lee Ping Bin. I probably didn't emphasise enough in my Millennium Mambo review how great this guy is. Hou's long and still shots look like paintings under Ping Bin's lighting, with reflective surfaces and high exposition. It's like a modern day Barry Lyndon. He also jointly did the cinematography in Wong Kar-wai's In the Mood for Love, another film that looks absolutely gorgeous. As for Hou himself, it seems the more I see of his films, the more I'm obsessed with him. 9/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 24, 2015, 12:44:48 PM
Guardians of the Galaxy (James Gunn)

So, this is it, the last movie on the list. 2015: A Capeshit Odyssey is officially done and dusted. Despite the fact that I found most of the films either okay or mediocre, the overall experience has been an enjoyable one, and there are some really fun movies in there, stuff I wasn't expecting to like at all. Iron Man 3 was the big surprise, since I had given the worst reviews of the entire Odyssey to the previous two films in that particular series, but I really liked it. Captain America: The First Avenger surprised me too, and I really enjoyed its goofy 1940s wartime escapism in conflict with the realities (well, with some extreme liberties taken in regard to the definition of the word) of war itself. The third highlight, I am happy to report, is Guardians of the Galaxy, which isn't so much capeshit as a space romp in the manner of Star Wars, although I have to say I enjoyed it much more than any Star Wars film.

Right from the start with the cold open I wasn't really sure what to expect, I think the fact that the film does mislead the viewer tonally at the start does work well, because the surprise of first meeting Starlord is a really good reveal that wouldn't have worked so well otherwise. The overall levity of the film combined with its gleeful violence, which certainly does outdo anything prior in the MCU, really works for me, and I think it suits the characters very well indeed. The Guardians are a disparate bunch of outlaws who have good chemistry and their group-based humour really works because of it, at least ~90% of the time, while occasionally a one liner will fall flat, usually because it's unnecessary. This superfluity does infect other parts of the film at times, and many of the action scenes suffer because of this, having to them a similar aesthetic as those of The Winter Soldier, in which shots cannot be held for more than one second without the director apparently getting bored. This is a shame as shots are occasionally held, usually for comedic effect, and they work much better whether as jokes or as straight action than the constant motion of the camera in most scenes.

So, I don't like everything about the film, but I'm more than willing to overlook these admittedly minor problems and say this is one of best films I've seen all year. It rips along, it's full of good humour, the villains and side characters all add something to the growing lore of the MCU, especially nice to see Josh Brolin as the imposing Thanos and Benicio del Toro reprising his role as the gloriously flamboyant Collector (it's kind of hilarious to think they were making this and Inherent Vice together around the same time), and you know, John C. Reilly is always good. So, while this is the last film on the list, I'll probably be sticking around to see if Guardians of the Galaxy 2 can live up to this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on May 24, 2015, 07:36:42 PM
Flowers of Shanghai (Hou Hsiao-Hsien, 1998)

This film is about brothels in 19th century Shanghai and the conditions the prostitutes have to work in. It explores how beneath the ostensibly glamorous surface their lives are that of slavery, and how their only goal in life is to be bought out and married to rich clients. The narrative is very elliptical and fragmented, and with a large cast of different prostitutes from different brothels and a variety of regular clients, it can be difficult keep up with what relation characters have to each other and what events are being referenced.

The setting lets Hou's mise en scène perfectionism run wild, and combined with Ping Bin's always great cinematography, the film is as beautiful as is to be expected. It's shot in a very similar manner to Millennium Mambo: very long shots with a lot of camera panning and actor movement. Right off the bat, the film opens with a highly choreographed nine-minute shot of 10+ actors all working in perfect sync, with the camera always finding the right target to focus on. I believe there's a total of 30 cuts in the entire film. Hou constructs his shots as if they were complex dance routines, and his dedication to his craft is always admirable.

So, visually speaking it's pretty much a masterpiece, but the narrative left something to be desired. It's something that's bound to improve on repeated viewings, since I'll at least know what's going on. 8/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 24, 2015, 11:04:18 PM
Mad Max: Fury Road (George Miller, 2015)

So so fantastic.

I know this is weird to say, but I was so excited when the first woman died. And then even more excited when the second woman died in combat. No weird waif-fu bullshit in this movie. Women fight and die just like the men and it's such a relief.

Like Snupes said, the characters are pretty fleshed out without a whole lot of dialogue. Expressions and gestures go a long way in this movie. And there's a lot of small little details that make the fucked up world more developed and realistic.
Hooray for great dystopian stories!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 25, 2015, 03:26:30 AM
Mad Max: Fury Road (George Miller, 2015)

So so fantastic.

I know this is weird to say, but I was so excited when the first woman died. And then even more excited when the second woman died in combat. No weird waif-fu bullshit in this movie. Women fight and die just like the men and it's such a relief.

Like Snupes said, the characters are pretty fleshed out without a whole lot of dialogue. Expressions and gestures go a long way in this movie. And there's a lot of small little details that make the fucked up world more developed and realistic.
Hooray for great dystopian stories!

If anything they got killed way too fast. The mothers were hyped up a bit as being badasses, but the two on the bike bit it within the first minute of combat. Granted, they were on a bike, I just expected more. Would've lasted longer if they were on the war rig.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 25, 2015, 06:05:23 AM
How do you think they were hyped up? I never got a sense they were supposed to be super badasses. Just old women who could shoot a gun, which they definitely could.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on May 25, 2015, 06:27:48 AM
Well, for starters it seemed to me that anyone capable of living in such a wasteland was a badass already. Furiosa was from their group, and she's a badass. Ontop of that, they had that short scene where one of them bragged about being an amazing shot. When I saw the war rig and the bike leading in to the final sequence, I just thought the bike would be zipping around while the war rig is destroyed slowly or something.

It's mostly me reading in to them, but thinking back now it does seem retarded to have been on the bike at all given how useless it was. Ultimately, being forced to be this nitpicky goes to show how great the movie was.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 25, 2015, 01:55:10 PM
The bikes are all they had. And even badasses die when up against other badasses. But they were really good shots.

You can't judge them all by Furiosa since she had been away for so long.The Vuvalinis relied on a trap and ambush method to stay alive and there were only a handful of them left. 

I don't know, I didn't think they were hyped up. They seemed tired with little hope left.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on May 25, 2015, 10:31:34 PM
Goodbye South, Goodbye (Hou Hsiao-Hsien, 1996)

I feel pretty much the same way about this as I did about Flowers of Shanghai. I may have to keep repeating this a lot in my Hou reviews, but this film is gorgeous. Seriously, everything from this guy is just stellar in terms of cinematography. The thing I keep reading about Hou is how little camera movement he uses (which certainly was the case in Café Lumière, and presumably his earlier work which I will get to eventually), but again I'm left surprised by how little Hou sticks to his own conventions, as here he utilises tracking shots, crane shots and various fascinating POV shots to great effect (still no sign of shot-reverse shot, I wonder if I'm ever going to see that in a Hou film?). There's a lot of juxtaposition between lush vistas of rural Taiwan and the neon-lit cityscape of Taipei.

As was the case with Flowers, in this film it's again difficult to get a good grasp on what exactly is going on. A small-time gangster and his pitiful entourage get into financial trouble and their attempts at get-rich-quick schemes lead them into a deeper hole. The gangster contemplates over his desire to leave the life of crime behind and start a restaurant. A lot of major events are either merely referenced or implicitly discussed over the phone, so I didn't get a very clear picture of the events. Again, might be something that improves with a rewatch. 8/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on May 28, 2015, 04:07:01 PM
Flight of the Red Balloon (Hou Hsiao-Hsien, 2007)

This film is to Paris as what Café Lumière was to Tokyo. It pays homage to Albert Lamorisse's short film The Red Balloon, even making direct reference to it. In an uncharacteristically self-referential fashion, one of the main characters, a Chinese film student (who incidentally plays herself) is also making an homage to The Red Balloon in the film. Her role is focused more on her job as a nanny, and the film follows her and the boy she looks after, as well as the boy's stressed out single mother, in a once again fairly plotless manner. All the while a red balloon looms over Paris, acting as a distant inconsequential observer; and at times, Hou's camera does the same by taking out a page out of Yang's directing style book and shooting the action through windows, placing prominent reflections of Parisian streets over the action. Red balloons are referenced in the dialogue as well (often coinciding with the appearance of the actual red balloon) in instances where the subjects referenced bear symbolistic resemblance to the lives of the characters.

In a way all of Hou's films are explorations of the human condition in different cultures, time periods and ages, and as such his films remain resonant and poignant despite usually lacking a conventional narrative structure; in this film, however, it seems less effective (could be just because it's a French production made by a Taiwanese director), as the characters and their actions don't seem to be saying as much. Overall, it's a good film, but not quite as good as his other films. 7/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 28, 2015, 04:21:34 PM
Chinese Charlie Kaufman
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on May 28, 2015, 04:56:16 PM
Chinese Charlie Kaufman

Amusing, but not really true in the slightest. Even at his most self-referential Hou is nowhere near Kaufman's absurdity. Hou loves depicting reality as is, including the mundane, whereas Kaufman seeks to avoid it and is obsessed with the fantastical and surreal.

Also, I haven't mentioned this before, but Hou doesn't actually write his own scripts - most of them are written by novelist Chu Tien-wen. However, I assume that there's a lot of close collaboration between the two to match the scripts to Hou's slow and deliberate rhythm. I tend to attribute his films' storytelling methods to himself, as Hou is first and foremost a visual storyteller.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 29, 2015, 05:15:49 AM
Hooray for great dystopian stories!

Fury Road is post-apocalyptic, not dystopian.  The only movie in the series that you could really call dystopian is the first one.  Speaking of which, in preparation for my own viewing of Fury Road, I have watched the three previous movies in the series, and will now review them:

The first movie, Mad Max, is radically different to the rest of the series in both tone and setting.  It takes place not after the apocalypse, but in a rotting society full of rampant crime and low moral standards that honestly doesn't feel too far away from a collapse.  The movie clearly had a very low budget, and while there are a few thrilling, well-directed car/motorcycle chases and crashes, it puts more of an emphasis on suspense and atmosphere than the actual action - and it worked out very well, because this is a great movie.  Miller's directing is really what makes the movie work as well as it does (I particularly like the use of discretion shots to imply some very harsh and brutal violence without splattering the screen in gore), but there's also something to be said for Mel Gibson's remarkably subtle performance in the title role.  Max Rockatansky isn't the generic HardAss McSuperCop that we typically associate with action heroes; instead, he comes across as very shy and socially awkward, with an endearingly geeky love of cars and driving.  He's a relatable and sympathetic hero, which only makes the harsh events of the plot all the more uncomfortable to watch.  By the end of the movie, his thousand-yard stare feels more than earned.

Now forget about everything I just said, because for better or worse, the sequels pretty much throw all that out the window.  They're much more straightforward action movies, and Max is a much more straightforward action hero in them.  They feel a lot like Westerns - Max wanders through the desert alone, finds some people in a jam, helps them solve their problems, and continues to wander alone.  Oh, yeah, and society collapsed at some point between films.  There's a lot more action and humor in these movies, and while I definitely enjoyed watching them more than the first, I do have to admit that the first is probably better in an artistic, Blanko/Crudblud sense.  Mad Max: The Road Warrior has a simple story about a peaceful colony of people fighting with a gang of raiders over a tank of valuable who the fuck am I kidding it's about wacky car chases, hilarious sight gags, and glorious fashion styles.  Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome is the story of how Max gets involved in some behind-the-scenes political wrangling in a shantytown run by Tina Turner, and when everything goes terribly wrong, is mistaken for the messiah of a cargo cult of a strange tribe of children and reluctantly becomes their savior, and this is the most bizarre sentence that I have ever written in my life.  Despite the wonderful weirdness in this movie (I didn't even mention the midget who runs a pig manure farm and the arena deathmatches on trapezes), this is something of a step down from The Road Warrior.  The plot is too jumbled and convoluted, and they very unwisely reduced the prominence of the ridiculous car chases, which were easily the highlights of the previous two films.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 29, 2015, 04:13:23 PM
Quote
Dystopias are often characterized by dehumanization,[2] totalitarian governments, environmental disaster,[3] or other characteristics associated with a cataclysmic decline in society.

You can easily have a dystopian post-apocalyptic society. It describes the environment, not how the environment came to be. I've seen people try to say that dystopia only relates to wide spread government themes, but technically that is not true.

Big themes from the movie are ecosystems, social stratification, and violence. The story focuses on one community. This is dystopian.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on May 29, 2015, 05:52:07 PM
Post-apocalyptic doesn't necessarily mean dystopian. Fury Road is a post-apocalyptic movie that happens to have dystopian elements, but "dystopian" is not a very good classification for the genre of the movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 29, 2015, 06:02:38 PM
Dystopia translate from Greek to "not good place", so I think the setting in Mad Max qualifies. Sure, different elements were added by sci-fi writers over the years, but the main meaning still applies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 29, 2015, 06:05:52 PM
Post-apocalyptic doesn't necessarily mean dystopian.
I didn't suggest it did.
Quote
Fury Road is a post-apocalyptic movie that happens to have dystopian elements, but "dystopian" is not a very good classification for the genre of the movie.
Why not? You can have more than one genre for a movie. A lot of dystopian environments are formed after an apocalypse. The movie focuses on a community, not rag tag individuals coping with immediate fallout like The Walking Dead, which is what I would consider post-apocalyptic but not dystopian. Dystopian refers to any society/community that sucks. And in Fury Road there is an organized society that is really fucked up.

Dystopia translate from Greek to "not good place", so I think the setting in Mad Max qualifies. Sure, different elements were added by sci-fi writers over the years, but the main meaning still applies.
Exactly.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on May 29, 2015, 06:14:00 PM
We could call it a "shitty place" movie, and that would be accurate, but it's still not a good classification for the genre. "Post-apocalyptic" is what is used for movies like these. "Dystopian" is for things like 1984.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 29, 2015, 06:29:10 PM
We could call it a "shitty place" movie, and that would be accurate, but it's still not a good classification for the genre. "Post-apocalyptic" is what is used for movies like these. "Dystopian" is for things like 1984.

Quote
Dystopias are often characterized by dehumanization,[2] totalitarian governments, environmental disaster,[3] or other characteristics associated with a cataclysmic decline in society.

I've seen people try to say that dystopia only relates to wide spread government themes, but technically that is not true.

Big themes from the movie are ecosystems, social stratification, and violence. The story focuses on one community. This is dystopian.

Someday I hope you realize that you can apply a lot of genres to movies, books, video games. Hardly anything just fits one single genre.
Sure, Fury Road is more easily recognized as a post-apocalyptic movie, but calling it dystopian is not wrong and it's the dystopian elements that make me love it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on May 29, 2015, 06:44:00 PM
A City of Sadness (Hou Hsiao-Hsien, 1989)

A little backstory: Taiwan was under Japan's rule from 1895 until Japan's surrender in WW2, at which point Japan ceded control of Taiwan back over to China. Taiwan became officially governed by the Chinese Nationalist party, which eventually led to growing tensions between Taiwan's inhabitants and the new provincial government, leading to riots causing thousands of casualties. Taiwan was placed under martial law and public discussion of civil unrest was prohibited, until it was lifted in 1987. Two years later, Hou released A City of Sadness, based around the circumstances of the riots.

Hou isn't a documentarian; he's more interested in depicting how the riots affected the average everyday folk, instead of teaching history by capturing the biggest riots for the sake of violent spectacle. As such, it's good to know a bit of Taiwanese history before going into this film. The film follows one family, whose members are each affected by the unrest in individual ways and only capturing glimpses of the unrest. It feels genuine in terms of how the average person living away from most of the action would witness it. The struggles these characters are facing feel all the more personal as a result, and while we don't get to see much of the main action, we learn a lot about the political subtext surrounding it.

This is a huge story with a lot going on, and in accommodation Hou forgoes his typically slow rhythm to pick up the pace. Shots are generally less contemplative and linger for much less time, and there's a lot of crossfading and utilisation of off-screen space to keep the pacing airtight. As such this is a fairly uncharacteristic film for him, but it's a good sign that he can adapt where necessary. Shot compositions are more conservative than what can be found later in his career, but it fits this sort of objective historian portrayal. I may have a slight personal preference for modernist Hou, but this film is regardless expertly made and told. 9/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost of V on May 29, 2015, 06:48:06 PM
We could call it a "shitty place" movie, and that would be accurate, but it's still not a good classification for the genre. "Post-apocalyptic" is what is used for movies like these. "Dystopian" is for things like 1984.

I agree that dystopian doesn't accurately describe the movie 100%, but it doesn't accurately describe most things 100%. That's why most works have several different elements from different genres. Like rooster said. Rarely, if ever, you will find something that adheres to a specific genre completely.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 29, 2015, 09:16:03 PM
Kung Fury. I came.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on May 31, 2015, 03:20:20 PM
The Puppetmaster (Hou Hsiao-Hsien, 1993)

This second part of Hou's trilogy of films on Taiwanese history is definitely the most direct and straightforward Hou film I've seen yet. That is in large because it's biographical, detailing 30 years in the life of a master puppeteer Li Tian-lu during Japanese rule of Taiwan, and how his skills came to be used for Japanese propaganda. As it's a fairly simple display of Li's memoirs, Hou's personal characteristics don't really get to shine through, and this shows very clearly in cinematography as well; for whatever reason, this film looks significantly older than it is. It's shot in 4:3, the lighting is so subdued and reliant on natural light that it's actually difficult to sometimes tell what is going on in the scene because of how dark they are, and the shot compositions are flat and the most unmoving they have ever been. Good performances and political subtext of japanization in Taiwan make this an enjoyable watch overall, but to me it feels like an Ozu film; good, but I didn't find it remarkable at all. 7/10

Good Men, Good Women (Hou Hsiao-Hsien, 1995)

And this is pretty much the polar opposite. It's bursting with everything I love about Hou. As the final part of the historical trilogy, this film actually predicts Hou's shift into contemporary storytelling by not technically being a historical film at all. It's actually an intermingling of three separate storylines: a contemporary story of an alienated actress; a story of the same actress from three years earlier, dealing with her relationship with a gangster; and a film-within-a-film in which the actress plays the leading part, which deals with a group of Taiwanese people going to China to join the anti-Japanese resistance during WW2 (based on a true story).

In his juggling of these three narratives, Hou suggests multiple shifts: a generational shift, a nationalistic shift, and a personal shift in maturity. The three stories suggest that people are faced with struggles despite the circumstances they live in. The actress in the present day story is alienated by her peers and is stalked by a stranger who has stolen her diary and faxes pages of it back to her. The actress in the flashbacks is living in uncertainty, instability and fear of her gangster boyfriend and his enemies. The resistance fighters in the past have to struggle with constant fear of persecution, imprisonment and even execution. A motif of pregnancy appears in each story, as one of the rebels in the historical story has to give her child up for adoption and the actress in the flashbacks struggles with giving up substance abuse while pregnant. It's suggested that she doesn't end up having the baby as we don't see him/her in the present day story. We learn from excerpts of the faxed diary pages that the actress in the present day believes she may be pregnant again, and that the baby would be her now dead gangster boyfriend reincarnated. The film draws strong parallels between the political struggles of the past and the personal struggles of present day, suggesting that both are results of circumstance and isn't judgmental towards either, although one might think the activist youth willing to die for what they believe in are in better shape than the hedonistic and irresponsible youth of the present day.

This film is a mere 108 minutes long, yet with Hou's particular style of minimalist storytelling it never feels like something is sacrificed to keep it as well-contained as it is. The three stories are infused with different visual styles, and they all look gorgeous: the present day story is a precursor to the third part of Three Times, gushing with soft and naturalistic lighting shot in long pans; the flashback story is a precursor to Millennium Mambo with its wide variety of auxiliary lights producing a wide spectrum of neon colours (amusingly, and perhaps consciously, those two films draw similar parallels to each other as the two smaller stories do in this film); and the historical story is shot in black and white, in which Hou demonstrates he is quite capable of that style as well by utilising deep contrasts beautifully. Sadly, this is one of those Asian films that never got any proper distribution and as such the few copies that circulate on the internet are of substandard quality. Hopefully I'll one day see it in a form it deserves.

All in all, this film is a remarkable accomplishment given its sheer ambitiousness. It's a close call between this and Millennium Mambo as my favourite Hou feature. 10/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 02, 2015, 08:55:50 PM
I watched Kick-Ass.  Apparently it got pretty good reviews for the most part, but I didn't like it at all.  The biggest problem with it is that it can't decide whether it's a deconstructive parody of capeshit set in the "real" world, as we see in the scenes that follow the title character, or an over-the-top celebration of capeshit and action movie clichés set in the goofy world of comic books where the laws of physics do not apply and tiny little girls are able to physically overpower grown men three times their size.  They should have just gone with one or the other.  It really sucks a lot of humor out of these "and then reality ensued!" jokes when the perspective is frequently switching to a couple of superheroes for whom reality evidently doesn't ensue and we're supposed to just suspend our disbelief for them.

Speaking of the humor, it's not great.  Nicolas Cage is pretty funny - of course he is, he's Nicolas Cage - and some of the antagonists have a few good lines, but for the most part, the movie's comedy seems to revolve around shock value and the notion that swearing is inherently funny.  The action ranges from passable to pretty bad (the scene with the flashing lights near the end is particularly awful).  And maybe this one is just personal, but I couldn't stand the main character.  He was weird, unfunny, annoying, and utterly unlikable all throughout the movie, and by the end of it, he's no less inept and pathetic than he was in the beginning.  I haven't been this unimpressed by a capeshit character I was apparently supposed to think was badass since Joseph Gordon-Levitt in The Dark Knight Rises.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 02, 2015, 09:08:57 PM
That actor hasn't impressed me in anything. I thought he was bad in Godzilla and as Quicksilver. He reminds me of Sokka and Twilight guy - Jackson something. Just... nothing going on behind the eyes.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 05, 2015, 12:09:36 AM
Bulk reviews, yay!

A Brighter Summer Day (Edward Yang, 1991)

As a huge fan of Yi Yi, I had been meaning to watch this film for a long time as it's frequently hailed as Yang's magnum opus. Frankly, it's almost surprising it's gained any sort of reputation at all given the circumstances - due to copyright issues concerning the use of Elvis songs, this film has never been released on home video and the only way you will see this outside of a select special screening is on a bootleg copy that is just about VHS quality with very inconsistent tracking and forced subtitles that are at times difficult to read. Oh, and it's four hours long. So you'll probably understand why it took me a while to finally get around to watching this.

That all being said, this film is actually really good. Its defining feature is really just the sheer scale of it, which is unprecedented for a Taiwanese production. It has over a hundred speaking roles and it has so many intricately choreographed long shots that it's simply astounding. Oh, and it's four hours long. I already mentioned that, but it's worth bringing attention to just how much intricate craftsmanship there is packed into this film.

Set in 1960s Taipei, it deals with increasing gang violence among the youth and the main character who comes to be involved with gang activity and slowly starts to spiral out of control. Yang uses the long running time for an immense amount of world building and it really sets you into the political climate and attitudes of that era. It does begin to drag a little towards the end - although that could just be because it's just an exhausting watch - but it picks it up again for the climactic and emotional ending. I think I slightly prefer Yi Yi to this, but this is still an amazing film and I hope to see it in a better format soon (Criterion pls). 9/10

Days of Being Wild (Wong Kar-wai, 1990)

Wong is always exciting to watch because I never know what he's going to go for. Here his direction is very up close and personal, using extreme close-ups to convey sexual tension from the slightest of cues. Even when he's not closing up, he never misses a chance to present the scene from a wonderful and unique angle. The theme of unrequited love is the same as in many of his later films, but it's always great to see him tackle it in refreshing and exciting ways. 9/10

Upstream Color (Shane Carruth, 2013)

Made on a mere $50,000 budget (which is still seven times the budget of his previous film), Carruth really owns this film, doing everything from directing, writing, editing, cinematography, playing the lead part, and to even composing the score. You can tell Carruth has great ideas wanting to come out, but it's clear he shouldn't be doing everything himself. Everything about this film has a hint of amateurishness to it - the cinematography is really cheap and digital looking, the acting is pretty weak and the editing is kind of choppy and erratic. You can tell Carruth wants to be a sort of pseudo-Malick with his handheld shooting and quick cuts, but he simply doesn't have the tools to accomplish it properly. That being said, I think he'll be a great director one day, he just needs better production values to work with. 7/10

Syndromes and a Century (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2006)

Seconding Crudblud's sentiments regarding this film, I'm not sure what this is either, but I absolutely loved it. Sure, it's a bunch of loosely connected scenes of people talking or just doing stuff, but Weerasethakul manages to make that a thoroughly mesmerising and meditative experience with his amazing cinematography, mise en scène and use of aural stimuli. Every shot in this film is just so masterfully composed. Some sequences are repeated with slight variations, first in a rural hospital and a second time in a modern urban one, and it's fascinating how small changes in tone, reaction, perspective and some changed dialogue can make the same sequences feel so different and captivating. 10/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on June 05, 2015, 10:27:23 AM
Assault on Precinct 13 (John Carpenter, 1976)

I unfortunately dozed throughout the second half of this movie, but what I remember was good. John Carpenter is bae <3
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 05, 2015, 01:13:28 PM
Three Times (Hou Hsiao-Hsien)

Gettin' my HHH on with this anthology film of three stories. The film has a tripartite and almost symphonic structure, comprising two faster outer movements and a slow inner movement. The outer movements, A Time for Love and A Time for Youth, are the piece's strong points, they flow gracefully and with a certain relaxed comfy quality, but never feel like they are taking too long. The "adagio," A Time for Freedom, is problematic. It is a silent film with intertitles, but it goes against what I would think of as the "right" (for want of a better word) approach to silent cinema and rejects the primacy of motion in favour of stillness and slowness, and while this does set the tone of the piece well, I simply did not find it very interesting to watch. Both outer movements, by contrast, feature great sequences of motion revolving around vehicles; bicycles and boats in the former, motorcycles and cars in the latter — not to mention a wealth of beautiful shots and camera work throughout. For me, this led to the film having a sense of stylistic imbalance — that is to say the styles clash more than contrast, and do not complement each other very well — and while I understand the purpose of the classical, almost ascetic style of A Time for Freedom, it seems really out of place in the sequence.

It's two thirds of a good film, but the middle section is worth sitting through to get to the last, which is a great piece of filmmaking.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 06, 2015, 12:56:00 AM
Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2010)

Unlike Syndromes, this film has a more distinct thematic core to it with its exploration of the theme of reincarnation. It mixes fantastical and mundane into a surreal and dream-like atmosphere, yet it's somehow never as captivating as Syndromes, despite that being arguably completely mundane. It's not quite as intricately paced and it's less interesting in terms of cinematography, with the soft and naturalistic lighting being replaced with over-saturated, bloomy lighting that looks too post-processed and shots lacking that painterly quality Syndromes had. 7/10

Goodbye, Dragon Inn (Tsai Ming-liang, 2003)

Whatever happened to Tsai that made him hate scripts so much? It seems that after his brilliant debut he's become gradually less interested in storytelling, as this film has a total of about ten lines of dialogue. It depicts, roughly in real time, the last screening of a cinema in Taipei, mostly in the form some central characters walking around while the film-within-a-film plays in the background. Frankly, Tsai isn't good enough a visualist to pull this off. He rarely provides a point of interest or attraction, his shot compositions aren't particularly appealing, and with the complete lack of narrative, I just find it difficult to find much of substance here. 5/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 09, 2015, 11:51:32 AM
Badlands (Terrence Malick)

Martin Sheen shoots the shit out of s(h)ome s(h)tupid s(h)quares but gets shunted by the Sheriff, while Sissy Spacek spits poetic verbiage about the whole thing. Malick is at his best when he's shooting man in conflict with nature (see: the locust swarm scene in Days of Heaven), and there are great shots throughout of landscape, flora, and fauna, but the action itself takes precedence as he had not yet developed a penchant for rambling aimlessly for two or more hours about some convoluted pantheistic nature thing, turning in a rather tight, but still with his signature visual style, 90 minute quasi-road movie replete with shoot-outs and car chases.

The hokey narration is a problem here as it is in Days of Heaven, Malick's follow-up feature, after which he would take a twenty year hiatus, but at least Spacek's voice is less annoying than that of Linda Manz. Script tends to be Malick's downfall, spending lots of time stuck in a given place for no apparent reason, then zipping along a hundred miles away without much ado, which is why I call it a quasi-road movie, the journey is nowhere near as important to Malick as the destination, and the characters seem to actively resent the road. Overall I'd say it's a decent film, and even if the characters and the story aren't all that great, it's still worth seeing for Malick's keen eye for pretty images.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 10, 2015, 03:11:16 PM
Millennium Mambo (Hou Hsiao-Hsien)

Hou's masterful direction can only do so much for a film in which people I don't care about do things I don't find interesting. In a way, it feels like A Time for Youth drawn out too long and lacking in impact as a result. I don't think it's bad as a piece of filmmaking, but I just don't find Hou's subject here to be at all engaging. I enjoyed greatly the shots of the Yubari winter, which helped to off-set the neon and concrete texture of the action's main setting, but ultimately the film's highly limited variety of content holds it back in my view, and the sum of its parts is merely okay.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 10, 2015, 07:27:26 PM
Oh boy, it's time for a yet another wall of text.

Happy Together (Wong Kar-wai, 1997)

This one's about the turbulent relationship of a gay couple that become separated while on vacation in Argentina, and they're eventually left with no choice but to seek comfort from each other, albeit in an extremely dysfunctional way – all the jealousy and manipulation towards each other are portrayed in full fashion, but just when you think the film title is incredibly ironic, you do get to see hints of what exactly pulls these two characters together.

Stylistically, this film is very experimental, even for WKW, as it utilises everything in the book: it mixes black-and-white photography with extremely bright and vibrant colours, and it uses a variety of techniques from jump cuts, step printing, variable shutter speed, to things like Bay-esque super-fast panning shots (I don't know the technical term for that), and it all somehow comes together into an energetic piece bursting with emotion. 9/10

Tropical Malady (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2004)

The first half of this film is a much more positive story about a gay couple than that last film. I don't really have that much to say about it. They do romantic things together, and it's pretty endearing I guess? The second half is something completely different. It's about a soldier that gets lost in the jungle and is hunted by the spirit of a tiger shaman. The pacing in this section is incredibly slow, as it's effectively just an hour of a soldier running through the jungle. Some great cinematography makes this an overall positive experience, but just barely. 6/10

And now, it's time for the...
Abbas Kiarostami Extravaganza!

Close-Up (Abbas Kiarostami, 1990)

A relatively straightforward docufiction detailing the trial and the events leading up to it of a man who impersonated the director Mohsen Makhmalbaf. The trial itself is, I believe, the real thing, and Kiarostami got everyone involved in the events to portray themselves for re-enacments. The film has some poignant things to say about human identity and ambition, but most of it is just told by the man on trial in defense for himself, and as such it's not very interesting from a cinematic standpoint. But, this is after all documentarian in nature, so it's set to portray reality as is and nothing more, and it does so competently. 8/10

The Wind Will Carry Us (Abbas Kiarostami, 1999)

This film is all about the exploration of binary opposites, with themes of local and global, connection and disconnection, and life and death. It's about a group of journalists pretending to be engineers coming to a remote village to document a ceremony for a dead centenarian, only to find themselves stuck in this village when the centenarian doesn't end up dying as soon as they expected. In the process we witness one of the journalists, whom the story is focused on, slowly integrate into and accept the laid-back and communal style of living in this remote village. The village itself is fascinating and almost labyrinthian in nature, with houses stacked on top of each other and pathways hidden away, going across rooftops and who knows what else. Kiarostami utilises this disjointed geometry wonderfully in his direction, showing every little nook and alley, and tying it well into the theme of cultural disconnect. 9/10

Like Someone in Love (Abbas Kiarostami, 2012)

An Iranian director makes a Japanese film. That's something you don't see every day. This film is essentially a day and a half in the life of a student and a part-time escort who, despite being faced various troubles in her personal life, is persuaded into meeting a client, who turns out to be an elderly, academic man. He seems to mainly seek company in his lonely life, while the girl makes a great case for herself as the worst prostitute ever, as she tries to coerce the man into sleeping with her, only to fail at doing so and falling asleep. The next day the man drives the girl to her school, and the man encounters the girl's fiance, who mistakes the man as her grandfather. And that's about it, as soon after the film ends, in an extremely abrupt and jarring fashion. We never see the relationship of the elderly man and the escort develop, or why the girl and her asshole fiance are together (it's even directly asked in the film, and the girl tells us she doesn't know), and the themes presented seem woefully underdeveloped. Kiarostami spend a lot of time detailing the minutiae concerns this girl has in her personal life, only to have the main story begin about halfway through and end seemingly in the middle of it. I really don't understand the thought process behind this film.

In all of his films, Kiarostami seems to have a fascination with cars (another film of his I've seen previously, Taste of Cherry, is a particularly prominent example as it takes place almost entirely inside a car), and here he takes great advantage of it by shooting the reflections of the neon lights of Tokyo, as well as the bright blue skies contrasted with overpass roadways during daytime scenes. Other than that, the cinematography is a hit or miss, with some scenes being gorgeously lit, and others suffering from the flatness and shallow focus of digital cinematography. Kiarostami also does fall back on shot-reverse shot too much for my liking, as I never find that to be an interesting way to set up a scene. I would really like to like this film, as what is there is actually quite good, but it ends so abruptly that I can't shake the feeling that there should be at least half an hour to this film that I'm missing. 7/10

Certified Copy (Abbas Kiarostami, 2010)

I watched this film together with Crudblud, and I'm sure he has some things to say about it as well, as we both really enjoyed it. This time the film takes place in Italy, and is spoken in a combination of English, French and Italian. It portrays an afternoon in the lives of a British writer whose book discusses authenticity of art, and a French woman who has an antiques store in Italy. I was a little concerned going into this film that its philosophical set-up would lead to a factor of pretentiousness, as in other films Kiarostami has a habit of using his characters as ideological mouthpieces for his own train of thought, but luckily my concern was completely unfounded; if anything this film sets itself to satirise pretentious thinking, and the two main characters are the most genuine and humanistic that I've yet seen in Kiarostami's films. Their individual disillusionments and perceptions give these characters realistically flawed humanity, and as throughout their day they come to ostensibly increasingly dislike each other, they paradoxically also grow closer to each other, as following an encounter with a barista who mistakes the man for the husband of the woman, the two begin to play a game of pretend marriage that throughout the course of the film begins to blur the line between what is real and what is fake.

In a wonderfully meta fashion it ties into the thematic set-up of authenticity that the two both deal with in their professions, and Kiarostami constantly feeds us with visual imagery that ties into this thematic connection as well. The dialogue is poignant and funny, it flows extremely well and the performances from both of these main actors are great. The cinematography is quite varied as well: some of his typical car porn is included, but he prominently utilises long tracking shots and the occasional use of shot-reverse shot fits well in this much more personal, dialogue-centric film. Overall, it's just an extremely well executed narrative that is both satisfying and thought-provoking. 9/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on June 10, 2015, 07:47:19 PM
I watched Jules and Jim to see what all the hubbub was about. Basically it's about some French dude who lets his friend slip the baguette to his wife. He was in the war first, then he comes back and finds out his wife is cucking him and he just rolls with it like the Frenchman he is. Apparently it was highly influential for modern filmmaking. However, I see this in the same way as the horse drawn carriage being influential in the creation of the Corvette Z06.

I'd rate this hyper pretentious film frenchpeoplesmokingcigarettes/10.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 11, 2015, 01:15:31 AM
Certified Copy (Abbas Kiarostami)

Centring on the idea of reproduction, simulacrum, copies of original works, and a particular theory of looking at these things and their relationships (i.e.: if one is not aware of the original, the copy has the value of the original) as delineated by a lecture glimpsed during the opening scene, the film centres on a man and a woman, bound by a book called Certified Copy, which the man has written. While getting coffee together, he slips out of the café to answer a phone call, during which time the elderly female proprietor mistakes them for a married couple. This sets in motion a kind of play, wherein an imaginary marriage, or a reproduction of a marriage (ceci n'est pas une mariage, as Magritte might say) is the arena for the airing of grievances, disappointments, hopes, fears, memories conjured as if from a genie's lamp, bringing out into the open the secret wishes of bitter divorcees and engendering the sense of hyperreality that the film gradually comes to embody. A church, bells ringing out, glimpsed through a window, dark border space of a bathroom framing the scene like a painting, a TV show, a film — a reproduction? an original? We do not know, it does not matter.

Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson)

It's crazy how much better this film gets with each subsequent viewing. I've seen it three times now, and while I don't think I'll ever like it as much as I like the book it's based on, it has really grown on me over time, all the connections and references I didn't pick up on the first and second times, and who knows, maybe there's more to be found in a fourth viewing? Some day I'll find out. I'm still disappointed that so much content was cut from the book, but as I've said before, they only had so much money to work with, and Lemuria rising from the pacific ocean probably would be quite expensive to pull off.

P.S.: Pynchon has a cameo in the movie, but it is incredibly brief. During the scene where Doc and Coy talk at the Boards' house, he walks by the window twice, the first time he slows down and looks into the camera for about a second before moving on. I know this because I am a nerd. His face and hair match Salman Rushdie's description of him (after Rushdie was no longer under threat from the fatwa issued against him by Ayatollah Khomeini, against which Pynchon had written an open letter, the two met in New York), as well as the most recent picture of him that was snapped by a photojournalist who chanced upon him walking his son home from school — Pynchon promptly told the journalist to fuck off when he approached him for an interview.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 11, 2015, 10:54:56 PM
Mad Max (George Miller)

Having watched Loony Lewis, I feel like I can now understand what it must be like to be on crack. I had a whole bunch of puns (Mental Mike, Crazy Chris, Enraged Eric, Angry Angus, Frenzied Frank, Loopy Larry, Batshit Brian, Demented Dylan, Bonkers Bill, Cheesed-off Charlie, Nutty Neil, Gaga Glen, Hysterical Harold, Potty Pete, Tetchy Thomas, Wacky Will und so weiter) lined up, but I don't really know what to write about this film so that I can use them all in any way other than listing them off.

I liked it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 12, 2015, 02:20:52 AM
Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (George Miller)

Lots of explosions and violence and all that good stuff, but it lacks the manic intensity and bizarre editing of the original and is not so much Mad Max as it is Non-Threatening Nigel, Middle-of-the-road Michael, Generic Geoffrey. While the first half of the film goes pretty well, after the bad guys shoot the dog (at least they didn't butcher it and hang it from a tree, unlike last time) it seems to lose any sort of tension, and that's probably because the characters were all people I didn't really give a shit about. The plot is basically "I'm a dickhead and I want your fuel." "I'm a dickhead and you can't have my fuel." "I'm a dickhead and I can help you transport the fuel away from those dickheads, you dickhead." And so it culminates in a bunch of dickheads driving and screaming and exploding.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 12, 2015, 02:42:22 AM
And so it culminates in a bunch of dickheads driving and screaming and exploding.

In glorious and hilarious fashion.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 12, 2015, 04:37:28 AM
Hiroshima mon amour (Alain Resnais, 1959)

This film tries to have something to say about the horrors of war and romance, but the characters are such non-people, reduced to mouthpieces for reciting poetic dialogue, that it lacks the humanity to adequately make a statement about either. In the beginning of the film, the French female main character tries to understand the horrors Hiroshima went through in WW2, while the Japanese male character repeatedly tells her she knows nothing; ultimately, Resnais does not either. He is a pretty good director though, I'll give it that. 6/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on June 12, 2015, 06:32:33 AM
Millennium Mambo (Hou Hsiao-Hsien, 2001)

Well, this was a movie. I'm not entirely sure what to think about it, to be honest. The first 20 or so minutes were very difficult, as—aside from the music—it was just really, really dull for me. I couldn't get into it at all or bring myself to care about what was happening. So, in a way, I relate very much to Crudblud's feelings about the movie.

After that point, it picks up. Mainly because of the portrayal of Vicky and Hao-Hao's aggravatingly abusive relationship, specifically the way he is towards her. It's nothing new (honestly, the movie just felt like a better-done version of movies I've seen a thousand times before, in terms of plot), but Qi Shu and Tuan Chun-hao are very good actors. The emotions were very real, the way it didn't try to play Hao-Hao up as a horrible, unfeeling monster like many stories about relationships like that do was great, the fact that Vicky wasn't defined solely as a victim...it was probably the best-done film about such a toxic relationship I can think of.

The main problem for me was, aside from those parts, the rest of it just didn't pull me in. Differently from Crudblud, the neon and concrete textures held my interest moreso than the winters (probably partly because I live in winter most of my life and it's become pretty ugly to me). One of the greatest things about this film is the visuals. One thing I've been getting noticeably sick of in American cinema (which I see more of than anyone I know, so it's had a lot of time to fester in my mind) is the horrible, horrible dried, empty colours in cinematography. The way the same colours are used over and over across films because that's what's standard, specifically the egregious filtering of things through orange and blue because hay complementary saturation blurbleh. Visuals are boring more often than not, especially in blockbuster films. This movie, on the other hand, has a wide spectrum of variety, and it's a very, very pleasant change. I've noticed this when I watch foreign things in general, so that combined with the fact that Hou is just a great director in general, and Ping Bin works wonders with his cinematography all around, made for a pleasant viewing experience. It's pretty incredible how the tiny sets never felt tiny or constrained at all.

The real highlight of the movie, though, is the soundtrack. I love it. I mean, the one motif that keeps popping up throughout the movie wore thin by the end, but in general it is very nice. The ending song in particular. Mmm.

So yeah, overall I'm not sure where to put this film. It did a great job of making me feel (I hate Hao-Hao with a burning passion), but aside from their relationship I can't honestly say I cared a ton about the rest of what happened. Everything near the end just kind of "happened", and I just watched, not really having any stake in any of it. If it weren't for the direction and the music, I think a lot of this film would've been a lot more difficult to sit through, but as it is I enjoyed a good chunk of it. The overall story, though, didn't leave anything with me. So that's the conclusion, I guess?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 13, 2015, 03:47:03 AM
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (Luis Buñuel, 1972)

Buñuel strings together sequences in which a group of bourgeois repeatedly fail to dine together, as well as several dream sequences in which the dining does happen but end in disaster. Buñuel uses his surrealistic style for comedic effect, and the film is quite witty and funny as a result. Aside from the snappy and energetic camerawork, the film is visually quite unremarkable, but it is well edited and flows gracefully. 8/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 14, 2015, 03:32:44 AM
La Jetée (Chris Marker, 1962)

This is a nifty little featurette composed almost entirely of static black-and-white photgraphs, with overlaid narration and audio recordings. It details the aftermath of WW3, and the nature of time travel experiments done on one particular subject, who comes to fall in love with a woman he meets in the past. Notably, its concepts have inspired 12 Monkeys. It's pretty great. 9/10

Sans Soleil (Chris Marker, 1983)

I don't know how to describe this. Is it a documentary? A travelogue? An art collage? I'd say, in general terms, it's a portrait of a culture. Or maybe even all of humanity. Marker's phenomenal compositional sense and amazingly written narration makes this a nearly perfect experience. I still cannot wrap my mind around it. 10/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on June 14, 2015, 06:33:06 AM
300: Rise of an Empire. Was good.
Interstellar. Was good.
Pacific Rim. Was good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: The Ellimist on June 17, 2015, 12:17:08 AM
Saw Watchmen. Still deeply disturbed.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on June 22, 2015, 09:01:23 AM
I'm almost through re-watching Stargate SG1 from the start. One thing which surprised me is how much I'm enjoying the later series. I remember from watching it for the first time that when O'Neill left the team, and they brought in a mostly-new cast that the quality dropped off a cliff. In actual fact, the new cast refreshed the series and the new enemy (The Ori) are an interesting and novel enemy after eight series fighting the Go'auld.

One problem is that, during its original run, SG1 and SG: Atlantis ran concurrently, with plot elements from one bleeding into the other. Re-watching it on Netflix, I'm watching all of SG1 before I start on SGA, and there are times when I've been left a little out-of-the-loop (Wait, when did they design this amazing new ship? When did they get this MacGuffin to work? Wait, who is this secondary character I'm supposed to care about?)

In conclusion, it's been worth the re-watch, and I'm glad that I stuck with it after the point at which my younger self walked away.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 22, 2015, 07:36:41 PM
I finally got around to watching Fury Road.  It was great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 23, 2015, 08:14:00 AM
Finishing up my Hou Hsiao-Hsien anthology are six films from the 80s. All of them besides Daughter of the Nile are very sentimental, set at least partially in rural regions with plentiful shots of grassy fields and evoking a sense of nostalgia with their recurring theme of "simpler times". The clear distinction from what can be regarded as "modernist" Hou and antiquated production values (none of these films were filmed with live sync audio; A City of Sadness was the first Taiwanese film to do so) kept me from watching these films for a while (as well as the horrendous quality some of these films only exist in), but I'm glad I got around to doing it, as at least two of these films are actually very good.

The Green, Green Grass of Home (1982)

I have very little to say about this one. It's a petty small town drama where things happen and then are forgotten about with little sense of causality or narrative arc. Not that it's exactly unusual for Hou's films to be very loosely constructed, as even his modern films do that - but here Hou clearly hasn't matured enough as a director to have that pull and captivating quality to make something like this interesting. 6/10

The Boys from Fengkuei (1983)

A ragtag group of misfits move to the big city to learn independence and responsibility. It's very straightforward and simple, but well enough executed. Some highlights include some very good vertically panning shots of the building the kids live in, demonstrating that even in his early days Hou had some tricks up his sleeve. 7/10

A Summer at Grandpa's (1984)

I feel pretty much the same way about this as I do about The Green, Green Grass of Home. As the title suggests, it revolves around a couple of kids that spend their summer at their grandparents' place. They make friends and spend their hours away doing standard kid stuff. What makes this film slightly more interesting is the subversion of that traditional formula, as most of the actual storytelling revolves around the adult characters, and the kids have to come face to face with realities of adult life. Otherwise, it shares much of the same flaws with the aforementioned film. 6/10

A Time to Live, a Time to Die (1985)

This is the film where I feel Hou really hit his stride as a director. It's based on Hou's own memories of his childhood and depicts the growth and coming-of-age of a youth, and how the losses in his family shape him as a person. As both of his parents become ill and die, the main character has to seek a sense of belonging from other sources and becomes involved in gang activity as a result, while his family becomes more and more reliant on his support throughout the film. It's poignant, but a bit too elliptical and meandering to be as impactful as it could have been, and in a very Ozuan fashion he doesn't deem it fitting to dramatize the events beyond what is necessary. Lighting and cinematography in this film are absolutely stellar. 8/10

Dust in the Wind (1986)

This is the greatest of these six films. It depicts a young couple who leave their home town to move to Taipei to earn enough to get married. Despite what appears at outset, it's not a romantic film; both of these main characters are too busy in their work lives to spend much time with each other, and even when they do get the opportunity it becomes obvious that they're only together through circumstance and cultural expectations of getting married sooner rather than later. Eventually they drift apart completely and move on with their lives. In a way this film feels similar to Café Lumière with their thematic depictions of cultural disconnect, generational shift, urban independence, rejection of romanticism, and lots and lots of traaaaaaains. Once again, the film looks gorgeous, stepping it up even further from the previous feature. 9/10

Daughter of the Nile (1987)

This in turn is the worst Hou feature I've seen. It's the first Hou film to be set in present time (that I know of) and does very little of success with it. It's an exploration of a present-day family dynamic that does very little exploration at all, with a lot of gang violence that becomes a lot more tactful in his later films. Aesthetically it's probably his weakest film as well, as he incorporates a spectrum of neon lights, which really just detracts from the graceful and soft lighting that make the two previous films look gorgeous. History shows that Hou would later utilise this sort of style to much greater effect in Good Men, Good Women and perfect it in Millennium Mambo, but here it looks like an ineffective, cheap imitation. 5/10

With that all said and done, this concludes my HHH anthology. It unfortunately doesn't cover every one of his films, as the three that are missing are seemingly impossible to find. Without further ado, here is my personal ranking of the 15 films I did get to see:

1. Good Men, Good Women (1995)
2. Millennium Mambo (2001)
3. Café Lumière (2003)
4. Three Times (2005)
5. A City of Sadness (1989)
6. Dust in the Wind (1986)
7. A Time to Live, a Time to Die (1985)
8. Goodbye South, Goodbye (1996)
9. Flowers of Shanghai (1998)
10. The Flight of the Red Balloon (2008)
11. The Boys from Fengkuei (1983)
12. The Puppetmaster (1993)
13. A Summer at Grandpa's (1984)
14. The Green, Green Grass of Home (1982)
15. Daughter of the Nile (1987)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 23, 2015, 11:21:59 AM
Mad Max (George Miller, 1979)

Where's all the madness, Max? This film almost seems afraid to embrace the silliness, madness and campiness that it occasionally lets you in on. For most of the film Max is the fish out of the water, the lone American amidst all the crazy bogans yelling OI M8 WHATS ALL THIS THEN, and just to make sure that the personalities of ordinary Australian people don't get too crazy for you, the film leaves plenty of time for enjoying Happy Family Vacation Time before Max finally takes a step into the madness for the remaining ten minutes. It's almost a blessing that Max receives relatively little screentime, as he's the least mad part of this relatively un-mad world.

As for the assertion Saddam made that this is "artistic in the Blanko/Crudblud sense", I think that's just because this isn't the big dumb action movie it wants to be - hell, it's not really even the big campy silly car chase movie. I certainly didn't find Miller's direction remarkable at all, and ultimately what I got out of it is that it's a film struggling to find an identity for itself. 6/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 23, 2015, 01:26:13 PM
Mad Max 2 (George Miller, 1981)

Well, this certainly was a big dumb action movie. It once again falls into the "campy but not embracing it" category, although here it's definitely not due to a lack of focus. The whole thing feels like an action movie checklist. It's predictable and formulaic, and the worst thing is that the only characters with any character aren't given time to shine before they turn into dudes who drive cars. I guess it's good action though, so... it's pretty good as long as you turn your brain off, lmao? 6/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on June 23, 2015, 02:05:53 PM
lmao?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on June 23, 2015, 02:09:20 PM
because the only way to enjoy an action movie is to turn your brain off
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 23, 2015, 02:19:11 PM
because the only way to enjoy an action movie is to turn your brain off

It's not necessary, but typical.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2015, 04:08:40 PM
because the only way to enjoy an action movie is to turn your brain off

It's not necessary, but typical.

Typical of you.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 23, 2015, 04:25:49 PM
because the only way to enjoy an action movie is to turn your brain off

It's not necessary, but typical.

Typical of you.

 ???
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2015, 04:39:53 PM
because the only way to enjoy an action movie is to turn your brain off

It's not necessary, but typical.

Typical of you.

 ???

I just wanted to clarify that you don't speak for anyone else. It was not apparent from your previous comments.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 23, 2015, 04:42:22 PM
because the only way to enjoy an action movie is to turn your brain off

It's not necessary, but typical.

Typical of you.

 ???

I just wanted to clarify that you don't speak for anyone else. It was not apparent from your previous comments.

I see. Have you consulted everyone and made sure I'm not talking for any one of them?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2015, 04:45:25 PM
because the only way to enjoy an action movie is to turn your brain off

It's not necessary, but typical.

Typical of you.

 ???

I just wanted to clarify that you don't speak for anyone else. It was not apparent from your previous comments.

I see. Have you consulted everyone and made sure I'm not talking for any one of them?

Irrelevant.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 23, 2015, 04:46:50 PM
because the only way to enjoy an action movie is to turn your brain off

It's not necessary, but typical.

Typical of you.

 ???

I just wanted to clarify that you don't speak for anyone else. It was not apparent from your previous comments.

I see. Have you consulted everyone and made sure I'm not talking for any one of them?

Irrelevant.

It just sounded to me like you were speaking for other people. We wouldn't want that, would we?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 23, 2015, 05:09:57 PM
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (George Miller, 1985)

Well, this certainly was a... big dumb adventure movie.

Without all the big dumb car chases adding context to the setting, the difference between what is post-apocalyptic and what is simply foreign culture begins to blur. The two archetypes presented here - trading shantytown and secluded tribe - are ubiquitous enough that they could as well be placed in the real present-day world. As such, this film is essentially an Indiana Jones in disguise. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but given how all three of these films are so drastically different, it's difficult to picture what the Mad Max universe even is.

Judged on its own merit, however, this film is the best out of the three. The characters are more fleshed out, the script is better and wittier (fuckin' Master Blaster), the action is more varied and better paced, and even the cinematography is drastically improved. But it really does just feel like a poor man's Indiana Jones film. The core concepts used here are not really fleshed out into a unique and fitting universe, but it's well made and I enjoyed it. 7/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2015, 05:19:57 PM
because the only way to enjoy an action movie is to turn your brain off

It's not necessary, but typical.

Typical of you.

 ???

I just wanted to clarify that you don't speak for anyone else. It was not apparent from your previous comments.

I see. Have you consulted everyone and made sure I'm not talking for any one of them?

Irrelevant.

It just sounded to me like you were speaking for other people. We wouldn't want that, would we?

Incorrect.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 23, 2015, 07:39:59 PM
Mad Max: Fury Road (George Miller, 2015)

It's The Road Warrior again, but even bigger and dumber! Really, though, this is easily the best out of the four films. In action movies, pacing is everything. You don't wanna see too much of the same thing before it loses all tension and impact, and this film does a great job avoiding it despite having by far the most action overall in the series. Not only that, but it successfully ties in characterization, plot moments and campy villain action amidst all the action, and never feels the need to (literally) come to a standstill. It's just really well paced and has a great naturally flowing rhythm to it.

I had some grievances, though. One which I've held since I've seen the trailers is how this film looks - the colour grading is variably either horribly oversaturated (this film really likes to abuse blue-orange contrast) or really flat (especially in the night time scenes, which are really ugly), contrast changes from shot to shot, and the editing is pretty sloppy as well - some shots look obviously sped up while others are obviously greenscreened. It's a shame that while this film boasts some amazing practical effects, the end result looks more like a video game cutscene. The script is a big dumb mess, but that's not really even a major issue in a film like this. Overall, this film is an impressive feat, even if it does still have a lot of big dumb in it. 8/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 24, 2015, 04:34:39 PM
Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome (Gerogerigegege Miller)

I enjoyed watching this pretty well. It feels like a far cry from it predecessor, which in turn seemed the same in comparison with the original Mad Max, and the series has generally gotten lighter, the violence more comic than brutal, and this film in particular has a distinct sense of theme park rides about it. They don't even kill a dog in this movie! What the hell, George, where are the dead dogs? The title is accurate, as most of the film does not take place inside the Thunderdome, which is basically pro wrestling combined with Ancient Roman gladiatorial combat and that Star Trek fight scene in which Kirk and Spock hit each other with sticks while silly music plays in the background, the difference is that it's officiated by Tina Turner with big white hair. The music doesn't have the raw edgy quality of Brian May's scores for the first two films, and I guess that fits the generally lighthearted tone of the film pretty well, and blah blah blah blah. So yeah, it was pretty good, but so far none comes close to the original for me. Guess I'll #furyroad at some point.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on June 25, 2015, 02:01:44 AM
Adaptation. (Spike Jonze, 2002)

Wow. Never before (I think) has a movie taken me on such a wild rollercoaster of emotions.

I'll admit, at the start I was kinda bored. Chalk it up partly to my general exhaustion, but it took a while for the film to sink its claws into me and really dig deep. Which, honestly, I feel goes perfectly with the potpourri that is the film's script. Well, the film's film's script, not necessarily the film's script (though that too).

Nicolas Cage really was a brilliant choice for Kaufman, because he plays the brothers amazingly well. It's a good sign that I could easily tell them apart simply by mannerisms and the way they talk. Though I could've told simply through the way they dress, the extra effort was admirable.

I'm not sure how deeply I want to get into this because I really don't consider myself good at discussing this sort of stuff; I have all sorts of thematic intricacies and ideas in my head, but I'd rather not convey them here for fear that I'll come off an idiot for either finding painfully obvious themes astounding, for annoyingly taking things the wrong way and making themes up where there are none, or missing blindingly clear ones. That said, I do absolutely love the way the script twists and changes with everything that goes on in Donald's life, particularly the way the film (possible spoiler?) becomes a far-fetched thriller as soon as his brother is involved with the screenplay.

Not really going to delve further to save face, but I really freaking liked this film. It was just good, good, good all around. I really don't like watching movies more than once, but I may do so with this later on. Honestly quite possibly one of the best movies I've ever seen.

EDIT: Forgot to point out, while I usually watch movies straight through with no stopping, I actually had to take two sorta big breaks on this and skip over a little. Two scenes in particular rattled me, caught me by surprise and kinda sent me into a panic, had to stop watching for maybe fifteen to twenty minutes each. Would've been nice to know about those in advance. So hopefully I didn't miss anything important there.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 25, 2015, 02:16:38 PM
Mad Max: Fury Road (George Miller)

I like it about as much as I like the original Mad Max, and it's definitely better than the other "sequels". I feel like Max could make for a good James Bond type character, played by different guys in various incarnations in a long running, generally episodic series — in the sense that events in one film don't really have much to do with events in another most of the time. Of course, Max isn't really the highlight here, I'm not familiar with Hardy's acting, but both he and the film itself really downplay his importance, often he is totally outshone by Furiosa, who is more than a match for his skills and a badass in general. The big bad, Immortan Joe, is played by Hugh Keays-Byrne, who was the Toecutter in the original film, and while Joe isn't anywhere near as memorable as Toecutter, he is despicable and his tyrannical regime is thoroughly rotten and disgusting, making him much more hateable than the non-character that is Lord Humungus or the affable Aunty Entity. My major issue with the film is just how synthetic a lot of it feels, owing to its hyper saturated colour palette and CGI special effects, the latter of which clashes with the brilliant vehicle designs and practical effects work in a cumbersome fashion. Overall it is solid, and I would probably watch it again.

Dead Leaves (Hiroyuki Imaishi)

Hiroyuki Imaishi, known for his work on FLCL, Gurren Lagann, and Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt, along with other wacky shit, helms this batshit insane animated tale of violence, sex, and more violence, with more hyperkinetic madness per second than you can shake a drill-penis at. To his credit, he obviously has a lot of passion for his work, and his technique is highly creative and imaginative, almost always making the most of possibilities in each scene.

Retro, a guy with a TV for a head, and Pandy, named for her distinctive panda-like facial markings, let loose on a rampage of extreme violence, eventually being captured by the police and sent to space prison, where they meet all kinds of perverted inmates and are forced to eat and shit with the aid of machines. And that's the set-up for the next forty minutes of non-stop action. The whole thing is totally amoral, giving up any sense of right and wrong in the service of pure action and comedy; everyone is crazy violent, everyone is a sex maniac, and anyone who isn't one or both of those things is probably going to end up fodder for some deranged slapstick sequence. Hell, even the ones who are those things are fodder for deranged slapstick sequences.

While highly convoluted and disorienting at times, Imaishi's direction is absolutely brilliant. The film is a work of almost perpetual motion, breathers few and far between, as the brain is left to make sense of it all. But don't fall for that reflex action, just settle down and go with it, because chances are you won't have time to parse what's going on between each explosion of crazy. The music also plays right into the high-octane sensibilities of the production, delivering fast paced dancey punk and EDM. The synergy of sight and sound is part of what propels the action so well, not just the music but also the voice acting, which is appropriately loud, unhinged, and raucous.

While it seems to aim for a kind of transcendence through its velocity and fluidity, its story elements are lacking, mainly because the lack of breathing room is in conflict with its desire to tell an essentially coherent narrative, and I find that these two elements just don't mesh all that well. Either concessions to story must be made, necessitating a  longer duration or less action, or the action must reign supreme and the immediate story (i.e.: no backstory, just the story of the now) must be told entirely with action, Imaishi just can't quite seem to pick one, and the work is lesser than it could have been as a result. Having said that, I enjoyed Dead Leaves, Imaishi's imaginative style and sense of humour really shine throughout, and I feel that it is well worth watching for its great visuals and the controlled chaos of its rollercoaster-fast action sequences.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on June 25, 2015, 02:19:21 PM
My major issue with the film is just how synthetic a lot of it feels, owing to its hyper saturated colour palette and CGI special effects, the latter of which clashes with the brilliant vehicle designs and practical effects work in a cumbersome fashion.

Which CGI effects, specifically?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 25, 2015, 03:38:07 PM
My major issue with the film is just how synthetic a lot of it feels, owing to its hyper saturated colour palette and CGI special effects, the latter of which clashes with the brilliant vehicle designs and practical effects work in a cumbersome fashion.

Which CGI effects, specifically?

I would have to go back and watch it again to give specific examples, at the moment I'm just going on recollection. I know the vast majority of the crashes and stunts were done physically, Miller is no slouch when it comes to that stuff, but I definitely recall being taken out of the action a bunch of times by some cheesy looking CGI.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on June 25, 2015, 03:40:52 PM
My major issue with the film is just how synthetic a lot of it feels, owing to its hyper saturated colour palette and CGI special effects, the latter of which clashes with the brilliant vehicle designs and practical effects work in a cumbersome fashion.

Which CGI effects, specifically?

I would have to go back and watch it again to give specific examples, at the moment I'm just going on recollection. I know the vast majority of the crashes and stunts were done physically, Miller is no slouch when it comes to that stuff, but I definitely recall being taken out of the action a bunch of times by some cheesy looking CGI.

The example of blatant CGI I can think of is the sand storm, but I thought even that looked pretty good. Maybe some of the citadel shots, as well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 25, 2015, 04:15:31 PM
The CGI was mostly used for the landscape, but I thought it all looked pretty good and wouldn't be able to tell what wasn't there if I watched it again.
It might be more obvious on the Citadel gear/machinery shots, but that room wasn't shown for any extended period of time. Even if you could tell, I don't agree with the cheesy descriptor.

http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/mad-max-fury-road-cgi-effects-explainer/
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 25, 2015, 05:17:02 PM
You might as well have linked to the article that article linked to, because it's a lot more informative:

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual-effects-of-mad-max-fury-road/

You silly rooster. :P  Also, unlike Blanko and Crudblud, my favorite of the original three was The Road Warrior.  It delivered the best road action out of any of them, until of course Fury Road came along.  The minimal narrative didn't matter at all to me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on June 25, 2015, 08:12:26 PM
Some of the citadel bits looked extremely fake, but you had to look closely and the shots never lingered on them.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 30, 2015, 02:17:27 PM
Birdman (Alejandro González Iñárritu)

Yeah it was alright. The style is neat and the performances are good, but I wasn't particularly awed by any of it. Not much to say.

Café Lumière (Hou Hsiao-Hsien)

Displays none of the problems I've had with Hou in the past. It's also comfy as fuck.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 30, 2015, 11:02:19 PM
I'm very pleased to see that the shitty-looking Terminator thing is getting critically reamed:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/terminator_genisys/

Will this finally kill off Jai-neric Courtney's career?  No, because he's appearing in next year's Suicide Squad.  Like I said, Hollywood is determined to make him a star, no matter what audiences think of him.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on July 01, 2015, 01:48:26 AM
John Wick. Was good.

I'm very pleased to see that the shitty-looking Terminator thing is getting critically reamed:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/terminator_genisys/

Will this finally kill off Jai-neric Courtney's career?  No, because he's appearing in next year's Suicide Squad.  Like I said, Hollywood is determined to make him a star, no matter what audiences think of him.
Still haven't stopped looking for things to bitch about, I see.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on July 01, 2015, 03:40:43 PM
Onibaba (Kaneto Shindo)

A tale of two women trying to survive during the Nanboku-cho civil war. They hunt passing samurai in the tall grass surrounding their hut, kill them, strip them of their gear and trade it for supplies from a war profiteer who sells the stolen swords and armour back to the military. I think the real value of the film is in its striking visuals, there are so many great shots throughout, it's a real feast for the eyes. I don't really have much else to say, except that it's a pretty bizarre film overall.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Joseph Merrick on July 02, 2015, 01:54:35 AM
Kes (1969) - Original trailer - A classic of its time


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRYvUpsrqmg

The film focuses on 15-year-old Billy Casper, who has little hope in life and is bullied, both at home by his physically and verbally abusive older half-brother, Jud, and at school. He is constantly held to account for some prior run-ins with the police, although he insists that his mischief is behind him. Yet we see evidence of his mischievous side as he carries out his morning newspaper delivery, stealing eggs and milk from milk floats. He has difficulty paying attention in school and is often provoked into tussles with classmates. Billy comes across as an emotionally neglected boy with little self-respect. Billy's father has left the family some time ago, and his mother refers to him in the film as a "hopeless case."

Scource : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kes_(film)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on July 02, 2015, 11:25:11 AM
Six Bullets (2012). Was good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 07, 2015, 09:37:19 PM
The Hunger Games.  For a movie that was such a critical and commercial hit, I have to say that I was pretty disappointed.  For one thing, while the teenagers-in-a-deathmatch premise is great, the execution is played very, very safe.  Once the fighting begins, it almost immediately devolves into an obviously-evil villain and his gang of obviously-evil henchmen being pitted against our heroine, Katniss.  That's basically it.  Katniss never has to turn against an ally or friend, kill anyone who isn't a mustache-twirling cartoon villain, or do anything to win that has even the slightest hint of moral grayness.  It's pretty much a Disneyfied deathmatch.

The other big problem with this movie is the directing.  This is some of the worst directing that I have ever seen in my life.  Virtually every scene is shot with a shaky cam - no, not just a handheld, but a camera that continuously bobs up and down during scenes as innocuous as two friends casually chatting.  The film is randomly peppered with flashbacks in the middle of dialogue to arbitrary scenes that serve no narrative purpose and distract from the current scene.  And the "action" is literally incomprehensible, so much so that I hesitate to even call it the product of a shaky cam.  It's more like they had a guy grab the cameraman from behind, jerk him around as violently as possible, and then they decided not to bother editing the random footage that had been recorded.  Just terrible.
Title: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 07, 2015, 09:48:35 PM
The Hunger Games.  For a movie that was such a critical and commercial hit, I have to say that I was pretty disappointed.  For one thing, while the teenagers-in-a-deathmatch premise is great, the execution is played very, very safe.  Once the fighting begins, it almost immediately devolves into an obviously-evil villain and his gang of obviously-evil henchmen being pitted against our heroine, Katniss.  That's basically it.  Katniss never has to turn against an ally or friend, kill anyone who isn't a mustache-twirling cartoon villain, or do anything to win that has even the slightest hint of moral grayness.  It's pretty much a Disneyfied deathmatch.

She does at the end, and you see how it turns out. We can assume that both would've eaten the berries since there's no reason not to. Based on the premise of many of the combatants having trained for years for the opportunity, it makes sense that the ones who do not have that experience aren't immediately killing off opponents and just trying to survive. Yes, it never really got to the point of her having to murder any allies she made, but I think that's reasonable since the more skilled/experienced participants are likely going to be the last ones remaining.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on July 07, 2015, 11:10:42 PM
I dislike the movies. I did love the books, but now I realize I didn't really like the books either. I just really like the idea. The books weren't terribly well written and it has a stupidly cheesy ending.

So really, I just like the general plot. And book Peeta. Book Peeta is great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on July 09, 2015, 04:28:12 PM
If you just like the idea read Battle Royale. Teenagers kidnapped and forced to fight one another to the death with random weapons. Plus it's gruesome as feck.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on July 09, 2015, 06:15:33 PM
If you just like the idea read Battle Royale. Teenagers kidnapped and forced to fight one another to the death with random weapons. Plus it's gruesome as feck.
Is the movie actually any good? I keep seeing it on Netflix but it just doesn't seem like it would be great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on July 09, 2015, 06:17:31 PM
If you just like the idea read Battle Royale. Teenagers kidnapped and forced to fight one another to the death with random weapons. Plus it's gruesome as feck.
Is the movie actually any good? I keep seeing it on Netflix but it just doesn't seem like it would be great.

Hunger Games?  No good. Steer clear.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on July 09, 2015, 06:26:13 PM
If you just like the idea read Battle Royale. Teenagers kidnapped and forced to fight one another to the death with random weapons. Plus it's gruesome as feck.
Is the movie actually any good? I keep seeing it on Netflix but it just doesn't seem like it would be great.

Hunger Games?  No good. Steer clear.
No. Battle Royale.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on July 09, 2015, 06:33:57 PM
Terminator Genisys. Had some dumb and silly moments, but it was good.
Saddam: Fuck off.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 09, 2015, 07:02:34 PM
It was really bad. If Arnold wasn't there, I would've called it the second-worst movie I've seen this year, behind San Andreas.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on July 09, 2015, 07:22:17 PM
It was really bad. If Arnold wasn't there, I would've called it the second-worst movie I've seen this year, behind San Andreas.

You just hate fun.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 09, 2015, 07:23:35 PM
Fun is terrible.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on July 09, 2015, 07:36:33 PM
No it was good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 09, 2015, 09:40:18 PM
If you just like the idea read Battle Royale. Teenagers kidnapped and forced to fight one another to the death with random weapons. Plus it's gruesome as feck.
Is the movie actually any good? I keep seeing it on Netflix but it just doesn't seem like it would be great.

Hunger Games?  No good. Steer clear.
No. Battle Royale.

Watch it, it's Japanese so it's a bit fucked up, but it's worth a watch, plus it's got the psycho girl from the Crazy 88 from Kill Bill in, and she is fit.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on July 09, 2015, 10:09:55 PM
Seen it. Was kinda bad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 09, 2015, 10:24:54 PM
Seen it. Was kinda bad.

You just hate fun.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on July 09, 2015, 10:39:19 PM
there's nothing fun in it
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 10, 2015, 03:24:54 AM
No it was good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on July 10, 2015, 04:58:43 AM
It was really bad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on July 10, 2015, 06:11:19 AM
Battle Royale is okay, but it probably would have worked a lot better in animation than live action.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on July 11, 2015, 02:37:30 PM
Being John Malkovich (Spike Jonze, 1999)

A bizarre, dark and at times ludicrous exploration of sexuality, metaphysics, humanity and power. I didn't find any of the characters to be particularly relatable, but I also got the impression that was intended; everything was shrouded in a surreal sense of hyperbole. Perhaps it's just me coming straight off the lampshade-happy Stargate franchise, but I found the suspension of disbelief on the part of the characters to be somewhat jarring. They all appear to accept the strange themes the film throws at them without question. I'm not saying that as a good or a bad thing, just something that struck me as odd.

The plot is fairly simplistic, as the film itself seems to be primarily driven by the exploration of themes and ideas rather than the progression of a story. It leapfrogs between themes of lust, betrayal and the unexpected with uncanny nonchalance, making for an interesting if somewhat confusing experience. I liked it, but I think there's too much here to take in on a first viewing.

Would watch again, and probably will at some point.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on July 14, 2015, 04:37:09 AM
Spring Breakers (Harmony Korine, 2013)

Harmony Korine is not someone who's exactly known as a critics' darling, and a lot of that probably has to do with his distaste or even outright contempt for conventional narrative structure and tactfulness. My only previous venture into Korine's body of work was with Gummo, a brilliant portrait of the white trash of southern US. That film was critically panned, as was every other film of his until this one, which for the first time in Korine's career actually gained mostly positive reviews.

It's pretty obvious why this one garnered a bit more positive critical attention. It's got the polished look and production value you'd expect from a big budget film (meaning it's not shot on VHS home video this time around), it's got a far more conventional narrative than Gummo and presumably his other earlier films, and perhaps what's the most significant aspect of all, it's very moralistic. The film is exactly what the title suggests: a bunch of college girls who idolize hedonism above all else go on spring break and indulge in, well, pretty much everything you can imagine. There's really not much to say about it.

One of the things I really loved about Gummo was how uncritical and even sympathetic it was towards its subjects. It simply sought to portray how those people really were, and it's precisely for that reason that it achieves a level of realism that really triggers the sensation of discomfort in the viewer. Here it's the complete opposite; it's intensely critical of its characters and at no point aims to portray them as anything other than hypocritical and morally repugnant. It does try to evoke sympathy, mostly with the only girl in the group who actually has a personality of some sort. She's aptly called Faith, is ostensibly a Christian, and calls her grandmother while we're treated with a clip show of spring break party rituals. If that sounds like cheap emotionalism, that's because it really is. The film tries to abuse it constantly with little to no effect.

Eventually we're introduced to James Franco's ridiculous caricature of a character, and the film entirely gives up on trying to make a statement of some sort. Paradoxically, his character seemed like the one good film about this film, although I'm not sure if it was entirely intentional; he's essentially mirroring the viewer's thoughts about the main characters and their actions. He's completely overblown and basically a walking critique of everything the girls represent. As he's talking about spring break sluts in his sleazy, belitting fashion, and basically just acts like a massive douchebag, you get the sensation that the girls come to a self-realization on how dumb they are, and perhaps there after all is a point to this film. Sadly, it doesn't really carry through with that idea, and manages to devolve into something resembling self-parody.

Giving credit where credit is due, this film is at least competently made. It's very pretty and well shot, and the meandering dream-like pacing works well, but beneath the polished surface you have a far more disingenuous and dishonest film than what Korine has demonstrated to be capable of. 5/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on July 18, 2015, 03:21:34 PM
Stargate (Roland Emmerich, 1994)
Stargate SG-1 (Brad Wright and Jonathan Glassner, 1997-2007)
Stargate: The Ark of Truth (Robert C. Cooper, 2008)
Stargate: Continuum (Martin Wood, 2008)

These three films and one TV series chronicle the story of an interplanetary teleportation device, known as the stargate, through its discovery on Earth and the ensuing exploration and militarisation by the US Air Force. There's a lot of variance in plot, characters and quality of screenwriting throughout the 15-year story, so I'll go through them one by one.

Stargate is a passable but altogether underwhelming introduction to the universe. As enjoyable as it is for the mythological references that would be gradually phased out through SG-1, the characters are very cliche and predictable, and it follows the done-to-death frame narrative of "introduction / complication / resolution" we learnt to write in school. Not a bad movie, but it stops short of being a good one.

SG-1 starts out picking up the pieces from the film, and for the first couple of seasons fails to amount to anything greater. Once again, the main appeal of the early seasons is their focus on mythology, with the dominant alien races (in particular, the Goa'uld and the Asgard) having taken on the role of gods at some point in Earth's history. Throughout SG-1, the fun episodes are the only ones which manage to be consistently strong, possibly due to not taking themselves too seriously. "1969" is a good early example of such.

Things start to pick up towards the end of season 2, and the various story arcs involving the Goa'uld, the Tok'ra, the Asgard, the replicators and the Ancients make up the meat of seasons 3 through 7. Those five seasons are SG-1's best, in my opinion, finishing in a cliffhanger reminiscent of The Empire Strikes Back, as one of the characters is frozen in stasis under less-than-ideal circumstances. The classic SG-1 lineup of O'Neill, Jackson, Carter and Teal'c remains the best one to date, although Jonas Quinn made a nice addition in season 6.

Things started to fall apart as the central characters left the show, and none of their replacements ever quite filled the shoes of their predecessors. Season 8 was saved from total disaster by a few well-written episodes (the finale in particular), and the fact that O'Neill was still involved, even if to a lesser degree. It was also the last season with the Goa'uld as the dominant enemy; who, for whatever faults they may possess, felt like a relatable and tangible threat, without invoking too much suspension of disbelief.

Season 9 was the worst of the run. The new leader, Mitchell, failed in every way to live up to either O'Neill or Carter's leadership abilities, and felt like a cheap substitute for O'Neill's happy-go-lucky humour. Carter was absent for the first half of the season, and while I like Vala as a character, her constant antagonism of Daniel Jackson got old fast. Couple that with a confused jumble of story arcs involving the newly-introduced Ori shitlords, the last of the Goa'uld and the newly-formed free Jaffa nation, and the season really doesn't go anywhere. It ends in another mythological reference, this time relating an ancient battle against the Ori to Merlin and King Arthur, but by now it just feels like a token effort.

Season 10 was made slightly better by a more consistent focus on the Ori as the main threat, although they're still a much less well-developed enemy than the Goa'uld ever were. The finale, "Unending", was the highlight of the last two seasons, partly due to disregarding established story arcs and focusing on creating a well-written standalone episode, as many season finales before it did. At least it ended on a high note.

The two follow-up films, The Ark of Truth and Continuum, couldn't be more different from each other. Ark concludes the Ori story arc from seasons 9 and 10. As if that weren't bad enough, they introduce a brand new civilian government character whose sole purpose is to fuck up all of the military's plans by re-introducing replicators (an enemy previously defeated once and for all) without good reason or clear motive. The replicators then attack that guy (who is so unmemorable I've forgotten his name) to create a replicator/human hybrid who fights hand-to-hand with Mitchell. No doubt it was intended to come across as impressive or scary, but it just looked ridiculous.

Continuum, on the other hand, concluded the Goa'uld plot by portraying the death of the final Goa'uld system lord, Ba'al. While his execution takes only minutes, the majority of the film is taken up by a deviation in the timeline, whereby Ba'al tries to undo all of the accomplishments of SG-1 by going back in time and preventing them from ever discovering the stargate in the first place. While I am a sucker for time travel, I also genuinely think this is better written than The Ark of Truth, not to mention that O'Neill makes a comeback (which is always worthwhile).

The SG-1 narrative is among the most inconsistent sci-fi I've watched. Overall, I liked it a lot, but it had a lot of weak spots where not much interesting happens for many episodes at a time. All things considered, I'm glad I watched it, but I probably wouldn't watch it all the way through again; I'd pick the good bits (seasons 3-7 of SG-1 and Continuum, mainly) and skip the rest.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on July 18, 2015, 03:32:24 PM
To the Wonder (Terrence Malick, 2012)

Ya done it now, Terry. I'd never been particularly impressed by Malick's films, but I have been fascinated by his craft and intentions. I guess the sad reality of his creative process is that not everything he puts out lives to its potential. But I was never entirely sure why that potential was not reached, until now. The difference between this and The Tree of Life is that while they're both shot entirely out of stream of consciousness and made into actual films in editing, I always felt like The Tree of Life was holding back on us; you could sense the struggle of finding the coherence out of the chaos, and for better or for worse, it felt like a filtered product. That's not what To the Wonder is. It's Terry not holding back in the slightest. It's pure and unfiltered stream of consciousness, and all the raw sensuality that comes with it. People say it's incoherent, but so what? It's still functional and fulfills its purpose. I think when Terry is trying to explain himself, his method loses its purpose, and this film avoids that mistake. It's like all the stars have come aligned and I finally get it. 10/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2015, 07:18:07 PM
I really enjoyed Tree of Life so I imagine I will like To The Wonder as well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on July 18, 2015, 07:23:19 PM
I dunno, it seems like a lot of people who loved The Tree of Life hated To the Wonder. It's definitely worth a shot, at least.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 19, 2015, 01:49:08 AM
No spoilers unless indicated, I promise:

I have now seen Ant-Man, and I can say without hesitation that it was fucking fantastic.  Much, much better than I was expecting, and I'd like to think that I was feeling fairly optimistic about it to begin with.  It's easily the funniest MCU film so far, the cast and characters are great, and the small scale and creative use of visual effects help it feel truly unique within the MCU.  To be sure, it does have a few flaws.  There's a lot of exposition in the first act that's worked in a bit too clunkily, the story takes a while to really get going and deliver on the action, and the father-daughter relationships that are intended to provide drama for the movie are a little rushed and so never feel as poignant as they were probably meant to.  Also, it would have been nice to see Evangeline Lilly get to do a little more as Hope.  She isn't just a love interest by any means, but...okay, spoiler time: No, she doesn't swoop in as the Wasp at the end of the second act and kick ass in the name of feminist capeshit.  An end-credits scene hints that she'll get to be the Wasp in the future, but alas, it doesn't happen in this movie.

That missed opportunity aside, Lilly does the best she can with what she has, and so does everyone else.  Paul Rudd makes Scott Lang very likable and relatable; certainly a far cry from the typical snarky-snarky-one-liners-and-quips persona that Joss Whedon seemed to confine himself to writing.  If I'm properly understanding the character of Hank Pym from what I've looked up, then I'd say that Michael Douglas has him just right - he's a brilliant scientist with nothing but the best of intentions; but just under the surface, there's a very dark man twisted by bitterness and rage clawing to get out.  Michael Peña is fucking hilarious, and a mere description will not do his performance justice.  And even our villain, Corey Stoll as Darren Cross/Yellowjacket, isn't half-bad.  He doesn't steal the show or anything, but he has a decent amount of screen time, an established personality and character, remains a credible threat throughout the film, and there's even some small effort put into showing why he might have gone down this villainous path in the first place.  He's one of the better MCU villains for sure.

I don't really want to try to describe the various setpieces that the movie has, because that would just spoil it.  All I can say is that they're incredibly creative, and they prove that you don't need to demolish a city to come up with an entertaining climax to a superhero movie.  Stakes are the important factor, not scale.  Under the right circumstances, two tiny dudes in silly suits throwing toys at each other in a little girl's bedroom can be every bit as compelling as two big dudes of curious pigmentation throwing cars at each other on the streets of Harlem.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on July 19, 2015, 08:36:16 AM
Yeah, it has a few problems. The movie feels very short, some sequences take place really fast. One second a character will be doing something somewhere, next second they'll be somewhere else doing something and it feels like you missed 2 minutes. And yeah, some exposition was heavy at the start.

What I really appreciated, and that Saddam mentioned, is that they really ingeniously got around the typical excessive destruction by minimising it, while simultaneously drawing humour from it too. The villain is slightly better than most marvel villains, and the humour is solid.

Also enjoyed agent carter rocking up.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on July 22, 2015, 06:10:32 PM
Ant-Man. Was great. 10/10.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Thork on July 24, 2015, 12:50:05 PM
I watched the Jackal (1997) last night. Not sure how I've never seen it before. The bit where Bruce Willis kills Jack Black is awesome. :D

Great film. Some very serious plot holes. The most annoying I found was Bruce Willis can cross the Canadian border into the US anyway he likes. And he chooses to use a sailing boat via the Great Lakes. Somehow Richard Gere guesses correctly the exact time and port he arrives at knowing nothing more than he has to cross the border and the whole FBI and KGB scramble there based on this guy's improbable but correctly placed hunch. He then does the exact same thing later having spent the whole film trying to prevent the head of the FBI being assassinated, he has another hunch the target is really the First Lady, based on nothing more than Bruce Willis saying to a dying FBI agent "Tell him, he can't protect his women". Bruce Willis had already shot Gere's first love and she lost the baby and now just as he likes the scar faced FBI woman, he kills her in the house of the baby losing woman in a failed hit on her. From that he gets "we must all stop protecting the head of the FBI and protect the first lady instead". He gets there just in time, shoots through a blacked out window to disable the scope on a KPV mounted in an unmarked SUV, and then guns Willis down in a subway.

By the end, I really wanted Willis to shoot Gere in his hamster abusing arse so I wouldn't have to hear the distressing Northern Ireland accent he bodges all the way through the film. Bruce Willis was awesome in the film though and made it a really good watch.

3 stars.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 27, 2015, 02:44:08 AM
I saw Ant-Man. Definitely one of my favourite Marvel movies so far. It definitely has a lot of Edgar Wright still lingering within it and that is a very good thing. Probably the most visually interesting Marvel movie so far, and its tone isn't as samey as many of the others, so hopefully this means they'll start branching out with that in future films. And I can't believe I'm saying this about anything, but Paul Rudd was fantastic.

They were also very faithful to the source, not that that's super important.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 27, 2015, 04:07:48 AM
...wat

Well, there goes any inclination of me being vaguely excited about that movie. I can't wait for another mediocre Paul Rudd comedy

lol

And on the subject of Wright, you might want to read this (http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/ant-man/247822/how-would-edgar-wrights-ant-man-have-been-different) to see which ideas were his and which ones were Reed/Rudd/McKay's.  I've seen a lot of reviewers attributing basically everything that was funny or unique about the movie to Wright, and that's just not fair when his replacements made some excellent contributions of their own.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on July 28, 2015, 04:00:44 AM
Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1"

Better titled, "how selfies can unite the world".  What a piece of vapid shit.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on July 29, 2015, 12:06:37 PM
Stargate Atlantis (Brad Wright and Robert C. Cooper, 2004-2009)

Well, this was a treat. A lot more consistent than SG-1, albeit with much less frequent "fun" episodes. I'd definitely rate this as one of my all-time favourite TV series.

Character detail and development is more complex and mature than in SG-1, leading to more engaging interactions. In particular, the show isn't driven by the small-team vibe that pervades its younger brother, so as important characters are swapped out in later seasons, the show changes but doesn't lose much. On top of that, the Wraith are a better developed foe than either the Goa'uld or the Ori.

I don't really have any negative criticisms of the series as a whole, although naturally (as with anything) it had the occasional weak episode. Watch this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on August 03, 2015, 01:33:40 PM
I've just started watching SGA and I agree that it's better than I remember it but there are some glaring plot-holes which I'd like to see addressed:

If the Wraith were so determined to get to Atlantis that they basically brought the resources of a whole galaxy to bear on the Ancients, why didn't they occasionally try the gate while it was submerged? I can understand that maybe they thought it was lost forever, but you'd think that they would have at least tried.

Likewise, Why didn't they leave a single probe or scoutship, or send the odd patrol over Atlantis after they faked their destruction after the first siege? You would have thought they would have wanted to see if anything was salvageable.

Basically, the biggest problem with the series is how powerful the Wraith are. There's simply no believable answer as to why they didn't simply swoop down and obliterate them. It was a problem that SG1 had with the Goa'uld until they invented the Asgard alliance to give a flimsy reason that Earth escaped their attentions for so long.

Don't get me wrong, I'm loving SGA, especially the character dramas and the tensions between the airforce and the civilians, but there's always a niggle at the back of my mind which says that they should all be dead.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on August 04, 2015, 12:04:31 PM
Haven't posted reviews for a while, so this next one is about a film I saw a good while ago but never got around to writing a review about.

Norte, the End of History (Lav Diaz, 2013)

Clocking in at four hours and ten minutes, this film is apparently one of the shortest of this Filipino director's offerings. It's mainly an exploration of class differences in the Philippines - it follows the lives of Fabian, an upper class young adult who murders a money lender, Joaquin, a poor man who gets the crime pinned on him and is imprisoned as a result, and Eliza, the man's wife who has to struggle to feed her family. The film spends almost half its running length just getting to know the characters, with lengthy shots of Fabian having sophomoric conversations with his friends, fluidly inserting English quotations into their speech with the all-knowing attitude of people who think they know how to solve everything wrong with the world. The more down-to-earth family is shown struggling with what they have. But Fabian's upper class mentality appears to be a mere facade - he and Joaquin have to employ the services of the same money lender to get by, with Fabian somehow managing to stay afloat with the help of his far more successful friends. Eventually his financial troubles pile up too much for him to handle, and he sees murdering his money lender as the only way out. The crime is pinned on Joaquin and lacking the resources for proper criminal defense he is imprisoned as a result, leaving Fabian to roam free with his guilt.

It's at this point where it begins to show why Diaz opts for even longer running times than this. Everything in the first half feels very deliberately paced, but once the plot really starts rolling in the second half, you see plot threads being rushed to resolution and new ones introduced out of nowhere. It changes from a very keen and complex exploration of class disparity into an episodic structure of things simply happening, creating a situation where many scenarios seem too simplistic to even be included, but if they had been fleshed out more their inclusion would have made more sense in the grander scheme of the narrative. Eventually the film ends, not really with a satisfying narrative conclusion, but rather by running out of things to say. I just have to wonder if there's a six hour cut of this film where the latter half is more fleshed out, because what I saw seemed too rushed for what I imagine Diaz intended.

It may fall apart a little, but it's not often I come across a four hour film where my main criticism is that it should have been even longer, and that's because Diaz's slow but deliberate pacing works extremely well for the first half of the film. I was absorbed just getting to know these characters, listening in on their immaculately written conversations, and for that time it didn't feel a moment too long or too short. I don't know what this film was like before it entered the editing room, but it could have easily been a masterpiece. At the very least, Diaz's even longer films seem far less intimidating now. 8/10

Ex Machina (Alex Garland, 2015)

This was a neat, albeit small-scale hard sci-fi film. I was surprised to find out this had a production budget of $15 million, because it feels very much like an independent production with its small cast and few sets, and digital cinematography with dull, muted colours and underexposed lighting, making it look more like a student film than a high budget production. This film hinges entirely on its writing to work, and it does a pretty good job at that.

The basic setup is that Nathan, the creator of this film's version of Google is developing an AI in seclusion in his high-tech fortress, and he invites Caleb, an employee of his company to test the AI. And then shit happens, because AI. Given all the tropes of AI taking over the world and the dangers often associated with development of AI, it's not exactly difficult to guess what ends up happening in this film, but the route it takes is clever and messes with the expectations of both the main characters and the audience. While the story outline is good and it strikes a good balance between gratuitous technobabble and philosophical concepts, I found the dialogue and characterisation lacking. Nathan is jarringly dudebro-ish, while Caleb is a standard no-personality blue-collar worker. I get that they were trying to subvert the expectation of a reclusive genius, and Caleb's lack of personality makes sense given his doubts regarding whether he is an AI himself, but the contrast between their characters feels too forced and many of their conversations feel robotic and unrealistic as a result. It seems to be a general trend in sci-fi that exploration of the subject matter is treated with way more importance than characterisation, and it at least does tackle all the moral and practical questions regarding AI pretty intelligently, without leaving any gaping plot holes. 7/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 06, 2015, 03:29:39 PM
Capeshit update: The Fant4stic movie that looked terrible and everyone thought would be terrible has, strangely enough, turned out to be utterly terrible:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fantastic_four_2015/

The ones with Jessica Alba got a more positive reception than this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 06, 2015, 03:44:46 PM
Capeshit update: The Fant4stic movie that looked terrible and everyone thought would be terrible has, strangely enough, turned out to be utterly terrible:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fantastic_four_2015/

The ones with Jessica Alba got a more positive reception than this.
Damn. I knew it would be bad but that is brutal.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Pongo on August 06, 2015, 07:33:07 PM
I've just started watching SGA and I agree that it's better than I remember it but there are some glaring plot-holes which I'd like to see addressed:

If the Wraith were so determined to get to Atlantis that they basically brought the resources of a whole galaxy to bear on the Ancients, why didn't they occasionally try the gate while it was submerged? I can understand that maybe they thought it was lost forever, but you'd think that they would have at least tried.

Likewise, Why didn't they leave a single probe or scoutship, or send the odd patrol over Atlantis after they faked their destruction after the first siege? You would have thought they would have wanted to see if anything was salvageable.

Basically, the biggest problem with the series is how powerful the Wraith are. There's simply no believable answer as to why they didn't simply swoop down and obliterate them. It was a problem that SG1 had with the Goa'uld until they invented the Asgard alliance to give a flimsy reason that Earth escaped their attentions for so long.

Don't get me wrong, I'm loving SGA, especially the character dramas and the tensions between the airforce and the civilians, but there's always a niggle at the back of my mind which says that they should all be dead.

I think they said they set the gate so only earth can dial it after the Ancient's exodus.  The Wraith had no need to salvage anything from the Ancients after the first siege.  Their motivation in the series is because they learn humans exist elsewhere in the cosmos and need better hyper drives to get to the Milky Way.

As for super-powerful enemy... yep.  They cloak a lot and then move the city to evade destruction.  So there's that, I guess.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 10, 2015, 07:24:09 PM
The second season of True Detective concluded last night!  What did my fellow viewers think of it?  The critics ruthlessly shredded it, and are pretty much united in labeling it one of the worst sophomore slumps for television in a very long time.  I don't quite agree with that, possibly because I was one of the few people who wasn't particularly enthusiastic about the first season to begin with.  In fact, I personally enjoyed this season much more than the first one, finding it less boring, less predictable, and less loaded with casual sexism (at least until the last few episodes, where the sexism thing came back in a very unpleasant way).  But yeah, this season did have some flaws.

One obvious point is that the dialogue is atrocious.  It sounds like it was written by aliens.  The previous season had its share of eyebrow-raising lines, no doubt, but at least then, they were mainly confined to one character, that character was clearly identified by the narrative as being eccentric, and other characters would call him out on his nonsense frequently.  Here, the weird dialogue is spread out among all the characters, and it's all played perfectly straight.  Everyone is an awkward fortune-cookie-paraphrasing Tommy Wiseau, and everyone is liable to spout howlers like "Never do anything out of hunger.  Not even eating," "When you walk, it's like erasers clapping," or "You're asking me if he's that kind of guy.  He looks half-anaconda, half-great white."  On a similar note, the story is convoluted and confusing, a jumble of names and expository infodumps sprinkled so sparsely throughout the series that it's very difficult to keep track of what's going on.

Also, the weirdly-Freudian psychosexual themes about fatherhood and emasculation didn't add anything of value to the season and just ended up reinforcing all the juvenile, regressive stereotypes about masculinity it (supposedly) attempted to examine.  Why is Colin Farrell an abusive, corrupt, violent, and unmotivated thug of a cop?  Because he's worried that his son was really fathered by his wife's rapist from twelve years ago.  The cuckold tension.  Why is Taylor Kitsch an unpleasant asshole who's outwardly homophobic and barely affectionate towards his girlfriend/fiancee?  Because he's a self-loathing closeted gay.  The homo tension.  Vince Vaughn's personal problems aren't entirely tied in with his professional life, to the show's credit, but even then they go to great lengths to parallel his business failures and frustrations with his inability to conceive a child with his wife.  That's another type of dopey tension there.

And why is Rachel McAdams a tough, competent detective who doesn't let herself get pushed around by her male colleagues?  Wait, that's not particularly unusual.  Who says that there needs to be some kind of traumatic secret leading to this, when there are so many - it's because she was raped, of course!  The rape-victim tension!  Yeah, because whoever heard of a woman doing traditionally masculine things without a rape backstory, right?  And of course, this rape backstory is treated with the usual amount of respect and delicacy that TV writers afford it - a few minutes of analysis before it's brushed aside to focus on the men brooding over their man-pain.  Terrible.  And then in the finale McAdams has to go on without them while the brave men stay behind to handle all the manly action and nobly sacrifice themselves.  In the end, the primary message I took away from this was that it's hard to be a white man in a white man's world.

I'd like to see a third season for the show, but if there is, then Nic Pizza really needs to bring in some other writers to help him out.  I suspect that he didn't face much pushback when he wrote this, and that's something that every showrunner needs, lest they turn into George Lucas.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on August 11, 2015, 01:05:11 AM
That's the message you took away from the first one? I'm struggling to get something even close to that out of it. I haven't seen the second season at all yet, so I can't really comment there.

On that note, is it worth watching?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2015, 01:30:24 AM
I just watched Lavalantula. It was great and you should also watch it. It's about LA and there's an actor but he's a bit old and not exactly popular and then suddenly spiders and they're huge and they spit lava and hate humans but then the actor saves the day and everyone loves him.

(http://www.horror.land/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Lavalantula_Poster_v01.jpg)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on August 11, 2015, 02:07:49 AM
i know this is super annoying, but basically everything i want to say about this season contains spoilers, so i'm going to use the spoiler tag for the whole thing.  i realize this means that literally no one will read it or respond to it, but my thoughts are really important and deserving of being recorded for however long it takes for parsifal to accidentally spill some laphrofag on the tiny calculators that internets this place.

This is the best example that I can think of to sum up my feelings toward this season: In one of the final scenes we see Jordan holding a baby, and it's immediately revealed to be Ani's and Frank's.  I hate this decision.  Writing the baby as belonging to Jordan would've tied a lot of the show's themes together really well.  It would have made sense of Frank's impotence and Jordan's regular insistence that Frank always has the choice to step away from the table.  The baby becomes a metaphor for the bounty that could've been available to Frank had he been willing to make that choice, one that Jordan reaps because she was ultimately willing to.  Making the baby belong to Ani does nothing for me.  I can't think of what it adds to her story or character, unless their point was  "yeah this lady-cop can finally be happy or whatever now cause she finally has a baby."

Also, Frank isn't supposed to die of a stab wound in the desert.  I hate that.  I don't get the point in basically tricking the viewer into anticipating a Tony Montana ending and then doing him like a character in The Wire.  In The Wire it has a context: "in case you forgot, this is fucking Baltimore."  I just don't think it makes any sense or adds to his story at all to just be like "lol jk he dies in the desert for basically no reason."  The nihilism of it doesn't automatically make it more interesting.


Season 2 for me wasn't awful.  The writing actually did a lot to save it for me.  Once I got used to their roles, I also thought the performances by the leads were all pretty awesome.  But, I think it failed at executing virtually everything else it was trying to do.  Oddly, I still think it's worth watching if you enjoyed the first season.

Also I definitely didn't get the "white man's burden" in season 1.  I still think you're just evaluating the dialogue on the wrong criteria.  It's like watching a western and complaining about how no one talks like that.  No shit; it's a western.  That's a feature of the genre.  That's especially apropos of this season since they've included so many elements of the western genre.  True Detective isn't trying to sound like Law & Order.  It's supposed to sound like Dragnet.  It's supposed to sound like a dime store hardboiled detective novel like Maltese Falcon.  It's not merely an homage; that's literally what it's trying to be.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 11, 2015, 03:12:28 AM
The "tough to be a white man" thing wasn't a fair criticism of the first season, I'll concede.  There was a lot of crude macho bullshit there, but the show wasn't oblivious to it, and at least made the effort to show that both Harrelson's slimy promiscuity and McConaughey's brooding nihilism had negative consequences.

I disagree with you about the dialogue, though.  You're saying that it's supposed to sound like a Western, Dragnet, and hardboiled detective fiction, but all three of those have very different styles of dialogue, and none of them sound much like True Detective at all.  Dragnet's dialogue in particular is pretty much its polar opposite.  The only distinctive style of dialogue I can think of that sounds similar to True Detective's is the way the Coen brothers write, and their movies are intentionally funny.  In any case, influence isn't nearly as important as quality.  If our opinions simply differ on this, there's no point in continuing to argue, but tell me: Could you seriously keep a straight face when one guy said, "A full moon is the best time to ratify alliances"?

Oh yeah, and one other thing I wanted to mention is that the big deal that all the characters make about Farrell's paternity woes comes across as very dumb to anyone who knows a bit about the law - like me.  In real life, the issue of paternity really only matters in custody cases within the first few years of the child's life.  When the conception was twelve years ago, and the legal father has been an active parent ever since, paternity is pretty much a moot point.  What would have been much more realistic, and much more "earned," so to speak, would be if Farrell's ex wanted him to lose custody based on the fact that he's impulsive, violent, and clearly quite corrupt.  The fact that the show instead chose to focus on the issue that involves his penis might tell us something about its views on masculinity.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on August 11, 2015, 05:38:23 AM
Could you seriously keep a straight face when one guy said, "A full moon is the best time to ratify alliances"?

Full Moon is likely the name of the orgy party.  The line is "Full moon is the best time to ratify alliances."  And check out the orgy invitation: http://i.imgur.com/Zz1oNRD.png

I don't think that Genuine Gumshoe is trying to sound like both a western and hardboiled.  I just mean that, like hardboiled fiction, westerns have as a feature of the genre a unique sort of dialogue that helps to define it.  The Searchers has some obnoxious dialogue, but to say that it suffers from poorly written dialogue is to ignore what it's trying to be. 

I don't mean to pester the point, it's just a common criticism of the show that I don't get.  I think the dialogue is taken much too seriously.  Although L&O isn't hardboiled, maybe a good analogy would be to Lenny Briscoe (a clear homage to the genre).  You're not supposed to think that Lenny's one-liners are brilliant or insightful or meaningful or some kind of misguided showcase by the writers.  It's just Lenny, and that's the sort of shit his character says.  Rustin Cohle is the Lenny Briscoe who moved to Louisiana and never got clean.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on August 16, 2015, 02:09:19 AM
Straight Outta Compton

10/10 would Cube again.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on August 16, 2015, 11:55:44 AM
Daredevil

First season of the Marvel Netflix show. I guess it's a step up from typical Marvel fare in terms of violence and so forth, and it does the gritty realism thing but it doesn't feel like it's trying too hard to be that way. It still has plenty of goofy comic book stuff and of course it is essentially about a blind ninja man who is also a lawyer fighting a large bald man for whom the greatest pleasure in life is custard.

The show's greatest strength is that it is very much character driven, and the action, although expertly handled in its own right, is that much more intense because the characters are well written and developed. Probably enough people have already said that Vincent D'Onofrio as Wilson Fisk/Kingpin steals the show, and he does give the best performance of anyone here, but that's not to disparage the other actors involved. I also really liked Vondie Curtis-Hall as embattled journalist Ben Urich and Scott Glenn as Daredevil's harsh mentor Stick. Elden Henson's Foggy Nelson can occasionally be annoying, but for a character who often plays the comic relief, he is given a surprisingly rich treatment and ultimately comes across likeable.

While the conclusion was perhaps a little too understated in some ways and not enough in others, I enjoyed watching the thirteen episodes currently available and am looking forward to the second season.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on August 16, 2015, 02:46:36 PM
The Zero Theorem (Terry Gilliam, 2013)

This was pretty good, although it fell short of my high expectations of Gilliam set by Brazil and 12 Monkeys. While I do enjoy a good dystopian satire, the plot seemed somewhat shallow and unimaginative. Good, but not as great as I'd hoped.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on August 25, 2015, 07:09:07 PM
It's Korea time!!!

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (Kim Ki-duk, 2003)

This chronicles the life of a Buddhist monk, as he grows up in seclusion with his master, learns to love, and... other stuff. While beautifully shot, its fairytale-like charm makes this film very simplistic both narratively and morally, which I didn't find terribly interesting. If it didn't explore some adult themes, I think this film would be very fitting for children. That being said, it's certainly a good film overall, even though it didn't impress me that much personally. 7/10

3-Iron (Kim Ki-duk, 2004)

This film follows suit with its fairytale charm, but the premise of this film is very original and extremely well executed. The film follows Tae-suk, a homeless youngster who breaks into people's apartments while they're empty and lives there for a few days at a time. In one of these places he encounters Sun-hwa, an abused housewife whom he takes with him after playing revenge on the wife's husband. What then follows is a sequence of extremely well directed scenes, showing how the two characters learn each other's habits and mannerisms and become closer to each other - and what makes this so great is that the two never speak a single word to each other. The way the two characters communicate their intentions non-verbally to each other, as well as Kim to the audience, is phenomenal and speaks louder than any actual dialogue could. If I had anything negative to say about this film, it would be that the simplistic morality of the previous film is also quite present here, and is especially seen in how crudely the corrupt police force is portrayed. All in all however, those are only minor issues in an otherwise fantastic film. 9/10

A Bittersweet Life (Kim Jee-woon, 2005)

Moving into Korean thriller territory, we have an unremarkable action movie about a mobster that goes on a revenge rampage against his former employers, because love and shit. It's very basic and unoriginal, but at least the action is well directed. 6/10

Oldboy (Park Chan-wook, 2003)

Ah, the essential Korean film that everyone's already seen. It's no wonder that this film is the one to get the most attention in the west, or that it got a Hollywood remake. This, like what seems to be common for Korean films in general, has a degree of Hollywood pop-sensibility to it that you can't really find in other Asian cinema. I guess what I mean by that is that it just can't simply be a serious exploration of its themes, it also has to be a silly and gratuitously violent action movie. It feels like a lot of it is just filler to get to the ending twist (which I'm not going to spoil), but by the time it gets there the film feels too silly to be taken seriously when it's actually trying to say something. I guess it's a good film overall, it just seems to have a bit of an identity crisis. 7/10

Mother (Bong Joon-ho, 2009)

I don't really like mystery films that much because the breadcrumb trail to the solution always feels so arbitrary and meaningless when you don't know the solution yet. That's made even worse here as this film sets itself up to be a genuinely interesting exploration of a dysfunctional mother-son relationship - only for the bulk of it to be a mundane detective story where most of it has ultimately no bearing in the climax of the film. Missed potential. 6/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on August 26, 2015, 06:29:40 AM
Stargate Universe (Brad Wright and Robert C. Cooper, 2009-2011)

Literally Battlestar Galactica (2004) Lite Edition. Which is a pity, because the concept had a lot of promise, but they went and ruined it by trying to copy BSG instead of innovating something distinctively Stargate.

The real kicker for me, though, was that the second half of the second season was just starting to pick up. They had a few episodes in there that showed promise of development into something unique, and the show ended on a cliffhanger that seemed poised to give season 3 a much needed fresh start. Unfortunately, it was too little too late; the show got cancelled and we never got to see what might have been.

On the bright side, the show is notable for its exploration of more realistic astrophysical phenomena than most sci-fi. As with the other Stargate series, rather than waving away the vastness of space and just pretending there are habitable planets everywhere, there's an in-universe explanation for the ease with which they come across such planets right from the start. Then there's the time they flew the ship through a blue supergiant, something that would have tickled my fancy ever since I first read about different types of stars as a kid. On the whole, this show has appeal to astronomical realists which it lacks to, well, people who enjoy a decent plot.

While it wasn't a total flop and there were some enjoyable episodes, there was nothing on the tier of SG-1 or Atlantis, and its early cancellation meant that the overarching story never finished being told. Probably missable unless you're as much of a completionist as I am.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 31, 2015, 05:15:58 PM
capeshit capeshit

I watched the first couple of Blade movies.  The first one had a few neat moments, but was largely let down by a nonsensical story full of idiot characters, annoying yuppie villains, and an excessive amount of ugly (and hilariously dated) blood and gore effects.  The sequel is written marginally better, and is overall far superior due to Guillermo del Toro's stylish direction.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on August 31, 2015, 11:24:38 PM
I just finished the second episode of Narcos.  It's quite good so far.  I think it struggles a little bit to make the narrator someone I care about.  At this point I'm only in it for Pablo.  The narrator is a little bit too generic for me so far.  Beyond that, though, it's executing really well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on September 01, 2015, 08:44:50 AM
Stargate Universe (Brad Wright and Robert C. Cooper, 2009-2011)

Literally Battlestar Galactica (2004) Lite Edition. Which is a pity, because the concept had a lot of promise, but they went and ruined it by trying to copy BSG instead of innovating something distinctively Stargate.

The real kicker for me, though, was that the second half of the second season was just starting to pick up. They had a few episodes in there that showed promise of development into something unique, and the show ended on a cliffhanger that seemed poised to give season 3 a much needed fresh start. Unfortunately, it was too little too late; the show got cancelled and we never got to see what might have been.

On the bright side, the show is notable for its exploration of more realistic astrophysical phenomena than most sci-fi. As with the other Stargate series, rather than waving away the vastness of space and just pretending there are habitable planets everywhere, there's an in-universe explanation for the ease with which they come across such planets right from the start. Then there's the time they flew the ship through a blue supergiant, something that would have tickled my fancy ever since I first read about different types of stars as a kid. On the whole, this show has appeal to astronomical realists which it lacks to, well, people who enjoy a decent plot.

While it wasn't a total flop and there were some enjoyable episodes, there was nothing on the tier of SG-1 or Atlantis, and its early cancellation meant that the overarching story never finished being told. Probably missable unless you're as much of a completionist as I am.

I've still got SGU to watch after Atlantis, but I'm not looking forward to it. I remember hating every character besides Dr Rush (especially Eli who seemed like a Marty Stu self-insert in a Stargate Fan-fic) and it was really disjointed. It didn't seem to know whether it wanted to be a standard monster/ problem of the week Sci-fi or an episodic sci-fi with a strong overarching story arc, resulting in moments where I'd wonder whether I'd missed an episode.

That said, I'll reserve judgement because I remember disliking SGA when it first aired and now I love it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on September 13, 2015, 08:14:29 PM
Raise the Red Lantern (Zhang Yimou, 1991)

Set in 1920s China, this film is an exquisite exploration of the social dynamics and customs behind a wealthy family with concubines and servants. It follows a 19-year old woman who becomes the fourth wife of a wealthy man, as she has to learn to live with the other wives, fight over her husband's affection and control her new-found position of power over the lower class of servants. It expertly utilises the customs of the era as both dramatic and visual storytelling devices, without ever having to seem too dry-cut or documentarian.

The real stand-out aspect of the film is the visuals. Its excellent cinematography is further complemented with the beautiful architecture the film uses as its setting, and the set design for interiors is nothing short of top notch as well. If you're looking for a visually stunning film, this one is definitely a must see. 9/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on September 13, 2015, 08:20:11 PM
this one is definitely a must see.
But it sounds boring.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on September 13, 2015, 08:23:19 PM
this one is definitely a must see.
But it sounds boring.

That's fine, my recommendation wasn't directed at you.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on September 13, 2015, 08:32:10 PM
this one is definitely a must see.
But it sounds boring.

That's fine, my recommendation wasn't directed at you.
Since you didn't specify who it was directed at, I had to assume it was directed at everyone, which includes me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on September 13, 2015, 08:35:40 PM
Since you didn't specify who it was directed at

But I did.

If you're looking for a visually stunning film

How convenient that you managed to exclude that portion in your quote.

You watch movies with network television tier visuals, so no, this obviously is not directed at you.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 13, 2015, 09:54:39 PM
City Lights (Charlie Chaplin)

Classic silent film from the legendary Chaplin. One of his most famous films, it follows Chaplin's iconic Tramp persona through his interlinked relationships with two people, a millionaire who is his best friend when drunk but claims not to recognise him when sober, and a blind woman who sells flowers to pay the rent on the house where she lives with her grandmother. By taking advantage of the millionaire's drunken generosity, he tries to help the blind woman with her rent and eventually a revolutionary new eye-surgery that will cure her blindness.

While at first it comes across as a fluffy romantic comedy full of pratfalls and some almost magic-realist elements (no prizes for guessing where Woody Allen got a great deal of inspiration from) the film deals with the subjects of wealth and class in a serious manner, mocking the hedonism of the rich, lamenting the miseries of the poor, and, through the blind girl, exploring to some degree the phenomenon of the nouveau riche. The film's ambiguous climax is sudden and abrupt, and forgoes the easy path of the happy ending, doing so with great flair and poignancy.

While the skeleton of the film, its plot (no matter how far-fetched), its themes and its overall charming presentation go a long way to "justifying," in lieu of a better term, its classic status, its comedy scenes, for all their great timing and inventiveness, have a tendency to exhibit diminishing returns, as each gag doubles over on itself in a sort of ABA theme/modulation/recapitulation. This is all good and well as a technical exercise in comic theory, but as an actual piece of on-screen entertainment it has quite little reason to be there in that form, and my feeling is that a little more economy and concision would have served the story much better. If there is a failing of the film it is simply its need to prove that it is despite all else still a comedy, where in the works of Chaplin's great contemporary Buster Keaton the comedy is natural, ineffable, a permanent and self-assured fixture that one never doubts. Indeed, Keaton was the greater comedian, Chaplin the greater social commentator.

It's certainly hard not to like City Lights. It's a truly charming picture which, for all its romantic naivete, remains near enough believable for the viewer who has a healthy willingness to go along for the ride. While some scenes may drag here and there the 70 minute runtime is breezy enough, and the relationship between the Tramp and the Blind Woman, in particular its not-quite-conclusion, is beautifully depicted ─ the film is well worth watching for this alone. While the comedy is, as I have said, somewhat ungainly owing to its need to proudly display itself, rather than playing for greater subtlety, the film remains fresh thanks to its starkly original and wonderfully ambiguous ending, and its themes of social inequality are still very much relevant today.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 17, 2015, 03:19:36 AM
I've watched the first season of Fargo, and I have to say that I haven't felt this conflicted about the overall quality of a show in a very long time.  It does a lot of things right - it's brilliantly directed, adopts an appropriate Coen-esque atmosphere and style, and the cast and characters are mostly excellent.  But the story is so lazily-stitched together that it's almost impossible to maintain one's suspension of disbelief.  Almost every major plot advancement relies heavily on a series of implausible coincidences and contrivances.  It's hard to go into specifics without giving away large parts of the story, but I'll just point out the biggest example of this, which happens, many, many times over the course of the story - whenever a character is searching for another character, or whenever the plot needs to have certain characters meet, they almost always end up coincidentally bumping into each other through pure chance.

One other thing I want to criticize is the humor.  A few of the black comedy moments work well, but the comedians they brought onto the show, presumably to serve as comic relief, fail terribly.  Bob Odenkirk is normally a very funny guy, but he's wasted here as the dopey police chief whose shtick is little more than his dopiness.  Still, he's nowhere near as bad as the horror show that is Key and Peele as a pair of similarly-dopey FBI agents.  I'm sure they're fine comedians in their own right, but they have nothing here but nonstop markjokes.

tl;dr: If you're a fan of the Coens, and you don't mind switching your brain off, you'll probably like this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on September 21, 2015, 08:03:09 PM
But the story is so lazily-stitched together that it's almost impossible to maintain one's suspension of disbelief.  Almost every major plot advancement relies heavily on a series of implausible coincidences and contrivances.  It's hard to go into specifics without giving away large parts of the story, but I'll just point out the biggest example of this, which happens, many, many times over the course of the story - whenever a character is searching for another character, or whenever the plot needs to have certain characters meet, they almost always end up coincidentally bumping into each other through pure chance.

tl;dr: If you're a fan of the Coens, and you don't mind switching your brain off, you'll probably like this.

The hallmark of a Coen brothers story is the contrast of extremes: extreme tedium punctuated by brutal violence; exception genius in close-quarters with equally exceptional ineptness; gallows humor; larger-than-life events in a banal setting.  Their lack of correspondence to reality isn't a function of being lazy; it's a storytelling device.

I think that's the whole point of the opening line: to identify and prime this theme for the audience.  Of course it's not a true story.  Malvo would have been caught years ago; no police chief in the world is this dumb; of course that one dude would realize immediately that he'd been drugged with amphetamines; hit-men probably don't go out of their way to be as conspicuous as possible; Lester murders his wife instead of just yelling at her or getting a divorce or whatever; the list goes on and on.  But it's not trying to be Law & Order.  It's trying to be a Coen brothers story.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on September 22, 2015, 05:52:14 AM
Black Mass (Scott Cooper, 2015)

A good movie. Can't say there was really anything new here, anything that hadn't been done before or that I hadn't seen before, but it was done well. The highlight of the movie is the performances, mainly the one from Johnny Depp. During more than a couple parts, he made me feel genuinely very uncomfortable. It's nice to see him in something good after so long, to remind everyone what an amazing actor he really is. The accents in the film are hilarious, particularly Cumberbatch's weird Brit-attempting-midwesterner-attempting-Bostonite accent he's got going on.

So yeah, good movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 24, 2015, 12:56:16 AM
The hallmark of a Coen brothers story is the contrast of extremes: extreme tedium punctuated by brutal violence; exception genius in close-quarters with equally exceptional ineptness; gallows humor; larger-than-life events in a banal setting.  Their lack of correspondence to reality isn't a function of being lazy; it's a storytelling device.

I think that's the whole point of the opening line: to identify and prime this theme for the audience.  Of course it's not a true story.  Malvo would have been caught years ago; no police chief in the world is this dumb; of course that one dude would realize immediately that he'd been drugged with amphetamines; hit-men probably don't go out of their way to be as conspicuous as possible; Lester murders his wife instead of just yelling at her or getting a divorce or whatever; the list goes on and on.  But it's not trying to be Law & Order.  It's trying to be a Coen brothers story.

I won't claim that Coen brothers movies are intended to be particularly realistic, but none of them have asked its audience to accept plot events nearly as contrived and unbelievable as the ones in this show.  It's not their outlandishness that I take issue with; it's how lazily they're written.  The writer clearly put a lot of effort into the dialogue and the specific setpieces, but he didn't seem to be interested in connecting all these scenes together into a cohesive overall story.  Instead, we just got a lot of vague handwaving whenever a situation needed to be justified by any means other than quirky dialogue or brutal violence.  I mentioned before all the miraculous coincidences - Lester coincidentally runs into Malvo twice, Gus coincidentally runs into him three times, Molly manages to interrupt Lester when he's about to do or in the middle of doing something bad multiple times, etc.  And another annoying example is the police being extremely inattentive whenever it's convenient to the plot - not merely dumb or incompetent, but inattentive to the degree that you'd wonder if they even have functioning eyes and ears.  Nobody in the police station notices Lester shrieking and thrashing about in his cell when Mr. Wrench and Mr. Numbers torture him.  Nobody in the SWAT team is even a little suspicious that the guy they just shot is gagged and bound to a chair and an unloaded gun.  And my personal favorite, Key and Peele don't notice the giant fucking shootout happening just across the street from them.  I guess their witty banter drowned all the gunfire out?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on September 24, 2015, 07:37:02 AM

So let me get this right, you didn't like it?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on September 24, 2015, 04:12:48 PM
Seinfeld is filled with miraculous coincidence and happenstance.  Usually the grand/final punchline to the episode is based entirely on a contrived coincidence combined with, or sparked by, completely unreasonable behavior.  But the point of the show isn't to construct a convincing narrative about how such events could reasonably occur or explaining why anyone would behave so unreasonably.  The show's purpose is different from that.  Not everyone will love what they're trying to do, but labeling the writing as lazy for relying on such contrivances isn't really fair.

I won't claim that Coen brothers movies are intended to be particularly realistic, but none of them have asked its audience to accept plot events nearly as contrived and unbelievable as the ones in this show.  It's not their outlandishness that I take issue with; it's how lazily they're written.  The writer clearly put a lot of effort into the dialogue and the specific setpieces, but he didn't seem to be interested in connecting all these scenes together into a cohesive overall story.  Instead, we just got a lot of vague handwaving whenever a situation needed to be justified by any means other than quirky dialogue or brutal violence.

I don't think Fargo is a crime drama or police procedural, although I agree this would be a fair criticism if it were.  I think Fargo is a parable.  I think that's one of the reasons that so many characters end up telling a parable in the show.  Fargo is a series of modern parables.  Parables aren't about rationalist narratives and plot details.  They use caricatures to tell moral tales.  How each character gets from A-Z isn't the important part.  In fact, getting bogged down in those details would detract from what the show is trying to do.

Also, my prior point wasn't that the hallmark of a Coen story is a lack of realism.  My point was that it's the contrast of extreme elements: extreme tedium punctuated by brutal violence; exceptional genius in close-quarters with equally exceptional ineptness; gallows humor; larger-than-life events in a banal setting.  The remarkableness of the coincidences and happenstances that occur to these small-town folk in their tiny locale is part of that contrast.  It fits thematically with everything else in the show.

Maybe what I mean is that, like them or not, I don't think these coincidences were written like "fuck how do we make these two meet...whatever just have them run into each other because i'm hungry for lunch."  I think that miraculous coincidence was an intentional feature of the story from the beginning, like "let's write a story about a completely unbelievable unfolding of events in a setting where that would be funny."

I mentioned before all the miraculous coincidences - Lester coincidentally runs into Malvo twice, Gus coincidentally runs into him three times, Molly manages to interrupt Lester when he's about to do or in the middle of doing something bad multiple times, etc.  And another annoying example is the police being extremely inattentive whenever its convenient to the plot - not merely dumb or incompetent, but inattentive to the degree that you'd wonder if they even have functioning eyes and ears.  Nobody in the police station notices Lester shrieking and thrashing about in his cell when Mr. Wrench and Mr. Numbers torture him.  Nobody in the SWAT team is even a little suspicious that the guy they just shot is gagged and bound to a chair and an unloaded gun.  And my personal favorite, Key and Peele don't notice the giant fucking shootout happening just across the street from them.  I guess their witty banter drowned all the gunfire out?

But these things all have a purpose.  It's hardly laziness.

1.  The whole plot of the story is based on a chance meeting between lawful good and chaotic evil (and the effect Malvo has on Lester simply by entering his life).  That's the parable.  There literally isn't a story if Lester can't coincidentally run into Malvo on the day Hess beats him up.  This is sort of what I mean about a unbelievable unfolding of events.  That's what's funny about it.  Malvo rolls into this tiny town, get's mixed up with everyone and causes evil chaos, and this tiny little tundra town is shoved unwillingly into modernity.

2.  The police are caricatures.  Everyone is, but the police are especially so.  As I mentioned, of course no police force would be so incompetent.  Malvo obviously would have been caught years ago.  That's the funny contrast: this tiny tundra town is basically out of time.  They all live in this idyllic, isolated little village with no crime, and suddenly the most evil human alive drives through and decides to fuck around.  Part of what makes it funny is how totally unprepared the police are to even understand what's happening to them.  And also because if Malvo and Lester get caught in the second episode then the show would be over and there would be no parable.

3.  Did you really not laugh at all when the dude got shot up by SWAT?  Or during that Key and Peele scene?  I mean, that was funny!  The whole point was to be funny about how inattentive and bad at their jobs they were.  Obviously it wasn't realistic.  It's not meant to be.  It's meant to be funny caricature.  These two dudes are so bad at their jobs that they don't even notice that the building they're watching is getting shot up by Evil McSatan.


this got way longer than i meant it to be tbh tbh tbqh.  it doesn't really matter to me if anyone else does or doesn't like fargo, i just think this particular criticism is odd.  i don't think fargo was ever trying to be a show that is so fastidious about the plot.  i think it's just trying to tell a funny story, and i think the kind of fastidiousness you're talking about would only make the story worse. 

Another good example of what I mean is the final time Gus runs into Malvo.  Sure, Gus just happens to drive by Malvo's place and see his car.  But it isn't because of lazy writing.  There's a point to it all.  Part of the parable of Fargo is the effect that Malvo has on everyone and the qualities he brings out in them: Lester becomes evil, Vern dies, Molly becomes brilliant, Bill becomes irrelevant, etc.  Gus becomes a predator.  That was the symbolism of the wolf on the road: Gus turns a corner and realizes that he can't protect his family without becoming a predator like Malvo.  They could have written their confrontation many different ways, but they chose to write it with Gus stalking Malvo, setting a trap, and hunting him.  So, from the perspective of the writers, the point really isn't to come up with the most convincing way to have Gus find Malvo; it's just to make it happen at the right time in the story to show the transformation and resolve other parts of the plot.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on September 25, 2015, 07:18:37 AM
Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (Tommy Wirkola, 2013)

It's dumb, it's stupid, it's cheesy as fuck, but pretty entertaining. With Hawkeye shooting at witches with a big gun and Peter Stormare playing a douchebag. 7/10, was good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on September 28, 2015, 12:13:45 AM
Everest (Baltasar Kormákur, 2015)

Pretty good movie, if way too long. Could've done with a fifteen or thirty minute trim. It would be one thing if Kormákur had used that time to show the tedium and dreadfulness of being stranded, as I thought he would, but that was unfortunately not the case. Instead, there was a lot of hanging around plot points with no new information, pretty much everything going on longer than necessary. Every plot point repeats itself various times, either with the same character or with others, and by the end it's exhausting.

On the bright side, though, it was a desolately pretty film. Very nice to look at. And the characters were all pretty decently-developed, even if only a handful of them felt like real characters by the end. Everything was done pretty well, but I don't think there was anything that was done superbly.

Honestly, that's about all I can offer on it because nothing stuck out too much, it was just a slightly-above-decent movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 01, 2015, 11:46:40 PM
I just finished the second episode of Narcos.  It's quite good so far.  I think it struggles a little bit to make the narrator someone I care about.  At this point I'm only in it for Pablo.  The narrator is a little bit too generic for me so far.  Beyond that, though, it's executing really well.

I, too, have watched the first couple of episodes of Narcos, but I don't think I'll be watching any more.  Pablo Escobar was no doubt a fascinating figure, and I'm sure there's a great story to tell about him, but it's not to be found here.  The fucking narration just kills this show.  This guy is seriously just the blandest, whitest, most clichéd and predictable cowboy-cop stock character they could have possibly put into this show.  Everything about him, from his exaggerated accent to his attempt at adopting a too-cool-for-school, none-of-this-fazes-me attitude feels incredibly forced and inauthentic.  It's wannabe Scorsese, basically.  But at least Scorsese's use of narration is intended to tell you just as much about the characters as the story itself, by letting you compare how the characters describe the events going on to what you actually see happening on the screen.  Here, it's pure exposition.  Telling rather than showing.

I've also watched Cop Car, the film from newcomer Jon Watts that impressed Marvel so much that they decided to let him direct the upcoming Spider-Man movie.  It's a solid thriller, and Watts definitely proves his talent as a director with every tense moment he wrings out of it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on October 02, 2015, 09:55:20 PM
The Assassin (Hou Hsiao-Hsien, 2015)

Hou marks his return with eight years having passed since his last release. This latest feature is as slow and enigmatic as you would expect from him, despite the clear influences from the wuxia genre. Sure enough, there's some action here - very stylish at that - but it's mainly there to punctuate the long periods of quiet and the action scenes are always over very quickly. All in all, there's probably less than three minutes of fighting in this film, so it's certainly not an action film, despite what you may be led to expect. Instead it's a very minimalistic story of political conflict and family bonds, and it's sadly not that effective.

I find that Hou's style of storytelling works at its best when it's used in settings and scenarios that are immediately relatable and familiar to the viewer, such as the modern urban settings in Millennium Mambo or Café Lumiere, but here in Tang Dynasty-period China with pseudo-fantastical elements, there's too much backstory and context to simply gloss over without any exposition. As such it's difficult to relate to the characters because you don't know who exactly they are and what exactly the conflicts are about.

I'm still going to have to give this film a positive grade, because while the story didn't really pull me in, the visuals sure as hell did. Hou's storytelling may be too obtuse for his own good, but this film in my mind cements him as the current best working director. It's clear that this is his biggest and most ambitious project yet - everything from the beautiful expanses of Chinese landscapes to the finely crafted mise-en-scene of the interiors looks stunningly beautiful with Ping Bin's masterful cinematography, and under Hou's direction it makes for near shot-for-shot visual perfection. It is hands down one of the most beautiful and well shot films I've ever seen.

To me this film falls into the same camp as Flowers of Shanghai, with its story leaving something to be desired, while I'm still left completely enamoured by the masterful direction. The problem isn't necessarily that the story is bad, I just want more of it. This film, for better or for worse, feels like a small excerpt from a much bigger story. 8/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on October 05, 2015, 01:07:21 AM
You can bet your ass that this post will soon be edited with my thoughts on the season premiere of Homeland.  Fuck yes.

I have mixed feelings about the season premiere.  I guess I'll have to see how it plays out, but I'm worried that this season is going to be too thematically similar to the last season.  Without giving away the events of the episode, they're setting things up to keep exploring what they've already covered: the effect of violence on the "soul," the extent to which spy-crafting is an addiction from which most of the protagonists cannot free themselves, and the hopelessly unending cycle of violence that enables and feeds the addiction.  Those are interesting themes, but they've done it already.

Frankly, I wish they'd take a season off from trying to say something and just give me another version of the cat-and-mouse drama that was season 1.

I, too, have watched the first couple of episodes of Narcos, but I don't think I'll be watching any more.  Pablo Escobar was no doubt a fascinating figure, and I'm sure there's a great story to tell about him, but it's not to be found here.  The fucking narration just kills this show.  This guy is seriously just the blandest, whitest, most clichéd and predictable cowboy-cop stock character they could have possibly put into this show.  Everything about him, from his exaggerated accent to his attempt at adopting a too-cool-for-school, none-of-this-fazes-me attitude feels incredibly forced and inauthentic.  It's wannabe Scorsese, basically.  But at least Scorsese's use of narration is intended to tell you just as much about the characters as the story itself, by letting you compare how the characters describe the events going on to what you actually see happening on the screen.  Here, it's pure exposition.  Telling rather than showing.

I found the narrator completely uninteresting as a character (except to the extent that he mirrors his IRL counterpart), but I enjoy Pablo so much that I didn't have much trouble watching the series.  Could be selective memory, but I don't even recall him being around a ton. 

I'm most disappointed that season 1 doesn't wrap up the whole Escobar story.  I was hoping that it would be serialized and dramatize the life of a different narco in each season.  That would have been badass.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 10, 2015, 02:08:29 AM
Meant to reply to this:

So let me get this right, you didn't like [Fargo]?

I'd say the good outweighed the bad for the most part.  I enjoyed it reasonably well, and I'm looking forward to the next season's premiere on Monday, which has gotten excellent reviews (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/fargo/s02/) so far.  I'm also pleased to see that Noah Hawley has split the writing duties up this time around.  You can't have one person writing every single episode of a TV show.  Television is a team effort far more than books or films are, and if we're constantly getting hour after hour in one writer's voice, with their style, their quirks, and their flaws, it's going to get stale after a while.  That's a big part of what tripped up True Detective, and while Hawley is a much better writer than Nic Pizzaplanet, he's not immune to this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2015, 06:27:01 AM
and while Hawley is a much better writer than Nic Pizzaplanet, he's not immune to this.
pls stop shittalking Nic Pizzaplanet. He and Joshua Planetstein are the greatest artists of all time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 19, 2015, 03:29:02 PM
The Raid: Redemption and The Raid 2 (Gareth Evans, 2011/2014)

(Fine, I'll use this format.)

Fucking awesome.  If you haven't seen them already, do so now.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on October 19, 2015, 03:40:52 PM
Fucking awesome.  If you haven't seen them already, do so now.

Nice review. Now I know exactly what you liked about them so I can decide if I would like those things as well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on October 19, 2015, 04:24:30 PM
Fucking awesome.  If you haven't seen them already, do so now.
Don't tell me what to do!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on October 20, 2015, 02:43:20 AM
Frank Zappa Halloween '81

This was probably one of my favourite things of Zappa I've heard yet. It didn't feel overlong like most of his work I've heard, and it stayed varied and impressive enough to keep my (auditory) attention the whole time. There wasn't much going on that was interesting to watch, but it was neat to see Zappa and his band perform, since I never really have before.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Particle Person on October 22, 2015, 04:45:19 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSQbTb8_btw

Was good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 22, 2015, 08:29:51 AM
I’ve finally finished Stargate Atlantis, a programme which I gave up on when it was first broadcast. I’m glad I stuck with it, this time. The show generally strikes a good balance between serious sci-fi drama and light comedy, the characters are warm and engaging, and the setting is unique enough to distinguish itself from its parent series without throwing what came before under a bus.

That said, the show isn’t perfect, there are more than a couple of episodes which fall far too heavily into the ‘comedy’ side of the balance and just come across as silly. Character development is also inconsistent from one writer to another – it’s there with all of them, but most noticeable with Dr McKay; he is introduced as the obnoxious and insufferable genius he was in SG-1 and his character arc is supposed to show him learning to work better with others, be more aware of his weaknesses, and generally becoming a team player but there are episodes where he’ll either drop it all and go back to ep1 McKay, or go too far and make him a craven coward.

In addition, I found their treatment of non-human aliens to be troubling at times. A species could be as sentient and empathetic as humans but if they’re even slightly different, the Lanteans never show many qualms about experimenting on them, killing them, or committing genocide.

Now that SGA is out of the way, my next watch is the almost universally panned Stargate Universe. Wish me luck.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 22, 2015, 02:37:56 PM
Fucking awesome.  If you haven't seen them already, do so now.

Nice review. Now I know exactly what you liked about them so I can decide if I would like those things as well.

Oh, you probably wouldn't like them.  They're big dumb Indonesian action movies that emphasize the cast's mad skillz in pencak silat and killing people in gruesome ways.  But I will go into more detail.  The first film is set in a tenement run by a notorious gangster that a SWAT team is raiding.  However, the operation goes to hell and the trapped cops are hunted by dozens of the tenement's criminal residents.  What I really like about this movie is how smartly it subverts the common tropes of these kinds of martial arts-based action films.  With the exception of one of the main antagonists, the characters in this film don't fight fair.  They smack their enemies' heads against surfaces, throw them out windows, and use all manner of weapons they can get their hands on, like machetes, guns, or clubs.  They're not realistic, far from it, but the fights have a much more visceral and tangible feel to them than there is to a more typical scene of two elegant martial artists just punching and kicking each other until one of them falls over.

The second film sheds the high-concept of a raid gone wrong and goes with an undercover cop story in the vein of Infernal Affairs or Sleeping Dogs.  I appreciate them not wanting to just repeat themselves for a sequel, but I do miss the brilliant simplicity of the first movie.  It's still a great film, and has plenty of incredible action, but I'd rate it just slightly below the first one.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on October 27, 2015, 07:46:19 AM
Bridge of Spies (Steven Spielberg, 2015)

I wish I'd written this review yesterday, since now I hardly remember anything I wanted to say about it. But, the gist is, it's a movie (based on a tru story) about an American lawyer in the 1970s, during the Cold War, who gets tasked with defending a man accused of being a spy for the Soviet Union. There's more to it than that, it escalates, but that's the setup.

All-in-all it was a very good film. The camerawork was fine, and I actually really liked the dull tones and seemingly light bloom sort of filter imposed over most of the movie, especially with the sort of shots Spielberg used to keep windows exposed, with a fuzzy aura. That sentence was a fucking trainwreck.

Anyway, very good movie. Mark Rylance was great and I loved his moments on-screen, and Tom Hanks cannot be overrated as an actor. Goddamn, that man. He does such a great job imbuing his characters with enough tics and mannerisms naturally that they feel more like real people than any other actor.


Time Lapse (Bradley D. King, 2014)

Found this and several other movies I'll probably end up watching on a list of low budget films with interesting concepts. This one is the story of (and you find all this out in the first 10 minutes, so I don't consider it spoily) three people living together (an artist, his girlfriend and their friend) that discover a camera in the house across from theirs that's been taking pictures through their window for at least a month, ever single day at 8PM. What's strange is that the camera seems to be taking pictures...of the next day. Hijinks ensue!

Finding out what exactly leads up to each picture can be obvious, heart-poundingly intense or a delayed "...ohhhh" moment. Just as exciting is guessing at and finding out what the next picture is going to be. Even then, nothing is quite what it seems.

Seriously, despite some questionable acting at times and pretty standard cinematography, the concept and story is what makes this one so exciting. That is, at least for me—my standards are presumably different (and possibly lower) than others'. That said, it's usually rare for a film to really snag me nowadays, but every time I thought I was getting a bit tired of this film it threw a new curveball and executed the concept excellently.

I don't want to say too much, because not knowing what's coming next is part of what's exciting, but I would recommend this movie to anyone who has two hours and wants to give something new a shot. Personally, I fucking loved it and am going to force my nephew to watch it this weekend.


Circle (Aaron Hann and Mario Miscione, 2015)

On that same list. The setup to this one is that fifty people suddenly come to in a black and red room, and quickly find out that they have to vote (every two minutes) to kill one person. The movie is mostly about the dynamics of this, why people vote for whom, how long certain people last, stuff like that. That's literally all the plot there is for the majority of the movie so I can't get into specifics without spoiling, but it's interesting.

I think that's the only word I can really use for this film. I don't know if I would call it good or bad; it was interesting. I'm feeling sort of ambivalent about it post-watching, but I don't regret it since I was engaged. I dunno.

This one's an easy recommendation. If that premise sounds interesting to you, watch it. If it doesn't, don't.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on November 02, 2015, 05:54:19 AM
^ Continuing with that list


Enemy (Dennis Villeneuve, 2013)

Starring the glorious Jake Gyllenhaal as a man who, while watching a movie, sees himself as a background character and decides to investigate, leading to a series of troubling, confusing, and inexplicable (sometimes very fucking inexplicable) events.

Well, enough can't be said about the atmosphere in this movie. It's mysterious and gloomy, bordering on paranoid in that even when it answers your question it leaves enough leeway that you're not sure anything's actually been answered. It's intriguing in that way, allowing every scene to draw you in out of curiosity and wanting answers. Plus not enough can be said about how good Jake Gyllenhaal is, because he's Jake Gyllenhaal and he's really good.

I would elaborate more but I don't want to say too much because, out of the few films I've watched so far on this list, this is my strongest recommendation so far. Partly because I think it's great, but also because I want someone else to watch so I can talk about it with them. :P It's very much a "what the fuck did I just watch?" film, but it's great for it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 17, 2015, 07:17:54 PM
Spectre (Sam Mendes, 2015)

Starts out well enough, with some tight action sequences and a lighter, more comedic feel than the last few Bond movies, and then about halfway through, an unpleasant and unearned grimdark tone appears right the fuck out of nowhere, and an incredibly half-assed plot involving mass surveillance, the powers of government, weak political commentary, blah blah blah, lurches its way into focus.  Aside from that, it's poorly paced, way too long, has a very underwhelming climax, and a boring love interest who has no chemistry with Craig.  Speaking of the actors, Craig is good, Ben Whishaw is good, and Dave Bautista is a lot of fun as a gleeful heavy.  Christoph Waltz is also good, because of course he is, but he doesn't have nearly enough screen time.  And I really hated the claim towards the end that (I'm not going to use spoiler tags here, because that's how much I don't respect this "twist") that Craig's previous villains were all secretly working for SPECTRE all along.  Really?  So Javier Bardem's twisted, demented villain from Skyfall wasn't really trying to get revenge on M for what he saw as his betrayal by her?  He was actually just a lackey of Waltz under orders to fuck with Bond by killing his boss?  Wow.  I never thought that I'd be arguing about these canonical details for a series as silly as Bond, but to essentially retcon the events of previous films as being mere preludes to this one, and the villains as just pawns of this other villain seems incredibly disrespectful to me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 23, 2015, 06:44:43 PM
Jessica Jones (Marvel's latest Netflix show)

This was great.  It's definitely the darkest and most mature franchise of the MCU, and as well as ramping up the profanity, violence, and sexuality, it takes a close look at some very heavy subjects, with rape in particular standing out.  It's well-written, well-acted, and well-directed throughout, with a compelling and flawed heroine, a disgustingly creepy villain, and an intriguing neo-noir tone.  My one big criticism of it is that the action scenes aren't all that great.  They're awfully repetitive - prepare to see a lot of guys getting thrown against walls and over tables - and Jessica's powers are portrayed very inconsistently in them.  We'll see her ripping open padlocks and lifting cars, but once a fight starts, she'll apparently have trouble just trying to take down a few attackers, and even getting her ass handed to her on a few occasions.  I know they're on a budget, so there's obviously going to be a limit to how impressive the special effects or wire fu they show us will be, but creativity costs nothing.  A little more of that would have been nice.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on November 24, 2015, 06:17:23 AM
Jessica Jones (2015)

Aaaaaaaah this was amazing and I love it I love it I love it. There are flaws, like, yeah, the fight scenes are usually kind of dull, and I'm a bit sad that there was less of a private investigation focus in the show (granted, her skills in the career are put to much use). That said, though, the fact that they made Kilgrave so much more terrifying and well-done in this makes the fact that over half of the season is focused on him. David Tennant couldn't have done a much better job, and he was genuinely thrilling to watch (along with creepy as hell). Krysten Ritter did a fantastic job as Jessica, and I'm really glad they didn't go overboard and try to make her to be super-moral and a hero and stuff. She's a flawed, selfish alcoholic asshole with a troubled past, present and future and the show doesn't try to cover that at all.

I'm tempted to go into more detail, but I'd be writing an essay and I don't think anyone's interested enough to warrant that. :P In the end, I'll be singing this show's praises for a good while. Granted, the comic (Alias) has been important to me since I was a teen for several personal reasons, so I'm pretty biased, but I love it to death. Can't wait 'til season two.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on November 25, 2015, 05:39:18 PM
Jessica Jones (2015)

I bored my way through it because it's an MCU thing. I think it ended pretty good though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on November 27, 2015, 03:28:21 AM
La Haine (Mathieu Kassovitz, 1995)

A very stylish, yet very flawed look into the lives of troubled youth of Paris. Despite being immaculately directed, I can't help but feel how reminiscent the caricatured characters are to goofy MTV-era attitudes, which I think would appeal to children more so than anything this film is going for. 7/10

City of God (Fernando Meirelles and Kátia Lund, 2002)

For better or for worse, this is quite an emotional and tonal rollercoaster ride. It's a semi-autographical look into the lives of the people in the slums of Rio, filled to the brim gang violence and lack of order or security. Despite being genuinely heavy-hitting in its more dramatic scenes, the film otherwise errs too often on the side of stylised exploitation, which all too often puts the film at odds with itself. Tonal inconsistency aside, this is a very well paced and structured film, and pretty much every character - of which there are plenty - is compelling and well written, and the use of mostly amateur actors from real slums works wonders for its sense of authenticity. 8/10

Somewhere (Sofia Coppola, 2010)

I guess the most concise description for this film would be "Californication meets Lost in Translation", and while being compared to Lost in Translation is well enough worthy of merit in itself, I do feel like this film shows Sofia as having matured as a director - from simply being hugely influenced by filmmakers who likewise indulge in banality, such as the likes of Wong Kar-wai and Edward Yang, to having her own clear, distinct form to her method. Her understated quietness is filled with so much poignancy that I hoped it would never get any louder, and of course it didn't - otherwise this wouldn't be a film where "nothing happens". 9/10

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on November 27, 2015, 09:16:38 AM
Jessica Jones wasn't as good as Daredevil.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on November 27, 2015, 09:24:42 AM
It wasn't.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on November 28, 2015, 05:55:02 PM
I finished The Man in the High Castle last night.  I disliked nearly everything about the production and direction of this series.  The only thing I liked about it was thinking about all of the interesting notions and topics that come from the premise, but this series decided to explore exactly none of that and try to be a spy thriller instead.  That's all well and good, but it totally failed for me in that genre, too.  The fun thing about watching a good spy drama is unfolding the underlying, obfuscated narrative with the protagonist; but, this narrative unfolds in such an uninteresting, dry, and sloppy manner that I had a hard time making it through.

Just one example: they make a big deal in the first episode about how Juliana is an akido expert who can defeat/disable a man twice her size.  Like, it's this whole big scene of her whooping this dude's ass and throwing him around like a rag-doll.  For the rest of the show, there's only one scene where it's even remotely arguable that she uses this skill to save herself, and even then it only happens because another character shows up to help her (who magically shows up at just the right moment to foil the arch character! again!).  But, there are plenty of scenes where using that skill would have helped her escape the jam she's in, but instead another character coincidentally shows up at just the right time and place to save the day/advance the plot/render a bunch of scenes you've already watched irrelevant.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 01, 2015, 10:26:48 PM
Just watched the first episode of A Young Doctor's Notebook and Other Stories.

Decided to check this out on a whim, and I can’t say I regret it in the slightest. Jon Hamm and Daniel Radcliffe do a great job in their respective roles. Radcliffe plays a brilliant but inexperienced and naïve young doctor freshly-graduated from Moscow, while Hamm plays the older, wiser version of him. The episode focuses on the young doctor’s first operation in a hospital he’s been put in charge of running, while Hamm reflects on the experience via a journal his younger self kept. Amusingly, the two interact, as Hamm “talks” to his younger self and relives the experience and things he didn’t know.

The show has a very dry sense of humour, and a very dark one as well, which is much to its advantage as it deals with very dark subject matter. Despite having the tone of an hour-long show, it’s only 20 minutes, and probably all the better for it. No need for all the ramblings and confusing arcs of a show like CSI or House M.D., just a simple procedure injected with stark dealings with the subject matter and surprising splotches of levity.

If the rest of the show can keep up this tone, I’m super excited.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 02, 2015, 12:38:02 AM
Alright, finished season one of A Young Doctor's Notebook and Other Stories. I feel like this season should’ve been four episodes longer.

That doesn’t mean the season isn’t good—far from it!—but it certainly feels unexplored. Its large themes and character development don't lead themselves well to four short episodes.

It’s a gripping, visceral drama with slight surrealist tendencies and a very dark, very bleak sense of humour. It’s funny that I was watching Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt just before this (not a fan), given that that show is painfully optimistic and cheery. To go from a bright, vivid, glass half full New York to the stark, barren hopelessness of Muryevo is quite a jarring transition.

The highlights of this show are definitely Jon Hamm and Daniel Radcliffe. Admittedly, I’d hoped to see more dealing with patients and diseases in a medically non-advanced hospital in 1917 Russia, but the show largely eschews that set-up in favour of showcasing Hamm and Radcliffe’s respective versions of the doctor in their respective periods of life. It’s a tragic tale to follow, and it’s easy to get sucked into young doctor’s pessimism and cynicism. In fact, I haven’t quite gotten out of it! It’s hard to see a happy ending for anyone in this show, and I won’t spoil anything, but the show’s not over yet. There’s still another season for things to turn around, I suppose.

Not that the cynicism and hopelessness is a bad thing. In fact, the show pulls it off quite well and does a marvelous job at making you feel it. The barren and unsaturated cinematography conveys the atmosphere of the show well, and makes those brief moments of respite all the more comforting and helps you feel why the doctor makes some of the decisions he does.

I highly recommend this to anyone who likes dark dramas. Don’t go in expecting a grittier version of House M.D.; this show is not about the medical procedures. They just happen to be a part of the doctor’s story, and are sprinkled briefly throughout the four 20-minute episodes. The show is very much primarily about the doctor and his struggle with himself, both future and past depending on whose side you view it from.

All-in-all, great show, great season. Has some room for improvement (namely in how unnecessary some scenes feel. The show could’ve gone with 10-15 minute episodes), but is overall a very good unhappy experience.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 02, 2015, 05:20:39 PM
Sounds good.

I just finished my Stargate binge with Stargate Universe

I gave up watching this about half-way through the first season when it first aired, and unlike SGA, I'm not entirely sure that was such a bad decision, but I am glad that I took the time to watch it years later.

Perhaps the best thing that can be said for SGU is that it was ambitious. The previous two Stargate series had laid down a comfortable formula which would have been very easy to follow - a light-hearted Sci-Fi Adventure series with some amusing characters and cool battle scenes about saving humanity from a Big Bad. It would have been so easy for SGU to follow this well-trodden path, instead they decided to do a darker, more character driven series with no main antagonist. The problem was that it didn't really pay off, at least at first.

By 'darker', the writers apparently decided that meant that everyone must brood. Episode after episode go by with the whole crew moping around, tearing each other apart with petty arguments and generally being depressing. Exploring the far-reaches of the universe with an inexperienced crew and an alien ship they don't understand could have been really fun. Instead, most of the first season is a plodding, depressing affair where the viewer ends up wishing for the deaths of characters just so the rest can get on with things.

Then there's the direction. Whoever decided that all the cameramen must film everything as though drunk on a ship in a storm needs to be dropped off a ship in a storm. The shaky steadicam footage actually gave me motion sickness at times and the jerky, quickly-swapping close-ups sometimes made following the action difficult.

By the second season, they must have heard some of these criticisms and started making great strides to rectify them. the crew started cracking jokes, playing pranks on one another, talking about things other than how quickly they reckoned they were going to die. God, they actually smiled from time to time.

The second season brought up some interesting ideas to be explored; the fingerprints of a Creator, the starfaring human civilisation spawned from time-travelling crewmen, the consciousnesses stored on the ship's computer. By the end of season 2, it felt like the series was finally hitting its stride and becoming comfortable in its shoes, but by that point the damage was done, the ratings had dropped too low, and the damage of reviews was too great for it to go on.

I'd rate it as 5/10, moving up to 7/10 by the end of S2
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 11, 2015, 03:40:02 AM
Watching Aziz Ansari's Netflix sitcom Master of None. Watched the first episode weeks ago and thought it was pretty good. A few laughs, but dragged a little. Watched episode two a day or so later and it was horrific. Horrid acting, horrid comedy, incredibly forced and shoddy writing. Just eugh. Decided to stop. Took a detour to try to find some comedy show I would like, but Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt failed to make me laugh.

So picked up on episode three of Master of None today on a whim and damn, it was great. I got a good amount of actual laughs out of it. It reminds me a little of Louie, just because it's harshly real and not all romanticized like most sitcoms, but it's not too similar otherwise. So, yeah, gonna be checking out the rest of this over time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 15, 2015, 10:02:43 PM
Snowpiercer (Bong Joon-ho, 2013)

So the earth has frozen over, and the last of humanity has formed a dystopian society aboard a self-sufficient train that perpetually travels around the world.  You have to admire a movie that takes an absurd premise like this and plays it entirely straight.  If they had started making jokes or something, it would have all fallen apart.  But with a solid cast that give committed performances, violence that never feels glamorous or stylized, and some neat visuals, this ends up being a thoughtful, entertaining action film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 17, 2015, 08:28:31 AM
Nightcrawler (Dan Gilroy, 2014)

Goddamn, this was a good movie. It just solidifies Jake Gyllenhaal as my favourite actor, because he's a damn chameleon. I could barely watch him in this with how cringeworthy and unsettling he made the character (as he was supposed to), and everyone around him did a wonderful job. Basically, the movie is about a guy who starts a job himself of capturing crime scene footage, employing...questionable methods to do so. I'd rather not say more than that, as watching it all unfold is part of the joy and fuels the trepidation, but it's great. Just great. It's uncommon for me to actually be on the edge of my seat with movies, since most of the time things are pretty predictable, but this film had me nearly bursting at the seams from all the tension at times.

Despite the overall movie's quality, the cinematography was fairly standard and dull. I was kind of hoping for more from what little I'd seen of the movie, but that aspect was passable to decent.

So yeah. Good movie.


On another note, I'm now three episodes into Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. I keep watching one every couple weeks to give it another shot and I just can't figure out how I feel about this show. It range from painfully unfunny to kind of hilarious, and I'm not sure if it balances out or not. So much of the humour is tired and worn, but then there's random bursts of good comedy as soon as I think I'm bored enough to finally just quit. With another actress I'd probably have given up, but Ellie Kemper plays Kimmy delightfully enough that I can't hlep but look past the writing she's given and take some delight in her performance and how fun she is to watch.

So yeah. Sigh. I dunno what to dow ith this show. Each "I'll watch one more to figure out if I like it or not" is just as vague and enigmatic as the last.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 17, 2015, 01:13:56 PM
Dust in the Wind (Hou Hsiao-Hsien, 1986)

My second HHHHH film. I acutally really liked this one, despite it prominently featuring the molasses pacing I tend to jokingly give Blanko a hard time for. While I'm way too tired to go as in-depth as I'd like (w0w it's like that's a recurring theme in my reviews), this kinda made me realize how much Hollywood's oversaturated and overwrought pacing and style has affected my view of movies. I'm so used to twists and big things having to happen at every given moment that it was originally hard for me to stomach a movie that actually moved and felt like real life.

Anyway, it's a beautiful film, both story-wise and in terms of cinematography. Granted, I don't consider myself well-versed enough in that department to adequately analyze it, so hopefully the Hou panel I'll be watching tonight will shed some light on that, but it was purdy to look at. In terms of story, well, things happen. It's never boring (for me, at least), but there's not much to say since it's pretty simple. A boy and girl like each other and life things happen.

I'm gonna give myself a day to sleep on it because, honestly, I couldn't tell you why I liked this film as much as I did. It has, however, reaffirmed that I really need to watch Millennium Mambo again. It's been nagging at me for months.

Anyway, very good movie. I recommend it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 18, 2015, 01:26:49 PM
Well, just finished watching episode 9 of Master of None, and I just wanted to write a quick little blurb about it. The episode is titled "Mornings", because it takes place entirely in the morning. Not the same morning, but dozens of mornings over the course of a year or so. The episode's about, basically, a little over a year of a relationship. A few episodes ago the main character, Dev, met a girl and they decided yar yar let's be togethar. This episode is set in his apartment and just explores the little nuances of relationships that happen in the morning, and I wanted to write about it because of how damn well it does so. It catches all the little things, the goofy moments and the annoying ones, the tranquil moments and the angry ones, the little fights and the huge ones, stuff like when mannerisms clash, when you can't quite agree on things, when things are neglected or doted on too much. Honestly, this episode basically acts as a short film. I'd go as far as to say no prior viewing of the show is required to watch this episode, and it may actually work even better on its own because of some stuff at the end. Even if you don't like Aziz Ansari's humour (which I don't), that's not what the episode is about.

I really liked this one, and if anyone is curious about whether or not they'll like the show, I'd recommend watching this episode to find out. They're not all like this (this is probably one of the least funny episodes I've watched), but it's a pretty good sample of the kind of little things the show likes to touch on.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 20, 2015, 12:00:13 AM
Damn, Master of None's finale was great. I actually do recommend this show, finally. It picked up big time around halfway in, but even before that (second episode aside) it was pretty good in general. The second episode was an absolute travesty, though. Besides that, this show is really great at dealing with really human feelings in a sometimes frustratingly realistic way. During arguments I couldn't help but get annoyed or upset at how irrational characters were being and how things could've been solved, but I've also been in similar arguments enough to know that rationality doesn't always win out and sometimes doesn't even occur to oneself. Not to mention the show does a pretty great job at not being thoroughly predictable. Most of the times I expected it to fall into generic sitcom tropes, it usually let me think just that before deftly sidestepping them and moving on.

It was a mixed experience at times, but in the end I'm really glad I decided to watch this. Kind of given me some insights on life and relationships I gotta think about, as well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 20, 2015, 10:34:13 PM
Fargo (season two, 2015)

A tremendous improvement over the first season.  This has it all - fantastic acting, tragicomic characters, brilliant direction, an offbeat 1970s setting with a soundtrack to match, and most importantly of all, a (generally) believable plot that doesn't need to rely on coincidences upon coincidences or all cops in the world being idiots to advance the story.  I also liked how they got Martin Freeman back to narrate the penultimate episode.

One more problem I have with this show, however, is its frequent nods and references to the Coen movies (particularly Fargo).  Every time a character repeats a line from one of the movies, or the show does a little riff on a famous scene from a movie, I die a little inside.  It's literally the worst kind of cringey, try-hard fanservice, and it's just unnecessary for a show that's already shown that it can stand on its own feet.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 22, 2015, 10:03:51 AM
Been watching the show Brooklyn Nine Nine and I really can't overstate what a pleasant surprise this show is. I've avoided it for years because I figured it'd end up being a generic, goofy shitcom with standard one-liners, clichéd quips and predictable punchlines, thanks in part to the quotes I've seen online, but it's actually turned out to be really damn good. All the actors are magnificent at their characters, all the characters are very well-written and fleshed out, and all the writing is quick, witty and subversive (to an extent). Much of the time I think I know how a joke's gonna go, it doesn't, and even the jokes I can see coming tend to be pretty damn funny regardless, either due to writing or the actors' talents.

It's not perfect, I know many here have bizarrely "high" standards, but I'm getting a good amount of actual laughter out of each episode so far, and this is coming from someone who's spent the last month checking out dozens of highly-rated shows in search of something she'd actually find funny. Who knew the answer would be in a show I'd long written off?

I actually really recommend anyone check this out, at least the first three episodes. That's all I've seen so far. I'd say go for either the first or the third if you only wanna watch one, but if you have an hour to spare check out all three. It's great.

EDIT: Oh, one more thing I wanted to add. It always bothers me in sitcoms how so many of the jokes seem so mean-spirited and barbed, not helped by the fact that the recipient usually just looks disgusted or offended and then it's not talked about. This is especially clear in shows with laugh tracks, since if you take those away it just seems like they all must hate each other. But even in ones without them, it's often groups of people who seem like they should not be hanging out, and nobody ever actually laughs at jokes or quips. Actually, that last part is a problem with comedies as a whole (which is why I love when some shows like The Flash actually show people acknowledging the one-liners and jokes their friends make by laughing and/or smiling).

Anyway, my point is that everyone in this show seems like they actually get along, and nobody there is really a perennial butt of jokes. And if they are, it's usually still in good fun. There's insults in the vein of the kinds friends make to each other, but in the end everyone genuinely seems like they enjoy working with each other. It's just really, really refreshing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 22, 2015, 01:36:03 PM
I loooove that show.

Been meaning to get a Hulu account just so I can watch it. I got hooked at a friend's house one day and have been suffering without it ever since.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on December 23, 2015, 03:07:25 PM
I have watched the first six seasons of X-Files this semester in preparation for the reboot this january, still got 3 seasons to watch in a month, shouldn't be too bad.

Anyways, I went in with low expectations, not a huge fan of shows you can pick up at any episode in any season, but X-Files isn't exactly that. There are a few plot arcs stretched over top of Scully and Mulder hunting down monsters and murderers. Apparently, this was an accident. It was supposed to just be a "monster of the week" show, but Gillian Anderson got pregnant, and so the writers had to add some depth to the series.

I am now deeply vested in the series, very content with the ratio of plot to non plot episodes. While far from genius, the writing is entertaining enough to keep me coming back. That, and my growing hardon for Gillian Anderson. However, I'm afraid my love for the series will fade much like Scully has in the past 15 years.

8.43/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 24, 2015, 11:38:53 PM
My fever is back for the third time and I'm watching Marvel's Jessica Jones.

I love it. She is my soul mate. I may watch this all in one sitting.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on December 25, 2015, 11:36:35 AM
Boudewijn de Groot - Eeuwige Jeugd (2005)

Titled "Eternal Youth", this is concert footage of Boudewijn performing a wide variety of pieces from across his career. I particularly enjoyed seeing the arrangements of "De Reiziger" and "Het Land van Maas en Waal" for a smaller ensemble, as well as the live rendition of the wine glass solo in "De Engel is Gekomen" and the extended violin/washboard duel in "Wegen". Definitely worth watching, and I'll probably watch it again sometime.

I accidentally watched this in two parts because my power went out halfway through the first time, so my memory of the first half is a lot less clear than the second half. That's probably why all my stated highlights are from the second half.

Also, this is a pretty great film for Dutch learners, since in addition to the lyrics, Boudewijn speaks to the audience in Dutch between songs. I can't understand most of what he's saying yet, but I'll get there in time!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 30, 2015, 03:22:17 AM
The Hateful Eight (Quentin Tarantino, 2015)

If Fallout 4 was the most frustrating video game of the year for me, than Hateful Eight was the most frustrating film.  The first half or so of it is great.  The titular eight characters (technically there are more than eight of them, but the extra characters aren't particularly important) are introduced to the story brilliantly.  Each of them has a distinctive personality, a particular moral failing, a history they recount to the other characters that may not be entirely true, and absolutely no reason to trust most of the people that they're forced to hole up with in a cabin as a blizzard rages outside.  And then something happens that strongly indicates that at least one of the inhabitants wants everyone else dead.  Sounds great, right?  A clever high-concept story, a new genre for Tarantino to experiment with....and then he goes and fucks it all up by "resolving" the plot in the laziest, most obvious way he possibly could.  Intricate character development and well-earned moments of frantic suspense are utterly squandered in favor of anticlimactic shootouts, gross-out blood and gore effects, and the lowest of the low, shock value.  I won't reveal the ending, but I will say that if you've seen any of the last three Tarantino movies, it'll feel very familiar to you.  That's not a good thing.

Also, while it's far from the film's biggest problem, another thing that bothers me about it is that Tarantino seems to have lost his touch for ultra-violent slapstick.  Horrific violence being played for comedy is all well and good, but (at the risk of taking an objective stance on a subject as inherently subjective as comedy) the humor in violence very rarely comes from the violent act itself as much as it does the reaction from the characters.  Great comedy acts throughout the ages have understood this, like Tom and Jerry and the Three Stooges. And even when you can't get a reaction from the character whom the violence has been inflicted upon (for example, if they're killed by it), you can still get one from the other characters.  Take this famous scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBBni_-tMNs

What makes this scene funny?  Is it the actual shooting of Marvin in the face?  Or is it how Travolta and Jackson react to the shooting?

Anyway, even though the violence in H8ful 8 is clearly intended to be humorous, none of the characters have any funny reactions to it.  We're apparently supposed to think that so-and-so being punched in the face or getting their head blown off is funny in and of itself.  Jackson does frequently react to the violence by laughing hysterically at it, but that's not funny, it's just sad.  It makes him look like he's very easily entertained, and even worse, like he's supposed to be a prompt for the audience to also laugh.  A kind of one-man laugh track, so to speak.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 08, 2016, 03:38:35 AM
Surprise, assholes.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (Joss Whedon)

Hydra is up to no good ─ again! ─ and the Avengers come to kill them except some not quite X-Men people are also there and then Tony Stark creates an AI that wants to kill everyone because Iron Man fixing his own mistakes is pretty much what the MCU is about so James Spader kills some people and things explode and you know the drill.

The novelty of seeing a bunch of superheroes from different films team up to save the day has obviously worn off by now, so they can’t really rely on that this time around. To that end they try to cram as much stuff into the film's 140 minute runtime as possible, and it feels like Whedon can’t quite juggle that many things at once. More so than in the previous Avengers film the action jumps around between all the different members of the team in a rapid-fire style which, while not exactly giving me a kind of shot-driven nausea, does make it difficult to become invested in what’s going on, the inevitable brevity of each individual bit taking considerable weight off what should have been far more impactful scenes.

On the other hand, Jeremy Renner gets to play an actual character this time, and it’s nice to see Hawkeye, who was pretty much just a guy who stood around shooting arrows at robotic goons, do more than shoot arrows at robotic goons. On that note, the area in which the film definitely does better its predecessor is the "character moment." There are quite a few scenes, no matter how brief, which feature two characters having some meaningful dialogue with each other, and they're pretty good. They're stronger, more fleshed out, and this works nicely to offset the excessive action which predominates, but again I have to come back to the fact that there are just too many different things to explore all vying for screen time. This could probably have been 160 minutes, just to give it some space, and especially so that there could have been more time to develop the Ultron character. It's a neat role and James Spader does a great job with what’s there, easily giving the most enjoyable performance of the whole film despite being CGI the entire time, but it could have been even better if there had been more time, more depth.

Of course the plot beats are predictable and the one liners/banter are clichéd and silly, that’s pretty much a given and not really something I expect a film like this to try and avoid, so I don't really think about it, but there are literally no surprises in the entire film and I feel like that could either be down to me or Joss Whedon being jaded, he did quit the MCU after this, after all. I think the MCU still has good stuff in it, Guardians of the Galaxy was a nice surprise, and I'm sure there's more of that good stuff to come, but this ain't it. The focus is too much on watching Captain America hit things while arguing with Iron Man/Thor/Hulk/whoever or everyone crying because ego problems and not enough on Ultron which, despite being the main villain and the crazy muhfugga gon kill us all, has a lot of implied character that we miss because we spend too much time catching up with everything else. Whingers: Age of Ultravox is a mess, it fails to build on the promise of The Avengers and feels like a major missed opportunity, I can't quite call it bad, but it should have been so much better.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on January 08, 2016, 04:01:56 AM
I'll call it bad for you, because it was bad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on January 08, 2016, 04:03:32 AM
What's bad is both your opinions.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 08, 2016, 04:13:06 AM
I'll call it bad for you, because it was bad.
Certainly wasn't very good. I think the only thing keeping me from saying it was bad is that, although I was disappointed by it, my expectations were not high enough for my reaction to be that strong.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on January 08, 2016, 01:55:55 PM
Capeshit is bad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on January 13, 2016, 01:24:06 PM
The Revenant

It was a beautiful movie. Mostly a story about human endurance than revenge.
There are so many moments that are hard to watch because of their viciousness and cruelty. Wounds, attacks, stabbings, murder, gore.. it's all present.
The pacing was decent. A little slow, but in a poignant way. I don't know if I'd watch it again, but I loved it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 17, 2016, 06:44:22 AM
The Revenant (Alejandro González Iñárritu)

I'll say right off the bat that I liked this a lot more than Birdman, and I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that Birdman felt like I was watching someone tell me how clever they are, whereas this feels less like a virtuosic display of fancy tricks and more like crawling around in the mud with your skin torn off. It's a very raw and intense film, the camera is scarcely withdrawn, you're always right there in the thick of the action, which could be a Sioux raid on a trapper camp or it could be a man near freezing to death as he disembowels a horse and prepares to crawl inside to catch what glimpse of sleep he might. The cinematography helps, too, showcasing the harsh beauty of the landscape in beautifully composed shots, and with a decided emphasis on the harsh part, taking the staple vistas of the now classic exemplars of the revisionist western and subverting them into desolate visions that are as much of the mind as they are of the physical world. It feels tactile in a way, textural, where Birdman felt synthetic. I won't lie, there is still a little of that synthetic feeling here, which for me comes from the soundtrack and, I think, may ultimately be the result of Iñárritu and myself not seeing eye to eye on everything, but the primary mode is of flesh and blood and grit and visceral sensation.

DiCaprio is of course getting all the talk right now, and indeed his performance as Hugh Glass is commendable, as I did really feel like I was watching a man come back from at least very, very near death, if not a full blown resurrection. Being unable to speak and/or having no one to speak to for long stretches of the film gives an added physicality to his performance, his entire body must do the talking more so than any dialogue. Make up effects of course enhance the experience, as wounds are portrayed with what I guess I would call a visceral accuracy ─ like so much in this film, it's there and it really feels like it is. Even the bear, which is CGI, has a weight to it, and I could believe even as I sat there in the cinema that Hugh Glass was really fighting for his life. Aside from that obvious bravura performance, one of the best performances for me is that of Will Poulter, whose character is young and green and clearly out of his depth amongst the trail-hardened men that predominate both in main and supporting roles; he could have easily been forgotten amongst the intense physicality of DiCaprio and the thickly-accented Tom Hardy, whose accent work has gotten a lot better since Mad Max: Fury Road, but he remains, a symbol of innocence or near-innocence seemingly now just being born into the reality of a violent and cruel world.

The soundtrack is, for me, the major weakness of the film. It is the main source of the synthetic feeling that maybe characterises about 10% of the overall experience for me, certainly not enough to ruin my enjoyment of it, the film is overall too strong for that, but it does take the edge off of some scenes because, as I find typical of Sakamoto, it is simply too soft. There are no hard edges, no angles, the dissonances are soft and resolution is always forthcoming, and it feels like a warm and comfy intrusive blanket made out of almost nothing but triads. There is something to be said for its Spartan harmonic density as a reflection of the nakedness of existence portrayed in the film, but this quality is negated for me by the friendliness of the harmonies that are there. Aside from this, the bizarre choice to include a minor snippet of Messiaen's Fête des belles eaux in one scene seems to tip a little too far back towards Birdman, as not only does its inclusion seem synthetic, it is no less than a composition for an ensemble of electronic instruments; some people are pointing to this as being, along with the rest of the score, a sonic embodiment of the psychological/spiritual realm which Glass visits throughout his bitter journey, but I just find it unpleasant, and not in an appropriate way. At the moment I can't decide if I would have preferred a different score or no score at all, but suffice it to say the score that is there does not work for me.

I've been using the words "felt," "feeling," and "feels" a lot in this review, and I think this is mostly subconscious on my part, I haven't intended to rely on such limited vocabulary but there simply isn't another word which I could use so reflexively to talk about this film. Although there were plenty of moments in which I was very much aware that I was watching a film, at other times, and comprising a substantial amount of the film's duration, I was feeling it more than anything. The cinema was pretty warm, so I didn't feel the cold that some others have talked about in watching this, but the feeling of snow underfoot, of being swept downstream by rushing waters, of intense uphill climbs with heavy loads to bear, of sleeping on the fallen bark chippings of thousands of dead trees and clad only in a few furs, that was all very much present and there were times when the level of immersion, save for the ineluctable artifice of film, really was enough to take me out of the screening room and into that world.

Thus conclude my thoughts on The Revenant. I didn't like everything in it, but I was certainly very much into it while I was watching it and, upon collecting my thoughts here in the early morning of the day after watching it, I find that I still I am very much into it. I don't think it's the most amazing thing ever, and there are films yet to come this year which I am too hyped for to not be super biased towards, notably Anomalisa and High Rise, but I would be lying if I said I'm not keen to see what Iñárritu does next, because if his progression from Birdman to The Revenant is anything to go by, he's moving on to something really great in the next ten years or so. It's a very good film and I recommend seeing it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: mollete on January 17, 2016, 04:19:58 PM
I watched Primer last night. I'll be honest, it got a little confusing in some parts. But it was nice to see time travel approached in a more serious way than it historically has been.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on January 19, 2016, 05:12:43 PM
Werckmeister Harmonies (Béla Tarr, 2001)

The film opens with a gorgeously staged 10-minute long unbroken shot, portraying a young idealistic man composing a dance of the solar system on drunken bar patrons. It's a perfect setup for what very well could have been a masterpiece, but sadly it was not to be.

Viewed as a whole, the film could be understood to be a metaphor for struggle and societal decadence in Soviet-era Hungary, but sadly there's not enough material giving credence to that effect - Tarr would rather have the bulk of his film be about characters walking, greeting each other and having one of the characters do a menial task, until the same sequence of events is repeated in the next scene. Many of these scenes are shot in a very similar structure as well, undermining Tarr's undoubtedly vast talents as a director. The struggle that is manifested by a threatening migrant force takes a backseat to these mundane scenes until a violent confrontation near the end of the film, and it feels unjustifiably dramatic to a near-comedic extent - where was this struggle in the rest of the film? Another reoccurring element of the film is the portrayal of a decaying whale, trapped inside a trailer and parked in town square for attraction. The scenes accompanying this whale are easily the best beside the opening scene.

I can't say I'm a stranger to films grounded in reality, but if Tarr decides to shroud his reality in mundanity, who am I to say that this film is anything but mundane? It isn't ever really boring, because if there's one thing Tarr is really good at, it's moving his camera in such a way that captures the viewer's attention very effectively - but it did leave me wondering why I was watching what I was watching. There is undeniably a lot of underlying beauty in this film, but if Tarr's intention is to keep it buried within, so be it. 7/10

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (J.J. Abrams, 2015)

Good and serviceable action movie that is mostly faithful to Star Wars mythos, but not much else. Abrams continues his trend of reviving beloved sci-fi franchises with bombastic action thrillers, and this time he managed to make something that's neither offensive nor terrible. The good: the action is well directed, the film is never boring and is mostly well paced, and the audiovisual aspects of the Star Wars aesthetics are spot-on. Also, Han Solo was fun to watch as a grumpy old guy and Kylo Ren was easily the most fleshed out character in this whole film.

...And the not-so-good: first of all, this film is all action. It moves too rapidly for its own good. The characters can't have quiet scenes for themselves, to the extent that the characters of Finn and Rey are almost entirely based on comedic reactions they make during the action, and a huge amount of plot points are resolved purely through contrivance just so we could get back to the action faster. A key aspect of a successful action movie is to pace the action with moments of calmness, for both the sake of the audience and the characters. The characters need moments of rest to maintain the illusion of vulnerability and allow them to brace for more challenges, which drives the tension in the action, and the audience needs rest so all the action doesn't blur into a visually exhausting mess. Even Mad Max: Fury Road understood this concept very well, and that film was essentially one long chase scene. It becomes difficult to internalise the struggle the characters go through and what their motivations are when they're given no time for contemplation.

Second of all, this film is too safe. If there's one good thing that can be said about the prequels, it's that Lucas wasn't afraid of expanding the Star Wars universe. This film, on the other hand, is almost entirely about retreading old ground. We're all aware of the "A New Hope remake" meme at this point, but even beside the obvious narrative symmetry, the story introduces very little that sets this film apart and gives it its own identity. It is serviceable in giving instant gratification for the "Star Wars vibe" and reintroducing old and familiar characters, but I have to wonder what kind of lasting legacy this film is going to have. I think this film will be seen as too much of a nostalgic riff on the original trilogy, and I hope they can steer the franchise in a more original direction for Episode VIII.

Leaving this review on a positive note, like I said in the beginning, this is a good film. It's well directed, well acted, mostly well written and overall I enjoyed it. But it's hard to give this film much praise beyond "technically competent". 7/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on January 20, 2016, 07:25:43 AM
You just hate f...
oh.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 24, 2016, 01:27:34 PM
Hard to be a God (Aleksei German)

It's a difficult film to talk about because it is very much something to experience, it cannot really be related back to someone through text or speech, it's something you have to see for yourself. My main complaint is the duration, after about the first two hours it gets to be a case of diminishing returns, the excesses which at first combine into something spectacular start to become less and less interesting, every scene following a pattern of incomprehensible conversations, barf gags, spit takes, someone getting covered in mud or blood or a mixture of the two, naked dudes running around and falling over into mud or piles of bodies or shit or whatever. It's a very intense experience, but it loses a fair amount of that intensity to a lack of variety, what discernible plot events there are being spread too thin over its three hour duration. I feel like there's a two hour masterpiece in here, but in this three hour format all I can say is it's gorgeous to look at but boring to watch.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: spoon on January 27, 2016, 05:56:22 AM
I have been watching Dragonball Z Kai for the past few nights.

Although I didn't expect to enjoy it, I find its universe compelling in a goofy way. 7.5/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on February 06, 2016, 07:39:57 PM
A Serious Man (Coen brothers, 2009)

I don't know why I love black comedies so much when their very foundation tends to male me incredibly sad.

Don't get me wrong, I laughed plenty over the course of this film. Be it at lighthearted scenes or at people's lives going to shit, I laughed. And I appreciated the ending greatly. I'm not sure how to take it yet (I'd like to discuss it with Crudblud), but either way it's wonderful, painfully poignant, and delightfully abrupt.

I don't know the actors' names, but I'd also like to point out that the guy who plays Larry, the main character, is absolutely fantastic. I don't think the movie'd be a third as good without him. Everyone else did a great job as well, but he stood out to me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on February 08, 2016, 04:14:16 AM
2046 (Wong Kar-wai, 2004)

This film is a direct sequel to In the Mood for Love, and no, the title is not the year the film is set in. Instead it picks up where the previous film left off in 1960s Hong Kong, where Tony Leung's character has yet to get over his previous love interest and tries to capture meaning in his life with fleeting relationships and by writing a self-reflective story about a mysterious futuristic world of 2046 where people go to recapture lost memories. With his juggling of faithful 1960s aesthetics and an abstract sci-fi world, Wong Kar-wai is essentially making a more experimental version of In the Mood for Love, with many scenes and story elements being mirrored to a tee. While this film is expertly made with some excellent performances and is undoubtedly a great film in its own right, to me it unfortunately feels too much like an unnecessary sequel to an already excellent and self-contained film. 8/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on February 08, 2016, 08:24:45 PM
Mr. Robot (Season 1, Episodes 1-5 / Sam Esmail, 2015)

The first episode of this was really, really painful. It takes a while to adapt to the (what seems to me like) overexaggerated techno-talk and awkward uses of computer jargon to sound much more complex and intelligent than it actually is. Which isn't to say the show isn't smart, because for the most part everything seems really accurate. It's just the difference between writing a sentence to convey meaning and writing a sentence and swapping out every word with something with more syllables using a thesaurus.

Once you get used to that (though, to be honest, there's a level of cringe you learn to accept, especially with the technology metaphors and similes), the show is pretty fantastic. The main character's severe social anxiety and awkwardness is actually portrayed extremely well. And, weirdly, the show does gay relationships really well too. It's not a focus or anything of the show, but they sort of just occur and show up realistically. It's nice. Doesn't feel like they're just ticking a box to say "yeah we got a gay in here now: diversity!" and it doesn't feel like they're trying too hard.

Anyway, the thriller aspects of the show are the best part because it does tension really, really well, thanks in large part to the wonderful electronic soundtrack by Mac Quayle. It's when the show goes for drama that things get iffy. That seems to be a huge problem for me after watching more artsy obscure films that portray life in a much more...lifelike way. The manufactured drama of most TVs and movies sticks out like a sore thumb. This works fine in things like Fargo that embrace coincidence, serendipity and horrendous luck, but when a show is trying to pull of realism and believability and can just spiral out of control. Not to mention the show suffers from making all the women wallow in self-loathing and cry every twenty seconds. It's like bad stereotypes in a show that can't seem to decide if it wants to embrace or stay away from stereotypes.

That said, though, the show's worth a look (so far) and the hook didn't really catch for me until episode 3, so if you have a couple hours I'd give it a shot. A handful of the performances are what really have the line taut for me, particularly Martin Wallström (who I literally thought was Aaron Bruno from AWOLNATION at first) as Tyrell Wellick. There's a scene in either the second or third episode that really sold him for me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on February 09, 2016, 01:38:27 AM
Carter has been trying to get me to watch that for awhile. Guess I'll give it another shot, the first episode was definitely awkward though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on February 09, 2016, 06:15:46 PM
^ Do give it another shot

Mr. Robot (Season 1, Episodes 6-10 / Sam Esmail, 2015)

This show has defied my expectations and gotten rather insane, in a bewilderingly wonderful way. Decided it wanted to go the psychological thriller route and was much better for it. I'm gonna be interested in watching the show again with my nephew and seeing how much different it is knowing the things you know by the end.

The flaws I pointed out in the first post remain, but I'd still recommend the show. It's pretty great. Not a huge fan of the last episode, the tone was just so...weird. But maybe season 2 will help make some sense of it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on February 13, 2016, 02:45:39 AM
Inside Llewyn Davis (Joel and Ethan Coen, 2013)

If there's one thing the Coen bros are particularly good at, it's writing characters with realistically flawed humanity - characters who can't catch a break but who also don't evoke sympathy, because you know they deserve what they get. This film is all about one of those characters, a glimpse into the life of a struggling folk musician. It's a film where it's very difficult to tell how to feel about it, because it has no lessons of morality to teach or people to feel sorry for - you're just left wondering, what led to his character acting this way, and why does he do the things he does. It has a very delicate sense of melancholy that creeps up on you rather than forcing it upon you with cheap emotionalism - it mystifies you and sticks with you, a sign of an unforgettable film.

While I did enjoy this film a great deal, I must say I wasn't a fan of the visual style. Very drab, desaturated and gloomy lighting, that to me seems almost antithetical to its narrative accomplishments. I have nothing against mood-establishing lighting, but to do it on this scale feels almost as if the film is forcing a very specific kind of mood and tone on me, and thus distancing itself from the authenticity and realism of the characters and the narrative. I find it self-defeating, and from a purely aesthetic standpoint I don't find it very pleasing to look at. That aside, it's undoubtedly a great film with some fantastic performances and writing, so I don't have much to complain about. 8/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on February 25, 2016, 12:18:26 AM
Barton Fink (Joel and Ethan Coen, 1991)

A more disjointed and meandering effort than I've come to expect from the Coen bros, although I reckon much of it can be attributed to this film being early in their careers; their trademark style of writing is here, but a lot of it comes across as sophomoric and unrefined. 6/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on February 25, 2016, 03:11:51 PM
Barton Fink (Joel and Ethan Coen, 1991)

A more disjointed and meandering effort than I've come to expect from the Coen bros, although I reckon much of it can be attributed to this film being early in their careers; their trademark style of writing is here, but a lot of it comes across as sophomoric and unrefined. 6/10

I like John Turturro, but I felt he was not up to carrying this movie either.  I thought his performance was a little unfocused, sometimes feeling obligated to the emotion more than the story or the other characters in the scene.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on February 27, 2016, 09:18:19 AM
So I saw Zoolander 2.  Even knowing that sequels are almost always a letdown I was looking forward to this from the moment I found out it was in production since the first was so funny (really, it's one of the funniest movies of all time) and most of the original actors were taking part.

So...

It wasn't bad, exactly.  It just wasn't particularly good.  A lot of jokes just fell flat and often those jokes came one right after the other and it left kind of an uncomfortable vacuum of humor through much of the movie.  It gets better once Will Ferrell makes his first appearance, but even then it's still not great, and Ferrell is only in about a third of the movie if that making you wonder why they squandered so much potential (Ferrell's schedule would be my guess but I can really only guess).  And much of the climax is taken up by talentless (from an acting standpoint) leaders in the fashion industry which made me wonder if the film's creators understand who its target audience actually is. 

On the positive side, Ferrell really is a scream, Kristen Wiig's character's ridiculous accent is a hoot, there are actually some jokes that land, and some of the cameos are fun (no, I'm not talking about Bieber).

Bottom line, I give it a "C" but think it might be one of those movies that is better viewed at home on TV rather than on the big screen.  If you are a fan of the first I recommend it, but with the caveat that you need to be satisfied with taking what you can get from it and that you should probably prepare to be disappointed.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on March 01, 2016, 02:24:21 AM
Black Mirror (Season 1, Episodes 1-3 / Various directors, 2011)

An anthology series much like Twilight Zone, though generally facing much more real (or possibly soon-to-be-real) scenarios. This season is only three episodes long, but they're each 40-60 minutes and each exceptionally well done. I don't want to say much about it, because I really suggest you give this a shot knowing nothing about each episode. If you just want one to check out, I'd recommend either episode 3 or 2, since I find those two the most harrowing and fascinating, but they're all amazing. Give it a go.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on March 01, 2016, 02:35:41 AM
Black Mirror (Season 1, Episodes 1-3 / Various directors, 2011)

An anthology series much like Twilight Zone, though generally facing much more real (or possibly soon-to-be-real) scenarios. This season is only three episodes long, but they're each 40-60 minutes and each exceptionally well done. I don't want to say much about it, because I really suggest you give this a shot knowing nothing about each episode. If you just want one to check out, I'd recommend either episode 3 or 2, since I find those two the most harrowing and fascinating, but they're all amazing. Give it a go.

Ooh, wait til you get to "White Bear".
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on March 02, 2016, 02:28:30 AM
Just saw The Martian. It was OK/10. Not great
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on March 02, 2016, 04:03:57 AM

Just saw The Martian. It was OK/10. Not great

I also liked it okay.

Will Smith should have won best actor and Big Short should've won best film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on March 02, 2016, 06:45:09 AM

Just saw The Martian. It was OK/10. Not great

I also liked it okay.

Will Smith should have won best actor and Big Short should've won best film.
.

Leo should've won for What's Eating Gilbert Grape. And 5 other films, including the one he finally won for. Will Smith is a terribly overrated actor (though I haven't seen his latest film)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on March 09, 2016, 08:49:31 PM
Knight of Cups (Terrence Malick, 2015)

Malick is a painter of memories - fragments of pictures, moments and feelings that stick with you, in a disjointed and glorified form. Malick's only purpose seems to be to invoke the feeling that a memory invokes, even at the expense of narrative coherence; when it works, it's absorbing and beautiful, and when it doesn't, it's a frustrating experience. It's no wonder his last few films have been so divisive, and to top it off, even the most hardcore fans of Malick's style might start to find his use of fisheye lenses, wandering actors and golden hour photography a little too repetitive.

It's perhaps a little ironic that out of his last several films, this one seems to make the most narrative conceits despite having practically zero narrative framework. It's overshooting on a delicate balance that was in my mind perfected in To the Wonder. Without a basic structure to work off of, the simplest character traits become all the more prominent, and Malick is perhaps too reluctant to expand their narratives to a point where they feel like real people with real experiences. Instead they seem to only be there to serve one purpose, represent singular themes, and it feels too forced, artificial and arbitrary. For all his disregard for proper narrative, Malick still seems reluctant to let his character exist in a blank slate.

The premise has its issues as well - it's the same old Hollywood affluenza that we've seen plenty of already. A writer with an existential crisis that sinks his worries into fleeting relationships and a chase for experience, scenes that move like a sightseeing tour of LA - at some point you realize it's essentially an arthouse version of Californication and you snap out of the illusion.

So where do all these criticisms leave me? Well, I loved it. I can't help but love it. Nobody makes films like Malick does, or makes me feel about a film like he does - and even when I see the cracks on the surface, it's an experience I get lost in. It's easier to pinpoint criticisms than it is to put an intrinsic quality to words. The film has its flaws for sure, and it's not his best work, but it is still quintessentially a Malick film. If you like what he does, it's simply very difficult not to like. 8/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on March 10, 2016, 09:09:39 AM
Black Mirror (Season 1, Episodes 1-3 / Various directors, 2011)

An anthology series much like Twilight Zone, though generally facing much more real (or possibly soon-to-be-real) scenarios. This season is only three episodes long, but they're each 40-60 minutes and each exceptionally well done. I don't want to say much about it, because I really suggest you give this a shot knowing nothing about each episode. If you just want one to check out, I'd recommend either episode 3 or 2, since I find those two the most harrowing and fascinating, but they're all amazing. Give it a go.

Ooh, wait til you get to "White Bear".

God, 'White Bear' is terrifying - it's exactly the sort of grisly revenge-fantasy porn that I can imagine The Daily Mail campaigning for.

My favourite is a really close toss-up between 'White Bear', '15 Million Credits', and 'White Christmas' the end to all three sub-stories and the arc are horrific, like, keep you up all night thinking about the consequences horrific.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 18, 2016, 02:19:27 PM
Everyone watch the second season of Daredevil.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on March 19, 2016, 04:22:36 AM
I am, dick. Jesus.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 20, 2016, 03:14:10 AM
Daredevil (season two, 2016)

Very, very good.  I'd say I preferred the last season overall, but I respect how the show took risks and tried new things for this one.  I really liked the new characters - Elektra, the Punisher (Jewisher?), the Hand, etc., and enjoyed the series exploring deeper, more mystical Marvel lore.  Seeing Wilson Fisk again was awesome too, even though it did highlight this season's unfortunate lack of a good central villain.  My one big criticism is the Punisher's convoluted origin story and the weird conspiracy surrounding it.  It's boring, confusing, unnecessary, and a waste of the show's time.  I get that they were obviously trying to set up a potential Punisher show, and hell, I'm totally in favor of that, but...I don't know, they could have found a better way to do it.

Thinking about the future of this franchise, I'm actually going to say that I'd rather we not get a third season.  The higher-ups have said before that they really can't do more than two Netflix seasons a year, and I feel like it would just be diminishing returns at this point to keep focusing on one street-level character.  They're still rolling out the Defenders lineup, a Punisher show's been heavily hinted at, and there are plenty of other Marvel characters that would benefit from the Netflix treatment.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on March 20, 2016, 07:30:43 AM
Elektra was shit, js.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on March 21, 2016, 04:28:06 AM
They totes one-upped season 1 on the 'single shot' action scene in this season. Just great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 22, 2016, 02:31:14 AM
That was a great scene, but I didn't really connect to it as much as I did the one in the first season because of how flashy and stylized it was, instead of being gritty and (relatively) grounded.  Perhaps that criticism applies to the season as a whole, now that I think about it.  If the first season was "pre-capeshit" and Jessica Jones was "post-capeshit," then this season is just plain old capeshit, albeit very good capeshit.  Not that I'd want them to stick to the proto-superhero style, given the progression of the characters, but, well, the show has kind of lost some of what made it feel it unique to begin with.  Another reason why I think we've had enough of solo Daredevil.

Oh yeah, and the obvious geeky complaint - I'd have liked there to be just a little more awareness and acknowledgement of the fact that this is all set in the MCU.  There are a lot of times where you'd think that events or characters in the larger universe would warrant a mention or so.  For example, why is Matt so skeptical of the stories of the Hand and the Chaste when he presumably knows that a man who turns into a giant green monster when he gets angry and the fucking Norse god of thunder are real?  Or did the Hand take into consideration the fact that the Avengers might object to them launching their plans for world domination right in their backyard?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Vindictus on March 22, 2016, 05:44:12 AM
I'd agree that 2 seasons is enough. I don't really want it dragging on, and it would go out on a high note.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on March 22, 2016, 07:20:50 AM
Want moar Punisher
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on March 22, 2016, 12:33:06 PM
I'm all caught up on Vikings

The writing for this current season isn't as great. I'm really starting to get annoyed with Ragnar; all he wants to do is be weird with his new Chinese friend.
And they've started flipping between so many characters and storylines that nothing is being developed at a decent pace. Right now, it's almost like watching a less compelling version of Game of Thrones.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on March 23, 2016, 01:38:26 PM
This season sucks.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on March 23, 2016, 02:09:24 PM
This season sucks.
Yeah, I guess I have to agree. Which is sad, I really loved the 2nd and 3rd seasons. And I was really looking forward to the start of Normandy with Rollo. But like I said, they're stretching everything too thin. Ragnar has fallen off the deep end in a super boring way, I don't care about the Anglo-Saxons, and I'm really starting to hate Floki and Bjorn. It seems like they're just trying to set up for a big climax, but that leaves the rest of the season wanting. It's like watching the last season of Game of Thrones all over again. So disappointing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on April 01, 2016, 02:46:06 AM
Batman v. Superman

Not the best movie ever. Also not deserving of the over the top, new age criticism it is getting. It is objectively better than Avengers 2...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 01, 2016, 03:42:26 AM
"new age criticism"?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 01, 2016, 11:07:04 AM
Yeah wat, most of the criticism is because it's droll as shite. I literally fell asleep for a couple minutes. I haven't done that in a theater in almost a decade.
Title: Just Watched
Post by: juner on April 01, 2016, 11:16:36 AM
"new age criticism"?

Yes, where the Internet tells you how to feel about something before it comes out and you can form your own opinion. Then everyone you know online and even at work starts parroting those opinions as well.


Yeah wat, most of the criticism is because it's droll as shite. I literally fell asleep for a couple minutes. I haven't done that in a theater in almost a decade.

Meh, I disagree. I don't even like DC overall, but thought it was enjoyable. Not the best thing ever and maybe a little too long, but not the worst capeshit.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 01, 2016, 08:35:43 PM
Yeah, I really doubt that "new age criticism" is the reason it's getting bad reviews. I think an apparently large amount of people don't want to watch Batman v Superman: Dawn of Moping. Setting up an entire new universe where everyone mopes and furrows their brows for hours on end, talking about doing things incessantly instead of doing them and then cramming all that "doing" into twenty minutes. It's like they wanted the movie to be a political thriller, but didn't actually have any content so it didn't go anywhere. That plus all the plotholes makes me feel like this movie was written up in a 1-hour intense mope session where Terrio and Goyer cried at each other and had a contest to see how deeply each could furrow their brows, while Snyder just drew doodles of all the critics who said meany-head things about Man of Steel getting killed and working little sarcastic scenes towards them into the movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on April 01, 2016, 09:40:41 PM
Yeah, I really doubt that "new age criticism" is the reason it's getting bad reviews.
Then I suppose it is a good thing no one ever said that was the case.

Quote
I think an apparently large amount of people don't want to watch Batman v Superman: Dawn of Moping. Setting up an entire new universe where everyone mopes and furrows their brows for hours on end
This seems like a description of all the recent Batman movies.

I don't really disagree with the rest of what you said, and I am sure you know the DC universe better than me. I am not sure what people expect out of these movies, I guess.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 02, 2016, 05:04:21 AM
I am not sure what people expect out of these movies, I guess.

Better action sequences and a serviceable plot.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 07, 2016, 08:45:10 PM
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (Season 1, 2005)

I didn't expect to enjoy this half as much as I am. It's not completely puerile, immature and stupid...I mean, it is all those things, but it's all those things done in a tight, funny, well-written fashion. Even though the show has more hits than misses for me, I love the pace. It reminds me of Police Squad!, in that even if a joke falls flat, the show drags you along too quickly to let you linger on it and moves right on to the next joke. That said, they're not "jokes" in the traditional sitcom sense of one-liners and pauses. It's very much an organic thing and most of the comedy comes from scenarios, actions and conversation.

Basically it's really good and I can't stop watching. There's not much backstory to bother with (yet), so so far I'd recommend checking out the episode S01E07 "Charlie Got Molested" and/or S01E05 "Gun Fever". So far.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on April 07, 2016, 09:01:08 PM
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (Season 1, 2005)

I didn't expect to enjoy this half as much as I am. It's not completely puerile, immature and stupid...I mean, it is all those things, but it's all those things done in a tight, funny, well-written fashion. Even though the show has more hits than misses for me, I love the pace. It reminds me of Police Squad!, in that even if a joke falls flat, the show drags you along too quickly to let you linger on it and moves right on to the next joke. That said, they're not "jokes" in the traditional sitcom sense of one-liners and pauses. It's very much an organic thing and most of the comedy comes from scenarios, actions and conversation.

Basically it's really good and I can't stop watching. There's not much backstory to bother with (yet), so so far I'd recommend checking out the episode S01E07 "Charlie Got Molested" and/or S01E05 "Gun Fever". So far.

Fantastic news. It gets a lot better after season 1, too. The real fun doesn't start until Frank (Danny DeVito) shows up.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on April 08, 2016, 06:04:16 AM
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (Season 1, 2005)

I didn't expect to enjoy this half as much as I am. It's not completely puerile, immature and stupid...I mean, it is all those things, but it's all those things done in a tight, funny, well-written fashion. Even though the show has more hits than misses for me, I love the pace. It reminds me of Police Squad!, in that even if a joke falls flat, the show drags you along too quickly to let you linger on it and moves right on to the next joke. That said, they're not "jokes" in the traditional sitcom sense of one-liners and pauses. It's very much an organic thing and most of the comedy comes from scenarios, actions and conversation.

Basically it's really good and I can't stop watching. There's not much backstory to bother with (yet), so so far I'd recommend checking out the episode S01E07 "Charlie Got Molested" and/or S01E05 "Gun Fever". So far.

Fantastic news. It gets a lot better after season 1, too. The real fun doesn't start until Frank (Danny DeVito) shows up.
Yeah, season 1 is worst season confirmed.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on April 09, 2016, 06:30:25 PM
The Thin Red Line (Terrence Malick, 1998)

Masterpiece. 10/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 09, 2016, 08:27:56 PM
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (Season 1, 2005)

I didn't expect to enjoy this half as much as I am. It's not completely puerile, immature and stupid...I mean, it is all those things, but it's all those things done in a tight, funny, well-written fashion. Even though the show has more hits than misses for me, I love the pace. It reminds me of Police Squad!, in that even if a joke falls flat, the show drags you along too quickly to let you linger on it and moves right on to the next joke. That said, they're not "jokes" in the traditional sitcom sense of one-liners and pauses. It's very much an organic thing and most of the comedy comes from scenarios, actions and conversation.

Basically it's really good and I can't stop watching. There's not much backstory to bother with (yet), so so far I'd recommend checking out the episode S01E07 "Charlie Got Molested" and/or S01E05 "Gun Fever". So far.

Fantastic news. It gets a lot better after season 1, too. The real fun doesn't start until Frank (Danny DeVito) shows up.
Yeah, season 1 is worst season confirmed.

Really? So far I find Danny DeVito's character detracts from the show. Granted, I'm only a few episodes into season two so maybe that'll change.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dionysios on April 11, 2016, 11:08:15 AM
'Conspiracy' (2001)
(HBO movie)

'The Wannsee Conference' (1984)
(German with English subtitles)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URSNN5mnI2g

Just watched both of these about a week ago. I recall when the one made for HBO aired although I didn't bother to see it at the time, and I was right because the American remake is inferior. The dialog of the 1984 version with a German cast is taken verbatim from the actual record of this conference discovered in 1947. It is therefore much more interesting and informative. I thought reading subtitles well worth the substantial difference of content quality over the American version.

Reading holocaust denial literature a few years ago, I became aware that they make much of the fact that no written mandate from Hitler apparently exists for gassing of Jews. A scene in the German version deftly mentions that he did indeed explicitly mention it as a possibility way back in 1925 in Mein Kampf.

At any rate, the Wannsee Conference was the official go ahead for the gassing of Jews, and the full record of it exists. I got a copy through Amazon myself. The SS had begun gassing on a small scale at Chelmno prior to this conference which was held to announce it and coordinate with the departments of the German government. The fact that Hitler apparently didn't issue a written order (other than a passage in Mein Kampf) was for deniability which was the same reason he didn't visit the much more numerous labor concentration camps either.

It was at the Los Angeles Holocaust museum recently that I realized that the death camps (which numbered only six total) were considered Top Secret by the Nazis which corroborated in my opinion the fact that they were also responsible for the Katyn Forest massacre of Poles - the Nazis being the ones who "discovered" it. The western press just chooses to repeat Goebbels propaganda about the latter.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 11, 2016, 08:32:10 PM
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (Season 2, 2006)

The introduction of Danny DeVito's character was grating and made me really apprehensive about the future of the show, because I couldn't find him to be anything but annoying and not particularly enjoyable to watch. Fortunately, by episode 4 or so he'd integrated into the show well enough that he just felt like another character rather than a featured guest star.

I'm actually not sure if I like season two as much as the first. The middle of the season definitely had some of my absolute favourite moments, but overall the show seems like it's going less for clever, measured humour and more for "haha crazy bad stuff is happening isn't that hilarious lmao", coasting on shock factor and using the same tropes over and over (everyone talking over each other was funny at first, but I barely even register it now because it's become rarely worth listening to what each individual is saying), it just feels like the writing's gotten lazier. Things were hectic and unexpected in season one and the beginning of season two, but by the second half I've been seeing punchlines coming a mile away and the show just falls into the trappings of a sitcom like The Big Bang Theory or something else incredibly sterilized. Using obvious hard cuts for punchlines, the classic "person says a thing, wait two beats, other person changes topic nonchalantly", thinking outrageous situations are inherently funny without needing to add a joke to it...I dunno.

Hopefully it improves, and I still enjoyed the season, but the show's gotten incredibly formulaic and predictable already. We'll see if season three fixes that.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on April 12, 2016, 01:33:00 PM
Throne of Blood (Akira Kurosawa)

Kurosawa's classic adaptation of Shakespeare's Macbeth. Not much to say that hasn't already been said, a classic tale of ambition, deception, treachery, and paranoia, shot beautifully by one of Japan's greatest directors, and with a fantastic lead performance by his frequent collaborator Toshiro Mifune, to say nothing of the disturbingly cold Asaji (the film's take on Lady Macbeth) played by Isuzu Yamada. It's par for the course as far as Kurosawa's jidaigeki films go, which is to say that it's packed full of meaningful spectacle, psychological imagery, and is brilliantly staged and shot throughout.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on April 16, 2016, 02:50:56 AM
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (Season 2, 2006)

How far along are you now?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 19, 2016, 06:37:09 AM
Three episodes into season three. It's definitely lost a lot of steam for me. All of the jokes already feel worn out because they're either just differently-dressed repeats of earlier jokes, or rely on shock value. Which they don't have because the show's already taught me to expect the worst, so it's just incredibly predictable. I can see the outcome of everything by a mile away and it's just become a slog. The first season had me in tears, the second season got a good number of laughs, but I think I've laughed only once or twice so far this season. It's just so repetitive now.

I'm probably going to keep watching, if only because I seriously loved the show at first and I want to see that flame rekindled, but, eh, it's dampened substantially so far.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on April 19, 2016, 12:45:39 PM
I've also started It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia season one.

I've watched three episodes so far and I can't say I'm impressed. They're all just assholes which doesn't do it for me. And Charlie yells way too much.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 19, 2016, 05:00:28 PM
I suggest try to finish season one, it wasn't until the last few episodes I really started to enjoy it. However, I will say, part of the reason I liked it is because everyone is an piece of shit and has very few redeeming traits. It was an interesting change of pace for a sitcom.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on April 19, 2016, 06:12:48 PM
Sunny is pretty much all shock value and most of the humor is derived from how awful these people are so if those kinds of things don't appeal to you, you won't like this show. It's basically Seinfeld on meth.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dionysios on April 20, 2016, 07:42:02 PM
'Escape From Sobibor'
(1987 movie with Rutger Hauer of Blade Runner)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Icp624jWAI

True story of a mass escape from one of the six Nazi death camps which in real life was shut down and razed to the ground only two weeks afterwards by order of Heinrich Himmler in an effort to give the lie to the escapees' testimony.

Loved the fact that the escape was a team effort on the part of both Russian and western Jews.

Also noticed that aside from a dozen or so German SS officers at the top of the camp's hierarchy, all the armed guards were Ukrainian fascists.

Just got the book 'Escape From Sobibor' by Richard Rashke which the movie is based upon and which is also the most comprehensive history of this escape as he interviewed dozens of the escapees in writing the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Escape-Sobibor-Revised-Updated-Edition/dp/1480458511

It was during a guided tour at the scale model of this death camp built by one of the escapees at the Los Angeles holocaust museum recently that I fully realized that the whole death camp program was Top Secret in an effort to keep this attempted annihilation of millions hidden from public knowledge. The Nazis tried to destroy all the death camps to eliminate any evidence of what they did explaining it away with lies such as they're living in the USSR or Israel under assumed names, but the guide mentioned that the death camp at Majdanek survives intact as an unaltered testimonial to this day thanks to the Soviet army who arrived before the camp could be demolished. Therefore, I located an purchased the informative English language guide to Majdanek death camp published in Poland.

This desire not to be publicly recognized as guilty explains the secrecy and also why the death camps were chosen to be exclusively in Poland rather than Germany perchance they could blame the Jewish holocaust on the Soviets like they successfully did with the Katyn forest massacre of Poles.

I see a lot of this kind of propaganda of massive lies, blaming enemies for one's own crimes, etc in NASA and American policies.

I might mention I'm interested in Rashke's other book on John Demjanjuk and america's Cold War soft spot for Nazism which thankfully lack the thoughtless and unnecessary anti-Arab and anti-communist bias that are characteristic of John Loftus's otherwise worthwhile books on Nazism and American government.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dionysios on April 27, 2016, 03:13:49 AM
'Fidel' (2002)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipng6p7cEUs

I'd say this is a rather historically accurate movie as far as I can tell including its somewhat less than glorious depiction of Fidel Castro's domestic efforts from the late 1960's onwards.

It's pretty much not critical of Che Guevara which I'd say is correct. It depicts some tension between them, and it is a fact that Che Guevara was openly denounced the Soviet Union which had turned its back on old school Marxism in the 1950's embracing capitalism. Fidel Castro, however, was a conformist to the new Soviet revisionism, and the movie accurately shows this. Not to deprive him of credit where it's due, but Fidel proved to be less of a truly stalwart revolutionary than Che Guevara.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 29, 2016, 04:13:49 AM
Deadpool (Tim Miller, 2016)

Not a capeshit classic by any stretch of the imagination, but decent enough entertainment.  The modest budget hurts it at times, judging by the minimal action (comparatively speaking) and effects that look a little dated, but the cast give it their all, and the title character's running commentary is generally pretty funny.  The one criticism I do have of the humor is that because so many of the jokes are, well, jokes even within the context of the story, when they don't land, they absolutely backfire.  Most good comedies, I would argue, try to avoid this.  The humor frequently comes from the story itself, or the characters communicating with one another.  That way, if something doesn't make you laugh - say, a line where Alice insults Bob - it won't detract from your enjoyment of the show/movie.  You'll simply focus on the fact that Alice has insulted Bob instead.  The story is still progressing, the characters are still communicating, etc.  But here, most of the comedy comes from Deadpool simply telling jokes, whether to the audience or to other characters.  They don't advance the story or develop anyone's character, their sole purpose is to make us laugh.  And most of them do, like I said.  But when they fall flat, they really fall fucking flat, because nothing else is achieved by them.  We have nothing to focus on but how shitty the joke we just heard was.  The "brown pants" joke is probably the worst part of the movie.  They spend so much time delivering it, too!  It's like thirty or forty seconds of buildup to the punchline of an incredibly old joke that most people have no doubt already heard.

John Wick (Chad Stahelski and David Leitch, 2014)

Keanu Reeves gets mad and kills fucking everyone.  That's pretty much this movie.  I mean, there's a story, but who cares about that when Keanu is busy finding new and creative ways to score headshots?  Anyway, this is great.  A lot of style, a lot of awesome action, and Keanu does in fact turn in a pretty good performance.  Bonus points for Michael Nyqvist chewing the scenery vigorously as the villain.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on April 29, 2016, 04:44:04 AM
It's basically Seinfeld I Love Lucy on meth.

fixd
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on April 30, 2016, 05:02:12 PM
Lexx (Paul Donovan, Lex Gigeroff and Jeffrey Hirschfield, 1997-2002)

Well, this was certainly a mixed bag. The overall premise is that a group of misfits manage to steal a living insect ship called the Lexx from a supremely evil dude, and fly around trying to find a new home.

Season 1, which consisted of four movie-length episodes, was simply fantastic. It toed the line between funny and bizarre with remarkable precision, keeping me amused and engaged at the same time. I'd rank it among the best sci-fi I've seen, though for more reasons shared with Red Dwarf than with Stargate.

Season 2 shifted format to conventional episodes. For the most part, it maintained the absurdist comedy I enjoyed about the first season, though as usual for an American-style let's-cram-20-episodes-into-a-season shindig, some episodes just felt like filler. The standalone episodes definitely worked better than the Mantrid story arc; long-running narrative just doesn't seem to be this show's strong suit.

And then we come to season 3, where it all begins to fall apart. After one of the two universes was destroyed and the Lexx ran out of stored energy at the end of season 2, the protagonists have to go into cryostasis for 4000 years while they drift to a planet where Lexx can eat. After that, they spend an entire season visiting various people on a pair of planets called Fire and Water, which it becomes evident are supposed to be depictions of Hell and Heaven long before that gets explicitly revealed. There's the occasional amusing episode, such as the one where they encounter a city on Fire populated entirely by bureaucrats, but nothing really approaches what I came to expect from the previous seasons.

Season 4 left me wanting more of season 3. After blowing up Fire and Water, they discover Earth orbiting the same star directly opposite, and all the evil spirits from Fire manage to escape and make their way onto Earth. As a result, the entire season focuses on Earth, with evil aliens infiltrating the government and causing chaos. I think it's meant to be funny, but most of the time it just comes across as tacky. There is one good episode, where the protagonists spend some time in a rural Ohio town among a parody of American hicks, but the rest of it varies from tolerable to dull.

The finale was slightly better than average for season 4, but not nearly enough to redeem it.

I can strongly recommend season 1, and if you like that, then season 2 is worth a watch too. Skip the rest.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on May 01, 2016, 09:11:04 PM
Saw Captain America: Civil War.


Meh.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 01, 2016, 09:12:06 PM
butt butt butt the critics love it:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/captain_america_civil_war/

You're not allowed dislike it!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on May 01, 2016, 09:15:41 PM
butt butt butt the critics love it:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/captain_america_civil_war/

You're not allowed dislike it!

I didn't dislike it but I wasn't as entertained.
It was a middle part, nothing more.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 01, 2016, 09:32:40 PM
I will tell you how wrong you are when it finally comes out over here and I get to see it.  Assuming that I like it, which I'm pretty sure I will.

capeshit capeshit capeshit
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 02, 2016, 05:29:31 AM
Watching it later tonight.
Actually, they screen it earlier today, so I'll go watch it while most people are still at work. Hopefully the movie theater will still be mostly empty then.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 02, 2016, 03:08:11 PM
Captain America: Civil War
9/10, was good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 04, 2016, 03:53:33 AM
Almost done mu binge viewing of ST:VOY.  "In The Blink Of An Eye" is by far my favorite episode.  The series as a whole does a nice job at developing the characters, and I enjoyed the exoticness of the Delta Quadrant.  One beef though: the Prime Directive was supposed to prohibit interference in the development of pre-warp civilizations, but somehow it has become a blanket non-interference policy.  It makes them seem impassive and self-righteous for no good reason.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on May 05, 2016, 11:49:23 AM
Almost done mu binge viewing of ST:VOY.  "In The Blink Of An Eye" is by far my favorite episode.  The series as a whole does a nice job at developing the characters, and I enjoyed the exoticness of the Delta Quadrant.  One beef though: the Prime Directive was supposed to prohibit interference in the development of pre-warp civilizations, but somehow it has become a blanket non-interference policy.  It makes them seem impassive and self-righteous for no good reason.

The Prime Directive only seemed to apply when the plot needed it - regardless of a species' warp-capabilities.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on May 05, 2016, 11:59:48 AM
The Prime Directive only seemed to apply when the plot needed it - regardless of a species' warp-capabilities.

Yeah, but that's also true of literally every other thing in Star Trek.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 05, 2016, 03:10:21 PM
The Prime Directive only seemed to apply when the plot needed it - regardless of a species' warp-capabilities.

Yeah, but that's also true of literally every other thing in Star Trek.

Maybe I am remembering incorrectly, but I thought TNG, when invoking the Prime Directive, always applied it to pre-warp civilizations.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 07, 2016, 02:36:18 AM
Captain America: Civil War (Anthony and Joe Russo, 2016)

You really have to feel bad for the folks behind BvS.  The dust had barely settled on the critical mauling their movie got when this one came out, and it does everything that BvS was trying to do (seriously, the movies have quite a lot in common, even beyond the same basic idea of superheroes fighting each other) so, so much better.  Character motivations make sense, and it isn't hard to sympathize with both sides of the conflict.  The writing is solid, too - I won't pretend that it's an intellectual powerhouse of a movie, but there are a few interesting ideas there.  It has some of the darkest moments of the film side of the MCU, but there's also a fair amount of humor to lighten the mood, which flows naturally from the personalities of the characters and isn't simply Whedon-style "everyone is a sassy backtalker." (I should really stop complaining about Whedon.)  The action is great, and extremely imaginative, particularly in the climax at the airport where they ditched the gritty shaky-cam aesthetic of the earlier fight scenes and just showed everyone pounding each other.  For some reason, I was expecting the characters to all just pair off and fight one-on-one with someone on the other team, and was delighted to see them constantly switching up who was fighting who.

On the notion of the new characters.  The new Spider-Man is a lot of fun, and it's nice that he actually looks like a young teenager.  Black Panther is pretty awesome too - the actor carries himself with a palpable sense of dignity and nobility that helps sell him as royalty, and the way that he moves and fights really stands out with its uniqueness.  And then there's the villain, who...didn't really need to be in the movie, honestly.  The main conflict is kept between Cap and Tony, which I feel is to the movie's credit (unlike a certain other capeshit movie that backed out of its promised titular fight and gave us a shitty generic villain for the heroes to team up against instead), but it does leave the villain seeming rather superfluous.  A few fairly minor changes to the screenplay and he could have been cut entirely.

Anyway, it's a great movie.  All you capeshit fans go see it, if you haven't already.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 07, 2016, 06:51:04 AM
I really didn't like how they turned the villain from a powerful evil Hydra baron with a purple hood into a weaseling Sokovian nerdy-looking colonel.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on May 07, 2016, 11:59:02 PM
So I just watched CA:CW, or what seemed to be more Avengers 2.5. It was pretty good overall. I didn't care for the repeated premise of getting the Avengers to fight amongst themselves again, but I thought the CA/IM conflict was pretty powerful. Hopefully this gets the team's internal conflict out of the way for Avengers 3 so they can do something a bit more original. The most enjoyable character for me by far was Spider-Man, it was really well done. I care less and less for Tony Stark's character. He's incredibly inconsistent across the different movies in his motivations, but it isn't enough to detract from enjoying this movie.

I will say I find it funny that BvS got crucified for using "Martha" as a device to move the plot forward, while Captain America has a similar moment with "Bucky" at the beginning of the movie that sets the stage for the ensuing plot.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 08, 2016, 12:41:05 AM
I really didn't like how they turned the villain from a powerful evil Hydra baron with a purple hood into a weaseling Sokovian nerdy-looking colonel.

That wouldn't have fit tonally in a movie like this, and it would have pretty much confirmed that the movie division of the MCU doesn't give a shit about the television side and its supposed canonicity.  Also, very minor point, but I wish they hadn't included the obnoxious, arrogant "No, you move" (http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0Pws9SCcAAnmio.jpg) line from the abysmal comic that this movie was (very, very loosely) based on.

I will say I find it funny that BvS got crucified for using "Martha" as a device to move the plot forward, while Captain America has a similar moment with "Bucky" at the beginning of the movie that sets the stage for the ensuing plot.

Are you talking about the scene with Crossbones?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on May 08, 2016, 12:54:29 AM
Yes, the scene with Crossbones. I acknowledged it at first but didn't think Much of it. Then, Captain America takes the blame because he heard the name and turned into a retarded kid again.

It was just as nonsensical of a plot device as it was in BvS, which became more apparent when the Avengers were being shown the damage they caused. The giant battle in New York, dropping a city, and oh yeah this other thing that was totally the tipping point and why the Avengers need oversight.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on May 09, 2016, 10:45:48 PM
The Fast and the Furious (Rob Cohen, 2001)

For a movie that's very clearly trying to be Point Break, this is...okay.  The best thing it has going for it are the characters, who do seem like fairly realistic, flawed people you could genuinely see turning to crime to pay the bills.  What works against this movie, however, is the fact that it seems to be more interested in cars themselves rather than actual driving or racing.  A huge amount of time is devoted to the camera lovingly poring over every detail of the various cars, the characters staring lovingly at the cars, the characters talking lovingly about their cars in technical terms that most people would have difficulty understanding - and while I don't know enough about cars to judge, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if all the shop-talk turned out to be gibberish, like the nonsense that most cop shows spew out about computers and the Internet.

2 Fast 2 Furious (John Singleton, 2003)

Undoubtedly a very stupid movie, and it suffers from the lack of Vin Diesel, but I found it to be a slight improvement on the first.  It wisely went for a less-ambitious story of a straight undercover operation against a clear-cut villain, and reduced the weird car-ogling in favor of more driving setpieces.

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (Justin Lin, 2006)

This isn't just the worst movie in the series; it's one of the worst movies that I've ever seen in my life.  Where to even begin?  It squanders the potentially-interesting setting of Tokyo by mostly keeping the action in tiny, cramped buildings and dingy, butt-ugly parking garages.  There's an entirely new cast of characters, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the only one of them who's even a little interesting is killed before the third act, and the rest of them are just obnoxious.  The main character in particular (who happens to be a mighty whitey, because why wouldn't he be) is an incredibly unlikable spoiled teenage douchebag who spends the entire movie being inexplicably rewarded for smashing things to pieces and generally fucking up.  The acting and writing are abysmal.  The racing is mostly confined to precise power-sliding, which is absolutely no fun to watch.  And it's also the most overtly sexist movie of the series, with women being treated (multiple times) as possessions that can be gambled, stolen, and won.  It was a fucking chore to watch this piece of shit, and I honestly fucking regret poisoning my brain with it.

Fast & Furious (Justin Lin, 2009)

We're back to following the adventures of Vin Diesel and Paul Walker, and we're back to another undercover story.  There's a lot of repeated material here, but I think what makes it work (more or less) are the characters, like with the first two movies.  Nobody's going to argue that Diesel and Walker are fantastic actors with varied ranges, but what they do have is enough charm to make them likable and sympathetic even as they break the law and show a dubious sense of morality.  And once again, there's plenty of solid driving action.  It's not a great movie, but like the first two, it's an okay one.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 16, 2016, 06:49:08 PM
Spoiler tags apparently don't like it when you nest other tags inside them, so consider this your
spoiler wanking

Marvel's Daredevil (Season 2)

It was kind of predictable that this wouldn't live up to the first season. I mean, it does a good job, but it feels comparatively lightweight. Whether that's because of the writing, some of the sillier elements of the plot, or the simple fact that Wilson Fisk isn't beheading people with car doors... Well, as it turns out, when you take a scene like that and turn it into fifty guys getting sliced, diced, having their heads blown off with shotguns, and saying the words "shit" and "asshole" every other line, you kind of lose a bit of the shock. It doesn't help that the gore is mostly pretty obvious CGI. While there is some spectacular action with Daredevil himself, such as the fight with the biker gang in the apartment building, the fight scenes with other vigilantes get to be bloodbaths very quickly, and all too often the CGI just can't quite keep up. The show does occasionally manage to recapture some of the impact of Fisk's outbursts, mostly with the more up close and personal moments of Punisher's grizzly revenge scenes, but it's too often drowned out by the massive carnage in each episode.

The shit-and-asshole salsa that serves as the main condiment for this thirteen course meal gets to be a bit much, but with the writers having had previously to write "I'll flip you up, you flipping motherflipper" every time a scene called for salty language, it's understandable why they would want to let loose, let the audience know that they're more x-treme this time around. I specifically recall a scene in the first episode in which two cops at a crime scene keep saying "shit look at what they did to these assholes" and then the black one looks at a kevlar vest on a dead body, shakes his head and says "this shit is thicker than my dick," then he looks around some more and says "shit" twenty more times. I swear like a sailor, so this is not a matter of having my quaint little church-going old woman ears assailed by rudeness, but there's an art to writing good sweary dialogue. The Coen brothers can do it, David Mamet can do it, Quentin Tarantino can do it when he's actually trying — the writers of this show could probably do it if they weren't so keen to show off the fact that they're allowed to do it, but unfortunately that phase hadn't passed by the time they wrote the final draft of the script.

It's not all bad, in fact where this season doesn't do worse than its predecessor it generally surpasses it. The trio of protagonists have plenty to do and they do it well, and it's well written — I feel like I believe in those characters of Murdock, Nelson, and Page, probably more so than I did last time around. The Punisher is a really cool addition, I like how much care and attention they give to his background and his psychology, and just all around they manage to make a character that could easily have been a Rambo into a three-dimensional, complex, interesting person. I was really into his side of the story in general, Elektrik Nachos, on the other hand, wasn't so fun to be around. I understand her relevance to Daredevil and why she's there, but I just find her general demeanour annoying and every time she's on screen I spend more time trying to figure out what the fuck is up with her English-Chinese-German-Australian accent than what's going on with her as a character ─ not to mention her costume makes her look like she just walked out of Mortal Kombat: Conquest, which I guess is kind of relevant given the cheesy ninja bad guys. All in all Ms Chips 'n' Cheese just doesn't quite work for me as the conflicted femme fatale of the piece.

This season has more tonal problems than the first, and a lot of that has to do with the silly mystical ninja things, particularly how that doesn't really contrast well with the straight-faced crime drama feel of the show. I understand that it's Marvel, and some amount of silliness is to be taken for granted ─ the first season had stuff like Kung-Fu Grandma, after all ─ but now the show feels like it's trying to be darker than it has been in the past, and that is upset to some extent by stuff like this: "Hey Stick I'm being followed and attacked by ninjas literally all the time, what's up with that?" / "haha matt lemme tell u about this awesome godfrey ho movie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A88Kv5y5pOs) i watched last night :^)" / "God damn it Stick!" and then it turns out to be true. I know the whole Black Sky thing was brought up in the previous season, I just wasn't expecting the next stage of that story to be quite so amazingly goofy. Like, I can get behind goofy, but this is all a bit much.

Despite my problems with this season, Daredevil is still a really cool show, and shows that you can indeed do dark and gritty capeshit without being awful like Snack Zyder. Overall I think it's not as good as it used to be, mainly because it's less grounded than it used to be, which I guess is to be expected, but it still works, in some ways better than ever, and it remains probably the best thing I've seen from Marvel so far.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on May 16, 2016, 07:50:32 PM
Elektra a shit.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on May 16, 2016, 09:17:10 PM
The shit-and-asshole salsa that serves as the main condiment for this thirteen course meal gets to be a bit much, but with the writers having had previously to write "I'll flip you up, you flipping motherflipper" every time a scene called for salty language, it's understandable why they would want to let loose, let the audience know that they're more x-treme this time around. I specifically recall a scene in the first episode in which two cops at a crime scene keep saying "shit look at what they did to these assholes" and then the black one looks at a kevlar vest on a dead body, shakes his head and says "this shit is thicker than my dick," then he looks around some more and says "shit" twenty more times. I swear like a sailor, so this is not a matter of having my quaint little church-going old woman ears assailed by rudeness, but there's an art to writing good sweary dialogue. The Coen brothers can do it, David Mamet can do it, Quentin Tarantino can do it when he's actually trying — the writers of this show could probably do it if they weren't so keen to show off the fact that they're allowed to do it, but unfortunately that phase hadn't passed by the time they wrote the final draft of the script.

I agree with this.  I think a big part of the problem is that they're very clearly not allowed to use the word "fuck" beyond one muttering of it per season.  I have been jeered at in the past for raising this subject, as well as asked if I think that the use of the word is somehow critical to the quality of any show, but when they're trying to go for such a gritty, sweary, and unmistakably adult vibe, the lack of one of the most frequently-used swearwords (IRL) really stands out and makes them look silly.

Quote
Punisher's grizzly revenge scenes

(http://i.imgur.com/c4YMXoL.jpg)

What is Castle's problem with bears?
Title: Just Watched
Post by: juner on May 19, 2016, 03:01:30 AM
The Darkness

Holy shit, this is objectively the worst movie I have ever seen. I'm talking House of the Dead with random video game cutaways was 10000 times better.

Poor acting. Too long even though it was only 90 minutes or so. None of the plot devices made any sense. The character development had to be a literal joke. I almost walked out. But between tickets and snacks, I had invested over $40. Jesus Christ this was awful. I really don't know what to say. Shame on Kevin Bacon.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 19, 2016, 05:55:07 AM
Just finished watching the penultimate episode of the Flash's second season, and the two-part finale of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s third season.

It's interesting, seeing how these shows have branched. Season one of S.H.I.E.L.D. was okay-to-bad, up until near the end, whereas the Flash was immediately one of the best capeshit shows I'd ever seen. The former had cardboard characters, flimsy plots, spectacularly disjointed and boring monster-of-the-week formats. The latter had fantastic characters, a narrative that embraced the goofiness of comics but kept the heart, which gave it grounding to make me shed a lot of tears, and solid writing.

Then in the last few episodes of season one onwards, S.H.I.E.L.D. became a good show, and in seasons two to three became a good show that occasionally became great. Everything picked up, characters got fleshed out, the writing improved, stakes rose naturally and realistically, everything just fit together.

And the Flash...well, somewhere along the line in the first half of season two, it just...completely fell apart. I can't think of another show my opinion of changed so drastically from love to loathe. Everyone makes insanely stupid, unfathomable decisions; everything's contrived and I'm convinced the writers don't plan beyond a few episodes; the story just kind of drags along in an attempt to set a record for the biggest trainwreck possible; mostly, again, everyone's become absolutely fucking retarded.

To tie these together, the S.H.I.E.L.D. finale was absolutely fantastic. Two of the best episodes the show has ever put out, and probably two of the best episodes of capeshit I've watched. Everything was resolved, loose ends tied up gracefully and naturally; there were "ah-ha!" and "holy shit" moments that were shocking, but absolutely set up in the smaller details; they even hilariously culminated a running joke that had popped up a few times a little over a season. The best part was the game of narrative hot potato played over the last few episodes with a single plot device, where literally saw the ending of the season, but not enough of it to fully grasp or understand it until we pieced it together. Knowing just enough to follow that single plot device with nervous anticipation as it moved from character to character.

Now, the Flash finale is next week. And I simply cannot fathom a way it can not absolutely suck. Either it's going to be a gloriously bad clusterfuck, a disjointed mess that features "shocking" twists for the sake of "shocking" twists...or it's going to end on a horribly bad cliffhanger in the hopes that the writers can write their way out of it in the next season. Unless they pull some seriously well-hidden gun that Chekhov buried too well to notice (or possibly, in this case, Chekhov's man-in-a-glass-cage), it just cannot end well. I hope it does. I want to love this show. I want to feel for it like I did in season one. I just can't see how they can manage to make this unorganized mess of meandering plot points, character arcs, nonsensical decisions and forced, manufactured drama into a fitting conclusion. It's gonna take a miracle.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 19, 2016, 12:24:08 PM
The Darkness

Holy shit, this is objectively the worst movie I have ever seen. I'm talking House of the Dead with random video game cutaways was 10000 times better.

Poor acting. Too long even though it was only 90 minutes or so. None of the plot devices made any sense. The character development had to be a literal joke. I almost walked out. But between tickets and snacks, I had invested over $40. Jesus Christ this was awful. I really don't know what to say. Shame on Kevin Bacon.

Is this by regular movie standards or horror movie standards?
Horror movies are usually pretty bad, so I just wanna check that you're judging it based on that.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on May 19, 2016, 02:22:36 PM
The Darkness

Holy shit, this is objectively the worst movie I have ever seen. I'm talking House of the Dead with random video game cutaways was 10000 times better.

Poor acting. Too long even though it was only 90 minutes or so. None of the plot devices made any sense. The character development had to be a literal joke. I almost walked out. But between tickets and snacks, I had invested over $40. Jesus Christ this was awful. I really don't know what to say. Shame on Kevin Bacon.

Is this by regular movie standards or horror movie standards?
Horror movies are usually pretty bad, so I just wanna check that you're judging it based on that.

It is the worst I've ever seen using either standard. Horror movies usually are bad because it is incredibly difficult to do well. I definitely go in expecting that. However, I enjoy going and seeing cheesy horror flicks occasionally, just for fun. Usually there is some redeeming quality to be found. Not in this case :(
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 19, 2016, 02:30:58 PM
It is the worst I've ever seen using either standard. Horror movies usually are bad because it is incredibly difficult to do well. I definitely go in expecting that. However, I enjoy going and seeing cheesy horror flicks occasionally, just for fun. Usually there is some redeeming quality to be found. Not in this case :(
I'll still watch it eventually but that is a shame. I was really looking forward to a movie about skinwalkers.

And it's the same director who did Wolf Creek, which was a pretty terrifying movie. :/
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on May 21, 2016, 04:48:47 AM
Watched Brokeback Mountain, and aside from very good performances from Heath and Jake, not sure it lived up to the hype as a "groundbreaking" film
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 23, 2016, 09:18:33 AM
Watched Brokeback Mountain, and aside from very good performances from Heath and Jake, not sure it lived up to the hype as a "groundbreaking" film

It isn't groundbreaking in any cinematic sense, the hype comes entirely from the subject matter.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dionysios on May 23, 2016, 07:58:31 PM
'The Great Debaters'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSmi1wBEYq8

Just ordered several interesting communist books by Sol Auerbach (using the pseudonym James S. Allen) from the 1930's including his history of Reconstruction and his 1936 book advocating an autonomous black communist South in the USA comparable to the Soviet autonomous regions.

Denzel Washington's character in this movie brought to mind Sol Auerbach's work in the fascist south around the late 1920's and early 1930's.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on June 11, 2016, 03:57:51 AM
The New World (Terrence Malick, 2005)

This is Malick's retelling of the story and mythology of Pocahontas, as well as the founding of Jamestown, Virginia. The subject matter might already be familiar to most, so it's not surprising that the main point of interest is Malick's particular style of filmmaking, which, as is very usual for him, makes or breaks the film. As a huge fan of his style, it definitely makes it for me. The sheer authenticity and uncompromising vision places this among his finest work, but the fact that he picked such an oft retold story (the more mythological melodramatic elements included) does place a slight creative restraint on him, which is why in my mind it doesn't reach the sheer brilliance of The Thin Red Line, but it is nonetheless very good. 9/10

Cemetery of Splendour (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2015)

How do I even talk about this film? I always run into the same issue with Weerasethakul's films, regardless of how much I enjoy them, which is that I find his films incredibly difficult to talk about. They tap straight into primal sensation, they invite you to share the ambiguous nature of reality as it is portrayed with you, and they almost require you to view them on their own terms - as meditations, experiences that flow over you. It doesn't always work, but when it does it's absolutely mesmerizing and possibly unlike anything else in cinema.

This film is one such case. It's ostensibly about a group of soldiers who have fallen ill to a strange sickness that makes them sleep for extremely long periods of time. The film follows a middle-aged woman who befriends one of these soldiers, and what follows is a series of social encounters between the two that blur the lines between past and present, wakefulness and dreaming, reality and myth, and culture and spirituality. Weerasethakul is incredibly disciplined and eloquent in how he accomplishes this, so much so that the whole fabric of uncertainty invokes the sensation of being somewhere between awake and dreaming, just as it does with the characters in the film itself. It's not a film to be deconstructed and analysed from the outside, it's a film that invites you to live in its world and sense what the characters sense. And for that, Weerasethakul is a master of the craft. 10/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on June 11, 2016, 11:37:57 PM
Black Mirror (Season 1, Episodes 1-3 / Various directors, 2011)

An anthology series much like Twilight Zone, though generally facing much more real (or possibly soon-to-be-real) scenarios. This season is only three episodes long, but they're each 40-60 minutes and each exceptionally well done. I don't want to say much about it, because I really suggest you give this a shot knowing nothing about each episode. If you just want one to check out, I'd recommend either episode 3 or 2, since I find those two the most harrowing and fascinating, but they're all amazing. Give it a go.

Ooh, wait til you get to "White Bear".

God, 'White Bear' is terrifying - it's exactly the sort of grisly revenge-fantasy porn that I can imagine The Daily Mail campaigning for.

My favourite is a really close toss-up between 'White Bear', '15 Million Credits', and 'White Christmas' the end to all three sub-stories and the arc are horrific, like, keep you up all night thinking about the consequences horrific.

That's what makes them so engrossing.  I actually just watched "White Christmas" for the first time a couple weeks ago and I was fairly blown away, which of course is nothing unusual for this show.  What really gets me about it and "White Bear" is the way it makes you sympathetic for characters that just don't deserve it (and there were two such characters in "White Christmas", although to be fair I guess one of them wasn't quite real, but still...).

I still give the edge to "White Bear" because it really punches you in the gut, and then before the episode is over it punches you in the gut again.  I don't think I've ever seen anything so unsettling on TV before.  There's a breezy, humorous quality to "White Christmas" that makes its more disturbing implications a bit easier to take.  But these are definitely my three favorite episodes as well.  I wish they would make more already (damn British TV scheduling, 3 episodes a season?!?).  I know they were planning to produce more episodes for Netflix.

Also I wish more people watched it.   :(
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on June 12, 2016, 01:39:21 AM
Watched both seasons of daredevil. Was okay
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on June 13, 2016, 08:05:32 AM

That's what makes them so engrossing.  I actually just watched "White Christmas" for the first time a couple weeks ago and I was fairly blown away, which of course is nothing unusual for this show.  What really gets me about it and "White Bear" is the way it makes you sympathetic for characters that just don't deserve it (and there were two such characters in "White Christmas", although to be fair I guess one of them wasn't quite real, but still...).

I still give the edge to "White Bear" because it really punches you in the gut, and then before the episode is over it punches you in the gut again.  I don't think I've ever seen anything so unsettling on TV before.  There's a breezy, humorous quality to "White Christmas" that makes its more disturbing implications a bit easier to take.  But these are definitely my three favorite episodes as well.  I wish they would make more already (damn British TV scheduling, 3 episodes a season?!?).  I know they were planning to produce more episodes for Netflix.

Also I wish more people watched it.   :(

I'm actually ok with them being incredibly short series. With this kind of series, it would be all too easy to become desensitised to them, or just pack a longer series run with padding.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on June 14, 2016, 03:09:50 AM
I'm actually ok with them being incredibly short series. With this kind of series, it would be all too easy to become desensitised to them, or just pack a longer series run with padding.

Point taken.  I guess it would be unreasonable to expect a show like this to be so consistently excellent if there were twenty or even ten episodes produced a year.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on June 14, 2016, 03:36:50 AM
X-Men: Apocalypse (Bryan Singer, 2016)

More like Crapocalypse.  This wasn't great.  The story is completely by-the-numbers and predictable, and the writing is never more than passable.  There's also a major problem with clashing tones here, like when they try to do another fun slow-motion scene with Quicksilver (wearing a much better wig this time around, thankfully) set to a pop song...right in the middle of what's supposed to be a dramatic scene in which a character dies.  Apocalypse himself isn't really all that cool, and there's very little that poor Oscar Isaac can do to, you know, act while he's buried under that ridiculous costume.  Jennifer Lawrence yawns her way through her performance, and both she and Nicholas Hoult spend most of the movie in their human forms, because they're popular right now and the studio has to capitalize on that.  I suppose I liked a few of the younger characters they (re-)introduced to the series.  And to reiterate a complaint I've made on IRC numerous times - most of the returning cast don't look anywhere near as old as their characters ought to be.  And apparently the next movie is going to hop yet another decade and land them all in the nineties.

Pan's Labyrinth (Guillermo del Toro, 2006)

Generic fantasy.  Should have had Zack Snyder direct it.  No, this was actually great.  Tragic and beautiful.  I really can't come up with any words to describe it better than the rest of the world already has, but suffice it to say that I wholeheartedly agree.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on June 14, 2016, 03:40:07 AM
X-Men: Apocalypse (Bryan Singer, 2016)

More like Crapocalypse.  This wasn't great.  The story is completely by-the-numbers and predictable, and the writing is never more than passable.  There's also a major problem with clashing tones here, like when they try to do another fun slow-motion scene with Quicksilver (wearing a much better wig this time around, thankfully) set to a pop song...right in the middle of what's supposed to be a dramatic scene in which a character dies.  Apocalypse himself isn't really all that cool, and there's very little that poor Oscar Isaac can do to, you know, act while he's buried under that ridiculous costume.  Jennifer Lawrence yawns her way through her performance, and both she and Nicholas Hoult spend most of the movie in their human forms, because they're popular right now and the studio has to capitalize on that.  I suppose I liked a few of the younger characters they (re-)introduced to the series.  And to reiterate a complaint I've made on IRC numerous times - most of the returning cast don't look anywhere near as old as their characters ought to be.  And apparently the next movie is going to hop yet another decade and land them all in the nineties.

Pan's Labyrinth (Guillermo del Toro, 2006)

Generic fantasy.  Should have had Zack Snyder direct it.  No, this was actually great.  Tragic and beautiful.  I really can't come up with any words to describe it better than the rest of the world already has, but suffice it to say that I wholeheartedly agree.

Saddam is correct about both of these films.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dionysios on June 18, 2016, 05:37:20 AM
'Desperate Journey'
(1942)

Wartime movie about escape from a prison camp and traversing enemy territory starring Errol Flynn and Ronald Reagan.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x207e3g_desperate-journey-1942-errol-flynn-ronald-reagan-nancy-coleman-feature-action-drama_shortfilms
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on June 18, 2016, 06:23:06 AM
Recently watched Gone With the Wind (1939) for the first time.

I've been exposed to it in dribs and drabs my entire life on account of it being my mom's favorite movie of all time.  I bought it for her Christmas two years ago (a deluxe package of it, obviously) and threw out the idea of watching it with her.  I'm not usually one for romances, but this being the all-time classic it is, I thought it might be worth it anyway.  Then last week I asked her about watching it.  It turns out she's been waiting to watch it until I watched it with her, because I brought up watching it with her.  Which I thought was touching.  We watched it last Saturday.

So... Overall, I enjoyed it a surprising amount.  The last hour or so was a snooze (just a misery congo, basically, to show how being as awful a person as Scarlett was can have a negative effect on your life, I guess, never mind the added melodrama of having her daughter die) but up to that point it was fairly engrossing.  Although its portrayal of the Old South is hugely romanticized (and besides that the inhumanity of slavery is completely sidelined), it's still an interesting portrait of life in the region at the time, and its portrayal of the misery inflicted on the South by the Civil War is quite poignant. 

It's a breathtaking beautiful movie, almost worth the four-hour investment just for how pretty it looks.  It does however suffer from a problem you see in a lot of movies from this era, in that the actors look like they're acting.  Vivian Leigh is incredibly hammy at times, Clark Gable practically winks throughout the entire movie, and there are spaces where Olivia de Haviland is almost comically weak and helpless.  Not to mention that all of the black actors would look at home in a minstrel show, but this is another regrettable issue that is fairly prevalent in films from this era.  Nonetheless Hattie McDaniel deserved the Oscar win as Mammy.  She was fabulous.

Overall I was surprisingly pleased with how much I enjoyed this.  But I'm not sure I'll ever invest the four hours to watch it again.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on June 20, 2016, 09:04:33 AM
Just finished Daredevil Series 2 and I can't say I particularly enjoyed most episodes past the half-way point.

Don't get me wrong, the fight scenes were as epic as always, Frank Castle was brilliant, the whole question about how far a vigilante should be allowed to go was interesting, and the cameo by you-know-who was great. All of it, however, was overshadowed by how awful Elektra was and how little I cared about the battle between The Hand and The Chased. The decision to have the Elektra plot and the Punisher plot in the same series was a strange one. I understand that they did that in order to stretch Matt to the point where he has to decide to give up on a persona, but the two plot lines seemed so vastly disconnected it was like being interrupted by another program.

The whole ancient war between the Hand and the Chased and the mystical ninjas didn't fit into the dark, gritty, realistic world that the Netflix Marvel shows have been building. I'd much rather they had simply jettisoned that entire plotline and just concentrated on Castle and the gang war which erupted after Fisk's arrest. If you wanted to show Murdoch stretched to his limit then he could have been fighting the Yakuza and the Irish gangs, trying to clean up the wake of The Punisher's executions, showing how impotent he feels fighting against a beast which just keeps coming back, and his helplessness in the light of Frank Castle's brutal style of 'justice.'
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on June 20, 2016, 09:17:10 AM
Elektra a shit.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 20, 2016, 01:08:47 PM
Marvel's Jessica Jones

Yeah, it was alright.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on June 20, 2016, 03:41:15 PM
That is not a review, Crudblud.

Just finished Daredevil Series 2 and I can't say I particularly enjoyed most episodes past the half-way point.

Don't get me wrong, the fight scenes were as epic as always, Frank Castle was brilliant, the whole question about how far a vigilante should be allowed to go was interesting, and the cameo by you-know-who was great. All of it, however, was overshadowed by how awful Elektra was and how little I cared about the battle between The Hand and The Chased. The decision to have the Elektra plot and the Punisher plot in the same series was a strange one. I understand that they did that in order to stretch Matt to the point where he has to decide to give up on a persona, but the two plot lines seemed so vastly disconnected it was like being interrupted by another program.

The whole ancient war between the Hand and the Chased and the mystical ninjas didn't fit into the dark, gritty, realistic world that the Netflix Marvel shows have been building. I'd much rather they had simply jettisoned that entire plotline and just concentrated on Castle and the gang war which erupted after Fisk's arrest. If you wanted to show Murdoch stretched to his limit then he could have been fighting the Yakuza and the Irish gangs, trying to clean up the wake of The Punisher's executions, showing how impotent he feels fighting against a beast which just keeps coming back, and his helplessness in the light of Frank Castle's brutal style of 'justice.'

Chaste, not Chased.  But I largely agree with this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 20, 2016, 05:23:06 PM
That is not a review, Crudblud.

When did I say it was a review?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on July 06, 2016, 03:55:27 PM
Warcraft
9/10, was gr8.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on July 18, 2016, 03:55:58 AM
3 Dev Adam [3 Giant Men] (T. Fikret Uçak, 1973)

This was both amazing and baffling.  Captain America and Santo travel to Turkey to take down the gangster "Spider," who's into stealing rare artifacts and counterfeiting money.  The movie has a couple of sex/nude scenes, some very violent deaths, and of course almost nothing in common with the source material for these characters beyond some really shitty costumes:

(http://i.imgur.com/T1UJxFj.jpg)

It's objectively terrible, of course, but I'd be lying if I claimed I wasn't thoroughly entertained by the spectacle.  Forget Civil War, this is the real capeshit throwdown you need to see.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on August 25, 2016, 02:25:35 AM
Apocalypto (Mel Gibson, 2006)

Beautifully filmed, with exciting action, a simple but effective story, and a fascinating look at the Mayan civilization (albeit with plenty of anachronistic details meant to present more of a "greatest hits" portrayal than that of any one time period).  It's extremely grisly, but if you can handle that, then I definitely recommend watching this.  I was surprised to discover that it had such mixed reviews overall, until I realized that it had come out shortly after Gibson's DUI episode, and so many of the negative reviews were simply ranting about what a racist jerk Gibson was rather than actually examining the movie itself.  I feel there's some irony in this situation, as I've spent a lot of time this year mocking certain subsections of the Internet for reacting poorly to the negative reviews of highly-anticipated geek movies like BvS and Warcraft (and in the case of Ghostbusters, reacting poorly to the positive reviews).  Maybe...they were right all along!

12 Monkeys (Terry Gilliam, 1995)

Not Gilliam's finest film, but still a very interesting one.  The story is a little jumbled, which I think they could probably have alleviated by explaining how time travel worked a little bit earlier, and I didn't really like the eventual reveal that Brad Pitt and the Army of the Twelve Monkeys were just a red herring - seriously, that's an awful lot of screen time to devote to a fake-out.  But aside from that, it's great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on August 25, 2016, 05:35:50 AM
Been watching Oz. (HBO 2007)

Finished one season. Was good. Second season good so far
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on August 26, 2016, 02:08:07 AM
Oz was awesome. 
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on August 26, 2016, 04:08:44 AM
It's a little over the top and some of the acting is kinda corny but I still love it so far. I feel like there's some great acting and some bad acting
Title: Just Watched
Post by: juner on August 28, 2016, 01:08:32 AM
I watched Oz when I was 13, think it debuted in 1997. Shit was savage.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on August 28, 2016, 05:23:01 PM
Oh wow, I knew it was 1997 but i typed 2007.

Anyways yeah finishing up season 2, its really good still.
Title: Just Watched
Post by: juner on August 28, 2016, 05:55:41 PM
Oh wow, I knew it was 1997 but i typed 2007.

Anyways yeah finishing up season 2, its really good still.

We used to use the term "like a scene from Oz" for savage beatdowns in sports, or Goldeneye on N64... Usually referring to a rape or the scene where they light the guy on fire. You get it...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on August 31, 2016, 08:19:56 PM
Stranger Things (Season 1, 2016)

After I heard about how the entire Internet had fallen in love with this new show, I had to check it out for myself.  And while I'm definitely not among its most enthusiastic fans, it is a great show.  My problem with it, and the reason why it took me a while to get around to watching it, is that I think it starts a bit too slowly.  The first couple of episodes have a lot of more prosaic elements, like Winona Ryder not being given much to do beyond grieve, setting up a dumb love triangle among the teenage characters that I didn't care about, etc.  It wasn't until around the third or fourth episode that I was hooked, because it was then that the story really got going.  But maybe that's just me.  In any case, it's well worth the watch.  It's dark and twisted, but with a big heart underneath it all, has a solid cast playing a number of memorable and likable characters, and while the tropes and clichés it uses are derivative as all hell, you can respect them for being such a loving homage to the movies and TV shows of the eighties.

And now for my usual nitpick, where I criticize something very minor that doesn't really affect the overall quality of the product because I like to complain about things.  There are a few scenes - thankfully, not many - where Hopper has to rough people up and act like a stealthy action hero and oh my God are these moments fucking goofy.  During the break-in scene, for example, you can clearly see moments where any observant person would have noticed him sneaking around.  And then there's that scene that happens offscreen - three guys with their guns out, Hopper shows up, and after a few seconds of scuffling, he steps into frame triumphantly.  Lolwut?  How the fuck did he manage to take all three of them down without anyone so much as squeezing off a shot?  Did he get an assist from fucking Batman?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on August 31, 2016, 08:35:02 PM
And while I'm definitely not among its most enthusiastic fans

So like everything you ever watch or enjoy then...

But yes, it starts slow. That is a bit unfortunate because it's halfway over before it starts getting really good. Maybe that's part of the draw. I saw confirmation today that it's getting a 2nd season as well (with a whole one more episode this time).

Also, Hopper is a ninja. Everyone knows this.


Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 01, 2016, 12:28:42 PM
Hopper is great.
But there are also plenty of theories about him considering he got in the car at the end.

Anyway, I didn't even notice that it started out slow? Maybe you guys are spoiled with capeshit. Will disappears pretty dramatically with the demogorgon, Eleven does crazy shit, you have the mysterious gub'mint, you briefly see the Upside Down when Barb disappears, etc.
I mean, if that's slow then what the fuck is Downton Abbey?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on September 07, 2016, 03:07:40 AM
Anyway, I didn't even notice that it started out slow? Maybe you guys are spoiled with capeshit. Will disappears pretty dramatically with the demogorgon, Eleven does crazy shit, you have the mysterious gub'mint, you briefly see the Upside Down when Barb disappears, etc.

Those moments are pretty cool, but they're few and far between in comparison to the mundane place-setting and character introductions.  To put it another way, I don't care about seeing the police combing the woods looking for Will when I already know that a monster abducted him.  And I don't care about Nancy's worries that Barb might have run away in response to her new social life when I already know that a monster abducted her.  The show takes too long for its characters to get up to speed on the supernatural going-ons, or even begin investigating what might lead to them.

Pacific Rim (Guillermo del Toro, 2013)

Good, but not great.  What really drags it down is Charlie Hunnam, who delivers an awful performance as the awful main character.  What a dull, bland, generic, and charisma-free Obligatory White Male Lead.  It doesn't help that Hunnam's attempt at putting on an American accent is laughably bad.  Why did the character even need to be American?
Title: Just Watched
Post by: juner on September 07, 2016, 04:37:39 AM
The Lobster

It was good, or so the Internet tells me. Plenty of classic cinematic elements, solid performances all the way around,  although you have to leave your ideas of real world social interaction at the door. The characters really sell the oddball dystopia they're living in. I had no idea what to expect going in, probably less of an idea upon conclusion. Definitely worth a watch; not sure if it's as good as the critics say.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 07, 2016, 12:13:51 PM
Anyway, I didn't even notice that it started out slow? Maybe you guys are spoiled with capeshit. Will disappears pretty dramatically with the demogorgon, Eleven does crazy shit, you have the mysterious gub'mint, you briefly see the Upside Down when Barb disappears, etc.

Those moments are pretty cool, but they're few and far between in comparison to the mundane place-setting and character introductions.  To put it another way, I don't care about seeing the police combing the woods looking for Will when I already know that a monster abducted him.  And I don't care about Nancy's worries that Barb might have run away in response to her new social life when I already know that a monster abducted her.  The show takes too long for its characters to get up to speed on the supernatural going-ons, or even begin investigating what might lead to them.
But we see the torn hospital gown when they search for Will which is what sends Hopper on the gub'mint trail.
It's Jonathan's photos that prove the demagorgon exists but why would he randomly be taking pictures? He likes Nancy, but Nancy likes douchebag Steve. We see that the demagorgon is attracted to blood with Barb. Everything they did had purpose.

They're all up to speed by the 3rd or 4th episode. You want the characters to instantly know there are supernatural going-ons?

I would be interested in seeing something written and directed by Saddam. It would be terrible. There would be no build up, no characterization, just one blundering simple plot that takes off from the beginning and continues at break neck speed.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on September 07, 2016, 03:11:09 PM
I'm enjoying Stranger Things at the moment. It reminds me a lot of creepy old British horror series like Quartermass and the Pit and Sapphire and Steel but brought up-to-date..

I'm only three episodes in, but I'm enjoying it immensely.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 14, 2016, 06:22:07 PM
Just finished the first season of Peaky Blinders on Netflix.

The first episode is slow and the modern music makes no sense, but those are the only complaints I have since I was completely sucked in by the second ep.

Great cast, good story, simple motivations, and I even took note of the cinematography. It's pretty well framed and it does a good job of focusing on the actors' emotion rather than just dialogue and action. I'm not even attracted to Cillian Murphy, but he does such a good job of being the restrained, PTSD, war-boy that you just wanna take care of the bb. And I absolutely believe the chemistry between him and the female love interest, who is just as interesting as he is with her own plot-line.

Communists, shell-shock, opium, gang violence, industrialism, corruption, IRA, etc. So much to pull from but none of it is over the top or cheesy.

It's totally my kind of show, but I love period dramas - especially if they're English.
Carter describes it as a slower version of Boardwalk Empire, but I've never seen that so I dunno. I tend to think HBO shows are overdone and cheesy, so I guess it just depends on how you like your pacing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on September 16, 2016, 07:31:38 AM

Top show!

The soundtrack is about atmosphere, grit, menace & melancholy, Nick Cave & Tom Waits, what's not to like. I'm glad they didn't try to match the music to the times.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on September 16, 2016, 07:36:54 AM
Nick Cave and Tom Waits for the soundtrack? Really?

brb torrenting the show
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on September 16, 2016, 11:23:13 AM

Not enough Tom to be honest, quite a few White stripes though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 16, 2016, 12:10:36 PM
The soundtrack is about atmosphere, grit, menace & melancholy, Nick Cave & Tom Waits, what's not to like. I'm glad they didn't try to match the music to the times.
I know what it's going for but it just makes me giggle every time. It pulls me out of the show with the jarring incongruity. On it's own, the music is good stuff, but with 1920 England - nah.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 16, 2016, 03:13:18 PM
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me + The Missing Pieces (dir. David Lynch)

FWWM gets, or at least got a lot of shit when it came out, for two main reasons. Firstly, it isn't a two-hour episode of Twin Peaks; secondly, it doesn't conclude the season 2 cliffhanger, a direct continuation of which probably won't ever happen (the upcoming third season will pick up the story a full 25 years after the second, though series co-creator Mark Frost has written a book about some of the things that occurred during the gap). The story mostly concerns the last week of Laura Palmer's life, and this leads into the opening of the original series pretty much seamlessly, but the tone is much darker, the violence and sexuality are much more explicit, and the result is decidedly much closer to Lynch's more extreme material including Blue Velvet, Lost Highway, and even Inland Empire.

This is my second time seeing the film, and while my response the first time was pretty lukewarm, I really loved the film this time around. Coming off the back of watching the original series for the second time as well, a lot of the just plain weird shit that goes down made a lot more sense to me. Both Sheryl Lee and Ray Wise give amazing performances as Laura and Leland Palmer, their ranges on full display from the comic to the terrifying, two major modes which dominate the film as a whole, but other series regulars, such as Dana Ashbrook, also deliver some excellent scenes. With The Missing Pieces, a 90 minute cut made entirely of deleted footage and extended scenes put together by Lynch in 2013, one also gets the sense of just how "Peaksy" the film was originally going to be, with extra scenes of Dale Cooper, Ed and Norma, the Briggs family, and a great comic scene with Lucy, Sherriff Truman, and Andy, as well as more scenes, both comic and disturbing, with the Palmer family. There's a fan edit which uses the original screenplay to put these new scenes in place, and the result is a 3.5 hour movie. I haven't seen that edit, but maybe someday it'd be cool to go back and check it out.

Overall, FWWM is full-on Lynch, and I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone who has overlooked it to check it out. If you're interested in watching Twin Peaks, I'd say watch that first, because FWWM is a prequel, and while it does have quite a few differences, the main plot elements are intact, and you'll spoil the mystery for yourself if you watch FWWM first.

In the Mood for Love (dir. Wong Kar-Wai)

Hard to talk about in terms of plot, not because there isn't one, but because to bring that to the fore would be to sell its best features short. Like the title says, this is more about a mood than anything, and it achieves a great sense of atmospheric continuity through its slow gliding camera action, almost claustrophobic sets and framing, and a dreamy, melancholic sense of isolation. The performances are almost deadpan, but a sense of pained repression creeps through, and by the end it's all kind of empty in an affectingly tragic way, with some extremely low-key humour popping up in places here and there.

Ultimately it's a very a graceful piece of cinema which definitely shows rather than tells. Despite its 98 minute runtime, the pace might catch you off guard — this is actually my second attempt, because the first time I wasn't expecting it to be so slow and it put me off. But ease yourself into the slow rhythm and the low-key mood of the piece, and I think you'll find it amply rewarding of that patience.
Title: Just Watched
Post by: juner on September 19, 2016, 12:49:00 AM
Blair Witch (2016)

Holy shit this movie was awful. Do not see it under any circumstance.

I actually only saw the original a few weeks ago. While I didn't care for it overall, it had some redeeming qualities (such as being somewhat believable). The sequel doesn't have any redeeming qualities. Terrible. Just terrible.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 19, 2016, 12:08:44 PM
Blair Witch (2016)

Holy shit this movie was awful. Do not see it under any circumstance.

I actually only saw the original a few weeks ago. While I didn't care for it overall, it had some redeeming qualities (such as being somewhat believable). The sequel doesn't have any redeeming qualities. Terrible. Just terrible.
Do you normally like horror movies?

I ask because I love them, so I judge them less harshly than I do every other genre. But people who normally dislike them will judge them on equal terms with other genres which you can't really do since most are terrible in some way or another.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on September 19, 2016, 03:26:31 PM
Blair Witch (2016)

Holy shit this movie was awful. Do not see it under any circumstance.

I actually only saw the original a few weeks ago. While I didn't care for it overall, it had some redeeming qualities (such as being somewhat believable). The sequel doesn't have any redeeming qualities. Terrible. Just terrible.
Do you normally like horror movies?

I ask because I love them, so I judge them less harshly than I do every other genre. But people who normally dislike them will judge them on equal terms with other genres which you can't really do since most are terrible in some way or another.

I wouldn't say I love them, but I do enjoy them. Even the cheesy ones. Having said that, the plot has to at least make sense in the context of whats going on in the movie. The original Blair Witch was at least believable to a degree. It had much better suspense as you never got to see the witch. In the new one the witch appears to be an artificial stick figure looking thing, oh and also the sun doesn't rise anymore. The best part about the movie were the previews, as there are several new horror flicks coming out. Annabelle 2 looks to be the best of that lot, but I really like the Annabelle/Conjuring series.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 19, 2016, 05:29:24 PM
Ah ok, I'll trust your judgement then since it seems to align with my tastes.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on September 21, 2016, 04:36:31 PM
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (Seasons 1-7, 2005-2011)

I haven't finished it yet, but I don't want to rush the last few seasons, and I've certainly seen enough of it to offer my opinions on it as a whole.  In short, it's great.  Really, really funny, with sharp writing that skewers every subject matter from the mundane to the shocking, and characters who are likable enough for us to want to spend time with them, but unsympathetic enough for us to laugh mercilessly at them.  The biggest problem with the show is that there's a pretty major slump in quality in the third and especially the fourth seasons.  There are a few decent episodes in there, but by and large, there's an air of desperation about them, like the writers were frantically throwing everything at the wall and seeing what stuck.  They were full of bad ideas for episodes that seemed to rely on the gimmick of simply ramping up how chaotic and outrageous the gang could be, which heavily strained the plausibility of events, and more importantly, just wasn't that funny.  Fortunately, it recovered entirely in the fifth season, and now it's better than it's ever been.  So, unless you're committed to binging the whole show, you might want to skip over the third and fourth seasons.  And here's an incredibly minor nitpick that the e-lawyer in me has to address - there is absolutely no consistency on who owns or controls Paddy's Pub, and whenever they try to explain a discrepancy, it never makes any legal or business sense.  Is it Mac, Dennis, and Charlie?  Is it just Mac and Dennis?  Is it Mac, Dennis, and Frank?  Is it all four of them?  Is it just Frank?  I know, you're not supposed to really ask these questions, but it's the kind of thing I notice.

Anyway, this show is awesome.  Watch it.
Title: Just Watched
Post by: juner on September 21, 2016, 05:07:22 PM

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (Seasons 1-7, 2005-2011)

 And here's an incredibly minor nitpick that the e-lawyer in me has to address - there is absolutely no consistency on who owns or controls Paddy's Pub, and whenever they try to explain a discrepancy, it never makes any legal or business sense.  Is it Mac, Dennis, and Charlie?  Is it just Mac and Dennis?  Is it Mac, Dennis, and Frank?  Is it all four of them?  Is it just Frank?  I know, you're not supposed to really ask these questions, but it's the kind of thing I notice.

Most likely because you aren't well-versed in bird law.

The four of them jointly own it to varying degrees. Dee doesn't, which comes up in an episode. They also casually mention that Charlie traded away most of his shares at one point. Can't remember the early happenings but Frank is the majority owner I believe.

Fantastic show, glad you finally got something right. Let me know what you think of season 11 when you get there.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on September 21, 2016, 11:53:51 PM
Hey everyone!  I am on the news ABC show, "Designated Survivor" premiering tonight at 10pm!  Watch it and then talk about how terrible I was in this thread after!  I play the head of the White House military staff.  I am responsible for the "nuclear football".  It is pretty rad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 22, 2016, 12:13:34 PM
Peaky Blinders season 2

Pretty disappointed they went with a more HBO approach. It's like they thought it had to be bigger and badder after the first season. Gratuitous sex (which was never present in the first season), more drugs, more violence, weaker story, and it lacked real heart in general. There was no clear antagonist. No clear overall plotline.

I hate what they did with Sam Neill's character. In the first season he was intimidating, calculating, and fierce. In this one he was frazzled, stupid, and raping or having violent sex with pros.

Just a general over the top HBO-y quality. Still decent, but it threw away the reasons why I really loved the show in the first place.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on September 22, 2016, 09:30:43 PM
Most likely because you aren't well-versed in bird law.

The four of them jointly own it to varying degrees. Dee doesn't, which comes up in an episode. They also casually mention that Charlie traded away most of his shares at one point. Can't remember the early happenings but Frank is the majority owner I believe.

Talking about shares and being a majority owner suggests that Paddy's is run as a corporation.  I don't believe that this is the case, for a few reasons.  Firstly, the characters talk about being partners far more frequently than they do about being shareholders.  In fact, I think the only time they ever mention "shares" is when Mac and Dennis say that Charlie sold his, which I believe was a mistake in phrasing on the part of the writers.  More on that below.  Secondly, it's unlikely that the gang would have gone to the trouble of registering the bar as a corporation, assigning themselves corporate titles, and then distributing the shares among themselves equally.  It would have been much easier for them to just call it a partnership.  Thirdly, if Paddy's was a corporation, it's a near-certainty that the gang would have pinned their debts on it and filed for bankruptcy a long time ago.  Shareholders are immune from liability for the debts of a corporation, but partners are not immune from liability for the debts of a partnership.

If Paddy's is a partnership, then Charlie would have sold his interest in it for some sandwiches or whatever rather than his shares.  It's pretty obvious that Mac and Dennis hadn't taken that seriously at the time, hence their only reminding him of it a little way into the episode when they had already met with a potential buyer a couple of times.  When they realized that they weren't getting the payday they wanted, would they have realized how ridiculous they were being/the legal unconscionability of selling an interest in a business for sandwiches and let Charlie back?  I don't know.  Some episodes after that one have shown Charlie being a partner, others have shown just Mac and Dennis being partners, and then there are the ones with Frank.  Speaking of which...

Frank's involvement in the business is even murkier than Charlie's.  He joins the gang by buying the property the bar is on, which apparently puts him in charge.  That makes no sense whatsoever.  How could anyone own and operate a business on land they don't even own?  I could accept a few squatters living under the radar managing to slip through the cracks, but a licensed and registered business that pays taxes and is clearly known to the government?  That's really not plausible.  And owning the property itself isn't the same thing as owning Paddy's, the legal entity, although I suppose Frank could pretty easily leverage his ownership of the property to gain an interest in the business, despite that not being shown.  It's still been very inconsistent since then as to whether Frank is the boss, or just another partner.  His role changes from episode to episode.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 22, 2016, 11:02:39 PM
Ugetsu (Kenji Mizoguchi)

I dunno what to say about it without repeating a lot of things that have already been said. It's basically a fable about greed and the ill fortune it can bring. Some great editing lends a surreal atmosphere to the second half and the performances are strong, though steeped in Japanese theatrical tradition which may put some first-timers off. Along with Kobayashi, Mizoguchi should be one of the first ports of call for people looking for Japanese cinema beyond the ubiquitous Kurosawa, and Ugetsu is a very fine place to start with his work.

Hail, Caesar! (Ethan & Joel Coen)

Maintaining one of the most consistent directing careers I've ever seen, the Coens' latest is very good. Revolving around the "fixer" Eddie Mannix, based loosely on a real person, the film serves up a panorama of 1950s Hollywood and the machinery that made it go. The plot, which, without giving too much away, deals with a kidnapping, allows for some really wonderful comic turns from George Clooney, Channing Tatum, Tilda Swinton, Ralph Fiennes, and less well known actors (Alden Ehrenreich is especially great as Hobie Doyle), with Josh Brolin as the straightman who holds the whole thing together. Really enjoyed watching it, one of those films where the best part of two hours goes by and it only feels like ten minutes.

The Big Short (Adam McKay)

Glib docudrama with a kind of cinema verité style that is undercut by deliberate use of contrasting camera techniques and cutaways to celebrity cameos. Overall I felt it was a decent film, well suited to delivering information on a recent event that is still having massive repercussions worldwide to an audience consisting of people whose preferred media include image macros and music videos. I'm not shitting on it for that, it knows what it wants to communicate and to whom, and for a film like this those are important things, but to me it seemed to be a little bit too far up its own backside to avoid being irksome. Its style is to pitch to and fro as if to make the subject matter seem even more confusing and disorienting than it already is, and that's fine, it just didn't work for me perhaps quite like it was supposed to. Some good performances make me like it more than I otherwise would have, it's always good to see Steve Carell in a more "serious" role, and I liked Christian Bale's portrayal of Michael Burry, also Brad Pitt seemed to play his role very self-effacing and straightforward which I liked a lot compared to the more "in your face" stuff I'm used to seeing him do. I think as far as movies about businessmen being giant pieces of shit go I prefer The Wolf of Wall Street and Glengarry Glen Ross, but this is fine nonetheless.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 24, 2016, 01:51:20 AM
Ex Machina (Alex Garland)

'S good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on September 24, 2016, 04:42:04 AM
Ex Machina (Alex Garland)

'S good.

It felt a bit unfulfilling for me. I thought it was going to explore a lot more than it did. It stayed true to its central theme(s) that is for sure. Something about the ending was just incomplete.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Blanko on September 24, 2016, 09:35:00 AM
The Terrorizers (Edward Yang, 1986)

This one's a self-reflective multi-narrative that hints at the likes of Antonioni and Altman, but with Yang's trademark style of restrained storytelling at the forefront. He captures detachment, disillusionment and the lack of control in one's own life within the story's interconnecting plotlines, culminating in a loose-form narrative that is satisfying but challenging to grasp. His directing, as usual, is nothing less than stellar. The way he manipulates space with his camera and utilizes urban landscapes in his storytelling really makes him one of a kind. And his shot compositions, god damn.

My initial reaction after watching the film was that I didn't fully understand everything the film had to offer, followed by a desire to watch the film again. This kind of quality where a film compels you to revisit and explore its secrets is something that to me happens so rarely that it's very noteworthy. As such, it's difficult for me to give a rating at this point - right now it's a cautious 9/10, but I could very easily see it climbing up to 10/10.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 24, 2016, 06:55:49 PM
Ex Machina (Alex Garland)

'S good.

It felt a bit unfulfilling for me. I thought it was going to explore a lot more than it did. It stayed true to its central theme(s) that is for sure. Something about the ending was just incomplete.

I couldn't really think what to write at the time, hence the severely abridged review, but I thought the ending was absurdly comic. However, I didn't understand why Caleb couldn't leave during the power cut if he programmed all the doors to unlock in case of a power cut, or why he couldn't just reprogram shit when the power came back on, did that magically stop being a thing that happened or did I miss something? Also despite the effects generally being very good, there are some cheap CGI shots that look really bad and could have been done much better practically. Ultimately I think the creepy atmosphere and fine acting balances out those problems, but yeah, definitely not a masterpiece.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 25, 2016, 04:10:47 PM
Citizen Kane (Orson Welles)

It's a good film. What do you want?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 26, 2016, 02:38:38 AM
Lone Star (John Sayles)

With a plot that feels more like it was originally intended to be a novel than a movie, Sayles' look at a Texas border town, where racial tensions in the present tap into deep histories of lineage and conquest, and the law is struggling to get past several generations' worth of autocratic sherriffs who operated more like mobsters than lawmen, weaves in and out of past and present with a slow burning neo-western feel. Sayles wrote and directed the film, and the direction isn't necessarily always up to the task of keeping up with the often brilliant screenplay, but Sayles is able to give a sense of place and an atmosphere, and this helps immensely in following the plot as it shifts from one time period to the next; though this can be a little jarring at first, the film gradually settles into a rhythm and moves along pretty much effortlessly. 'S good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on September 26, 2016, 03:47:40 AM
Sully (2016)

After my disastrous trip last week going to watch the new Blair Witch, Sully restored my faith in humanity. Only a 96 minute runtime, but they managed to deliver an impactful piece. While there are a few minor issues I had with the movie, Tom Hanks easily makes up for them with his performance. Aaron Eckhart (aka Two-Face from The Dark Night) was also excellent. I had several drinks prior so that probably made it more of an emotional skydive for me. Anyway, I highly recommend.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 28, 2016, 01:57:08 AM
Interstellar (Christopher Nolan)

It is large, tries to be larger, and succeeds in that effort, ultimately becoming too large for itself. Around the halfway point it starts to take a dive from the wondrous and near-breathtaking into the mawkish, as sentimentality, an overuse of Dylan Thomas, and Matt Damon's space madness propel Matthew McConnaughey into Christopher Nolan's personal dimension of recursive onanism.

It's okay.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on October 02, 2016, 01:43:55 PM
Naked (Mike Leigh)

I watched this a couple of days ago, but I couldn't really think of what to say about it. It's a very intense, dialogue heavy voyage out among the very bottom of modern British society, in which the performances are the star of the show. Mike Leigh, who at the time was known for "kitchen sink" (British school of austere realist filmmaking) social satire, directed the film by working with the actors in unscripted rehearsals in which the characters developed through improvisation, as they developed he worked together a well honed, brutally frank script which doesn't really feel like anything I've encountered elsewhere. Naked has plenty of comic moments, but its depiction of a very real portion of the underclass of this country has at its core a profound sadness. No punches are pulled, everyone really feels authentic, for which I think the unusual way the film was devised is to thank, and the whole thing is just kind of painful. All that plus multiple instances of violent and thoroughly unpleasant sex make for a perfect date movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on October 02, 2016, 06:42:25 PM
Luke Cage (2016)

It's the latest Marvel show on Netflix, and sure enough, it's great!  It's quite a bit different to the previous shows, this one being considerably livelier, somewhat less grimdark, and in general much more at ease with its own inherent silliness - it's still capeshit, after all.  That's not to say that there are no parallels to the real world here, as the characters frequently talk about black history, black culture, black music, etc., the setting of Harlem is extensively (and lovingly) showcased, and of course there's a ton of social commentary focusing on the central premise of a bulletproof black man.  The characters are great, too, and I have to say that I think Luke himself was done a disservice by his early appearance in Jessica Jones.  Granted, that wasn't his show, so naturally it wasn't going to focus on him, but he's much, much more interesting and likable here as a sophisticated, intelligent man who's thoroughly and unambiguously decent, in stark contrast to Jessica's selfishness and cynicism and Matt Murdock's borderline-sadism.  Misty Knight almost steals the show as a brilliant, though troubled detective with her own arc, and both Cottonmouth and Mariah Dillard prove to be solid antagonists, building on these shows' reputation for having the best villains of the MCU.

That is, until about halfway through the season, at which point they're both shoved to the side to make way for the main villain, Diamondback, who is easily the worst part of the show.  I mentioned above that Luke is more comfortable with its general capeshittiness, so to speak, than the previous Netflix shows, and for the most part, it makes that element work.  With Diamondback, however, it goes too far.  He's too, well, capeshitty.  The actor plays him very broadly, hamming it up in almost every scene with lots of mugging, making every line sound as menacing as possible, etc.  Adding to that, he even has a couple of stupid gimmicks, like constant monologuing and reciting random quotes from the Bible - and no, it's not like he's even religious or anything.  He's a card-carrying villain, someone who knows that he's "the bad guy," and relishes it.  If he had been in a network show, or even one of the movies, I might not be so hard on him, but this isn't what we've come to expect from these Netflix shows.  It wasn't even what we were expecting from Luke, given that, again, the first half of the season has a couple of complex characters played excellently by dramatic actors serving as the antagonists.  What the hell were they thinking?

That flaw aside - and make no mistake, it's a major one - this is still a fun and enjoyable show.

EDIT: An excellent article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/10/03/netflixs-luke-cage-is-a-great-show-marred-by-a-terrible-third-act/) that summarizes my issues with Diamondback and the latter part of the show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 03, 2016, 12:46:33 PM
I'm absolutely against capeshittiness and you somehow thought I might like this one? Now I know not to waste my time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on October 03, 2016, 03:02:54 PM
I'm absolutely against capeshittiness and you somehow thought I might like this one? Now I know not to waste my time.

(http://i.imgur.com/66rVRY5.png)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on October 03, 2016, 05:34:36 PM
I'm absolutely against capeshittiness
Why do you hate fun?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 03, 2016, 05:50:51 PM
I'm absolutely against capeshittiness
Why do you hate fun?
I don't, I hate cheesiness.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on October 03, 2016, 06:16:06 PM
I'm absolutely against capeshittiness
Why do you hate fun?
I don't, I hate cheesiness.
But cheesiness is fun. You hate cheesiness, therefore you hate fun.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 03, 2016, 06:59:14 PM
But cheesiness is fun. You hate cheesiness, therefore you hate fun.
The only fun you have is cheesy? Omg how awful.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on October 03, 2016, 07:27:28 PM
Do you not like Pixar and Disney films?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on October 03, 2016, 08:01:43 PM
Do you not like Pixar and Disney films?

She does like horror films...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 03, 2016, 11:45:39 PM
Do you not like Pixar and Disney films?
I don't care for Pixar that much but I like Disney mostly because of nostalgia.

But Captain America and The Lion King are different kinds of cheese. One can make you cry over Mufasa while the other makes you cringe over bad acting and heroics. That cheesiness is specifically capeshittiness and there's nothing fun about it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 03, 2016, 11:48:07 PM
Do you not like Pixar and Disney films?

She does like horror films...
Only because I'm forever searching for good ones. They're worth wading through crap.

Which reminds me, I just watched The Invitation this weekend. Quality movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on October 04, 2016, 01:20:05 PM
I'm absolutely against capeshittiness and you somehow thought I might like this one? Now I know not to waste my time.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/66rVRY5.png[/img]
Saddam please keep your bullshit in the containment thread. Thanks.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 05, 2016, 01:00:13 PM
Luke Cage (2016)

It's the latest Marvel show on Netflix, and sure enough, it's great!  It's quite a bit different to the previous shows, this one being considerably livelier, somewhat less grimdark, and in general much more at ease with its own inherent silliness - it's still capeshit, after all.  That's not to say that there are no parallels to the real world here, as the characters frequently talk about black history, black culture, black music, etc., the setting of Harlem is extensively (and lovingly) showcased, and of course there's a ton of social commentary focusing on the central premise of a bulletproof black man.  The characters are great, too, and I have to say that I think Luke himself was done a disservice by his early appearance in Jessica Jones.  Granted, that wasn't his show, so naturally it wasn't going to focus on him, but he's much, much more interesting and likable here as a sophisticated, intelligent man who's thoroughly and unambiguously decent, in stark contrast to Jessica's selfishness and cynicism and Matt Murdock's borderline-sadism.  Misty Knight almost steals the show as a brilliant, though troubled detective with her own arc, and both Cottonmouth and Mariah Dillard prove to be solid antagonists, building on these shows' reputation for having the best villains of the MCU.

That is, until about halfway through the season, at which point they're both shoved to the side to make way for the main villain, Diamondback, who is easily the worst part of the show.  I mentioned above that Luke is more comfortable with its general capeshittiness, so to speak, than the previous Netflix shows, and for the most part, it makes that element work.  With Diamondback, however, it goes too far.  He's too, well, capeshitty.  The actor plays him very broadly, hamming it up in almost every scene with lots of mugging, making every line sound as menacing as possible, etc.  Adding to that, he even has a couple of stupid gimmicks, like constant monologuing and reciting random quotes from the Bible - and no, it's not like he's even religious or anything.  He's a card-carrying villain, someone who knows that he's "the bad guy," and relishes it.  If he had been in a network show, or even one of the movies, I might not be so hard on him, but this isn't what we've come to expect from these Netflix shows.  It wasn't even what we were expecting from Luke, given that, again, the first half of the season has a couple of complex characters played excellently by dramatic actors serving as the antagonists.  What the hell were they thinking?

That flaw aside - and make no mistake, it's a major one - this is still a fun and enjoyable show.

EDIT: An excellent article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/10/03/netflixs-luke-cage-is-a-great-show-marred-by-a-terrible-third-act/) that summarizes my issues with Diamondback and the latter part of the show.

The Netflix shows in general seem to start falling apart in the second half of their runs, from Jessica Jones becoming far less interesting once the Purple Man became more than a background menace, to Daredevil tripping over its convoluted Hand story in the 2nd series.  I can't help thinking that they'd be better adopting Stranger Things' shorter season length and delivering one punchy story arc per season rather than trying to juggle rainbows.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on October 14, 2016, 02:30:27 AM
Luke Cage (Cheo Hodari Coker, 2016)

It was pretty good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on October 16, 2016, 06:57:41 AM
X-Men: Apocalypse (Bryan Singer, 2016)

Eh...

This movie feels like it should've either been an hour shorter or not focused on Apocalypse/Ivan Ooze/Decrepit Old Man. The first almost two hours feel like watching two different movies. One where X-Men are being gathered and meeting, another where Apocalypse is...doing...stuff...kind of? I guess he just sorta...lingers around, warbles while touching people weirdly, and then...has Magneto break buildings? I mean, it's impressive that they managed to make the main villain feel like a supporting character. He was just sorta there while everyone else did things.

The best things I can say about the movie are that most of the acting was good and it had some really gut-wrenching scenes (thanks to both Erik's emotions and Singer's apparent desire to take the X-Men series in a body horror direction). It also had some amazingly pointless and stupid cameos (uh, hi Wolverine, I guess for a second??) and characters (Jubilee is sort of there and her powers aren't even referenced...though maybe that's for the best).

Honestly I'm not sure what the point of this movie was. Apocalypse was a fucking pathetic threat since they basically just tell you "oh man he's super dangerous and doing a lot of damage" while not showing anything other than him destroying buildings, and it took an hour and forty minutes to even reach that point. Then he's swiftly taken out within ten minutes of them starting to fight him.

The only way I can justify this movie's existence is yet another great Quicksilver scene. And then his godly powers are yet again woefully underused. He could've taken out everyone but Apocalypse himself, but he didn't because reasons.

What a shit. Hopefully 90s grunge X-Men is better.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on October 19, 2016, 12:49:52 AM
Oldboy (Park Chan-wook, 2003)

I have very mixed feelings on this movie.  Most elements of it work quite well.  The premise is fantastic.  The directing is sharp and tight.  The acting is excellent, especially from lead Choi Min-sik, whose role has minimal dialogue, and yet manages to communicate more character with just a shell-shocked look or a wicked smile than most actors could with a soliloquy.  The fight choreography is gritty, lo-fi badassery in its purest form, and the famous hallway fight scene is of course a marvel.

And then we get to the ending.  Fuck this ending.  The villain is ridiculous.  His grudge against the main character makes no sense.  And most annoyingly of all, his plan is far too absurd and convoluted for me to believe that it could all happen as flawlessly as it apparently does.  I am so sick of this stupid "Everything that happened was all part of my plan!" cliché.  BvS did it, Watchmen did it, Star Wars did it...it's not good writing!  You're not establishing that your villain is intelligent and methodical for somehow predicting every move the hero takes, you're establishing that they're apparently omniscient!  So, yeah, Oldboy has a really, really bad example of this, and it's maddening enough to almost ruin the whole movie.  Almost.  I enjoyed most of it, and I'm glad I saw it, but holy shit, it concludes on a lousy note.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on October 29, 2016, 04:58:06 AM
Oldboy (Park Chan-wook, 2003)

I have very mixed feelings on this movie.  Most elements of it work quite well.  The premise is fantastic.  The directing is sharp and tight.  The acting is excellent, especially from lead Choi Min-sik, whose role has minimal dialogue, and yet manages to communicate more character with just a shell-shocked look or a wicked smile than most actors could with a soliloquy.  The fight choreography is gritty, lo-fi badassery in its purest form, and the famous hallway fight scene is of course a marvel.

And then we get to the ending.  Fuck this ending.  The villain is ridiculous.  His grudge against the main character makes no sense.  And most annoyingly of all, his plan is far too absurd and convoluted for me to believe that it could all happen as flawlessly as it apparently does.  I am so sick of this stupid "Everything that happened was all part of my plan!" cliché.  BvS did it, Watchmen did it, Star Wars did it...it's not good writing!  You're not establishing that your villain is intelligent and methodical for somehow predicting every move the hero takes, you're establishing that they're apparently omniscient!  So, yeah, Oldboy has a really, really bad example of this, and it's maddening enough to almost ruin the whole movie.  Almost.  I enjoyed most of it, and I'm glad I saw it, but holy shit, it concludes on a lousy note.
I've never seen the show, but just from reading the synopses on Wikipedia and articles like these, I can tell I'd hate it.  I kind of already hate it, actually.  It comes across as the smug ramblings of a hipster edgelord with nothing insightful to say.  Game shows are bad, mmkay?  Smartphones are bad, mmkay?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on October 31, 2016, 04:12:48 AM
Ghostbusters (Paul Feig, 2016)

As possibly the most controversial member of this forum, I feel as though it is my duty to review the most controversial movie of the year.  First, a few notes on the politics of the situation:


With all that out of the way, it's time to talk about the movie itself.  It's bad.  Not as horrendous as the trailer made it out to be, but still pretty bad.  The best thing it has going for it is the cast, who put their all into making the movie work, and the few laughs I had were due entirely to their efforts.  But there's only so much that a talented comedian (comedienne?) can do to elevate weak material, and the jokes they're saddled with here are fucking lame.  They're shitcom-level bad, and that is not a comparison that I make lightly.  There are way too many jokes that just keep on going long after they stop being funny, too.  You can do that once or twice in a movie, and it's funny because it's unexpected to the audience, but here, they do it probably about a dozen times.  For example, there's a gag where Kristen Wiig's character, having been fired from her job, walks down the hallway carrying her things and awkwardly tries to make small talk with everyone she sees while trying to hide the fact that she's been fired.  That could be funny if it were just a few seconds establishing her embarrassment and lame attempts at saving face.  But it just keeps going on and on and on.  She awkwardly greets one former co-worker, who pointedly ignores her, then another, and another, and another.  Fucking cut already!  We get it!

The movie's special effects also deserve mention, because it's amazing how visuals as shitty as these could be so expensive.  I don't know what they were trying to go for with the look of these ghosts.  Did they want them to look funny?  Scary?  Visually unique?  Well, they're none of those.  They just look garish, and they're very poorly integrated with the rest of the movie.  It doesn't help that the film does a terrible job of hiding the fact that the cast clearly had no idea what it was that their characters were supposed to be seeing and interacting with.  The way they carry themselves when ghosts are supposed to be nearby, their expressions never changing in response to what the ghosts are doing, things like that give it away.  I get it; it's tough directing actors when you have a green screen and effects that are going to be added after the filming is complete.  Some directors just aren't suited to that sort of work, and Feig is clearly one of them.  He wasn't chosen to direct this because Sony thought he had a particular aptitude for Ghostbusters or big-budget blockbusters; he was chosen because they decided to go with a female cast.  Not that a different director would necessarily have made for much of an improvement, though.  Really, there was no need to try and make this a huge blockbuster with an enormous budget to begin with.  They could have toned down the effects heavily and aimed at a lower bar with a far more reasonable budget.  It's first and foremost a comedy, after all.  People watch it to laugh, not to see the thrilling battles and explosions.  Why bother going big and having to compete with all the capeshit out there?

On the notion of this movie receiving fairly positive reviews overall.  Do I think the gender controversy perhaps played a role in this, encouraging some critics to be kinder to the film than they ordinarily would have been?  Yes, actually.  Kind of like the opposite of Apocalypto, where critics bent over backwards to twist some sort of racist or fascist meaning out of the film to fit with the narrative that Mel Gibson was an evil Nazi who couldn't possibly have any genuine artistic talent.  I'm not mad about it, though.  For one thing, it's nobody's fault but the pre-release, pre-trailer haters that the movie ever became a political football to begin with.  For another, the shilling didn't do much good, as the movie underperformed at the box office.  And finally, the reaction on reddit when the positive reviews came in that fateful day was truly hilarious, far more so than I could have reasonably expected this movie to be.  So I guess the movie did entertain me well enough, in its own way.

tl;dr: idk, sexism or something
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on October 31, 2016, 01:42:08 PM
Ghostbusters (Paul Feig, 2016)

As possibly the most controversial member of this forum, I feel as though it is my duty to review the most controversial movie of the year.  First, a few notes on the politics of the situation:

  • The furious backlash to this movie was absolutely predominantly sexist in nature.  I don't believe that even half of the people ranting about it were anything more than casual fans of the original film beforehand.
  • No, the backlash did not begin when that abysmal trailer was released.  It began long before then, when it was revealed that the movie would star women.
  • If the real grievance was that they were remaking a beloved geek property, then where was the backlash to the remakes of Total Recall and RoboCop?  Both of those movies were far more beloved by the "reddit demographic," so to speak, than Ghostbusters, being super-violent, R-rated, manly action films, and their remakes had shitty trailers leading to lousy films with toothless PG-13 ratings.  I don't recall the Internet going up in arms about them.
  • None of the vitriol from Paul Feig and the cast regarding the backlash was directed at Ghostbusters fans in general.  They made it very clear they were talking about the assholes bombarding the Internet with misogynistic commentary.
  • Getting another movie with the original cast was never, ever going to happen.  Bill Murray had made it very clear on multiple occasions that he had no interest in ever making another one, no matter how much money they dangled in front of him.
  • Speaking of Murray, no, Sony did not threaten to sue him to get him to appear in the film.  That idea was mentioned in an email from December 2013, long before the form of the movie they eventually went with was in production.
  • And speaking of Sony, the conspiracy theory the Internet has come up with about how Sony drummed up all the controversy by deleting all the non-sexist comments on the trailer and it was their plan from the start to turn it into a political football is just insane, and I've lost a lot of respect for Red Letter Media for diving into that well so eagerly.  I mean, Sony is a shitty studio, no argument there, but to think that they have nothing better to do than try to shape a narrative about an upcoming movie by spending what would have to have been thousands of hours on fucking YouTube, manipulating the comments there?  Is that really so much easier to believe than the fact that there are a lot of sexist people on the Internet?

With all that out of the way, it's time to talk about the movie itself.  It's bad.  Not as horrendous as the trailer made it out to be, but still pretty bad.  The best thing it has going for it is the cast, who put their all into making the movie work, and the few laughs I had were due entirely to their efforts.  But there's only so much that a talented comedian (comedienne?) can do to elevate weak material, and the jokes they're saddled with here are fucking lame.  They're shitcom-level bad, and that is not a comparison that I make lightly.  There are way too many jokes that just keep on going long after they stop being funny, too.  You can do that once or twice in a movie, and it's funny because it's unexpected to the audience, but here, they do it probably about a dozen times.  For example, there's a gag where Kristen Wiig's character, having been fired from her job, walks down the hallway carrying her things and awkwardly tries to make small talk with everyone she sees while trying to hide the fact that she's been fired.  That could be funny if it were just a few seconds establishing her embarrassment and lame attempts at saving face.  But it just keeps going on and on and on.  She awkwardly greets one former co-worker, who pointedly ignores her, then another, and another, and another.  Fucking cut already!  We get it!

The movie's special effects also deserve mention, because it's amazing how visuals as shitty as these could be so expensive.  I don't know what they were trying to go for with the look of these ghosts.  Did they want them to look funny?  Scary?  Visually unique?  Well, they're none of those.  They just look garish, and they're very poorly integrated with the rest of the movie.  It doesn't help that the film does a terrible job of hiding the fact that the cast clearly had no idea what it was that their characters were supposed to be seeing and interacting with.  The way they carry themselves when ghosts are supposed to be nearby, their expressions never changing in response to what the ghosts are doing, things like that give it away.  I get it; it's tough directing actors when you have a green screen and effects that are going to be added after the filming is complete.  Some directors just aren't suited to that sort of work, and Feig is clearly one of them.  He wasn't chosen to direct this because Sony thought he had a particular aptitude for Ghostbusters or big-budget blockbusters; he was chosen because they decided to go with a female cast.  Not that a different director would necessarily have made for much of an improvement, though.  Really, there was no need to try and make this a huge blockbuster with an enormous budget to begin with.  They could have toned down the effects heavily and aimed at a lower bar with a far more reasonable budget.  It's first and foremost a comedy, after all.  People watch it to laugh, not to see the thrilling battles and explosions.  Why bother going big and having to compete with all the capeshit out there?

On the notion of this movie receiving fairly positive reviews overall.  Do I think the gender controversy perhaps played a role in this, encouraging some critics to be kinder to the film than they ordinarily would have been?  Yes, actually.  Kind of like the opposite of Apocalypto, where critics bent over backwards to twist some sort of racist or fascist meaning out of the film to fit with the narrative that Mel Gibson was an evil Nazi who couldn't possibly have any genuine artistic talent.  I'm not mad about it, though.  For one thing, it's nobody's fault but the pre-release, pre-trailer haters that the movie ever became a political football to begin with.  For another, the shilling didn't do much good, as the movie underperformed at the box office.  And finally, the reaction on reddit when the positive reviews came in that fateful day was truly hilarious, far more so than I could have reasonably expected this movie to be.  So I guess the movie did entertain me well enough, in its own way.

tl;dr: idk, sexism or something
I've never seen the show, but just from reading the synopses on Wikipedia and articles like these, I can tell I'd hate it.  I kind of already hate it, actually.  It comes across as the smug ramblings of a hipster edgelord with nothing insightful to say.  Game shows are bad, mmkay?  Smartphones are bad, mmkay?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on November 01, 2016, 02:16:44 AM
Did Sam really write all that out is it copypasta?

I've been watching shameless. Halfway through season two but I'm kinda getting bored with it
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 02, 2016, 12:47:16 PM
I've been watching Westworld.

The story is decent and the sets are beautiful but.. HBO just kinda sucks. I've lost all faith in their ability to write good scripts with compelling characters.
And of course they have to throw in the dumbest shit for "shock value" or something. There's an orgy scene that looks like a 14 year old kid thought it up for no reason. The orgy scene from Conan the Barbarian was better and made more sense.

There is one character I like cause he finally pointed out how his loser friend wants to do nothing but visit Westworld to have sex (which seems like a huge waste of money imo). He also pointed out that whoever created Westworld must not have a very good opinion of people.
I mean seriously, "enter this theme park and do whatever you want!" and most people want to kill indiscriminately and have sex? How boring and stupid. You can have sex without paying $40,000.



A show that is way better written and far more compelling is The Fall.

The BBC knows how to make good shit and have thought provoking conversations about sex and violence.
And Gillian Anderson is just perfect. <3
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on November 02, 2016, 12:48:06 PM
Star Trek Beyond.
Surprisingly p. good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 03, 2016, 12:16:58 PM
I finished The Fall.

What an unfulfilling, frustrating, and depressing end.
I loved it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on November 05, 2016, 05:52:17 AM
Doctor Strange (Scott Derrickson, 2016)

This is good.  It's pretty much a standard capeshit origin story, and it sticks to the traditional Marvel formula, but if you're a fan of what they've been doing so far, then there's plenty more of what you've come to enjoy here.  The one area where it truly stands out from its peers are the visuals, which are every bit as cool and unique as Steve Ditko's psychedelic artwork from the comics.  The love interest feels largely superfluous, despite Rachel McAdams doing the best she can with the role, and the villain isn't all that great either, despite Mads Mikkelsen doing the best he can with the role.  I wasn't a fan of the humor in this movie - it felt very forced, cringey at times, and in general just not very funny.  On a related note, while I mostly liked Benedildo Cucumberpatch's portrayal of the titular hero, I felt his character was way too similar to Tony Stark's, especially at the beginning of the movie.  I don't just mean as the archetype of the arrogant jerk who loses everything and learns to become a better person.  They essentially have the same snarky sense of humor, same deadpan delivery, same patter-style manner of speech, and the same personality.  Even their voices sound alike.  I can't imagine that I'm the only person who noticed this.

Those flaws aside, however, this is still Marvel doing what they do best and giving us a fun capeshit romp.  They just don't reinvent the genre with it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on November 05, 2016, 02:17:33 PM
Alfred Jodocus Kwak (Herman van Veen, 1989-1991)

Dit kinderprogramma is een verhaal over een weeseend die Alfred Jodocus Kwak heet. Hij is opgevoed door een mol omdat zijn ouders vroeg in de serie doodgereden zijn, wat is de oorzaak van wat spanning met zijn medeleerlingen bij seizoen 1. Alfred Jodocus Kwak is een nogal ongewoon kinderprogramma door de verschillende thema's en personages die het bestudeert, waaronder een kwade kraai gebaseerd op Adolf Hitler (die "Dolf" heet).

Het programma wisselt een beetje van aflevering tot aflevering. Er zijn wat verhaalbogen, sommige met reizen naar andere landen die op echte landen zijn gebaseerd, anderen met buitenaardse wezens of reusachtige schildpadden. Meestal was het heel interessant, zelfs als een volwassene.

Uiteraard was het echte doel om mijn Nederlands te verbeteren, en dat viel wel mee. Nu kan ik veel beter luisteren in het Nederlands, al moet ik nog oefenen met spreken.

Samenvattend kan ik dit programma aanbevelen aan iedereen. Het was heel veel beter dan ik had verwacht, vooral van een kinderprogramma.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on November 05, 2016, 03:48:32 PM
been watching westwood.  the concept is p cool i think, but hbo's execution in this case leaves at least a little to be desired.  definitely worth watching if you've got hbo, though.

And of course they have to throw in the dumbest shit for "shock value" or something. There's an orgy scene that looks like a 14 year old kid thought it up for no reason. The orgy scene from Conan the Barbarian was better and made more sense.

seriously.  i can't imagine why anyone would want to fuck covered in a bunch of gold paint and glitter. 

There is one character I like cause he finally pointed out how his loser friend wants to do nothing but visit Westworld to have sex (which seems like a huge waste of money imo). He also pointed out that whoever created Westworld must not have a very good opinion of people.
I mean seriously, "enter this theme park and do whatever you want!" and most people want to kill indiscriminately and have sex? How boring and stupid. You can have sex without paying $40,000.

yeah they've done a poor job of making this park sound appealing.  although having played gta online, i get the feeling that that's exactly how 60% of the players would play the game.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 08, 2016, 06:44:05 PM
been watching westwood.  the concept is p cool i think, but hbo's execution in this case leaves at least a little to be desired.  definitely worth watching if you've got hbo, though.
I'm glad someone agrees with me on execution.

Quote
yeah they've done a poor job of making this park sound appealing.  although having played gta online, i get the feeling that that's exactly how 60% of the players would play the game.
Maybe that's a fair percentage. But maybe they would be less likely to play that way when looking at a almost human character.
My friend made an interesting point the other day on this topic, he suggested the people who could afford the park are likely to be assholes. This is going off the assumption that very successful people are sociopaths.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on November 09, 2016, 03:37:29 PM
been watching westwood.  the concept is p cool i think, but hbo's execution in this case leaves at least a little to be desired.  definitely worth watching if you've got hbo, though.
I'm glad someone agrees with me on execution.

last week's episode was almost unforgivably poorly executed.  you probably already know which scene i'm thinking of: i feel like if a potentially psychotic robot threatened me with a knife and was like "hey use that ipad to make me smarter and faster and stronger," then i would maybe do the exact opposite of that.  this whole section of the plot is super unbelievable to me.

i still dig the show though because jeffrey wright.  and also because i'm apparently a complete sucker for lazily contrived mysteries (see: LOST).
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 10, 2016, 02:12:29 PM
last week's episode was almost unforgivably poorly executed.  you probably already know which scene i'm thinking of: i feel like if a potentially psychotic robot threatened me with a knife and was like "hey use that ipad to make me smarter and faster and stronger," then i would maybe do the exact opposite of that.  this whole section of the plot is super unbelievable to me.

i still dig the show though because jeffrey wright.  and also because i'm apparently a complete sucker for lazily contrived mysteries (see: LOST).
I absolutely hate her story-line. Her and those two surgeons make my eyes roll right out of my head.

But the data uplink thing and the old unregistered robots were pretty cool. Anthony Hopkins is really starting to creep me out. Overall I thought it was one of the better episodes because things actually happened. And I'm starting to enjoy Ed Harris and James Marsden's plot. Teddy is the only robot that I like so far.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on November 11, 2016, 01:39:26 AM
I remember hearing about Westworld on NPR. I don't have HBO, but it sounds kind of like this: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/humans/s01/

Similar themes and story. Not HBO budget level, but still well made.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on November 12, 2016, 12:53:04 PM
Turks fruit (Paul Verhoeven, 1973)

So it turns out art films are a terrible way to learn a language because everyone is too busy being an edgetacular fedoramaster to bother matching up their body language to their words. Blanko and Crudblud would love it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on November 12, 2016, 06:17:28 PM
Turks fruit (Paul Verhoeven, 1973)

So it turns out art films are a terrible way to learn a language because everyone is too busy being an edgetacular fedoramaster to bother matching up their body language to their words. Blanko and Crudblud would love it.

>me
>watching paul verhoeven films
>enjoying paul verhoeven films

dude lmao
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on November 13, 2016, 04:01:39 PM
I absolutely hate her story-line. Her and those two surgeons make my eyes roll right out of my head.

But the data uplink thing and the old unregistered robots were pretty cool. Anthony Hopkins is really starting to creep me out. Overall I thought it was one of the better episodes because things actually happened. And I'm starting to enjoy Ed Harris and James Marsden's plot. Teddy is the only robot that I like so far.

i did really enjoy the scene with hopkins and wright in the house.  i pretty much love all the human characters and hate all the robots, but i feel like that will change as the writers start to develop some depth to the robots.  teddy is already starting to grow on me.  ed harris is very one-dimensional right now, i guess, but he's just so visually perfect for the role.

I remember hearing about Westworld on NPR. I don't have HBO, but it sounds kind of like this: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/humans/s01/

Similar themes and story. Not HBO budget level, but still well made.

it's worth watching if you get a chance.  that said, hbo could probably run a show called omg who's that guy?!?!, and i'd watch every season they released.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on November 25, 2016, 03:23:25 AM
last week's episode was almost unforgivably poorly executed.  you probably already know which scene i'm thinking of: i feel like if a potentially psychotic robot threatened me with a knife and was like "hey use that ipad to make me smarter and faster and stronger," then i would maybe do the exact opposite of that.  this whole section of the plot is super unbelievable to me.

That was head-slappingly confusing.  The whole time I was just asking, why?  Why are you doing this?  Okay, I can understand the Asian guy, who was obviously charmed by her, but the other one clearly wanted no part in it.  He's a fully-grown man wearing a protective rubber suit up against a naked woman armed with nothing more than a scalpel.  In a crowded building.  Why didn't he yell for help?  Why didn't he turn around and walk away?  Why didn't he do literally anything except exactly what she wanted?

I do enjoy the show overall, although I agree with a lot of what rooster and garygreen have said.  One more criticism I'd add is an issue that a lot of Nolan projects suffer from - an excessive and largely unearned sense of self-importance.  I have no problem with it taking a more serious tone than the 1973 movie, but right from the very first minute, the show immediately begins doing its best to convince us that this a Very Important Show with Very Important Things to Say.  You'd swear that these people were running a Holocaust memorial rather than a goofy theme park, for all the gravitas-laden dialogue, the grave solemnity with which most of the characters speak, and the ominous music framing it all.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 25, 2016, 04:35:43 PM
You'd swear that these people were running a Holocaust memorial rather than a goofy theme park, for all the gravitas-laden dialogue, the grave solemnity with which most of the characters speak, and the ominous music framing it all.
It's a billion dollar corporation run by programmers discussing the morality of consciousness and with the responsibility of people's lives in their hands. Anthony Hopkins and Jeffrey Wright don't seem like they'd be particularly chill bosses.
Even Disneyland/world takes everything super seriously. You should read some former employee experiences.

And I don't mind the music since it's modern stuff re-done with a creepy Western vibe. It is a show about consciousness, morality, excess, and freedom afterall. Not a comedy.

I do agree with you completely about the surgeons and Maeve though. I mean, they're apart for most of the day - they easily could have pretended to go along with her plan and then immediately reported her once she was back up in Westworld. I wouldn't say the Asian is particularly charmed by her though. He seems more curious and compassionate about the robots in general.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: mollete on November 25, 2016, 05:22:03 PM
I don't often actually go to the theater to watch new releases, but I went to see Arrival and it was quite good. It's about a first contact scenario from the perspective of a linguist that's been given the task of finding out how to communicate with the aliens. The language nerd in me appreciated the details of her efforts, but it's not really all that technical if that's not your thing. The main thing about the film that stood out was that it was a sci-fi film that was very character/emotion-based and less focused on having cool futuristic effects.

I also intend to see Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them sometime in the near future.

EDIT: Arrival also has a bit ~twiiiist~ that's cool
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on November 29, 2016, 04:49:28 AM
just finished season 1 of turn: washington's spies.  i like spy stuff, so i dig it.  plus, every episode gives me a patriotism boner.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 29, 2016, 01:00:39 PM
just finished season 1 of turn: washington's spies.  i like spy stuff, so i dig it.  plus, every episode gives me a patriotism boner.
I liked that show too.

Production was good, acting was good, decent enough plot, not too slow, etc.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on November 29, 2016, 01:43:44 PM
just finished season 1 of turn: washington's spies.  i like spy stuff, so i dig it.  plus, every episode gives me a patriotism boner.
I liked that show too.

Production was good, acting was good, decent enough plot, not too slow, etc.

i also got caught up on westworld.  really enjoyed the latest episode.  lots of juicy puzzle pieces.  bernarnold and multiple timelines confirmed!

also i think i agree with the man-in-black-is-william theory.  i can't decide, though, if i think he's a guest or a host.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on December 05, 2016, 03:59:26 PM
To the surprise of absolutely no one, it turns out that the Man in Black is William.  Also, I have to say that the breakout scene was horrendously, catastrophically bad.  Plot armor!  Bottomless magazines!  Dozens of security personnel apparently just refusing to fire back!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on December 05, 2016, 07:54:36 PM
Well it looks like Luke Cage snapped Marvel's winning streak.  What a crap show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 06, 2016, 02:36:01 PM
Well it looks like Luke Cage snapped Marvel's winning streak.  What a crap show.

I liked it until Diamondback became the main antagonist. I enjoyed the battle of public image being played out with Luke, Cottonmouth and the Councilwoman. Once they realised Luke couldn't be hurt conventionally, the attempt to destroy him by hurting people close to him and his image in the eyes of Harlem was a really interesting take on the superhero v big bad story.

Then they found magic superbullets and it descended back into a punch-em-up.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on December 06, 2016, 03:06:05 PM
Well it looks like Luke Cage snapped Marvel's winning streak.  What a crap show.

I liked it until Diamondback became the main antagonist. I enjoyed the battle of public image being played out with Luke, Cottonmouth and the Councilwoman. Once they realised Luke couldn't be hurt conventionally, the attempt to destroy him by hurting people close to him and his image in the eyes of Harlem was a really interesting take on the superhero v big bad story.

Then they found magic superbullets and it descended back into a punch-em-up.

Me too, but it was just so bad once Cottonmouth came in.  The worst writing of any MCU title hands down, the final showdown with Cottonmouth was terribly conceived and I expect Marvel to give a little more depth of the choice for the police not to intervene.  The final episode was just boring, like the last 30 minutes of the Return of the King but without the lofty height to come down from.  The romantic subplot felt very hackneyed too.  Ugh all all around.  I like Luke Cage a lot, but am happy to put this behind me.  Can't wait for Iron Fist and then the Defenders!  Hope Marvel gets back on that horse!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on December 06, 2016, 04:32:30 PM
Well it looks like Luke Cage snapped Marvel's winning streak.  What a crap show.

I liked it until Diamondback became the main antagonist. I enjoyed the battle of public image being played out with Luke, Cottonmouth and the Councilwoman. Once they realised Luke couldn't be hurt conventionally, the attempt to destroy him by hurting people close to him and his image in the eyes of Harlem was a really interesting take on the superhero v big bad story.

Then they found magic superbullets and it descended back into a punch-em-up.

Me too, but it was just so bad once Cottonmouth came in.  The worst writing of any MCU title hands down, the final showdown with Cottonmouth was terribly conceived and I expect Marvel to give a little more depth of the choice for the police not to intervene.  The final episode was just boring, like the last 30 minutes of the Return of the King but without the lofty height to come down from.  The romantic subplot felt very hackneyed too.  Ugh all all around.  I like Luke Cage a lot, but am happy to put this behind me.  Can't wait for Iron Fist and then the Defenders!  Hope Marvel gets back on that horse!

You mean Diamondback?  He was the guy in the awful outfit at the end.  Cottonmouth was the villain for the first part of the season.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on December 06, 2016, 06:57:51 PM
To the surprise of absolutely no one, it turns out that the Man in Black is William.  Also, I have to say that the breakout scene was horrendously, catastrophically bad.  Plot armor!  Bottomless magazines!  Dozens of security personnel apparently just refusing to fire back!

i thought the funniest part of that scene was when they first went into "lockdown."  i feel like if i were designing a super secure bunker, lockdown mode wouldn't initiate a bunch of dim, blood-colored lighting from the baseboards. 

and there would be a protocol called "if the robot you're trying to catch runs into a room with nothing but other robots in it, then just shoot all the robots in the room.  fixing robots with gunshot wounds is one of those things we do super well around here.  don't wander in alone in the dark and check each one by hand.  that's kinda dumb."  or something to that effect.

overall, though, i really enjoyed the episode.  i will sound a little like ronald macdonald when i say this, but i really appreciated having everything explained to me in exposition in the first half hour.  normally i don't, but in this case i think the disjointed story-telling warranted it.  if only to confirm what most of the viewers already knew.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on December 06, 2016, 09:58:01 PM
You mean Diamondback?  He was the guy in the awful outfit at the end.  Cottonmouth was the villain for the first part of the season.

Yeah that's what I meant. Cottonmouth was ok, I just felt like he played a lot of scenes the same.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 07, 2016, 01:12:05 PM
To the surprise of absolutely no one, it turns out that the Man in Black is William.

Carter told me people had this theory, but otherwise I never would have seen it coming. I did like it though.

overall, though, i really enjoyed the episode.  i will sound a little like ronald macdonald when i say this, but i really appreciated having everything explained to me in exposition in the first half hour.  normally i don't, but in this case i think the disjointed story-telling warranted it.  if only to confirm what most of the viewers already knew.

Definitely agree. There were moments when I would just say "I don't get it." They tried to be so convoluted about what? Consciousness? I don't get it.

And who the fuck programmed Maive? And why?

I saw Dolores's ending from a mile away. I don't know why they put so much focus on her though, she's very boring.
The break out scene was awful. I thought the only cool thing about it was being able to see that awesome snake tattoo again.

Anyone else notice how tiny Ed Harris looked during the gala? He's not particularly tall, but the angles weren't doing him any favors. We legitimately laughed the first time you see him walking through the event.

I didn't enjoy that episode as much as I enjoyed ep9. But overall, I like the show more than I did at the beginning.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on December 14, 2016, 10:43:44 PM
Hey everyone!  I am on the news ABC show, "Designated Survivor" premiering tonight at 10pm!  Watch it and then talk about how terrible I was in this thread after!  I play the head of the White House military staff.  I am responsible for the "nuclear football".  It is pretty rad.

You handled that "football" like a pro, are you in any of the rest?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 15, 2016, 03:16:45 AM
Just got back from Rogue One. Holy shit,that's how you make a Star Wars prequel. No grand heroics to destroy yet another weapon, just the average grunts in the civil war fighting one small front. The characters were well drawn, being free from the curse of the saga meant that every time the characters were in danger there was genuine jeopardy. The Death Star was a properly intimidating threat instead of the ludicrous silliness of Starkiller Base, the visuals were stunning and Vader is honestly the most badass he's been throughout all 8 films.

There are a few niggles but honestly not enough to spoil the fun. Great film, go see it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: George on December 25, 2016, 03:54:55 AM
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (Seasons 8-11, 20012-2016)

Just making a note here that I watched the last four seasons, and it's still great - no sudden downturn in quality or anything, and I'm eagerly looking forward to the twelfth season next month.  This is the best sitcom I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on December 25, 2016, 05:15:23 AM
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (Seasons 8-11, 20012-2016)

Just making a note here that I watched the last four seasons, and it's still great - no sudden downturn in quality or anything, and I'm eagerly looking forward to the twelfth season next month.  This is the best sitcom I've ever seen.

I've never seen George be so right about anything ever.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on December 25, 2016, 05:28:30 AM
it's remarkably consistent. 

season 9 is the only one i found disappointing.  it was still funny, but i thought all the episode punchlines were unusually obvious: dee wasn't really famous, frank didn't really care about gun rights, the gang wasn't really sick, charlie wasn't really smart, etc.  they used the same gag for like 3/4 of that season.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on December 30, 2016, 04:38:44 AM
Watched season 1 of Westworld, I thought it was fantastic tbh.

Picking up Oz (HBO 1999) again, at Season right at the beginning of Season 3. I love this show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on January 02, 2017, 09:14:46 PM
Just finished the second season of Man in the High Castle.

I liked it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Elusive Rabbit on January 19, 2017, 03:40:26 AM
I watched The Accountant the other night.

Alright, I gotta hand it to the casting -- Ben Affleck, Anna Kendrick, and J. K. Simmons. I was a happy camper seeing them all show up.

That being said, this movie did a lot of things wrong, kind of like Affleck's previous big-shot film Batman vs. Superman; but also like BvS, whenever TA did something right, it did it really well. The movie broke some common tropes, introduced a few nifty ideas, managed to avoid romance subplots and weird plot detours. It was pretty focused and accomplished, in a lot of ways. I have mixed feelings about the film, but I still enjoyed it and would watch it again.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on January 19, 2017, 03:57:34 AM
Currently watching Dirk Bigly, Holistic Detective and it's pretty awesome, silly absurd fun. There is some serious good performances in it, especially Billy, the holistic assassin. Watch now on Netflix.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 20, 2017, 11:35:53 AM
Currently watching Dirk Bigly, Holistic Detective and it's pretty awesome, silly absurd fun. There is some serious good performances in it, especially Billy, the holistic assassin. Watch now on Netflix.

I enjoyed it, but Elijah Wood's character just didn't belong in proceedings. At all. In a series about kittens loaded with shark ghosts, time machines, body-swapping cultists, kidnapped god-girls, steampunk Iron Men, a van full of psychic anarchists straight out of an 80s action film, and an invincible assassin, his leaden story was so weirdly out of place I kept expecting it to be a subversion. I understand the need to have a 'Straight Man' in a series like this, but the point of one is to give the audience a relatable character and emphasise how weird everything else happening around him is, you're not supposed to focus on his straight man story itself, especially not when it's so tedious and unrelated to the fun nonsense.

Tonally it's all over the place, as well; never seeming sure whether it wants to be a comedy, a serious drama, or a sci-fi thriller. As such, some of the jokes fall flat, the emotional scenes lose their weight, and the action isn't exciting.

Hopefully, some of those issues can be polished out for Season 2
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 28, 2017, 05:18:41 PM
Man of Steel (Zack Snyder)

One of the most joyless, soulless films I've ever seen. It feels less like a product of human invention than it does of some AI experiment in which a computer was fed a checklist of dramatic elements and made to generate a screenplay based on it. I was fortunately watching it with my good buddies Snupes and Saddam, so we had a good laugh at it, but holy shit what a miserable wreck of a film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Elusive Rabbit on January 29, 2017, 01:09:29 AM
Man of Steel (Zack Snyder)

One of the most joyless, soulless films I've ever seen. It feels less like a product of human invention than it does of some AI experiment in which a computer was fed a checklist of dramatic elements and made to generate a screenplay based on it. I was fortunately watching it with my good buddies Snupes and Saddam, so we had a good laugh at it, but holy shit what a miserable wreck of a film.
I recall liking Man of Steel when I first saw it some three or four years ago. It wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination, but I still enjoyed myself.

I recently watched Hard Candy, which stars Patrick Wilson and Ellen Page, both of whom do a fantastic job. The cinematography, and general feeling of the film, is masterful. It is a very engaging, intense experience. I especially like the variety of loose threads in the film's plot, something that allows the central narrative to flourish and intentionally leaves the viewer in the dark. This is a movie I'd recommend, no doubt.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 29, 2017, 04:56:45 AM
Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zack Snyder)

Fuck off.

Suicide Squad (Kevin Ayer)

please stop

EDIT: His name is David Ayer I don't care he is a massive cunt.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on January 29, 2017, 07:28:55 AM
lmao

Seriously though, thanks for watching. I can't think of many people that'd suffer through eight hours of utterly soul-suckingly awful films just to make fun of them with me. <3
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 29, 2017, 03:37:37 PM
lmao

Seriously though, thanks for watching. I can't think of many people that'd suffer through eight hours of utterly soul-suckingly awful films just to make fun of them with me. <3

Thank you, too. I couldn't have done it alone, that's for sure. I had seen films that I would still consider to be overall worse than any of them, but I'm not sure I'd ever before seen a film in which my expectations were progressively lowered with each new scene. Well, now I've seen three.

I'm not sure how we made it through. Truly, we were some kind of
suicide squad
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 01, 2017, 11:09:11 AM
I remember going through a rollercoaster of emotions for BvS, ranging from being confused at the opening, being forgiving because I hadn't seen Man of Steel so I thought it was probably unfair of me to criticise a sequel for leaning heavily on its predecessor, then I was bored, then I was confused again (seriously, what the hell was with that apocalyptic dream sequence and the appearance of a time-travelling Flash?), then I was angry that Batman apparently decided to break his one rule, then confused, then bored, then amused that they would try to build a DC universe with 5-second embedded teasers, then I fell asleep when Batman went to rescue Martha Kent (seriously, nothing kills the tension in an action sequence to see the hero take a bullet to the head and not even react.)

Apparently I missed Lex summoning a rock troll from General Zod's decomposed body or something, then Wonder Woman shows up apropos of nothing - I'm summing up the wife's description.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Elusive Rabbit on February 02, 2017, 12:29:34 AM
Lex Luthor was, far and above, the weakest, worst aspect of Batman vs. Superman. I hated that portrayal, but Suicide Squad's Jared Leto-Joker was absolute trash, too. Probably even worse.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 11, 2017, 05:41:50 AM
Catching up on a few things...

John Wick (Chad Stahelski)

Solid nuts and bolts action with a simple revenge plot that doesn't get in the way of the glorious violence. Keanu Reeves looks miserable all the time anyway so this is a perfect role for him.

Ant-Man (Peyton Reed)

Another good action movie with very impressive CGI both in its believability and in its creativity of application. Too much comic relief from one-note characters can get a bit grating, but this isn't so big a deal as to take too much away from the experience as a whole. This is the most fun I've had with a Marvel movie since Guardians of the Galaxy.

Captain America: Civil War (Anthony and Joe Russo)

Too many directors, too many characters, too many plots, too many minutes. Better than the last big Avengers bash, but still pretty clumsy in its attempts to handle too much shit going on at once. None of the characters have any particular weight to them, the reveals that should add pathos to their motivations lack impact, and generally I just feel like there wasn't much of a point to it. Having said that, the action seems to have taken some cues from the Netflix Marvel shows, the hits are chunkier, the choreography more elaborate, more physical, and this is definitely a good thing. It was kind of cool to see Spidey, but they seriously need to work on that banter, his appearance seems to have been inserted at the last minute just to show that they finally have the rights to their most iconic hero back. On balance it's okay.

Whiplash (Damien Chazelle)

Like good music, a film better watched than talked about. Aside from a pointless romantic subplot, the film has an intensity and claustrophobia to it which makes the combative relationship between the young drummer and his perfectionist mentor very exciting to watch. I was impressed by the musical sequences in particular, and with the respect the people who made the film obviously have for music, it takes centre stage rather than being an occasional interlude between long scenes of heavy-handed dialogue. Highly recommended.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on February 12, 2017, 07:56:41 AM
12 Monkeys (Terry Gilliam, 1995)

This was a really good and story and the cinematography was gud
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on February 12, 2017, 05:33:01 PM
The Lego Batman Movie (Chris McKay, 2017)

But what is this? A fun Batman movie? A Batman movie that doesn't grovel at the altar of Frank Miller and furiously try to prove how dark and serious it is at all times? Preposterous! No, but this is actually great. Nonstop gags, a hilarious cast, an encyclopedic array of references from the character's very long history, and a sincere emotional core under the jokes. I especially loved all the voices they got for the villains, like Doug Benson doing a parody of Tom Hardy's silly Bane voice and Billy Dee Williams finally getting to play Two-Face.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on February 13, 2017, 12:47:13 AM
John Wick: Chapter 2 (Chad Stahelski, 2017)

Definitely not as good as the first, but it's honestly a very close call and this is a very good successor. My only real qualms with it are that the story suffers from being more expansive than the first, and they retread a fair number of sequences and events. There are a number of action scenes that blow all of the ones in the first out of the water, but then there are a few (particularly near the end) that were...boring. Which is awful, because I can't think of a single scene in the first that wasn't superb.

I mean, I'd definitely recommend it if you enjoyed the first movie, but it's not quite as tight.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 13, 2017, 02:03:15 AM
12 Monkeys (Terry Gilliam, 1995)

This was a really good and story and the cinematography was gud

<3
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on February 13, 2017, 05:32:14 AM
12 Monkeys (Terry Gilliam, 1995)

This was a really good and story and the cinematography was gud

It is good but Brazil is better no offence
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on February 20, 2017, 05:43:59 AM
this was my favorite episode of homeland to date.

i fucking love this season.  slow burn is best burn.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on February 25, 2017, 02:58:01 AM
The Raid 2 (Gareth Evans, 2014)

That was, hands down, the best action movie I have ever seen. Holy fuck. That motherfucking choreography was art.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dionysios on March 05, 2017, 07:34:40 AM
'The Lion of the Desert'

with Anthony Quinn as Libya's nomad rebel leader against Italian occupiers sent by Mussolini played by Rod Steiger.

Produced in the 1970's, the movie has a lot of the same actors from the earlier and more famous 'Guns of Navaronne' like Irene Pappas and a kindred spirit. Also a great action movie.

https://archive.org/details/LionOfTheDesertumarAlMukhtar1

I have to say that among others I greatly appreciate the role played by the Italian colonel as the diplomat who deeply sympathised with the rebels and sincerely respected their leader, especially as all the characters were real people whose names are not changed in this film which runs over with character.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on March 13, 2017, 08:40:34 AM
Logan (James Mangold, 2017)

Amazing. Seriously. Saw it with my friend and my nephew, they looked over at me just as the credits hit and saw me just sobbing openly. Not just a few tears, but a full-on stream and shaky breathing and inability to talk. I can't think of a single superhero film that's made me feel the things that movie did.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2017, 10:52:49 PM
Samurai Jack - Season 5 episode 1

Yep, he's still got it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on March 15, 2017, 02:14:59 AM
Watchmen (Zack Snyder, 2009)

I didn't really like this. There is some merit to it, as the story it faithfully adapts is of course great, but at the same time, that's kind of the film's biggest problem - it's too faithful. Watchmen, the comic, isn't structured like a movie, paced like one, or written like one. It's lengthy, episodic, revolves around a number of very complex characters, hops backward and forward in time frequently, and takes place in a universe with plenty of both subtle and major differences to ours. So, on the one hand, it's not a great choice for a film adaptation (a TV show might have worked better), but if they insisted on making it a movie, then they really needed to take a scissors to the source material and make a proper adaptation, rather than just including everything that was in the comic because that's what the fanboys hoped for. Moloch, for example, should have been left out. The news vendor and the animated depiction of the Black Freighter story absolutely should have been left out, and I was honestly stunned to see it be included. Even the dialogue should have been trimmed down considerably, as a lot of what was in the comic is too wordy to really work in live-action, when you need to have actors actually sounding out the lines and have it flow with what's happening onscreen. The "What happened to the American Dream?" line stood out as a big example of that. It's a neat exchange in the comic, but in live-action it sounds so rehearsed that it just comes across as hokey.

I mentioned the word "fanboys" above, and that's one way to summarize the whole issue. This is a movie for fanboys, and only for fanboys. I can't imagine anyone not already at least reasonably familiar with the comic being anything other than confused by this. Also, the blood and gore in this movie is disgusting, and I don't mean that in a good way. It's not artsy, it's not beautiful, it's just ugly. And nobody try and say that was the point, because Snyder films it far too lovingly for that to have been the intended effect.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on March 15, 2017, 08:41:45 AM
Wasn't the Black Freighter only in the extended cut?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on March 15, 2017, 02:17:25 PM
Yeah, I should have mentioned that the version I saw was the longest cut of the movie. I understand and appreciate that editing and cutting is an important part of the filmmaking process, but even the fact that they spent the time and money animating and shooting those scenes is baffling. It's the most obvious "cut this" material imaginable.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on March 15, 2017, 03:59:03 PM
Yeah, I should have mentioned that the version I saw was the longest cut of the movie. I understand and appreciate that editing and cutting is an important part of the filmmaking process, but even the fact that they spent the time and money animating and shooting those scenes is baffling. It's the most obvious "cut this" material imaginable.

It was cut in the original release, which I thought was a good movie.  They add that stuff in to generate extra revenue from fanboys.  Generally extended cuts are worse than original cuts.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on March 16, 2017, 01:57:13 AM
I thought the opening montage set to Dylan's "The Times They Are A'Changing" was truly beautiful. After that it lost me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on March 16, 2017, 01:00:10 PM
I loved that movie and I definitely am not a fanboy. Never read the comic and had no idea what it was before I watched it. I thought the hokiness really added to the dark satire. And yeah, that opening scene was beautiful.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on March 18, 2017, 07:08:59 PM
I've suffered through about half of Marvel's latest Netflix series Iron Fist, and it is fucking horrendous. Finn Jones is horrible in the lead role - he has no physical presence, very little charisma, and comes across as an irritating jackass more than whatever Zen master he's meant to be. The dialogue is atrocious. The characters are mostly unlikable and unsympathetic with no clear motivation - David Wenham's villain is fun to watch, and Colleen Wing might be an interesting character in a better show, but that's about it. The action is several steps down from Daredevil - when fight scenes do happen, which isn't often, they quickly dissolve into a blurry mess of quick cuts where a guy who clearly doesn't know martial arts (our lead, ladies and gentlemen) awkwardly fumbles about until the other guy falls down. And there's more. Iron Fist regularly tells rather than shows, focuses on the boring and mundane instead of the potentially interesting, and in general just seems embarrassed to be capeshit in the first place. Oh, and its title sequence is also shit.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on March 20, 2017, 07:53:14 PM
Logan

Was alright. The emotion, acting, and production were all good. I didn't care for the plot at all.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on March 22, 2017, 04:08:23 AM
Iron Fist (Scott Buck, 2017)

Ayyy, I get to play contrarian to Saddam again.

I liked it. Well, enough that I'd say it's "alright". It's weird, because I feel like I've watched a completely different show than a lot of the people calling it a piece of shit. I don't disagree with a lot of the criticisms—the dialogue was bad, the fight scenes weren't great, and the story is weak—but not to such an extreme. I went in thinking I'd agree with all the reviews, but I've come out very differently. Rand was an awfully-written  character, but it had little to nothing to do with Finn Jones. His acting was fine throughout, he just really was not given anything good to work with. The fight scenes in the first half were very poorly done, but they improved dramatically in the second half (and, warning, I thought Daredevil just had alright fight scenes for the most part, too). So did the story, since they basically fully-embraced "hey, this is fucking nuts" and just went off the rails. That's not to say it's great, but I was way more hooked in the second half than I was in the first.

The highlight of the show, actually, are the Meachums. Ward, in particular. I was getting emotional whiplash with all the times he made me feel bad for him then made me hate him one after the other. His felt like the most fully-developed character in the show, and the one who made the most consistent decisions for the most part. Harold was delightfully hateable and...odd enough to be interesting. Joy was, well, Joy. I thought she was kind of fucking stupid but hey I guess she made me feel something.

No, not exactly a glowing review, but it wasn't a great show. Odd pacing, lackluster fight scenes (for the most part), bad dialogue, weak story, etc. I just don't think it's nearly as awful as people are saying. Maybe it's because the MCU and expectations are high (which they shouldn't be after Daredevil season 2), but I'd rather watch Iron Fist than most shit on TV. That being said, so far my MCU Netflix ranking goes:

Jessica Jones: Season 1
Daredevil: Season 1
Daredevil: Season 2 (Part 1)
Luke Cage: Season 1
Iron Fist: Season 1
Daredevil: Season 2 (Part 2)

The biggest disappointment in the show, for me, is that he didn't get his costume!!!! He's got the coolest costume of the bunch, so he better not just be Danny Rand: Vigilante Extraordinaire. So I don't agree with the more extreme views that season two should be axed or Finn Jones replaced, I just think they need a new showrunner and Jones should spend the time up until The Defenders practicing his kung fu.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on March 24, 2017, 12:28:23 AM
I just don't think it's nearly as awful as people are saying. Maybe it's because the MCU and expectations are high (which they shouldn't be after Daredevil season 2)

I'd say it's the inverse - fans have dramatically lowered their standards because of their general level of hype and excitement, and are willing to enjoy anything that has the Marvel logo and goes through the motions of being capeshit. I'm confident that after a few weeks, maybe months, the dust will settle and the fans currently insisting that "it's not so bad" will admit that the show was basically shit. I mean, you seem to already be conceding that the show is shit in your review, but that you still somehow unironically enjoyed it.

Also, the fan backlash against critics slamming the show for playing the "mighty whitey" trope straight and its general portrayal of race is ridiculous. For one thing, it's a perfectly valid criticism of the show, and for another, there isn't a single reviewer that hasn't provided plenty of other reasons for panning the show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on March 24, 2017, 03:26:50 AM
I can't think of many instances where getting hyped has made my expectations lower. And before you cry about my fangirling, that has little to do with my hype and everything to do with being blinded as a fangirl. Generally if I'm hyped about something (cough and such watchdogs coughing) it raises my expectations dramatically, which is one of the main reasons I've tried to stop hyping myself about things.

Also, I'm not conceding it's "shit", just that it's not good. It was an okay/alright show I enjoyed thanks to some characters and plotlines (Ward and Ward); most of my argument is literally "I don't think it's as bad as people say". The difference between a 2/10 rating and a 5/10 rating.

I know you have a hard time with subjectivity and people having differing opinions (granted, I just find it really fucking annoying when people say shit like "in x amount of time you'll agree" as some weird way to deflect disagreement off to some vague future point), but I'm so non-enamoured by this show that I'm confident my opinion on it is not likely to change much. Just like I think the same of Daredevil season 1 as I did after I watched it, or Jessica Jones, or Luke Cage, or Daredevil season 2...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on March 24, 2017, 09:50:32 PM
I can't think of many instances where getting hyped has made my expectations lower. And before you cry about my fangirling, that has little to do with my hype and everything to do with being blinded as a fangirl. Generally if I'm hyped about something (cough and such watchdogs coughing) it raises my expectations dramatically, which is one of the main reasons I've tried to stop hyping myself about things.

Also, I'm not conceding it's "shit", just that it's not good. It was an okay/alright show I enjoyed thanks to some characters and plotlines (Ward and Ward); most of my argument is literally "I don't think it's as bad as people say". The difference between a 2/10 rating and a 5/10 rating.

I know you have a hard time with subjectivity and people having differing opinions (granted, I just find it really fucking annoying when people say shit like "in x amount of time you'll agree" as some weird way to deflect disagreement off to some vague future point), but I'm so non-enamoured by this show that I'm confident my opinion on it is not likely to change much. Just like I think the same of Daredevil season 1 as I did after I watched it, or Jessica Jones, or Luke Cage, or Daredevil season 2...

The show is bad and your opinions are bad. Also, I want to see a fight between Danny and Liam Neeson's character from the Taken movies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF6y5b_IkvM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCKhktcbfQM

(btw I meant to say "standards" instead of "expectations")
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on March 29, 2017, 03:22:55 AM
Marvel's Luke Cage

Well, I finished it a few days ago, so this is not "just watched", but whatever. I enjoyed it. The character is no longer Generic Buff Black Dude, has a lot more to do than in Jessica Jones, and he's much more interesting and likeable. Mike Colter is a much better actor than I thought he was, though sometimes hammy dialogue serves him poorly. I forgot the other actors except Rosario Dawson, who similarly has much more going on than in previous shows while remaining true to her character. The villains in the first half are well-grounded scumbags with lots of character, the villain in the second half is a crazy Bible-quoting gangster with less character but I thought he was hilarious in a good way, so whatever.

The music is mostly very good, mixing hip-hop, blaxploitation-y funk, jazz, blues, soul etc. and relating that to the Harlem setting, which is well realised as a place and a community. I was generally invested in Cage's campaign to save it from criminal businessmen and corrupt politicians, because it seemed worth saving. It felt much more "real" than the Hell's Kitchen setting of previous Marvel Netflix thingies, which didn't seem much different than any generic New York setting seen in countless other shows and movies, and the musical culture is a big part of why that is. I didn't like all of the music, though, there are performances from actual groups and rappers in most episodes, one by The Delfonics is ear-gratingly bad.

It's a lot better than I was expecting it to be, overall, and I didn't think it dropped in quality in the second half either. There isn't really much point in me recommending it since there are only two other people here I'm aware of who even care about Marvel stuff and they already saw it ages ago, but I liked it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on April 02, 2017, 10:36:18 AM
I, Ron Fist

The story of Ron Fist, a magical man with fisting powers, and in a way the story of us all. Danny Rand returns to New York from Vaguely Chinese-sounding Magical Place after 15 years. Presumed dead by his friends, he was actually rescued from a plane crash over the Himalayas by monks who then trained him to become Ron Fist. Now he's back but no one believes he is who he says he is. Is he Danny Rand or is he Ron Fist? This central question provides the abstract for a 12-hour video essay on the nature of identity, which begins clinically, but ends, as these things so often do, with a credits sequence.

All joking aside (the above is actually all true though), I really cannot understand how this show has attracted such massively negative criticism. A lot of people are saying it doesn't hit the bar set by the first season of Daredevil, but if that's a good reason to throw it to the dogs where was all the shouting about how awful every other Marvel Netflix show is? Is it really the case that a couple of crappy fight scenes can detract from the really solid character-driven drama at the heart of the show? I don't get it, not at all. I'd put it slightly above Luke Cage, it doesn't have the memorable soundtrack, but it also maintains a mood and pace throughout which its predecessor had some trouble with, especially towards the end.

For me the fact that everyone acts their parts really well, that the story is interesting, that it moves along at a good pace, is more than enough to make the show enjoyable. The history of the Rand and Meachum families, effectively co-owners and operators of the Rand Corporation, is the emotional background of the story, and the writers managed to tie it into everywhere else the story goes in a clean, but not simplistic fashion. Like Daredevil, the Hand, which is basically the mafia but with magical ninjas, plays a big role, which means Kung Fu Grandma is back, and she's pretty great in this, playing an even more mysterious role than last time. I really liked that they managed to bring back old villains but keep them fresh, especially after Daredevil's second season made them so ridiculous.

Also back is (surprise!) Rosario Dawson, who just can't seem to stop bumping into magical punchy dudes all day every day. That's okay, she's good. Matrix Lady is also back in a somewhat reduced but crucial-ish role, all her actual doings seem to happen off-screen, which I guess is fine since there isn't enough room for legal doodle doo on top of everything else. References to the other Netflix superheroes are pretty abundant, which I guess is leading up to The Defenders, which I'm not particularly looking forward to, since if three Avengers movies have taught me anything it's that shoving a bunch of headliner characters together and expecting the juggling act to work only pays off 33.3333333333333333333333333333333333333% of the time.

The show-specific cast does a great job, the Meachum family has really good chemistry and their story really comes to life over the course of the show. David Wenham steals pretty much every scene he's in with his fantastically menacing performance, while Tom Pelphrey and Jessica Stroup do really well as siblings, their relationship's dynamic changing fluidly with the situation. It's a really good ensemble performance all round. Jessica Henwick does a good job of portraying her character's anxiety concerning her position in the events of the story without going too far, she also delivers some of the show's most engaging fight scenes.

The most contentious part of the show seems to be Finn Jones and the Danny Rand character itself. And I can kind of see why, it's very easy for him to come across like a whiny Milquetoast hipster with no redeeming qualities, but I think the writing and the performance tell a much different story. The fact that he spent 15 years away from the "real world" shows through his naïveté, childish petulance, the way he looks to violence as a simple solution to almost everything; he hasn't moved on from that plane crash, he is essentially still a 10 year old. Both the writing and Finn Jones's characterisation are really good at bringing all of that out, and I think to say "his pretend kung fu is shaky therefore he is garbage" is just dumb when there's so much else going on with the character. I thought the whole portrayal, but especially in the second half, was a solid examination of conflicting responsibilities, clashes of desire and duty, and how indoctrination can affect young, vulnerable people.

It's true that you'd expect a guy who spent 15 years training in literally the most exclusive monastery ever and attained the power of Ronnie Fisticles to be really really amazingly good at martial arts and stuff, and Finn Jones is definitely not that, but he's also not terrible, and he has plenty of time to improve between series. A few lacklustre fights can't put the show at the bottom of the Netflix pile in terms of action, since there are many other capable martial artists around and they can more than pick up the slack on that end. I've seen people talking about how the titular fisting should look like fire or something, whereas Danny Rand just has a glowing hand that he fists things with real hard, but it's made pretty clear throughout that Danny didn't complete his training, and still has a lot to learn before he can be considered a true Fisty Bob. The dual nature of the character, and the fact that both halves are incomplete, is what makes him interesting.

I wasn't expecting I'd have that much to say about it, also I'm very tired and this probably doesn't read very well. Overall I think I, Ron Fist is really good. I look forward to a second season, which hopefully we'll get since despite the critical response it has seen a massive viewership. Also hopefully The Defenders won't suck.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on April 04, 2017, 12:01:57 PM
I've only watched the first episode, so far, but I've liked what I've seen.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on April 11, 2017, 02:17:36 PM
So, I'm most of the way through Iron Fist and I'm not seeing the garbage fire that other reviewers have seen. If anything, this is the first of the Netflix Marvels to not seriously dip in quality after the half-way mark since Daredevil S1.

That said, there are problems. While The Hand  is at their most interesting in this show, they still don't sit right with me. The whole 'secret cabal of kung-fu ninjas' seems wildly at odds with 'runners of an international drug ring.' It would be like finding out that the secret power behind Kunlun was a highly successful tax accountancy firm.

Equally, after a strong first couple of episodes, Danny Rand is a really oddly drawn character. Sometimes he acts like you would expect someone who has spent 15 years in one of the world's strictest monasteries to behave, the next minute he's struggling to control his emotions, or being street-smart or business-savvy.

I've got about 5 episodes left, so we'll see if some of the issues above are addressed, but at the moment, it's an enjoyable, if flawed TV show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 12, 2017, 07:50:52 AM
In a sudden fit of masochism, I've been catching up on The Flash (the TV show). It hasn't gotten much better. :]

In fact, I mainly wanted to post about the three-part crossover between The Flash, Arrow, Legends of Tomorrow, and Supergirl.  Holy shit. The first episode was eh, the second was awful, then the third went to fucking horrendous. "Hey I heard some aliens say 'klick-clac-to nick-lava shack-too' what's that mean" "Oh it means 'the weapon is almost ready'" "Wow how convenient they were dumping that exposition as we walked by and also that I remembered the specifics of some random language I heard :)".

Fuck that. It was actually a fresh of breath air when it was back to The Flash. People were still making utterly dumbfuck decisions but at least it was an increase in quality.

Also fuck, how much shit they give Barry for time-travel and how much gravitas and danger is lent to it in The Flash, only for Legends to come around and time-travel all over the fucking place willy-nilly. "Barry you fucked up my life and I hate you for traveling through time to fix things without considering the consequences, time travel is awful" "Hey Cisco wanna travel through time to catch an alien" "Fuck yeah!!"
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 17, 2017, 03:53:38 AM
Rectify (Ray McKinnon, 2013-2016)

Four years later, almost to the day it first aired, I've finally finished Rectify. I don't know if any show has ever made me feel the massive range of emotions this one has, how much it's torn me up and stitched me back together. It's on Netflix. I couldn't give it a higher recommendation, no matter what kind of shows you normally like. And I don't know if any show has ever ended so perfectly, or earned its ending as much as this has. If they aired another season, I'd watch it for sure, but I'm glad they won't because it couldn't have finished any better than this did. Everything came full circle, and this show on its own almost taught me to feel hope and find it in darkness.

Honestly. It's perfect. It's almost how I felt when I finished Breath of the Wild. I don't feel any need to defend this show or march it around, argue about it, because it just is. It speaks for itself. It's complete, immaculate, a closed experience. I just feel satisfied.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 21, 2017, 02:56:01 AM
A Series of Unfortunate Events (Mark Hudis and Barry Sonnenfeld, Season 1, 2017)

I read these books a number of times in my childhood, so I was tentatively excited but with low hopes about this show. Fortunately, it's really good, and it's just as dry and absurdist as the books are. The story forgoes almost all logic or reason in favour of what it thinks will be the most entertaining at times, and it's all the better for it. Lemony Snicket's narration is one of the highlights of the show, with wry observations of scenarios and non-sequiturs tangentially related to what we're watching. And, as the title would imply and any reader of the books would know, it's a miserable, sad story, one that you are urged not to watch, one that you will be a happier person without.

I'm excited for the next two seasons.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on April 23, 2017, 02:25:57 AM
Watched iron fist,  Jessica Jones,  Luke cage,  and about to finish 13 reasons why,

Idk didn't care much for Luke cage, iron fist was entertaining but a but silly and the worst fight scenes,  13 reasons why is ok
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 23, 2017, 02:42:37 AM
How about Jessica Jones?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on April 23, 2017, 02:51:54 AM
I liked the character,  but the plot was kinda dumb and still don't get how for a whole season she's chasing a guy whose power she's immune to.. feel Like it should've been easier to figure out lol
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on April 23, 2017, 03:17:12 AM
Iron Fist (2017)

I still think it's shit. It's hard to write a post like this "rebutting" previous positive reviews of the show, as I don't want to just be saying "I disagree" a lot. But at the same time, the enormous, fatal flaws with this are simply obvious to me, to the degree that I'm astonished it's gotten passes from people here. This was obviously a rush job squeezed out in less than a year to fulfill Marvel's contract with Netflix, handled by people who had no real love of or even interest in the source material, and Marvel clearly knew it was a dud before they released it, as shown by the lack of any real promotion or marketing in the weeks leading up to its release, especially in comparison to the other shows.

The writing is awful across the board, including the dialogue, the characterization, and the plot. Like, the show tries to establish that Ward is a douchebag by showing him as a teenager angrily refusing to follow the rules of Monopoly and eventually upending the board because "Rules are for pussies." That is atrocious writing. Same with a scene where Danny's hanging out in Central Park, and a random fucking hobo approaches him to offer to lend him a phone he can use to look up people. That is hackery as straight-up as it comes. Nobody who wrote that shit down and called it acceptable has any business working as a screenwriter. Now, both of those scenes were in the pilot, and I've heard a lot of defenses that the show gets better as it goes on. That's true enough, because the first three episodes are padding. You could skip them easily and miss nothing of value (insert joke about the overall show's value here) as the story doesn't really begin until the fourth episode. We know that this person who's struggling to prove his identity is really Danny Rand. He must be, because why else would this show, called Iron Fist, be following his perspective? So it's basically just three hours of dead air.

It does get better once the oh-so-narratively-rich issue of "Can Danny prove his identity?" is settled, but even then, the show has problems. One is how it tries to handle the subject of K'un-Lun and Danny's training. I feel like it should have taken one of two approaches here. One would be to really show off K'un Lun, build a cool set for it and everything, and show what Danny had to go through to become the Iron Fist. They could have relegated it to a single episode, like Luke Cage, or shown it in chronological flashbacks every episode, like Arrow. Alternatively, they could have downplayed what happened in K'un Lun. Danny returns to New York, eager to rejoin the world he knew in his childhood, avoid talking about where he's been or what he's been doing, until something happens that draws him back to that life. However, the show tries to go for a middle ground that doesn't work at all - they never show anything more than brief glimpses of K'un Lun, and try to compensate by having Danny constantly talking about it. He never fucking shuts up. When I was in K'un Lun this, back in K'un Lun that. Even if Finn Jones was a fantastic actor, this would be a bad idea. I'm hesitant to say this because of how clichéd it's become, but this is a textbook violation of the "show, don't tell" rule. It doesn't work to have a character just talk about how impactful this one thing was and have the audience just know what it was like.

On the notion of Danny himself, easily the worst character in the MCU. His personality frequently lurches from extreme to extreme, his behavior and knowledge of social norms have no consistency, and I have severe doubts about how intentional any of this was. It makes no sense that someone like him had the strength and discipline to become the Iron Fist (quibbles about him not finishing his training are just that, quibbles). I also don't like the portrayal of the Hand here, as I discussed with Snupes on IRC:

<Saddam> By the way, is it a thing in the comics that the Iron Fist can only be used occasionally and briefly, because of his chi being drained?
<Snupes> Yeah, but not to the show's extent
<Saddam> Lazy way to handicap the hero
<Saddam> Luke Cage did the same thing with the dumb Judas bullets element
<Snupes> Yeah
<Snupes> I mean, if Danny could use the Fist nonstop the show would be pretty short
<Snupes> But the way they made it like "well i can punch once per century :)" was pretty dumg
<Saddam> Not if the show was smart about it and gave him situations that appropriately challenged his power level
<Snupes> Sure but he's also going to be teaming up with a blind kung-fu man
<Snupes> If it was superhuman strength + superhuman strength and invulnerability + super superhuman strength + blind guy who is pretty good at fighting, Daredevil would be sad
<Saddam> That's the same logic people use to argue that Hawkeye and Black Widow are useless to the Avengers
<Snupes> I mean
<Snupes> Black Widow is a bit different because she's got super agility and super spy training
<Snupes> Hawkeye has magical arrows that will do literally anything
<Snupes> Daredevil is hard to catch off-guard and can beat up normal people and most ninjas
<Saddam> Okay, I remembered something I wanted to baw about with Ronald Fisting
<Saddam> The show's portrayal of Madame Gao and the Hand contradicts much of what was in Daredevil, and is overall a very reductive treatment
<Saddam> The people behind the show just looked at Gao and figured that she was an evil Asian character, and therefore must have been in the Hand
<Saddam> There's no way in hell she was meant to be part of it when Daredevil was being made
<Saddam> Iron Fist does have plenty of Asian villains that aren't part of the Hand, right?
<Saddam> And the notion of there being multiple different factions of the Hand manages the difficult feat of simultaneously being overly-convoluted while also being overly-simplistic and reductive
<Saddam> And it hurt me to see a cool character like Gao being forced to utter the show's inane dialogue
<Snupes> I'm pretty sure there are a few non-Hand Asian villains, yeah
<Saddam> The crazy ninjas from Daredevil have absolutely nothing in common with these mystical drug dealers

Finally, to revisit the subject of the action scenes - they're still really bad, and the fact that Jones doesn't know martial arts is only part of it. These directors don't understand how to make action good. There's very rarely any style or creativity with the fights. The combatants don't move in any interesting ways, they don't fight in any interesting ways - it's just standard, generic, hit-them-until-they-fall-down shit. The physics of the fights are often off, as we see characters tanking through heavy blows and being staggered backwards or knocked down by light taps, and when the camera isn't constantly cutting to disguise the lack of solid choreography, it's filming the action in the most flat, unengaged way possible. This is a show about a magical kung fu master. It should have kickass fight scenes, not this lazy cribbing from Taken. I'll go further. Fucking Arrow has better fight scenes than this, at least in the first two seasons. Come to think of it, the first two seasons of Arrow are better than this show in pretty much every way.

I'm sad to say that this show being so underwhelming has hurt my excitement for The Defenders. It's like future filmmakers trying to improve the DCEU after Zack Snyder pissed all over everything with BvS. You can't build a stable house on a rotten foundation. I don't like Danny, and I don't want to see more of him. I suppose it's possible that there might be some character development for him there, but I doubt that the people behind that show would be willing to call out this show for having such an odious, entitled douchebag as its supposed hero. Oh, and Snupes, I wouldn't get my hopes up about Danny having his costume for Defenders. They've already released one teaser showing him very prominently without any disguise, even as Matt is making an effort to wear a mask. Which makes sense. You can't un-introduce Danny. He's already been established as someone who has no interest in wearing a special outfit or hiding his identity at all, and undoubtedly dozens of people already know what he can do.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 23, 2017, 04:08:35 AM
I mean, we already know the Iron Fist wears an outfit; we saw it in the show. I don't doubt that once Danny becomes a fully-trained Iron Fist or whatever he'll get it, I just don't think it will be in The Defenders at this rate.

Also Matt is wearing what's clearly Jessica's scarf, so I'm pretty sure something happens that forces them all to rush out of that building so Jessica hands it to him.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 23, 2017, 10:49:37 PM
Steve Jobs (Danny Boyle, 2015)

This was really good. I'm not judging it on any similarities to reality, but on its own basis as a film, and it was a really good film. They did a great job not glorifying Jobs, but also very accurately portraying what he was trying to do, or at least what he believed he was trying to do. He felt he could make a dent in the universe, profit be damned, and he tried. It got a bit too soppy from the end, which, after spending the first 1.5 hours being harsh and realistic, betrayed its integrity a bit. Overall, though, good film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on April 24, 2017, 01:38:48 AM
Steve Jobs (Danny Boyle, 2015)

This was really good. I'm not judging it on any similarities to reality, but on its own basis as a film, and it was a really good film. They did a great job not glorifying Jobs, but also very accurately portraying what he was trying to do, or at least what he believed he was trying to do. He felt he could make a dent in the universe, profit be damned, and he tried. It got a bit too soppy from the end, which, after spending the first 1.5 hours being harsh and realistic, betrayed its integrity a bit. Overall, though, good film.

If you haven't seen Pirates of Silicon Valley, you should.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: MrCuriosity on April 26, 2017, 04:39:34 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKStUOnE25s
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on April 30, 2017, 02:36:07 AM
SU and I just finished binge watching Lost. She had never seen it and it has been about 5 years since I watched it.

It was good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 30, 2017, 06:25:07 AM
Stranger than Fiction (Marc Forster, 2006)

That was really ok. I expected a lot more fun out of the premise (a guy suddenly realizes his life is being narrated by someone in real life writing a story, who doesn't know she's writing his story), but it's kinda wasted. Not to mention most people in the movie are dumb.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on April 30, 2017, 07:57:16 AM
Just scoped Louis CK's newest special. It was good but not my favourite !
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 01, 2017, 12:05:19 AM
Coherence (James Ward Byrkit, 2013)

Jesus actual Christ. I have watched a lot of mind-bending movies. I watched and made sense of Primer, of all things. But I don't think I have ever been as conclusively mind-bent, as thoroughly confused, as hopelessly lost and trying to keep track, as consistently having "holy shit" realizations throughout a film as I have with Coherence.

Do yourself a favour and don't read anything about it, don't watch a trailer, just watch the movie. All you need to know is a group of friends are at a dinner party when the power goes out, a couple of them go find another house that has the power on and they see themselves. That's all you need to know. Watch it.


Devil (John Erick Dowdle, 2010)

This was a fun watch, but it wasn't very good and I definitely wouldn't watch it again. I'm just a sucker for concept films.


Wandering Son (Ei Aoki, 2011, Episodes 1-3)

This show is stunningly beautiful (in art style, music, and story) and adorable and I love it. It basically centers around a boy in middle school, just before puberty, who wants to be a girl and the struggles that that situation brings. It's not a very negative show at all, though, and it's all the more adorable for it. It doesn't go out of the way to hit you over the head with talking points, it just shows his life, developments, and struggles. I'm excited for the rest of the show.


Exam (Stuart Hazeldine, 2009)

Very flawed, but very interesting. This movie reminds me of another concept film I watched before, called Circle. It's a one-off sort of movie that doesn't seem like it'll warrant any repeats, since what's interesting about it is pretty much the basic concept and seeing how it plays out. Also like Circle, I wouldn't say it's a very good movie, but I don't at all regret watching it since it was fun to see how everything went down. It's just about eight applicants who enter a bare room (save for a single armed guard) after rigorous testing and are seated with a sheet of paper in front of them and told "There is only one question, and only one answer. Any questions?" before being left to figure out said question and answer, with only the rules that they cannot talk to the guard, they cannot talk to the 'interviewer', and they cannot spoil their papers or willingly leave the room. If that sounds interesting to you, it's worth a watch. If not, don't bother.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 01, 2017, 11:50:47 AM
Wandering Son (Ei Aoki, 2011, Episodes 1-3)

This show is stunningly beautiful (in art style, music, and story) and adorable and I love it. It basically centers around a boy in middle school, just before puberty, who wants to be a girl and the struggles that that situation brings. It's not a very negative show at all, though, and it's all the more adorable for it. It doesn't go out of the way to hit you over the head with talking points, it just shows his life, developments, and struggles. I'm excited for the rest of the show.

I really liked this one back when I watched it. I'd put it at the top of the "slice of life" genre for sure.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 01, 2017, 01:54:44 PM
I've been on a movie kick lately.


Doctor Strange
Eh. I didn't really like Benedict Cumberbatch in this at all. He's not funny, but I can't tell if that's the movie's fault or his. The story itself didn't interest me but the magic was cool.

Ant-Man
I liked it. Paul Rudd, Michael Peña, and the ants were great. Overall pretty entertaining.

Get Out
I already knew the whole gist of the plotline, but the movie was still extremely unsettling. Jordan Peele did a really good job with the vibe and discomfort.

Split
Loved it. I suppose I'm one of the few who still enjoys M. Night Shyamalan movies. I really enjoyed James McAvoy's characters, the girl's past made me pretty emotional, and the tension was good. Also that little cameo at the end?! Loved it. I would watch Unbreakable 2 and I hope it would include James McAvoy's characters as well.

Passengers
I heard it wasn't good, but what the fuck. What a boring piece of shit movie. There was no emotion, heart, or feeling to it even though they were clearly trying for it. The only time I really felt their situation is when Jennifer Lawrence's character tried to kill Chris Pratt's character. But aside from that, the only one I was actually concerned about or felt anything for was Arthur, the android bartender.

Arrival
So great I watched it twice in one weekend. I normally don't like Amy Adams or Jeremy Renner in anything, but I thought they were both perfect for their parts. Music was great, I cried for Abbott, and I thought the overall story was beautiful.

Your Name
Wasn't sure I'd like it since the premise didn't interest me, but I kept seeing all these great reviews so went for it anyway. I didn't see the twist coming. I wouldn't say it was great and definitely didn't make me cry even though I've seen people say it made them cry and I usually tear up pretty easily. But it was fine.

Moana
Holy shit, the Rock cannot sing. But it was pretty and it made me cry. Disney gets me every time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 01, 2017, 03:03:09 PM
Arrested Development

I've watched all four seasons over the course of probably a couple of weeks, which is pretty fast for me, since it's rare for me to find a show that engages me enough to watch multiple episodes per day. As you can probably guess, that means I like this a lot. The show has long been a cult hit, and I remember seeing it briefly when it first aired over here back in the day, but I was in my early/mid teens at the time and I just thought it was a "show about adults talking" which was the kind of thing I found intensely boring. Cue my surprise when I found it on Netflix and discovered that it was in fact a spectacularly complex farce with densely packed layers of jokes with a cast of well observed characters.

Since the original run is so well known I won't really talk about it much, except to say that every episode is hilarious. Even the Wee Britain arc, which starts off cringe inducingly bad, but turns out to be a brilliant satire on American sitcoms using non-British actors to play British characters, is great. The fourth season is quite a bit different, mostly owing to its structure, which is about showing the same period of time (specifically the time since the original run ended) from the perspective of each character, and at first it seemed kind of slow and depressing. It's only when you start to get into the structure and see how all the different perspectives come together that you realise it might even be the best season yet (a 5th is supposedly shooting or will be soon), and the way it deals with the characters coping with the fallout of the original finale mixes hilarity and poignancy in equal measure.

I've also been watching It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and I thought I'd mention it here because these two shows seem to get put together quite often. It is taking me a lot longer to watch, I started watching it before Arrested Development, but I'm still only a few episodes into the third season. I enjoyed the first season a lot, and quite a few episodes of the second, but the third has been slow going and it feels like the show has very quickly become less about self-obsessed people trying to get away with doing questionable things for their own personal gain, and more about the writers running out of ideas and just throwing together ridiculous situations that have no basis in reality whatsoever. The overreliance on the McPoyles, a family of inbred weirdos, for shock/gross-out humour, gets old very quickly, and the main cast have gone from being narcissistic and petty yet still relatable, to being alienating and unfunny. There are still isolated laughs here and there, but the engine of the show seems to have run out of steam rather quickly, and I think this is because the characters are more a collection of superficial traits and gimmicks, and the greater extremes they reach the thinner those elements are spread, exposing a core with nothing much in it. Maybe it finds its edge again later on, but it would take some doing.

I'm really not sure why the two shows get compared. Sure they both centre on flawed people who get into ridiculous situations via an admixture of self-absorbed hubris, misunderstanding, and sheer stupidity (but then what is any sitcom ever if not variations upon or even straight repetitions of this theme), but Arrested Development has strong characters with complexities which give rise to those situations, and there is always an underlying sense of humanity. But in It's Always Sunny the ridiculous situations seem to arise because they must, otherwise there would be no episode, and with the characters becoming harder to care about as they become further removed from reality, each episode just seems to drag on longer than the last. Seinfeld, often seen as a predecessor to It's Always Sunny, was always about complex dissections and send-ups of social faux pas, and no matter how dated it may seem today (it was the great cutting-edge laughtrack sitcom that effectively killed the genre as a viable format for "mature" comedy going into the 2000s) it still far outstrips its would-be successor in subtlety and in its understanding of why people do stupid things. So, too, does Arrested Development, simply the most brilliantly crafted comedy I've encountered in a long time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on May 01, 2017, 08:26:32 PM
I really don't think the characters on Sunny were ever meant to be relatable. At any rate if that's your benchmark for quality don't expect it to get better.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 01, 2017, 10:20:48 PM
I really don't think the characters on Sunny were ever meant to be relatable. At any rate if that's your benchmark for quality don't expect it to get better.

Not necessarily a benchmark, different things work in different contexts, I just feel like in this case the show has taken itself to extremes that it can't walk back from in terms of making the characters enjoyable to watch. The first season and a half felt grounded in the extremely questionable but still plausible, despite how stupid a lot of the situations were (the cancer episode notwithstanding), now it's just like I expect the next episode to be about Dennis making a bet with Mac that he can shove 40 pinecones up his ass because someone said he has a small ass.

I won't keep going on about it because I'll just end up sounding like Saddam ranting about Iron Fist sooner or later, but yeah, I feel like something changed (beyond the addition of Frank) after the first season that made the show get less and less funny in a short space of time. I'm going to keep watching to see if it picks up again, but at this rate I doubt I'll catch up with the newer seasons.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on May 01, 2017, 10:44:37 PM
I really don't think the characters on Sunny were ever meant to be relatable. At any rate if that's your benchmark for quality don't expect it to get better.

Not necessarily a benchmark, different things work in different contexts, I just feel like in this case the show has taken itself to extremes that it can't walk back from in terms of making the characters enjoyable to watch. The first season and a half felt grounded in the extremely questionable but still plausible, despite how stupid a lot of the situations were (the cancer episode notwithstanding), now it's just like I expect the next episode to be about Dennis making a bet with Mac that he can shove 40 pinecones up his ass because someone said he has a small ass.

I won't keep going on about it because I'll just end up sounding like Saddam ranting about Iron Fist sooner or later, but yeah, I feel like something changed (beyond the addition of Frank) after the first season that made the show get less and less funny in a short space of time. I'm going to keep watching to see if it picks up again, but at this rate I doubt I'll catch up with the newer seasons.

Oddly enough, the two most recent seasons do what you are hoping for, at least in my opinion.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 02, 2017, 02:48:19 AM
If it makes you feel better, Crudblud, I had the same issue. Supposedly the show picks up right at the episode "The Nightman Cometh", which I skipped to and was pretty funny, so I'm hoping it keeps up.


Locke (Steven Knight, 2013)

This was fantastic. It's like a Coen brothers movie without the comedy. It's all set in a single car ride, and you just practically watch this man's life fall apart all around him over the course of two hours of phone calls. I won't say if his situation improves or not, but Tom Hardy did a wonderful job showing all those emotions in such a limited situation.


π (Darren Aranofsky, 1998)

It was great. Fucked-up and hard to follow at times, but great. Did a fantastic job of making me feel anxious and claustrophobic when the protagonist did, and a wonderful job of having the film's visuals reflect his mental state.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 02, 2017, 11:43:52 AM
If it makes you feel better, Crudblud, I had the same issue. Supposedly the show picks up right at the episode "The Nightman Cometh", which I skipped to and was pretty funny, so I'm hoping it keeps up.

I've heard a lot of praise for that one, but I ain't no skipper, ya kipper.

Oddly enough, the two most recent seasons do what you are hoping for, at least in my opinion.

This is also good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 03, 2017, 03:38:16 AM
ARQ (Tony Elliot, 2016)

A nice time loop thriller sort of thing. Nothing groundbreaking, but it throws enough wrenches into the stereotypical loop scenario to make it gleefully unpredictable. A good performance from the cast (including one ex-half of Budget Human Torch) made it a fun watch.


Triangle (Christopher Smith, 2009)

And my binge of concept films continues. This one's about a group of people who, on a boating adventure, end up wrecked in a storm and climb aboard a passing yacht. Of course, nothing is as it seems and shit gets weird.

I did enjoy this, though there were either inconsistencies or a number of things I missed, and I felt like I was paying close attention.


The Signal (William Eubank, 2014)

Literally none of this movie went as I expected. Which is a pleasant surprise. Plus the final song was fantastic so it left me with a good taste in my mouth. The movie was overall a little dumb and scatterbrained, but it entertained me so it's cool.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on May 04, 2017, 08:41:33 AM
Locke (Steven Knight, 2013)

This was fantastic. It's like a Coen brothers movie without the comedy. It's all set in a single car ride, and you just practically watch this man's life fall apart all around him over the course of two hours of phone calls. I won't say if his situation improves or not, but Tom Hardy did a wonderful job showing all those emotions in such a limited situation.

I loved Locke. My wife and I went to see it entirely on a whim when we fancied going to the cinema, knowing nothing about it and not having seen any publicity for it. It's such a claustrophobic film, such a simple premise, and so well acted that I was captivated. (That I make the same journey down the M6 motorway every month and knew exactly where we were by which junction was going past was a little cherry on top.)

Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol.2

I think it's fair to say that you already know whether you're going to see this by now, but it's also safe to say that if you enjoyed the first film, you'll enjoy this one. It has the same pulpy energy as Vol.1, the same snarky humour, and the same self-awareness of just how ridiculous it all is.

My biggest criticism is that it maybe goes too ridiculous, especially in the first act. The jokes are delivered so quickly, and without the time to let them build naturally, that it starts to feel in places like a Loony Tunes cartoon played in fast-forward. Fortunately, by the time that the plot kicks in, the Guardians are split up and dealing with their own smaller-scale problems, the film calms down and becomes serious enough that a single well-placed joke delivers more comedy than the cavalcade of slapstick and farce that makes up Act 1.

Ego is a decent villain, smarmy enough to be likeable, and cruel enough to be hated. The final battle in the core of the planet is a visual treat, too, with both Quill and him trading appropriately super-powered blows while Baby Groot sets up the escape.

On the subject of Baby Groot, I'm so glad that one of the stingers implies we won't have to deal with him again. Yes he's funny, yes he's cute, but only in small doses. The extent to which he's pushed very quickly starts to grate until I was wishing that Yandu's arrow would pierce the squeaky little git between his too-cute-by-half eyes.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 05, 2017, 07:24:11 AM
The Man from Earth (Richard Schenkman, 2007)

That was incredible. I'm gonna watch that again tomorrow because wew. The film is literally just a few people talking, but it's utterly captivating. It's a man who claims he's lived a long, long time telling it to people he knows at a small little going-away get-together before he leaves to something else. That's the entire conceit and concept, but the group is comprised of fellow college teachers who are experts in their fields, all testing and probing him on everything he says.

That's the whole concept and it's great, thanks to fantastic writing by Jerome Bixby. The film covers paleontology, geography, history, theology, philosophy, biology, linguology (shh), everything. It doesn't get everything perfectly right, but that's not all that important.

It was just great. I love this movie.


Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping (Akiva Schaffer & Jorma Taccone, 2016)

I mean...on a really shallow level, I had some fun with this movie. It's really dumb but it has some funny dumb moments, but I would definitely not ever watch it again. Most disappointingly, though, none of the songs are nearly as entertaining as literally any of The Lonely Island's actual real life songs. So it's a half-baked comedy with half-baked comedy music. Never thought I'd see a movie with the Lonely Island where the songs were the worst part of the film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 08, 2017, 04:44:10 PM
Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons

This is definitely one of my new favorite movies. I love Chinese mythology and this was such a perfect combination of silly and serious.
I even got the boyfriend to watch and enjoy it and he hates movies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 08, 2017, 05:32:53 PM
he hates movies.

Why is he an awful person?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 08, 2017, 08:05:25 PM
he hates movies.

Why is he an awful person?

I think roos is dating my grandma.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 08, 2017, 09:15:40 PM
I generally dislike them as well but not to the same degree he does.

I prefer a TV show. It's almost difficult for me to find movies that pique my interest. They try so hard for award wins, to be as thought provoking as possible, or super funny, and many times I think they come off as pretentious, dull, or cringey. And if I'm really enjoying it then I kinda rather it be a show so the story can keep going.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 09, 2017, 05:59:09 AM
It sounds like you watch a very weirdly specific subset of movies
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 09, 2017, 12:49:11 PM
Well, yes. I won't dislike every single movie. But I'm pretty picky because overall, I don't like them. I'll go for a really really long time without watching a single one and then I'll catch up on the ones that I thought looked interesting - hence the list I posted recently.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 10, 2017, 01:46:11 PM
I'll just end up sounding like Saddam ranting about Iron Fist sooner or later

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHroYC5D8W8
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 14, 2017, 12:00:13 AM
Sword Art Online (Tomohiko Itō, Season 1 Episodes 1-12, 2012)

Holy shit. This is actually the worst anime I've ever seen. My nephew rants about it all the time and finally made me start watching it with him and it's like the anime version of Suicide Squad in its awfulness; every second is terrible but I can't stop watching and laughing and making fun of it with him.

I'm suffering but I'm hooked.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 14, 2017, 12:03:13 AM
Oh god, the harem trope too! So bad. I enjoyed the idea but pretty much hated all the characters except for the main girl. Also, after they leave the game it gets bizarre and so much worse.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 14, 2017, 02:38:07 PM
capeshit capeshit

Logan (James Mangold, 2017)

This was great. My one gripe with it was the Wolverine clone. The idea of giving Wolverine an evil counterpart has been played out (in one form or another) by the franchise to death now, it was an unwelcome dose of goofiness to a movie that was clearly making a point of staying on the gritty end of the capeshit spectrum, and most importantly of all, it just wasn't necessary. Logan's deteriorating physical condition and diminishing healing already provided all the stakes and tension needed for the fights. Everything else was solid, though. The acting was good from everyone (even the guy playing the villain, whom I was dreading after how obnoxious I found him in Narcos), the music was nice, and overall, the film was a worthy finale for the titular character.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 16, 2017, 12:02:30 AM
Double Down (Neil Breen, 2005)

I...I want to write a summary of this film, but I honestly don't know what happened. I just...I don't know. That was somehow the worst and greatest experience of my life. I would defer an explanation to Crudblud, but I don't know if he can help any more than I can. It was a thing that kind of vaguely happened and I think I'm retarded now.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 16, 2017, 06:42:35 AM
Double Down (Neil Breen)

I am 100% with Snupes on this one.

The best explanation of the plot, such as it is, that I can manage, is as follows: Neil Breen is an elite hacker/soldier/agent/spy/assassin who can literally do anything except prevent his wife from getting shot to death, and that makes him angry, though you can't tell because his superpower is not being able to convey any sort of emotion or recognisably human trait, so he hangs out in the desert with her corpse, a bunch of flip phones, broken laptops (his other superpower is the ability to use non-functioning and/or outright broken communications technology to... do something... possibly...), empty cans of tuna, vials full of drugs etc. and plots his revenge on someone whose identity is never made clear (this is a major element of the film: at no point do you have any fucking clue who anyone is or what they're doing) through means which are never really specified. There's also a side "plot" about him assassinating random people for some guys he apparently works for, possibly the CIA, it is not exactly clear, but this goes nowhere and doesn't seem to serve a purpose other than to give Neil Breen more time to narrate what he's doing and thereby make everything more confusing than it already was.

Reading the above probably makes this film sound terrible (it is), but in Neil Breen's clumsy, incoherent, thoroughly ugly and uncomfortable style there is something unique and compelling. Compared to a lot of low budget, badly made films, Neil Breen's productions have a kind of weird blockheaded sincerity at their core, and no matter how brain-meltingly awful they are, they bear the mark of something that was made by someone who believes in what they're doing, furthermore that they are the only one who could have conceived of it and brought it to fruition. I can think of plenty of well-made films that have no heart in them or any remarkable features, this is the exact opposite. A film so singularly, amazingly bad as this should not exist, yet here it is.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 24, 2017, 11:55:28 PM
The Americans (Joe Weisberg, Season 1, 2013)

It started a bit slowish, but I've come to love this show quite a lot by this point. The first handful of episodes rely a bit too much on relationship problems and bickering amidst sneaky spy work and disguises, but once it finds its groove and gets into a good rhythm, everything flows a lot more naturally and is handled a lot better than most shows. The subterfuge and intrigue feels a lot less forced and hamfisted, character motivations feel real, people react to things the way you would expect them to...that's a really low baseline for liking a show, I just realized, but so much other TV has made me cynical at this point.

Also there's a fair amount of speaking русский in the show, which makes me happy and means I get to listen to that beautiful accent and language and practice hearing it.

Anyway, even though I liked season one a lot, season two and three are supposed to be drastically better (I found the show because season three is one of Metacritic's highest rated seasons of television), so I'm very excited to get started on those.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 30, 2017, 04:01:53 PM
American Gods episodes 1-5

I love it. Neil Gaiman never disappoints.
Ian McShane steals the show, IMO. I just love that man.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on June 02, 2017, 04:43:01 AM
Sword Art Online (Tomohiko Itō, Season 1 Episodes 1-12, 2012)

Holy shit. This is actually the worst anime I've ever seen. My nephew rants about it all the time and finally made me start watching it with him and it's like the anime version of Suicide Squad in its awfulness; every second is terrible but I can't stop watching and laughing and making fun of it with him.

I'm suffering but I'm hooked.
Watch the abridged series by somethingwitty.


Fluffles....
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on June 02, 2017, 06:43:55 AM
Get Out (Jordan Peele, 2017)

Watch this movie. Seriously, it's worth a watch by basically anyone. However, if you're determined not to or you really just don't care, read on.

That was the most fucking frustrating thing I have ever seen in my life. This movie was so, so, so close to being one of the greatest films I've watched, so close to being an incredible work of art, and then the whole fucking thing is split apart by one motherfucking character named Rod Williams. Fuck. The whole Goddamn movie has this amazing atmosphere that only gets more and more tense as it goes on, so many times it had me literally leaning forward, heart pounding, completely absorbed, then motherfucking Rod Williams bursts into the scene all "HEY AM FUNNY MAN" and fucking shatters the entire illusion. Always at the worst fucking parts, when the film's at its darkest and deepest, he reminds you this is a fucking movie and he's a fucking awfully-written character who has no fucking place in such a good fucking film and is going to make sure that you don't fucking enjoy yourself to the fullest and don't get too fucking enamoured by the film because he's going to yank you right the fuck out of it and rub your face in the fucking dirt while making you listen to and watch his wacky fucking antics that have no place in SUCH A GOOD FUCKING FILM. FUCK.

So yeah, it was great. Just had one flaw that might have ruined it for me. Oh well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 02, 2017, 08:50:22 AM
Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (Max Landis)

Since Showtime decided that it would release four episodes of Twin Peaks: The Return digitally on the premiere date, but only broadcast the first two, leaving the next two for the following week, I've had two whole fucking weeks without Coop and Friends and have been in need of something to tide me over. Cue Dirk Gently, Douglas Adams's "holistic detective", who solves bizarre crimes basically accidentally, based on his philosophy that all things are connected, and that simply doing whatever will inevitably lead him to the solution. I don't know the original novels, so can't say how good it is as an adaptation, though I'm given to understand that many things have been changed or "updated".

The overall presentation and mood feels kind of like Terry Gilliam doing a modern crime show. It's quirky, fast-paced, full of deliberately confused banter, occult conspiracies, and strange technology, with some fun action sequences and a healthy dose of bloody violence. The show takes Gently's mantra "everything's connected" to heart, and heaps amusing fabulism over an mostly real-world foundation, just about managing to hold the two together without breaking itself. Don't really feel like going into detail on performances, but Elijah Wood, Hannah Marks, and Fiona Dourif (daughter of Brad) are all very good, for quite different reasons.

I enjoyed it quite a lot. The story gets kind of retarded towards the end, as pretty much any story trying to wrap up a complicated and weird set-up with lots of different threads inevitably does, but it does so with a kind of knowing tongue-in-cheek humour. It's a pretty inventive piece with a good balance of light and dark elements, all of which play well against the supernatural elements of the setting, and while it didn't exactly fill the void while I wait for more Twin Peaks, it was very entertaining and I'm glad the show has been picked up for another season.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 02, 2017, 06:39:33 PM
Terminator: Genisys (some guy idk)

The fifth film in a series that was perfectly fine ending with its second instalment, Genisys is a retelling of the original story. Kyle Reese is sent back in time by John Connor to protect Sarah Connor from a deadly cyborg, only the cyborg has already been killed and there's another cyborg protecting her. The timeline done changerino'd, thus yet more money is squeezed from the sagging teats of Arnold Schwarzenegger. If you now feel nauseous, I'm truly sorry. The film is not that bad! I mean, I expected it to be a dumb cashgrab with dumb jokes and kid friendly violence, and it definitely has more than its fair share of bad action movie humour and mediocre CGI action, but considering the previous two entries were either a) straight garbage or b) so far removed from the series that if you took the terminator stuff out it wouldn't make a difference, it's not hard to call it the best new entry since 1991.

The story is an ambitious twist on the first two movies, but doesn't quite come together, and this is mainly because it has no characters to carry it. Between Arnie's wisecracking oldster terminator (it's like the banter in Terminator 2 only really, really grating), Sarah Connor played as a pale and doofy imitation of Linda Hamilton's kick-ass warrior from Terminator 2, and Jai Courtney being somewhere between a generic meathead and a slightly less generic meathead, the story is essentially about the movements of things that are very hard to give a shit about. But I think it's more the writing than the cast that is at fault here, even J.K. Simmons can't do much with it, and he's great no matter what he's doing. Parts of the story are neat, and there are a couple of decent twists here and there, but without good characters to make any of them meaningful, it's just so many setpieces waiting to explode.

I guess what makes it ultimately inoffensive is that it's actually trying on some level to do something interesting with a very tired series, and I can admire that, but too much blockbuster stupidity keeps it from being anything more than mediocre.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on June 04, 2017, 04:02:35 AM
Free Fire (Ben Wheatley, 2016)

Not bad, but I feel like it could have been a lot better. There's a gritty, lo-fi feel to the chaotic shootout that takes up the bulk of the movie - the gunshots sound like real gunshots, the characters spend most of their time either lying still or slowly crawling around, the wounds they accrue continue to hamper them for the rest of the movie, etc. - which is all the more reason why it drove me nuts that it incorporated the trope where everybody can just spew bullets endlessly (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BottomlessMagazines) and only ever run out when the plot specifically needs them to. I know this seems like an odd thing to criticize, but it really, really stood out in a movie that was clearly trying so hard to deconstruct action movie tropes and portray its characters as violent buffoons rather than badasses. My other issue is the presence of two extremely obnoxious characters who should have been killed off early in the movie, but inexplicably survive until the climax, where they distract from, you know, the actual plot, and the characters we care about.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on June 11, 2017, 09:39:07 PM
Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

It happened, folks. This movie was really really good. Not only is it the best DC movie yet (not that that's much of a hurdle), it was honestly better than a lot of Marvel films, IMO. Gal Gadot was fantastic as Diana, and the whole idea of the "male gaze" in superhero films (and, well, a lot of movies) never smacked me as hard as it did here from the utter absence of it. Diana and all the Amazons were absolutely gorgeous and there were times quite a bit of skin was exposed, but the shots never lingered on them in a sexual way, and even when you did see it it lacked any tension, just showing reality. I'm sure that'll get some people frothing (at the lack of it, at the idea that it's a thing, at the idea that it matters, etc. etc., people will find a way), but I could not have appreciated it more. It was super nice just to see a woman kick ass and be herself without having to impress anyone.

Plus, with this movie, Diana is the only hero so far that's really about justice and protecting people. For the most part. And Patty Jenkins did a fantastic job showing her reactions to mankind's fuckups and the horrors of war. There's a moment where she's completely overwhelmed with cries of help and realizing she can't save everyone at once that's completely heartbreaking, I could almost feel exactly how (I imagine) she felt.

Lastly, those action scenes, hoo boy. A tad bit more slow-mo than I'd go for, but the choreography was wonderful, hits had impact, you could see very clearly what was going on, cuts added emphasis rather than hiding hits. It was great. That movie was great. I can't wait to see Diana ruined in Justice League.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dither on June 12, 2017, 05:10:52 AM
Hoping to see Wonder Women this week.  :-B
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 12, 2017, 05:41:00 AM
her reactions to mankind's fuckups

So good! The scene where she stands next to a wind farm and monologues, while staring into space, about how disappointed she is in the humans and their lack of progress, is so moving. I didn't get why she had to hypnotise a junkie in the desert and steal his clothes beforehand but whatever.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on June 13, 2017, 09:09:41 PM
John Wick: Chapter 2 (Chad Stahelski, 2017)

Largely more of the same satisfying action from the first movie, along with a more in-depth story and an increased focus on the intriguing (albeit ridiculous) secret society that apparently governs the underworld. The villain is kind of lame and comes across as a poor man's Antonio Banderas, the final battle is a little underwhelming, and I wish they had done some more with the returning side characters than have them just pop up to confirm that they still exist. The return of the cop who seems to have an understanding of what it is that Keanu does and turns a blind eye to it especially bugged me, because it's literally a repeat of the exact same beat from the first movie. What's the story with this guy? Is he an honest cop who's just too scared of Keanu to take any action against him? Are they old friends? Is he even really a cop at all? Give us something new about him! Anything!

In any case, the movie is still a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on June 29, 2017, 09:19:55 PM
The Mummy (Some Guy, 2017)

Whelp, my computer randomly shut down as I was seven paragraphs in, so now I'm frustrated and y'all get the hyper-condensed version.

This was very ok. Similar the Brandan Frasman's original, it's exceedingly underwhelming, has a couple of funny moments but is mostly really unfunny, technically is action-packed but not much of it is memorable, stars brown-haired white dude and white archaeologist woman having little chemistry but we're told they do, they find a thing and do dumb things and big ol' generic baddy attacks. The only "saving grace" of the film is that Tom Cruise, insane and awful as he may be, is very good at being energetic and likeable in movies. Doesn't exactly carry this two-hour forced shared-universe advertisement, though. Well, that's not fair; the middle 40 minutes are an ad inserted into the middle of a film called The Mummy. They took their cues from Zack Snyder.

Really, I can see why it was reviewed badly, but can't really see how anyone thinks it's better than Fraser's because neither were very good. There ya go.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on July 01, 2017, 04:31:59 PM
I do really enjoy Tom Cruise in movies.

That said, I won't see this. I was a HUGE fan and still am of the original, but I never liked any of the sequels. It helped inspire me a tad (I had a lot of other inspiration) to get into history/archaeology. My Egyptian archaeology course was one of my absolute favorites. And Brendan Fraser was one of my first celebrity crushes so will always hold a special place for me cause I'm sentimental like that. Rick O'Connell is still one of my favorite characters.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dither on July 01, 2017, 11:54:16 PM
Watched "The Fury" for the first time last night on Netflix.

This was a much more honest portrail of the destruction of the human psyche during wartime.
The dinner scene, where the threat of immanent rape by the good guys seemed to hang in the air.
And the stare of the girl by the side of the road "she'll sleep with you for a chocolate bar"
These are the reasons why the WW2 vets didn't like to talk about the war,
My own Father was in WW2 and he told me nothing other than he caught a form of polio. 

The crossroads scene played out like Zulu, German soilders being nothing more than cannon fodder.
Not likely to have happened quite that way in real life, but the other scenes seemed reasonable.
Probably the best tank movie ever made, or at the least, the most accurate. 
   
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 02, 2017, 12:28:58 AM
Baby Driver (Edgar Wright, 2017)

Went with my friend and my nephew to go see this two and a half hours ago. It was really good. However, they spent the car ride back gushing about the movie and I can't help but feel like it disappointed me. A lot. When it was good it was utterly fantastic, but there was a lot of dead space in that movie, scenes that were just kinda...there, or felt really generic, or didn't move the movie forward, that just had no momentum or called for feelings that weren't there, like the entire romance subplot.

Man. I never thought I'd say that about an Edgar Wright movie, but this was kinda dull. It was technically very impressive, it looked great, the shots were fantastic, the writing was, er, quippy, but the visual style and some of the quirky bits felt like the only things I couldn't get from any other well-refined blockbuster movie.

idk. That was my least-favourite Edgar Wright movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dither on July 02, 2017, 03:37:42 AM
The Baby doesn't arrive till the 13th of July here in Aus and I can't wait to see it.

Once I heard "Nowhere to run" in the trailer I couldn't help but think of that other great chase movie The Warriors.
I'm a sucker for movies like this, running from stuff is in my nature. I saw Fury Road 3 times at the cinemas.

I have read some reviews that say BD is overhyped, thats ok, I'll lower my expectations a little.   

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XrEmF4SK3T4
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 08, 2017, 01:47:00 AM
Spiderman: Homecoming

It's great. *

Go see it. **

* there are many not-so-subtle nods to Marvel's new SJW approach.

** third best movie in the current movie MCU behind OG Iron Man and OG Avengers.

Also, Spider-Man is objectively and literally the best superhero in the history of the universe don't @ me
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on July 09, 2017, 03:08:45 AM
* there are many not-so-subtle nods to Marvel's new SJW approach.

They didn't go far enough, according to some experts:

http://www.theroot.com/spider-man-homecoming-diversity-push-makes-no-spidey-s-1796704406

https://www.themarysue.com/spider-man-bechdel-test/
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 09, 2017, 07:55:11 PM
Iron Man Cleans Up Spider-Man's Messes: Homecoming (Jon Watts, 2017)

This was pretty good. I was really disappointed with it; this was probably my second or third-favourite Spider-Man film and I left the theater extremely underwhelmed, but it was overall a fun flick. The Vulture was fucking awesome, though, and that suit's design was just absolutely beautiful.

Hopefully they do better next time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 09, 2017, 08:49:34 PM
Iron Man Cleans Up Spider-Man's Messes: Homecoming (Jon Watts, 2017)

This was pretty good. I was really disappointed with it; this was probably my second or third-favourite Spider-Man film and I left the theater extremely underwhelmed, but it was overall a fun flick. The Vulture was fucking awesome, though, and that suit's design was just absolutely beautiful.

Hopefully they do better next time.

They really need to detach it from the whole Avengers storyline :(

Would also help if he was a little older. He gets treated like a scrub even though he'd wreck 90% of Marvel superheroes (including shitty Captain America, contrary to Tony Stark's assertion otherwise).

The Venom movie starts shooting in a couple months. Hopefully they're on a collision course and it is done properly this time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on July 12, 2017, 05:14:05 AM
Would also help if he was a little older. He gets treated like a scrub even though he'd wreck 90% of Marvel superheroes (including shitty Captain America, contrary to Tony Stark's assertion otherwise).

I haven't seen the movie yet, but it seems like you're glossing over the key dichotomy of the character - he has tremendous power, but he's still a young teenager struggling to sort out his life. It's why he's treated like a scrub, and it's also why Captain America, a trained soldier and experienced fighter, was able to get the better of him in their last encounter despite his lower power level. And for what it's worth, I actually really like that this movie (by all accounts, that is; again, I haven't seen it) prioritized appealing to teens rather than older capeshit fans, what with all the "modernizing" of Spidey and his environment. We had Raimi's movies. Let the youngsters have this one.

Quote
The Venom movie starts shooting in a couple months. Hopefully they're on a collision course and it is done properly this time.

lol
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 12, 2017, 03:16:50 PM
Would also help if he was a little older. He gets treated like a scrub even though he'd wreck 90% of Marvel superheroes (including shitty Captain America, contrary to Tony Stark's assertion otherwise).

I haven't seen the movie yet, but it seems like you're glossing over the key dichotomy of the character - he has tremendous power, but he's still a young teenager struggling to sort out his life. It's why he's treated like a scrub, and it's also why Captain America, a trained soldier and experienced fighter, was able to get the better of him in their last encounter despite his lower power level. And for what it's worth, I actually really like that this movie (by all accounts, that is; again, I haven't seen it) prioritized appealing to teens rather than older capeshit fans, what with all the "modernizing" of Spidey and his environment. We had Raimi's movies. Let the youngsters have this one.

I'm not glossing over it, I fully understand why. I just think it's gay af because Spidey is dope and Cap sucks balls.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 13, 2017, 03:13:39 AM
FWIW, the movie treats Peter as monumentally useless for the majority of its runtime, and (IMO) it grew old really quickly. Sometimes his ineptitude is played for laughs, but it just doesn't sit right with me for some reason.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 13, 2017, 03:31:02 AM
FWIW, the movie treats Peter as monumentally useless for the majority of its runtime, and (IMO) it grew old really quickly. Sometimes his ineptitude is played for laughs, but it just doesn't sit right with me for some reason.

Animated series Peter is best Peter.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on July 13, 2017, 04:16:08 AM
I beg to differ:

3 Dev Adam [3 Giant Men] (T. Fikret Uçak, 1973)

This was both amazing and baffling.  Captain America and Santo travel to Turkey to take down the gangster "Spider," who's into stealing rare artifacts and counterfeiting money.  The movie has a couple of sex/nude scenes, some very violent deaths, and of course almost nothing in common with the source material for these characters beyond some really shitty costumes:

(http://i.imgur.com/T1UJxFj.jpg)

It's objectively terrible, of course, but I'd be lying if I claimed I wasn't thoroughly entertained by the spectacle.  Forget Civil War, this is the real capeshit throwdown you need to see.

Well, I don't know if this guy's real name is Peter. But he's still the best Spider-Man...uh, Spider.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 13, 2017, 04:39:24 AM
Well, I don't know if this guy's real name is Peter. But he's still the best Spider-Man...uh, Spider.


(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/915/159/0b3)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on July 19, 2017, 12:16:57 AM
Been to the cinema a lot lately

Baby Driver:  was good

Spiderman:  I liked a lot

Planet of the Apes:  was ok. Disappointing

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on August 05, 2017, 05:55:24 AM
Tombstone (George P. Cosmatos, 1993)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Tombstoneposter.jpeg)
p. good
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on August 06, 2017, 02:43:17 AM
Wyatt Earp (Lawrence Kasdan, 1994)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/Wyatt_earp_ver1.jpg)
Not as good as Tombstone, but still p. ok, and perhaps a bit more historically accurate.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dither on August 07, 2017, 11:26:19 AM
Seeing that your on a western binge,
How do you rate the new Mag 7?

I was a tad disappointed with it to be honest.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on August 22, 2017, 12:41:44 PM
So many spoilers I just blacked the whole thing out, capeshitters beware!

Marvel's The Defenders

The latest instalment in Marvel's Netflix franchise, The Defenders sees heroes and supporting characters from previous series team up to take on... Sigourney Weaver! A sad lady who pops pills and listens to Brahms while being sad, and that, aside from telling other people that she is not to be messed with, is literally all she does. Sadgourney is also responsible for creating the Black Sky—yes, that's right, the main villain is yet another big player in the mystical crime ninja underworld—which it turns out, to no one's surprise despite a great many attempts to shroud it in mystery, is actually Elektrik “Which Hemisphere Is My Accent From Today?” Nachos, back from the dead and not quite herself.

The basic plot is thus: the Hand has been digging a hole (previously seen in season two of Daredevil) under a skyscraper, and at the bottom there is a mystical door with mystical writing on it which they believe will lead them to K'un Lun. To that end, they are looking for one Ron Fist, who has been tracking down Hand members around the world with his Chinese ninja girlfriend who still walks around densely populated urban centres with a lethal weapon on her back in plain sight without attracting the attention of police officers or literally anyone, for he alone has the power to unlock the door. Returning to New York after a brief encounter with Our Lady of Cheese-Drenched Tortilla Chips, they find themselves gradually becoming involved with Luke Cage, Matt Murdock, and Jessica Jones, all of whom are either unwittingly investigating Hand-related activity, or very much wittingly investigating someone who is unwittingly investigating Hand-related activity.

Defenders is really where the Hand stuff from previous shows pays off, kind of, in a roundabout sort of way that makes you wonder why they didn't come up with something else. Buh “KAHLEEEEN” Kudo is back from the dead, and now he's allied with Kung Fu Grandma, African Scanner Pimp, Japanese Taxidermy Man, and of course Sadgourney. No, it's not a prospective list of villains from Hideo Kojima's planned but unrealised Metal Gear Solid 6, but in a way it might as well be. These are the Five Fingers of the Hand, ancient evil persons of a racially and sexually diverse nature, natch, who were exiled from K'un Lun (that or they just left of their own accord, it seems like even they aren't really sure anymore) a billion years ago because they wanted to use the power of Fisting for evil.

Contrary to the speculation that Daredevil would be the main character, it turns out that most of the show is about Danny Rand being put in his place by just about everyone on the planet. The interpretation of his character from my I, Ron Fist review seems to have been in line with what the writers intended, or at least with what the writers of this particular version took from his original series, and his confrontations with his fellow Defenders are shown to be childish and silly, even often detrimental to their success in the fight against the Hand. Anyone still on the fence about the Iron Fist character will probably be convinced by the end that his obnoxiousness is entirely intentional in the writing, and that the other Netflix heroes find him just as insufferable a good amount of the time as the audience does. Even Colleen gets in on the action, making fun of his tendency to ramble on about how he is Ronnie Fisticles to anyone and everyone regardless of whether or not they want to hear it.

On the villain side of things, there isn't really anyone worth caring about. BuKAHLEEEENdo is as bland and insipid as ever, and the other Handy Finger Bois don't really have enough screen time or personality to feel like anything more than minor players. Perhaps the greatest offence is found in the lacklustre portrayal of the once fearsome and mysterious Madame Gao, who here seems more like a disgruntled old maid with about as much power and intrigue as a bargain bin AAAA battery. But there is hope on the deadly old persons front in the form of Stick. Cranky and ruthless as ever, our first scene with him involves him fighting off multiple mystical ninjas while chained to a pipe before cutting off his own hand in order to escape the Hand (see what they did there), and generally his scenes involve him killing people or berating them in the extreme, the former of which is about as bad-ass as the show gets, the latter often the only source of genuine comedy in a relatively dry show. Jessica Jones tries to pick up the slack but her one-liners come off forced and unfunny.

In case you can't already tell, I think Sadgourney's characterisation is extremely weak. It's unfortunate because we all know Weaver can deliver a great performance, but her screen time here shows signs of poor writing and poorer direction. It's like they thought “oh wow, Sigourney Weaver!” and expected they could give someone of her stature a supermarket receipt for a script and she'd come up with something good. What character moments we do get are pretty weak. The string quartet scene in the second episode very much comes across as “we looked up Brahms on Wikipedia”, and it just feels incredibly dumb to me. I also feel like they shouldn't have had Weaver speak foreign languages so much. I've heard it said that D'Onofrio's Chinese in Daredevil was kind of stilted, I didn't notice because whenever I hear spoken Chinese it just sounds like random noises, but I can definitely tell Weaver was coached for all of five minutes in Japanese and Turkish for her scenes. They really want to make her seem like someone who has lived for a very long time and experienced a lot of things, but I feel like they wrote her as a series of bullet points rather than as a person. Weaver is a good casting choice, but the script serves her poorly.

Elsewhere things are somewhat better. The main foursome and their friends all feel believable, relationships developed to some degree from the other shows, although I will say Daredevil's Foggy Nelson feels like an afterthought in a lot of ways, and his lines come across choppy and uncharacteristic in several scenes. There is a general sense, much as I feared there would be, that they tried to pack in too much, just like the Avengers movies. It's not quite Age of Ultron bad on that front, but there are definitely plenty of times when the desire to luxuriate in a particular scene or character is at odds with the need to push ahead with the plot. After all, the show only has eight episodes, and for all that's in there it feels like there's too much of one thing and not enough of another.

Fight scenes are kind of a mixed bag. On the one hand, Iron Fist definitely looks more competent early on than he did in his own show, there's less cutting and more clear shots and Finn Jones has clearly been practising, but later on fight scenes quickly become incomprehensible messes. I'm thinking of one scene in particular in episode seven where the Defenders and three of the Hand's leaders face off, and while it's not Liam-Neeson-climbs-a-fence it's definitely edging towards that territory, located on the other side of the world from the thrilling and now classic hallway sequence in Daredevil's first season. Cinder blocks fly, punches, kicks, throws and flips dance around fire and the Force, cars are crushed, walls are smashed, blood is spilled, but spectacle gives way to not being able to tell what the fuck is happening or who is making it happen. Cinematography in general can be a little annoying, with tons of clumsy shots that exist only to show the Defenders as a group regardless of whether it looks good or appropriate or whatever.

The soundtrack tries too hard in some ways and not hard enough in others. Early on it tries to mirror the feel of the original shows as it follows each character, but it can't match the authenticity of Luke Cage's blend of jazz, blues, funk, and hip-hop, nor can it create any tension the way Daredevil's and Jessica Jones's soundtracks did. Later on, once they're all together, even this sense of at least trying to be character appropriate is gone, and the whole thing disintegrates and reforms as a bland amorphous mush of generic gestures and moods, becoming one of the least memorable parts of a show which makes of the forgettable its bread and butter.

It's not as gritty as Daredevil, as pulpy as Luke Cage, as paranoid as Jessica Jones, or as richly characterised as Iron Fist. Its villains are bland, and the plot is essentially tying up loose ends from other shows which I'd be surprised to learn anyone really cares about anymore. The Hand was best when it was a mysterious shadow organisation you couldn't quite reach out and touch, now that we know it's mystical crime ninjas it ceases to be as interesting as it once was, especially as it is now appearing for a third major outing. In this way it mirrors The X-Files's alien invasion “mytharc”, which became less interesting as it went on, partly due to diminishing returns, but mainly because Chris Carter clearly had no grand plan for how it would play out, and evidently still doesn't, but without the great characters and chemistries that show had/has to keep the drama rolling along through its most bafflingly stupid moments, The Defenders feels like a lot of sound and fury. The direction is inconsistent, and the often messy fight scenes are a microcosm of the show itself, too much going on at once forcing cut cut cut and often losing any sense of rhythm it manages to establish in its quieter moments. I'm ragging on it a lot, but for all its many many faults I actually enjoyed it. It's silly and messy and unimpressive, but I was entertained by it and managed to get through it in just a few days, so take that for what you will.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on August 22, 2017, 07:44:03 PM
I just got done watching a series of BBC documentaries that fit very nicely together.


Walking with Monsters (2005)

The story begins with the Cambrian explosion; the time when our most ancient sentient ancestors, the fish, and their 500-million-year-old rivals, the arthropods, first began to emerge in the world's oceans. It runs through the development of our ancestors into amphibians and then reptiles, along with the concurrent evolution of insects and arachnids, through a number of periods of prehistory.

Finally, it tells of the Great Permian Extinction, the single greatest mass extinction in Earth's history, which ushered in the start of the Triassic. After the extinction, it introduces the very earliest of dinosaurs, making a convenient segue into the next show.

I liked this one a lot. I actually find the Paleozoic much more interesting than the Mesozoic, and it was interesting to see how some of our most basic features evolved because once, in the distant past, they were crucial advantages for survival.


Walking with Dinosaurs (1999)

This was the original Walking with... show, and while I personally find dinosaurs overrated, it is nevertheless an interesting watch. Mainly focusing on the giants of the Jurassic -- not only the dinosaurs, but also the marine reptiles and pterosaurs -- it also includes glimpses into the less fertile Triassic period and the more barbarically carnivorous Cretaceous.

Naturally, there is only one way for such a series to end, and that is with a visual recreation of the meteor strike that blasted away almost all traces of dinosaurs from the face of the Earth.

This one was good, but if you've grown up in the past 50 years, you've already heard all about dinosaurs to death. This was easily my least favourite for that reason.


Walking with Beasts (2001)

A sequel to Walking with Dinosaurs, this picks up where its elder brother left off. It details the rise of mammals in the void left by the dinosaurs and marine reptiles. Two of the last three episodes feature human ancestors to some degree, a theme which would be picked up in more detail by Walking with Cavemen.

Indeed, the final episode covers the woolly mammoth and the two species of hominid who hunted them: first Homo neanderthalensis, then Homo sapiens. It ends by describing the mammoth's extinction and how humans would go on to create museums dedicated to these beasts of the past.

This series was interesting, albeit somewhat disjointed. It feels more like a set of unrelated glimpses into the evolution of a variety of different species than a coherent series, which isn't a bad thing, but it does stand out as different from the other series for this reason.


Walking with Cavemen (2003)

This covers a period concurrent with the last few episodes of Walking with Beasts, but with exclusive focus on human evolution, and why the particular traits that make us who we are survived in ice age Africa. This was my absolute favourite of the Walking with... shows, and highly recommended for anyone who is curious where they came from (and who isn't?).


Andrew Marr's History of the World (2012)

The only series here not part of the Walking with... collection, this covers a smidgeon of the same material as Walking with Cavemen, but thereafter quickly goes on to deal with agriculture, society and civilisation after the out-of-Africa migration. It is very well paced, running through the entire history of human civilisation in just eight hour-long episodes. Hardly a comprehensive guide, but it manages to cover the fundamentals.

If there is one criticism that I have, it's that Marr tends to let his own political biases colour his description of historical events, particularly regarding more recent history. This is not a huge problem, but it did stand out to me a couple of times.

This show is great on its own, but even better paired with Walking with Cavemen. The reason is that History of the World tends to focus heavily on human nature as the driver for many changes throughout history, while Walking with Cavemen explains the reasons why our nature developed as it did, serving as a nice complement.


I also watched some of the Walking with... specials, of which The Ballad of Big Al (about the imagined life of an allosaurus fossil from the late Jurassic) stood out as particularly good. They don't fit neatly between the other series above, though, which is why I didn't review them separately.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on August 22, 2017, 10:44:58 PM
Marvel's The Defenders (Douglas Petrie & Marco Ramirez, 2017)

Well, Crudblud pretty much echoed all of my sentiments, so there's not much for me to add. Myself, my friend, and my nephew all waited until our schedules aligned (9pm last night) and binged the whole show from start to finish. Basically, for me, the first half was the best of the show, the second half was bland af but still enjoyable. I know it was incredibly in-your-face and obvious, but I enjoyed how, when they were separate, lighting and colour themes and music was adjusted to each character, especially when it was done more naturally (like the yellowing leaves in the background of Luke Cage's scenes, the way when Matt and Jess meet up the door Matt comes through is red while the walls are purple, then the neon clusterfuck of red, purple, yellow, and green of the restaurant they meet up at).

Anyway, yeah, Alexandra was pretty dull, Elektra was a boring generic evil villain, their overall plan was...uh...I'm sure there was something there, the fight scenes became a blurry mess, etc. etc. They should have had more individual character fights, the cramped situations they kept putting the heroes in didn't lend themselves well to showing them as group scenes.

Only real thing I can add that Crudblud didn't cover was that my favourite part of the show was the Defenders coming together and the heroes getting to know one another. They're all well-characterized and realized, so watching those relationships form was genuinely fun, funny, and heartwarming. The Cage/Rand bromance leaned a bit too hard on the viewer knowing they're best friends in the comics, but I'm a sucker for it so I was perfectly fine with that. Jessica and Matt surprisingly make a great team IMO, with Jessica's inability to just accept ridiculous circumstances making a good play off of Matt's more serious demeanor. Her making constant fun of his outfit and powers was great. Also, Matt played his own theme song on piano and that was neat.

So, yeah, flawed but fun, and I was destined to enjoy this because it's great fanservice and I've wanted this since I was a kid. I don't really enjoy writing reviews for stuff anymore so sorry for the disjointed and rambling nature of this, but I felt like I had to because it's The Defenders.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on September 07, 2017, 07:36:42 AM
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (Season 4, Episodes 7-11)

So I finally decided to return to this series and man it's gotten good. I like this season's layout. Episodes 1-8 are one arc and storyline, 9-something are another, and then there'a a third arc for the last third (I'm not spoiling myself on when the second ends and the third starts). It seriously keeps the story from growing stale or feeling too dragged out and feels more like getting a few seasons of the show in a more condensed format. The LMD (Life Model Decoy arc so far (started with 9, I just finished 11) has been fantastic with the sense of paranoia and conniving it conveys is fantastic; I'm watching every character closely, speculating about their motivations, it feels like watching a really good spy thriller where you don't know who or what you can trust, but with characters you've come to know over the years. It's breathed some nice new life into this show for me. They're also just doing a really good job of avoiding character clichés. So yeah I'm excited to catch up finally.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 07, 2017, 01:21:12 PM
I've been binging Grey's Anatomy, which I have never watched before.
I love binging shows and figured since it has 13 seasons I would give it a try.

It is surprisingly good. Each episode has a theme about life or personal relationships. There is more focus on the surgical aspect than I originally thought there would be, but maybe that will start to shift as the show grows (I'm only in the second season). Most dramas tend to get more ridiculous in order to keep interest, but I'm hooked so I'm sure I'll be fine with it turning into a full-blown soap opera if that's what happens.

I don't care much for either Ellen Pompeo or Patrick Dempsey, and yet they have enough chemistry for me to like them together.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on September 07, 2017, 02:05:01 PM
Most dramas tend to get more ridiculous in order to keep interest, but I'm hooked so I'm sure I'll be fine with it turning into a full-blown soap opera if that's what happens.

Don't worry, the ridiculous stuff is coming. Along with with terribly, horribly sad things. Then massive shark jumping.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on September 07, 2017, 05:24:09 PM
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (Season 4, Episodes 7-11)

So I finally decided to return to this series and man it's gotten good. I like this season's layout. Episodes 1-8 are one arc and storyline, 9-something are another, and then there'a a third arc for the last third (I'm not spoiling myself on when the second ends and the third starts). It seriously keeps the story from growing stale or feeling too dragged out and feels more like getting a few seasons of the show in a more condensed format. The LMD (Life Model Decoy arc so far (started with 9, I just finished 11) has been fantastic with the sense of paranoia and conniving it conveys is fantastic; I'm watching every character closely, speculating about their motivations, it feels like watching a really good spy thriller where you don't know who or what you can trust, but with characters you've come to know over the years. It's breathed some nice new life into this show for me. They're also just doing a really good job of avoiding character clichés. So yeah I'm excited to catch up finally.

Literally better Ultron than Ultron.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 08, 2017, 01:16:20 AM
Most dramas tend to get more ridiculous in order to keep interest, but I'm hooked so I'm sure I'll be fine with it turning into a full-blown soap opera if that's what happens.

Don't worry, the ridiculous stuff is coming. Along with with terribly, horribly sad things. Then massive shark jumping.
I already know about sad things thanks to all the fangirls online when it happened. But I kinda like sad things.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on September 08, 2017, 01:33:57 AM
Mcdreamy  :'(
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on September 08, 2017, 03:43:21 AM
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (Season 4, Episodes 12-15)

I don't know if four episodes really should have its own post but these past few episodes have been amazing episodes of S.H.I.E.L.D., but amazing episodes of television, period. Episode 14 and 15 alone are just...holy shit. The LMDs have proven to be a massive boon to this show when I was originally worried they'd drag it down, and there's a level of peril and uncertainty that this show has been missing for a long while. Tension is through the roof and I'm never certain what's going to happen and who's really who they say they are. I want to gush more but I'd rather continue on watching so I guess that's all I'm gonna say. This show officially has me hooked again and I seriously regret stopping with watching it...though, well, maybe not, since now I get to binge all this glory and it really does not take away from it at all.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 08, 2017, 12:43:24 PM
I'm more upset that Meredith Grey slept with George O'Malley and ruined their friendship. George was my favorite.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on September 19, 2017, 03:28:22 AM
It (Andrés Muschietti, 2017)

I was pretty excited for this, and even with that it blew my expectations out of the water. Weirdly, the movie really isn't that scary, per se (though the atmosphere is amazingly dark and suspenseful), it feels like more of a supernatural thriller. And that's not a bad thing at all. The movie is bizarrely beautiful, the cinematography absolutely stunning and the music lending to the remorselessly twisted menace of its world. I loved it, and Bill Skarsgård was fantastic as Pennywise despite my worries. I'm excited for chapter two.

Also the last movie I expected to make me cry.

Related, though, the movie not scaring me whatsoever triggered the wonder and worry that horror movies don't scare me anymore. This prompted my investigation into horror movies that are supposed to be terrifying, to see if I can still feel fear and horror from them...


It Comes at Night (Trey Edward Shults, 2017)

Stop one on my journey to get scared. Again, this film was great, tense, and beautifully-shot...but I was never scared. This, too, felt more like a thriller. Is that the film, or is that me? Hopefully we'll find out!


Predestination (Peter & Michael Spierig, 2015)

Okay, this really isn't a horror movie but I was in the mood for a concept film. It wasn't amazing, but it was enjoyable. A time travel mystery/thriller that's a bit absurd (in a good way) and has enough surprises up its sleeve to keep it interesting...even if I did figure out the entire timeline about halfway through and pretty much spend the rest of it watching that unfold.


The Double (Richard Ayoade, 2014)

Someone said this movie spooked them but apparently they didn't mean in a terrifying way. Another concept film, this one based on a short story by Dostoevsky. The sets are bizarre and it's really not clear what kind of strange world this one takes place in, but further explanation probably would've marred the plot. Again, good, but not scary and not amazing.


El Orfanato (J.A. Bayona, 2007)

Alright, this one I checked out 'cause I was told by a coworker that it's the scariest movie they've ever seen, and the internet seemed to agree it was spooky. While it was atmospherically dark and I could see why it would scare people...once again, nothing out of me. It was beautiful, though, and I was sobbing by the end. This search isn't going well so far and I seem to be getting every reaction but the ones I want...


If anyone has any recommendations for any truly terrifying films (ideally more terror than cheap jump scares), let me know.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on September 19, 2017, 03:37:32 AM
Candyman is one of the few movies that really scared me.

I also thought It was really good. After the disappointment of The Dark Tower it's nice to see a Stephen King movie come out that's really good and getting acclaim.

I was never sure if anyone could fill Tim Curry's shoes as Pennywise. Skarsgard was just as good if not better. I was blown away. He played it perfectly.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dither on September 19, 2017, 08:07:15 AM
I was blown away. He played it perfectly.

I'm guessing Pennywise will be even better in chapter 2 now the plots established.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on September 19, 2017, 10:55:15 AM
IT

I loved the way this film made my feelings change  as I watched it. I've never seen the Tim Curry version, or read the book, so I was going into this fresh. Like the children I found myself more confused and creeped out than actually scared. As the plot built and It started deliberate building menace and fear, I found myself jumping and dreading what was likely to come next, then as It's weaknesses and vulnerabilities started showing through I started getting angry with the games It was playing. I started to see it less like a malevolent supernatural monster, and more of a petty bully, preying on weaker kids for its own amusement.
By the time of the finale, like the kids themselves, there was no longer any residual fear, and just a visceral loathing of Pennywise and all It's tricks.

Thoroughly enjoyed it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dither on September 19, 2017, 09:24:40 PM
Man there's some good movies out at the moment.
IT was fantastic, Toms new one looks great (American Made)

I remember in the seventies my mother returning from seeing "The Exorcist"   
We were only young, but she had nightmares for weeks afterwards.
She liked horror movies too, but that one nailed her.

So has anyone caught "Mother" yet? 
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 21, 2017, 01:53:53 PM
If anyone has any recommendations for any truly terrifying films (ideally more terror than cheap jump scares), let me know.
The truly terrifying ones are the real life stories.
I believe it was Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer that has scared me the most. If this is the one I'm thinking of, it has a super fucked up scene of the murder of a mother and daughter. I think I may have stopped watching around that point. Horror movies are my favorite, so I don't get terrified anymore with those - but real life shit? Yeah that's just hard to watch.

Maybe you'd like Hush. It's a good edge of your seat kind of movie. It is well done, but it didn't get me too much. A lot of other people seem to really like it though.

Old people really freak me out, so I liked The Taking of Deborah Morgan and The Visit.

Recently, I've watched The Void which is pretty Lovecraftian. I enjoyed the first half, but then there were so many tropes that I got a little bored. Also, Annabelle: Creation got me more than I thought it would. The other Annabelle movies were pretty shit so I didn't have high hopes, but there were some legitimately freaky moments.

The V/H/S movies are fun. OH! And I for some reason always forget this one, but The Invitation is one of my favorites. No jump scares from what I remember, just disturbing with a good pace.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 22, 2017, 07:55:28 PM
Warren Ellis's Berserk Castlevania

Trevor fucking Belmont is fucking drunk and he fucking walks the fuck around shitty fucking places and fucking kills shit bastard fucks because fucking Dracula fucking unleashed a fucking army of fucking demons from fucking hell when the fucking bastard cunt fuck shits from the fucking church decided it was a good fucking idea to fucking kill Dracula's fucking wife. Premise, plot, and tone all present and accounted for. Warren Ellis, the edge-tastic comic book writer behind titles like Transmetropolitan, wrote the as yet four episode series (a second instalment of eight episodes is in the works) and it shows. Violence and gore are prolific, almost every line of dialogue is laced with profanity, and the humour ranges from bestiality to the scatological. The Mediaeval setting is used to criticise, mock, and otherwise attack organised religion, which is also a recurring theme in Ellis's work.

The series is based on Dracula's Curse, the third game of the main series. To me, the Castlevania games always seemed like goofy monster mashes in terms of their settings and art style, and fairly light-hearted in their overall execution. The "horror" in those games is almost entirely to be inferred, and the challenging action adventure gameplay is always the main draw. This show definitely moves more towards that territory as it goes on, but the general feeling is closer to a watered down, westernised, and on some level even Disneyfied take on the Black Swordsman arc of Kentaro Miura's Berserk manga. Berkserk began publishing around the same time Castlevania III came out, or a little earlier, and matches extreme gore and grotesque supernatural images with rich psychological horror, the latter being an element that is missing from Ellis's script. It's a shame, because initial attempts to humanise Dracula point towards a psychological approach, but this falls by the wayside and we end up with all of the violence and none of the impact.

The art and animation shine in places but the overall direction is uneven. The characters designs are robust and memorable, drawing on anime but retaining a western feel. Action sequences have a kinetic quality with smooth animations and fairly imaginative set pieces. It's not as grimy as it could be; Trevor Belmont is supposedly sleeping rough and wandering the land getting drunk in dive taverns, but aside from some stylised facial stubble he always looks very clean, as does everyone else. This is at odds with the script's coarse dialogue and results in a tonal imbalance where nothing seems quite believable. For this reason the heavy gore also falls flat, and violent on-screen deaths have little impact, seeming like exclamation points at the end of otherwise nondescript sentences.

I think my favourite part of the show is the voice acting itself. While there are some US actors in the cast, it was very refreshing to hear mostly (either natural or very well studied) English and continental European accents. Richard Armitage is particularly good in the lead role of Trevor Belmont, dexterously negotiating and adding weight to the awkward rhythms of sometime cringe-inducingly juvenile swear-laden dialogue. In addition Graham McTavish tries to deliver on the promise of a nuanced Dracula, although the script is not quite there, and an appearance in the finale by James Callis as Dracula's very originally named son Alucard also shows promise. Maybe I'm overstating things a hair because it's a refreshing change to hear extensive British voice talent doing authentic accents in a US animated production, which would normally feature generic North American accents exclusively, but it was really cool to see characters with accents I hear on a daily basis in real life doing cool things with swords and whatnot. Of course, the story is set in Wallachia, so it's about as accurate as using American accents, i.e.: not at all.

The soundtrack is... not terrible I guess? It tries to combine a certain period style (although not Mediaeval) of ecclesiastical choral music with a modern pulsating electronic action movie type score, and it ends up feeling like a chair with random bits of stuff cut off other chairs stuck to it, you can sit in it but you wonder why they bothered attaching things which are neither functional nor aesthetically congruent to it.

In conclusion, Castlevania has a lot of problems. Warren Ellis has a reputation which is not always borne out by his actual work, and his catalogue of respected science fiction, superhero, and mystery writing sits atop a mountain of really dumb and mediocre tripe with very little redeeming value. This is somewhere in the middle, though probably more of the mountain than of the snow resting on the peak. I think the main thing is it doesn't really last long enough to be properly grating, and the parts where it shines can sort of make up for its considerable shortcomings.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 25, 2017, 11:09:28 AM
And now, first impressions of various HOT ORIGINAL CONTENT things sampled on Netflix...

F is for Family
Hey guys it's a cartoon about a dysfunctional family. Remember those? Bill Burr remembers. Bill Burr remembers the '70s. I have seen it, and now all I want is to forget.

Haters Back Off!
Apparently this is based on a popular YouTube channel called Miranda Sings, but I'd never heard of it before I watched this. I thought it was pretty funny, lots of awkward cringe stuff which is my kind of thing, and generally making fun of the concept of the internet celebrity.

GLOW
I like wrestling. I like women. I like coked-out Marc Maron. I don't like sex scenes inserted (huhuhuh) for no reason. Mixed bag but generally decent. Getting real wrestlers like Awesome Kong in the cast was a good decision.

Bojack Horseman
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Return
I kind of appreciate this on some level and it definitely isn't terrible, but with the all new cast and writers there is definitely a different tone. I'm not too keen on the production design either. Perhaps the most perplexing choice was to keep the spaces for ad breaks that were a necessary part of the original show's format, but fill them with movie trivia slides or whatever. It's really jarring and like the rest of show it just doesn't quite work.

Designated Survivor
Self-serious show in which Kiefer Sutherland becomes @POTUS after a devastating terrorist attack. I was not interested enough by the first episode to continue. It all seems very bland. Kiefer's performance almost made me want to watch more, but I just don't care.

Dear White People
Are you ready to get woke?! Good, because I'm about to fall asleep.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on September 25, 2017, 07:10:54 PM
And now, first impressions of various HOT ORIGINAL CONTENT things sampled on Netflix...

Designated Survivor
Self-serious show in which Kiefer Sutherland becomes @POTUS after a devastating terrorist attack. I was not interested enough by the first episode to continue. It all seems very bland. Kiefer's performance almost made me want to watch more, but I just don't care.


I played Major Scott Cameron, who briefed the president on the Nuclear Football and the made a jibe towards him. You watched the best episode, obv.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 25, 2017, 09:38:02 PM
I played Major Scott Cameron, who briefed the president on the Nuclear Football and the made a jibe towards him. You watched the best episode, obv.

Oh right, I forgot you were an actor. That's really cool. I actually skimmed through the episode again to find your scene. Kief got told.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dither on September 26, 2017, 11:24:17 AM
I played Major Scott Cameron, who briefed the president on the Nuclear Football and the made a jibe towards him.

I second that as being really cool,   8)

Secretly I think most of us would love to be actors, what an interesting Career.
We have Netflix in Australia and I'll have to check it out, hopefully its on the Aussie playlist.

 
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on September 26, 2017, 03:28:41 PM

The Motherfucker nailed it! I have him on my bedroom wall.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on September 26, 2017, 03:45:31 PM
And now, first impressions of various HOT ORIGINAL CONTENT things sampled on Netflix...

Designated Survivor
Self-serious show in which Kiefer Sutherland becomes @POTUS after a devastating terrorist attack. I was not interested enough by the first episode to continue. It all seems very bland. Kiefer's performance almost made me want to watch more, but I just don't care.


I played Major Scott Cameron, who briefed the president on the Nuclear Football and the made a jibe towards him. You watched the best episode, obv.

No, sir. It's not like the movies. It doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on September 27, 2017, 03:13:41 AM
star trek: discovery

excluding the folks who cosplay at conventions and collect memorabilia and stuff, i'm as big a star trek fan as you're likely to find, and i was pleasantly surprised.  i hear it's getting mixed reviews, but i think it's a refreshing reboot so far.

my only complaint is the klingons.  they should've gone back to the chinaman-style klingons from tos.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on September 27, 2017, 01:58:17 PM
star trek: discovery

excluding the folks who cosplay at conventions and collect memorabilia and stuff, i'm as big a star trek fan as you're likely to find, and i was pleasantly surprised.  i hear it's getting mixed reviews, but i think it's a refreshing reboot so far.

my only complaint is the klingons.  they should've gone back to the chinaman-style klingons from tos.

I like the focus on uniting them and their spiritual heart.  Is it meant to be a reboot?  Are they wiping away the Picard timeline?  I hope not.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on October 04, 2017, 01:16:49 AM
I like the focus on uniting them and their spiritual heart.  Is it meant to be a reboot?  Are they wiping away the Picard timeline?  I hope not.

reboot may not be the best word, but they're definitely doing some retconning.  i really don't love what they're doing with the klingons.  it's just super hard for me to imagine these klingons working with star fleet as they'll do in the "future."  worf is basically impossible imo.

contains episode 3 spoilers:
i'm also not totally in love with this whole space-spore-ftl-drive thing.  for one, they already toyed with the insta-travel idea in tng with the iconians.  for another, it feels a little star-wars-ish for me.

but overall i still really dig it.  new star trek makes me happy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 05, 2017, 08:30:31 AM
I wa really not expecting to like Discovery, the trailers made it look awful, there has been a tonne of negative press about it, even rumours that it was already 'cancelled' before it was broadcast, but I've enjoyed it so far.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Foxbox on October 06, 2017, 07:55:48 PM
It (Andrés Muschietti, 2017)

I was pretty excited for this, and even with that it blew my expectations out of the water. Weirdly, the movie really isn't that scary, per se (though the atmosphere is amazingly dark and suspenseful), it feels like more of a supernatural thriller. And that's not a bad thing at all. The movie is bizarrely beautiful, the cinematography absolutely stunning and the music lending to the remorselessly twisted menace of its world. I loved it, and Bill Skarsgård was fantastic as Pennywise despite my worries. I'm excited for chapter two.

Also the last movie I expected to make me cry.

A little late to see It, but I pretty much agree with all of this. Though, I also have to add that most of the child actors were pretty fantastic. I felt the friendship and love between the Losers so much, and I think that's very important for this story. Definitely one of my favorite aspects of this adaptation, and I cried as well. Also super excited for chapter two.




It Comes at Night (Trey Edward Shults, 2017)


The Double (Richard Ayoade, 2014)



Been meaning to watch these films, so I shall soon.




Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve)

I will have to write more about this later, but I fuufgkfuduukkking loved this!!! Incredible.






Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on October 11, 2017, 03:34:56 AM
capeshit capeshit I watch nothing but capeshit

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (James Gunn, 2017)

This will probably end up sounding a lot more critical than I mean it to be, so to be clear, this is not a bad movie. It's a fun ride with likable characters and sparkling visuals. But it's definitely a step down from the first one, and I think the main problem is that the sense of irreverence that Gunn brought to that movie doesn't quite work here. What felt sly and subversive there just feels crude and immature here, like a teenager loudly yelling swear words in public. The heavier subject matter here needed a more sincere approach. This is illustrated best by what I consider to be the single worst joke in the MCU - the random "lol it's David Hasselhoff" gag directly after Ego admits that he murdered Peter's mother. It ruins the weight of the moment, and isn't even funny. A lot of the jokes here stuck out due to their lameness, in fact. There's a lot of lowbrow toilet humor, yelling about "turds," and the "It's not ripe," running gag made me groan with how bad it was. Also, Baby Groot wasn't funny, and came across as a walking toy commercial whenever he was onscreen. Again, the movie is good, but it could have been a lot stronger.

Wonder Woman (Patty Jenkins, 2017)

Yes, it's a good DCEU movie. An astonishing concept. It's a cool setting, Gal Gadot can in fact act, the romance at the center of the film is charming, and it all looks great. I'm in agreement with pretty much everyone else that its biggest flaw is the last-minute arrival of Ares for the tacked-on mandatory DBZ-style boss battle, although this one is at least considerably more restrained and shorter than prior DCEU climaxes.

Baby Driver (Edgar Wright, 2017)

This was disappointing. The action scenes are fantastic, as Wright's always are, the eclectic soundtrack is lively and fun, and the supporting cast are great. But the two leads, along with their relationship, are woefully, fatally dull and bland. I didn't care about either of them. And what's especially sad about that is that at the start of the movie, the protagonist seemed promising. I liked the goofy weirdo who danced through the streets while getting coffee, made mixtapes of random snatches of conversation, and didn't care what insults were hurled his way. Wright should have leaned into his eccentricity more, maybe had that be how he charms his love interest - but instead, that mostly fades away before too long and we're left with a boring guy who doesn't have much to say for himself and constantly wears sunglasses so we can't even see his whole face. Not that Ansel Elgort would have brought a lot of subtle acting to the role had he been free to emote. My impression of him after this movie is that he's a mediocre and distinctly uncharismatic actor.

Another problem is that the last act of the film is far too eventful. The climax goes on for too long. We're led to believe that everything is coming to a head during the final heist - but wait, now there's a tense scene at the diner, this must be it - oh, wait, now we're at the parking garage, time for one more dramatic final battle. It's exhausting from the viewer's perspective. Wright obviously understands the concepts of pacing and narrative momentum, so I don't know what happened. And just to criticize the story itself for a moment, it doesn't ring true to me that Doc helps Baby out at the end because he has a soft spot for people in love, when he literally used Baby's new relationship to coerce him into resuming working for him earlier in the movie. Wright's movies are justifiably acclaimed for their attention to detail, and an oversight like this really sticks out.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on October 11, 2017, 05:03:55 AM
Wonder woman.
It's Captain America 1.  Even has a dumbass in a plane he controls sacrafice himself even though he doesn't need to.


I enjoyed it but yeah, totally cap.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on October 11, 2017, 06:05:56 PM
Just finished watching the first episode of season 4 of The Flash, its long-awaited return, and holy shit did they continue their train of fuckups.

It started out well, watching the now-Flashless team adjust to life with a few new heroes helming everything was pretty fun. But Goddamn that didn't last long. Right away a fucking robot samurai shows up and is like "gimme flash or i'll kill everyone" and everyone's like "uhh wally go fight him as flash" and Wally gets his ass kicked and the robot samurai is like "you have until nightfall to bring me flash" and then either the middle of the day or the next day they confront him again and Iris gets herself kidnapped because everyone in this show is retarded.

Running parallel to all of that, my roomie and I had a bet going on on at what point during the episode they'd bring back Barry, since we all know they don't have the guts to wait more than one episode. She guessed 20 minutes in, I guessed as a end-of-episode save-the-day-wow thing, and holy shit we were both right. He comes back as a babbling child where it's shown nothing can snap him out of it, then suddenly "iris is kidnapped" and he snaps out of it and is magically normal again. This show sucks.

So, yeah, they keep almost doing something interesting and then dropping it minutes later to get the show back to its status quo. I went in hopeful but came out just making fun of the show again. Oh well.

Oh yeah, and The Master is the villain. Until it turns out he's actually Cisco from the future and also he's a speedster now, I'm sure.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on October 24, 2017, 12:35:11 AM
Relevant update, just watched episode 2. Holy shit, that was good. I didn't know that was possible anymore with this show. It wasn't nonstop sulking and depression and misery and angst and brow furrowing. There was genuine comedy, there was chemistry, there was a self-contained premise. There was some stupid logic but enough to handle. It was goofy. Holy shite. I really hope that wasn't a one-off deal.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on November 05, 2017, 12:06:09 AM
watched 2/3 of passengers last night.  i'll write up some thoughts on it when i finish, but for the moment i'm kinda surprised at how much hate this movie got.  i think it's pretty good so far.  it's a really fun "what would i do/how would i handle this" watch.

now to be sure, i'd have directed this movie way differently.  but that's not really a criticism of the film.  my only real beef with it is the manufactured tension in the climax.  it goes on for way too long.

i'd have shot this movie from aurora's point of view.  she wakes up, has no idea what's going on, and suddenly this mysterious guy shows up and the story goes from there.  she doesn't know what his motives are, if he's telling the truth about anything, what he's been up to all alone on the ship for so long, etc.  then maybe she gets some clues that he's lying to her about stuff, maximum tension ensues.  could've been a sweet thriller-ish scifi flick.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: nickrulercreator on November 05, 2017, 12:21:52 AM
Rewatched Interstellar for the bajillionth time. Still such a good movie

MURRRRPH

Also the first 4 Saw movies, Jaws (again), Cast Away (again), and Apollo 13 (for like the 20th time). Oh and Anchorman.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on November 05, 2017, 06:25:09 AM
Transformers 5 - Last Knight


Normal Michael Bay shit.  Incomprehencible action sequences, a plot thats paper thin, a villian with so little screen time she qualifies as a plot device, and more shitting over its own lore.


The 2 1/2 hour movie felt like half the transition shots were cut yet there are no deleted scenes.  Characters are ignored or forgotten about, new transformers are everywhere for no reason except plot device, and yeah... typical Transformers movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on November 05, 2017, 09:49:33 AM
watched 2/3 of passengers last night.  i'll write up some thoughts on it when i finish, but for the moment i'm kinda surprised at how much hate this movie got.  i think it's pretty good so far.  it's a really fun "what would i do/how would i handle this" watch.

now to be sure, i'd have directed this movie way differently.  but that's not really a criticism of the film.  my only real beef with it is the manufactured tension in the climax.  it goes on for way too long.

i'd have shot this movie from aurora's point of view.  she wakes up, has no idea what's going on, and suddenly this mysterious guy shows up and the story goes from there.  she doesn't know what his motives are, if he's telling the truth about anything, what he's been up to all alone on the ship for so long, etc.  then maybe she gets some clues that he's lying to her about stuff, maximum tension ensues.  could've been a sweet thriller-ish scifi flick.

Just watched this, p. much agree.

I also found the actual "there I fixed it" moment was very simplistic and straightforward for how much tension there was built up before it. I'd much rather they started finding clues and investigating the problem themselves for a while, rather than having a random crew member wake up and be like "yeah this isn't supposed to happen". They go from "shit there's a problem" to "oh no there's a hole in the ship" way too fast.

That said, I probably wouldn't recommend it very highly. There are plenty of better space films. The main nice thing about this one is the atmosphere rather than the plot itself, but as garygreen says, the sustained tension makes even that a little overbearing.

On the whole, my biggest problem is that the trailer is an outright lie about the film's contents. If you're interested in the basic premise of people waking up prematurely on a century-long space voyage, then watch it, but don't believe anything more than that from the trailer.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 07, 2017, 02:50:33 PM
Passengers was shit.

The climax was boring. The acting wasn't good. It was way too long for what it was.
I would have preferred it if it were darker and creepier, but for the theme and story - it was relatively safe and shallow.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on November 12, 2017, 11:42:32 PM
Thor: Ragnarok (Taika Waititi, 2017)

Holy shite. I think this is my favourite Marvel movie. Its gorgeous cinematography, infectious soundtrack (courtesy of Mark Mothersbaugh), perfectly-timed comedy, satisfying action, fantastic characterization (and characters more lovable than usual), and amazing villainous performance by Cate Blanchett; they all add up to I think the greatest movie Marvel has put out yet. There aren't really any scenes or lines that feel like filler, nothing lingers too long. I don't know how much of it is Taika Waititi (who also directed one of the funniest movies I've ever seen, What We Do in the Shadows, but the pacing of everything in the movie is just perfect.

I'm sure Saddam is gonna come and tell me to stop liking it so much, but, yeah, I'm pretty comfortable saying it's my fav of the MCU so far, even though I never thought that would be the case. I'm still hopeful Captain Marvel will top it, 'cause I love her, but it'd take a lot to do so.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on November 12, 2017, 11:47:29 PM
Yeah Ragnarok was great. Let’s also make sure we mention Jeff Goldblum’s demented Grandmaster and Korg, who were both hilarious.

I still liked Winter Soldier better myself, but this is a top-five I think.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on November 13, 2017, 12:53:31 AM
Oh, yeah, I don't know how I didn't mention Goldblum. He was amazing and one of the best parts of the film. Pure, unadulterated Goldbluming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjZuzC7IQfY
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on November 13, 2017, 01:40:52 PM
Just finished Stranger Things 2

Despite all the Stephen King references, the property this season most reminded me of was Alien in that the first season focussed on one monster in dark, unsettling locations, drilling down on the paranoia and fear, and Season 2 went the Aliens route of upping the action, expanding the cast, and even introducing more monsters and [spoilers]a Queen[/spoilers].

Despite the short season length, ST2 starts off on a slow burn but builds brilliantly to an incredibly tense last couple of episodes. Very much enjoyed it.

That said, it wasn't perfect. The episode with Eleven in Chicago felt really out-of-place.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on November 18, 2017, 11:26:28 PM
Nineteen Eighty-Four (Michael Radford, 1984)

Tripe. Just a cut-down rendering of the novel which adds nothing new and removes a lot of the character to fit. Read the book instead.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 04, 2017, 04:50:27 AM
The Disaster Artist (James Franco, 2017)

Went to an early screening of it ahead of its release on December 8th. Fucking loved it. It mashes together some real life events and shifts some around for the sake of fitting it into a single movie, which I had to get myself to accept after 10-20 minutes, but it doesn't change anything in a deceitful or dishonest way, or a way that betrays the spirit of what happened. My only real complaint is I honestly think it should've been 30 minutes longer, as the movie feels short and not enough time is spent on the actual making-of section of the film. Which is a shame, because if it had slowed down a little there are so many fucking amazing stories to be told and shown from that film's production.

Anyway, the Francos nail it and there's a few minutes before the credits where we get to just watch their recreations of iconic scenes (and a bit that actually directly compares them) and it's the icing on the cake, the perfect payoff. 100% loved it. I hope there's an extended cut, and a bonus reel of their recreations since they reportedly filmed almost a half-hour's worth.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on December 07, 2017, 08:37:33 AM
The Martian (Ridley Scott, 2015)

This was amazing. It was very similar to Apollo 13 in its focus on individuals struggling with a near-impossible problem, despite the fact that the story is fiction and enabled them to set up the complications as and when convenient for the plot. I appreciated the fact that it focused on the problem at hand rather than decorating it with a clichéd love story.

The visuals are impressive as well, with a lot of very nice depictions of the Martian landscape. All of the actors play their roles brilliantly, and there is just a touch of comic relief scattered throughout, without feeling too forced (well, most of the time).

The only thing I found difficult to believe was that the protagonist had to look up a table of ASCII characters when trying to communicate with Earth. I mean, who doesn't know ASCII off the top of their head?

Definitely either the best or the second-best 2010s film I've seen (the other contender being The Zero Theorem).
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on December 07, 2017, 04:15:30 PM
The Martian (Ridley Scott, 2015)


The only thing I found difficult to believe was that the protagonist had to look up a table of ASCII characters when trying to communicate with Earth. I mean, who doesn't know ASCII off the top of their head?



People who get girlfriends, I would have to look up ASCII before I even knew I needed a table of ASCII characters
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 07, 2017, 10:21:37 PM
I, too, don't understand humour.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 09, 2017, 07:55:35 AM
Marvel's The Punisher (Season One, Steve Lightfoot, 2017)

I thought this was great, I was honestly shocked when I checked reviews afterwards and saw how harshly it was being received. I'm going to read them more in-depth later, but at a glance it looked like a lot of them were "the show wasn't visceral enough/didn't have enough violence/action" or "the show was too visceral/had too much violence/glorified violence". Was it a lot less action-packed than previous Punisher adaptations? Well, yeah, this one actually cares about Frank Castle as a character, as a human being, and decides to explore that. They probably could have explored it more deeply, probed Frank's psyche instead of always keeping the answers to his instability vaguely just out of arm's reach, but they didn't. I don't know how most people viewed it, but I saw it as we only get to see as much of Frank as he wants to see of himself. The questions are brought up—is Frank Castle sane? Is he wrong? Does he go too far? Does he have a cause, or is he kiling because it's all he knows? Is he just going to keep chasing 'new' targets? Will he ever be sated?—but they're brushed off before we dive deep enough into them to resolve it, but only because Frank himself brushes them off, not wanting the answers. Maybe that left some people unsatisfied, but I think it's fitting.

Anyway, I had to pause or look away for a lot of scenes because Jesus Christ was it violent, especially in the last two episodes, but damn it was good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on December 09, 2017, 09:05:54 PM
I, too, don't understand humour.

I can be a dumbass at times, sorry Parse.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 11, 2017, 09:01:11 AM
Marvel's The Punisher (Season One, Steve Lightfoot, 2017)

I thought this was great, I was honestly shocked when I checked reviews afterwards and saw how harshly it was being received. I'm going to read them more in-depth later, but at a glance it looked like a lot of them were "the show wasn't visceral enough/didn't have enough violence/action" or "the show was too visceral/had too much violence/glorified violence". Was it a lot less action-packed than previous Punisher adaptations? Well, yeah, this one actually cares about Frank Castle as a character, as a human being, and decides to explore that. They probably could have explored it more deeply, probed Frank's psyche instead of always keeping the answers to his instability vaguely just out of arm's reach, but they didn't. I don't know how most people viewed it, but I saw it as we only get to see as much of Frank as he wants to see of himself. The questions are brought up—is Frank Castle sane? Is he wrong? Does he go too far? Does he have a cause, or is he kiling because it's all he knows? Is he just going to keep chasing 'new' targets? Will he ever be sated?—but they're brushed off before we dive deep enough into them to resolve it, but only because Frank himself brushes them off, not wanting the answers. Maybe that left some people unsatisfied, but I think it's fitting.

Anyway, I had to pause or look away for a lot of scenes because Jesus Christ was it violent, especially in the last two episodes, but damn it was good.

I'm about two thirds through and completely agree with this. I really like the slower pace and the introspection of this series, and I really like the way it deals with the difficulties that vets have returning to civilian life.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 29, 2017, 10:23:38 PM
Takin' care of business (every day).

Drive (dir. Nicocacolas Webdings Refund)
Ryan Gosling is a hard driving dude who gets wrapped up in whole heap o' trouble and it's kind of hilarious because the violence is so over the top.

The Nice Guys (dir. Shane "Iron Man 3" Black)
Ryan Gosling is a hard drinking dude who gets wrapped up in a whole heap o' Russell Crowe and it's FUNNY and IRREVERENT hahaha no but really I thought it was good and well crafted.

Nymphomaniac Vol. I (dir. Lars Bars von Triage)
Charlotte Gainsbourg is a hard fucking lady who gets wrapped up in a whole heap o' GOOD JOB LIZ and Stellan Skarsgard makes her delicious cups of tea.

Public Speaking (dir. Martin Scorsesesese)
Fran Lebowitz is a hard talking lady who gets wrapped up in a whole heap o' microphones and offends a lot of people and she seems like a fun person.

Gore Vidal: The United States of Amnesia (dir. some guy I never heard of)
Gore Vidal is a hard talking dude who gets wrapped up in a whole heap o' controversy for like 80 years and he's just great but it's kind of an average documentary and you should really just read one of his essay collections instead.

The Punisher, Season 1
Jon Bernthal is a hard killing dude who gets wrapped up in a whole heap o' dead bodies and psychological torment and it might be the best thing Marvel has ever done in live action.

Nebraska (dir. Aeroxander Playne)
Will Forte is a hard driving dude who gets wrapped up in a whole heap o' love for his confused elderly father and it's really very heartwarming and sad and funny.

The Meyerowitz Stories (dir. Arkman Treebrook)
Adam Sandler is a hard dysfunctional New York Jewish family-ing dude who gets wrapped up in a whole heap o' GOOD ACTING WHY CAN'T YOU DO THIS MORE OFTEN ADAM PLEASE and it's probably the best film I saw this year.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on January 10, 2018, 04:47:19 PM
the most recent episode of st: discovery

for years i've been begging for a darker iteration of star trek.  boy did i get my wish.  loved this episode.

some random opnions in no particular order.  no opinion.

i dig the mirror universe in general, and i fucking love that they're doing something with it in discovery.

i still hate the spore drive.

"the enemy is here."  *shudder*  that whole sequence of scenes kicked fucking ass.  even ds9 wasn't that cold.

i hate tyler.  i hate everything about him.  he gives me the creeps like woah.



Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2018, 07:30:56 PM
the most recent episode of st: discovery

for years i've been begging for a darker iteration of star trek.  boy did i get my wish.  loved this episode.

some random opnions in no particular order.  no opinion.

i dig the mirror universe in general, and i fucking love that they're doing something with it in discovery.

i still hate the spore drive.

"the enemy is here."  *shudder*  that whole sequence of scenes kicked fucking ass.  even ds9 wasn't that cold.

i hate tyler.  i hate everything about him.  he gives me the creeps like woah.


I loved this last episode. Better than any mirror universe episode before it, imo. Also, I love the BSG, mole Klingon story. That Klingon lady is so much more insidious now.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on January 10, 2018, 08:11:09 PM
I loved this last episode. Better than any mirror universe episode before it, imo. Also, I love the BSG, mole Klingon story. That Klingon lady is so much more insidious now.

totally agree with the first bit.  i think the mole-tyler story is being executed so well that it's genuinely creeping me out.  like i hate it because it's so good lol.  also because i'm usually really stoned when i watch the episode, and the bloody torture cutscenes are a little much for me in that frame.

and i can't put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me, but i just don't like this iteration of klingons.  at all.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Cain on January 23, 2018, 04:10:14 PM
Just binged every episode of The Strain. I've gotta say, I love those vampire mouth tentacles
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 05:12:34 PM
I loved this last episode. Better than any mirror universe episode before it, imo. Also, I love the BSG, mole Klingon story. That Klingon lady is so much more insidious now.

totally agree with the first bit.  i think the mole-tyler story is being executed so well that it's genuinely creeping me out.  like i hate it because it's so good lol.  also because i'm usually really stoned when i watch the episode, and the bloody torture cutscenes are a little much for me in that frame.

and i can't put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me, but i just don't like this iteration of klingons.  at all.

I'm at a loss.  I just saw the latest episode yesterday and I just... I just can't fathom what they're doing.

Tyler is brainwashed.  Nope, Tyler was a Klingon.  Wait, how'd they literally convert a klingon body into a human body with DNA and surgery?  Is Le'rell lying or telling the truth?  And why the fuck are they pulling that AND the captain being from the mirror universe?  Are they going for most plot twists in a single arc?


I'm on the edge of my seat.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 23, 2018, 05:14:42 PM
I've just caught up with ST:Did

Overall, I'm torn. As an original series with no consideration of previous Treks, I really like it, especially as the cast has been fleshed out as it has gone on.

That said, there is definitely something missing in this iteration of Trek. I think it might be the optimism. TOS had the technicolour sense of discovery, TNG had the warm belief in diplomacy and kindness. DS9 built up the bond between the characters before they threw them into a war, Voyager had the constant hope that they would find a way home, and Enterprise (at its best) had the wide-eyed naiveté of exploration. Discovery has definitely started to show glimpses of that - especially when Lorca shows Stanet the map he's been building of different dimensions and realities, but it isn't there yet.

I really hope they decide to go with dimension-hopping as a central theme in Discovery, it would let them be inventive without treading on the feet of established canon, it would give them a wider scope of episodes than Trek has previously allowed itself.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 06:41:44 PM
If they go Sliders on us, I'm gonna be unhappy.

As for what's missing: It's not optimism.   They had that with the tartegrade and getting the drive working.  What it lacks is episode of the week.  It doesn't wrap up at the end with a neat bow.  It's been non-stop mini-arcs.  Which is good but it also makes the show way more complex both emotionally and morally than Star Trek usually is.  At this point I'm both floored and drained.  It's like The Walking Dead: you're always hyped up, waiting for the next twist or sudden shift in direction.  You don't get enough downtime to process and relax.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on January 24, 2018, 03:28:11 AM
I'm at a loss.  I just saw the latest episode yesterday and I just... I just can't fathom what they're doing.

Tyler is brainwashed.  Nope, Tyler was a Klingon.  Wait, how'd they literally convert a klingon body into a human body with DNA and surgery?  Is Le'rell lying or telling the truth?  And why the fuck are they pulling that AND the captain being from the mirror universe?  Are they going for most plot twists in a single arc?


I'm on the edge of my seat.

i'm super surprised about the lorca plot.  that theory has been out there for awhile, and i thought there was basically no chance it was right.  it just seemed too complicated.

that said, i'm into it.


I've just caught up with ST:Did

Overall, I'm torn. As an original series with no consideration of previous Treks, I really like it, especially as the cast has been fleshed out as it has gone on.

That said, there is definitely something missing in this iteration of Trek. I think it might be the optimism. TOS had the technicolour sense of discovery, TNG had the warm belief in diplomacy and kindness. DS9 built up the bond between the characters before they threw them into a war, Voyager had the constant hope that they would find a way home, and Enterprise (at its best) had the wide-eyed naiveté of exploration. Discovery has definitely started to show glimpses of that - especially when Lorca shows Stanet the map he's been building of different dimensions and realities, but it isn't there yet.

I really hope they decide to go with dimension-hopping as a central theme in Discovery, it would let them be inventive without treading on the feet of established canon, it would give them a wider scope of episodes than Trek has previously allowed itself.

i totally get how you feel here.  although personally i don't want them to go dimension-hopping, i get the sentiment you're after.

it's super different from what i've come to expect from the star trek universe, but i've been begging for a darker-and-more-serial star trek for so long that i'm pot-committed.  pretty much my only beef with it so far is that i just fucking do not like these klingons at all.  wish they'd go back to the chinamen.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on January 24, 2018, 09:34:34 PM
capeshit capeshit I watch nothing but capeshit

Spider-Man: Homecoming (Jon Watts, 2017)

A fun Spidey movie, but not much else. In particular, I wasn't a fan of how continuity-heavy it was. Presumably they wanted to emphasize the MCU setting to differentiate this version of the character from Sony's previous efforts, but they lean into it so much that it becomes a gimmick. Hey, remember that character from this movie? Remember when that happened in this other movie? Recognize this gadget from that movie? And then they had to build Peter's arc around his ambition to impress Tony Stark and join the Avengers, ensuring that the above appealing-to-continuity moves out of subtext and becomes text. That is to say, we have the main character constantly asking us to remember the previous movies in the MCU while the film itself does the same thing.

Also, I think I understand what junker and Snupes were criticizing now - this movie really goes out of its way to smack Spidey around, portray him as incompetent, and have Tony deliver condescending lectures to him, all to emphasize that he's just not ready to play with the big boys. It's the movie's answer to a question that doesn't need to be asked. Peter wouldn't join the Avengers full-time because he's a fucking kid. He's not going to leave his friends, his family, and his home behind to go fight terrorists and aliens on the other side of the world for a living. This didn't need to be spelled out, and it absolutely didn't need an entire movie's worth of tomfoolery and ineptitude before he could finally prove that he wasn't a complete bumblefuck and turn down a spot on the Avengers on his own terms.

Thor: Ragnarok (Taika Waititi, 2017)

This was great. Wacky colors, synths, lovable characters, and big laughs all around. My one issue with it was how thoroughly Karl Urban was wasted. They couldn't come up with anything better for him to do than stand around looking conflicted, stand around looking conflicted, listen to exposition, and stand around looking conflicted some more?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on January 25, 2018, 06:17:57 AM
Iron Man Cleans Up Spider-Man's Messes: Homecoming

That said, do you agree with how awesome Vulture was? As a character, but also as a suit design and implementation, holy shit. That's one of the best comic-to-screen adaptations I've seen. They managed to make him not a goofy old man in a bird suit without making him a gritty pos. Plus it just looks amazing.

And yeah, I loved Ragnarok to death, it's one of my favourite Marvel movies, but Skurge was wasted. And c'mon, a dude with an axe and assault rifles. His fight scenes could've been so ridiculously cool.

Also, she may not have been the most fleshed out, but I think Hela is my favourite villain so far. Cate Blanchett does such a fantastic job of making her this sexy, confident, "yeah you're all dead you just don't know it" presence. Her design is visually striking and graceful, plus they kept the fucking horns which is fantastic.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on January 30, 2018, 04:57:35 AM
Vulture's design was great, but I found the character to be far more intimidating and memorable when he was just Michael Keaton without the outfit. His interactions with Peter were a highlight of the movie, and perhaps the only time where the movie's general treatment of Spidey as a scrub who's in over his head felt truly justified.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on February 06, 2018, 09:05:47 AM
Forced Diversity: The Movie
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on February 17, 2018, 06:31:44 AM
Justice League (Zack Snyder/Joss Whedon, 2017)

Wow. Watched it with my friends. That may be the worst DC movie I've seen. I'm so burned out I don't even want to write about it. Writing was trash, Barry was cringe, Batman was useless, Cyborg looked awful, Aquaman was cringey dudebro, Wonder Woman was ok, Superman was OP. The story is everyone is useless until Zack Snyder wanks Superman to life, has him show up everyone, then win everything. End movie.

That was bad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dither on February 23, 2018, 02:26:05 PM
Black Panther.

So everyone's going ape over this movie and I get that this is a good start towards a marvel universe that celebrates rather than denigrates African culture (a big plus) but my own expectations of this thing (after reading all the glowing reviews) was so massive, that when I finally watched it I found myself tearing it apart instead of just enjoying it the way I enjoyed Ragnarok. Anyway, its an ok movie with some fun characters whom I couldn't have cared less about if they lived or died. But the best part is the civilisation itself, its so interesting, plenty of dynamics between the different tribes and an awesome empire to boot and that's where this movie really excels, IMO 
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on March 05, 2018, 06:24:44 AM
Spirited Away (Hayao Miyazaki, 2001)

I can't stop crying. Help.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on March 05, 2018, 12:49:39 PM
Spirited Away (Hayao Miyazaki, 2001)

I can't stop crying. Help.

Poo
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on March 07, 2018, 03:26:14 PM
Death Wish, 2018 (minor spoilers ahead and they're not marked)

I just wish I knew this would be so politically charged before I went to see it. It worked well enough as a revenge thriller when it wasn't coming off like a love letter to the NRA. The problem is that I see a Bruce Willis action film for its escapist value, not to be preached at. Maybe what's most frustrating is that it pretends to be even-handed and show both sides of the issue. So you have Mancow on one side, coming off like a right wing lunatic, praising the job Willis's character is doing, and on the other side is Sway, former black MTV VJ, and his only argument against Willis's character seems to be that there's a white guy out there shooting black men, which given how many Latinos and white men Willis kills isn't even a fair characterization of what he's doing.

And it takes the "police are useless" trope to whole new levels. There's a "joke" early on where Willis is looking at the big board in the police station and it's covered with cards representing unsolved homicides. " We're gonna need a bigger board!" some wit wrote in the corner. Lol, right? And meanwhile Hank from "Breaking Bad" and his multi-culti female black partner stumble through the film trying to figure out who the vigilante is, never getting any closer despite regular contact with Willis all the way through. The vigilante is left-handed. The vigilante had no prior experience firing a weapon. The vigilante injured his hand. They ( well, Hank anyway, I honestly don't remember his partner contributing anything to the investigation except being female and black) are able to figure all this out and they still never even suspect Willis until the very end, at which point they ignore that he's essentially a mass murderer and look the other way. I tell ya, the cops can't be counted on for nothin'!

The message the movie pushes? Vigilantism is probably a little extreme, but you and your family are victims waiting to be murdered if you don't own a gun. At least in Chicago where the police are literally useless.

There's also some cringeworthy torture to go with the cringeworthy politics.

Still I would give this movie 2.5 stars out of 5 if I was rating it because a lot of the action was quite good and so were most of the performances. If it wasn't straight up propaganda I'm sure I would have left the theater with a more positive opinion.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on March 07, 2018, 04:48:28 PM
Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency Season 2

As a fan of the books, and the BBC Miniseries, I found it tough to get into the first season of DG. The character is completely different and I really don't like the Government Conspiracy layer they've added, or Elijah Woods' character.

Season 2 is even more bizarre than the first season and features more of the 'holistic' people, including a holistic actor who can shape-shift into anything ("Why would I change into a bear, silly? If I wanted to kill you all, I'd turn into an aircraft carrier and crush this facility." "Please... don't?") and a kid who can create things with his mind.

All my criticisms of Season 1 still stand, Elijah Woods' character is annoyingly out of place, the government conspiracy seems tacked on and superfluous, even as it becomes pretty much a central part of the plot. As before, the tone whiplashes between zany humour and deadpan seriousness (and sometimes zany seriousness) without any attempt at consistency, and the whole thing feels like it could have done with another pass to cut out some of the sheer amount of stuff happening.

That said, the chemistry between some of the characters is a joy to watch, it keeps up a fun, quick pace, and there's still a sense of achievement when you finally 'get' some of the connections.

Good series, but if it gets picked up by another network, it really needs to iron out some of the longstanding bugs.

7/10
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on March 12, 2018, 02:17:48 AM
Shape of Water [spoilers]

I really appreciated the acting,  especially Sally Hawkins,  and the cinematography was good but I can't get over the story. A mute woman feeds a humanoid creature eggs and then they bang. Just a bit weird.

Get  Out

this movie was really good

Jessica Jones season 2

I enjoyed this,  I think the second half it gets better.

Lady Bird

Cute movie, feel like it's been a bit overrated by critics
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on March 23, 2018, 08:51:24 PM
Since Saddam wants more capeshit reviews, here's something even shorter and less satisfying than the average sex scene in...

Jessica Jones Season 2

I like this season a lot more than the first, although in many ways it is probably worse. Mostly I found it highly enjoyable because it was wacky and I found it hard to guess where the constantly twisting plot would go next. A lot of the "shocking reveals" made me laugh out loud, and some of the dialogue is so boneheadedly bad that it was like watching a neo-noir soap opera. The sex scenes are still boring and pointless, way too many shirtless men humping women wrapped up in bedsheets, because heaven forbid we should catch a glimpse of a female nipple, and don't even get me started on the half-arsed lesbo coke orgy/seniors' underwear dance party. Not even the worst of them, sadly, was as hilarious as Simpson going down on Trish in the first season, or as ridiculous as Luke Cage flirting by breaking power tools on his abs, so it's mostly just gasping morons pressed up against each other. Fortunately, most of the show is hilarious, because it is so fucking ridiculous. Jessica herself still has the 1950s B-movie Damsel problem of going through one terrible thing after another yet still having perfect make-up and hair, and I much prefer the haggard depiction of the character in the original Alias comic.

Despite the problems I have with it, JJ2 is a lot of fun, and I would definitely rank it among my favourite seasons of Marvel's Netflix stuff so far.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on March 25, 2018, 01:12:34 AM
First season was better thanks to Kilgrave.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on March 26, 2018, 02:06:35 PM
just watched season 6 of homeland.  definitely my favorite season since season 1.

this show decided to be the wire and brutally take from me every character i love.  dang.  i was especially sad when the fbi agent gets murdered.  i was just starting to warm up to him.

my only real complaint is the final bits of the finale.  keane goes from "i am now a national security hawk," to "i am now stalin," in the span of like two scenes.  i mean in one scene she's offering carrie a job as senior adviser, and the next she's arresting everyone and ignoring carrie's phone calls.  idgi. 

that said, i'm excited for this plot to unfold next season.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on March 27, 2018, 10:35:35 AM
Thor 3:
Good but not as funny as Gardians of the Galaxy 1.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 11, 2018, 08:35:21 PM
Howl's Moving Castle (Hayao Miyazaki, 2004)

Surely two Ghibli movies in a row won't make me sob like a baby? Surely, as a functional adult, now that I know what to expect from them, I should be able to make it to the end of one with a dry face, right? THINK AGAIN, APPARENTLY. MY EYES ARE WATERFALLS.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Cain on April 12, 2018, 05:43:10 PM
Howl's Moving Castle (Hayao Miyazaki, 2004)

Surely two Ghibli movies in a row won't make me sob like a baby? Surely, as a functional adult, now that I know what to expect from them, I should be able to make it to the end of one with a dry face, right? THINK AGAIN, APPARENTLY. MY EYES ARE WATERFALLS.
I feel your pain.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on April 26, 2018, 04:27:28 AM
The Defenders

What a disappointment. In many ways, this show had the deck stacked against it for having to pick up where the disastrous Iron Fist left off. We're stuck with the boring interpretation of the Hand as a more generic criminal organization rather than a ninja clan, several characters having their motivations and allegiances blatantly retconned for simplicity's sake, a depleted budget revealing a very, very cheap production, and arguably worst of all, one of the four main characters coming across as a shadow compared to the other three. Danny's characterization was an utter mess in Fist, with the writers seemingly unable to decide if he should be a wise kung fu monk, a gritty anti-hero, or a naïve man-child, with the end result being an obnoxious asshole with a major case of entitlement. He's nowhere near as unlikable in this show, which is definitely an improvement, but this comes at the cost of having him be incredibly bland and generic. He's at his best when he's interacting with the other Defenders, but I feel like those scenes were coasting on fan expectations rather than the characters genuinely clicking.

I'm not sure how to phrase this exactly, but I also don't like how Danny is introduced as simply chasing the main plot, while Matt, Jessica, and Luke are off living their own lives and doing their own thing, only to eventually be dragged into the greater story. It reinforces the perception that Danny is the odd one out - the one whose show was poorly received, the one who has a nonsensical characterization, and the one who has no real community ties, doesn't represent any part of New York, and is just there to move the plot along. This stuck out the most for me in the third episode when Danny decides, in response to Luke calling him out for his privilege and lack of empathy for the poor, that he should use his position to target the Hand's leaders, those with wealth and power. This could have been a great character moment and a much-needed start at addressing the criticisms of Fist's "mighty whitey" narrative - but it falls flat, because, as Colleen immediately points out, Danny isn't a businessman, a socialite, or anyone other than the guy who fights the Hand. Matt is a lawyer by day, Jessica is a private detective, Luke is essentially a kind of community organizer, and Danny...is just the guy who fights the Hand. So what follows is an incredibly awkward sequence where he hits up his company, basically says, "Yo, tell me where the Hand's bosses hang out," shows up there in a business suit, and barges into a boardroom where they're sitting, ready to kick their asses. No pretext, no cover, no subtlety, just the plot needing Danny to be in that location, so the show has to put him there, even it can barely justify doing so within the story's logic.

Speaking of the Hand, let's talk about all the retcons. I don't understand why the people behind Fist and this show felt the need to connect everyone to the Hand and/or to K'un Lun. Seriously, I really cannot imagine their thought process or what they thought they were accomplishing with it. Not everything needs to be directly connected to everything else. Did they think people would complain if they didn't tie up every loose end they could? This is an ongoing universe, one that will undoubtedly be continuing for several more years, at the very least. There will be time for all the villains and all the plot threads they can think up. There was no need to rush it so sloppily. As it is, the fact that Madame Gao is retconned into being a member of the Hand and Stick and the Chaste are retconned into being protectors of K'un Lun who serve the Iron Fist blatantly contradict both seasons of Daredevil, and perhaps even worse than that, make the universe feel small. It's lazy, unimaginative, and insults the audience's intelligence.

The Hand remain as boring and generically evil as they were in Fist, without even having the gimmick of being a silly ninja clan like they did for Daredevil's second season. And their leader is not only the worst villain of the Netflix corner of the MCU, but quite possibly the worst character overall. Sigourney Weaver is awful. Her character is awful on paper, her lines are awful, and she turns in an awful performance. Her inexpressive face, her droning monotone, her vague, inexplicable motivations, and her complete lack of charisma combine to make her a fucking drag, and every moment she's on screen turns watching the show into a chore. Shouldn't a character who's been around for centuries have a little life to them?

To continue elaborating on what I now realize was something of an unintentional thesis statement in my introduction, this show is incredibly cheap-looking. The action is generally better than it was in Fist, but there's a very generic style to it, with nothing of what made the action in Daredevil and Luke feel so unique. Matt and Danny in particular feel like interchangeable, run-of-the-mill martial artists, with very little to distinguish them. Just look at their fight scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1jAjguH744

A kung fu monk up against a gritty boxer/ninja should be interesting, but we get almost no sense of what's actually different about their fighting styles here. They both sucker punch each other, they both do elaborate, unnecessary flips, they both take wild swings at each other, they both parry each other's punches by sweeping their arms aside, and so on. Their fighting is so generic and interchangeable that you could reverse their roles in this fight and it wouldn't make a difference, with the obvious exception of Danny doing what he always does when he's getting his ass kicked and whipping out the Fist.

I can't blame the lack of budget entirely on the people behind Defenders and/or Fist, of course. Marvel and Netflix agreed on a lump sum of $200 million to finance all five shows years ago, and it's obvious that by 2017, Daredevil, Jessica, and Luke had swallowed up most of the money. Their showrunners were probably too extravagant, and Marvel should have stepped in earlier to make sure every show would get its share. Regardless of how it happened, though, the two latter shows had very limited budgets, and their showrunners should have recognized that and worked within their means. Trying to go all out with a story of ancient hidden cities, magic powers, dragons, ninja clans, and immortal warriors wasn't feasible with the resources at hand, and the fact that they tried to do it (in both shows) in such lazy, half-assed, tell-don't-show ways really hurt them. There's more than enough Iron Fist material not strictly related to K'un Lun/the Hand/wacky magical Asian bullshit that they could have gotten thirteen episodes out of, perhaps with a few hints towards that side of his life included, like with the Hand in Daredevil's first season. Like, they could have taken cues from Arrow and gone with a politically-aware, Robin Hood-esque approach where Danny is determined to confront the corruption within his own company and use his wealth and privilege responsibly, and so on. And if they had gotten good reviews and an audience out of that, maybe their next season would give them enough of a budget to explore his backstory, and we'd get to see K'un Lun, dragons, and the rest of it.

In short...yeah, I didn't like this. It's partially one the four pillars the show rests on being fatally weak, but even more than that, it's just basic incompetence. Shitty writing, lazy plotting, uninspired action, and a career-worst performance from Sigourney Weaver.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on April 26, 2018, 07:16:37 AM
The Weaver we deserved.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbrnfGkVQAAw4D9.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dither on April 26, 2018, 09:08:17 PM
Yeah the Defenders was pretty lame but I kind of liked it anyway.
DD's so cool, JJ's is hip and LC is stoic,,

Danny's just there to make everyone else look great,,,
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on April 27, 2018, 02:39:54 AM
The budget constraint explains the hilariously bad climactic fight scene at the end of DD2. Daredevil utters that he hears more Hand soldiers than he had ever faced before and then proceeds to the building top and there is maybe a dozen. Pretty sure he took on that many in multiple episodes throughout the season.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on April 27, 2018, 04:40:49 AM
Yeah the Defenders was pretty lame but I kind of liked it anyway.
DD's so cool, JJ's is hip and LC is stoic,,

Danny's just there to make everyone else look great,,,

Interacting with a shitty and ineffectual character doesn't make anybody look great. If anything, it drags the better character down to the bad one's level by having to acknowledge their existence and the bad story that created such a character. Danny's flaws are Fist's flaws, and Fist's flaws become flaws within the greater universe by being part of its continuity. That's one reason why I wasn't a big fan of the self-aware gimmick in Defenders where the characters relentlessly mocked Danny (and eventually beat his ass, as shown in the clip I posted). It was just calling more attention to the fact that one of its main characters was the product of awful writing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on April 27, 2018, 01:59:21 PM
Well, since The World Unbuilt is over, I reckon it's time to get into another project. Saddam has been bugging me about this for probably a year now, so welcome to...

2018: A Batshit Odyssey


Batman (dir. Leslie H. Martinson)

The 1960s. Vietnam, flower power, Beatlemania. The good old days, when 20th Century Fox was shoving Frank Gorshin's prodigious green bulge in your face instead of terrible Spider-Man spin-offs. Yes, that's right, a time before Warner Bros. executives got their greasy mitts on Batman and turned him into a series of gruff growlers, self-serious scientists, and quizzical quippers. A time when everything was labelled and everyone spoke in alliterative exclamations of exasperation. Unfortunately, during my soujourn into those heady cultural pastures of mid-century life I did not have my ballpoint banana ready to take notes, but here's my recollection of a certain episode of Batmania that fell upon me all of a sudden in April of 2018.

To begin with, we get a SNATCHER-esque opening dedication, but rather than cyberpunks who fight against injustice every day of their lives, Batman is for crime fighters, escapists, and people who like weird things. It's more inclusive, and, since it is 2018, I'm sure we can all get behind that. Also there's a couple necking in an alleyway, which forewarns you of just how sexy this film is. Indeed, it is not long before so many male bulges, off-set at least a little by the permanently erect nipples of Lee Meriwether, are on screen at once that sometimes it can be hard, no pun intended, to know where to look! Somehow, even this is not as gay as the way Batman looks at Superman during their Dawn of Justice when the former tries to run over the latter.   

What I particularly love about our introduction to Batman and Robin in this film, and indeed the film itself, is that almost everything takes place in broad daylight. Bruce Wayne happily steps out for a night on the town with Miss Kitka (a barely disguised Catwoman) as an unwitting part of a plot to lure Batman to her secret hideout, but Batman himself likes the sun. There's no sneaking around or hiding awkwardly in the corners of rooms in order to surprised the police for no apparent reason. In fact, Batman's awkward relationship with the police is nowhere to be seen here, as he and Robin are officially recognised and deputised. He can fly around in the Bat-Copter and wave at people as he passes over head, the police even take their hats off as a sign of respect when they see him go by. It's quite literally a night and day contrast from all or most non-comic book Bat Media that has come since.

The major plot thread involves a tetrapartite conspiracy between Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler, and Joker. Joker last because, contrary to modern Bat Cinema, he isn't the main character. And no, Suicide Squad with its abysmal bit-part does not count! The wacky foursome have contrived to kidnap one Commodore Schmidlapp, an English sailor who says “pip pip”, because of course he does, and have ingeniously stored him in a replica boat (where he can catch up on his Dickens) so that they can steal his dehydration device. While this device is used to try and sneak a dehydrated army (five people) into the Batcave, the real plan is to dehydrate the leaders of nations in the United World Security Council and hold them to ransom. I guess the UN would not lend the film its official support, and it's easy to see why given that the film depicts the Security Council as a bunch of self-important fools shouting over each other ad infinitum to little purpose, and the final joke of the film doubles down on that in the most glorious way. Batman has a surprising amount of topical humour about politics and international relations, and while none of it could be called incisive or biting, it obviously wasn't supposed to be. High camp is high camp, this is a comedy in which everyone is a target, but no one is hurt.

Maybe even “comedy” is not an all-encompassing descriptor here. The dialogue might at times be more towards the nonsense of Edward Lear, which is not outwardly “funny” but rather “silly” in an endearing way. The performances, however, show a clear comic/straightman dynamic. Batman and Robin are broadly speaking straightmen, no pun intended, foils to the villains who are constantly goofing around and hamming it up. Adam West's totally serious, news-anchor-esque delivery in the face of exploding sharks, bad Russian accents, Frank Gorshin's bulge, Burgess Meredith's waark-waark-waarking, not to mention Burt Ward's exclamatory puns and other assorted insanities, provides much balance, and is made all the stronger in its balancing by the ridiculousness of the Batman costume itself. For people who know the original TV series, this will hardly come as a surprise, and on that front it's pretty much business as usual, but unlike most TV shows making the transition to feature film, here's one that didn't sacrifice all the things that made it good in order to be “cinematic”.
   
When thinking of classic Batman villains, I at least would be hard pressed to come up with a more iconic group than Penguin, Catwoman, Riddler, and Joker. They aren't necessarily those characters as you know them from more recent films, but they are delightful to watch as they prance, dance, slither, and waddle around with exaggerated bravura. Burgess Meredith growls and squawks, equal parts bird and sinister businessman, a cigarette holder dangling permanently from snarling lips as he pumps green knockout gas from an umbrella. Catwoman plays both seductive and silly, and is perhaps the funniest of the four, because she is at once the most outwardly normal and the most insane. Lee Meriwether only played the role this one time, but she did it brilliantly. Frank Gorshin's Riddler, bulge aside, seems at times like some kind of proto-Kramer; the way he delivers his monologue as he plots how to defeat Batman once and for all (this involves catapulting Batman into an exploding octopus) reminded me so much of Kramer in episode 78 of Seinfeld, “The Marine Biologist”, when he talks about his plans to go out to the beach and hit golf balls into the ocean.
   
Last, and perhaps even least, Cesar Romero's Joker has surprisingly little to do. I think this is mainly a temporal thing. My history might be wrong, but since Alan Moore's one-shot The Killing Joke was blown out of all proportion it seems that we've come to think of the Joker as Costello to Batman's Abbott, an inseparable duo, diametrically opposed, who, underneath it all, might be more similar than they think. It's a classic set-up, and it's easy to see why it's so popular—well, maybe it won't be any longer thanks to Jared Leto's er... questionable interpretation—but I wonder if back in the golden or silver age this wasn't a bit less the case. Knowing his performances for the TV series, maybe he doesn't need to be so prominent anyway, simply because let loose he could well overshadow the others. He's also a lot more fun than some of the more recent interpretations, even just seeing his well-trimmed moustache peeking through his make-up is funny.
   
Adding to performance and plot, Nelson Riddle's score carries the action on a sonic bed of surf rock, lounge jazz, surf rock, orchestral swoons, and more surf rock. From the very beginning the music helps bring you into the film's heightened camp version of the mid-'60s and underlines with knowing winks the silliness of the script and the performances it calls for. Taken all together, it's a really fun film. It knows it's silly, and it revels in it. I'm not sure I would call great comedy, but it's a very entertaining piece—certainly more so than Batman's two most recent outings, by turns ludicrous, dire, insulting, and bland—and a great place to commence my adventure through the Bat Annals of Bat History. That does it for this edition of the Batshit Odyssey. Tune in next week, same Bat Time, same Bat Channel, when we'll check in with 1989's Batman.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on April 28, 2018, 05:07:40 AM
In fact, Batman's awkward relationship with the police is nowhere to be seen here, as he and Robin are officially recognised and deputised.

In one episode, Gordon comments that he gave up trying to find out who Batman was a long time ago. The idea of these versions of Batman and Gordon ever having a more tense relationship is both intriguing and hilarious.

Quote
I think this is mainly a temporal thing. My history might be wrong, but since Alan Moore's one-shot The Killing Joke was blown out of all proportion it seems that we've come to think of the Joker as Costello to Batman's Abbott, an inseparable duo, diametrically opposed, who, underneath it all, might be more similar than they think. It's a classic set-up, and it's easy to see why it's so popular—well, maybe it won't be any longer thanks to Jared Leto's er... questionable interpretation—but I wonder if back in the golden or silver age this wasn't a bit less the case.

Having plunged deeply into the archives of Batman history, I can confirm that it wasn't until about the seventies, when comics were allowed to get edgier and more violent, that the Joker began to be seen as Batman's arch-enemy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 29, 2018, 07:22:10 AM
Jumanji (2017)

(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/jumanji.jpg?w=1000&h=562&crop=1)

I don't understand the mediocre reviews. I put it off watching it because the trailer seemed "meh", but it was freaking brilliant comedy. I was in stitches for most of the movie. I've spoken to numerous people and heard not one thing bad about it. Highly recommend giving it a shot.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on April 29, 2018, 02:18:09 PM
Jumanji (2017)

(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/jumanji.jpg?w=1000&h=562&crop=1)

I don't understand the mediocre reviews. I put it off watching it because the trailer seemed "meh", but it was freaking brilliant comedy. I was in stitches for most of the movie. I've spoken to numerous people and heard not one thing bad about it. Highly recommend giving it a shot.

I loved it and everybody I know who saw it loved it. I didn't even know it got mediocre reviews. Sometimes the critics are just wrong.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on April 30, 2018, 08:55:12 PM
It was okay.


Avengers: Infinity War (Anthony and Joe Russo, 2018)

Loved it. It was ridiculous fun and watching the balancing act of bringing all these characters together without it becoming overwhelming was a delight. That said, I was destined to love it for what it is, so I'm not even going to try to make this an unbiased examination, 'cause I'm content just having thoroughly adored this film as much as I did as a Marvel fangirl. Josh Brolin's Thanos was absolutely fantastic, and I was worried how the cinematic interpretations of Thanos' Black Order, sans Supergiant for some reason would pan out but they were done incredibly well...though killed off way too quickly.

So yeah, gr8 movie will see again next week.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on May 01, 2018, 12:17:40 AM
The Matrix (The Wachowski Brothers, 1999)

Hadn't seen this in years. Decided to rewatch it. Totally worth it, even if it is overflowing with clichés.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2018, 12:15:33 PM
The Matrix (The Wachowski Brothers, 1999)

Hadn't seen this in years. Decided to rewatch it. Totally worth it, even if it is overflowing with clichés.

This might be hindsight or golden age thinking, but I think The Matrix created a bunch of cliches.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 02, 2018, 05:05:10 AM
Avengers: Infinity War (Anthony and Joe Russo, 2018)

I basically agree with Snupes. I'm really glad they adjusted Strange's character to be considerably more straight-laced and serious than he was in his own movie. It was a terrible idea to have him be so similar to Tony originally, and it really would have stood out here, given how much they're together. Speaking of those two characters interacting, thank fucking God there was no cringey "No shit, Sherlock!" joke that so many idiot fans were loudly clamoring for. I would have died right then and there in my seat if it had happened. I enjoyed Thanos and his quirky miniboss squad as the antagonists, which felt like a nice change of pace for Marvel, and was a little disappointed when the movie decided to throw in a superfluous army of generic CGI minions in the third act anyway. Sometimes I feel like Marvel includes these very familiar tropes and setpieces more out of a sense of obligation than anything else.

One of the biggest things everyone's been talking about is the ending scene. It's perfectly competent as a piece of filmmaking and strikes an appropriately somber tone to close the movie on, but I was disappointed by the setup it left us with for the next movie - most of the new heroes gone, but the original Avengers intact. The characters who have already had a ton of focus and plenty of crossovers are the ones who'll be sticking around for the next movie. I'm sure it makes plenty of narrative and thematic sense to have it all end where it began and whatever, and of course the genocide will end up being reversed or undone at some point, but it feels like a very boring decision to push the new characters off the board in favor of focusing - once again - on the old guard.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Cain on May 02, 2018, 12:28:27 PM
One of the biggest things everyone's been talking about is the ending scene. It's perfectly competent as a piece of filmmaking and strikes an appropriately somber tone to close the movie on, but I was disappointed by the setup it left us with for the next movie - most of the new heroes gone, but the original Avengers intact. The characters who have already had a ton of focus and plenty of crossovers are the ones who'll be sticking around for the next movie. I'm sure it makes plenty of narrative and thematic sense to have it all end where it began and whatever, and of course the genocide will end up being reversed or undone at some point, but it feels like a very boring decision to push the new characters off the board in favor of focusing - once again - on the old guard.
I'm still annoyed that the deaths are pointless. I remember Marvel saying that any deaths in Infinity War were going to be permanent, or at least carry weight. Now, big 'ole dork Thanos snaps his fingers and kills all the heroes that have standalone movies releasing sometime soon, e.g Spooderman and the Guardians. Although Josh Brolin did an amazing job as Thanos.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2018, 10:39:11 PM
One of the biggest things everyone's been talking about is the ending scene. It's perfectly competent as a piece of filmmaking and strikes an appropriately somber tone to close the movie on, but I was disappointed by the setup it left us with for the next movie - most of the new heroes gone, but the original Avengers intact. The characters who have already had a ton of focus and plenty of crossovers are the ones who'll be sticking around for the next movie. I'm sure it makes plenty of narrative and thematic sense to have it all end where it began and whatever, and of course the genocide will end up being reversed or undone at some point, but it feels like a very boring decision to push the new characters off the board in favor of focusing - once again - on the old guard.
I'm still annoyed that the deaths are pointless. I remember Marvel saying that any deaths in Infinity War were going to be permanent, or at least carry weight. Now, big 'ole dork Thanos snaps his fingers and kills all the heroes that have standalone movies releasing sometime soon, e.g Spooderman and the Guardians. Although Josh Brolin did an amazing job as Thanos.

If Gamora and Vision stay dead I’m happy. Also, if they kill any of the original Avengers, I will also be pleased. I think RDJs contract is up after the next Avengers movie so maybe he’ll die too.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Cain on May 03, 2018, 12:28:25 PM
One of the biggest things everyone's been talking about is the ending scene. It's perfectly competent as a piece of filmmaking and strikes an appropriately somber tone to close the movie on, but I was disappointed by the setup it left us with for the next movie - most of the new heroes gone, but the original Avengers intact. The characters who have already had a ton of focus and plenty of crossovers are the ones who'll be sticking around for the next movie. I'm sure it makes plenty of narrative and thematic sense to have it all end where it began and whatever, and of course the genocide will end up being reversed or undone at some point, but it feels like a very boring decision to push the new characters off the board in favor of focusing - once again - on the old guard.
I'm still annoyed that the deaths are pointless. I remember Marvel saying that any deaths in Infinity War were going to be permanent, or at least carry weight. Now, big 'ole dork Thanos snaps his fingers and kills all the heroes that have standalone movies releasing sometime soon, e.g Spooderman and the Guardians. Although Josh Brolin did an amazing job as Thanos.

If Gamora and Vision stay dead I’m happy. Also, if they kill any of the original Avengers, I will also be pleased. I think RDJs contract is up after the next Avengers movie so maybe he’ll die too.
I've already figured out the plot for the next movie. Thanos will hide the Infinity Stones somewhere, Avengers are going to go find the dwarf that made the Infinity Gauntlet, make him make another one, then go get the Stones from Thanos' aforementioned hiding place. They'll use the Time Stone to unkill the other Avengers, then go kill Thanos. Or since they're the good guys, lock him up somewhere so he can return later. You're welcome.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 06, 2018, 09:30:36 AM
2018: A Batshit Odyssey continues!

Batman (dir. Tim Burton)

What might be considered the first major cinematic outing for the caped crusader finds Michael Keaton behind the mask, and Tim Burton at the helm, both of whom had worked together the previous year on Beetlejuice. Tim Burton has made some weird movies, and most of them have not been weird in a good way, but there was a period in which he directed a solid stream of good films, and this is one of them. But going in, it's worth accepting that you are going to get more Burton than Batman. Say what you will about Burton, like Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder after him, he has a particular vision and—whether you think it's absolute pants or not—the sense of “auteurism” is strong in his take on Batman.

The film opens with the wonderful Danny Elfman theme, which I would characterise as “neo-Wagnerian”. Just listen to those opening harmonies and that orchestration, they could have been lifted straight out of Der Ring des Nibelungen. As they play on, dark textures and shadows unfurl across the screen to slowly reveal the Batman symbol. If there's a better opening sequence to a Batman film, well buddy, I ain't seen it. It perfectly prefaces the look, style, and mood of the film, highlighting the Gothic and expressionist sensibilities of Burton's early work. Gotham City is presented as a rich amalgamation of Gothic and art deco architecture shot through with preternatural spiderwork of industrial pipes and catwalks—New York City as a cartoon labyrinth.

The story is fairly straightforward. Jack Napier is an unhinged gangster who is having a secret affair with his boss Carl Grissom's daughter. It turns out to be not so secret, and for a multitude of obvious reasons Grissom plots to have Napier's next job, clearing incriminating documents out of the Axis chemical plant, go horribly wrong, using Lieutenant Eckhardt, his inside man on the police force, to coordinate a raid on the plant with orders to shoot to kill. Commissioner Gordon is tipped-off about this at a party at Bruce Wayne's mansion, and Bruce uses his surveillance system to eavesdrop on the conversation. As Batman, he takes off to face down Napier, who, during a shoot-out sequence—with hints of The Third Man—at the chemical plant, falls into a vat of chemicals, apparently dying. In fact, he survived the submersion but has been permanently disfigured and driven insane. With his faced fixed permanently into a grin by severe facial nerve damage, he becomes the Joker. When he kills Grissom and takes over his criminal empire, Joker positions himself to take on Batman, who has attained a status of myth both in the criminal underworld and in the mainstream media. Meanwhile, Bruce Wayne becomes romantically involved with Vicki Vale, a photographer who has come to Gotham City to try and catch Batman on film, and must wrestle with keeping his dual identities separate, especially when Joker himself begins to develop a perverse interest in Vale.

Michael Keaton is not a square-jawed, buff dude, so his casting might seem a little odd in comparison both to the typical depiction of Bruce Wayne in the comics and what we've come to except from Hollywood action movie stars. Keaton plays Wayne as an unassuming, charming, and witty eccentric, his lack of imposing stature and physique makes it that much easier to believe his secret identity is secure, because Batman's sculpted body armour makes him look much bigger. Even so, when as Batman he must rescue Vicki Vale from the Joker he is careful not to have her see him too close in good lighting. The identity issue is one he goes back and forth on as he gets closer to Vale, and while he thinks hard over the question of whether or not to tell her it is actually revealed to her quite unceremoniously, as Alfred allows her into the Batcave. It can be assumed that Bruce wanted this, or gave up and realised that it would be better to show her than tell her who he was, since his reaction is completely without surprise or worry when she arrives.

The film features an extremely theatrical Batman. He does a lot of impractical things for dramatic effect, for image's sake, to lend himself a kind of supernatural mystique. Compared with later more “realistic” interpretations, it is pretty far out there in terms of how he acts and how people react to him. It's very stage-y, and your willingness and ability to accept that realism is not what Burton is interested in will probably impact heavily on your overall feelings about the film. This is not super-genius ninja Batman who takes out a whole room full of thugs without them even seeing him. In some ways he's more like Marvel's “anti-Batman” Moon Knight, who makes sure the bad guys see him coming and who will gladly withstand being beaten half to death if it gets the job done. In a time before superhero films and TV shows started to get gritty, the hits Batman takes are fairly soft, and there isn't much blood in the film, but he does find himself on a couple of occasions in real struggles with Joker's henchmen. I think this works here mainly because Keaton is not a big beefy dude, he's an average-sized dude, and he uses his gadgets and his wits to get the upper hand on opponents who are often physically stronger than he is. This Batman, to the consternation of a good many comic book fans, also appears to kill several people, although many times he ties people up or knocks them out. For me this is not an issue, but Batman is the quintessential hero in the comic books in that he never kills anyone, he believes in crime and punishment, and in redemption and rehabilitation. This Batman is less moral, it could be said, which might reflect on the darker portrayals of the character in comic books around the time the film was produced.

Opposite Keaton, Jack Nicholson is cast as the Joker. I almost don't want to talk about it, because it is such a classic, ubiquitous performance, and the one to which I gravitated the most as a child. I was a '90s kid, and I loved Batman. Batman: The Animated Series, the two Burton films, the '60s Batman show, all were among my favourite things to watch. For me, the Joker is best in motion when played by two people: Jack Nicholson in live action and Mark Hamill in animation. Nicholson's Joker is a mobster, sociopathic, highly intelligent, and completely off-the-rails following his emergence from a vat of deadly chemicals. He delights in theatrics, pranks that result in death and disfigurement, and symbolic displays of power. He revels in the grotesque, and has a perverse aesthetic sensibility in which mutilation and murder are artistic acts. It is an amusing touch, when Joker and his henchmen tear up an art gallery, for him to restrain his right-hand man from defacing a work by Francis Bacon. Nicholson had previously starred in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Shining, both of which saw him play at insanity. For the Joker, we see him combine the two, the pretend craziness of R.P. McMurphy, and the deep-seated homicidal psychopathy of Jack Torrance. Joker likes to play up to his audience whether he is intimidating a single person or luring thousands of people into a nerve gas attack, and he turns on a dime from clown to maniac and back again to terrorise them emotionally as he terrorises them physically. Like the figure of Batman itself, there is something mythic, almost fairytale-like in the way Nicholson carries himself in the film.

While Burton is often quoted as saying that he was never big into comic books, much is made of his endorsement of The Killing Joke, an Alan Moore one-shot that came out the previous year, and whose depiction of Batman and Joker has coloured pretty much everything since. Alan Moore himself, noted curmudgeon who enjoys shitting on mainstream comics whenever he gets the chance, said that it was “far too violent and sexualised a treatment for a simplistic comic book character like Batman and a regrettable misstep on my part”. But Moore's insistence that Batman just doesn't have the complexity as a character to handle that kind of material has fallen on deaf ears, generally speaking. In any case, for all that Burton apparently makes of Moore's disowned work, it doesn't actually seem to have imprinted on the film at all. The film has its moments of violence, but sex is pretty much out of the picture entirely, we know that Bruce Wayne and Vicki Vale sleep together at some point, but it isn't the point of their relationship, and there is no sex scene. The closest we get to on-screen sex is when, for a few seconds, Vale feigns being won over by the Joker's warped affections in order to distract him while Batman moves in for an attack.

Burton's love of classic horror cinema makes itself felt in several key scenes. When Joker's plastic surgery treatment is concluded and he impatiently tears the bandages from his face to see himself in the mirror, we do not see his face, only his reaction, smashing the mirror and laughing hysterically. This recalls Georges Franju's Eyes Without a Face, but it is also tonally steeped in the dramatic expressionist style of the classic Universal monster movies of the 1930s. And as he leaves cast in shadow up a staircase he briefly reminds the viewer of Nosferatu. Eyes Without a Face is more literally referenced when Joker reveals the face of Grissom's daughter from behind a mask, who has been disfigured with some kind of acid, something that may sit more uncomfortably than ever with today's audiences. Oftentimes Gotham City seems to point in its outsized architecture to the warped cityscapes of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. The final confrontation with Joker atop a huge church tower that seems to stretch and shrink as the drama demands lends the impression of a “living city” that twists itself in response to the grandiose characters and their conflict. This again compounds the sense that Burton wants to deliver a mythic Batman, a Gotham where everything is not quite real, but real enough, an exaggerated artist's impression that provides a stage broad and yielding enough to accommodate flights of fantasy.

Batman is my favourite superhero film. It is by no means perfect as a film, and certainly not as an attempt to bring Batman to life, but even now, shorn of nostalgia, it mostly holds up. There are one or two goofy effects, like the CGI parade balloon, or the weird animated composite shots looking down over the city, which neither look real nor appropriate to the somewhat unreal tone of the film, but these complaints don't count for much against the fantastic visual design of Gotham City, and the excellent make-up, costumes, and practical effects. The score by Danny Elfman reinforces the distinctive look and pace of the film with its Wagnerian grandeur and brooding harmonic ambiguities. Keaton and Nicholson are brilliant and I could watch them all day. I'm not crazy about Kim Basinger as an actor, but Vale is a fun and likeable character, one notable issue with the portrayal—and this is not necessarily Basinger's fault—being that she screams and faints and all that stereotypically womanly stuff despite supposedly being a hardened war photographer. It's something that feels a little dated now since women have become more prominent and active in action movies, and especially superhero movies, in recent years, but even without all that taken into consideration it's just not great writing. Warts and all, I love this film, and while I understand the many criticisms levelled against it, I just don't give a damn.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on May 18, 2018, 02:26:15 PM

If you would like a gentle bittersweet endearing interlude in your life, watch Detectorists.
The premiss sounds awful or tedious but it will become a classic, I loved it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 19, 2018, 02:24:31 PM
Black Panther (Ryan Coogler, 2018)

This was great. It looks and feels very different to the rest of the MCU, probably due to Coogler's insistence on working with his own people rather than Marvel's in-house production team, the story is decent and touches on a number of poignant themes, and Wakanda is of course a fantastic, vividly-realized setting. I also appreciated how T'Challa wasn't a snarky anti-hero with an overinflated opinion of himself, and that the banter between the characters felt more playful and affectionate than the more hostile style that's already quite prominent in the franchise. It lent the movie a very refreshing sense of sincerity. I know it seems a little weird to keep talking about the movie's positives as things that it does differently to the rest of the MCU, but I guess that's the main area of improvement I'm looking for in these standalone movies. We already know Marvel can deliver on the imaginative setpieces and fun tone.

There's one thing that Black Panther doesn't do as well as its peers (two things if we count the comedy, but it doesn't seem like this movie was really trying to be hilarious, so I won't hold that against it), and that's the CGI, especially whenever the Black Panther suit is in play. You'd think that a suit that sleek would translate well to CGI, but when it's onscreen, the movie turns into a weightless, artificial-looking video game. And then they had to have the villain whip out his own suit at the end, for a case of double the uncanny valley! It's nowhere near as bad as, say, Justice League, but it's still just not up to par for this day and age. I can only assume that this was the downside of Coogler working with his own production team, which obviously had less experience working with CGI than Marvel.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 20, 2018, 03:37:21 AM
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2017-2018, Season 5)

I actually can't remember the last time I've cried this hard (yeah I can, but dramatic effect, it's bad). My face is soaked, my eyes are red, my head is pounding. That finale was so good. Kill me now, please.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 21, 2018, 02:34:57 PM
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2017-2018, Season 5)

I actually can't remember the last time I've cried this hard (yeah I can, but dramatic effect, it's bad). My face is soaked, my eyes are red, my head is pounding. That finale was so good. Kill me now, please.

I heard this was great but I am stuck on season 4 and it is a slog.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on May 21, 2018, 03:33:57 PM
I finally saw
Star Wars: The Last Jedi

I liked it and don't understand the hate.  They undid Midichlorines.  What's not to love about that?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Cain on May 22, 2018, 01:53:43 PM
I finally saw
Star Wars: The Last Jedi

I liked it and don't understand the hate.  They undid Midichlorines.  What's not to love about that?
I enjoyed it. However, there was the little problem of Luke dying of exhaustion from force ghosting his way to whatever planet they were on, giving a speech, and then getting stabbed. That was p. dumb.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 22, 2018, 02:02:50 PM
I still don’t get why people think it was exhaustion but hey, they’re allowed to be wrong.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Cain on May 22, 2018, 02:33:25 PM
I still don’t get why people think it was exhaustion but hey, they’re allowed to be wrong.
m8 then how did he die?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on May 22, 2018, 05:26:58 PM
I still don’t get why people think it was exhaustion but hey, they’re allowed to be wrong.
m8 then how did he die?
Same reason Yoda did?"It was his time"?
I mean, the whole point of Balance is, quite literally: One sith for every Jedi.  That's the main point they hammer home.  Even snoke said it.So once snoke died, Luke was on his way out.  Rey just needed to become the Jedi she was meant to be and then Luke was like "Alright, I'm done.  I'mma go the way of old Ben."
((Also:The stab was nothing.  He was literally a figment of everyone's imagination.  A distraction.  It was taxing but the actual stab didn't do anything.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Cain on May 23, 2018, 03:17:56 PM

Same reason Yoda did?"It was his time"?
I mean, the whole point of Balance is, quite literally: One sith for every Jedi.  That's the main point they hammer home.  Even snoke said it.So once snoke died, Luke was on his way out.  Rey just needed to become the Jedi she was meant to be and then Luke was like "Alright, I'm done.  I'mma go the way of old Ben."

>one sith for every jedi
>may I direct you to the jedi council, and the lack of a sith council
That's pretty dumb

edit: fixed formating
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 23, 2018, 05:26:24 PM
Snoke wasn't a Sith.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Cain on May 24, 2018, 05:52:04 PM
Snoke wasn't a Sith.
Wasn't he just an Elvis wannabe with a fucked up face?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 25, 2018, 03:31:09 PM
New Luke Cage is some of the dumbest shit. It's hilarious.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on June 25, 2018, 06:20:51 PM
New Luke Cage is some of the dumbest shit. It's hilarious.

But I have been seeing so many articles saying its the best because they have strong wimynTM characters.  How is this possible?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 26, 2018, 09:35:24 AM
New Luke Cage is some of the dumbest shit. It's hilarious.

But I have been seeing so many articles saying its the best because they have strong wimynTM characters.  How is this possible?

I mean, they do beat you around the head with how tough Misty is, but that's probably the least stupid part so far. Personally I can't help but be distracted from that by the Jamaican capoeira guy DEM CALL ME BOOSHMASTA SEEN huffing voodoo smoke to get stronk. It really is a blaxploitation soap opera at this point and it's kind of great and shitty at the same time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on June 30, 2018, 09:15:24 AM

Same reason Yoda did?"It was his time"?
I mean, the whole point of Balance is, quite literally: One sith for every Jedi.  That's the main point they hammer home.  Even snoke said it.So once snoke died, Luke was on his way out.  Rey just needed to become the Jedi she was meant to be and then Luke was like "Alright, I'm done.  I'mma go the way of old Ben."

>one sith for every jedi
>may I direct you to the jedi council, and the lack of a sith council
That's pretty dumb

edit: fixed formating
Yes. 
May I then direct you to the prophecy where the chosen one was to bring balance to the force, which he did by wiping out the jedi council and all the jedi except for 2?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 05, 2018, 01:57:44 AM
Luke Cage season 2 isn't great, but I had some fun with it. Mostly just reminded me how much I love listening to the Jamaican accent and dialect. It's interesting and kinda musical.

I guess some people were really put off by the mysticism of parts of it, but I read comics so I'm pretty down with that kinda weird shit.

EDIT: Cloak & Dagger is...really weird so far. It's like it wants to be creative and trippy like Legion, but isn't smart enough to do it in any sort of subtle manner.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on July 06, 2018, 05:34:35 PM
New Luke Cage is some of the dumbest shit. It's hilarious.

But I have been seeing so many articles saying its the best because they have strong wimynTM characters.  How is this possible?

I mean, they do beat you around the head with how tough Misty is, but that's probably the least stupid part so far. Personally I can't help but be distracted from that by the Jamaican capoeira guy DEM CALL ME BOOSHMASTA SEEN huffing voodoo smoke to get stronk. It really is a blaxploitation soap opera at this point and it's kind of great and shitty at the same time.
Finished it today. Was hilarious.
EDIT: Cloak & Dagger is...really weird so far. It's like it wants to be creative and trippy like Legion, but isn't smart enough to do it in any sort of subtle manner.
I don't know why they made this. No one knows who they are.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 07, 2018, 03:06:08 PM
I mean, to be fair, nobody knew the Guardians of the Galaxy before either, but that turned out to be a huge hit. I think Cloak & Dagger could work, but this show just feels like a really heavy-handed teen drama that's masquerading as something complex.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on July 19, 2018, 05:37:50 AM
Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

If nothing else, a truly beautiful film. Villeneuve's direction and Roger Deakins's cinenomnomgraphy create a dazzling picture of varied sights and sounds; where bright colors are juxtaposed with washed-out grays and vivid surrealism gives way to harsh grittiness. Every location is distinctive and memorable, every atmospheric effect adds to the tension. This movie could have starred Tommy Wiseau and Neil Breen engaged in a frank discussion about their experiences with sexually-transmitted diseases, and I'd still recommend it just based on how gorgeous the whole thing looks.

Needless to say, the rest of the film falls a little short of the visuals. I like the story in broad strokes, and appreciate the slow, deliberate pace that feels similar to the original Blade Runner. But speaking of this movie's similarities with the first one, I felt that tying their stories so closely together was a mistake. I usually appreciate a good sense of continuity and attention to detail, and I'd most likely be very excited if I saw this kind of thing in a video game. But movies are obviously quite different to video games, and as they offer drastically less "content," so to speak, they can less afford to throw in Easter eggs and continuity nods and details that not everybody will "get." It feels like all these things were included not because they made the film itself better, but because they felt obligated to show that they "respected" the original. I could very easily be wrong, but I strongly suspect that this movie would have a been lot more successful if they had focused on crafting the best standalone story that they could rather than the most reverent love letter to the first film that they could.

The dialogue has issues, too. There are so many lines that are just such obvious pleas to one day be famous quotes, complete with dramatic pauses after they're delivered. "I know what's real." "Sometimes to love someone, you got to be a stranger." "We’re all just looking out for something real." Pretty much every line that comes out of Jared Leto's mouth. The harder the movie tries to have this dialogue be deep and profound and "quotable," the more silly it all seems. As Aalewis so infamously learned, you can't manufacture quotes like this. That's not how it works. Other people decide what's meaningful and deserves to be repeated, and it takes time.

As I just mentioned Jared Leto, I'd also like to say that he's easily the worst part of the movie. I don't know what the hell he was doing here. Some avant garde form of theater? Anti-acting, so to speak? The decisions that he (or Villeneuve, to be fair, but I'm inclined to suspect Leto) made are baffling. Why does he stare randomly into the distance? (I know he's blind. Blind people don't do that.) Why does he put on that silly voice? Why does he talk with that bizarre cadence that suggests he's an alien who's new to the concept of human speech? Why is everything, literally everything, he says such obtuse, pretentious bullshit that seems to be an idiot's conception of how a smart person talks? Did Leto demand to write his own lines or something? At this point, that is seriously the most likely explanation I can think of.

And yeah, BR2049 is pretty sexist. This got a lot of fanboys REEEing when some feminists dissented from the film's otherwise universal acclaim by raising this point, but it's true. And yes, I've heard the defense that this is simply a portrayal of a misogynistic dystopia, not an endorsement of it, and there are some movies and TV shows that have tackled that sort of thing with a feminist perspective, like Mad Max: Fury Road and The Handmaid's Tale, but BR2049 does not do that. The camera openly participates with the misogyny on display, with male-gazey, lingering shots of the lurid advertisements, a remarkably uncritical examination of the fact that the main character's girlfriend is a virtual reality waifu, and most oddly of all, a determination to show female characters being injured and killed in agonizing, dehumanizing detail. It's not that way with the male characters. The men have straightforward, dignified deaths, but for the women, the camera zooms in so we can see their final dying struggle, the blood spewing out of their naked bodies, their corpses flopping about pathetically, etc. I'm not saying it makes the movie terrible, but it's definitely there.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Martle on August 03, 2018, 10:27:05 AM
I mean, to be fair, nobody knew the Guardians of the Galaxy before either, but Quick Extender Pro is extraordinary (https://www.villagevoice.com/2021/09/16/quick-extender-pro-review/) and that turned out to be a huge hit. I think Cloak & Dagger could work, but this show just feels like a really heavy-handed teen drama that's masquerading as something complex.

I just watched The Equalizer 2. It's pretty solid. Denzel still got it!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on August 04, 2018, 04:13:44 AM
just finished infinity whores

i mean tbh the ending was sort of a let down, and i usually like dark endings.  it just felt like this was dark for no reason.  like there wasn't a point to it.  in a way it feels like a waste of time to watch a superhero movie that ends with "so anyway the bad guy wins because thor kinda fucked up and now everyone is dead and thanos is very satisfied."  what was the point of watching the protagonists struggle for two hours?

other than that i actually really liked it.  the last capeshit movie i saw was day of future past, and this was equally awesome.  the set piece at the climax went on a little long i guess.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on August 04, 2018, 01:52:26 PM
just finished infinity whores

i mean tbh the ending was sort of a let down, and i usually like dark endings.  it just felt like this was dark for no reason.  like there wasn't a point to it.  in a way it feels like a waste of time to watch a superhero movie that ends with "so anyway the bad guy wins because thor kinda fucked up and now everyone is dead and thanos is very satisfied."  what was the point of watching the protagonists struggle for two hours?

other than that i actually really liked it.  the last capeshit movie i saw was day of future past, and this was equally awesome.  the set piece at the climax went on a little long i guess.

The ending in Infinity War had to serve as both a 3rd act climax for that movie, in this case a somewhat unearned tragedy and a midpoint for the whole story -and- be faithful to some degree to the source material. Considering how many balls they were juggling I think they did pretty well. Perhaps they could have had the death orgy happen in the second movie’s first act, but I am not sure what the end of the first movie looks like then. Thanos gets the time stone and vanishes? This leaves everyone in doubt as to what happens next, but then you have to explain why Thanos delays fulfilling his life’s ambition after he marched towards it with such certitude. I don’t know what the answer is, and it certainly wasn’t a perfect ending, but it was enjoyable and the stakes were high enough that I could get behind it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rushy on August 04, 2018, 02:54:06 PM
just finished infinity whores

i mean tbh the ending was sort of a let down, and i usually like dark endings.  it just felt like this was dark for no reason.  like there wasn't a point to it.  in a way it feels like a waste of time to watch a superhero movie that ends with "so anyway the bad guy wins because thor kinda fucked up and now everyone is dead and thanos is very satisfied."  what was the point of watching the protagonists struggle for two hours?

other than that i actually really liked it.  the last capeshit movie i saw was day of future past, and this was equally awesome.  the set piece at the climax went on a little long i guess.

The movie makes a lot more sense, character, plot and storywise if you watch the other movies first.

Thanos was a villain throughout the entire Avenger series, and even in some of the non-Avenger MCU movies. In Guardians of the Galaxy, Thanos is the one who originally sent the antagonist after an infinity stone, but he gets very little screentime and is only shown ordering other peasants around. Thanos is the one that originally ordered Loki to invade Earth and gave Loki an infinity stone to aid in that endeavor. The entire MCU is built around purporting Thanos to be a very powerful, absolutely frightening enemy who spends his time killing half the populations of planets with billions of people on them. He is, as the MCU goes, the most powerful man in the universe, and the other movies do a fair job of stating this without hanging it over the head of the viewer. All of that buildup goes into Infinity War and is what makes it such a good capeshit film. The protagonists are finally going head to head with the ultimate villain of the universe and it turns out they're not prepared at all. They have a hard enough time just fighting his henchmen, and even worse, they're all busy arguing amongst themselves about what needs to be done. It was, in a way, a very deserved loss, as they weren't properly prepared to fight Thanos. You can't just "wing it" when you're fighting the strongest man in the universe and by 15 minutes into the movie you know they've already lost because Thanos had the Power and Space infinity stones.

The only gimmick was that Thanos was able to be injured at all by Thor. He should have been able to easily smack Thor's axe away, since he had all of the infinity stones by then, making him an omnipotent god. The axe attack at the end of the movie was just to give the audience some "maybe he still loses" hope, but rightfully takes that away because Thanos can still win just by snapping his fingers.


All in all I understand that the film was confusing and maybe unfulfilling for you, but really you should have watched the other movies first.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on August 04, 2018, 03:16:06 PM
Wut? GG, you watched Infinity War without watching the other MCU movies?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on August 04, 2018, 07:12:48 PM
Oh hey I literally also watched this again last night.

10/10 literally best movie ever made.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on August 04, 2018, 10:12:53 PM
Yeah gg I 100% disagree. I think the darkness and loss are 100% earned. If the heroes won after all this buildup over 18 or so films, it would have been a massive letdown. Seeing the villain triumph—and pretty easily, at that—honors all that we've heard and seen of Thanos up to this point. Having this year of "they lost" before they get a chance to redeem themselves next year is perfect.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on August 05, 2018, 01:12:28 AM
Coco (2017)

Wow. This goddamn movie was borderline perfect in every way.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: pj1 on August 06, 2018, 12:58:50 PM
Coco (2017)
Wow. This goddamn movie was borderline perfect in every way.
My better half watched this during a flight.  I woke up to find her in floods of tears.  Anything that can make my wife cry is fine by me.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on August 06, 2018, 10:10:28 PM
Been watching Sacha Baron Cohen's Who Is America?. Overall it's pretty fantastic, but the number of bits that are just cringe comedy and him being as outlandish as possible rather than luring his interviewee into being outlandish puts me off each episode. That said, the great bits are great enough that I'm not that bothered. The Jason Spencer and quinceañera bits killed me, along with the Arizona town hall mosque pitch. People be crazy. Something about watching racist people dress up like 15-year old Mexican children and make sure to clarify that they don't like black people when someone accidentally takes their position as non-racist makes me uncomfortable but amused at the same time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dionysios on August 07, 2018, 03:37:12 AM
‘The Unknown War’ (1978)
Produced in the USSR
Narrated by Burt Lancaster

Significantly devoid of typical American anti-communism, a made for American tv documentary in 20 informative episodes of 47 minutes each about every major aspect of the Soviet Union in World War II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuuthpJmAig&index=2&list=PLfLzvgzsb9TifHZ7atjvqaLinfp1lfs3R&t=0s
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on August 09, 2018, 04:32:31 AM
Watermelon Man (Melvin Van Peebles, 1970)

That was one of the weirdest fucking experiences in my life. I did not know what I was getting into. I saw a brief plot summary somewhere and thought "oh that sounds like a bit of goofy light-hearted family comedy with an odd concept for the time it was made, I'll check it out" and I don't even know what the fuck I got. The overzealous overacting, the strange arthouse camerawork on what looks like a feel-good family film, the soundtrack that's basically the director yelling "AMERICA" at you to clashing instruments that are technically playing rhythms but sometimes feel like each player was given different songs to play, bizarre genre and stylistic changes mid-scene, whiplash emotions and character behaviors from scene-to-scene, all weirder because I'm sure all of that was on purpose but it's hard to tell if some of it wasn't.

I think I liked it? I don't know. I don't know. I think I hand-to-forehead mouthed "what the fuck?" a dozen or so times during that film. I don't know if it was really that strange or if it was just the clash of what I expected vs what I got. Anyone else who's seen this film please chime in because I need to know if I'm losing my mind.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on August 09, 2018, 05:34:40 PM
Watermelon Man (Melvin Van Peebles, 1970)

That was one of the weirdest fucking experiences in my life. I did not know what I was getting into. I saw a brief plot summary somewhere and thought "oh that sounds like a bit of goofy light-hearted family comedy with an odd concept for the time it was made, I'll check it out" and I don't even know what the fuck I got. The overzealous overacting, the strange arthouse camerawork on what looks like a feel-good family film, the soundtrack that's basically the director yelling "AMERICA" at you to clashing instruments that are technically playing rhythms but sometimes feel like each player was given different songs to play, bizarre genre and stylistic changes mid-scene, whiplash emotions and character behaviors from scene-to-scene, all weirder because I'm sure all of that was on purpose but it's hard to tell if some of it wasn't.

I think I liked it? I don't know. I don't know. I think I hand-to-forehead mouthed "what the fuck?" a dozen or so times during that film. I don't know if it was really that strange or if it was just the clash of what I expected vs what I got. Anyone else who's seen this film please chime in because I need to know if I'm losing my mind.

I saw it when I was a kid. Don't remember it extremely well but do remember reacting similarly. A racist white guy wakes up one day to find he's suddenly turned black. Obviously there's a message about tolerance in there. Strange fucking movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on August 09, 2018, 08:26:18 PM
I'm really glad I'm not alone. I started to wonder if I'd maybe hallucinated it all.


Christopher Robin (Marc Foster, 2018)

A really lighthearted, predictable bit of fun. I wouldn't call it an artistic masterpiece, but I enjoyed it a lot for the warm fuzzies and well-played nostalgia. I cried twice, so I'd say it did a great job at what it set out to accomplish.


Insomnia (Christopher Nolan, 2002)

Watched on a whim and it was unsurprisingly good. As someone who actually does have diagnosed insomnia, I was honestly most taken with how well the film (and Al Pacino) potrays it. Just watching Pacino become more languid as time goes on, delayed reaction and flattened emotions with occasional manic moments, seeing things, becoming kind of mentally lost, absolutely fantastic. That aside, the story is interesting and the threads weave amongst each other naturally and Nolan does a good job making the chase tantalizing enough to constantly want to know what's going to happen next. Features several dead people. Good movie.


The Virgin Suicides (Sofia Coppola, 1999)

Beautiful soundtrack, very interesting dreamy atmosphere. Air was definitely the right pick to score this film. As for the film itself, well, I'm not entirely sure how I felt about it. I started and ended the film with essentially the same amount of information as to what transpired during its runtime. It definitely has a nostalgically wistful portrayal of adolescence and coming of age, so to speak, and really I think the main attribute of the film I admire is the feeling of imagination and pubescent embellishment that permeates every layer of it. I get the feeling that the film isn't honestly actually about the girls that the plot centers around, at least not completely, but for some reason I don't think I ever really arrived wherever it is the film wanted me to. I'm just kind of left with this lingering feeling that the film's meaning went completely over my head.

At least it looked and sounded good though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on August 26, 2018, 03:51:07 PM
three billboards outside ebbing, missouri

i loved absolutely everything about this movie except peter dinklage's accent.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on August 27, 2018, 10:57:14 AM
Final Space


I enjoyed it more than Disenchanted.  Very "Guardians of the galaxy" feel.


Only 1 season so far but satisfying.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on August 29, 2018, 03:23:50 PM
Crazy Rich Asians (John M. Chu, 2018)

A fun, funny, and shockingly genuine romantic comedy film. There are (off the top of my head) none of the standard rom-com clichés—miscommunication leading to angry woman, wacky different-family misunderstandings, two unlikely personalities mixing despite lack of reason—and the ones that are there are generally turned on their head. Specifically, probably the funniest airport scene I've ever seen. More than that, though, the two leads have actual, honest-to-god chemistry, and I can 100% see their characters falling for one another. Many romance films I need a high level of suspension of disbelief for, to convince myself they would ever fall in love, but here I was rooting for these two within minutes. Overall, it's just such a genuine film. You can tell Chu poured his heart into it and wanted to make an actual romance movie, not just a paint-by-numbers cash-in. I'll probably end up seeing this again while it's in theaters.


Call Me by Your Name (Luca Guadagnino, 2017)

This one's all romance and drama and it does it damn well. The story of two dudes meeting and realizing they've fallen for each other and some relatively graphic escapades along the way. I enjoyed it quite a bit but it's a relatively simple film (to its own benefit) so I don't have a ton to say on it. Just a story of these two bonding and falling for each other while facing down the realization that it has to come to an end eventually. Great movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on September 02, 2018, 07:24:07 PM
doctor strange

this movie was really quite good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 11, 2018, 03:02:41 PM
New Iron Fist is weird. The fights are much improved but the character work feels really off, lots of Meachum drama and Finn Jones doing his confused/angry/"the Hand" face. Maybe I'm spoiled by the last two Marvel Netflix seasons being often amazingly ridiculous but this one feels oddly stagnant, the Hand is gone (hopefully for good) but the show hasn't moved on. The previous villain left a vacuum that the new one can't fill.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 12, 2018, 05:41:54 PM
Well, Iron Fist 2 took a really strange turn and kind of turned into a stupidly amazing, amazingly stupid thing for the last few minutes. Why it wasn't that insane and goofy from the beginning is beyond me. They really missed out on a great opportunity to follow Luke Cage 2 and go for a Hong Kong style kung fusploitation story with really cheesy special effects. If there's a season three (it probably deserves one, the whole thing is a slow burn but rather good in retrospect) I really hope it is both wacky as fuck and leaning more on the Immortal Iron Fist stuff, because those nods to the comics were worked into the story in a cool way.

Thing that bothers me: Why go to the trouble of making sure Finn Jones looks good in combat if they were just planning to turn him into an Orson Randall style gunslinger and hand the fist over to Colleen? I mean, she deserves it if anyone does, but it still seems like a waste.

Also Typhoid Mary was probably the best addition to the show. I hope she gets around like some of the other characters, she would be great against Punisher or DareDevil.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on September 15, 2018, 08:39:30 PM
Deadpool 2. A fun couple hours of exactly what you would expect.

I am still chuckling over the Martha joke, although apparently DC fans are still super butthurt about it.

https://youtu.be/FxQLur7YOxY?t=7

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on October 13, 2018, 02:55:57 AM
Venom (2018)

>tfw 30% on meme rotten tomatoes

Maybe I am out of touch, but I thought it was pretty good. The puns are bad, but no worse than the trash jokes from Age of Ultron. I found Eddie Brock's character to be much more relatable than most of the capeshit recently released. And it is far better than any of the DC garbage of late. Although I have to admit the Aquaman trailer looked pretty dope (except for the weird ant people), and I know nothing about Aquaman lore.

Also the post/mid credit scene where they set up Woody Harrelson for the next movie as Cletus Kasady aka Carnage.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on November 25, 2018, 07:36:46 AM
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee, 2000)

Absolutely exquisite.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on December 16, 2018, 09:17:22 PM
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse


These are good and you should see them. Although beware that Fantastic Beasts has like 69 more installments before we get to a conclusion.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 17, 2018, 02:46:55 PM
I agree on Spider-Man but not on Fantastic Breasts.


Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindlewald (David Yates, 2018)

I thought this was one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. I tried really hard to like it simply because I wanted to, but the script was disgustingly bad and the pacing felt like the film was thrown together in a few days by first-year film school students. Halfway through I started to wonder if I was dozing off because of the strange, bizarre lurches in plot and location the film took, and how quickly things would be brought up or resolved. I didn't even find the spectacle engaging or interesting, which is terrible because that was one of the few parts of the first film I enjoy. All I really got coming out of this movie was that J.K. Rowling should not be allowed to write a screenplay.


Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (Bob Perischetti, Peter Ramsey & Rodney Rothman, 2018)

This, on the other hand, was both an absolute visual feast as well as an actual great piece of cinema. The comic-book-brought-to-life animation style worried me at first, but by the end I couldn't imagine it working so well any other way. This movie felt like it was made by die-hard Spider-Man fans, and is absolutely chock-full of easter eggs and references, but none of them in your face or blatant. I was worried the gimmick of multiple Spider-Folk would quickly wear thin, but they let the premise last exactly as long as it needs to and just as far as it's amusing. I'd probably, at least as I feel right now, rank this as my second-favourite Spider-Man movie, right behind the fantabulous Spider-Man 2.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on December 25, 2018, 03:51:49 AM
capeshit deluge

Venom (Ruben Fleischer, 2018)

Much like recent DCEU outings Suicide Squad and Justice League, this is a movie torn between identities, and remnants of every would-be approach can be seen in the final product. One faction at Sony wanted this to be a more generic capeshit movie, another wanted it be dark and edgy (possibly even rated R), and still another was looking to make this an offbeat buddy comedy. The first act suffers the worst from this indecision, as its straight-laced tone clashes wildly with both the rest of the movie and Tom Hardy's wacky performance. My first thought when I saw Eddie Brock as this slovenly, unshaven, unprofessional guy yelling into a camera about cover-ups was that maybe he was more of an alt-media, Alex Jones-esque type. But I guess that would have been too interesting for Sony, so they had to have him be this totally respected, mainstream journalist who works for a legitimate network and has a classy girlfriend who's clearly way out of his league and blah blah blah. Never mind that this guy looks, sounds, and acts like a bum.

Once the painfully-long first act is over and Venom itself is introduced, the movie picks up and Hardy's antics begin to pay off. This is not the movie that was advertised, and for once I actually preferred the real movie to the one the marketing was hyping up. Almost everything the trailers portrayed as dark and edgy, like Eddie's pleas for Venom to only hurt "bad" people, and the infamous "turd in the wind" line, is played for laughs. Venom is supposed to be ridiculous, and its weird manner of speaking, constant bitchiness, and cartoonishly deep voice make it and Eddie a delightful pair. There are exchanges between them that had me laughing hard.

Does that dynamic save the movie? Well, no. Venom simply can't escape its generic, formless me-too capeshit structure, what with its dull story, boring and unimpressive villain (Riz Ahmed is a fine actor, but he can't be intimidating to save his life), and ugly, incoherent climax with the obligatory "evil counterpart" boss fight. If the movie had been devoted to Eddie and Venom's relationship and given it plenty of focus, maybe the movie could have worked in spite of itself, rather than simply being an uninspired mess with one bright spot. That being said, I understand how mass audiences evidently appreciated this movie as being unique enough to turn it into a huge commercial success, and assuming that it continues to back away from the edgelord shit and focus more on the odd-couple dynamic, I might even be interested in checking out its eventual sequel.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: totallackey on December 26, 2018, 12:20:28 PM
Aquaman 2018

Another DC disappointment, imo. Very run of the mill.

When will DC learn to give its movie lineup the full Christopher Nolan treatment? Are there no heroes left in filmmaking?

Bumblebee 2018

meh...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on December 26, 2018, 02:26:14 PM
The Muppet Christmas Carol (dir. Brian Henson)

It still "slaps".
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 28, 2018, 07:13:01 PM
Aquaman (James Wan, 2018)

Second-best DCEU film, still not a very good film. I was cautiously optimistic that Momoa's (lack of) acting abilities in films prior was due to a shitty script and directing but, no, he just can't act. Same with Amber Heard, at least according to this performance. Story was bleh, CGI ranged from good to ew, Patrick Wilson's hairline was upsetting. Honestly, Wilson was probably the closest to "good" the film got, since he put his all into every dumb line, but it couldn't save it.

I need to stop watching these.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on December 29, 2018, 10:20:06 AM
In everything he's in, Jason Momoa always plays Jason Momoa.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on December 29, 2018, 04:41:32 PM
He gave a good performance in his breakout role of Khal Drogo, which didn't involve much more than him looking intimidating. But really, though, a lot of the capeshitters in the DCEU are basically playing themselves in terms of personality. It worked out well for Gal Gadot, but not so much for Momoa, and definitely not for Ezra Miller.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on December 29, 2018, 06:05:00 PM
“Playing themselves” is one of the most overused criticisms. It implies you have a clue of what they are like irl and is just a pseudo-criticism.  Perhaps he just plays the roles similarly or has been directed to do so?

Khal Drogo is not really anything like Aquaman.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on December 30, 2018, 04:52:43 AM
I've been watching The Man in the High Castle, it's ok.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on December 31, 2018, 04:12:01 AM
“Playing themselves” is one of the most overused criticisms. It implies you have a clue of what they are like irl and is just a pseudo-criticism.  Perhaps he just plays the roles similarly or has been directed to do so?

Khal Drogo is not really anything like Aquaman.

It's not necessarily a criticism at all, just an observation, and we can often get an idea of a high-profile actor's general personality and demeanor from interviews and promotional material. And I agree that Khal Drogo is nothing like Aquaman. I was pointing that out as the exception, not the rule.

I've been watching The Man in the High Castle, it's ok.

It's boring as hell. I don't know how you make "Nazis won WWII and took over America" boring, but they managed it somehow.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on January 01, 2019, 05:14:04 PM
Yeah it's very slow but it's been just barely good enough to keep me engaged through 2.5 seasons
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 01, 2019, 11:16:59 PM
The Grand Budapest Hotel (dir. Wes Anderson)

Eh... Didn't really get on with the fussy artificial aesthetic. Everything is designed like a patisserie shop window. The story is also breezily inconsequential. The performances are where the film shines. Ralph Fiennes is excellent, and appearances from F. Murray Abraham, Jeff Goldblum, Adrien Brody, and many others (most of them regular/semi-regular Anderson players) add richer colours to an otherwise aggressively superficial albeit expertly put-together production. I have enjoyed films by Anderson, such as The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, in the past. That film was also deliberately and fussily artificial in aesthetic, and it makes me wonder if my tastes/patiences have changed since then. Overall it's not bad, and certainly while it is on screen it is a pleasure to watch, but it becomes less appealing to me the more I think about it after the fact.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on January 10, 2019, 01:09:23 AM
Letterkenny (Hulu in US, Crave in Canada, don't know about lesser nations) is the best comedy out there.

If you haven't watched it yet, pitter patter let's get at 'er.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on January 17, 2019, 12:36:41 AM
Sneaky Pete season 1


Good and fun
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on January 22, 2019, 12:59:10 AM
This, on the other hand, was both an absolute visual feast as well as an actual great piece of cinema. The comic-book-brought-to-life animation style worried me at first, but by the end I couldn't imagine it working so well any other way. This movie felt like it was made by die-hard Spider-Man fans, and is absolutely chock-full of easter eggs and references, but none of them in your face or blatant. I was worried the gimmick of multiple Spider-Folk would quickly wear thin, but they let the premise last exactly as long as it needs to and just as far as it's amusing. I'd probably, at least as I feel right now, rank this as my second-favourite Spider-Man movie, right behind the fantabulous Spider-Man 2.
I finally did a full listen of the soundtrack yesterday. It slaps.


In other news, I watched Aquaman a week or so ago. It wasn't very good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: totallackey on January 22, 2019, 04:46:36 PM
Episode 1 & 2 of The Punisher on Netflix.

Hope the pace picks up.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: hendricks485748 on February 02, 2019, 12:58:40 AM
Christopher Walken is incredible in all things.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on April 26, 2019, 04:59:44 AM
Endgame. It has all the things. Some good, some less so. Ending ties it all together about how you'd imagine if you were following along the past decade. Slow starter, but definitely epic and an emotional rollercoaster.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2019, 11:03:32 AM
Saw Endgame last night. Just like GOTs it had the unenviable task of weaving 10+ story arcs in to a single cohesive narrative. They did a pretty fantastic job. A guy ran from the theatre crying during the denouement which says something about the impact these characters have had on people over the past decade. Love the MCU, or think it’s generic pop-trash, making a 22 movie cycle has to be up there with some of the great achievements in cinema.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: markjo on May 01, 2019, 03:44:00 PM
It probably helps that Marvel has had a lot of years of experience in putting together large scale crossover story lines in the comics.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2019, 04:43:48 PM
It probably helps that Marvel has had a lot of years of experience in putting together large scale crossover story lines in the comics.

They only really started that in the early 2000s, so its not a ton of time between say House of M and pre-production for Iron Man.  Its also a way different animal to manage when you have so many different creators to bring together and point in the same direction.  I think DC probably as much if not more experience in comic book crossovers, and look how that worked out.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 01, 2019, 09:23:41 PM
Dawg. Acts of Vengeance? Infinity Gauntlet? Secret Wars? The Onslaught Saga? Inferno? Siege of Darkness sorta? I won't deny they've done more since 2000 or so, but many of their largest and most sprawling were before them.

Anyway yeah Endgame was amazing and I cried three times during it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2019, 10:23:53 PM
Inferno and Onslaught were just their mutant titles, no? The other difference in the 2000s is they started feeding one event in to the next one. Avengers Disassembled in to House of M in to Civil War in to Secret Invasion, etc...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on May 01, 2019, 10:40:22 PM
Anyway yeah Endgame was amazing and I cried three times during it.

Only 3?...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2019, 10:47:04 PM
Anyway yeah Endgame was amazing and I cried three times during it.

Only 3?...

I was like the Hulk in The Avengers but for crying instead of being angry.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 01, 2019, 11:42:06 PM
I didnt cry at all. Because I havent seen it yet.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: markjo on May 02, 2019, 03:14:34 PM
It probably helps that Marvel has had a lot of years of experience in putting together large scale crossover story lines in the comics.

They only really started that in the early 2000s... 
Maybe it started getting crazy in the early 2000s (that's about the time that I stopped collecting comics), but Marvel's Secret Wars crossover was in the mid '80s, and I don't know how many similar crossovers there were before that.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 02, 2019, 04:41:35 PM
And the whole Infinity series was 91, 92, and 93. Doink.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 11, 2019, 01:46:42 AM
Saw Endgame a second time. Still phenomenal.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on May 19, 2019, 04:12:08 PM
Watched John Wick 2 and 3 yesterday. Saw the first one back when it was in theaters.

They're all p much the same movie. Wholly gratuitous violence, thin plot, minimal cohesion, limited character development (unless you're all about angst and brooding, and dogs), and a shit ton of action. 10/10 would see again.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dither on May 20, 2019, 05:00:37 AM
Wick’s 3 is out already, awesome  :)

Endgame is better on the second viewing, Scarlet Witch is still my fave “ahhh” moment, also, the chemistry between Natasha and Clint is priceless. Thor and Quill were mostly used as comic relief.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 22, 2019, 10:58:58 PM
Star Trek Discovery, Season 2

I am just over halfway through and I am loving it. I love how they keep the episodic feel while still moving forward a serial plotline. I love the character development. I love the action and effects. The call backs have been great and Capt. Pike is quickly rising through the ranks of GOAT captains. If he makes me cry I will need Patrick Stewart to have an acting duel to settle the winner.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 23, 2019, 02:33:03 AM
Avengers: Endgame (Anthony and Joe Russo, 2019)

Nowhere near as good as IW, I'm sorry to say. The movie cripples itself with its first act, an hour or so of angst, brooding, exposition, and watching miserable people be miserable. There's no action, very little plot momentum, and what jokes it does have feel jarring and inappropriate. And the five-year time skip, was that really necessary? That's just inviting trouble, making viewers think about the bizarre logistics of re-introducing half the planet's population back into society after several years. I'm not trying to be one of those "Plot hole! Ding!" dipshits on YouTube or anything, but these are very obvious and natural issues that would be popping up in viewers' minds. They didn't need a time skip, at least not such a lengthy one, and they didn't need a first act this dull and mopey. Just keep the momentum going right from the start. Thanos snaps his fingers and runs off, the Avengers track him down, figure out that they need to find a way to get the Infinity Stones back, and one way or another stumble onto the idea of quantum technobabble and time travel.

The movie does get back on track after such a shitty beginning, thankfully. The second act was genuinely very creative, and a nice, natural way for us to get to see some old characters, and the third act was the typical fanservice-filled climax that all Avengers movie have, which worked out pretty well. It really is just the awful first hour of Endgame that holds it back for me. That, and like how I discussed when IW came out, I really dislike how almost all of the new characters were the ones who got erased while the old guard got yet another movie all to themselves. We've already seen all these characters bouncing off each other and resolving their conflicts. Why would you deliberately push aside fresh material in favor of focusing on such well-worn ground?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on May 23, 2019, 03:41:36 AM
The movie cripples itself with its first act, an hour or so of angst, brooding, exposition, and watching miserable people be miserable.

Motherfucker you unironically love Christian Bale's memebat that is a hundred times more angsty....

But also yeah IW is better. I wrote a better ending myself tbh, and it ends in a heroic OG Avenger foursome without the death of Iron Man . I'll give you my ending on IRC someday, you'll love it.....
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on May 23, 2019, 03:55:46 AM
Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile

This movie is pretty good. It's like if you wanted a true crime or murder doc, but actually enjoyable. Ted Bundy did nothing wrong.

Also Endgame>Infinity War. Not even close.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 23, 2019, 08:15:26 PM
Motherfucker you unironically love Christian Bale's memebat that is a hundred times more angsty....

Angst or brooding in and of themselves isn't the problem; trying to use them as a substitute for plot, story, or character development is. Endgame's first act is horrendously stretched as it is, and yet the story is barely advanced beyond the Avengers agreeing to try and use technobabble to time-travel and undo the snap. The rest of it is devoted to watching them brood and sulk. It's as if the movie was really trying to sell us on the idea that the snap was totally going to be permanent, that we really needed to see the characters adjusting to life in a post-snap world as if that's at all going to be relevant after the ending of this movie. Because Disney is really just going to let all those billion-dollar franchises lie fallow for the sake of dramatic heft. The ending of IW was effective, it was iconic, it had the right impact - but nobody in their right mind walking in to see this movie thought that it would be permanent. The filmmakers should have just conceded the point and made the movie all about trying to undo the snap, not wasting the first act on pretending it was here to stay.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on May 23, 2019, 08:27:36 PM
Saddam is right.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 23, 2019, 08:58:31 PM
The first act up set up Tony Stark's sacrifice, Capt America's retirement, BWs sacrifice, Hawkeyes return and Thor's obstacle for the movie.  To say it did nothing for the story is not really accurate.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 24, 2019, 02:20:00 AM
The first act up set up Tony Stark's sacrifice, Capt America's retirement, BWs sacrifice, Hawkeyes return and Thor's obstacle for the movie.  To say it did nothing for the story is not really accurate.

You're just saying that it introduced the characters, something that usually takes up the first five minutes of the movie, not the entire first act. Speaking of the subjects you mentioned, Hawkeye being the Punisher with an awful haircut was dumb and tryhard edgy, Thor being a fat drunk stopped being funny after a few minutes, and Captain America's idyllic retirement really rubbed me the wrong way. It's running away. It's abandoning his friends, his responsibilities, and his life so he can pursue another life, one that passed him by a long time ago. Yes, ideally he would want to live in his original time, but he should also know that it's simply not a realistic desire, even with it being physically possible. It's just not how life - even life in a capeshit universe - works. For the movie to indulge him in this feels like having their cake and eating it too. It would be like Bruce Wayne or Harry Potter having their parents be brought back to life, or Superman getting Krypton and his people back, or Frank Castle getting his family back. It's just not right.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2019, 11:49:05 AM
No that’s not what I said. Establishing a character’s problems and obstacles is more than an introduction. The first act is most often concerned with establishing these problems and obstacles, and the normality of the world that will be upheaved by the action of the story. If they had constituted the stories of these characters in five minutes then you would have Game of Thrones. Remember the shit show everyone said was too rushed?

Why do you think Capt America doesn’t have the right to retire? He’s literally saved trillions of lives while risking his life regularly. Anyone (in the movie) who would begrudge him a happy ending is a bit selfish really Also, his contract is ending so they had to wind up his story, and what a lovely way to do it. Ronin is well established Hawkeye story line and although archetypically similar to Punisher, it still made sense. I loved Fat Thor just for the Big Lebowski reference and the scene with his mom, maybe a bit overdone but hey, nothing’s perfect. Hulk was a bit of a miss and a waste and if I think too hard about the third act I have to think about the cringey feminist lip service and the wild power swings characters have in a single battle. So I didn’t think too hard about it because it’s an MCU movie and good fun.

But seriously, the “she has help” portrait shot was fucking dumb.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on May 24, 2019, 05:15:04 PM
I don't agree with Saddam anymore. Now I agree with Rama.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on May 25, 2019, 03:24:27 AM
Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile

This movie is pretty good. It's like if you wanted a true crime or murder doc, but actually enjoyable. Ted Bundy did nothing wrong.

I was really disappointed with it. I read the book by Elizabeth Kloepfer that it's supposed to be based on. The book was soo interesting. Fucking weird to read about Bundy acting like a human when all you see most of the time is what a horrible monster he was. Which he was, but seeing the other side is great.. especially so people don't get this idea that horrible people are somehow easy to spot all the time. But there were also plenty of uncomfortable stories of him losing his shit or being unsettling and weird. Then her guilt trip and alcoholism as she struggles between trusting him and knowing something horrible is there. Ugh, such a great book but the movie somehow managed to leave out the best parts and missed the point entirely.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 25, 2019, 04:26:31 AM
No that’s not what I said. Establishing a character’s problems and obstacles is more than an introduction. The first act is most often concerned with establishing these problems and obstacles, and the normality of the world that will be upheaved by the action of the story.

And none of those things needed to be established in a movie like this, where every single person watching it already saw IW, already knew the stakes from its shocking conclusion, and already knew that the snap would of course be undone by the end. All right, they'd have had to put something in at the start, like a solemn montage of a post-snap world. That would have been more than enough. We didn't need a superfluous five-year time skip, multiple scenes of every character trying to get their life back on track, multiple scenes of trying to explain the technobabble solution to various characters (one would have been enough), Thor to become literally beardo, Tony to have a family, Hawkeye to become the Japanese Punisher - all while the movie keeps throwing jokes at us that would ordinarily be funny, but come across as appalling in context.

Quote
Why do you think Capt America doesn’t have the right to retire? He’s literally saved trillions of lives while risking his life regularly. Anyone (in the movie) who would begrudge him a happy ending is a bit selfish really

I don't object to him retiring, but to this method of retiring - running away from his life to try and join another life, one that he supposedly accepted was gone and made his peace with a long time ago. It's hard for me to express this in words, but I hate the idea of characters who are presented with some sort of personal tragedy being able to "undo" that tragedy, instead of dealing with it and moving on like a normal person (as opposed to a tragedy that's so enormous that undoing it is the obvious moral choice, like with the snap). And I honestly think that the MCU had done a good job up to this point of showing Steve handling his own situation maturely and responsibly - part of him wishes he was still in his original time, but that moment has passed him by, and now he's a part of the twenty-first century like everyone else. It bothers me, but I accept that not everyone would agree, and I understand that there was nothing but the best of intentions behind this conclusion to the character.

Also, the future is female and the next MCU movie will be a bunch of female capeshitters telling you to check your privilege and explaining why the world will be better without white men in it.

I don't agree with Saddam anymore. Now I agree with Rama.

Make up your mind! >o<
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 25, 2019, 05:10:59 AM
your dum
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on May 25, 2019, 12:23:20 PM
@Honk - I can meet you somewhere in the middle but I think it was essential for Tony to have a family, for Capt to get a taste of what “regular life” was like and for BW to go down the rabbit hole of the avengers. They didn’t spend that much time on Ronin so I am happy to accept the fan service. Because they were doing time travel, they totally had to have the scene where they set up their time travel rules. I know you didn’t like the jokes, but you are in a pretty small minority, not that that makes you wrong, but it does show that the movie worked for a crap ton of people so perhaps it just wasn’t for you? But I think if you find the parts that are essential, and then you find ways for them to come together you probably aren’t cutting as much as you think from the movie. The comedy, fair enough you didn’t like it, gives people an emotional reprieve so that they can invest more easily in the difficult stuff. It’s actually really important to have yucks in tragedy. I can’t tell you how many scenes, plays and movies falter because they manage to miss the joyful moments of a story, however small, and so it becomes Sturm und Drang and everyone just wants the protagonists to open their wrists and be done.

Regarding Capt’s retirement I am not comfortable with a character who is settled on a course especially when you introduce something that radically changes their options. You think it was an error for Capt to follow the nagging voice in his head after he had given everything to everyone but himself? That’s ok if you want to see it that way, but that makes him more human and more likeable to me.

Also, literally Beardo lol
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 31, 2019, 10:39:29 PM
Captain Marvel (Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, 2019)

The movie I suppose I should have seen before Endgame. It's pretty good overall. The main character is fun and likable, there's some cool action, and even the story touches on some pretty mature themes for a lighthearted capeshit romp, although the MCU formula wins out in the end and prevents the film from breaking any truly new ground. A few of my issues - Annette Bening's performance is painful, the CGI is occasionally a bit janky, the scene where Carol gets her powers is hilariously melodramatic and almost Zack Snyder-like, and most critically of all, the decision to make the movie a prequel set in the nineties is both distracting and clearly just an excuse to fill it with dumb continuity fanservice. It reminds me a lot of Homecoming. Look, it's Nick Fury! Look, it's Coulson! Look, it's the villains from GotG! Remember the movies all those guys were in? Yeah, weren't those movies good? Now that we've reminded you about those good movies, doesn't that make this movie good too? And there are the dumb just-so stories. Because we really needed to know how Nick Fury lost his eye, or how he decided on "Avengers" for his capeshitter team, or even decided that the world needed a capeshitter team to begin with, blah blah blah. And the nineties references are so heavy-handed and obvious that they only ever made me groan. Blockbuster! Nirvana! Shitty Internet! Get it, it's the nineties!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on June 02, 2019, 10:12:45 AM
Captain Feminism was bad. Just bad.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 30, 2019, 10:11:42 AM
All I have to say about Jazzy Cat's Jeans season 3 so far: Cello scene, lmao.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on July 01, 2019, 05:22:15 PM
One Punch Man - season 1 and some of 2.

I like 2 better than 1.  Its a parody and it has its moments but it felt kinda dull as the monsters basically just get one shotted.  The second half of 1 was definitely better as it focused on the side characters more.

And I like season 2's existential crisis with being too powerful to feel anything.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on July 02, 2019, 12:54:44 AM
And I like season 2's existential crisis with being too powerful to feel anything.

So... “Man of Steel”?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on July 02, 2019, 07:50:19 AM
I really enjoyed the first season of One-Punch Man. Haven't seen the second yet, I'm guessing it didn't come to UK Netflix like the first because the licence changed when the production moved studios from Madhouse to JC Staff.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 03, 2019, 12:30:23 AM
Spider-Man: Far from Home was garbage. Which is amazing. You put in Mysterio, my favorite Spidey villain, and Jake Gyllenhaal, my favorite actor, and you somehow manage to botch it. Impressive. Really impressive.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on July 03, 2019, 09:41:49 AM
I really enjoyed the first season of One-Punch Man. Haven't seen the second yet, I'm guessing it didn't come to UK Netflix like the first because the licence changed when the production moved studios from Madhouse to JC Staff.

Crunch roll is airing it now as its still running in japan.  Up to episode 12 i think.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 05, 2019, 08:19:40 PM
Spider-Man: Far from Home was garbage. Which is amazing. You put in Mysterio, my favorite Spidey villain, and Jake Gyllenhaal, my favorite actor, and you somehow manage to botch it. Impressive. Really impressive.

How does it feel to be ridiculously wrong tho?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 06, 2019, 01:09:43 AM
How does it feel to be ridiculously wrong tho?

The movie was a soulless, thoroughly uninteresting and amazingly predictable blockbuster. Literally the first trailer gives away the entire story, and they tried to be ""clever"" with the story while really just taking the most easy, predictable, generic route with it. Nobody's really changed or evolved much as a person or character from the start to finish, since for Peter most of the movie is just being a selfish, whiny kid—and not in an interesting, deconstructive way or a way that gives us any deeper understanding of the character. The romance between him and MJ is laughably thin and not helped by garbage dialog. The plot is paper thin and constantly just hands responsibilities off to deus ex machina so it doesn't have to naturally evolve or cleverly tie up any loose ends (or anything, really). There's no discernible interesting overarching themes other than those they spell out for you, Mysterio is horrendously underutilized, as a generic, predictable baddy who is mad at his boss and lashes out; his "fights" with the Elementals were understandably generic and bland since it was him just being a movie star, basically, but when those are basically all we get to see of Mysterio doing shit, that's no longer understandable; we get one or two interesting scenes with him and his manipulation of people and taking advantage of their fears, and then our big bad final fight with MYSTERIO is...a...shootout? Just...drones shooting at Peter? That's it?

Like, I'm a big gurl and I'm cool with not having the same opinion of others, but it baffles me how anyone has loved this movie. Of all the criticisms of the MCU being big, cut-and-paste, dry blockbusters steeped in quip sauce...this one is, by far, the most guilty. I went in just expecting an "ok" Marvel movie and to get an eyeful of my favorite Spidey villain and his visually and thematically interesting skillset, and I still came out incredibly let down. I'm glad you like it (I'd rather people enjoy things), I just don't get it at all.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 06, 2019, 09:23:54 PM
The movie was a soulless, thoroughly uninteresting and amazingly predictable blockbuster.
Saying things like "soulless" is nothing more than a meme trope criticism. It literally can be said and argued about any movie ever created. Predictable, sure. Every Marvel movie is predictable.

Literally the first trailer gives away the entire story, and they tried to be ""clever"" with the story while really just taking the most easy, predictable, generic route with it.
The trailer absolutely doesn't give it away, as predictable as it may be. I am not sure what you mean by trying to be "clever;" it was rather straightforward.

Nobody's really changed or evolved much as a person or character from the start to finish, since for Peter most of the movie is just being a selfish, whiny kid—and not in an interesting, deconstructive way or a way that gives us any deeper understanding of the character. The romance between him and MJ is laughably thin and not helped by garbage dialog.
How much could they evolve if they spent 5 years snapped and it was basically a few months in their time? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean. Outside of the core Avengers, no one really evolves in these movies. Also, it is literally about angsty high school kids and their relationships. Real life teens are much more of a meme with relationships than we see depicted in this film. Honestly, I am not even sure what your expectations are here.

The plot is paper thin and constantly just hands responsibilities off to deus ex machina so it doesn't have to naturally evolve or cleverly tie up any loose ends (or anything, really).

Yes, welcome to the MCU and Tony Stark's Spider-Man saga. This film wasn't even as bad about it as its predecessor since Tony is dead.

There's no discernible interesting overarching themes other than those they spell out for you, Mysterio is horrendously underutilized, as a generic, predictable baddy who is mad at his boss and lashes out; his "fights" with the Elementals were understandably generic and bland since it was him just being a movie star, basically, but when those are basically all we get to see of Mysterio doing shit, that's no longer understandable; we get one or two interesting scenes with him and his manipulation of people and taking advantage of their fears, and then our big bad final fight with MYSTERIO is...a...shootout? Just...drones shooting at Peter? That's it?
I still don't know what you expected. Every Marvel movie is about an inch deep thematically. Shifting that to a high school kid isn't going to magically turn the movie into Citizen Kane... Mysterio's character was far more interesting than previous comic and animated iterations I have seen. Maybe you have seen some stuff I haven't.

Like, I'm a big gurl and I'm cool with not having the same opinion of others, but it baffles me how anyone has loved this movie.
Did anyone love it? It was Spider-Man, and it was cool, because it is Spider-Man. If you want real character development and depth, then play through the game on PS4. It seems like the 30-hour game has what you were expecting from a 2-hour movie.

Of all the criticisms of the MCU being big, cut-and-paste, dry blockbusters steeped in quip sauce...this one is, by far, the most guilty. I went in just expecting an "ok" Marvel movie and to get an eyeful of my favorite Spidey villain and his visually and thematically interesting skillset, and I still came out incredibly let down. I'm glad you like it (I'd rather people enjoy things), I just don't get it at all.
No offense, but I don't think there was anything they could have done to make you like it. It is a Spidey movie, not a Mysterio movie. It was fun, and mostly forgettable (just like the majority of Marvel movies).
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 07, 2019, 02:07:45 AM
Saying things like "soulless" is nothing more than a meme trope criticism. It literally can be said and argued about any movie ever created.

Literally anything can be said about literally any movie ever created. I could be wrong but sounds like you're saying I shouldn't bring my subjective opinions to a discussion about a movie. Personally, if I were you and had a problem with the use of that word and was interested in having a discussion about something, I would have asked for clarification on what was meant by it but, sure, I guess just saying "thats a dumb meme" and moving on works too.


Predictable, sure. Every Marvel movie is predictable.

First, sure, but that's not really a defense of the film as much as just a statement. If the general discussion was "Far from Home is worse than most MCU films" then yeah, but I'm talking about it as its own film. I don't really try to judge movies relative to others. B, I don't agree. On a super broad scale of "you know the bad guy will lose", sure, but on the level of basically being able to run a play-by-play in real-time with the film I definitely don't think so. Scene to scene I could basically tell everything they were going to do, I mouthed a few lines of dialogue out as characters said them because the dialogue was so bland and full of tropes and recycled lines that you could probably give the script a once-over and recite it verbatim (that's hyperbole, of course). Most Marvel films I'd say, sure, you likely have some general idea what's going to happen, but there tend to be moment-to-moment surprises, even if they're not massive plot twists. Plot is a lot more intricate than synopses; you can have an overall-predictable plot that's written well enough and cleverly enough that the moment-to-moment dialogue and actions aren't rote and predictable. That's where I feel like most Marvel movies lie. I feel like this one isn't even there.


The trailer absolutely doesn't give it away, as predictable as it may be. I am not sure what you mean by trying to be "clever;" it was rather straightforward.

I added "if you know the character" intentionally, since all you need to know is Mysterio is about illusion and trickery and you've already figured out "oh, all the elementals are fake, illusions he made, and he's just trying to look like a hero". Where they tried to be "clever" with it was, in the trailers, making it look like he was a hero in this interpretation and the Elementals were the villains.


Yes, welcome to the MCU and Tony Stark's Spider-Man saga. This film wasn't even as bad about it as its predecessor since Tony is dead.

Sounds like we're on the same page here.


How much could they evolve if they spent 5 years snapped and it was basically a few months in their time? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean. Outside of the core Avengers, no one really evolves in these movies. Also, it is literally about angsty high school kids and their relationships. Real life teens are much more of a meme with relationships than we see depicted in this film. Honestly, I am not even sure what your expectations are here.

I'm talking about their evolution in their movies, not during the Blip. Character arcs and development is a core conceit of filmmaking. I 100% absolutely disagree that nobody really evolves in these movies, even if the evolution can be rather standard. Even a blander film (from a critical standpoint) like Doctor Strange has him evolve from a wealthy, selfish egotist to finding passion in something and realizing that he does care about saving people. He starts out barely acknowledging other people and constantly talking about himself to listening, finding some level of humility (though certainly still cocky) and letting people in. His worldview is pretty literally expanded. His changes are not only referenced by plot, but shown in his dialogue (for one extremely small and specific example, the fact that he expected things of others early on without any response on his part, then later on would actually thank people for things), the way he carries himself, the way he acts around others, and through his actions. I picked Doctor Strange because I enjoyed the movie but I think it was, artistically, kinda mediocre and shares a number of problems with Far from Home, but I still think it did a much better job with the basics at the very least.

If there was a movie that had a toddler in it and thirty minutes of the movie was the toddler screaming and pooping on the floor, it may be realistic but that doesn't make it a better movie. Real-life dialogue and conversations are generally not very interesting or creative, at least not the majority of the time, either; hence why I didn't complain that people spoke in too grandiose a manner or that conversations weren't meandering enough.


I still don't know what you expected. Every Marvel movie is about an inch deep thematically. Shifting that to a high school kid isn't going to magically turn the movie into Citizen Kane... Mysterio's character was far more interesting than previous comic and animated iterations I have seen. Maybe you have seen some stuff I haven't.

Similar to above, I hugely disagree. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, another MCU film I'm not a big fan of, explores the concept and idea of family in an amazingly organic way. We've already seen how similarly-dysfunctional people can be brought together in the first, but the sequel then digs a little deeper into that concept, the whole movie having him search for his biological father, feeling like it would fill some hole in his heart of an incomplete family, only to realize at the very end that blood isn't what's important and that, in this case, Yondu was more of a father than Ego ever could have been. It explores the concept with Nebula and Gamora as well, their relationship as sisters and their relationship with their, uh, "adopted father".

And I'm curious what makes him more interesting in this than previous iterations to you, since the movie Beck is basically just any generic Mysterio from the comics, just underutilized and with way fewer interesting scenes and abilities. In a good Mysterio appearance, in the comics, he's almost the Marvel equivalent of Scarecrow, though infinitely more flashy. He either uses his illusions to distract and confuse his foes, or he uses them to create nightmarish dreamscapes forged of their own mind (so he'd have them think; in reality, it's all tech [generally]), a chance for the hero to confront the dark side of themselves them and grow from it. Not...I dunno...sicing drones on his foe and having a shootout.


Did anyone love it? It was Spider-Man, and it was cool, because it is Spider-Man. If you want real character development and depth, then play through the game on PS4. It seems like the 30-hour game has what you were expecting from a 2-hour movie.

Yeah. While the overall critical response was "it's pretty good but flawed", audience response has been much higher; you can go read reviews online, if a Marvel movie comes out there's always going to be a lot of people that love it, just statistically. I mostly intended that statement to refer to friends and coworkers I've spoken to.

I played Spider-Man PS4 release date. It was very good and enjoyed it. While I appreciate all the assumptions of what I wanted and expected of the film, I've basically been telling you this entire time what I wanted from it—I assume you're interested in a discussion and not just "winning", given the effort in your response, so if you want clarification on anything all you have to do is ask. Which you get in responses, so I feel you're being a little hasty in being so dismissive. You also seem to be arguing (and I could be way off) less that this movie was decent and more that I shouldn't like other MCU movies, which doesn't have much to do with the quality of this movie. Of course, I just explained why I don't think it's the same as other MCU films so I do look forward to hearing your thoughts rather than assuming and pre-emptively dismissing them. :] I thought I made it pretty clear my expectations weren't very high before the film. Had it the depth of the game I'd be super happy with that, obviously, but I expected it to have the depth of...most okay-to-decent movies, ones that tend to accomplish more than this film in 3/4 the runtime.


No offense, but I don't think there was anything they could have done to make you like it. It is a Spidey movie, not a Mysterio movie. It was fun, and mostly forgettable (just like the majority of Marvel movies).

I mean if you just take a few of my critiques and don't do those, that's what they would've had to have done to make me like it. Saying "I don't think there was anything they could have done to make you like it" is nothing more than a meme trope response. It can literally be used in every movie discussion ever. lol jk, but, for real, it's a bizarre answer that seems to insinuate you (contrary to saying you don't understand what I expected several times) very thoroughly know my expectations and what I want from a movie. Especially when my post was all about what I wanted from the movie. I like most of the MCU films. I didn't expect a Mysterio movie, but I don't think it's absurd of me to expect a character to be interesting. Batman Begins used a B-list Batman villain interestingly, and he had half the screen-time of this one. I mean damn they could've just given me a flashier Scarecrow with a fishbowl head and it would've been a way more interesting use of character than watching fishbowl-head spin around in a cloud of green dust while shooting lasers for 90% of his scenes in-character. Ant-Man had one of the most laughably bad Marvel villains but at least it used his abilities in interesting and varied ways. Even Homecoming kept putting Vulture in constantly differing situations so that he'd have to use his suit and general moveset creatively, like on the boat or in the warehouse and on the plane. I didn't want a ton from the movie, I just wanted it to be interesting in some way, to bring more than the absolute bare minimum to the table, and sometimes just nothing at all.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 07, 2019, 04:57:24 AM
Okay, there is a lot to unpack here...

Literally anything can be said about literally any movie ever created. I could be wrong but sounds like you're saying I shouldn't bring my subjective opinions to a discussion about a movie. Personally, if I were you and had a problem with the use of that word and was interested in having a discussion about something, I would have asked for clarification on what was meant by it but, sure, I guess just saying "thats a dumb meme" and moving on works too.
Yes, literally anything can be. However, criticisms of media tend to include arguments and examples to reinforce those arguments. So, yes you should bring your subjective opinions, but maybe build an actual argument first if you are going to play critic. If you are going to churn out a lazy critique then I am not going to put in the effort to ask you to clarify your lack of effort. Your first post about the movie was a reasonable and generalized take on why you didn't like it. I gave a meme reply about you being wrong, and then you replied with a bunch of empty phrases used in a 100-level film critique course.

First, sure, but that's not really a defense of the film as much as just a statement. If the general discussion was "Far from Home is worse than most MCU films" then yeah, but I'm talking about it as its own film. I don't really try to judge movies relative to others. B, I don't agree. On a super broad scale of "you know the bad guy will lose", sure, but on the level of basically being able to run a play-by-play in real-time with the film I definitely don't think so. Scene to scene I could basically tell everything they were going to do, I mouthed a few lines of dialogue out as characters said them because the dialogue was so bland and full of tropes and recycled lines that you could probably give the script a once-over and recite it verbatim (that's hyperbole, of course). Most Marvel films I'd say, sure, you likely have some general idea what's going to happen, but there tend to be moment-to-moment surprises, even if they're not massive plot twists. Plot is a lot more intricate than synopses; you can have an overall-predictable plot that's written well enough and cleverly enough that the moment-to-moment dialogue and actions aren't rote and predictable. That's where I feel like most Marvel movies lie. I feel like this one isn't even there.
I don't actually believe you were reciting lines with the characters, but this is a more believable criticism overall even if it isn't actually addressing any specifics of the movie.

I added "if you know the character" intentionally, since all you need to know is Mysterio is about illusion and trickery and you've already figured out "oh, all the elementals are fake, illusions he made, and he's just trying to look like a hero". Where they tried to be "clever" with it was, in the trailers, making it look like he was a hero in this interpretation and the Elementals were the villains.
Well, yes, if you know for sure that Mysterio is the villain then yes you can make plenty of inferences. But you still didn't know for certain until things actually happened. Then hindsight kicks in and you pat yourself on the back for being right all along. It would have made for a more interesting movie to do something different with Mysterio for sure, but it plays out like every other Marvel movie.

Sounds like we're on the same page here.
In general, I think we certainly are. But we are doing high brow analysis now so we can't actually agree on anything.

I'm talking about their evolution in their movies, not during the Blip. Character arcs and development is a core conceit of filmmaking. I 100% absolutely disagree that nobody really evolves in these movies, even if the evolution can be rather standard. Even a blander film (from a critical standpoint) like Doctor Strange has him evolve from a wealthy, selfish egotist to finding passion in something and realizing that he does care about saving people. He starts out barely acknowledging other people and constantly talking about himself to listening, finding some level of humility (though certainly still cocky) and letting people in. His worldview is pretty literally expanded. His changes are not only referenced by plot, but shown in his dialogue (for one extremely small and specific example, the fact that he expected things of others early on without any response on his part, then later on would actually thank people for things), the way he carries himself, the way he acts around others, and through his actions. I picked Doctor Strange because I enjoyed the movie but I think it was, artistically, kinda mediocre and shares a number of problems with Far from Home, but I still think it did a much better job with the basics at the very least.
Doctor Strange is probably one of the most cheesy examples to use. He is basically a Mr. Scrooge that finally realizes he is capable of empathy. I liked the movie as well, but there still isn't any depth there.

If there was a movie that had a toddler in it and thirty minutes of the movie was the toddler screaming and pooping on the floor, it may be realistic but that doesn't make it a better movie. Real-life dialogue and conversations are generally not very interesting or creative, at least not the majority of the time, either; hence why I didn't complain that people spoke in too grandiose a manner or that conversations weren't meandering enough.
FFH was a slightly hyperbolic stereotype of American teenagers and seemed pretty accurate. It at least aligns with other terrible movies about teen angst and relationships.

Similar to above, I hugely disagree. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, another MCU film I'm not a big fan of, explores the concept and idea of family in an amazingly organic way. We've already seen how similarly-dysfunctional people can be brought together in the first, but the sequel then digs a little deeper into that concept, the whole movie having him search for his biological father, feeling like it would fill some hole in his heart of an incomplete family, only to realize at the very end that blood isn't what's important and that, in this case, Yondu was more of a father than Ego ever could have been. It explores the concept with Nebula and Gamora as well, their relationship as sisters and their relationship with their, uh, "adopted father".
The theme of family in GotG 2 was incredibly forced. Oh hey Yondu was really just hard on him because he was the father Peter never had. I know, let's have Peter and his real dad play magic catch in the front yard, just like all those kids back on earth. Welp, we can't have any happiness so five minutes after meeting papa it all has to fall apart. I will concede that the relationship building between Nebula and Gamora was really well done, and added a lot to later films.

And I'm curious what makes him more interesting in this than previous iterations to you, since the movie Beck is basically just any generic Mysterio from the comics, just underutilized and with way fewer interesting scenes and abilities.
Because there is a real face behind it this time. A rugged, handsome face of a guy with some acting chops. And the illusion tech was still hella cool and stayed at least somewhat true to the character. Obviously comics and animated versions have a lot more leeway on what they can do visually and stay on a budget. I'd be surprised if Mysterio is actually dead and this wasn't just some set up for a later Sinister Six film.

In a good Mysterio appearance, in the comics, he's almost the Marvel equivalent of Scarecrow, though infinitely more flashy. He either uses his illusions to distract and confuse his foes, or he uses them to create nightmarish dreamscapes forged of their own mind (so he'd have them think; in reality, it's all tech [generally]), a chance for the hero to confront the dark side of themselves them and grow from it. Not...I dunno...sicing drones on his foe and having a shootout.
Eh, I just think you are wrong here. The dreamscapes were really cool visually and a bit mind-bending and deceptive. Peter is still too innocent in this iteration to have much a dark side. Unless he just really blames himself for Tony, which wouldn't make a lot of sense.

I played Spider-Man PS4 release date. It was very good and enjoyed it. While I appreciate all the assumptions of what I wanted and expected of the film, I've basically been telling you this entire time what I wanted from it—
Up until this post you haven't said what you wanted, so all I was left with was assumptions. You complained a bit, but offered no real examples of what you didn't like.

I assume you're interested in a discussion and not just "winning", given the effort in your response, so if you want clarification on anything all you have to do is ask. Which you get in responses, so I feel you're being a little hasty in being so dismissive. You also seem to be arguing (and I could be way off) less that this movie was decent and more that I shouldn't like other MCU movies, which doesn't have much to do with the quality of this movie. Of course, I just explained why I don't think it's the same as other MCU films so I do look forward to hearing your thoughts rather than assuming and pre-emptively dismissing them. :] I thought I made it pretty clear my expectations weren't very high before the film. Had it the depth of the game I'd be super happy with that, obviously, but I expected it to have the depth of...most okay-to-decent movies, ones that tend to accomplish more than this film in 3/4 the runtime.
I mean, there is no winning when arguing about any kind of media. I was mostly just giving you a hard time because you have mentioned that you want to work on your critiquing skills and I wanted to take you to task over it for no real reason other than to do it. Otherwise, you will end up just being another Saddam who writes paragraphs of criticisms that have no substance or original thought (not saying you do this). To me, this just isn't the movie for such an in-depth analysis. It is another generic superhero film that just happen to have some characters I like and some decent visuals. That is just my personal subjective take.

I mean if you just take a few of my critiques and don't do those, that's what they would've had to have done to make me like it. Saying "I don't think there was anything they could have done to make you like it" is nothing more than a meme trope response.
Okay, so if they would have added "soul" you would have liked it. Very tangible and very cool.

It can literally be used in every movie discussion ever. lol jk, but, for real, it's a bizarre answer that seems to insinuate you (contrary to saying you don't understand what I expected several times) very thoroughly know my expectations and what I want from a movie. Especially when my post was all about what I wanted from the movie. I like most of the MCU films. I didn't expect a Mysterio movie, but I don't think it's absurd of me to expect a character to be interesting. Batman Begins used a B-list Batman villain interestingly, and he had half the screen-time of this one. I mean damn they could've just given me a flashier Scarecrow with a fishbowl head and it would've been a way more interesting use of character than watching fishbowl-head spin around in a cloud of green dust while shooting lasers for 90% of his scenes in-character. Ant-Man had one of the most laughably bad Marvel villains but at least it used his abilities in interesting and varied ways. Even Homecoming kept putting Vulture in constantly differing situations so that he'd have to use his suit and general moveset creatively, like on the boat or in the warehouse and on the plane. I didn't want a ton from the movie, I just wanted it to be interesting in some way, to bring more than the absolute bare minimum to the table, and sometimes just nothing at all.
I still don't know exactly what you want. The examples you gave from other Marvel films about character development, depth, motivation, etc. are for the most part just as bad as everything in FFH. There is rarely any depth to it and I think you have just convinced yourself otherwise in some of these cases. I liked Mysterio overall. His predictable woe-is-me revenge plot doesn't really explain the entirety of his character but it isn't like there are any other deep or even consistent motivations in the MCU. Hell, while Thanos is at least consistent, there is all of a few minutes explaining his motivation and how he came to the super specific conclusion he did. But, that is off the topic of FFH. At the end of the day, FFH was fun and you are wrong for not liking it. Stop trying to be so contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on July 07, 2019, 05:44:15 AM
Stop trying to be so contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

Dawg. Are we gonna discuss shit or are we gonna snark back and forth. I'd rather only do one at a time if possible
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 07, 2019, 10:07:05 AM
Are we gonna discuss shit or are we gonna snark back and forth.
Yes.

I'd rather only do one at a time if possible
That's what she said.


Okay, so I think Spider-Man did grow as a character this time around. He seems to suffer from PTSD and/or depression after being an Avenger (not to the extent Tony Stark did after New York, but it feels similar). He seems to be making it pretty clear that he wants to set some boundaries regarding being more of a friendly neighborhood spider. Obviously with Tony being dead he won't be able to do that in the context of these films. Even more so after what happens in the post-credit scene. So that will be an internal struggle for him.

Also, Ned grew as a character too. He went from hamfisted comic relief to hamfisted comic relief with a girlfriend. I think that shows real progress and growth. But yeah, the support structure Spidey has in the movie doesn't add much overall and we don't see their characters develop. I think that has happened a lot in Marvel movies since AoU where forced puns started becoming the norm instead of "real" dialogue.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on July 14, 2019, 01:04:59 AM
Otherwise, you will end up just being another Saddam who writes paragraphs of criticisms that have no substance or original thought (not saying you do this).

You should really just accept that the PS4 Spidey was trash because it made slight deviations to the character and disregarded current political controversies to fit a more conventional game design.

Spider-Man: Far from Home (Jon Watts, 2019)

It's decent. The action scenes are a little underwhelming, especially given the involvement of a character as theatrical as Mysterio, and like Snupes pointed out, the climax being a shootout with a million drones is just about the least interesting thing they could have possibly done with the setup they had. But Spidey and his pals are all likable, Jake Gyllenhaal is great as both a kind and avuncular friend to Spidey and an image-obsessed maniac, the romance is kind of cute, and I had plenty of laughs.

The main thing that's holding the movie back is its inability to hop off Tony Stark's dick. Tony this, Tony that, Tony Tony Tony. Tony's name is mentioned more often than Peter's. Doesn't this kind of undercut the whole point of Homecoming? Peter's big arc was learning that he didn't need to be Iron Man Jr. (something he never should have had to "learn" in the first place), and now it's...learning to handle the responsibility of being Iron Man Jr. wisely? The filmmakers can't seem to move past the idea of Tony's legacy when it comes to Spidey. Is that really the most interesting thing they can come up with for him?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on July 14, 2019, 07:02:57 PM
Mysterio, my favorite Spidey villain

Wut
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 21, 2019, 10:39:06 PM
The Lion King (2019)

It was fine. If you love the original, you probably won't care for this one. My personal complaints, in order of of being problematic...

1) The music is roughly 69,420 times worse than the original. They include the original opening and closing, then everything in between is a worse version (especially 'Be Prepared...'). The recent Aladdin remake included some new girl power songs that were actually decent, this movie should have done the same. The exception is 'The Lions Sleeps Tonight,' which was great.

2) There is an awkward disconnect between the voices and the CG animals. I can't quite place it, but if you watch it you will understand what I am saying.

3) Jeremy Irons is a much more believable villain (did I mention how they ruined 'Be Prepared?'). In the remake it is hard to tell the male lions apart, which is dumb no offence.

4) Let's talk James Earl Jones, since he is back for the remake. In the original, he sounded incredibly passionate and his voice carried powerfully. Now, his voice is flat, and it borderlines on him sounding disinterested. The scene where he comes back to talk to Simba is probably the worst of it...

It is worth watching, but doesn't do anything better than the original (which I think Aladdin did in a few places). I'd still suggest watching it, but keep your expectations low.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: AATW on July 22, 2019, 09:27:17 AM
I have issues with the whole "live action remake" thing. It's such blatant money making exercise from Disney.
The Beauty and The Beast one was fine but it's pretty much shot for shot so what is the actual point of it?
The Jungle Book one I was deeply sceptical about but I'll give them that one, I liked it and it did feel like they'd done enough different with it to justify its existence.
I pretty much refuse to watch many more, The Lion King doesn't even have any people so it's not a "live action remake", it's just a different style of animation and I'm sure the CGI is impressive but what is actually the point of remaking a great film and making it worse? At least do something a bit different with it.
I honestly can't believe Disney are getting away with this.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on August 07, 2019, 03:25:29 AM
Shazam! Was ok. p. funny at times but the kids were annoying and kinda ruined it. Aquabro was better.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on August 09, 2019, 10:47:34 AM
Your lie in April

I cried alot.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on August 31, 2019, 05:08:59 AM
dark phoenix

it was shitty.  one of the most emotionless movies i've seen in a long, long time.  i guess the set piece on the train was cool, but that's really the only good thing i can say about dark phoenix.

way to fuck that one up, fox.  0 out of 420 stars.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on September 01, 2019, 08:25:03 AM
Spider-Man: Far from Home was garbage.
I'm so excited to say that I agree with Snupes on an MCU movie for once. I didn't see the first Tom Holland Spiderman movie because I dislike Spiderman, but I saw the second because I visited my mom and she wanted to see it. Anyway, it was 100% dull and lifeless. The "twist" was so predictable and boring I felt bad for Gyllenhaal. Worst MCU movie I've seen in awhile.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on September 02, 2019, 11:20:05 AM
I was starting to wonder if I was insane. Thank you, lol
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on September 04, 2019, 03:19:48 AM
Started trying to check out some anime to find some that aren't garbage. I watched the first few episodes of The Promised Neverland, Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash, and Mononoke.

The Promised Neverland had some of the worst dialogue and exposition I've ever seen in anime, which is a shame since the core conceit/twist is interesting enough. I just cannot stand shows that treat me like a child that needs everything spoon-fed to them. So I'm probably done with that one.

Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash actually has pretty good writing, a neat world, and wonderful animation so far. That said...the women. Dear god. I hope it gets better, but it feels like it's written by a horny 13-year old. I haven't cringed so much watching an anime in a long time. Like, it's really, really bad. I may try to finish it, but we'll see.

Then Mononoke. This show is absolutely wonderful so far. It's an anthology sort of series, each story being about two episodes long (sometimes three if it needs more time), but the show is so lean and well-made that nothing is ever overlong. It's basically focused around Japanese folklore and mononoke (similar to youkai, but mononoke are spirits that tend to be more malevolent) and the Medicine Man, a mysterious medicine peddler who goes around trying to seal these creatures. To do so, he has to discover their "form" (what shape they take, what are they), "truth" (what is their purpose, what are they here for), and "reason" (what do they want), all of which unfold very naturally throughout the episode. The art style is gorgeous but definitely would put off some people.

I'm gonna keep digging because I know there are good anime out there, despite my experience to the contrary.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: J-Man on September 16, 2019, 10:40:03 PM
Peanut Butter Falcon

Entertaining movie, reminded me of many round earthers here.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on October 23, 2019, 01:59:54 PM
20 Remote Controlled Batarangs/20: A Batshit Odyssey Returns!


Batman Returns (dir. Tim Burton)

Batman's second outing under the joint stewardship of Burton and Keaton is also his last. Burton was not interested in doing another sequel, and Warner Bros. execs were concerned about the dark tone of Burton's films. The impasse thus formed led to the two quasi-neo-Batmania (I did the Kenosha Kid, I can do the Popcrit too) films directed by Joel Schumacher. Would that they could have seen their Snyderian future. Perhaps some did, those poor Cassandras of the executive suite. But it's understandable: with the first Batman a big success, Burton was granted greater control over the sequel, and all that was suggestively fairytale and carnival of that first effort is foreground and writ large here. I always liked this film as a kid, it was equal parts goofy and nasty, vibrant and sinister, a cartoonish noir fantasy of the urban Gothic. But unlike the original Burton outing it has not been a film that I have thought about much since my childhood, let alone watched. Will it hold up? Let's find out! I wrote this introductory paragraph before I even sat down to watch the film, so I literally do not know, but of course will have known for at least day or two by the time you get to the second paragraph.

Sidestepping any pretence of suspense, I can reveal that I had a blast watching this again, it's seriously off-the-rails, wacky, hilarious, and occasionally violent. I don't think the executive, or indeed critical assessment that it was too dark is at all fair. In comparison to the previous film, its dark parts are darker, but its light parts are lighter. Burton managed to ramp up the expressionist inspiration of the first film by putting it everywhere, not just in the architecture, the light and the shadows, but in the comedy, in the story, in the characters. Everything is heightened, more extreme, more sharply contrasted. While many would blame Burton's successor Joel Schumacher for turning this first WB Batman series into an over-the-top silly cartoon, in a lot of ways Burton was already there. Consider the rooftop fight between Batman and Catwoman: Batman knocks her to the floor (Catwoman was an asshole etc.), she says “how could you? I'm a woman,” Batman drops his guard with concern for her, allowing her to get the upper hand and hang him over the ledge with her whip. It might as well be Adam West's Bruce Wayne falling for Miss Kitka in his pursuit of improving US-Soviet relations.

The set-up to the story is a bit more complicated than that of the first film. An armed gang of circus performers attacks a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Gotham Square with the aim of kidnapping Max Shreck, a wealthy industrialist who is giving a speech there. Shreck escapes but falls through a mechanised grate into the sewer lair of the Penguin, who was abandoned by his parents as a baby and now wishes to return to human society. Shreck is eventually able to return to his office, having a made a deal with the Penguin. Upon arriving there he learns that his bumbling secretary Selina Kyle has been snooping in his private files and has discovered that his big plan, a new power plant, is actually a device by which he can suck up the city's power for himself and hold it to ransom. To shut her up, he pushes her from a high window, killing her. Her body attracts a bunch of street cats who inexplicably bring her back to life, imbuing her with the agility, reflexes, and folkloric nine lives of a cat, as well as engendering the emergence of a dangerous new side to her personality. At another public gathering, one of the circus gang members kidnaps the Mayor's baby and descends down an open manhole only to be “defeated” by who else but the Penguin. Ascending above ground with the baby in his arms, Penguin becomes an instant hero and press sensation, prompting Batman to investigate.

The focus of the film in the beginning is definitely on the villains. Batman shows up to fight off the circus gang at the tree lighting event, but the film wants us to know Penguin and Catwoman and Shreck. And why not? We know an awful lot about Bruce Wayne and his alter ego from the previous film, but almost everything else starts over from zero. So we have origin stories galore for each of the villains except Shreck himself. Although Penguin is this film's equivalent of the Joker, Shreck is in truth the main villain of the story. He abuses and parasitises both Penguin and Catwoman for his own gain, and his latest business venture seeks to do the same thing to Gotham itself. Max Schreck, for whom the character was named, was a German silent film actor best known for playing the vampire in the original Nosferatu, and was even fictionalised as a vampire himself. Like Shreck's impeccable wardrobe, the reference is extravagantly worn, he leeches the blood of the city while posing as its prime benefactor, and though the name refers to Count Orlok, the look and portrayal are definitely owed to Dracula. He is possessed of a kind of agelessness, serving as the embodiment of the concept of avarice.

It doesn't get an origin story of its own, but even Gotham seems somewhat different this time around. It maintains its larger than life architecture and its distortions of space and form, but the overall feel is different, and it's not just the Christmas lights. In the first film so much of the city seemed to be made up of pipes and vents, its theme was industrial sprawl, we were invited to hang around with the lowlife of the city, like rats crawling through the pipes. Jack Napier becomes the Joker in a chemical factory, Oswald Cobblepot is born the Penguin in a practically Victorian aristocratic home. The setting moves from the industrial to the commercial, to the political. This time the true villain is puppetmaster capitalist Shreck, a white collar criminal, a self-assured untouchable of the top floor penthouse class. The action takes place at political events, plush offices, government buildings, high-rise apartments, department stores, all of which tie back either directly or at least in some way to Shreck.
 
Cobblepot's ambition to reclaim his birthright as an aristocrat is seized upon by Shreck, who thrusts him into a campaign against the incumbent mayor, who is having difficulty containing the chaos caused by the circus gang, which is of course being run by Cobblepot himself. This sub-plot, based on two episodes of the 1960s TV show, presents itself as Preston Sturges by way of Burtmania, and it kind of works. The big climax revolves around Bruce Wayne's infamous CD scratching. It is actually possible to scratch a CD like a vinyl record, albeit not in the way that happens in this scene. It's either an ass-pull or an acceptable “of course he did” as we learn that Batman secretly recorded Penguin talking shit about Gotham's citizens during one of their encounters. Wayne uses the sound clips when he hacks into the PA system at a Cobblepot for Mayor rally, prompting everyone to suddenly produce rotten fruit and veg to hurl at him. The knowing silliness of the film is, once again, much closer to the Batmania style than many people seem to think. And I haven't even gotten to the rocket launcher penguins yet, or the remote control Batmobile arcade ride. This film has so many wacky setpieces that it's hard to know which to address and in what order.

Like the film itself, I'm going to suddenly veer off topic here to talk about Catwoman. She has a lot going for her over the previous female lead. Vicki Vale was kind of a one note damsel in distress despite being a war photographer. Selina Kyle is the opposite of that, well, at least she becomes the opposite of that. When we first see her she seems like a laughtrack sitcom character, replete with knowingly corny one-liners and an impossibly ditzy manner. Whe she is pushed out of the window and resurrected by the street cats, she retains this basic personality, particularly her penchant for one-liners, but she has taken on a crazed femme fatale persona with a DIY aesthetic, stapling together her Catwoman costume from a cut-up old coat and fashioning claws out of various materials she has lying around the apartment. She proceeds to wage a one woman war against her murderer, Shreck, blowing up his department store, and later plots to assassinate him at a masked ball he is hosting.

While the other villains have an adversarial relationship with Batman in the case of Penguin, and Bruce Wayne in the case of Shreck, Catwoman/Selina Kyle is presented as a mirror image of Batman/Bruce Wayne. As their unmasked selves they begin a romance, while their night-prowling alter egos clash violently atop Gotham's high rooftops. These relationships escalate in their intensity until somethin's gotta give, and give it do. The impossibly cheesy refrain “mistletoe can be deadly if you eat it / but a kiss can be even deadlier if you mean it” reveals the double life of each to the other, threatening to immediately throw their already quite bizarre relationship out of the frying pan and into ripping their masks off while electrocuting Christopher Walken in a sewer tunnel. Different strokes for different folks. Bruce tries to save Selina from herself in the dramatic climax, but her suicidally pathological desire for revenge against Shreck proves too strong.

While Returns has never been as well received or fondly remembered as its predecessor, it does offer... and I won't say “depth”, because there is nothing deep about it, it's a film about people in ridiculous costumes hitting each other after all, but I think it is a richer film, with greater thematic unity and complexity than the 1989 Batman. That film, as much as I love it, is quite superficial, its conflicts basic, its characters archetypal and not much beyond that. The Joker is a villain who must be stopped, end of. Returns, through Catwoman, Penguin, and Shreck, forces Batman to reckon with possible other versions of himself. While the latter two are closer to the “must be stopped, end of” side of things, and this despite the nascent tragedy of the Penguin's origin story, it is Catwoman who drives a sword of ambiguity right through the moral heart of the main character. While The Killing Joke propelled into the public consciousness the idea of Batman and Joker as two sides of the same coin, something that has been echoed strongly in a great many Batman stories since, Batman Returns gives a more multifaceted take on the dual nature of Bruce Wayne's life, and how he is just a few steps removed from the villainy he fights both in and out of costume. On top of that, it's just a big ol' fun ol' cartoon of a movie, and I think it's pretty great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 01, 2020, 02:35:09 PM
Batman Forever (dir. Joel Schumacher)

Let's begin by being as clear as possible. This film sucks. It really sucks. I'm aware that people might think Batman & Robin a more memorably bad film, and it probably is, since I must admit that, in the time between my father taking me to see it in the cinema and the viewing I undertook for this review, I had pretty much forgotten everything about Forever except for one or two things, but make no mistake: this is a diabolically confused mess of no small magnitude. Initially it may have shown some promise, as Joel Schumacher wanted it to be an adaptation of Frank Miller's much lauded Batman: Year One, one of the comics of the late 1980s that defined the modern idea of Batman, but the project was gradually transformed into something that was most decidedly not that. Batman Forever is sometimes described as a throwback to the Batmania of the 1960s, but in making that comparison people seem to forget that while that version of Batman was very silly, it knew what it was doing and carried itself with a warmth and affability that made it very fun to watch. What we have here is a charmless, directionless, oddly cold and synthetic vision of a Batman without purpose.
 
So, what happened? How the hell should I know. Tim Burton and Michael Keaton were originally attached for a third and probably final entry in their Batman series, with the working title “Batman Continues”, and then they ceased to be so. It seems that from the start Warner Bros. execs were actively pushing Burton to go lighter in response to the (in my view wrongly) perceived “darkness” of Batman Returns, so it's likely that at least some of the nigh unutterable stupidity that goes on in the finished product was there from near the beginning of its production. At the very least we know the character of Chase Meridian was there in the early stages, since Burton had already cast Rene Russo in the role. So while Joel Schumacher often gets the blame for this movie and its sequel, it seems that here at least he was simply the chump they brought on board to clean up whatever mess had been left behind in the wake of Burton's departure, and was later left fumbling even more blindly as Keaton followed suit and walked away. Of course, we know Burton later signed back on with the project as producer, since his name is pretty much the first thing you see in the opening credits, and while the question “why?” might be intriguing, I'll leave that where it is in favour of simply discussing the mess that is the film itself rather than the mess surrounding it.
 
With a film as confused and scrappy as Batman Forever, it's hard to know exactly where to begin. Normally a plot synopsis would suffice, but the plot itself may be the least remarkable thing about the film, not just because the rest of it is so misguided on pretty much every level, but also because it barely even registers as a story told. The stakes are clear-ish, but none of them has any weight. We are told for example that Riddler's machine will suck all the intelligence out of Gotham's citizens and pump it straight into his brain, yet at no point does this ever actually seem to happen. I mean, we see the machine working, allegedly, yet the Riddler's level of intelligence never seems to rise above that of a small child thrown into a bathtub full of sugar at any point during the film. It's easy enough to joke that the writers weren't smart enough to write the Riddler as a super genius, especially since, as we shall see, they were hardly capable of writing the Riddler at all, but when you realise that they weren't even able to write an accurate if fairly shallow elaboration on the phrase “idiot box”, that's when you start to consider just how much of this particular iceberg's mass is hidden below the water line.
 
While the film pays a little lip service to its villains' defining traits every now and then, neither of Batman's foes really maintains more than a passing resemblance to his namesake from the source material; Two-Face is basically “Joker with a Coin”, while Riddler is “Jim Carrey Funny Moments 10 Hour Compilation SO RANDOM!!! xD”. So when the two get together you're essentially left with a pair of failed Joker auditions sandwiched together into a sort of villainous near non-entity, a duo of (in the sincerest mode of charity) embryonic personalities crushed under the weight of conflicting and unrealistic expectations: don't recall Burton, but also play bigger than Nicholson. For Batman Returns, both Danny DeVito and Michelle Pfeiffer understood well enough that their characters could not simply be sartorially differentiated retreads of Nicholson's Joker, that to step out from under his shadow they would have to find their own voices, their own physicalities. Whatever you think of them, they cannot reasonably be accused of copying their predecessor, and I suppose in their results neither Tommy Lee Jones nor Jim Carrey could be accused of resembling Nicholson's Joker either, but it is clear enough to me from what they seem to intend to be doing on screen that they were being pushed in that direction. Indeed, I get the feeling that the goal of this film from the studio's perspective was to spiritually retcon Batman Returns.

Perhaps the worst thing about these rather horrible portrayals is that it's very difficult to tell who is at fault, since at least in the case of Jones I want someone else to blame. Carrey I could probably leave to the wolves, but as we see from later performances in his career, much as with Robin Williams, a good director can rein him in and channel his naturally extreme energy in the service of pathos, which on some level is a state to which most Batman villains can aspire. So there at least we might blame screenplay or direction, although it is possible that Carrey, whose star was arcing very high in the Hollywood sky at that time, was granted executive carte blanche to “Carrify” his performance as much as he liked. One thing is certain: something went very, very wrong. Whether it is the character's totally unbelievable claim to being a genius scientist, his terrible one liners which seem to come out of some deep recess of juvenile tastelessness, so deep that I can hardly believe real grown adults actually came up with them, or his mediocre attempts at being anything remotely resembling a threat to anyone whatsoever, the Riddler is simply bad in this film. Sure, he's supposed to be insufferable, his whole shtick by and large is that he envies Batman's intellect and wants to outdo him by the most spectacular means possible, in one of the comics he even goes to extremes in an attempt to drive Batman insane, but the insufferability of Carrey's Riddler seems to be almost entirely directed at the audience, so many of his cringe-worthy verbal eruptions are made when no one else is around that it is hard to believe I am not being personally targeted when he screams “joygasm!!!” after blowing up the batmobile.
 
With Jones, you might be tempted to exclaim “who the fuck knows”. It may be that an actor used to playing fairly down to earth dramatic roles might struggle to walk a mile in the larger than life shoes of a comic book villain, but really his delivery matches the garbled lines he has to work with, so in that sense at least he did a good job. Indeed, short of walking off the set while telling the writers to shove their dialogue up their arses in whatever form should prove least comfortable, Jones could probably not have done any better. Two-Face is a complicated character, on the one hand he is still Harvey Dent, a former District Attorney, much closer to the kinds of roles Jones had usually played up to this point; on the other he has succumbed to a sort of scarring of the mind equal to the scarring of his face, such that the ideal of blind justice is taken to extremes with the aid of a defaced coin, pure chance, a fifty-fifty split. The character is then dramatically compelling fare for a film, a dark mirror of Batman's own dual nature to match Returns' Catwoman, yet here he is, as I said before, treated as “Joker with a Coin”. Jones is not really given the basis of Harvey Dent to expand from, and any sense of Two-Face's actual character is subsumed into a shambolic medley of cackles, mumbles, and circus ringmaster pomp, yet the gravest crime committed is not that he barely resembles himself, but that for all his gun-waving, coin-flipping antics he is about as threatening, about as compelling, and about as tragic as a slightly misshapen Werther's Original.
 
Now might be the time to mention that this film, and indeed its sequel, are intended as continuations of the Burton films. The only real on-screen confirmation of this is the presence of Michael Gough as Alfred Pennyworth, the stalwart and stately butler of Wayne Manor. Of course, he too has not survived the transition from Burtmania to whatever the hell this is. He is reduced to playing a doddering old man who is easily fooled by the buffoonery of fake trick or treaters that couldn't have been less convincing even if they had been dressed up as the titular villains from Killer Klownz from Outer Space. He is at his best in his few scenes with Dick Grayson, here played by Chris O'Donnell, forming perhaps the only relationship in the film that comes close to resembling genuine human interaction. O'Donnell is probably the most likeable major screen presence in the film, and while his Robin is more akin to the wayward Jason Todd than your typical Dick Grayson, he doesn't do too badly with the fairly shoddy material he has to work with. But the inclusion of Robin at the halfway point of the film immediately comes across as an unnecessary addition to a stage that is already overcrowded, albeit by a bunch of cardboard cut-outs and other non-entities, and it is through this perpetual narrative greed that the film's confused identity is matched by its confused focus. There's a reason Two-Face essentially retreats behind Riddler later on in the film, this being that the writers, or perhaps meddlers from the darker recesses of the studio system, began to realise that the film was trying to contain too much stuff and basically jamming it in any which way it could, such that the audience is left trying to navigate a room where two thirds of the doorway are blocked by furniture and the floor itself is totally covered with stacked chairs, tables, and garishly upholstered sofas, none of which can be sat upon or at with any comfort. Forever lacks any of the sense of proportion, balance, tonal continuity, or purposeful storytelling that grounded and propelled the action of its predecessors.

Possibly the most notable difference when comparing this film to the previous two is the near total absence of Gotham City itself. In the Burton films we are often treated to shots of its bustling streets, political and social events, alleyway robberies and so forth. Batman feels for all his high-tech gadgetry like a street level crime fighter; he has amassed his formidable arsenal essentially to save people who, just like his own parents, take a wrong turn on their way home from the theatre, to fight the rot that festers in the dark corners of the city, and to instil fear in the hearts of the cowardly and superstitious lot that lie in wait in the long shadows. Because we see almost nothing of Gotham except for some rather unappealing CG cityscapes devoid of so much as even Lowry-esque stick-figure crowds, Batman's crusade is made to feel like a vanity project, this sense not being helped by his ludicrously flashy vehicles and, yes, his overly sculpted suit, replete with injection moulded nipples and “dummy thicc” rear end. Bruce Wayne of course first donned the cowl for personal reasons, but Batman do what he do with a view to upholding values that actual human beings tend to hold as universal: justice, crime and punishment, rehabilitation, mercy. Here the entire world seems to exist for a handful of characters, anyone else who might happen to appear in frame is so much ephemeral, almost accidental decoration, you might even take them for ghosts from the previous films still haunting select interior spaces of a now largely abandoned Gotham. Along with the art design, this feeling would be surreal were it not so eminently forgettable.
 
Also notable for its absence, the brooding neo-Wagnerian score that Danny Elfman provided for the two Burton films. Elliot Goldenthal was brought in to try and unify through music the fecklessly assembled budget caterer's buffet of half-baked characters with some of that good ol' leitmotivic special sauce. Goldenthal sort of apes Elfman here and there, but his themes are not as memorable, and we are at no point given the impression of a Batman, a crusader who roams the night seeking justice, but rather being told “look, it's Batman, there he goes, being Batman”. It has the slimy wool-over-the-eyes quality of a carpetbagger. We can never really quite believe that what we're hearing is the soundtrack to Batman, and like the film itself the soundtrack reads like a knock-off competitor hastily rolled out to make a buck. Things do not get better when we look at the attempts to lend weight to the villains through scoring. Two-Face's music, which Goldenthal has rather bafflingly claimed was inspired by Prokofiev and Shostakovich, fails to ground Tommy Lee Jones's messy performance with thematic stability because it is itself a complete mess of noisy effects, only serving to heighten the incoherence of the portrayal. Meanwhile, the Riddler is mismatched with a theremin heavy throwback to old science fiction scores, attempting to play up the intended mad scientist character, but instead hammering home just how little Carrey's performance matches anything of that description.
 
But what of Batman himself? This is after all a Batman film. Well, sad to say, this iteration of the caped crusader, played by Val Kilmer, is neither equal to the task of succeeding Michael Keaton nor recalling the light-hearted straightman act of Adam West. I bring up West because, by all accounts, Forever is supposed to be the return of Batmania. As I said in my review of Batman Returns, Burton was already doing Batmania, especially in that film, but apparently cheesy rhymes about mistletoe and DJ scratching CDs are just too dark for kids. Pouty-lips Kilmer is not dark, but he is hardly light either, being at best a neutral earth tone, inoffensive at the side of his garish counterparts. It is only when you see him away from the obscuring presence of these paltry interlocutors that you realise he might as well be a potted plant, for that is basically the level of expressivity he manages to reach in any given scene. He's cracking a joke with Alfred, he's bashing down a door to try to save a life, he's in a bank vault that is suspended from a helicopter and inexplicably filling up with acid; his plain and immutable foliage of an expression is not so much a reassuring anchor of calm and stability as it is the face of a man who is trying not to show how bewildered he is by the fact that he is in Batman Forever. This makes the scene in which he turns to camera and smiles quite surprising, but probably not in the way the director intended. It is surprising not just because Kilmer's face has been in a single and completely different configuration the entire film up to that point, but because the change occurs over the non-person that is Chase Meridian.
 
Meridian, played by Nicole Kidman, is a woman what gets kidnapped, and that's basically the entirety of who she is. Meridian succeeds only in making me nostalgic for Vicki Vale, who was easily the weakest part of the 1989 Batman, but there are some interesting points to consider when comparing the two love interests. Vale is essentially a bystander who is rescued by Batman, and their relationship deepens as the Joker begins to take a perverse interest in her. Vale is a fairly typical damsel in distress, but there is a developmental line that is established and followed over the course of the film, and it begins with her resisting her colleague's fascination with the Batman myth. Meridian is the opposite, she is already possessed of a consuming obsession with Batman, and she thrusts herself into his path as often as possible. She makes herself the damsel in distress, but at no point in the film is this questioned, critiqued, or even so much as addressed in passing. Unlike the villains, I can't even criticise Kidman for turning in a bad performance, she has almost no character to portray, and the most consistently surprising thing about Meridian's relationship with Batman and Bruce Wayne is that he continues to fall harder and harder for what can at best be described as a cardboard cut-out of a woman. While it is a lazy criticism, the entire “why” of the romance subplot may be best explained as follows: because it's in the script.
 
So that's Batman Forever, two hours of people you're never given a reason to care about doing things that make no sense because Warner Bros. wanted a kid friendly Batman movie, or rather because they desperately didn't want another Tim Burton Batman movie. The film has the sense of having been guided so much by what it was to avoid, rather than by what it was to aim for, that it spends most of its duration in the violent throes of an identity crisis that is only resolved in the end by the realisation and acceptance that it in fact has no identity at all. Its synthetic, contrived narrative, character portrayals, and locations all combine into an offensively bland mush, and even the most refined of gourmands would be hard pressed to identify even one flavour in this broth spoiled not by too many cooks but by a disorganised kitchen led by a head chef who didn't even know the recipe. It is not in thrall to the crass commercialism that permeates its infamous sequel, but its lack of even this as some kind of defining characteristic leaves it shambling in a pile of its own mess, miserable and forgotten down in the shadowy sewers where lie yesteryear's most fleeting of pop cultural dalliances.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 04, 2020, 09:04:13 AM
The Death of Stalin (dir. Armando Iannucci)

Hilarious yet unflinchingly bleak farce depicting a loosely historically accurate version of the internecine struggles at the very top of the Soviet Union following Stalin's death. While the film is obviously set in Russia and the characters are all Russian, the cast is mostly British and American, and the actors all use their regular (or close to regular) voices, so you get for example Nikita Khrushchev with a Brooklyn accent courtesy of Steve Buscemi. While the film features too many excellent performances both large and small to list without succumbing to fatigue, Simon Russell Beale absolutely fucking kills it in his role as Lavrentiy Beria, one of the most shockingly vile figures of the Stalin era. Really just a brilliant film from start to finish.

Also, shout out to the original music by Chris Willis, who does a very good job of capturing the feel of Soviet era classical music, particularly Shostakovich, whose music has always sounded to me like a soundtrack in need of a movie.

You Were Never Really Here (dir. Lynne Ramsay)

Sort of a psychological anti-thriller in which Joaquin Phoenix plays a hired killer contracted to rescue a politician's daughter from an underground sex trafficking ring. It's very atmospheric and well paced, and the subtly rich portrayal of the central character is compelling. The child sex abuse theme might be difficult for some viewers to stomach, but the strong central performance and uncompromising direction makes the film very much worth a watch.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on January 12, 2020, 10:04:40 PM
(2019) Sam Mendes - 1917

Wow wow wow. I'm rattled and shook. Utterly stunning. I begrudgingly saw it with my dad because he really wanted to, even though I generally don't find war movies very interesting, but I was so gripped by the story, the acting, the cinematography, the film in its entirety, and I even sobbed at the end (wow shock I know). Amazing film.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on January 19, 2020, 09:35:30 PM
Harley Quinn (TV Series 2019)

I just binged this and while it is a parody sitcom, it's decently written and done up.  I'm enjoying the journey of watching Harley move through a male dominated supervillian world to become a member of the Legion of Doom and outshine her Ex.

It's kinda odd though to see so much graphic violence and death while also having the main character specifically not kill innocents (ie. civillians, non-guards, etc...).  As was put, Harley is "Broadcast Bad."  Still, an enjoyable ride thus far.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on January 24, 2020, 03:25:45 AM
just watched the first episode of star trek: picard, and it was significantly better than i thought it would be.

20 years after the events of nemesis, picard lives in france, hangs out getting drunk with his dog, and writes a bunch of idiot history books.  he also has some romulan slaves in charge of running his plantation vineyard.  the romulan sun went supernova in 2009 and killed a bunch of dumb romulans, and picard tried to get the federation to save the population.  but apparently the federation is all MAGA now and hates immigrants, so picard quit star fleet.  he kept the slaves, though.  also the new United Federation of Fascists is super racist against androids now.  they're illegal.

my main beef with e01 was the pacing.  i think this should've been two episodes.  the plot picks up when some stranger shows up at picard's plantation and starts ranting about killing a bunch of people, and picard is just like "yes okay this is all making sense, please come inside."  the whole thing just moved way too fast.  take and episode to set the stage and build some plausible foreshadowing.  and of course because the pace is so fast, they cover ground with a lot of exposition. 

but whatever, that's pretty typical of the series in general.  i can live with it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on February 06, 2020, 03:45:03 AM
GLOW (Season 1, 2017)

What a rollercoaster of feelings. I wasn't really excited for this and I only really checked it out because I was incredibly bored and really wanted to watch something but the Twilight Zone reboot was boring as shit. During episode one I fluctuated between thinking it's pretty good to thinking it's awful, and the following episode or two I was ready to drop it as schlocky misogynistic trash. But, once the gimmicks were set and the characters were all introduced, the show began such a wonderful deep dive into everyone as people and completely yanked the rug out from right under me. There's so much natural and well-done development, great plot and pacing, and while it's definitely not the deepest work of art in the world it definitely strives to be more than just a fun show. That and the fact that it has so much heart and everyone is clearly deeply invested just pulled me right in, and I couldn't not see it through.

And I know me crying doesn't have much impact by this point, but I cried a few times for what it's worth. Psyched and ready for the next few seasons.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on February 11, 2020, 11:15:42 PM
GLOW (Season 1, 2017)

What a rollercoaster of feelings. I wasn't really excited for this and I only really checked it out because I was incredibly bored and really wanted to watch something but the Twilight Zone reboot was boring as shit. During episode one I fluctuated between thinking it's pretty good to thinking it's awful, and the following episode or two I was ready to drop it as schlocky misogynistic trash. But, once the gimmicks were set and the characters were all introduced, the show began such a wonderful deep dive into everyone as people and completely yanked the rug out from right under me. There's so much natural and well-done development, great plot and pacing, and while it's definitely not the deepest work of art in the world it definitely strives to be more than just a fun show. That and the fact that it has so much heart and everyone is clearly deeply invested just pulled me right in, and I couldn't not see it through.

And I know me crying doesn't have much impact by this point, but I cried a few times for what it's worth. Psyched and ready for the next few seasons.
Love that show. I've definitely cried a few times as well while watching it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on February 21, 2020, 11:45:40 PM
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (Bob Perischetti, Peter Ramsey & Rodney Rothman, 2018)

Beautifully animated, vibrantly colorful, and very funny at times, this is easily the best Spidey movie since Spider-Man 2. I do wish the climax hadn't been another stupid fucking skybeam, though.

Knives Out (Rian Johnson, 2019)

This was fantastic. Johnson's love of "classic" murder mysteries is ingrained in this movie, and yet it's so brilliantly written that everything feels entirely original and subversive in the best way possible. In stark contrast to The Last Jedi, which I felt devoted far too much time to a meandering subplot that failed to meaningfully add to the story by the movie's end, there is not a wasted minute here. The cast is terrific too, and I really liked how Daniel Craig's silly accent, while certainly endearingly goofy, never really distracted from the events of the plot or became a source of "comedy" all by itself. I can't say enough good things about this. It's smart as hell, funny, suspenseful, and a must-watch for mystery fans.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on March 12, 2020, 04:07:38 AM
Marriage Story (Noah Baumbach, 2019)

Holy shit. I was expecting a nice, bittersweet story about a divorce, not the harrowing emotional tour de force I just experienced. Probably one of the most mature, grounded films I have ever watched in my life. Noah Baumbach has a way of writing and directing dialogue that’s stylized, for sure, but only in that it feels like real people and real conversation compressed into its purest, crystallized form, to convey such emotions and the layered meanings people hide behind their words in a way that makes a two hour film feel like a real, breathing lifetime. I never once felt like I was watching actors, only people. Absolutely incredible. I cried many times.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on March 21, 2020, 02:28:01 PM
Avenue 5, sci-fi comedy on HBO
(very minor spoilers from the first few episodes, nothing big. You'll get over it.)

When I first noticed the promo trailers for HBO's sci-fi comedy, Avenue 5, I got the impression of a sleek starship and a dashing space hero captain like a Star Trek type scenario but nothing is as it seems.

The show is set in the not too distant future aboard a luxury space liner that takes wealthy people, thousands at a time, on spectacular three week tours of Saturn's rings. But like the Hindenburg or Titanic, whenever you have a bunch of selfish, rich assholes partying in absolute poshness, bitching about things that don't even rank as first world problems, there is a smack down coming.

Everything changes in the first episode when a gravity disaster slams everyone on board against the side of the ship, killing people and sending it off course. Instead of three weeks, they are now facing three years and the luxury quickly starts to decay. In an attempt to give their dead a dignified 'burial at sea,' they launch the dead bodies into space only to have them get caught in the ship's artificial gravity field and perpetually circle the ship in a low orbit. A massive sewage tank leak spews millions of tons of shit into space which now hangs around the ship like Saturn's rings. The large panoramic windows that use to show spectacular scenery now show a constant rain of turds punctuated by an occasional dead body floating by.

There is a sense of dystopia in the utter stupidity of humans in general. The passengers find to their horror that the captain is actually just an actor playing a captain who finds (to his horror) that his entire command crew is just actors operating the bridge of the ship which is just a sound stage equipped with consoles and computers that aren't connected to anything. The entire ship is automated and the only people aboard who know anything about space travel is a half dozen maintenance workers in the bowels of the lower decks. As an extra twist of social commentary, the owner of the space liner corporation (an Elon Musk type douchebag) is trapped on board also. His childish arrogance and stupidity has him rejecting Nasa's offer of engineering and resources to help rescue the ship.

A lot of the humor is dark but well written and comments on human dumbassness. A group of loudmouth, know-it-all passengers decides that the whole ship is fake and rises up. "They're lying to us! They want to keep us here! We're still on Earth! We can leave anytime!" So they pile into the airlock and are instantly freeze dried to death in front of a crowd of onlookers. Another asshole yells out, "It's a trick! I work in VFX! That's Visual Effects! I know what I'm talking about! It's all fake!" So another batch of dumbasses gets in the airlock and dies. The scene is a little creepy and could be horrific but let's face it, it's hilarious when dumbass know-it-alls get what they deserve.

HBO spent a lot of money on talent and production so the show is very polished with nice special effects. If you have HBO and liked the old Red Dwarf, you should definitely check it out. The science isn't as tight as Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy but it's accurate enough so it doesn't take away from the story.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on April 20, 2020, 11:23:21 PM
The Witcher (2019)

Fans of the stories/games, if not necessarily strict purists, should like this a lot. The characters are all portrayed faithfully - Yennefer is regal and commanding, Jaskier (Dandelion) is both annoying and amusing, and Henry Cavill as Geralt is actually pretty great. The role is hardly a complex one, but Cavill makes him likable and sympathetic, and I think it's hilarious that he managed to imbue a character who's meant to be an aloof badass with far more charisma than he ever did for his sullen, scowling Superman. There's a solid budget behind this, if not quite to the extent of something like GoT, and it aims for a kind of B-movie feel. Behind all the nudity and violence, everything feels charmingly goofy.

The show's biggest drawback is its bizarre decision to follow three different characters at three entirely different points in time over the course of the show without so much as a text card explaining what's going on. The showrunner has an explanation for this, some nonsense about not wanting to hold viewers' hands or whatever. That doesn't justify being deliberately obscure and confusing, and I'm convinced that this show would have had a far more positive reception if it had been clearer about this. So, I'm going to do you all a favor and explain it right now. In chronological order, the timeline goes as follows: Yennefer's storyline (some decades in the past), Geralt's storyline (twelve years or so in the past), and Ciri's storyline (the "present," so to speak). Ciri's storyline is also the weakest of the three. It has a lot of padding and a lot of moments where it seems to just be treading water, like it's waiting for the other two storylines to catch up.

On a more personal note, I want to say I'm very happy that the Witcher fanbase (with the exception of a few book purists, like I said - they seem like such dull people) has largely accepted the show and even rallied around it to do the usual dumb fanboy things like get mad at critics who panned it. In the months leading up to this show's release, rumblings on Twitter and reddit seemed to be leading up to a reactionary backlash, largely inspired by a) The showrunner being a woman, and b) Plans for a diverse cast. Those two facts would be enough to keep the Internet furious for years, but strangely enough, the backlash never ended up materializing. I guess the usual suspects found the show to be entertaining and "non-political" enough for it to be spared their wrath, which is remarkable when you consider that these are the same people who got mad at a picture of a bunch of women drinking milkshakes. Oh, well. We should just take the good news when it comes, I guess.

The Mandalorian (2019)

I don't think this show is quite the masterpiece its screamingly enthusiastic fanbase has acclaimed it as, but there's definitely a lot to like about it. It's cool, it's stylish, it has a lot of great action, the production value is incredible, it's good to see different kinds of stories in the SW universe, and I'm in complete agreement with pretty much everyone that Baby Yoda steals the show with how adorable he is. That being said, however, I'd really like to see the show raise its sights for the next season and tell a proper story worthy of television, with a more fleshed-out main character. There are times when The Mandalorian feels more like a video game than a movie. An awesome video game, don't get me wrong, but still one where we watch a badass space marine, who conveniently never shows his face and seldom speaks except to drive the plot forward, seek out and complete a "sidequest" through exploration and kicking everyone's ass, then move straight on to the next one without giving any indication that he's learned anything or grown as a character. I think the show has by now exhausted the appeal of simply watching a badass do badass things in the SW universe, and it needs to move on from that. If the Mandalorian won't be showing his face outside of maybe an odd glimpse here and there, then he has to at least start talking a lot more, and showing off a three-dimensional personality. Make Pedro Pascal work for that paycheck.

This might sound a little petty, but I hope they keep the connections to the animated shows and whatnot to a minimum. One of the producers behind this is also the guy they have in charge of animation, and it was presumably his idea to have the final shot of the season be the reveal of some device or other that appeared in those shows. I just saw Giancarlo cutting his way out of a crashed ship with a weird-looking widget, and didn't understand why this was playing out as a major dramatic moment, or why it was the closing shot. I don't begrudge anyone for liking what they like, and it's totally cool to toss some fanservice to the lore-minded fans every once in a while, but I don't think it's a good idea to be basing key dramatic moments on references to shows that the majority of the audience won't have seen.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on May 21, 2020, 03:35:17 AM
These reviews were written two days apart and I don't really care to modify them for reading one right after the other. Also I know they kinda suck (especially the first one since I was falling asleep writing it) but I enjoy writing them, so suck it.


Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982)

Full disclosure: This is my first viewing, and the version I watched was Ridley's Final Cut.


What is a man? Some would say a brain; some would say a soul; some would say a miserable little pile of secrets. But enough talk. If one programs a robot to feel pain, is that pain devalued just because it's an automatic sensory response? Is that not what our nervous system is? The line between human and automaton is infamously blurry, and while Blade Runner doesn't dig too deep into the questions and answers, it does portray a rather vivid image of the struggle.

Ridley's vision of the distant future of 2019 is one of a corporate stranglehold, rampant class inequality, advertisement permeating every aspect of our society, a constant struggle just to live. If it weren't for the robots and cyberpunk aesthetic, it would basically be spot on. I'm always fascinated by the run-down dystopian future in film, because, while it never seems to come to pass, it does a fantastic job at being a visceral representation of the fears and problems of the time: a way to shine a spotlight on issues and magnify them to really make things clear.

This film's cinematography is interesting in how much of it lies in darkness. Color mostly serves as a contrast to the dark, dingy atmosphere surrounding it. We see shot after shot of tan and brown alleyways full of garbage, filthy urban decor and towering steel spires spewing flame and gas into the atmosphere. The main sources of color are extravagant. Neon lights, Coca-Cola signs flashing on the sides of housing, LED billboards flying above the city. But most of the film settles firmly in darkness, characters conversing in dimly-lit rooms or sneaking between shadows in hunter vs hunter standoffs. It's a beautiful, unique contrast.

There's an interesting theme of eyes that runs through the movie, as well. Whether they're exposing someone as a replicant, leading the way to the next target, being used as rhetorical devices, or simply getting gouged out, there's a very obvious fixation on them. We meet the man who designs the replicants' perfect eyes, and we also meet the man (Tyrell) who designed the replicants and has to rely on trifocals. I'm sure there's a point about being overly reliant on technology in there somewhere.

I could cover more of the film, but it's been done a million times and by people far more qualified and talented than myself. I came in expecting a nice-looking action film, came out having gotten a very good piece of art. Blade Runner holds up almost forty years later in terms of being a film and in terms of visuals (hell, I'd argue it looks better than a lot of modern films) and is very much still worth a watch.


Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017)

Small notice: minor spoilers ahead.


The struggle of the sequel, especially one so far removed from its forebear, is how to continue the story without being derivative. Most movies in Blade Runner 2049's shoes do so by paying homage in the form of constant lip service, a stream of "hey, remember how this was a thing?" that ultimately kneecaps their ability to have a story and stand on their own. 2049 makes the smart move of crafting its own story, but showing its love for the original in the form of continuing and expanding on its themes.

I only just saw the 1982 film last night, so I have no nostalgia for it. That being said, I can understand where a diehard fan of the original might feel a little differently for this one. Where the original film is a mostly fast-paced sci-fi film with a good chunk of action, its sequel is contented to move at a much slower, more pensive pace. At almost a full hour longer than the original, I could see how its pacing could feel almost laborious in comparison. I'm not of the mind that a sequel should try to adhere to the same pace, style, and story of the original. I think 2049 is not only brave, but does a fantastic job in looking at the topics and the world borne by the original and examining them through a different lens: that of a film more interested in digging into the meat of these themes, breaking them down and making you wonder.

The idea of humanity and what makes one a "person" is the prime example. Where the film prior was interested in raising the question and exploring it on the surface–letting you dissect it if you want–that very question is at the core of the new film. Is a replicant a person? What if it was born, does that make it more real? What about a hologram? If it displays emotion, seems to think and feel, respond to you, is it real? What if it's designed to do that, what if it's a facade? Where does any of this begin and end? 2049 doesn't even try to make a judgment on any of these questions, but it does demand that you consider them.

Another theme carried over from the 1982 work is that of eyes, and everything they represent. Serial numbers are put on the underside of the right eye; the nu-Tyrell (played creepily by Jared Leto) is blind and using small drones to see; as well as a few other nods throughout. They even made sure there was a strange, rapey scene of questionable purpose in the sequel as well! Speaking of strange rapey things, I'm not sure how I feel about Jared Leto's character, Niander Wallace. He doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose other than being a sort of glue to give the film an antagonist. Where Tyrell served as an explanation and a living macguffin, Wallace serves to...occasionally touch people, say things menacingly, and talk about getting replicants pregnant so he can take over the stars. Which, fine, but...none of that ends up mattering or serving any purpose.

To use that as a jumping off point, if there's one major flaw this film has it is one of exposition. My favorite thing about the original Blade Runner is that a whole lot was left for the audience to figure out (reminder: I watched The Final Cut, so I didn't suffer through any narration or exposition dumps), whereas it feels very much like director Denis Villeneuve doesn't trust that we can follow along with anything. There are more than a few direct explanations of fairly obvious insinuations, and one flashback to scenes prior too many.

Exposition aside, this truly is a beautiful film, both on a cinematographic level, a story level, and a thematic level. Beautiful to look at, but even just watching and listening to characters interact is a treat. The romance in it is as heart-wrenching as the original's, and Ryan Gosling delivers a stellar performance somehow more emotionally reserved than Ford's Deckard 40 years ago, both when visceral emotion is required he claws at your heart and begs for your empathy, like a lost child. I feel like with a hand more willing to excise unnecessary scenes and dialogue, this film could have surpassed the original, but even with its problems I would say it still lands on the same footing. It's one of the most worthy sequels I've seen, and it more than earns its right to be loved as its own fantastic piece of art.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 23, 2020, 04:52:23 PM
I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore (dir. Macon Blair)

It's not bad, but it reads like a checklist of lighter David Lynch and Coen brothers tropes mashed together without the respective authorial voices that make them work. Or rather, Macon Blair doesn't have the maturity as a filmmaker to channel the stuff he likes into a genuine expression of his own authorial voice. The film is saved somewhat by the central character, Ruth, being quite ordinary and relatable. They did a good job of building a down to earth character to centre the film around, but the pulpy aspects of the film are played too light to really feel like they impact on her world. Christian and his gang of creeps feel throwaway given how central they are to the story. It's not that they need to be deep characters to be threatening villains, but they are all wardrobe and not much else.

An okay film with some good performances of barebones material.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: existoid on May 25, 2020, 05:42:08 PM
I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore (dir. Macon Blair)

It's not bad, but it reads like a checklist of lighter David Lynch and Coen brothers tropes mashed together without the respective authorial voices that make them work. Or rather, Macon Blair doesn't have the maturity as a filmmaker to channel the stuff he likes into a genuine expression of his own authorial voice. The film is saved somewhat by the central character, Ruth, being quite ordinary and relatable. They did a good job of building a down to earth character to centre the film around, but the pulpy aspects of the film are played too light to really feel like they impact on her world. Christian and his gang of creeps feel throwaway given how central they are to the story. It's not that they need to be deep characters to be threatening villains, but they are all wardrobe and not much else.

An okay film with some good performances of barebones material.

Glad to read this - I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore was on my radar, but I suspected it was going to fall a little too flat for me, and apparently that's how it comes out.  You saved 90 minutes  of my life.


In other news - any other horror film lovers out there?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: existoid on May 27, 2020, 07:21:41 PM
I'm not reading all 100+ pages of this thread, so if i'm doing this wrong, too bad:

Shotgun style, existoid's short reviews:

The Lodge - atmospheric and enjoyable horror. Go into it cold, don't watch the trailer or read anything about it. If you like slow burn horror, you will very likely like this.

Fantasy Island - meh teen level horror.  Good enough for me to watch while playing SNES on another other screen.

Creepshow original Shudder series - exceptional anthology series. Must for horror fans. Sadly, Episode 1 is the best one, but it doesn't deteriorate very much from there.

1917 - "Saving Private Ryan" for WW1.

Come to Daddy - fine acting by Elijah Wood (as always), but also great performance from Stephen McHattie (if you don't know him, check out the exceptionally well done Canadian horror film Pontypool). Very good script and directing as well. Recommend.

Gretel and Hansel - I really wanted to like this; it has several good elements - acting, visuals, atmosphere - but in the end only deserved to have been a 30 min. show dragged out to full length feature. A shame.

Arkansas - Fun crime thriller with discount Chris Hemsworth (who does quite a fine job).

Birds of Prey - Very watchable. But also very forgettable. So, I guess that makes it decent entertainment?

Vampire Hunter D - Saw the original 1985 anime for the first time recently. Pretty good.


 






Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on May 27, 2020, 07:45:14 PM
Birds of Prey - Very watchable. But also very forgettable. So, I guess that makes it decent entertainment?

That was pretty much my take. It was a couple steps above Suicide Squad, but still kind of short of even the weaker Marvel movies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: existoid on May 27, 2020, 08:24:30 PM
Birds of Prey - Very watchable. But also very forgettable. So, I guess that makes it decent entertainment?

That was pretty much my take. It was a couple steps above Suicide Squad, but still kind of short of even the weaker Marvel movies.

Totally.

Although, despite the fact that I've watched every single Marvel film, I virtually never look forward to any of them anymore.  It's now more of a  chore to watch them.  The fact that they have more "phases" for the MCU endlessly is wearing me down.   Did we really need 20 films, and do we really need 20 more? 

But that's just me.


Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 27, 2020, 11:57:44 PM
My own hot take on the MCU, as I've mentioned before on IRC, is that they've begun to drown on their own continuity and endless fanservice. Both Spidey movies, and to a slightly lesser extent, Captain Marvel, neglected telling strong, standalone stories in favor of cramming in as many superfluous references to the previous films as possible. Those movies could not exist in their current state without the prior existence of the MCU, and that's not a good thing. The shared universe can be a fun little bonus, but it's not a crutch, and audiences will eventually grow tired of it if the movies keep using it like one.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 30, 2020, 07:08:47 AM
Wildlife (dir. Paul Dano)

Quietly earthbound and uncomfortable drama set in 1960 in Montana. A young boy's family life disintegrates as his father, out of work, prideful and desperate, decides to leave home and join his fellow unemployed in fighting forest fires for a pittance. While Carey Mulligan and Jake Gyllenhaal both turn in fine work as a married couple set to split on diverging paths, Ed Oxenbould's understated performance as fourteen year old Joe (the actor himself was around sixteen at the time of filming) is what holds the film together, its quiet innocence gradually poisoned by tensions between the adults in his life. Dano's direction is a confident and consistent blending of naturalistic photography with cinematic artifice, but may yet lack identity, it is after all his first feature behind the camera—what is clear is that he has learned much from working with Paul Thomas Anderson. Nonetheless, this quiet—I keep using that word, I assure you with good reason—and unflashy debut is a convincing and promising piece of filmmaking.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on May 31, 2020, 12:39:11 PM
The Vessel (dir. Julio Quintana)

Religious (or is it?) drama about an island whose inhabitants live in perpetual mourning for the children who were swept away into the ocean when a wave hit the local school. The story picks up when Leo, whose brother was lost in the tragedy, awakens after drowning during a drunken farewell to his best friend, who does not survive. Leo is compelled for some reason to build the titular vessel out of old tables, chairs, and other wooden debris left behind at the ruined school. The island's priest, at first confused by it, sees the vessel as a symbol of hope and renewal, and helps Leo to complete his project, but the superstitious locals are disturbed by the thought that Leo may be a messenger from God, and a violent energy begins to grow among them.

Pretty much every scene is littered with arresting images, and in that sense it is a successful film, but its wonky script wants on the one hand to be naturalistic while on the other being resplendent with grandiose profundity, so you end up with a pretend everyday speech that feels off. Its unwillingness to embrace a more purposefully artificial style of dialogue in the post-Shakespearian vein of (for example) Herman Melville seems to me to keep it from ever really reaching the heights that it achieves in its visuals. This is no more apparent than whenever the priest, played by Martin Sheen, is on screen. Sheen, who can deliver reverberant thunder in his performances, has a commanding presence befitting his central role among the islanders, but the script subdues him, and when he does get raw it rings untrue because the words sit so ungainly on his tongue.

So, a mixed bag. At under 90 minutes and with visual beauty to spare, it's worth a watch, but I can't ignore that the characters and their words felt largely hollow and weightless, no match for the images they inhabit. Terence Malick, whose films I tend to feel similarly towards, lent his name to the film as executive producer, and I think that just about sums it up.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dionysios on June 13, 2020, 09:46:36 PM
‘Apartheid Did Not Die’
By John Pilger

Although admiring Nelson Mandela and especially what he stood for, this outspoken leftist activist actually criticises Mandela and the African National Congress as sellouts to the white racist power structure which actually continues in power in South Africa to this day.

This perspective brings to mind the largely phoney and half-hearted denazification of West Germany after World War 2.

https://vimeo.com/17184007
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on July 29, 2020, 10:27:41 PM
2020: A Buttshit Odyssey & Nipples


Batman & Robin (dir. Joel Schumacher)

How exactly do you follow a film like Batman Forever? The question must have been front of mind for Joel Schumacher and Akiva Goldsman when they returned to the franchise to craft the fourth and final entry in Warner's first attempt at a Batman feature series. With both Schumacher and Goldsman being complete hacks, it is frankly surprising that they rose to the challenge of answering it as well as they did, which is about half as well as they would have had to were they to actually make a good film. Make no mistake, Batman & Robin is every bit the superior to its predecessor, it is more cohesive, more stylish, more deliberate, and more enjoyable, if only because it doesn't come across as being actively hostile towards the audience. Yet for every good idea there is a lingering cloud of noxiousness, for every great moment a dull quarter of an hour, for every refreshing change an inescapable reminder that you are watching the sequel to Batman Forever.
 
The film's first move is to both acknowledge its status as a sequel and to shit on the thing it is a sequel to. “I want a car,” says Robin. “Chicks dig the car.” “This is why Superman works alone,” Batman replies, almost rolling his eyes at the camera. Alfred completes the undoing of the previous film's opening exchanges with the line “I'll cancel the pizzas.” Through this, it makes a promise to the audience that it is proceeding in good faith with an attempt to deliver a knowingly silly Batman experience. Yet it fails to progress from that stage in a holistic way, rather some parts advance while others linger, entangled in the wreckage of prefatory catastrophe. This piecemeal approach to making improvements over the misbegotten formula of its prior efforts means that the film ends up being very much in two halves, one an agreeable camp caper, the other a mess of half-baked characters reciting often simply unfunny jokes in service of a story that doesn't make sense. In lieu of needlessly prolonging this review, so without delving into details of plot, I invite you to ponder this question: are there any plants that can thrive in an ice desert?
 
While many cast and crew members returned for the sequel, Val Kilmer did not. You could hardly blame him for wanting to be somewhere else, though of all the somewhere elses he could have ended up, The Island of Doctor Moreau was probably the one he was least prepared for. But Kilmer's absence is notable only because his replacement in George Clooney so effortlessly provides the qualities he could not. In a film like this, Batman absolutely has to be the unflappable straightman, someone who can deadpan his way through all the plot has to throw at him, and Clooney is most definitely up to the task. Very early on we see Batman skating down the spine of a model dinosaur after announcing, in a calmly assured voice, “Hi Freeze, I'm Batman.” It is of course ludicrous, but Clooney's unflinchingly suave coffee advertisement demeanour totally sells it. Chris O'Donnell's Robin is meanwhile thrust into being the comedy sidekick, a role which he is not best suited for. In the previous film he excelled, or at least came closest to excelling in quieter scenes which more or less called for plain, indeed borderline human charm, but here he is left floundering in the form of a wholly unnatural goofball while Alicia Silverstone sort of takes over the troubled-but-good-kid role he played previously. It isn't so much that O'Donnell lacks the chops for comedy, but that he is essentially performing the role of the ignition to the engine of this comedy and the key doesn't fit. 
 
The mismatch of role and player in Robin's case is nothing compared to that of Mr Freeze. In any other possible world, Arnold Schwarzenegger, forever best known for playing a cold, emotionless killing machine in The Terminator, would have been perfect for playing a cold, emotionless cure-researching machine here, but Akiva Goldsman and whoever else clearly ignored the superlative—and surely most popular with this film's alleged target audience—version voiced by Michael Ansara in Batman: The Animated Series, so Schwarzenegger is staggeringly miscast. The infamous ice puns rarely make any sense and are only ever remotely funny because they're so incredibly awful. There is a reason the “ballpoint banana” joke from the 1966 Batman works, and that is Burt Ward's complete earnestness of delivery. There's no grinning or winking, just a straight-faced, clear-voiced annunciation of absurdity. Arnie meanwhile bites chunks out of the scenery like he's bulking for Mr Universe. Of course, by this time no one would have expected much else from Schwarzenegger, who had since the mid-'80s become a mainstay of the Hollywood action-comedy blockbuster scene, providing a springboard to questionable comedies like Junior and Jingle All the Way, as well as increasingly mediocre action movies like Eraser. The two meet in Batman & Robin, which should have been the nadir of his career, but alas, who among you could have foreseen four more Terminator sequels, let alone his starring in three of them?
 
As ever, these characters inhabit Gotham City, which returns in a more fleshed-out and stylish vision that can occasionally impress the eye. In Batman Forever it was reduced to a kind of lifeless neon interstice between scenes of questionable cohesiveness, here it is not so much a believable city as it is a gigantic art museum, but at the very least it has physicality and style. In its design it pays homage to Fritz Lang's Metropolis, with elevated roads snaking their way around gigantic statues, but here all is surface, and the answer to the question “why did you put that there?” is “because!”, which goes some way to summing up the film itself. Unlike in Batman Returns, there is little sense of society (that's another eleven years down the line, folks) in the Gotham of this film, the characters exist pretty much entirely apart from the broader world around them. Not that, for example, a man in a diamond-powered exosuit (the only remotely subtle ice pun in the entire film, by the way) who goes around freezing people has to have a deep relationship to his context to be effective as a villain, but Mr Freeze seems to have nothing at all to do with the world he inhabits, and this is not addressed in a way that makes it appear deliberate, if it is even addressed at all. Everything we see of Gotham is supersized to match the operatic performances it is intended to contain, but there are precious few combinations of role and player that can actually expand to fill such a space, and this leaves Batman's beloved city feeling empty for entirely different reasons than it did in the previous film.
 
In fact, when I say “precious few,” I actually mean “precisely one.” For there is among the main cast one above all else, a woman who could almost make you believe you're watching a better film. If ever a “yas queen” should escape my begrudging lips, let it be for Uma Thurman in this film. She throws herself into every line, every pose, every glance, every scene without the faintest care about looking stupid, which is precisely the fearlessness required to sell such questionable goods. From knowingly clichéd eco-warrior to genocidal plant goddess, there isn't a moment in the entire film when Thurman is both on screen and outdone. The only problem is that she's playing Catwoman from two films ago. Pamela Isley sees something she wasn't supposed to, her boss kills her, she comes back with superpowers to get her revenge. When the best part of your film is just one ingredient of a much better film warmed over, you should rethink just what in the heck you're doing, but since “you” in this sentence is either one of or an almost definitely satanic fusion of both Joel Schumacher and Akiva Goldsman, maybe it is in fact I who should rethink just what in the heck I'm doing. Besides inviting the unflattering comparison to better days, the film also serves the Poison Ivy character poorly by encumbering her with weak practical effects and even worse CGI. Poison Ivy has the potential to be a one-woman circus, and Thurman is more than a match for any level of lavishness, but she is consistently undercut in the phantasmagoria department by lacklustre support.
 
But what wasn't Pamela Isley supposed to see? What was it that brought forth her untimely demise? I'm torn between “a golden retriever with gland problems” and “a man in an inflatable rubber suit,” so for one time only you get two (count em') shitty yet accurate and dismissive jokes for the price of one, said price probably being your patience. Bane is pretty much a non-entity throughout the film, his job is to be large and throw less large people around, and to respond to button presses like some kind of Pavlovian golden retriever with gland problems (three! ...sort of! (count 'em)). Professional wrestler Robert Swenson, who wrestled for WCW and other promotions, plays the beefed up version of Bane, but his mat skills are not really put to any good use here. It's unfortunate, since, for all the supposed homoeroticism in this film, one would think that the chance to have a big muscular man do a thing he is good at would not be passed up. But alas. Well, I guess so far as Swenson is a supremely large lad, his performance is successful. Bizarrely, one of his most active scenes is to the film's detriment, highlighting one of the major tonal issues it struggles with, or rather ignores throughout. The Turkish bath scene, in which Poison Ivy has him throw a bunch of street punks out of a derelict building, features numerous cartoon sound effects that feel totally out of place. Taken at face value it is a relatively minor blunder, yet one which brings to mind the deep-seated identity confusion of Batman Forever. While the film makes overtures to outlandishness, its stagey acting style and often clunky action scenes mean that attempts to play up an atmosphere of cartooniness rather than of operatic drama fail miserably.
 
Opposed to the one-dimensional Bane, Alicia Silverstone plays Barbara Wilson, this film's Batgirl, with not so much multi-dimensionality but rather the sense of lots of individual unconnected dimensions existing in separate realities. With the Hardyesque Pat Hingle playing Commissioner Gordon, there's no way Silverstone could have convincingly played his daughter, so it makes sense to shoogle the role around a little. Instead of the usual ties, then, Barbara Wilson is in fact a relative of Alfred Pennyworth. Alfred is sick and Barbara has come to petition Bruce Wayne to send Alfred back to his native England, where he may live out his final days in the bosom of family. I bring this up not to pad out the review, but because this sub-plot, while as vigorously bungled as one might expect, is a nice send-off for Michael Gough, who returns to play the much mistreated butler one last time. As for Silverstone, her performance is, as previously mentioned, quite strange. In her very second scene she sleepily proclaims “both of my parents were killed in a car accident five years ago,” which I must confess caused me to burst out laughing. Her nonchalant line delivery and not-all-there smile are presumably intended to be read as an affectation of unassumingness by which she hides her true rebellious biker chick hacker chick ten-words-per-minute chick self, but in practice she simply appears to be high. Despite having just arrived in Gotham, on break from “Oxbridge Academy,” she speaks without the faintest hint of received pronunciation (this is probably for the best), and is furthermore intimately familiar with the meet locations and customs of the city's underground bike racing scene. (Said scene is apparently being run by Coolio, who, originally just a cameo, has been revealed to have been playing Jonathan Crane, aka Scarecrow. If you think that sounds like complete nonsense, it is, but it's also true.) Her performance is as confused as the role itself, yet as Batgirl, Silverstone's scenes have probably the most straight up fighting of any of the main cast's, and she also has the best hero/villain banter in her scene with Poison Ivy.
 
With the main cast now fully accounted for, surely there can be no love interests? Well, you'd be right, and also wrong. Elle Macpherson, one of several supermodels featured in the film, plays Bruce Wayne's girlfriend Julie Madison, a throwback to Batman's original run on Detective Comics. I will, broken record as I am, now talk about past episodes from the annals of cinematic Batlove history. Vicki Vale is nothing special, but her relationship with Bruce Wayne and Batman begins as two separate threads which weave together over the course of the film, culminating in the third act. Selina Kyle brings this idea to new heights by having her alter ego act as an adversary to Batman while she romances Wayne, and by having their dual natures so closely mirror one another. Chase Meridian, well, she's at least involved in both sides of Bruce's life. Julie Madison simply sits or stands near Wayne in some scenes but mostly just doesn't exist. We're supposed to believe that there is some conflict when Wayne, under the lingering effects of Poison Ivy's pheromones, spaces out during a kiss with Madison, but Madison's sparse appearances render her a thin gruel of a character, and there is not a moment that, despite the false amours of Poison Ivy fogging his mind, we can ever believe that Wayne gives a shit about her in the first place. Given that there is no indication that Macpherson can act, this is probably for the best, and Madison is thus saved from being the worst of the Batman love interests in the first Warner series only by virtue of the fact that, unlike Chase Meridian, she is completely irrelevant to the main action of the film.
 
So that's Batman & Robin. It far outstrips Batman Forever, but it can almost never be spoken of positively in itself, only in relation to the disaster that precedes it, and too many of its own failings are reminiscent of said disaster for it to successfully make the case that it has learned and moved on from it. Add to that the fact that so much of its good parts are either homages or perhaps unwitting reiterations of good things in previous Batman films and you end up with something that can't with any sincerity be heralded as an actual improvement, the same bunch of idiots simply got luckier overall with their selections of material this time around. Schumacher, may he rest in peace, I suppose knew he was making some bullshit, and later on he went so far as to apologise for his contributions to Batman's career on the silver screen. Yet at the time this film was released, a third, or rather fifth entry was slated for production. Batman Unchained, which was to feature cameo Coolio as Scarecrow, and allegedly, and most bafflingly, Jack Nicholson returning as Joker, was planned to be a darker and more serious Batman, closer to the comic books of which Schumacher claimed to be a fan, but the box office intervened and for better or for worse we shall never know what hell may yet have been unleashed, or unchained, or whatever. Well, looks like I'm running out of things to say, guess that's my cue to put this review on ice!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on August 07, 2020, 06:41:41 PM
The Batshit Odyssey continues, with the first part of the "Dark Knight" trilogy!

Batman Begins (dir. Christopher Nolan)

A new decade, a new series, a new Batman, a new you! The first major reboot in Batman's cinematic history sees Christopher Nolan, then a rising star known for reasonably clever thrillers like Memento and Insomnia, in the director's chair. Immediately I must make a confession, which is that throughout my years of knowing his work, I have found Nolan's oeuvre consistently underwhelming. While I am trying to prevent this from clouding my judgement of Batman Begins, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, criticism largely being a vehicle for vanity and all, I have doubtless failed in that task, and for that reason I won't make any overtures to fairness. Having said that, I don't think this review reads as unnecessarily critical, but then what the fuck do I know? I just wrote the damn thing, you're actually reading it, and possibly not for much longer.

Batman Begins begins (it's a bit I can only do once, let me have it) in a much different manner than either Burton's or Schumacher's films. As the title implies, the film deals with Batman's origin story, and it spends quite a lot of time trying to establish the moral code of Batman through comparison and contrast of his childhood experiences against his later interactions with various figures, such as Joe Chill, the man who killed his parents; Carmine Falcone, a mob boss whose sphere of influence encompasses all levels of Gotham City's social and legal power structures; and the League of Shadows, a mystical fraternity of assassins lead by the mysterious Ra's al Ghul. His apprenticeship under Ra's culminates in his refusal to execute a criminal, and the subsequent burning down of the base of the League of Shadows high in the Himalayas. I think this introduction to Bruce Wayne, which invites us to view Gotham as he does, both in the idealism of his father's vision for the city in his youth, and in the tattered idealism of his own as he returns to save the city, mostly works as written.

However, there's something odd going on with Christian Bale in this film. Especially in the pre-Batman portrayal of Bruce Wayne, Bale simply seems like he doesn't know what he's doing. This may well be deliberate, since it is appropriate to the character at that time in his life, but there's something off about it that I can't quite put my finger on, it's as if we are seeing Bale not getting it rather than Wayne not getting it. However, once Wayne returns to Gotham, Bale fits much more comfortably with the material. In this film, Bruce Wayne plays up to an expectation of rich youth, lacking in morals and manners, which, for his parents were good people, beloved of Gotham, he must have chosen to cast aside to indulge in nihilistic libertinism. The scene in which Wayne gets his birthday party guests to leave so that he can confront Ra's al Ghul is brilliantly played, and ultimately shows just how deliberate his decisions have been ever since his return to Gotham.

This film deals much more with Gotham as a living, breathing society than any of the previous series of films did, even Batman Returns, with its three-way intersection of crime, politics, and business, and one of its major villains an outcast aristocrat, doesn't present a full picture of Gotham's interdependent social strata. To be fair, this film doesn't present a full picture either, but it is more willing to delve into social themes, to show the effects of poverty on ordinary people, even presenting Joe Chill as a victim of circumstance rather than a cold-blooded killer—in fact, Tim Burton praised the film for going where at the time it was felt that he couldn't in his own Batman films. Chill is assassinated by Carmine Falcone, against whom Chill testified in order to shorten his prison time, and who is flooding Gotham's ghetto neighbourhoods with drugs. While Batman works with an unwitting old acquaintance, district attorney Rachel Dawes, to get leverage on Falcone, the seemingly all-powerful mobster is swept away by a yet greater tide of evil washing over the city in the form of Ra's al Ghul. This is one of the film's major missteps. While Bruce Wayne's actions absolutely should have consequences, the reveal of Falcone as a pawn in a game of global proportions causes Batman's first crusade to lose its identity as a reclamation of a city and people that were failed by his own socio-economic class. I think Ra's al Ghul's return should have been simply implied at the end and brought to fruition in a later film, since in the final scene we see that they were already confident of a sequel.

But Ra's al Ghul's what we get, so what he got? He is played by Liam Neeson, which apparently is supposed to be a shock. I read that Nolan cast Neeson since he had usually played mentor figures, which Ra's very much is at the start of the film. Given that Neeson is now known for appearing in endless reiterations of the same action movie in which the editing cuts so frequently that you can't tell what is actually happening, it seems like the choice was made for the wrong reasons. Having said that, I like Neeson's performance quite a lot. The character is not necessarily well served by the writing, especially in the latter half where he seems to be there only to fulfil the need for a big villain reveal, but Neeson himself is very convincing as the leader of a global terrorist organisation. From his very first scene, laying out a path for Bruce Wayne to become the Batman, he exhibits calm and debonair charm, with a charisma and mystique that makes us want Bruce to accept his offer so we can see what he's all about. As we learn the truth behind Ra's's (you didn't think I would, but I did) philosophy of justice, the film gambles on the hope that we'll be torn between Bruce's loyalty to Gotham, to the ideals of his father, and the more cosmically minded campaign of Ra's, who seeks to save the world through catastrophe. You can see that the film in this conflict takes its cue from Watchmen, but is it really that compelling? For me, at least, the idea that disaster begets some kind of cleansing empathy was never sound, but I think the film is designed to be perceived to be more morally complex than it actually is.

Ra's is being supported by Jonathan Crane, better known as Scarecrow. Crane is in charge of Arkham Asylum, and is using a substance derived from a rare Himalayan flower in experiments on the inmates. Under the guidance of Ra's, Crane dumps the substance into the Gotham water supply, though I have to question just how rare the flower is if enough of Scarecrow's fear toxin can be produced to poison the entire city. Regardless of the mechanics of their villainous plot, I rather like this portrayal of Scarecrow. Cillian Murphy plays Crane as a weasely, insidious, amoral figure, and while there's more than a dash of the stereotypical mad scientist who doesn't care what lines he has to cross in pursuit of his research, the understated relish of Murphy's performance makes him engaging to watch. Instead of appearing in full costume, the Scarecrow is a simple sackcloth head covering with eyeholes and a mechanism for dispersal of the fear toxin. The Scarecrow therefore appears less a persona in itself than Crane's perversion, lending him the air of a serial killer, which I suppose he is, since his drug so completely destroys the mental faculties of those exposed to it, including, ultimately, his own.

By the time of Batman Begins, the caped crusader had yet to star in a film which really sold him as a capable fighter. The Tim Burton films were deliberately theatrical and often featured unrealistic fighting in keeping with their urban fairytale style, while Joel Schumacher's Batman would usually flash some improbable gadget or found prop as a goof in the face of his foes. Nolan's foray into the franchise shows a martial arts based approach, more grounded than that of its predecessors and also of earlier high-profile western examples of martial arts action like The Matrix. Christian Bale even trained in kung fu as part of his preparation for the role of Batman, but for all of that, and perhaps foreseeing (or sealing?) Liam Neeson's own fate, the fight scenes in this film are absolute pants. Nary a punch is thrown that isn't cut in two with needless editing, and while it isn't quite as bad as Taken, in which the least movement of Neeson's body must be captured in three different ways cut against each other, the impacts lack weight because they are so often shorn of their actual physical context. The relationship between the physical impulse behind a punch, the movement of the body, from the core up and out through the chest and down the arm to the fist, the cadence of the impact, simply isn't there, and any potential for real excitement is wasted.

All scenes, cut to ribbons or not, are set to the predictably dull music of Hans Zimmer, king of the hack composers of Hollywood. Even if the fight scenes were awe-inspiring, there is nothing this man cannot make boring by association. But the flavourless harmonies and workaday rhythms of Zimmer's score are a perfect match for the film's bland colour palette and pedestrian camera work, so in a way the composer has done a brilliant job. I didn't intend here to talk about both music and visuals, but seeing as the one underlies and enhances the other, or at least as that is the intended relationship, it seems as good a time as any to say that there are no arresting images in the entire film. From dockyard drug deals to opulent mansions, the film exists in light grey and dark brown, with anything in between getting dragged one way or the other into a black hole. Pretending towards realism is one thing, but the desaturation of colour coz dark innit seems rather to take life out of the equation. Still, the music and visuals are of a piece, so despite their aesthetic beigery they cannot really be faulted in that they serve the overall purpose of the work.

The lack of character present in the film's cinematic elements are compensated for somewhat by a range of likeable performances from the supporting cast, chief among them Michael Caine, who replaces Michael Gough as Alfred Pennyworth. Caine is refreshingly unposh, while retaining the understated wit of prior incarnations, and bringing a fatherly warmth to the butler of Wayne Manor. I guess it's hard not to like Michael Caine, generally speaking, but Alfred might be my favourite of his performances next to his impeccable Ebenezer Scrooge in The Muppet Christmas Carol. Morgan Freeman is Morgan Freeman. Agreeable, reliable old Morgan Freeman. There's not much to say, he does what he does very well, even if it is nothing we haven't seen from him before. Jim Gordon, not yet commissioner, is played by Gary Oldman, and he comes off as a bit of a doofus, occasionally betraying his Englishness through inconsistent accent work, but he looks Gordonesque, far more than did Pat Hingle in the previous (alleged) continuity.

The wealth of content lifted from the comic books lends authenticity to the film, which is rich with elements and references lifted straight from the panels themselves, but the tone seems to have arisen partly from embarrassment, if not disgust at its comic book origins. The use of an amalgamation of real world metropoleis as a model, as opposed to the grandiose invention of previous films, often leaves Gotham City without even the semblance of a character of its own. While I'm wholly in favour of getting away from the nonsensical neon nightmares of Joel Schumacher, they could at least boast some unique and memorable architecture. Nolan's Gotham, realistic though it may be, is a city like any other, and in its universality it is reduced to a kind of nowhere, a state of being which reflects the film as a whole. Competence is consistently substituted for style, but there is little of value in mere competence. The platitudinous mantra “Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves up.” speaks of taking risks only as it applies to characters within the film, while its rote form and flat, simplistic vision more adequately suit the form of the film itself. No risks are taken here, Nolan is too competent and too satisfied by his competence for that.

Batman Begins is an underwhelming film. It lacks the stylishness of previous Batman films, and while, by varying degrees, it undeniably outdoes them in consistency of quality, it also cannot reach the heights that those less assured efforts could, even if it avoids the lows to which they sometimes sank. A mountain range is dangerous and difficult to cross, but a flat line provides little challenge or reward. See? I can do simplistic lines, too. Flaws can often add character and charm, but in Nolan's vision of Batman, the flaw is the lack of character itself. Character is often located somewhere in the margins, never allowed to take too much away from the central idea of a grounded superhero movie, something that can wipe away the occasionally mad excesses of what has come before it and replace them with the reassuring beige of competence. I, at least, find myself in the throes of desire for mad excess, if only to break from the monotony of “realism” as it is presented here. It seems, then, that where this Batman begins, I must stop.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: J-Man on August 12, 2020, 02:01:31 AM
Shark week.....
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on September 21, 2020, 02:09:54 AM
Just started watching Star Trek TOS for the first time. Currently on episode 9. In one of the first episodes there was a villain Kirk had to fight, and he made a gravestone and hole that Kirk was supposed to fall into, but the gravestone said James R. Kirk. Any Star Trek loremasters know what's up with that?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on September 21, 2020, 09:50:48 AM
No lore issue to be explored. It’s just a continuity issue.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on December 25, 2020, 02:33:17 AM
I've pretty much lost interest in The Mandalorian after watching about half of the latest season. The show clearly has no intention of being anything other than a series of disconnected video game sidequests that emphasize action and geeky fanservice, complete with a blank slate for a main character that viewers are presumably supposed to project themselves onto. I don't have a problem with episodic storytelling, nor with pure escapism, but something like this is just taking it too far. It all feels like very shallow pandering towards a certain...vocal subset of SW fans who want nostalgia, fanservice, action, and power fantasies, and get very angry whenever they're given anything else instead. But hey, this show is easily the most widely-acclaimed and least controversial production of the Disney era of SW, so what do I know?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on December 25, 2020, 03:55:24 AM
so what do I know?

How not to have fun.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: stack on December 25, 2020, 06:50:48 AM
Aren't fans saying that Favreau(sp) basically has saved the franchise for Disney? I watched the first Season, liked it, it seemed fresh. Haven't seen any of the second season. Is it not worth bothering?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on December 25, 2020, 12:19:56 PM
Mandalorian is a fun space western. Don’t go looking for any profound drama, but it’s solid for what it is.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Iceman on December 25, 2020, 02:49:47 PM
The western and samurai motifs are doing it for me. A few episodes have been underwhelming because they've felt too disconnected, but its a Great story, woven through witcher-esque series of side quests... doing a better job linking the trilogies together than the JJ Abrams mess, and opening us up for more content in the future and turning some of the old animated content into viable live action material...

The last scene in the last episode was an awesome callback to the epic Vader scene at the end of Rogue One.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on December 25, 2020, 05:00:27 PM
tenet

i really liked the ending, but that was about it. i got the impression that the entire movie was contrived just to show a fight scene where one fighter is moving forward through time and the other is moving backward.

my main beef is that the characters and their motivations are so poorly developed that i can't really understand why anyone is doing anything. every motivation is just sort of bluntly stated, and "tell, don't show" is the exact opposite of good writing in film. some dude wants to destroy the universe for basically no reason, and the protagonist keeps getting sidetracked by some woman he literally just met but is now in love with, again for basically no reason. it's all just so ham-fisted.

i did really really like the ending. i mean it wasn't absurdly clever — you can deduce its general form literally just from the title of the film — but their specific execution of it was maybe the only emotion-provoking scene in the entire movie. rip neil. you were a true bro.

also tbh the whole premise is pretty silly.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on December 26, 2020, 12:38:42 AM
Aren't fans saying that Favreau(sp) basically has saved the franchise for Disney?

Yes, the exact same fans who thought that the franchise actually needed saving in the wake of TFA and TLJ earning well over a billion dollars at the box office and wide critical acclaim, all because of the backlash to TLJ in certain corners of the Internet. I know how it feels to be part of a vocal dissent to general acclaim, but I just can't bring myself to sympathize with these fans. They're actively pushing back against attempts at more thoughtful storytelling, and are instead loudly clamoring for shallow, nostalgia-fueled pandering to them, and them specifically. It's such an unhealthy attitude to have, and I think Disney is making a big mistake in catering to them so heavily. But if you really loved the first season, then yes, you'll almost certainly love the second as well. Nothing has changed. It's more video game sidequests and more of the same one-dimensional badass main character you can imagine yourself being because he never shows his face and never demonstrates any sort of a distinctive personality.

The last scene in the last episode was an awesome callback to the epic Vader scene at the end of Rogue One.

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of thing I don't like about the show. The most memorable part of the latest episode - the only part of it that anyone seems to be talking about, at least - was a tribute to a shallow, pandering scene in a movie meant as a concession to idiots on reddit who had been shouting loudly about how they wanted Rogue One to be all about Vader slaughtering people, because "DAE Vader is such a badass?" The scene served no real purpose in the movie and had no serious connection to its story, characters, or themes, but they stuck it at the end of the movie to emphasize its "importance," and now, years later, the only thing anyone remembers about that movie is that stupid final scene. And yet, the fans being so desperately pandered to still call Rogue One a masterpiece despite only remembering that one scene from it, precisely because it has that one scene. A similar scene was tacked onto the end of Fallen Order, despite having even less of a purpose there, and of course the Vader fanboys went nuts for it. So now we've gotten another dumb pandering scene out of Disney's obsession with catering to shallow fanboys. And another thing, that scene wasn't just meant as a nod to Rogue One - it was also a peace offering to the anti-fans of TLJ who were furious about Luke not being a straightforward badass like John Wick or something.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Iceman on December 26, 2020, 12:58:37 AM
Yeah I get it...

I'd say the Vader scene at the end of Rogue One was definitely significant though. It changes the entire tone of a new hope when you get that taste of how dire things were immediately before the opening scene in ANH. Completely new perspective on how urgent things were...

The mirror scene with Luke in Mando was awesome, but at the same time it was a bit weird for me because that's not really how I see Luke as a Jedi. Hes more connected with the force, but I saw him as less of a crazy duelist/knight. Still a very cool scene.

Mando isnt all just side quests and pandering though... there is a better character arc for din and supporting characters here than we got to see from most in JJ Abrams trilogy (and I'm not even one of the big haters on those).

I think the medium is a big part of why things are different and, in my opinion, better. Ten episode mini series give more room for flexibility in pacing and what you can do compared to a single -or three linked - feature films.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on December 26, 2020, 04:17:46 AM
Rogue One is better than 7/8/9 and it isn't particularly close.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 26, 2020, 11:55:00 AM
I know how it feels to be part of a vocal dissent to general acclaim, but I just can't bring myself to sympathize with these fans. They're actively pushing back against attempts at more thoughtful storytelling, and are instead loudly clamoring for shallow, nostalgia-fueled pandering to them, and them specifically. It's such an unhealthy attitude to have, and I think Disney is making a big mistake in catering to them so heavily.
It's the age old debate of "Please don't change our franchise beyond recognition, and go make your own if you'd like to watch something else". People like consistency, and Star Wars is still largely associated with the old trilogy. It's naive, shallow, predictable, and that's fine. Many people enjoy that. Let them keep enjoying it instead of insisting that it needs to suddenly become dEePeR.

I'm sure JJ Abrams is perfectly capable of creating a space drama with deep, thoughtful storytelling and thought-provoking stunning-and-brave characters without hijacking Star Wars. Hell, I'm sure most of the die-hard SW fans would enjoy it, too. Luckily, that discussion happened, and Disney quietly acknowledged their error and went back to making Star Wars. I hope your niche gets filled too at some point.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on December 26, 2020, 10:27:04 PM
It's the age old debate of "Please don't change our franchise beyond recognition, and go make your own if you'd like to watch something else". People like consistency, and Star Wars is still largely associated with the old trilogy. It's naive, shallow, predictable, and that's fine. Many people enjoy that. Let them keep enjoying it instead of insisting that it needs to suddenly become dEePeR.

I'm sure JJ Abrams is perfectly capable of creating a space drama with deep, thoughtful storytelling and thought-provoking stunning-and-brave characters without hijacking Star Wars. Hell, I'm sure most of the die-hard SW fans would enjoy it, too. Luckily, that discussion happened, and Disney quietly acknowledged their error and went back to making Star Wars. I hope your niche gets filled too at some point.

Of course it's still associated with the old trilogy, because that's all there is to mainstream audiences - that and the prequels, which everyone but Lucas agrees were terrible. The franchise will never grow and attract new fans if the main purpose of the new movies is to just reaffirm how great the OT is and how great you are for being a fan of it. Imagine if Nolan's Batman movies were just nostalgic remakes/remixes of the Burton movies, or if the Daniel Craig Bond movies were just nostalgic remakes/remixes of the Connery movies. I also take issue with your labeling of SW as our franchise, because that sort of gatekeeping and claimed ownership of certain types of media is just a toxic mindset. SW was originally meant for kids/families, so shouldn't new SW movies be aimed at new generations of kids/families, rather than the adult fanboys who remember watching the first SW movies as kids?

In any case, The Mandalorian has been acclaimed, and so have scenes of dudes with lightsabers mowing through waves of enemies, despite a conspicuous lack of them in the OT, so I think this less a case of true SW fans simply rejecting that which is unfaithful to the OT and more of the loudest voices in geek media - Gen. X/millennial men who love violent action movies and video games - being treated as if they're representative of SW fandom.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on December 26, 2020, 11:12:37 PM
A substantial portion of people love the prequels. I’ve found it depends on what you grew up with.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on December 27, 2020, 06:25:44 AM
I'm sure JJ Abrams is perfectly capable of creating a space drama with deep, thoughtful storytelling and thought-provoking stunning-and-brave characters without hijacking Star Wars.

Don't you dare blame JJ for this. JJ is wonderful and brought us amazing shows like Fringe and Lost, and semi-passable spaceshit with episodes 7 and 9. Rian Johnson did meme movies like Looper and then ruined spaceshit with TLJ; followed that up with Knives Out which was junk beginning to end.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 27, 2020, 01:17:36 PM
I also take issue with your labeling of SW as our franchise, because that sort of gatekeeping and claimed ownership of certain types of media is just a toxic mindset.
As an entryist who cheered when they tried to fuck up SW - yeah, you would take issue with that. Luckily, these attempts are very rarely successful, as we keep finding out time and time again.

I won't take your accusations of toxicity too seriously. Previously, you accused me of being toxic for claiming that Holdo's character was obvious SJW pandering, and we both know how that went. But, just in case, I'll try to rephrase:

Don't turn old franchises into le meme culture war. Make your own franchises, and let people decide how much they care for them. If this means that old franchises "will never grow" - great, that leaves more space for the franchises you'd like to see to grow in their place! No toxicity, no gatekeepers, just a wonderful breath of fresh air. Of course, there is a reason some creators fear this sort of level playing field and keep trying to hijack existing stuff. I wonder what it might be.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on December 27, 2020, 02:17:27 PM
sadaaming hard ITT
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on December 28, 2020, 03:34:58 AM
I also take issue with your labeling of SW as our franchise, because that sort of gatekeeping and claimed ownership of certain types of media is just a toxic mindset.
As an entryist who cheered when they tried to fuck up SW - yeah, you would take issue with that. Luckily, these attempts are very rarely successful, as we keep finding out time and time again.

I won't take your accusations of toxicity too seriously. Previously, you accused me of being toxic for claiming that Holdo's character was obvious SJW pandering, and we both know how that went. But, just in case, I'll try to rephrase:

Don't turn old franchises into le meme culture war. Make your own franchises, and let people decide how much they care for them. If this means that old franchises "will never grow" - great, that leaves more space for the franchises you'd like to see to grow in their place! No toxicity, no gatekeepers, just a wonderful breath of fresh air. Of course, there is a reason some creators fear this sort of level playing field and keep trying to hijack existing stuff. I wonder what it might be.

I'm not in favor of turning SW into a vehicle for divisive political messaging. Surely the fact that, as you noted, I didn't even believe at first that the dumb Holdo plot was a political allegory was a pretty good indicator of my not being keen on putting weird political messages into the movies? The backlash to TLJ involved a lot more than objecting to perceived political content, and you can almost see a laundry list of them being checked off in TRoS. Vocal fanboys disliked Rose, so she was demoted to a bit part with only a minute of screen time. Vocal fanboys disliked seeing Luke as a broken-down cynic, so he appeared as a ghost to explicitly spell out that he was totally wrong about everything in TLJ and that his infamous establishing character moment of throwing away his old lightsaber was definitely a mistake on his part. Vocal fanboys didn't like the heroine being revealed to be of truly humble origins, so they retconned her backstory to include a dumb "I am your father" twist and (perhaps unintentionally) reinforce the idea that the Force is something reserved for a select few chosen ones and special bloodlines. And vocal fanboys didn't like that the Palpatine-like Snoke had been killed and Kylo positioned as the main villain, so (in what I still maintain is TRoS's single worst concession to fanboys) Palpatine himself was resurrected to be the main villain of the trilogy. The common denominator in these complaints isn't a rejection of unwelcome political messages, it's wanting a nostalgic retread of the original trilogy for the benefit of adult fans of those movies. That is, in my view, a very poor and short-sighted creative decision. It's not unreasonable to hope for something newer and more thoughtful than that. They could come up with new characters, new stories, new themes, etc. It would still be SW, just a fresh take on it.

sadaaming hard ITT

Kyle Katarn never canonically existed. The real hero(ine) who discovered the Death Star's weakness was a plucky young rebel named Mary Sue, aided by her ragtag band of diverse misfits.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on December 28, 2020, 03:41:25 AM
Implying Mary Sue needed help. Cis-male scum.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on December 28, 2020, 09:06:05 PM
Soul (2020)

Good movie. Off the chains visuals and music. You will probably cry unless you are a sociopath. Still nowhere near Pixar's best works like Coco.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on December 29, 2020, 06:06:04 AM
WW84

That movie can eat a dick. It was awful.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Clyde Frog on December 29, 2020, 11:57:40 PM
Soul (2020)

Good movie. Off the chains visuals and music. You will probably cry unless you are a sociopath. Still nowhere near Pixar's best works like Coco.
They really nailed the whole "In the zone" thing. They made it look the way it feels in a way I don't think I've seen in a movie before. And Jon Batiste's playing was perfect for what they were doing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 16, 2021, 05:27:57 PM
Watched Dredd. Pretty fun bit of violent dumbassery.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 21, 2021, 08:54:51 PM
Watched Netflix's Night Stalker documentary. Interesting subject but a pretty cheesy presentation with 3D-ified crime scene photos and the usual tacky docu-muzak playing incessantly.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Iceman on January 25, 2021, 04:08:58 AM
Just finished the podcast 'who shat on the floor at my wedding?'

If you want something completely brainless that'll give you some easy giggles, it was a pretty good time. Simultaneously the dumbest thing I've ever listened to and a really funny job taking the piss out of the million unsolved murder mystery podcasts out there
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 03, 2021, 03:32:09 PM
All Is True (dir. Kenneth Branagh)

Lauded playwright William Shakespeare's famous Globe Theatre burns down after a stage prop cannon used in the première of his Henry VIII ignites a consuming blaze. Will returns home to Stratford-upon-Avon where at last, freed from the yoke of creative life, he comes to terms with the death of his son Hamnet, whose passing he never truly mourned, and devotes himself to the cultivation of a memorial garden, while also dealing with the nuisance of a public who cannot understand why he has now ceased to write. Meanwhile his daughter Susanna struggles in a loveless marriage to a puritan reformist, his other daughter Judith grows old (for a woman of that time) and has yet to marry, and Anne Hathaway can only view her husband, who has spent so much of their married life away from her in his London, as a guest in his own house.

Ben Elton, a writer about whom much could be said, for he can be as brilliant as he oft is shit, wrote the script, and it is somewhat infuriating that he can write an absolute showstopper of a scene one moment then stagger his pen about the page like a weepy drunk. We are treated to a marvellous firelit tête-à-tête in which Kenneth Branagh's Will Shakespeare and Ian McKellen's Earl of Southampton reckon with each other's view of the world and all that's in it, the former's tireless work-oriented life pitted against the libertinous excesses of the latter, capped off with two opposed recitations (which of course must be credited to Shakespeare and to the actors themselves, not Elton) of the same sonnet that sets them so brilliantly apart. Yet the scene in which Judith decides that she will after all marry, the dialogue between the not exactly star-cross'd lovers is as uninspired as it is barely perfunctory. Ultimately, Elton's script is too much in love with Shakespeare, both the dramatist and the man himself, to give all that much to the others, and on that point it is worth noting that the Earl of Southampton appears in only one scene.

The film is passably directed by Branagh, who, though he has no masterpieces under his belt as a filmmaker, does know a good shot when he sees it. Unfortunately, many images that should have great impact are near enough ruined by the most aggressively sentimental, and worse still generic score I have heard in a very long time. What's more, a cardinal sin in my view, the soundtrack to a film set in the early 1600s features a fucking piano. Anachronism's all good and well in a film that partakes, but this one does not, and a composer should have the courage and decency to do the same. Failing that, recordings of Byrd, Dowland, Gibbons would suit far better the English countryside than this lamentable hackwork, or perhaps even Morley, who set Shakespeare's verse contemporaneously. I repeat that the film is infuriating on some level, because it does so well in some parts and so poorly in others, its presentation sometimes soaring, sometimes weighed down under a soggy script and even soggier partiture, but Branagh's central performance is compelling enough to just about get it to work. A terribly uneven film, but one that I can't deny finding overall enjoyable.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 05, 2021, 02:10:28 PM
Manhunt: Unabomber

There was a man, there was hunting, there was a una, there was bombing. That's more or less the story of us all, isn't it? But for those of us who value a more detail oriented approach to the human condition, FBI Special Agent James R. Fitzgerald and Professor Theodore J. Kaczynski are on hand, ready, willing, and able to venture forth into unknown frontiers in search of the answer to that most fundamental of questions, one that has haunted man since the time of Plato: should unas be bombed? But of course I'm joking, ha ha ha. Count the laughs, measure the mirth. Manhunt: Unabomber is the story, in a manner of speaking, of how an experimental linguistic approach to criminal investigation saw perhaps the most infamous domestic terrorist in modern US history caught, serving multiple life sentences in solitary confinement in an administrative maximum security prison.

While most people have heard of Ted Kaczynski, the titular Unabomber, and most people know more or less what his deal is, I might as well indulge in a little padding so I can feel better about my meagre efforts in writing this. Kaczynski's life is more or less characterised by his inability to feel at home in modern society, whether at Harvard, which he attended at the age of sixteen as a child prodigy in mathematics, or in his assistant professorship at UC Berkeley, which he suddenly resigned after just two years in 1969. In the early 1970s he began living self-sufficiently in the woods of Montana, where gradually he became convinced of the effectiveness of letter writing campaigns. Over the course of almost two decades, he sent sixteen bombs to various academic and industrial figures, all with the eventual aim of having his long-form essay “Industrial Society and its Future” (popularly known as the “Unabomber Manifesto”), in which he espouses an anarchistic, anti-technology, ecologically sound way of living, published by a major newspaper, in exchange for which he promised that he would cease his terrorist activities. Ultimately this led to his arrest, after his brother David recognised Kaczynski's ideas and writing style and sent a tip to the FBI.

The show dramatises more or less the whole of Kaczynski's life in bits and pieces, and he is by far the best thing in it. While its attempts to make him compelling and even sympathetic often fall flat, because the show is simply too ensnared in a run of the mill programme of police procedural antics, Paul Bettany's portrayal of Kaczynski is in itself terrific to watch, frequently elevating the cutesy script, occasionally finding anchorage in the deep waters of pathos. Bettany wrenches what complexity he can out of the scenes he has, and it's unfortunate that out of the entire eight episode run he has so little to actually do. Since so much of the show is told from the perspective of his nemesis, FBI profiler James Fitzgerald, and set predominantly within the bureaucracy of the UNABOM task force, it makes sense that we don't spend that much time in the direct company of the Unabomber himself, and yet Fitz, as he is most commonly referred to by his colleagues, is a mediocre character whose psychological links with Kaczynski, the slim dramatic meat of which the show hopes to make a substantial meal, are as fragile as the paper their concomitant dialogue was printed on. It is no coincidence, then, that the best episode of the series centres entirely on Kaczynski qua Kaczynski, framed in a letter of reminiscence that Ted writes to his brother.

The script attempts to present Fitz, who is not the real James R. Fitzgerald but a heavily edited and augmented construction bearing his name, as a highly intelligent but insecure outsider who has some difficulties with authority and feels that he is underappreciated by his superiors, a man similar to Ted Kaczynski himself. When Fitz, who for his insistence that linguistic clues to the Unabomber's identity are the best, indeed only way forward, begins to be perceived as being disruptive of official Bureau business, is taken off the taskforce, he begins working regular hours and is able to spend more time with his family, but he finds himself distracted and increasingly alienated from them. In one scene, Fitz lies awake in bed, unable to sleep due to his awareness of a buzzing electric street light outside his house, he goes outside and trains his service weapon on the light before ultimately resisting the urge to shoot it out. This scene is the first in which the show attempts to sell us on the idea that Kaczynski is inside Fitz's head, and that Fitz is sympathetic to Kaczynski's ideas about the harm that industrialisation has done to humanity. The amount of tension the show tries to build out of Fitz's apparent inner turmoil over this development is not at all commensurate with the actual information we are given, which is essentially that Fitz is annoyed by lights, not just street lights but, quelle horreur, traffic lights and the way they control us by making it safe to cross the road and so forth. By introducing Fitz to us in 1998, two years after Kaczynski's arrest, as a man who has himself retired to a small cabin to live simply and self-sufficiently, the show avoids the comedy that would have resulted from a chronologically linear plot, wherein the much put-upon profiler is driven so mad by electric lights that he simply can't stands no more, and, after munching down a tin of spinach, puts his mightily and meatily embiggened forearms to work building a refuge out in the wilderness.

While it would be easy to take a passing glance at Hollywood tough guy Sam Worthington and sneeringly find executive fault, his efforts are not at all the problem with Fitz. Worthington in fact does a commendable job with the character, building an understated presence through a small, well observed suite of verbal and physical tics. A physically imposing actor, he plays small within the sprawling city of computer desks that makes up the home base for the FBI's most intensely watched taskforce, and convinces as the underdog trying to convince his superiors to take a chance on his unique perspective with appreciable nuance. But the script is too surface level to support Worthington's efforts. While it can occasionally thrill with plot surprises, as in the scenes leading up to Kaczynski's trial, there is so little in the script that convinces on its own, meaning that the characters—so far as they can impress themselves upon the audience as characters—are more or less what the actors bring to the role. With the exception of Fitz and Kaczynski, what we have left to us is a cast of characters bought wholesale from the annals of 2000s police procedurals, all-business tough talkers whose tongues are never not in thrall to the dictates of an unwritten but osmotic style guide, spitting one-liners so slick that they hit the camera and leave a cold and viscous grease trail as they slide down the screen.

The cheapness of much of the supporting cast's and indeed main cast's script, the verbal environment in which Fitz and by extension we operate, is at odds with the show's high production value, surprisingly high when you consider that it was commissioned by, of all things, the Discovery Channel. The series features several well done reconstructions of the Unabomber's attacks. The first of these attacks occurred in 1978, but Kaczynski has maintained in his own correspondence that his decision to begin making bombs and mailing them out came in 1983, when he found a new road had been built by his favourite camping site, which he regarded as an aggressive invasion of his own way of life by the technological society he had rejected. The impact of these bombs varied from minor flesh wounds to loss of limbs, blindness, deafness, and ultimately death. Towards the end of his campaign, Kaczynski had near enough perfected the design for a lethal bomb, and most of the last few of his targets were killed outright. The reconstructions do not shy away from the bloody aftermath of the explosion, and credit must go to the effects crew, who did a magnificently convincing job of detailing the carnage wreaked by these bombs. I can only imagine they, like practical effects workers of the good old days of silicone, chicken guts, and jelly, had a great deal of fun making up the grim spectacle of a shuddering body pierced with long shards of shrapnel. Such shots as these, though tastefully brief, do more to convey the horror and inhumanity of Kaczynski's actions than the script itself can even begin to muster.

I have debated with myself (and I'm sure your mind can supply a suitable prefix to form a relevant homophone there) whether to delve into the many allegations of historical inaccuracy levelled against the show, such as those of former FBI agent Greg Stejskal, who worked the UNABOM case, and even Kaczynski himself, who, though he admits having not seen the show, has received plenty of correspondence about it, and says that what he has read about it amounts to “bull manure”. I could point out also that the real James Fitzgerald, who did consult for the production, disputes Stejskal's account with great vehemence, but ultimately I think that, regardless of its fidelity to the truth of the events upon which it is more or less based, any drama ultimately stands or falls on simple artistic merit, which in fact is not simple at all, but for the sake of brevity let's pretend that it is. I see Manhunt: Unabomber as a frustrating viewing experience, because I can see the potential for a really gripping story about two opposed but similar characters lurking in the periphery of what's there, but that potential is bound so heavily by the workaday writing and overly generic trappings of the often sumptuous production that the two most compelling elements, the performances of Worthington and especially Bettany, can't hope to break out and illuminate the screen with the fullness of brilliance to which they might otherwise have attained. And with that, yeronner, the prosecution rests.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on February 05, 2021, 05:38:58 PM
I suck at writing essays, but five episodes in and Wandavision is pretty awesome so far.  The story with Wanda is good enough that I don't really care that I can see the MCU story team weaving stuff in for the future Phase 4 releases.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on February 05, 2021, 06:54:31 PM
The show took a dramatic nosedive in quality in the fourth episode once they felt the need to start overexplaining everything. They were doing a great job of slowly teasing that something was very wrong and Wanda was somehow at the bottom of it all, but nope, they just had to have a bunch of unfunny quippy quipping mcquipper government agents show up and explicitly spell out in excruciating detail everything that was going on.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on February 05, 2021, 07:11:17 PM
Oh cool have you seen the unreleased episodes?

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on February 05, 2021, 08:01:47 PM
Weird question that you already know the answer to. The fourth episode was a clumsy, unnecessary, and unfunny exposition dump, and nothing that happens later in the show will retroactively change that fact. The fifth episode was overall an improvement, but it seems to be establishing a pattern of having these unfunny characters now providing a running commentary on what's going on in Westview and what Wanda is up to. They've thrown the principle of "show, don't tell" out the window. The best (worst) example of this so far is the cameo at the end of the fifth episode. This is a jaw-dropping moment, and both we and the characters need a few moments to let it sink in...but no, Kat Dennings immediately has to open her big mouth and give us a lame quip. And just like that, the dramatic impact is ruined.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on February 05, 2021, 08:52:59 PM
Weird question that you already know the answer to.

It was weird to assert that they were telling you everything is going on when you are midway through the series.  We don't know how much is true and how much isn't.  From what I have read of source material, there could be significant red herring's they set up.

Quote
The fourth episode was a clumsy, unnecessary, and unfunny exposition dump, and nothing that happens later in the show will retroactively change that fact.

Again you are assuming that you know everything that is going to happen.  What a silly way to judge the middle of the story.  Was it heavy on expository type information?  Yes.  Was it clumsy?  Not at all.  They managed to show (not tell) what it was like when the events of Endgame took place.  They reintroduced an adult Monica and used her story to inform the audience with a whole bunch of backstory in a few minutes.  Much more efficient than a flashback and not at all clumsy considering the territory they have to cover.  You don't like the humour, fine, but its not objectively bad, but I can understand not liking it.

Quote
The fifth episode was overall an improvement, but it seems to be establishing a pattern of having these unfunny characters now providing a running commentary on what's going on in Westfield and what Wanda is up to. They've thrown the principle of "show, don't tell" out the window.

They haven't.  Vision's entire storyline is proof of that.

Quote
The best (worst) example of this so far is the cameo at the end of the fifth episode. This is a jaw-dropping moment, and both we and the characters need a few moments to let it sink in...but no, Kat Dennings immediately has to open her big mouth and give us a lame quip.

It wasn't a lame quip.  First off, there will be large portions of the audience who will not have Days of Future Past and so will need to be filled in some way.  Instead of devoting extra time to "showing" it, they made the choice to expedite the matter.  It's a fair choice and one you have to make when you are juggling significant amounts of material like they are.  It wasn't even a quip, it was a pretty concise expression of what happened in the context of the world Wanda created.

Quote
And just like that, the dramatic impact is ruined.

The dramatic impact was ruined?  What impact do you think it was "supposed" to have?  It wasn't a moment you enjoyed, sure, but again, there are huge amounts of audience who need the narrative to do more than just be mysterious because it actually takes a fuck load of background knowledge to keep up.  I can vouch for this every time I watch an MCU property with my wife, who has seen a lot, but not everything, forgets things because she isn't a huge nerd like me and needs to be reminded of expository information.

I feel like your issue with how they handle exposition misses how well Wanda is being portrayed, how well they are taking Vision through his growing understanding or allowing for there still to be more going on than they have told you.

It's also objectively better than WW84 in every facet, js.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on February 05, 2021, 10:25:45 PM
It was weird to assert that they were telling you everything is going on when you are midway through the series.  We don't know how much is true and how much isn't.  From what I have read of source material, there could be significant red herring's they set up.

That's not important. Whether the information we currently have will ultimately turn out to be true or false, it's still information that the show wants us to have. This information was being communicated to us in a very interesting, unique, almost Lynchian way, and then the show decided to put a halt to that and instead give us the exact same information in the very familiar, tired format of government agents and scientists quipping and spouting technobabble at each other. That's really, really disappointing.

Quote
They managed to show (not tell) what it was like when the events of Endgame took place.

Yeah, I hated that too. The five-year time skip was such a stupid idea, and just like I predicted when that movie came out, now all future MCU projects have to find a way to either write around it or include it in their overall stories.

Quote
It wasn't a lame quip.  First off, there will be large portions of the audience who will not have Days of Future Past and so will need to be filled in some way.  Instead of devoting extra time to "showing" it, they made the choice to expedite the matter.  It's a fair choice and one you have to make when you are juggling significant amounts of material like they are.  It wasn't even a quip, it was a pretty concise expression of what happened in the context of the world Wanda created.

If you haven't seen DoFP, you will get nothing out of that cameo. The entire impact is predicated on you recognizing who this person is and realizing why it's a big deal to see him here. The quip wasn't to help anyone understand what was going on, it was a fourth-wall joke highlighting the fact that Pietro has literally been recast IRL. It wouldn't make any sense to seriously call Pietro's appearance a "recast," because he was never in the "cast" of Wanda's show to begin with.

Quote
The dramatic impact was ruined?  What impact do you think it was "supposed" to have?  It wasn't a moment you enjoyed, sure, but again, there are huge amounts of audience who need the narrative to do more than just be mysterious because it actually takes a fuck load of background knowledge to keep up.  I can vouch for this every time I watch an MCU property with my wife, who has seen a lot, but not everything, forgets things because she isn't a huge nerd like me and needs to be reminded of expository information.

You know perfectly well what impact it was supposed to have. It's Pietro returning from the dead as well as being played by the actor who played a different version of the character in a competing franchise. I still don't believe that cameo was meant for the benefit of anyone other than those who did recognize him, but if they did want to give a quick line explaining what was happening, they could have said something along the lines of "I think that's supposed to be...Pietro?" or "It's Pietro, but he's...different." Something like that, not a dumb quip about him being "recast."

Quote
I feel like your issue with how they handle exposition misses how well Wanda is being portrayed, how well they are taking Vision through his growing understanding or allowing for there still to be more going on than they have told you.

Yeah, everything with Wanda and Vision is great. It makes it all the more frustrating when they're forced to share the spotlight with the constant exposition and awful attempts at comedy from Dennings and Randall Park. The difference in quality between everything set in Westview and everything outside of it is night and day.

Quote
It's also objectively better than WW84 in every facet, js.

I agree.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on March 06, 2021, 04:31:42 AM
And now WandaVision is all over. It was good for the most part. I do still think that much of the technobabble and expository dialogue was unnecessary, especially in the fourth episode, and in general that the show was at its weakest when it was most conventional and "MCU-like," so to speak. I wanted more quiet, poignant scenes between Wanda and Vision, less quipping and expository technobabble. More Kathryn Hahn, less Kat Dennings. More "Ship of Theseus" philosophical musings, less extravagant CGI battles.

I also really disliked the show's presumption that Hayward was a villain for wanting to kill Wanda - not just a jerk, but an actual villain who needed to be physically defeated and sent to jail - and that the other side characters were totally right to defend Wanda and stop him from killing her. It's such blatant protagonist-centered morality (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality). We in the audience like Wanda and don't want her to be killed, but that doesn't mean anything in-universe, where the only thing the characters know is that Wanda is holding a town full of people prisoner via a powerful and dangerous magic spell. Why was it so morally wrong to try and kill Wanda? Why did the show portray that as such an inherently villainous act? In fact, why was Hayward even arrested at the end, anyway? Did he ever actually break the law or do something that wasn't simply his job?

Pietro being played by Evan Peters was a bullshit fake-out on the show's part, and I'm not using spoiler tags for that because of how inconsequential the role proved to be. They knew what they were implying by casting him as Pietro, and if they weren't willing to follow through with it, they shouldn't have cast him.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: JSS on March 06, 2021, 12:09:22 PM
And now WandaVision is all over. It was great for the most part. I do still think that much of the technobabble and expository dialogue was unnecessary, especially in the fourth episode, and in general that the show was at its weakest when it was most conventional and "MCU-like," so to speak. I wanted more quiet, poignant scenes between Wanda and Vision, less quipping and expository technobabble. More Kathryn Hahn, less Kat Dennings. More "Ship of Theseus" philosophical musings, less extravagant CGI battles.

I also really disliked the show's presumption that Hayward was a villain for wanting to kill Wanda - not just a jerk, but an actual villain who needed to be physically defeated and sent to jail - and that the other side characters were totally right to defend Wanda and stop him from killing her. It's such blatant protagonist-centered morality (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality). We in the audience like Wanda and don't want her to be killed, but that doesn't mean anything in-universe, where the only thing the characters know is that Wanda is holding a town full of people prisoner via a powerful and dangerous magic spell. Why was it so morally wrong to try and kill Wanda? Why did the show portray that as such an inherently villainous act? In fact, why was Hayward even arrested at the end anyway? Did he ever actually break the law or do something that wasn't simply his job?

Pietro being played by Evan Peters was a bullshit fake-out on the show's part, and I'm not using spoiler tags for that because of how inconsequential the role proved to be. They knew what they were implying by casting him as Pietro, and if they weren't willing to follow through with it, they shouldn't have cast him.

Yeah, I was really disappointed he didn't turn out to be pulled from an alternate universe as a prelude to trying to reintegrate the sectioned off mess the various shows and movies are. But maybe as someone said it was to test audience reaction to the idea. People reacted VERY favorably so they might do so in the future.

I also felt the villain was underdeveloped and, well, not villainy enough to get the reaction from the other characters.

He was trying to take out a supervillain who took over an entire town and was literally altering their bodies and minds, and with Rambo providing evidence this alteration was harmful and permanent.

I guess the real evil plot was putting Vision back together as a weapon or something but it wasn't really clear what was so bad about that either.  I mean, half the Marvel universe is someone the government built/put back together.

But aside from that, it was really well done.  It was a great story when not distracted by a few flaws.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on March 07, 2021, 05:11:00 AM
Oh, and Monica's "They'll never know what you sacrificed" line left a very bad taste in my mouth. As if Wanda was a hero who just saved the day and everyone should be grateful to, rather than the person who was responsible for the whole horrible situation to begin with. You don't praise someone for "sacrificing" something that they never should have had to begin with. Monica taking on the role of Wanda's constant apologist throughout the show made no sense - she didn't know Wanda, and had no more reason to assume good faith on her part than anyone else did - and neither did the show's portrayal of her as inherently heroic and morally correct for doing so. It's so weird. The show knew that what Wanda did was monstrous and portrayed it as such, but at the same time, it demonized the character that put the most effort into stopping her and lionized the character that mindlessly defended her.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on March 12, 2021, 04:11:16 AM
WandaVision, particularly the finale. Unmarked spoilers ahead so don't read if you haven't watched it, in which case what's wrong with you?








I loved the Fietro fake-out. For some reason I never really bought that Evan Peters was going to turn out to be X-Men's Pietro. Maybe it seemed like it would seem so obvious that it felt like a feint. I don't know. It was tantalizing when he showed up, but I never thought it felt right. There's almost something meta about it; Agatha created him to manipulate Wanda, and it's certainly a reasonable argument that the creators used the actor to manipulate the audience, and pretty much to the same purpose as Agatha did with Wanda. They wanted you to believe, as Wanda did, that this was somehow really her brother. What better way than by casting Peters? Yes it's a tease, but it's an artful, clever tease. At any rate at least it's a good dick joke.

Wait a minute. Bohner... Peters... Pietro...

Hmm.

There were two major issues I had with the finale. One was Monica's reaction to Wanda. Putting her on a pedestal, hero worshipping her, because she released the town. After having enslaved it in horrifying fashion in the first place... I get that it wasn't intentional, but Wanda went mad with grief, literally. With that, and her possession of the Darkhold, it feels like they're setting her up as a villain. Which will probably end up being another fake-out, but I hope they explore this hero/villain duality throughout the course of Phase 4. I hope that after having developed Wanda so thoroughly and beautifully they don't just tie this storyline up with a bow in the next Dr Strange movie.

And Hayward ending up being viewed as a criminal... I get that he was basically a mustache-twirling villain to the audience, but I feel like I have to watch it again to figure out if it makes sense that it's treated like he literally broke the law in the end.

I also thought it was weird how underused Darcy was in the final episode, but that's a really minor quibble. I did love both Kat Dennings and Randall Park in this. More great meta-casting, in my opinion, using two of the MCU's resident sitcom stars as snarky observers of the series.

The emotional scenes in the last two episodes were top-notch. Wanda and Vision putting the kids to bed, Vision disappearing with the house... the scene where Vision is comforting Wanda after Pietro's death... there was a lot that was really beautiful about this show. And it was extremely well-acted. I think Olsen, Bettany, and Hahn all deserve Emmy nods for this, and given how popular the show was, I don't even think it's unreasonable to expect it.

And both the thoughtful ending to Vision and White Vision's battle, and the more standard ending to Wanda and Agatha's battle, were pretty epic. The runes were a perfect call- back, and you really don't expect something like the Ship of Theseus to come up in a typical TV show. It brought me back to The Good Place and it's emphasis on philosophy, particularly the episode "The Trolley Problem".

All in all I thought it was a satisfying, if flawed, ending to an amazing series. I'd love to see Marvel do more thoughtful and offbeat stuff like this in the future.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on March 12, 2021, 10:03:40 PM
They wanted you to believe, as Wanda did, that this was somehow really her brother. What better way than by casting Peters? Yes it's a tease, but it's an artful, clever tease.

But nobody thought that this was really Wanda's brother, because he was clearly the X-Men Pietro and not the MCU Pietro. I don't think even Wanda actually believed he was her brother. By that point in the show, she had begun to accept the artificial nature of her world and her role in creating it. I'm not sure what sense it even makes in-universe that Agatha had to go with a "recast" of Pietro, anyway. She could use magic to control this guy and give him super speed, but couldn't make him look like the actual Pietro? Even though we see her change her appearance, showing that she's perfectly capable of that kind of magic?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on March 12, 2021, 10:10:02 PM
Knowing that Multiverse of Madness is coming soon made the recasting of Pietro a little more enigmatic.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on March 13, 2021, 02:14:15 AM
They wanted you to believe, as Wanda did, that this was somehow really her brother. What better way than by casting Peters? Yes it's a tease, but it's an artful, clever tease.

But nobody thought that this was really Wanda's brother, because he was clearly the X-Men Pietro and not the MCU Pietro. I don't think even Wanda actually believed he was her brother. By that point in the show, she had begun to accept the artificial nature of her world and her role in creating it. I'm not sure what sense it even makes in-universe that Agatha had to go with a "recast" of Pietro, anyway. She could use magic to control this guy and give him super speed, but couldn't make him look like the actual Pietro? Even though we see her change her appearance, showing that she's perfectly capable of that kind of magic?

I think Wanda was willing to accept it, though, at least at first. She was distraught and confused and by that point already fairly exhausted, I think she was willing to believe anything. I might, again, have to rewatch for context, but I don't think it was until he really started acting like a dick that Wanda was even actively questioning it. And certainly anyone who bought into the theory that he was the X-Men's Pietro
at least believed he was actually Pietro, even if they knew it was not *actually* this Wanda's Pietro. You're just nitpicking about the lack of a glamour to make him look like Wanda's Pietro. I'm willing to justify it by just figuring Agatha was really only doing it to keep Wanda off-balance, so it didn't matter to her if he looked like Pietro and may have actually worked in her favor that he didn't. Why not?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on March 17, 2021, 11:36:17 PM
I’m psyched for Falcon and Winter Soldier this week. If the more yuck yuck side of the MCUs law enforcement isn’t your thing then hopefully this will deliver some sweet action.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on March 18, 2021, 12:01:07 AM
The Puncher (Punisher) season 1 and 2. Season 1 was better but still a lot of great punches in season 2.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on March 19, 2021, 10:49:53 AM
Snack Zyder's Justice League. Was a good.
inb4sadaam
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 03, 2021, 09:30:15 PM
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier was a mixed bag for me. I don't really feel like writing a big review for it, because a lot of the show just felt like passable, forgettable filler. My biggest issue was the main antagonist. I get what the show was going for by making the leader of a terrorist group and the face of the resistance to global resettlement so young and physically slight, but her actress simply didn't have the charisma or gravitas to make it work. She never once came across as a leader or a visionary, and turned in a very dull, milquetoast performance. The first episode was also a pretty rough start to the show. It didn't really have a story so much as it had a series of seemingly unconnected events just sort of happening, and the big action scene up in the sky was an awful mess of shitty CGI and frantic cut-cut-cut-what's-even-happening direction. But Sam and Bucky are a fun pair, I'd like to see more of Walker in the future, and I appreciated the social commentary and deconstruction of the Captain America figure.

One more thing - and I am unfortunately going to go into "plot hole" territory for this - Sharon's heel turn isn't a bad idea for a character that's so far been nothing more than a bland obligatory love interest for a character no longer active in the franchise, but her actions over the course of the show don't really make much sense if she was the Power Broker all along, especially in the third episode. Why does she put a bounty on Sam, Bucky, and Zemo for killing her people when she was the one who did it to protect them? Why does she spend the whole episode fighting bounty hunters to protect them when she was the one who placed the bounty in the first place? Why does she give the trio access to her most valuable employee when she could have easily gotten any information they needed from him herself? Why, despite the vast resources supposedly at her command, does she spend the remaining episodes doing precisely nothing until the final confrontation, and finally make her move by personally jumping into the middle of a heated battle to say to Karli, "Aw, c'mon, work for me again?" Was that her master plan all along? Obviously there's no way for me to prove this, but I strongly suspect that her turning out to be the Power Broker was a last-minute decision for the show.

And having typed out the above paragraph, I decided to look it up, and I'd say this (https://collider.com/falcon-and-winter-soldier-power-broker-changes-sharon-emily-vancamp/) (link is spoilery) is near-enough confirmation my theory is right.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Iceman on May 03, 2021, 09:50:53 PM
Agree almost entirely. Got off to a very slow start, but Bucky and Falcon made a great pair. Pacing and content dramatically improved in episodes 2-6. Kudos for highlighting and tackling some pretty heavy issues, I thought were (mostly) handled pretty well, hitting a variety of smaller topics along the way the arc was relatively well thought out, but they cut short the completion of Bucky's arc,  and the one line at the culmination of Falcon's  seemed a bit hokey (but I'm a middle class white dude so I'll stfu). Antagonist was very 1-D and the 'twist' was telegraphed a mile away.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on July 20, 2021, 04:19:12 AM
Black Widow (Cate Shortland, 2021)

It's okay. A few fun action setpieces, a couple of charming performances, and due to its odd status as a sort of midquel to Civil War, this is the first MCU production in years to not be swamped by self-congratulatory circlejerking about "blip blip blip Tony Tony Tony look at all this continuity let's play some clips from the previous movies," which is kind of refreshing. But this movie has some big problems. There's the action, for one thing. In the first act, all the action seems grittier and more lo-fi than is usual for the MCU. Characters slam each other into walls violently, they grab each other by the throat while their faces clench in pain, they gasp for breath as soon as the fighting is over, etc. But once the middle act rolls around, we're back to the more fanciful approach to action that's normal for the MCU, and now a kick from a normal woman launches people several feet backwards, a normal woman can survive being in a car that explodes and is launched a hundred feet with only minor cuts and bruises, and so on. I have no problem with maintaining a willing suspension of disbelief for a capeshit movie, or any action movie at all, but there has to be consistency. You can't just hop from one extreme to another.

And that's not all. The editing of the action scenes is really weird. On a number of occasions, time seems to just sort of skip forward several seconds in the fight for no real reason. It's like, you'll see a character throwing a punch at another, and in the next second, the second character is landing their punch on the first instead. Or a character will reach for their side, and then suddenly they already have a gun in their hand and they're already firing. It sounds nuts, but I swear it happens! There must have been at least half a dozen instances of this, probably more, and it's just baffling to me. If they were trying to go for some sort of unique style by cutting time out of the action scenes like that, it didn't work. It's disconcerting, unpleasant, and jarring every time it happens.

More assorted thoughts. As much fun as it was to see Taskmaster fighting by mimicking the Avengers' fighting styles, the character doesn't have enough screen time to really make their presence worthwhile. I would have saved them for another movie. I also suspect that the character's radically re-imagined origins and gender flip pissed off the usual chuds, so we'll see what the consequences of that will be in the coming weeks and months. The Wolverine tease was a great moment, and a perfect example of how to do that kind of teasing fanservice well (in stark contrast to, say, the Pietro fake-out in WandaVision). David Harbour carries most of the film's comedy on his back and does an admirable job of it, and Florence Pugh, whose character Marvel is clearly positioning as the "new" Black Widow, is a charismatic presence I'd love to see more of in the MCU. Let's hope it doesn't take another twenty movies before someone finally decides to let her have her own film.

In short, it's definitely one of the weaker MCU movies, but it's okay. A harmless way to spend two hours.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on August 10, 2021, 03:59:42 PM
Wheel of Time (dir. Werner Herzog)
Documentary about the Kalachakra, a Buddhist ritual surrounding the creation of a mandala from sand in many different colours. In this documentary, perhaps out of respect for the religion, Herzog does not do his usual thing of inserting bizarre fictional threads into his documentary narrative, and rather stands back and observes. The film includes an interview with the Dalai Lama, which is surprisingly unrevealing. Herzog asks softball questions and does not attempt to prod any further. While it is perhaps disappointingly non-confrontational fare from Herzog, his infectious sense of wonder at the world and at humanity remains a constant presence, and makes the film compelling viewing nonetheless.

The Inflatable Sex Doll of the Wastelands (dir. Atsushi Yamatoya)
If the title didn't clue you in, this is a strange film. Low budget, bizarrely assembled and poorly acted, were it not for the film's violence and nudity it would have doubtless been prime fare for MST3k. The basic premise is that a hitman is hired to take out a gang who kidnap young women and use them as victims in snuff films, but the execution is anything but straightforward. With a heaping helping of the worst excesses of the French nouvelle vague, the film's nigh incomprehensible progression of noir cliches, naked women, flying knives and bullets occasionally give way to rewarding surreal images. This is an interesting headache of a film that can generate laughter of a sort which can only arise from the question "what the fuck is going on?" as audience mantra.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on August 11, 2021, 03:21:02 AM
Watched the new suicide squad movie in theater. It was funny and cute and I'm glad I watched it on the big screen rather than at home,  good visuals imo.

Plus I love Margot Robbie and Idris Elba
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on October 07, 2021, 03:53:43 AM
Free Guy (Shawn Levy, 2021)

Some of the action scenes are fun, there are a few entertaining visual gags, and Ryan Reynolds is always great. But the rest of this movie is really bad. Even the setting, a video game city constantly being torn apart by gamers eager to level up, grows stale pretty soon. But what really kills the film is everything set in the real world. Nothing about it works. Nothing. The guy from Stranger Things is an absolute black hole of charisma who sounds like he's bored out of his mind every time he speaks. The cameos from various YouTubers/streamers are pure cringe, and I honestly think that the climax, such as it was, would have been more compelling without the movie constantly cutting to those guys and their running commentary. And Taika's performance in this is not just the movie's low point, but also the low point of his career. I've never seen him be less funny than he was here. I strongly suspect that he was encouraged to ad-lib his entire performance.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on October 25, 2021, 08:49:00 PM
No Time to Die (Cary Joji Fukunaga, 2021)

Not as bad as Quantum of Solace or Spectre, but nowhere near as good as Casino Royale or Skyfall. Like the two weaker movies I just mentioned, No Time to Die is obsessed with continuity between the movies and constantly expositing about how the plot of one leads to the plot of another. This focus on continuity rather than solid, standalone storytelling was a major flaw with those movies, and it's a major flaw with this one too. Léa Seydoux is still a boring love interest sharing no chemistry with Craig, and I can only assume that she was brought back because of this franchise's all-important continuity - hey, if she just disappeared between movies, that would be a "plot hole," and then all the nerdbro "critics" on YouTube would get super mad! Rami Malek brings absolutely nothing to his role as a villain, and that was honestly a real surprise to me as well as a disappointment. He's little more than a silly accent and a scarred face.

There are a few positives, thankfully. Fukunaga is a great director with a good eye for action, Craig gives it his all with probably his best performance as Bond, and they've set up a really nice supporting cast for the future of this franchise that I'd love to see come back. But for the love of God, I am begging, I am pleading - stop worrying about the fucking continuity. Just make a fun standalone action/adventure movie in which Bond saves the world and meets a new lady friend. Do that every few years, and everyone will be happy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on October 28, 2021, 12:58:41 AM
The Right Stuff (Philip Kaufman, 1983)

This film tells the story of the very early beginnings of the US space programme, from Chuck Yeager's historic breaking of the sound barrier in 1947 up to Project Mercury in the early '60s, which saw the first seven astronauts orbit the Earth. It therefore functions as a sort of prequel to the many media covering the later Gemini and Apollo programmes, which is why it piqued my interest.

I'm glad I watched it, but it isn't actually a very good movie. There are lengthy sequences covering fairly dull moments, such as the extensive and at times confusingly bizarre treatment of the medical tests the prospective astronauts were subjected to, or the seemingly forced insertion of Australian Aboriginal myths without any real explanation of why they were relevant to the story.

Meanwhile, most of the actual spaceflights are glossed over almost entirely, with only the launch and landing being shown, if that. The only significant depiction of time spent in space is John Glenn's Mercury-Atlas 6 flight, presumably because the suspicion of a loose heat shield was considered an opportunity for dramatic tension.

There is plenty of potential here, but this footage simply does not justify its 192-minute runtime. A pity, because it could have been much more focused and engaging if condensed to 90 minutes, without leaving out any important details.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on October 28, 2021, 04:14:37 AM
The Right Stuff (Philip Kaufman, 1983)

This film tells the story of the very early beginnings of the US space programme, from Chuck Yeager's historic breaking of the sound barrier in 1947 up to Project Mercury in the early '60s, which saw the first seven astronauts orbit the Earth. It therefore functions as a sort of prequel to the many media covering the later Gemini and Apollo programmes, which is why it piqued my interest.

I'm glad I watched it, but it isn't actually a very good movie. There are lengthy sequences covering fairly dull moments, such as the extensive and at times confusingly bizarre treatment of the medical tests the prospective astronauts were subjected to, or the seemingly forced insertion of Australian Aboriginal myths without any real explanation of why they were relevant to the story.

Meanwhile, most of the actual spaceflights are glossed over almost entirely, with only the launch and landing being shown, if that. The only significant depiction of time spent in space is John Glenn's Mercury-Atlas 6 flight, presumably because the suspicion of a loose heat shield was considered an opportunity for dramatic tension.

There is plenty of potential here, but this footage simply does not justify its 192-minute runtime. A pity, because it could have been much more focused and engaging if condensed to 90 minutes, without leaving out any important details.
You might be better off reading the book it was based on. I haven't seen this film, but I know Kaufman has a tendency to impress himself upon the subject, and if you aren't into his style it can easily make an interesting subject totally unappealing. Then again, the same can be said of Tom Wolfe, who wrote the original book.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on October 30, 2021, 07:33:21 PM
Dune

See it in the theater while it's still playing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on November 13, 2021, 01:08:51 AM
Apollo 11 (Todd Douglas Miller, 2019)

I went into this with some scepticism, given the (largely unjustified, in this armchair movie watcher's opinion) fixation of existing media on Apollo 11 at the expense of the longer and more interesting later moon missions. That scepticism turned out to be somewhat justified. While the exclusive use of found footage does set this retelling apart and convey a deeper sense of authenticity than the dramatisations found elsewhere, large portions of the film simply feel routine to someone already familiar with the existing media.

In some cases, the exclusion to found footage works against this film, such as when the 1202 computer error is registered during the lunar descent. It is treated here as little more than a minor curiosity, whereas the dramatic flair at this moment in the From the Earth to the Moon miniseries is far more engaging. The one aspect of the film with which creative liberties could have been taken is the soundtrack, which I found to be adequate without being particularly stimulating.

As a scientist and a pedant, I also have to remark on the overlaid data provided throughout the spaceflight regarding the speed and position of the craft. First of all, these data overlays incorrectly label speed as "velocity", a sophomoric error that could easily have been avoided. Second of all, while the use of US customary units of measure in the audio track is expected, given that the narration is all original to the found footage, no SI conversions are provided in the overlays, which unnecessarily imposes the tedium of comparing distances in miles with speed in feet per second upon the unprepared modern viewer.

I'm glad I watched it, and it is a decent movie, but a lack of dramatic flair coupled with scientific illiteracy make this seem to belong as neither entertainment nor documentary, while also retelling a story that has been told ad infinitum. I probably would have enjoyed it more if it had shown one of the later missions with a longer moonwalk and more interesting experiments.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on November 13, 2021, 03:55:13 AM
Eternals

A bunch of shit happens that doesn't really matter and you wonder if the infinity stones actually ever made a difference.

But also, Thanos has a brother so that is fun...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on November 13, 2021, 04:28:47 AM
A bunch of shit happens that doesn't really matter

That sounds like every Marvel movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on November 13, 2021, 04:34:20 AM
That sounds like every Marvel movie.

They're building up to it. And this tie, it's personal.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on November 15, 2021, 08:08:37 PM
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (Destin Daniel Cretton, 2021)

Easily the best MCU production in years - right up until the last twenty minutes or so, when the hero's compelling struggle against his villainous father (masterfully played by Hong Kong superstar Tony Leung - his performance is by far the best part of the movie) is abruptly shoved aside in favor of an incomprehensible CGI clusterfuck in which big blobs of CGI smash against each other so that the heroes can save the world or something. And it had been going so well. I loved almost everything up to that point. It all felt so cool and unique, with the emphasis on fantastical martial arts clearly inspired by wire fu films. And then right at the climax, all that stuff which was working so well is quickly thrown out the window and we get to see the exact same capeshit "destroy the big CGI thing" cliché we've already seen a million times. Why? Why was this necessary? Why did it have to be a big ugly CGI thing yet again?

Also, this isn't really a major problem with the movie or anything, but Marvel's approach to empowering its female characters is really, really bad. I'm not an anti-feminist or anything like that, far from it, but this weird thing they've been doing over the past few years where they have characters just shilling how awesome the female characters are, or have the female characters themselves condescendingly putting down the males and telling them smugly how much better than them they are just isn't how you do it. It's bad writing, and it's bad representation. Shang-Chi is another example of this annoying tendency, with the movie going to great pains to emphasize how totally badass and successful the hero's sister is and how she's a better martial artist than any man despite being entirely self-taught (Yeah, did you know that you can just teach yourself martial arts? That's totally how it works!). Textually, the character has a genuinely poignant arc about how she feels broken and betrayed by how her brother abandoned her years ago, and her struggle to come to terms with that. But that implies that she has vulnerability, and any vulnerability the character is meant to have is drowned out by the movie's furious chest-beating about how awesome Captain Girlboss is.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on November 26, 2021, 06:06:06 AM
Dune (Denis Villeneuve, 2021)

This is really good. It looks fantastic, has a great sense of size and scale, and even Hans Zimmer's soundtrack has a unique, stylish feel to it, rather than the generic "BWAAAAA" droning so much of his output seems to be defined by lately. It also has an amazing cast full of some really talented actors - and also Jason Momoa. I can only assume that Momoa was hired because they really wanted to slap another big name on the poster and he was the highest-profile actor being considered, because he is awful in this. Nowhere near as bad as Jared Leto's atrocious performance in Blade Runner 2049, to be fair, but still bad enough to be the worst part of the movie. Momoa simply can't act. Every line from him is delivered in the same nonchalant dudebro tone of voice and accompanied by the same shit-eating grin. Maybe this bothers me more than it does most other people, but his presence was a major distraction. The rest of the cast melted into their roles, but Jason Momoa playing Jason Momoa stood out and shattered my immersion every time he appeared on the screen.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on November 26, 2021, 11:40:41 AM
Jason Momoa (Jason Momoa, 2021)

This is really Jason Momoa. It looks Jason Momoa, has a great sense of Jason and Momoa, and even Jason Momoa's Jason Momoa has a unique, stylish feel to it, rather than the generic "JASON MOMOA" Momoaning so much of his output seems to be defined by lately. It also has an amazing Jason full of some really talented Momoas - and also Jason Momoa. I can only assume that Momoa was hired because they really wanted to slap another big Jason on the Momoa and he was the highest-profile Jason Momoa being considered, because he is Jason Momoa in this. Nowhere near as Jason Momoa as Jason Momoa's Jason Momoa performance in Jason Momoa 2069, to be fair, but still Jason Momoa enough to be the Jason Momoa part of the movie. Momoa simply can't Jason. Every Jason from him is delivered in the same nonchalant Momoa tone of voice and accompanied by the same Jason Momoa grin. Maybe this bothers me more than it does most other people, but his Jason was a major Momoa. The rest of the Jasons melted into their Momoas, but Jason Momoa playing Jason Momoa stood out and Jasoned my Momoa every time he appeared on the screen.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on November 26, 2021, 03:11:11 PM
last night i finished watching ad astra. it really is more like ass asstra though because it is ass.

imagine if the movie contact had an even shittier, more boring ending, and that's basically what this is. brad pitt hangs out in space looking for his stupid idiot father because the solar system is going to blow up or something? then the movie rolls through two hours of every awful spaceshit trope until brad pitt finds his idiot dad who isn't an alien but just a crazy person doing crazy shit for no real reason and the movie mercifully ends.

then in the final scene the movie tries to pretend that it has a point, but since no foreshadowing of this point ever appears anywhere else in the movie, it completely fails.

the end. i give this movie pi out of tau stars.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on November 26, 2021, 03:52:17 PM
I was really surprised that it was as well-reviewed as it was.  I found it to be boring as fuck.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on November 27, 2021, 09:08:30 PM
I just rewatched Dune. 10/10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYMq27uygsY
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 28, 2021, 02:55:46 AM
Dune was good. Jason Momoa was great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on November 28, 2021, 04:29:47 AM
Dune was good. Jason Momoa was great.

Yes, I'm sure that fans of Momoa eager to see him once again play himself will enjoy his role.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on November 28, 2021, 04:39:36 AM
poe was the best in dune
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: xasop on November 28, 2021, 06:07:17 AM
Jason Momoa is Ronon Dex. He will never be any other character.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 28, 2021, 08:16:26 PM
Dune was good. Jason Momoa was great.

Yes, I'm sure that fans of Momoa eager to see him once again play himself will enjoy his role.
Do you even know what Jason Momoa is like? Because Duncan Idaho doesn't seem like a goofy surfer bro full of hippie love. But stay mad that actors are typecast. I bet you hate Denzel Washington for frequently being the same character too.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on November 28, 2021, 08:19:05 PM
Dune was good. Jason Momoa was great.

Yes, I'm sure that fans of Momoa eager to see him once again play himself will enjoy his role.
Do you even know what Jason Momoa is like? Because Duncan Idaho doesn't seem like a goofy surfer bro full of hippie love. But stay mad that actors are typecast. I bet you hate Denzel Washington for frequently being the same character too.

The number of actors who seem like “not themself” from role to role is very small. It’s something people throw out when they just don’t like an actor and want to concoct a reason.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 28, 2021, 08:21:59 PM
The number of actors who seem like “not themself” from role to role is very small. It’s something people throw out when they just don’t like an actor and want to concoct a reason.
Exactly. Honk clearly just hates Momoa for some reason.

Idaho was unironically one of the better characters in that movie and I thought Moma did great.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on November 28, 2021, 08:26:14 PM
The number of actors who seem like “not themself” from role to role is very small. It’s something people throw out when they just don’t like an actor and want to concoct a reason.
Exactly. Honk clearly just hates Momoa for some reason.

It’s because he is hot af. I hate him too.

Quote
Idaho was unironically one of the better characters in that movie and I thought Moma did great.

I thought so. He sold me on the empathy and respect he built for the Fremen, seemed to genuinely love Paul and House Atreiades. Could fight. 10/10 would cast again.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on November 29, 2021, 01:15:52 AM
Saddam is just training to be a film journalist. Leave him alone >o<
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on November 29, 2021, 02:48:45 AM
Momoa can't emote. Well, he can show anger, but not much else. The scene where he reports on his scouting mission is the worst part. There are so many feelings he should be conveying at that moment - awe at the size and scale of the Fremen civilization, unease at his brush with death, admiration or envy of the Fremen's skill in combat - but instead he just casually smirks his way through every line. It's terrible. And that's my real issue with Momoa's acting. It's less that his characters are largely the same at their core and more that they all stay in the two lanes Momoa is comfortable with - yelling and fighting in action scenes and casual dudebro nonchalance in all other scenes.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 29, 2021, 06:37:31 AM
I don't know, seems kinda in character to not emote that much. Just because you don't like his lanes doesn't mean he's awful. And I remember thinking it was obvious how much he respected the Fremens after his report. Sounds like a personal hang up tbh
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on November 29, 2021, 11:54:51 AM
Ah yes, elite military personnel and their emotional field reports. Makes total sense.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on November 29, 2021, 10:14:33 PM
I don't know, seems kinda in character to not emote that much. Just because you don't like his lanes doesn't mean he's awful. And I remember thinking it was obvious how much he respected the Fremens after his report. Sounds like a personal hang up tbh

Of course it's personal, seeing how Momoa is inexplicably a huge star despite his lack of any real acting talent. As I said, if you like Momoa, then you'll like him here. He once more does his usual Momoa shtick, which I guess is exactly what his fans want from him.

Ah yes, elite military personnel and their emotional field reports. Makes total sense.

Oh, please. There is nothing even remotely professional, realistic, or sensible about Momoa's character. His entire role is filtered through his dudebro persona, and this scene is no different. He grins and chuckles his way through the whole thing, giving off the exact same energy he would if he were telling his buddies about a wild night he spent drinking. And yes, I think he should have been conveying some emotions or feelings about what he experienced. Not that he should have broken down weeping, but his tone of voice could have changed, his expression could have shifted somewhat, and the like. A good actor would have done those things, and not only would it have been perfectly realistic, it would have made the scene - our first real introduction to the Fremen, remember - considerably stronger.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 29, 2021, 11:43:59 PM
His expression and tone did change. Why are you so butthurt? Go watch an actual bad movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on November 30, 2021, 01:14:51 AM
His expression and tone did change.

I feel like you're taking what I said out of context with a reply like this. I'm aware that Momoa's expression and tone changed during the scene, as indicated by my criticism of Momoa smirking and chuckling his way through the report with his usual dudebro nonchalance. When I said that "his tone of voice could have changed, his expression could have shifted somewhat," I was talking about what a good actor would do to convey the emotions or feelings his mission brought up in him. The contrast was with Momoa handling the scene like he's just chilling with his friends, not with Momoa showing no emotion whatsoever and reciting his lines robotically.

Quote
Why are you so butthurt? Go watch an actual bad movie.

I don't know why you'd think I'm butthurt about any of this. I enjoyed the movie a lot and simply criticized Momoa for being a poor actor whose performance was the film's low point. I even conceded that Momoa's fans would almost certainly like his role, given that it's Momoa doing his usual Momoa thing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on November 30, 2021, 02:00:15 AM
He’s not a poor actor, that’s why you seem so butthurt. A good actor would not make a meal of a scene of exposition; it wasn’t the introduction to the Fremen, that was in Paul’s visions, and Villeneuve rightly saved the impact of the Fremen for
Javier Bardems scene with Duke Atreiades, show don’t tell. Momoa was there to pass on some information, not win an Oscar. He understood that and Villeneuve understood that, so you got a simple scene with some of Momoa’s charisma, which you don’t like because it’s too “dude bro” which doesn’t mean much.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 30, 2021, 02:43:32 AM
He’s not a poor actor, that’s why you seem so butthurt.
Literally this.

I know what Saddam is getting at, but he's not a bad actor. I understand why someone doesn't like the characters he's suited for, but again, it's not bad acting. Like the Conan the Barbarian reboot. He actually did a fantastic job as Conan but I don't think people liked it because he didn't have the same cheese ball energy Arnold had. However, he was actually a MUCH better Conan and I say that as someone who has read almost all of the original Conan stories.

Saddam just didn't like his version of Idaho and it is what it is. But he wasn't bad and is no where near terrible.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on November 30, 2021, 05:06:27 AM
He’s not a poor actor

Well, this is where we disagree. Momoa is a likable screen presence, but his acting ability could be described most generously as very limited. This really isn't an especially controversial opinion. Momoa's looks and charisma are what made him the star he is today, not his dramatic chops.

Quote
A good actor would not make a meal of a scene of exposition...Momoa was there to pass on some information, not win an Oscar. He understood that and Villeneuve understood that, so you got a simple scene with some of Momoa’s charisma, which you don’t like because it’s too “dude bro” which doesn’t mean much

If something is worth doing, then it's worth doing well. Even if it's just exposition. I'm not saying that Momoa should have chewed the scenery or tried to make the whole scene about himself the way that someone like Jared Leto would have done. I'm simply saying that he could have effectively acted as he recited his lines of exposition, rather than remaining firmly in Momoa-mode (Moamode?).

Quote
it wasn’t the introduction to the Fremen, that was in Paul’s visions, and Villeneuve rightly saved the impact of the Fremen for Javier Bardems scene with Duke Atreiades, show don’t tell.

Okay, so this reads as a little contradictory to me, but I'll just ignore that - Paul's hazy visions of a couple of Fremen standing in front of him holding bloody knives was hardly a real introduction to the Fremen, and I think that a good performance from Momoa would have made Stilgar's subsequent introduction resonate more. It's interesting that you mention "show, don't tell," because that's the basic gist of what I think would have improved the scene. Effective nonverbal acting from Momoa would show us how impressed he is by the Fremen and how deeply he's come to respect them, instead of just having to rely on dialogue to tell us how impressed he is by the Fremen and how deeply he's come to respect them.

Like the Conan the Barbarian reboot. He actually did a fantastic job as Conan but I don't think people liked it because he didn't have the same cheese ball energy Arnold had. However, he was actually a MUCH better Conan and I say that as someone who has read almost all of the original Conan stories.

(https://i.imgur.com/pmxH3Bu.png)

Greetings, fellow generic fantasy fan.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on November 30, 2021, 01:55:52 PM
He’s not a poor actor

Well, this is where we disagree. Momoa is a likable screen presence, but his acting ability could be described most generously as very limited. This really isn't an especially controversial opinion. Momoa's looks and charisma are what made him the star he is today, not his dramatic chops.

He did a lot of scenes in Game of Thrones without speaking where he conveyed a lot about his relationship with Danerys. It’s not easy and he pulled it off really well. Momoa is an actor who made his mark by portraying parts with physicality and has shown chops in that, seen clearly in his fight scenes. I polled some reviews about him and I couldn’t see any negativity about him either. I imagine there is some hate for him on Reddit, because Reddit, but that’s not really indicative of a consensus.

Quote
If something is worth doing, then it's worth doing well. Even if it's just exposition. I'm not saying that Momoa should have chewed the scenery or tried to make the whole scene about himself the way that someone like Jared Leto would have done.

Exposition should be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Which he did. That’s about as effective as it gets. Honestly, you don’t really want exposition to be drawn out in any way because it’s not written for any purpose than delivering information. I still got the sense that he respected and awed by the Fremen. There is zero need to add dramatic content to this scene. The movie already has a pretty heavy handed tone.

Quote
Okay, so this reads as a little contradictory to me, but I'll just ignore that
It wasn’t.

Quote
- Paul's hazy visions of a couple of Fremen standing in front of him holding bloody knives was hardly a real introduction to the Fremen,

It was at least as much of an introduction as the Momoa scene, if not more. It showed you a fierce people living in the desert and showed that they played a massive role in the movie thematically.

Quote
and I think that a good performance from Momoa would have made Stilgar's subsequent introduction resonate more.

Why do you think that?

Quote
It's interesting that you mention "show, don't tell," because that's the basic gist of what I think would have improved the scene. Effective nonverbal acting from Momoa would show us how impressed he is by the Fremen and how deeply he's come to respect them, instead of just having to rely on dialogue to tell us how impressed he is by the Fremen and how deeply he's come to respect them.

You are trying to make a scene that wasn’t written. The scene is a reunion where stories are shared. It’s meant to be light hearted, which is why Brolin also makes “dudebro” jokes. Duncan talks about how legit the Fremen are and they move on. The part you want in this scene is in the scene with Bardem. Why double down? There is already too much material to get through, being precious by trying to add dramatic heft to every scene would bog it down.

It’s also worth noting that not all characters should have deep emotional lives. The actors are trying to portray authentic people in extraordinary circumstances and within that you will find people who are emotionally shallow. I find it interesting that you accuse Momoa of this but never mention Bautista. His portrayal didn’t exhibit a ton of range; I don’t think it needed to and Bautista doesn’t even have the charisma of someone like Momoa.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on November 30, 2021, 03:28:04 PM
Greetings, fellow generic fantasy fan.
How dare you. Robert E Howard created the character in 1932. Show some fucking respect.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on November 30, 2021, 06:48:15 PM
Greetings, fellow generic fantasy fan.
How dare you. Robert E Howard created the character in 1932. Show some fucking respect.

He sounds like a dudebro.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on December 01, 2021, 03:54:30 AM
He did a lot of scenes in Game of Thrones without speaking where he conveyed a lot about his relationship with Danerys. It’s not easy and he pulled it off really well. Momoa is an actor who made his mark by portraying parts with physicality and has shown chops in that, seen clearly in his fight scenes.

Fair enough. Momoa is very physically capable and excels in action scenes.

Quote
Exposition should be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Which he did. That’s about as effective as it gets. Honestly, you don’t really want exposition to be drawn out in any way because it’s not written for any purpose than delivering information. I still got the sense that he respected and awed by the Fremen. There is zero need to add dramatic content to this scene. The movie already has a pretty heavy handed tone.

...

You are trying to make a scene that wasn’t written. The scene is a reunion where stories are shared. It’s meant to be light hearted, which is why Brolin also makes “dudebro” jokes. Duncan talks about how legit the Fremen are and they move on. The part you want in this scene is in the scene with Bardem. Why double down? There is already too much material to get through, being precious by trying to add dramatic heft to every scene would bog it down.

It’s also worth noting that not all characters should have deep emotional lives. The actors are trying to portray authentic people in extraordinary circumstances and within that you will find people who are emotionally shallow.

I couldn't possibly disagree more with all of this. Every scene in a movie is important. Every scene should be done to the best of everyone's abilities. Every actor should give the best performance they can. I fundamentally do not believe that lame dialogue should be overlooked on the grounds that it's just exposition and a necessary evil, or that a dull scene should be shrugged off because it's just setting the stage for what's to follow, or that a halfhearted performance should be handwaved away because hey, maybe that character is just emotionally shallow, nothing to see here, move along. The film is the sum of its parts, both good and bad. Every line of dialogue, every scene, every character, and every performance are what make the film. If a certain scene feels it like it's only there because it has to be, and it's just something that you want to get over with quickly, then the movie has a problem.

Quote
I find it interesting that you accuse Momoa of this but never mention Bautista. His portrayal didn’t exhibit a ton of range; I don’t think it needed to and Bautista doesn’t even have the charisma of someone like Momoa.

Bautista has hardly a minute of screen time and only one or two lines, so his performance barely registered with me. But while Bautista isn't a particularly good actor either, he at least tries to give the appropriate performance for whatever role he's in. For better or worse, he doesn't just play essentially the same character every time.

Greetings, fellow generic fantasy fan.
How dare you. Robert E Howard created the character in 1932. Show some fucking respect.

I appropriated "generic fantasy" from Rushy a long time ago and now use it as a term of endearment. I have great respect for Howard as a pioneer of early heroic fantasy/sword and sorcery. One of these days I'm going to write a big post in the books thread where I talk about various fantasy writers from the early twentieth century and how Tolkien was not in fact the first author to write - or even achieve great success from - fantasy. Howard definitely has a place there, although I have to say on a personal note that I find him to be one of the least interesting of the early fantasists. His prose is overly ponderous and self-serious, he had an annoying tendency to repeat basic plots over and over, his racism certainly hasn't aged well, and Conan himself often comes across as just plain unlikable. Still, there's plenty of great fantasy out there that owes a lot to his influence. I like to think that Conan walked so that Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser could run.

He sounds like a dudebro.

(https://i.imgur.com/pmxH3Bu.png)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on December 01, 2021, 04:14:26 AM

I couldn't possibly disagree more with all of this. Every scene in a movie is important. Every scene should be done to the best of everyone's abilities. Every actor should give the best performance they can. I fundamentally do not believe that lame dialogue should be overlooked on the grounds that it's just exposition and a necessary evil, or that a dull scene should be shrugged off because it's just setting the stage for what's to follow, or that a halfhearted performance should be handwaved away because hey, maybe that character is just emotionally shallow, nothing to see here, move along. The film is the sum of its parts, both good and bad. Every line of dialogue, every scene, every character, and every performance are what make the film. If a certain scene feels it like it's only there because it has to be, and it's just something that you want to get over with quickly, then the movie has a problem.

I never said any of that.  I dont think anything should be overlooked, but not every scene is there to be mined for emotional and dramatic importance either. Some scenes have very simple purposes, and do not require as much from the performers.  Your characterization of Momoa as "half-hearted" is not something you could ever substantiate so you may want to drop it.  You don't get offers for work like he gets if you are dogging it.  It seems to underly the butt hurt you have from him though.  Also, if you think characters having varying emotional depth is handwaving then you may want to go back and have a look at fictional characters again because it's just a fact.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 01, 2021, 05:12:54 AM
Welp, I have absolutely no desire to ever read your opinions on fantasy if that's how you feel about Conan.

And it definitely makes sense why you dislike Jason Momoa.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on December 01, 2021, 06:33:25 AM
I never said any of that.  I dont think anything should be overlooked, but not every scene is there to be mined for emotional and dramatic importance either. Some scenes have very simple purposes, and do not require as much from the performers.

If a scene is being acted at all, then it should be acted well. Not acted more, acted well. In my view, Momoa's acting in that scene - and in pretty much every non-action scene he was in - was poor not because he didn't act more, but because he didn't act well. I don't think I can put it any more simply than that. I don't drop my standards for any scenes when I watch a movie, and with this movie in particular, I never needed to, because every main actor aside from Momoa gave a great performance in every scene. Even when it wasn't an especially dramatic scene. Even when they were delivering exposition.

Quote
Your characterization of Momoa as "half-hearted" is not something you could ever substantiate so you may want to drop it.  You don't get offers for work like he gets if you are dogging it.

Nothing about calling Momoa's performance half-hearted suggests that he himself is overall a lazy or apathetic person, but nevertheless, Momoa's usual line delivery is by its very nature low-effort, because his laid-back, easygoing persona is part of his charm. I don't think it's good acting, but it's clearly popular, and that's why he's had the success he's had.

Quote
Also, if you think characters having varying emotional depth is handwaving then you may want to go back and have a look at fictional characters again because it's just a fact.

Of course, but in this case, it's just coming up as an after-the-fact rationalization of a poor performance. If Duncan in particular is meant to be emotionally shallow, the logical question to ask is why, and an answer of "because otherwise it means Momoa would have given a bad performance" isn't good enough. Characteristics are there to serve the story, and they can and should be excised if they aren't doing that. So why does Duncan smirk his way through his report with the same energy he'd give off if he were asking his buddies to meet him at the local bar for drinks? Is it for comedic effect? No. Duncan clearly isn't taking anything that happened to him seriously, but there's nothing about his report that's particularly ha-ha funny. Is it meant to provide a contrast with the more serious characters he's making his report to? No. Those characters don't really respond or show any particular reaction to Duncan's demeanor. Is it meant to provide a contrast with Stilgar's subsequent appearance? Also no. Stilgar does clash with the other characters, but it doesn't really have anything to do with how Duncan presented his report. In short, I don't believe that Duncan is simply meant to be emotionally shallow, and I certainly don't believe that he was ever intended to be the dudebro Momoa portrayed him as until Momoa ended up in the role. The end result is that we have a bad actor giving a bad performance in a room surrounded by great actors giving great performances.

Welp, I have absolutely no desire to ever read your opinions on fantasy if that's how you feel about Conan.

And it definitely makes sense why you dislike Jason Momoa.

Oh, come on, can you honestly say I'm wrong? There are some stories in which Conan is an absolute cock. "The God in the Bowl," (https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks15/1501131h.html) for instance. Conan maims multiple innocent guardsmen in that one. You know that's just not cool. And I haven't even seen the Conan movie with Momoa in it. Maybe I should watch it and report back.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on December 01, 2021, 01:24:12 PM
We will just have to agree to disagree and throw down when the next Momoa epic hits the theatres.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 01, 2021, 04:14:46 PM
Oh, come on, can you honestly say I'm wrong? There are some stories in which Conan is an absolute cock. "The God in the Bowl," (https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks15/1501131h.html) for instance. Conan maims multiple innocent guardsmen in that one. You know that's just not cool. And I haven't even seen the Conan movie with Momoa in it. Maybe I should watch it and report back.
I meant more in that it seems like you don't quite get Conan or if you do get it then you don't like it but I do kinda think you miss the point a bit.

His prose is overly ponderous and self-serious, he had an annoying tendency to repeat basic plots over and over, his racism certainly hasn't aged well, and Conan himself often comes across as just plain unlikable. Still, there's plenty of great fantasy out there that owes a lot to his influence. I like to think that Conan walked so that Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser could run.

Conan is great because he reads a bit like a demigod/hero from old mythologies. Complete with self-serious and repeating basic plots. Conan is definitely highly unlikeable at times but that's what makes him fantastic. He's such an arrogant, violent, hypermasculine caricature and that's what makes him fun.

But I'm sure you'll hate Momoa as Conan as well even though he's actually perfect for the role. The rest of the movie has its downsides but I would have been thrilled to get a Conan series with Momoa.

So I found this awful video that for a second shows the scene you hate so much and the setting very much seems like "military dudes chilling." Nothing about his performance seemed out of place or anything like what you described. If he seemed too 'dudebro' well, the setting seems pretty dudebro and probably exactly what the director was angling for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Sio7325eA
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on December 01, 2021, 09:09:26 PM
wait how is there a dune character named duncan idaho? are the dune people earth humans? i thought they were aliens or some such shit.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on December 02, 2021, 01:01:09 AM
wait how is there a dune character named duncan idaho? are the dune people earth humans? i thought they were aliens or some such shit.

Johnny Utah was already taken.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Iceman on December 02, 2021, 01:06:52 AM
wait how is there a dune character named duncan idaho? are the dune people earth humans? i thought they were aliens or some such shit.

Johnny Utah was already taken.

Whatever point you’re trying to make is broken
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on December 02, 2021, 02:24:18 AM
wait how is there a dune character named duncan idaho? are the dune people earth humans? i thought they were aliens or some such shit.

Johnny Utah was already taken.

Whatever point you’re trying to make is broken

If you don't know what the point is, how do you know it's broken? I hoped that my response would carry the same silliness as naming a character Duncan Idaho in a book where everyone else has cool sci-fi names.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Iceman on December 02, 2021, 02:47:53 AM
Yeah but at least the guy playing Duncan has a great Bodhi…
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on December 04, 2021, 04:51:47 AM
Oh, come on, can you honestly say I'm wrong? There are some stories in which Conan is an absolute cock. "The God in the Bowl," (https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks15/1501131h.html) for instance. Conan maims multiple innocent guardsmen in that one. You know that's just not cool. And I haven't even seen the Conan movie with Momoa in it. Maybe I should watch it and report back.
I meant more in that it seems like you don't quite get Conan or if you do get it then you don't like it but I do kinda think you miss the point a bit.

His prose is overly ponderous and self-serious, he had an annoying tendency to repeat basic plots over and over, his racism certainly hasn't aged well, and Conan himself often comes across as just plain unlikable. Still, there's plenty of great fantasy out there that owes a lot to his influence. I like to think that Conan walked so that Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser could run.

Conan is great because he reads a bit like a demigod/hero from old mythologies. Complete with self-serious and repeating basic plots. Conan is definitely highly unlikeable at times but that's what makes him fantastic. He's such an arrogant, violent, hypermasculine caricature and that's what makes him fun.

But I'm sure you'll hate Momoa as Conan as well even though he's actually perfect for the role. The rest of the movie has its downsides but I would have been thrilled to get a Conan series with Momoa.

This is a valid interpretation of Conan, but saying that it's "the point" of the character as if that was Howard's intent is highly questionable. I don't believe that Howard intended Conan to be a "caricature" or a character viewed ironically at all, and judging by the contents of the many letters Howard wrote, Conan seemed to embody many of his own sincere beliefs about the importance of physical strength, the inherent corruption of society, and the merits of adhering to personal morals rather than official laws. And the stories themselves explicitly state that Conan is a charismatic, compelling figure whom people are naturally drawn to follow, which is how he ends up as the leader of so many mercenary bands and eventually a king. It's a little hard to square that description with the Conan we directly see when so much of his dialogue is just boorish threats and insults.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 04, 2021, 07:36:45 AM
Nothing you just said contradicted anything I said. By caricature I meant only exaggeration of masculinity, not irony or comedic relief.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on December 09, 2021, 03:10:32 AM
This one's for you, roosroos!

Conan the Barbarian (Marcus Nispel, 2011)

They don't make movies like this anymore. This is some ludicrously goofy, violent camp, and to a degree I have to respect it for that. Does that mean the movie is especially good - well, no, not really, but I don't think it's really trying to be a good movie so much as it's trying to be a fun one, if that makes sense. The important question is of course how well Jason Momoa acquits himself in the lead role, and the answer is that he does just fine. He looks the part, he does well in the action scenes, and he even improves on the source material by imbuing Conan with a charisma that Howard was never able to convince me he had in the original stories. The other cast members throw themselves into the silliness with aplomb as well, although I have to say that Stephen Lang is badly miscast as the villain. For a character who's supposed to be a physical threat to Conan and someone who can hold his own against him in a fight, Lang is simply too old, and it becomes obvious whenever he and Momoa are clashing. There's only so much you can hide with stunt doubles, and so the direction becomes weird and cuts frequently, Lang swings his weapons as slowly as you'd expect a man pushing sixty to, and Momoa has to pull weird, unnecessary stunts like spinning around or swinging his sword above his head like a lasso to give Lang time to block his blows.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 09, 2021, 04:51:05 AM
I can't imagine anyone doing a better job and I'm sad they only did the one movie. Truly his sexiest role.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 16, 2021, 11:12:16 PM
Aw man I missed the "Jason Momoa is terrible" train. 🙁

I absolutely adored Dune. ❤️ I got so lost in Villeneuve's harsh vision of Arrakis, and there really wasn't much of the movie I didn't enjoy, though I do feel like they leaned a little too hard on some of those repeating visions for a long time. I was also a little bit high, though, so they might have just felt extremely long to me lol 🤷🏻‍♀️ I was gonna comment on how I sigh a little internally when I see Momoa's gonna be in a film these days, but given that he is apparently a fantastic actor and actually every actor is exactly the same in every film and I just don't understand intellectually, I'll withhold my judgment until I watch it again. 😋

Will say, though, there were a few line deliveries from him where my nephew and I turned to each other unprompted and had to stifle giggles and chuckles. There's one scene I really have to see again where he gives what I imagine is a series of lines to daddy Atreus that's supposed to have some kind of badass flippancy to it, but it feels like he's doing a first-time line reading of a script he hasn't seen yet. There were a few moments like that but idk, maybe I'm biased against him for some reason even though I like him as a person.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 17, 2021, 01:22:11 AM
I go easy on Momoa because I feel like he hits a specific himbo badass niche that many can't pull off. Is he the best dramatic actor? No, but I do have a difficult time imagining anyone else doing what he can do well.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on December 17, 2021, 04:19:04 AM
I go easy on Momoa because I feel like he hits a specific himbo badass niche that many can't pull off. Is he the best dramatic actor? No, but I do have a difficult time imagining anyone else doing what he can do well.

Exactly. Lots of respected actors do their thing and no one gets upset. Momoa shows up with his stupid sexy face and people get their shit in a knot.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on December 22, 2021, 05:48:26 AM
Out of curiosity, what type of "respected actors" are we talking about? 'Cause I feel like we're making a huge assumption that those criticizing Momoa specifically opt out of criticizing actors of a similar caliber lol. I legit can't think of any actors I particularly enjoy that I feel are at all as invariant and...I'm hesitating to criticize his acting, since it's been a bit since I've seen his other films, but I get a very real sense of him just not being very good at acting from the way he delivers all of his lines and expressions and emotions (the acting stuff :p). Aquaman was just not amazing overall, yet even still I very clearly remember not being too much more impressed with him than I was with Amber Heard (but she was literally cardboard, so).

Like y'all can shrug it off as "you just hate that he himbo/sexy", but I'm fine with himbo and sexy lmao. It's possible to not think an actor is good without it being for some dumb, shallow reason.

EDIT: This is literally exactly what Rama thinks. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15098.msg254169#msg254169) 🤣
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on December 22, 2021, 04:36:32 PM
spoderman 3 (2021). Twice, actually. Easily the best of the trilogy and generally just a fun watch (with enough serious moments) as spoderman claws back his own agency from father stark and uncle strange. Enough fan service for everyone.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on December 23, 2021, 04:41:47 AM
matrix 4 (2021)

it is not a good movie and you should not ever watch it. i am not movie connoisseur like crudblud, or even a connoisseur-impersonator, like sadaam. i generally don't dunk on movies, or even bother to write anything about them if i didn't think they were worth watching. this is the exception. the movie literally did not ever need to be made unless the goal was to make 2 & 3 look not so bad, which in that case it did a great job.

movie is literal garbage jfc
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on December 24, 2021, 04:33:42 AM
i agree with everything junker has to say about the new matrix movie. it is pointless garbage.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on December 24, 2021, 08:25:11 AM
Is that Morpheus wearing a watermelon suit?

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/9ebpPHFwNUxbFt2in5raiHTG7g4=/0x0:2764x4096/1200x675/filters:focal(1157x2163:1599x2605)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70296586/matrixposters.0.jpeg)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 24, 2021, 01:53:48 PM
Is that Morpheus wearing a watermelon suit?

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/9ebpPHFwNUxbFt2in5raiHTG7g4=/0x0:2764x4096/1200x675/filters:focal(1157x2163:1599x2605)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70296586/matrixposters.0.jpeg)

It's Joker's old suit. Morpheus bought it at Adam West's garage sale.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b0/6f/05/b06f0502214bb3115adb6b69588fb79c.png)
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 25, 2021, 12:26:06 AM
Just finished Matrix 4 - it was pretty pointless with most of the movie focusing on nostalgia. It really felt like a fanfic epilogue. But I thought it was fine. Even though the plot was unnecessary and definitely didn't need to be made, I've certainly watched worse movies. And as someone who follows Brass Against on Twitter, I was excited to hear their RAtM cover make it into the movie.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on December 25, 2021, 04:51:53 AM
I thought it was fine

imagine being this wrong
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on December 25, 2021, 04:58:50 AM
I thought it was fine

imagine being this wrong
I also think they could have stopped after the first Matrix movie. Other than that, it was about as decent as I expected in that it wouldn't be good but wasn't absolute dog shit.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on January 07, 2022, 09:36:51 PM
Cowboy Bebop (2021)

You've heard this is bad. It is. But there are specific reasons why this ended up so bad worth exploring, and I'm worried they're being drowned out in the general wave of fanboy truisms that typically follow poorly-received adaptations, especially ones involving anime. It's far too simplistic to just shrug and say that it's bad because it's a live-action adaptation of an anime and those are always destined to be bad, and it's just plain wrong to say that it's bad because it made changes to the anime and it should have been a 1-1 remake. If anything, this show tends to be stronger when it isn't directly adapting an episode of the anime or trying to recreate one of its more iconic scenes or moments, because then at least there isn't an equivalent point in the anime you can point to as having done exactly what the show did, but far better. The point is that this show wasn't dead in the water to begin with. Netflix gave the people behind it a decent budget to work with, and more importantly, also the creative freedom to make it as offbeat and eccentric as the anime was. They had the tools to make this show into something special.

The main reason why what we ended up with sucks is the writing, both in concept and execution. And by the writing, I particularly mean the dialogue, because there's so much of it, and it's all so, so bad. It's the worst kind of Joss Whedon/Marvel-inspired dialogue, where everyone is sarcastic, everyone is detached, everyone is witty (or at least what this show imagines is witty), everyone is a little self-aware in a metatextual way, and everyone constantly quips. Going down this route would be a really lame, generic decision for an adaptation of Cowboy Bebop even if the comedy worked, but it doesn't. It's terrible. Another issue is that in stark contrast to the anime, which was very restrained when it came to strong language and sexuality, this show is full of contrived swearing and lowbrow yukking about subjects like bukkake and shaving one's pubes. It's so childish, like it was written by a bunch of teenagers loudly swearing in jubilation when their parents aren't around. The worst example of this is encapsulated in Faye. She was never going to be an easy character to adapt, but I cringed when I discovered that she ended up as a tired stereotype of a plucky girlboss here, and almost all of her lines are either awful quips or hilarious swearing.

On a related note, the show is extremely bloody and gory, far more so than the anime ever was. It's a splatterfest, and a splatterfest that the show apparently thinks is hilarious and plays for comedy. This is one of the more baffling decisions the creators made, I have to admit. I just don't see the logic. For a show like The Boys, by way of a counter-example, with a similar level of nasty violence and a similarly mean-spirited presentation of it, the grotesqueness of it all is meant to parody the usual sanitized, bloodless violence of most capeshit and show just how horrible and messy the effects would really be if capeshitters used their powers on people. In Cowboy Bebop, nothing about the violence seems to be intended as satire, deconstruction, commentary, or anything like that. It's just there, and it's just played for laughs, with jaunty music playing over slow motion footage of people being killed in horrible ways and the main characters quipping in their wake. I'm not offended or disturbed by any of it, but I don't think it's appropriate for this show. It feels like very unnecessary edge for edge's sake.

What's kind of interesting about that last point is while the violence is far more gruesome and horrific than it was in the anime, the universe in general is presented in a far more egalitarian, hospitable, and overall pleasant light. The showrunner has claimed in multiple interviews (here's one (https://twitter.com/WIRED/status/1458595164532797447)) that he never saw the world of Cowboy Bebop as a dystopia, and while that's led to him predictably being roasted as an out-of-touch elitist whose wealth and privilege have blinded him to the anime's portrayal of the future as absolutely horrible and dystopian in the extreme (I'm reminded of this meme (https://i.imgur.com/t6uwPMO.jpg)), I actually don't buy it. The show is too deliberate in its sanding down of the obvious political and social commentary present in the anime. Grungy neighborhoods are replaced with cheery suburban homes. Virtually all of the extras and side characters we meet appear to be either affluent or comfortably middle-class, in stark contrast to how often the anime would focus on the lives of the poor and desperate. And perhaps most importantly of all, for every institution that the anime portrayed as being systematically corrupt, like the police or the medical industry, the show goes out of its way to stress that it was only one or two corrupt individuals behind their problems, and the institutions themselves were perfectly fine. So, yeah, I think the showrunner and writers willfully excluded the political and social commentary present in the anime for this show, probably to fit better with the "fun" MCU-like tone they were aiming for, and the showrunner tried to get in front of any criticism by pretending he didn't think the anime was dystopian at all.

There's a lot more I could criticize this show for, but I'll end this by talking about its two biggest additions to the story of Cowboy Bebop - the expanded roles of Vicious and Julia. In the anime, Vicious was a one-dimensional villain, while Julia was little more than a plot device. It was a perfectly sensible decision to beef up their parts, but the show handles them both about as badly as they possibly could. Vicious is one of the lamest, most pathetic villains I've seen in a movie or TV show in a very long time. He's weak, he's whiny, he's inept, he's constantly being shown up and humiliated, and the show makes a point to stress that the only reason he has any power at all to begin with is that he's the spoiled failson of one of the Syndicate's leaders. None of this added focus makes him a more sympathetic or rounded character, nor does it make his struggle more compelling. Like I said, he's simply a pathetic villain.

With Julia, there's at least a decent idea at the core of what they're trying to do. She's an active character with agency, and not a passive ingenue or damsel in distress waiting around to be rescued. But this is hampered by both Elena Satine's weak performance (she's the one member of the main cast who really drops the ball) and the crude writing that has no grasp of subtlety. Here's the best example of this, which sets the tone for this character nicely: Vicious at one point tells her that he plans to assemble the people loyal to him and openly go to war against the leaders of the Syndicate. Julia protests that this will put them in great danger, and when Vicious rhetorically asks what she would suggest doing instead, there's a big dramatic pause, and then Julia says he should arrange a coup and assassinate the leaders instead of openly fighting them in a gangland war. And the show treats this obvious idea like it's fucking brilliant. Julia carries herself differently now, Vicious looks at her with new respect, and we in the audience are presumably meant to be impressed by the fact that this seemingly innocent woman is more than just a pretty face, she's a tactical genius! That's the kind of writing we're dealing with here. I also didn't like what they did with her at the end of the show. I respect the writers' desire to take risks and deviate from the anime's overall story, but something about the way they handled this specific detail feels wrongheaded to me.

So that's Netflix's Cowboy Bebop. There are occasional moments of promise sprinkled throughout the show, but on the whole, I wouldn't recommend anyone watch this unless they're consumed by morbid curiosity to see how it all ended up, like I was.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on March 24, 2022, 04:50:13 AM
Spider-Man: No Way Home (Jon Watts, 2021)

spoiler worming

For better or worse, this final film in the spoderman trilogy continues the trend of simply celebrating other movies rather than actually being about its main character. This time around, rather than just reveling in its MCU setting (although it does do plenty of that), the emphasis is on nostalgia for previous spoderman movies. I won't claim to be immune to this kind of nostalgia. I had some feels when I saw Tobey Maguire, Alfred Molina, and Willem Dafoe appear on screen. Even with the writing and effects being absolute dogshit, seeing these great actors bring these beloved characters back to life again brought a little of the magic of those first two fantastic spoderman movies back, even if just for a short while. I have a hard time imagining that the Garfield movies mean as much to anyone as the Raimi movies do to those of us who grew up with them, but regardless, I hope the fans of those films were happy with what they got from them in this movie too.

Nostalgia aside, however, this is not a good movie. I would go so far as to say that it's an incompetent one, in much the same way that the Star Wars prequels are. Almost every shot is bland or ugly. The numerous green screens for even mundane settings are obvious and distracting. The "comedy" is pure cringe. I winced painfully at the awful, awful "Scooby-Doo this shit" line. What grown adult actually wrote that down and thought it was a good idea? The story itself is poorly structured - things just happen because the movie needs them to. Villains show up and start action scenes because the movie needs them to, Doctor Strange shows up and starts expositing because the movie needs him to, etc. And the general quality of the special effects is horrendous, especially for the MCU. These are the worst effects I've seen in a capeshit movie since the theatrical cut of Justice League. I know that they shot this during the height of the pandemic, but I'm not going to cut the movie any slack for that. It was their decision to keep making movies. If that means they put out sub-par ones, then that's on them.

Imagine having access to one of the top three most popular capeshitters in the world, a character far more iconic and famous than any of the others you have access to, a character with enough source material to make a dozen movies from, and all you can think to do with him is make him a mascot for the rest of your franchise.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on March 24, 2022, 05:15:22 PM
I think it's ridiculous to think of it as Oscar-worthy, but No Way Home was still pretty good, almost everyone who has seen it responded.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on March 24, 2022, 06:05:45 PM
I think it's ridiculous to think of it as Oscar-worthy, but No Way Home was still pretty good, almost everyone who has seen it responded.

Saddam saw a meme about how Batman has better visuals than NWH so that is probably the basis for this most recent hot take.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2022, 07:00:41 PM
Clearly NWH was made by incompetent people.  Any idiot can produce a film.  It's not even hard lol
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on March 24, 2022, 07:23:03 PM
I think it's ridiculous to think of it as Oscar-worthy, but No Way Home was still pretty good, almost everyone who has seen it responded.

Saddam saw a meme about how Batman has better visuals than NWH so that is probably the basis for this most recent hot take.

I was wondering where it came from. Saddam just repeats what the critics are saying so often this review legit came out of left field.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on March 24, 2022, 10:18:29 PM
the fanboys are triggered
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on May 06, 2022, 04:25:58 AM
Dr. Strange 2 aka WandaVision s01e 10/11/12

this movie is shit and you should not pay money to watch it
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 06, 2022, 04:28:21 AM
Tell me more.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on May 12, 2022, 05:28:32 PM
Tell me more.

I've watched it three times now and it is still shit, but less shit than the initial viewing. You still should not pay to watch it, but if you do make sure it is on discount Tuesday or something.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on May 12, 2022, 08:40:05 PM
I liked it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 13, 2022, 01:37:50 AM
Tell me more.

I've watched it three times now and it is still shit, but less shit than the initial viewing. You still should not pay to watch it, but if you do make sure it is on discount Tuesday or something.

Why? Why are you spending your time and money on going to see a move you don't even like multiple times? I don't get theatrical repeat viewers. I mean, if it's first and foremost a social event, then fine, but going to see a movie in theaters again specifically because you want to see that same movie again is just weird to me. No matter how much I might love a movie, I don't want to see it again within a few days or weeks. That makes the movie feel stale, and wears it out in my mind. I'd much rather watch a movie for the second time after at least a few months' time. And I wouldn't waste my time on rewatching a movie I especially disliked at all.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on May 13, 2022, 02:37:19 AM
Tell me more.

I've watched it three times now and it is still shit, but less shit than the initial viewing. You still should not pay to watch it, but if you do make sure it is on discount Tuesday or something.

Why? Why are you spending your time and money on going to see a move you don't even like multiple times? I don't get theatrical repeat viewers. I mean, if it's first and foremost a social event, then fine, but going to see a movie in theaters again specifically because you want to see that same movie again is just weird to me. No matter how much I might love a movie, I don't want to see it again within a few days or weeks. That makes the movie feel stale, and wears it out in my mind. I'd much rather watch a movie for the second time after at least a few months' time. And I wouldn't waste my time on rewatching a movie I especially disliked at all.

it's called going with different people...
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on May 13, 2022, 03:47:42 AM
Well, I'm glad it's not some weird kind of self-imposed nerdy "obligation" on your part, but I think when faced with a potential third viewing, none of your friends would think any less of you if you just said, "You know, guys, I saw this one twice already, and I really wasn't a fan. I think I'll sit this one out," or even suggested an alternative.

Also, the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on June 10, 2022, 04:23:43 PM
RRR was very good. It has over the top action, wholesome male friendship, and a great musical number. You'll laugh, you'll cry, it's a gr8 time.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on June 24, 2022, 06:22:31 PM
The Batshit Odyssey makes its long overdue return!

The Dark Knight (dir. Christopher Nolan)

Where to begin talking about a film that seems to be defined more by its reception, indeed its reputation, than its content? Few if any films this century have risen so quickly to Olympian heights in the public consciousness, fewer still have been so closely shadowed by external tragedy. Through his death, Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker was transfigured in the popular mind; in many ways it is the film, is what people talk about when they talk about The Dark Knight. So what should I talk about? I have been accused on occasion of resisting cliché to the point of absurdity, all for some egomaniacal, perhaps narcissistic desire to stand apart from the crowd. In fact I love cliché, I love commonalities; I am not ashamed to admit that I am like most people in most ways. Rather I cannot stand to repeat myself, and I feel as though I, despite having thought little about this film since I first saw it in 2009, have had this discussion myself so many times that the bottom of the barrel has been scraped dry and sanded smooth. I hope, mostly, to talk about the film itself, and to try to reconcile what it is in itself with what it is remembered to be.

The second instalment in Christopher Nolan’s trilogy of Batman films, The Dark Knight pits the caped crusader against the Joker and Harvey “Two Face” Dent. For those of us who are familiar with these villains already—most will be intimately familiar with the former purely through his ubiquity, his status as the king of Batman villains—there is a sense of inexorable tragedy. We know that the Joker can never be saved from himself, we know that Harvey Dent will place his faith in the coin toss and the absolute fairness of chance after a transformative event changes irrevocably his perspective on human conceptions of justice, human systems of law. So, too, for Batman himself, who hides in plain sight among the upper echelons of society as Bruce Wayne; his two halves, his bipolar masquerade, can never be resolved. This conflict in itself is what defines him, even more so than his own transformative event, the killing of his parents. In many ways, then, we already know, as soon as we encounter each of these three leads, precisely where the film is going.

The Dark Knight is a more or less direct continuation of Batman Begins. Following his saving of the city from Ra’s al Ghul, Batman’s heroics have inspired confidence in the citizens of Gotham, in some cases a little too much, as armed vigilantes cheaply outfitted in the Bat’s image take to the streets with automatic weapons. This particular consequence of Batman’s vigilantism is touched upon only a couple of times in the film, which I feel is a wasted opportunity. If Christopher Nolan is indeed the “thinking person’s blockbuster director” (a mantle which, I should point out, he seems neither to warm to nor shy away from in his public statements) then a deeper consideration of what comes in the wake of not a superhero, but an essentially ordinary man taking justice into his own hands and striking down thugs and drug dealers and their bosses, should be his bread and butter here. The somewhat nuanced, empathetic treatment of Gotham society, penetrating the various strata that make it up, to which we were treated in the first part of Batman Begins, seems here to have been forgotten. The film’s presentation of Batman’s unwanted army of trigger-happy doppelgangers is no discussion at all but a statement, a claim, unexplored beyond its most superficial level: it exists. Batman seems to be held responsible for the shift in attitude towards crime in Gotham, that is, he has shown Gotham that crime is in fact possible to defeat, or is at least containable, manageable, punishable; this not least of all by the mob, which feels the tightening of the screws at every turn, and becomes more and more desperate, like a wild animal cornered. Harvey Dent, the new District Attorney, an optimistic, grandstanding young (by the standards of the legal profession) man, rises over Gotham as Batman prowls beneath it, and the people seem ready to believe that together, even if official policy would have them at opposite poles, they will fulfil the promise of the new optimism blooming on the city’s bustling streets. Yet all is not well in the Gotham legal system, mob-compromised cops work surreptitiously within its halls and offices, and, when the mob itself becomes compromised by the Joker, the entire structure seems to teeter upon the precipice of total, irretrievable collapse.

Harvey Dent is dating Bruce Wayne’s former squeeze Rachel Dawes, here played by Maggie Gyllenhaal (as Katie Holmes, who had previously portrayed the character in Batman Begins, was then busy being abducted and brainwashed by cult leader and walking Teflon advertisement Tom Cruise) and you already know where this is going, even if you haven’t seen the film. Dawes is to serve as collateral in the Joker’s sadistic plot to corrupt Dent. One thing I do particularly enjoy about the Joker in this film is just how extreme his actions become over the course of the film, as he continues to attempt to push Batman over the edge, to turn him into a killer, by burning down the order he seeks to uphold. However, the “love” between Dent and Dawes, thus the tragedy of the latter’s fiery death, is blunted by the little screen time we see them spend together. Even with a new actor in the role, at least the Dawes/Wayne relationship was previously established; no matter how well Aaron Eckhardt plays Dent’s pretence to quietly resolved protective desperation over the situation of his beloved, he cannot add an extra film’s worth of shared character development to their history that will make us believe that she is his beloved.

In The Dark Knight, Two Face is the Joker’s creation. Not only is the Joker the cause of his disfigurement both physical and mental, not to mention the defacing of what will become his signature coin, but the clown prince of crime comes to Dent in the hospital and rattles off a speech tailor-made to impress a teenage boy on the verge of rebelling against his parents, which apparently is good enough for a highly educated man approaching middle age. To be fair, Dent is suffering from severe trauma, and I can be charitable and accept that even if Dawes were a complete stranger, the deeply felt pang of survivor’s guilt would doubtless see him in an emotionally fragile, susceptible state of mind. Alas, if only someone had brought him a copy of Seneca’s On Providence first! By hook or by crook is Two Face thus born, revenge the only word on his twisted lips as he escapes an exploding hospital and somehow finds himself a rather perfectly half-burnt suit. This he seeks to take not on the man who put his former self and his former self’s love in the most heinous of predicaments, but on slightly dodgy copper Jim Gordon, whom Gary Oldman’s slightly dodgy accent returns to play.

The dramatic climax of the film is played out between Two Face, Gordon, Gordon’s family, and eventually Batman. Two Face holds Gordon’s family at gunpoint, and asks Gordon which one he loves the most, so that he might, supposedly, experience what Harvey Dent experienced. I have already commented on the somewhat ludicrous prospect of Dent taking the loss of Rachel Dawes this badly, and at the risk of repeating myself I find it even more ludicrous that Two Face would go after Gordon when he is precisely aware of the Joker’s involvement in Dawes’s kidnapping and death, and even had the opportunity to kill the Joker in the hospital. So the plot sort of resolves to a damp squib of a scene in which a Character A goes after Character B and essentially subjects Character B’s family to emotional torture because Character A was reduced by trauma to the intellectual level of an angry fifteen year old boy smoking cigarettes he stole from his dad’s bedside cabinet. Batman shows up, Two Face falls to his death, Batman runs away having taken the blame for Harvey Dent’s crimes because Harvey Dent was a symbol of hope and blah blah blah.

Essentially, The Dark Knight’s Two Face has the exact opposite problem that plagued the one we regrettably encountered in Batman Forever. In that film, Tommy Lee Jones played a Joker knock-off who had no prior life upon which to base his villainous mutation; in this one, Aaron Eckhardt has a relatively rich prior life that exists to basically serve us a tragic villain who dies after maybe ten minutes of screen time. Jones is undoubtedly far worse on every level, turning in a horrid, idiotic performance that cannot merely be blamed on the litany of failings to be found in the script and direction, whereas Eckhardt’s problems are entirely imposed upon him by the film itself. Rather than doing the sensible thing and setting up Two Face as the possibly redeemable anti-hero in the sequel he already knew would be greenlit, Nolan was more concerned with sacrificing this reasonably well-developed character to a dramatic climax that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The treatment of Dent’s nascent tragedy here seems so artificial because we arrive at it by such mediocre means, and I feel little for his fall from grace despite the fine performance Eckhardt gives in the role.

I began this review by talking about the Joker as a sort of cultural synecdoche for the film itself. It’s strange, then, that I should find myself now having very little to say about the character or Heath Ledger’s performance, which was made monumental by his overdose. I also said that the Joker cannot be saved from himself, and perhaps Ledger was much the same. There is a temptation to read in, to blur the lines of fantasy and reality, professional and personal, to give in to the romantic notion of the method actor, who inhabits their role and temporarily loses their own being, sacrifices it to their art, maybe even relinquishes some small part of it forever. Few are more keen to have this notion accepted than the ones who do it, what some call “love me” acting, wherein the Method, originally a far more humble, “pure” craft-oriented conception of acting through deep empathy, gives way to the spectacle of the actor, of a performance beyond the performance. The desire to conflate events occurring around a film with the film itself is a curious one. It seems in some ways a mirror to the desire for (typically) science fiction and fantasy media to expand infinitely, so that the adventure, the escape, never comes to an end. Here the fictional spills out into the real, the artifice loses its boundaries; Heath Ledger becomes the Joker becomes Heath Ledger.

To be clear, I do not accuse Ledger of attempting to gain something, of myth-making through death. For all I can tell, Ledger was a somewhat self-effacing actor who was devoted, at least in his final years, to the craft of acting. He took his work seriously. The baggage conferred by the vagaries of reputation had initially led to outcry among certain circles that Ledger, who had played many throwaway romance and adventure roles and presumably given little or no indication that he could play in a “serious” film about a man dressed up in a bat costume punching people, was unsuitable for the role. The only other film I have seen Ledger in is The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, which he began filming after The Dark Knight, so I am not in a position to comment on his prior work. As I said, for all I have written about the reputation of Ledger’s Joker, I find myself with curiously little to say about the performance itself. The tail may well have been wagging the dog back in 2008, but that dog now stalks a hinterland that would seem to be beyond reach, beyond human time, ageless and on some level insensible. Suffice it to say it is the most engaging portion of the film, injecting clown colours and a wonky panache into the same grey and brown anywhere cityscapes that made Batman Begins so impersonal.

The Dark Knight is more personal than its predecessor, it is more about characters and relationships than anything else, even if they don’t come off anywhere near as real as they were intended to be. The cosmic scale of Ra’s al Ghul’s crusade rendered Batman’s fight for Gotham partially intangible, for all that Gotham itself was the focus; here the Joker’s earthbound terrorism cries out for a Gotham to destroy, but instead he is reduced to corrupting, or attempting to corrupt, a handful of people. When he pits the captive passengers of two boats against each other, each one rigged with a bomb to which the other has the detonator, that he, or better yet Gotham might see whether it is a group of hardened criminals or of ordinary citizens that will pull the trigger on the other, a bunch of people we neither know nor care about are suddenly introduced as stakes in a game the rules of which have never been clear. The Joker claims he is an agent of chaos with no plan, and the film seems structurally sympathetic to his raison d’être to the point of distraction. He dominates the film to its detriment; all the goings on with Batman himself even seem forgettable, marginal events on the periphery of Joker’s litany of carnages. The mismatch of scale and intent leave the film itself scrabbling for a satisfying conclusion, one which it cannot find, but that is wrapped up in authoritative drivel—which would be platitudinous if only I believed that even the writers actually knew what they meant by it this time around—which was either intended as a placation of the audience for an unsatisfactory ending, or perhaps thrown together without much thought since it was already known, already understood that the Joker was so strong as to reduce all else in the film to a triviality.

The Dark Knight is the very definition of slick mediocrity, which is more or less what I have come to expect from Christopher Nolan over the years. He is a brilliant deviser of intriguing, sometimes astounding set-pieces, but he is at a loss as to how to piece them together into anything resembling a complete work of cinema. Whereas, for example, Quentin Tarantino had a sort of golden period before his scripts degenerated into mere collections of, on a good day, individually fine scenes, Nolan has never convinced me of a macroscopic understanding of narrative and theme, of character and place, how these things coalesce into an artistic statement. This film has many good elements that would be exciting were they not strung together without purpose, except perhaps a shallow exploration of nihilism. The plot is constructed with the understanding that the Joker must remain an enigma to the end, but it doesn’t understand that the Joker and the film as a whole are connected yet discrete entities, and that what is true for one does not necessarily hold in the case of the other. The Joker’s arc—a term I use only for simplicity’s sake—cannot resolve to an answer, but he does have a point that he is driving at continually, while the film conversely answers its own questions but in doing so reveals that it has no point. Ultimately, there have been sweeter sounds and greater furies than this, and I can’t help but find that whatever impressed me in 2009 is no longer there in 2022. The Batman film we need, the Batman film we deserve, whether they are the same or not, whether such criteria can be applied to superhero movies at all, is somewhere other than here.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on June 24, 2022, 08:01:32 PM
However, the “love” between Dent and Dawes, thus the tragedy of the latter’s fiery death

nice spoiler
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on July 13, 2022, 03:41:35 AM
capeshit capeshit cape to the shit

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (Sam Raimi, 2022)

The Marvel Cinematic Universe and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

Okay, it's not all bad. Having Sam Raimi at the helm is this movie's biggest strength, and results in one of the MCU's most stylish and visually unique films to date. This is far from an auteur piece, but there are still plenty of his signature flourishes and touches, ranging from the goofy to the genuinely eerie. I also respect that this movie had the balls to make Wanda the main antagonist and keep her that way until the end. I was almost expecting a big CGI monster to appear in the final act and become the real villain that Wanda and Strange would have to team up against or something, like in Shang-Chi, but that thankfully didn't happen. Unfortunately, I suspect I know why the brand-conscious MCU was willing to turn one of its heroes into a villain and kill her off - I think a future movie or TV show will just have an uncorrupted Wanda pop up out of the multiverse and conveniently take the old one's place. The MCU has done this sort of thing in the past, like with Thanos in Endgame and Loki in, uh, Loki - take a different version of a formerly dead character and let them just take over where the old version of them left off, as if they're the same character that we've seen grow and develop in previous movies. Even though they obviously aren't. It feels like very lazy, risk-averse writing. Nothing has stakes or consequences anymore, because they can just grab replacements for dead characters out of former timelines or different universes.

And while this movie seems to be aware of the fact that different versions of characters we already know will have completely different backstories and therefore can't really be called the same people, given that there's dialogue explicitly pointing this out, it still indulges itself freely. Strange and the alternate universe Mordo's confrontation means nothing. There is no dramatic weight to it beyond two random dudes fighting. These two men do not know each other. They have no actual history. Same thing with the relationship between Strange and the alternate universe's generic love interest. These two people do not know each other. They have never been in love. They have no actual history. The movie expects us to take for granted that this is Strange building on his relationships with these characters that we saw in his previous movie, or near enough, even while it has dialogue pointing out that this makes no sense. And speaking of Rachel McAdams's character, I hope that's the last we see of her. She's probably the most useless of all the love interests we've seen so far, and this movie seems to tie a pretty definitive bow on her and Strange's relationship.

I don't care about the Illuminati. If the X-Men and Fantastic Four were being introduced into the universe we actually have some investment in, then maybe I'd be interested, but introducing and promptly killing off those characters in an alternate universe we've never seen before and will almost certainly never see again tells me that none of it matters. It was just empty fanservice. The character of America Chavez also had no impact on me. She's just too generic, too predictable, too been-there-and-done-that. Everything about her personality, her arc, and her quips feels like a retread. And speaking of characters that feel repetitive, Strange himself - while thankfully not written to basically be RDJ-lite like he was in his first movie - is a nonstop fountain of bad jokes and quips. It's a bad fit for an otherwise straight-laced character like Strange, as well as a bad fit for an actor like Benedict Cumberbatch. Marvel either doesn't know or doesn't care that there are other ways for a movie to be funny than a constant stream of quips. Like, I could easily see Cumberbatch playing Strange as something like an Adam West figure, where the humor would come from him saying absolutely ridiculous capeshit nonsense with an entirely straight face. I think it could work really well, and it would definitely be funnier than cringeworthy quips like "Illumi-what-i?"

Like I said above, I like how they made Wanda the main antagonist, but I don't understand how that decision squares with the end of WandaVision. That show ended on a poor note for both myself and plenty of other people by its last-minute attempts to frame Wanda as the hero of that story rather than its villain via bizarre lines like "They'll never know what you sacrificed." What was the point of that when this movie confirmed that yes, WandaVision was in fact Wanda's villain origin story? Also, this movie looks really shitty. Not as bad as No Way Home, but the effects are still just awful for a movie of this budget. I suspect Marvel has become stretched too thin with their current schedule of putting out a dozen shows/movies every year, and the people they have working on their effects just don't have the time they need to make them look good.

tl;dr: The Marvel Cinematic Universe and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Fortuna on July 14, 2022, 08:25:08 PM
The new minions movie I just watched was unironically better than 95% of MCU movies.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on August 04, 2022, 05:55:56 PM
The new  minion movie had a massive pacing issue where it had to cram 3 plotlines and 6 villians into an hour and a half.  It did it well enough but damn...


Also, Saw Buzz Lightyear.
This movie was bad.  Not because it was "woke" but because it was bad.  Badly written, plot holes in dumb places, a twist that made no god damn sense, and a motivation that, while it kinda makes sense, is still just dumb and basically makes the entire point of the movie, which is supposed to be the movie they made in the toy story universe, not suitable for the target audience.  My 4 year old and 7 year old both got bored half way through.

Its an adult movie, trying to be a kids movie, while being shitty scifi.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 04, 2022, 06:09:02 PM
I always forget about this thread.

Elvis was the first movie I've seen in theaters since the pandemic. It was good and fun and sad. Austin Butler clearly put in a lot of effort to sound like Elvis. His speaking voice consistently impressed me. On the flip side of that, Richard Roxburgh was a weird choice for Vernon, he could have worked on his American accent a bit more.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on August 04, 2022, 06:58:54 PM
Thor 4

Better than Thor 2.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on August 04, 2022, 07:40:32 PM
Thor 4

Better than Thor 2.
A ringing endorsement there.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on August 12, 2022, 04:53:02 AM
i just watched Prey. i can't believe i'm saying this about a predator sequel, but it was really good.

the pacing was nearly perfect. the audio mixing was literally perfect (i didn't have to adjust the volume at all). the action scenes were tight with very few quick cuts, and they didn't drag on and on.

my only real beefs are that the ending was kind of dumb, and that the main character looks so much like aubrey plaza that i couldn't stop seeing april ludgate.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on August 12, 2022, 02:51:55 PM
i just watched Prey. i can't believe i'm saying this about a predator sequel, but it was really good.

the pacing was nearly perfect. the audio mixing was literally perfect (i didn't have to adjust the volume at all). the action scenes were tight with very few quick cuts, and they didn't drag on and on.

my only real beefs are that the ending was kind of dumb, and that the main character looks so much like aubrey plaza that i couldn't stop seeing april ludgate.
Weird. I agree with literally everything you said.

It made me wish they'd do Predator movies kind of like Assassin's Creed games. Just standalones around the world at different times. Not that they need to but I've never had any interest in seeing the other Predator movies (outside of the original I LOVE the original) until this one.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: beardo on August 22, 2022, 07:50:56 PM
The Terminal List.
p. good.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on August 24, 2022, 12:00:27 AM
MCU Phase 4 movies and shows blitz reviews since Crudblud and I are now up to Loki ep. 2 in our MCU watch-through. So most things past that, I have only seen the first time when they came out.

WandaVision: If the Exposition Squad feat. Kat Dennings weren't in this, I would have absolutely adored it. As it is, I really enjoyed it but felt like the pacing was horrible after a few episodes.
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier: Enjoyed this, even if it got kind of slow sometimes. Sam and Bucky are fun, and Bucky is a puppy dog I want to be safe.
Loki: Love the concept, it lost me hardcore after a few episodes as it felt like it lost its path. I was also super high so I'm hoping I feel differently watching it sober this time through.
Black Widow: I had some good fun with this film as a low-stakes last hurrah. A nice family dynamic with good choreography and fun action.
What If...?: The handful of episodes I watched weren't very good, had serious pacing issues, and felt unnecessary.
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings: Wasn't very invested in the story, but it was visually beautiful and the fight choreography is fantastic. As a fight scene nerd, I've watched it several times just for those.
Eternals: Having seen it twice, probably one of my favorite MCU films. One of the most human of them, and I appreciated the pacing and cinematography quite a bit. Does a great job establishing individual characters in a large group, as well as creatively using powers and abilities. I think Ikaris has the best-looking Superman fight scenes of any movie. Yes, even Man of Steel.
Hawkeye: Fun, touching, charming, but ultimately didn't leave much of an impact. I've already forgotten a lot of it. One extremely unnecessary character cameo.
Spider-Man: No Way Home: I loved this movie on my first watch and on my second watch the next day. It fixed a lot of the issues I had with Marvel's Spider-Man series and particularly their boring-ass depictions of Tony Stark Jr., actually got me invested in the series and characters finally, as well as made what I think are pretty bold decisions regarding the other characters that were pulled into this. I can totally see how they can be viewed as just fanservice, but I genuinely think that they added something to the film and that their inclusion served the story and purpose well.
Moon Knight: Dark but willing to lean into the camp and ridiculousness of the situation, which is something I've enjoyed in several Moon Knight runs, which can very between extremely gritty and extremely self-aware. Oscar Isaac is amazing and I love him.
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness: One of my favorite MCU films for sure. I loved the visuals, I loved the creativity, I loved the horror aspects, and I was really worried I wouldn't actually enjoy Sam Raimi's direction for it but thankfully I did. Far better than I expected.
Ms. Marvel: Maybe my favorite Marvel TV show? I'm a little biased toward the character, but given how they changed her powers for the show it could have easily backfired and annoyed me. But the core of what made me love the character in the comics when they debuted in 2014 is still there. A lovely young Muslim girl growing up in New York and dealing with the struggles that can come with that, but ultimately optimistic and full of heart instead of leaning into the downsides.
Thor: Love and Thunder: I deeply enjoyed every second of Christian Bale on-screen, and seeing my favorite Thor on-screen made me feel things. Especially seeing how ripped she got for it goddamn. Definitely no Ragnarok, though, and not a great or very interesting film overall. I did appreciate the 80s cheese and aesthetic.
She-Hulk (episode 1): I had a ton of fun watching this and I'm excited about this series while I was worried initially. I love Tatiana Maslany for her hilarious appearances on the Comedy Bang! Bang! podcast so I was already a fan of her, but with everything I've been through this past year and a half I could kind of just slide right into the vibe of this show. I know for sure people will bitch about hamfisted feminism, but the misogyny that happened in this episode is nothing I haven't experienced irl (and is toned-down if anything) so it's not a complaint on my end.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on September 11, 2022, 12:52:02 AM
Thor: Love and Thunder (Taika Waititi, 2022)

I've got to stop watching these movies. The one part of this film that really works is the villain, played by Christian Bale with the perfect blend of menace and silliness. Everything else is terrible, and especially the writing. I have a hard time believing that the man behind What We Do in the Shadows was responsible for this script. The movie bombards the audience with jokes, and none of them are funny. Not a single one is anything other than annoying. There's a pair of CGI goats that obnoxiously scream all the time. Isn't that funny, Taika asks? No, answers anyone over the age of five, it's just annoying. Taika gives his own character, Korg, a very irritating high-pitched voice, and the sole joke with him seems to be that a rock monster has a voice like that. Isn't that funny? No, it's just annoying. Thor himself is a bumbling idiot throughout most of the movie and rambles like a stoner whenever he talks to another character, in what I can only assume are Chris Hemsworth's attempts at improv. Isn't that funny? No, it's just annoying. Every joke in this movie is fucking annoying. Oh, and the CGi is also terrible, but I expect that from Marvel by now.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 11, 2022, 10:49:12 AM
As Снупс mentioned above, we've been watching through these together. Here's my ranking of MCU shows so far with brief commentary.

1. Moon Knight — Great first outing for one of my favourite (anti)heroes. Oscar Isaac and Ethan Hawke are great adversaries, and the special attention paid to the character's Egyptian roots is much appreciated.

2. Loki — Ambitious concept more or less pulled off, with a few disappointing non-twists where it wimps out. Tom Hiddleston finally gets to shine and is no longer an annoying side character you can't figure out why Marvel keeps shoehorning into centre stage! Plus, Owen Wilson wowin' it up is more than welcome.

3. The Falcon and the Winter Soldier — Solid nuts-and-bolts action thriller dealing with the sociopolitical fallout of the "blip". Nice moments with Bucky and Sam lend it a heartfelt sensibility that ultimately wins out over its frequently hard-headed militarism.

4. WandaVision — I really wanted this to be top of the list, but as it stands this might be the biggest fumble in the entire MCU. It starts and ends strongly but sinks into the depths of its own insecurity in the middle, as it becomes a turgid mess of recap after recap after Kat Dennings, because Marvel has no confidence that its audience might not be made up exclusively of morons.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Lord Dave on September 11, 2022, 11:49:02 AM
I saw love and thunder as well.

I absolutely hated the first act.  Too much heartbreak and general over the top 80s silliness.  Once Thor went to help Sif, it picked up.
Thor and Jane romantic scenes were not great and yes, the screaming goats were annoying.  But I enjoyed the second and third act.

And Christian Bale as Gorr was absolutely amazing.  Realistic motivation.  And he still showed his parenthood even when corrupted when he tried to entertain the kids.  It wasn't about scaring them, it was him being what any parent would do, just... He's corrupted so it didn't go over well.

And that end bit with the girl and Thor?  Gold.  That is absolutely young daughter/dad interaction and have the daughter to prove it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on September 11, 2022, 04:11:47 PM
Thor: Love and Thunder (Taika Waititi, 2022)

I've got to stop watching these movies. The one part of this film that really works is the villain, played by Christian Bale with the perfect blend of menace and silliness. Everything else is terrible, and especially the writing. I have a hard time believing that the man behind What We Do in the Shadows was responsible for this script. The movie bombards the audience with jokes, and none of them are funny. Not a single one is anything other than annoying. There's a pair of CGI goats that obnoxiously scream all the time. Isn't that funny, Taika asks? No, answers anyone over the age of five, it's just annoying. Taika gives his own character, Korg, a very irritating high-pitched voice, and the sole joke with him seems to be that a rock monster has a voice like that. Isn't that funny? No, it's just annoying. Thor himself is a bumbling idiot throughout most of the movie and rambles like a stoner whenever he talks to another character, in what I can only assume are Chris Hemsworth's attempts at improv. Isn't that funny? No, it's just annoying. Every joke in this movie is fucking annoying. Oh, and the CGi is also terrible, but I expect that from Marvel by now.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

Oh no, Saddam has a correct opinion finally. Not sure what this means for humanity.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on September 16, 2022, 09:36:54 AM
Morbius ("dir." Daniel Espinosa)

Do I rate it low because it was shit or do I rate it high because it was so astoundingly shit that I had a good laugh watching it together with Снупс? The experience was one of a kind, at any rate.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on September 28, 2022, 01:52:00 AM
severance

i fucking loved every single thing about season 1. it was as spectacular as helly's pencil skirts.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Snupes on September 29, 2022, 02:55:32 AM
Severance was my surprise favorite show of the year. Watched it on a whim out of boredom and holy shit
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on September 29, 2022, 10:54:04 PM
Watched severance and it was good in my opinion!
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on October 26, 2022, 04:28:40 AM
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022)

All the lavish production design in the world can't disguise how inept at its core this show is. One of the most common criticisms of the show I've seen in online discussions is its lack of fidelity to the source material, and that's certainly fair, but even setting that aside, this show is simply incompetently written and structured. The showrunners - two complete novices without a single IMDb credit between them, but thankfully they're pals with J.J. Abrams, so the good ol' boys network threw them this gig - don't take the time to create interesting or relatable characters. They don't tell a meaningful story either in each episode or over the course of the season, instead just starting and finishing seemingly at random. Their approach to this show, as far as I can tell, seems to essentially be that because this is LotR, people should already be invested in this, and therefore this show doesn't have to do anything another TV show would to keep their investment.

There are a lot of things I could point to, both big and small, as being unconducive to good storytelling, but here's the one detail that annoyed me the most. This show follows four separate subplots, and when I say separate, I mean that they are all so segregated from one another that they might as well come from different shows. There is nothing that connects them either storywise or thematically. Three of the subplots do eventually intersect in terms of their characters meeting, but that has nothing to do with their stories coming together. The characters simply stumble upon each other seemingly coincidentally. I've never seen a show do something like this - have several subplots that simply don't coalesce into an overall story, or at least indicate how these subplots are all connected. What is this show about? How are these stories connected? It's not enough to just say that it's LotR and that's the connection. It's not how storytelling works.

Are there any redeeming qualities to this mess of a show? Yeah, sure. Everything looks fantastic for the most part, with large, detailed sets, nice-looking costumes, excellent makeup work, and so on. Elrond and Durin have an engaging odd-couple dynamic. The show's portrayal of a Harfoot society is charming, and the actors playing the Harfoots are arguably the most committed of the entire cast - although it would have been nice to have actually cast Irish actors to fit with the coding of the Harfoots as Irish. I also like the character of Adar, a mysterious antagonist who seems to challenge Tolkien's essentialist portrayal of orcs as always chaotic evil and argues that they are people who deserve to live as much as any other race. That's about all I've got. Pretty much everything else is slow, boring, clunky, and surprisingly reliant on modern clichés (just imagine Galadriel as the hardened cop who knows that the killer is still out there, Celebrimbor as the mad scientist who won't let anything stop his work, Isildur as the scrappy young rookie eager to prove himself, and so on) that feel jarringly out of place for Tolkien. It's a real shame. Unlike many LotR fans, I wasn't hoping for this show to fail, and I think we could have gotten something special in the hands of qualified showrunners with an actual vision for the show.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on October 26, 2022, 12:08:09 PM
I agree it’s not the tightest of writing but it’s a little confusing how you can think the subplots don’t come together. Three of them literally converge in the last episode, each providing a crucial piece to the other. I found quite a few characters to connect with as well. The fidelity of the adaptation is troubling but it’s a bit of a minefield with the production not having rights to use the Silmarillion. Anecdotally, non-fanboys that Ive encountered have really enjoyed it.

For me, the weakest part was the episodes on Numenor. I don’t think they captured the might or that nation sufficiently, and the impetus to travel to Middle Earth was more of a snap decision than something earned like Elrond’s need for the mithril.

It’s too bad you found no redeeming qualities in the storytelling. I can’t help but connect that to high expectations and shitty fan boy culture creating biases. With streaming services producing content with such high production value and IP with big fan bases, it seems like every bit of content is expected to be extraordinary, which is maybe unfair.

I’m curious though, if you take a sober second look, do you really think it was irredeemably inept?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 26, 2022, 03:29:54 PM
I think its main problem is that they're not allowed the good source material. But it has one of my favorite tv writers so I have to disagree that the writing is terrible. I'm willing to believe any weaknesses are mostly from a lack of resources and yet not wanting to be too bold about anything outside of it.

And as someone who is not a fanboy and struggled to read the super boring books, I feel like I'm learning a lot about the world which is p neat. Maybe it wouldn't be that strong on its own but as Tolkien L O R E I like it. Although the Numenor shit is cheesy and I hate Isildur.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on October 26, 2022, 03:40:12 PM
It’s too bad all the elven lineages are detailed in the Silmarillion because it would have been cool for them to explore that Elrond, Gil-Galad, Celebrimbor and Galadriel are cousins.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Iceman on October 26, 2022, 05:39:16 PM
I never read the source material (except for the hobbit which I read as a kid), but fell in love with the franchise because of Jackson’s trilogy, which was released at a prime time for me, just going into high school.

I enjoyed seeing the characters referenced in some of the original movies, and learning more about how things developed prior to LoTR. The pacing was definitely a bit off, but I think a lot of that is a consequence of how modern series are portrayed, since you seemingly need to have a cliff hanger at the end of Every. Single. Episode. I didn’t really have a problem with the four isolated stories - to me it actually kind of reinforces the vastness of Tolkien’s middle earth, and the importance of everyone’s individual journeys.

I thought the finale was the primary let down of the series. It really felt like in many ways it delegitimized all the episodes into what now fees more like just an extended trailer for season 2.

Galadriel just felt a bit off to me throughout and I don’t really know why. But I feel like Honk’s detective analogy hits home.

All in all, it was enjoyable, it just feels incomplete.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on October 26, 2022, 09:55:12 PM
None of the “modern cliches” he described are particularly modern. These character archetypes have existed for literally thousands of years. If they didn’t hit home, it’s probably ultimately the actors fault with the writers maybe making their life harder than it needed to be. I thought Galadriel was one of the better characters in the show though.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on October 26, 2022, 10:59:06 PM
I thought Galadriel was one of the better characters in the show though.

The hottest of hot takes... Or maybe a scathing criticism idk.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on October 27, 2022, 01:58:41 AM
Unpopular opinion: It was alright.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on October 27, 2022, 03:03:54 AM
not sauron and not gandalf... spoilers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Uv9SQSJ8R8
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on October 27, 2022, 04:51:55 AM
So I saw Black Adam. It's not the hopeless piece of shit the critics are making it out to be, but it's not really good either.

It relies heavily on exposition. The characters are paper-thin, the worst being Atom Smasher and Cyclone, whose little romance subplot makes no sense and feels shoehorned in. The JSA deserved a better introduction to the DCU than this.

No The Rock is not a good actor, but we love him anyway, don't we? Go figure. Anyway, this is an awful adaptation of his character from the comics, seemingly written the way it was to detract from Dwayne Johnson's limitations as an actor. He's reduced to Arnold Schwarzenegger style one-liners. And that's a shame, because I've always thought he was actually a very interesting and nuanced character.

Speaking of nuance, this movie has none. Instead of letting us figure out his anti-hero status for ourselves they hit it over our heads like a sledgehammer. Several characters, including Black Adam himself, say within the first half of the movie that he is no hero. Until the moment late in the movie that a prominent character realizes that, gee golly, maybe sometimes you have to do seemingly bad things to really accomplish change or some shit. I believe I literally rolled my eyes.

Anyway that being said, I enjoyed it. If you can ignore the flaws it's a fun romp that amazingly just flies by, even with the ridiculous Zach Snyder slo-mo that's littered through. 6/10 would recommend. But just barely.

Honk is gonna hate it. And that's reasonable.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on October 29, 2022, 05:50:58 PM
I agree it’s not the tightest of writing but it’s a little confusing how you can think the subplots don’t come together. Three of them literally converge in the last episode, each providing a crucial piece to the other.

I'm exaggerating a bit, sure, but I feel like there's a difference between the characters of the various subplots meeting each other and the subplots themselves, as in the stories (or at least their overarching themes), actually tying into each other in a harmonious way. Galadriel's motivation throughout the season is to find and defeat Sauron. That's why she travels to the Southlands - but from her perspective, the trip is basically a red herring, as neither Sauron nor his allies turn out to be there. Instead, Galadriel just kind of gets roped into the separate subplot of Arondir and Bronwyn's struggle against Adar and the orcs. Later, when Galadriel brings Halbrand to the elves, she's simply doing so to save his life, and from there she, once again, just kind of gets roped into the separate subplot involving the mithril. The resolution of her own ultimate motivation of finding Sauron, in the meantime, falls into her lap accidentally. This is very frustrating writing. I feel like it's somehow violating some unwritten rules of setup and payoff to have Galadriel repeatedly just happen to be in the right place at the right time so she can resolve everyone else's subplots.

Quote
It’s too bad you found no redeeming qualities in the storytelling. I can’t help but connect that to high expectations and shitty fan boy culture creating biases.

I think I've mentioned before that I'm not keen on the growing prominence of fanboy culture and "criticism" in today's society. The scope of their criticisms more often than not tend to be narrow and superficial, as they mainly complain about things like "plot holes" and lore accuracy, even as they lavish excessive praise on cool action scenes and badass characters they can see themselves being as a power fantasy. They've also grown increasingly reactionary in recent years, and are more and more lashing out at increased racial diversity and female characters that don't know their place (the idiot that junker linked to is an excellent example of this). Even before this show came out, I was deeply dismayed by the overwhelmingly toxic and unbelievably mask-off racist response it was receiving online, and I was determined to give it a fair chance and criticize it for substantive flaws rather than fanboy nitpicks. Like I said, I was hoping for this show to be good, and I wasn't prepared to hate it on the basis of something stupid like them daring to cast a few non-white people.

None of the “modern cliches” he described are particularly modern. These character archetypes have existed for literally thousands of years. If they didn’t hit home, it’s probably ultimately the actors fault with the writers maybe making their life harder than it needed to be. I thought Galadriel was one of the better characters in the show though.

You're right that the archetypes aren't exactly new, but what felt modern about their implementation here was just how unsubtle they were. For example, Celebrimbor in the source material is primarily characterized by his altruism rather than his ambition, and it's this desire to help others that Sauron takes advantage of for his own ends. In this show, however, right from the start he's saying ominous lines about how true creation requires sacrifice. It's so obvious, it's so blatant what they're going for, and it's clear that the main inspiration for this characterization isn't the Celebrimbor from the lore, but the more clichéd image of a mad scientist from pop culture. Isildur is the character that suffers the most, though. The show positions him as a hero, but he comes across as a selfish fuckup to me, and I have my doubts about how intentional that was.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 29, 2022, 08:16:15 PM
Seems kinda intentional for Isildur to be a selfish fuckup. Or at the very least he's being positioned as an ambitious naive privileged turd.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on October 29, 2022, 11:09:08 PM
I don't think he is. I can't prove it or anything, but the framing is always centering him, so to speak. Virtually every scene he's in is told from his perspective. He is their focus, he is their main character. That's generally not how movies and TV shows frame deliberately unlikable characters. Isildur's subplot seems to be about his struggle and growth into a hero, which is fatally undercut by how unsympathetic he ends up being.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 30, 2022, 02:01:26 AM
He is their focus, he is their main character. That's generally not how movies and TV shows frame deliberately unlikable characters.
We all know him as the ass who just couldn't destroy the ring. Sure, they can build him up and make him more complicated and maybe we do want to root for the naive kid full of hope and curiosity. But I think his selfish privilege is absolutely intentional because it shows his flaws and makes his trajectory pretty obvious.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on October 30, 2022, 03:15:52 AM
He is their focus, he is their main character. That's generally not how movies and TV shows frame deliberately unlikable characters.
We all know him as the ass who just couldn't destroy the ring. Sure, they can build him up and make him more complicated and maybe we do want to root for the naive kid full of hope and curiosity. But I think his selfish privilege is absolutely intentional because it shows his flaws and makes his trajectory pretty obvious.

I sincerely hope the inability to destroy the One Ring is never portrayed as a moral failing considering no one ever showed themselves to have the strength to destroy it. The noblest characters in Tolkien’s world only had the strength to deny possession of the One Ring because they know they never could destroy it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 30, 2022, 03:56:55 AM
And yet a lot of people hated Boromir. 🤷‍♀️
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on October 30, 2022, 05:16:52 AM
To treat Isildur's refusal to destroy the Ring as a basis or justification for making him a selfish and entitled young man would be utterly unworthy of Tolkien and his themes. A point that's hammered home again and again in the text is that the Ring will corrupt anyone who touches it or is even near it for too long. Isildur didn't even have the benefit of being forewarned about the Ring's dark influence, as he was in a sense the "case study" for how it worked. As for Boromir, well, he didn't simply refuse to destroy the Ring, he tried to forcefully seize it from Frodo, in stark contrast to other characters that were shown to be able to resist the urge to try and claim it themselves.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 30, 2022, 02:35:36 PM
As for Boromir, well, he didn't simply refuse to destroy the Ring, he tried to forcefully seize it from Frodo, in stark contrast to other characters that were shown to be able to resist the urge to try and claim it themselves.
lol this is so hypocritical. Boromir was near it for a long time and he did apologize. He literally picked it up and still gave it back. He was fighting it. And no, we never see Legolas, Gimli, or the other Hobbits struggling with it in the first movie.

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with the stories showing man's inherent selfishness and how that might tie in with why the ring has so much power over them.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on October 30, 2022, 04:41:48 PM
As for Boromir, well, he didn't simply refuse to destroy the Ring, he tried to forcefully seize it from Frodo, in stark contrast to other characters that were shown to be able to resist the urge to try and claim it themselves.
lol this is so hypocritical. Boromir was near it for a long time and he did apologize. He literally picked it up and still gave it back.

Isildur wasn’t instantly corrupted either, even though the film implies an instant effect of the ring. He carried it for weeks (months?) and never put it on until he was ambushed in the Gladden Fields.

Quote
He was fighting it.

But lost. Frodo had to put the ring on to escape.

Quote
And no, we never see Legolas, Gimli, or the other Hobbits struggling with it in the first movie.

Gimli and Legolas both instantly feel the pull of the ring at the Council of Elrond. Hobbits resistance to the ring is a trait special to them and part of the reason Gandalf chose Frodo for the mission to Mount Doom.

Quote
Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with the stories showing man's inherent selfishness and how that might tie in with why the ring has so much power over them.

The lust for power is what Sauron preyed on to ensnare the Nine. Greed was how he drove the seven mad. But just to reiterate, Isildur took the ring, yes, but never used it until he was ambushed and had no other way to escape. He resisted it more strongly than any ringbearer, except Bilbo. Being corrupted by the ring is not a character flaw, it’s a feature of the ring, if you take it.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 31, 2022, 01:05:43 AM
Ah yes, this is why I hated the books. This is very boring.

So to reiterate, it's not a character flaw. But the audience is justified in disliking Boromir. But it's wrong to give Isildur character flaws. K

I also never got that Legolas or Gimli felt a pull during the council. Gimli went to smash it right at the start

Hobbits are very pure silly things. So again it kinda makes sense that it's most effective around selfish and/or ambitious men.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on October 31, 2022, 04:21:33 AM
I think it's a shame that people came out of Fellowship hating Boromir. He's a fairly shallow character in the book, but the film does an excellent job of elevating him into a far more nuanced, sympathetic, and ultimately heroic figure. Nevertheless, the scene of him turning on Frodo and trying to forcefully take the Ring from him is a harsh one and leaves a strong impact, so I can understand why people would dislike him, even if I don't agree with them. Anyway, it's fine for Isildur to have flaws. My problem is simply that the show goes too far and leaves us with nothing to root for. He's too capricious, too entitled, too selfish.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 31, 2022, 12:47:27 PM
My problem is simply that the show goes too far and leaves us with nothing to root for. He's too capricious, too entitled, too selfish.
And I agree with you but I don't think we need to root for every character. Or at least not all the time. fwiw the writer I like wrote on Breaking Bad and we certainly don't or aren't supposed to root for Walt.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on October 31, 2022, 02:04:23 PM
Ah yes, this is why I hated the books. This is very boring.

So to reiterate, it's not a character flaw. But the audience is justified in disliking Boromir. But it's wrong to give Isildur character flaws. K

I hope I didn’t give that impression. I just think lusting over the Ring I shouldn’t be construed as a character flaw.

Quote
I also never got that Legolas or Gimli felt a pull during the council. Gimli went to smash it right at the start

Fair enough. I always took Legolas’ sitting forward in his chair and Gimli’s slight gasp to be the Ring’s influence. That the sight of it instantly provokes people.

Quote
Hobbits are very pure silly things. So again it kinda makes sense that it's most effective around selfish and/or ambitious men.

The conceit is that the Ring is potent to all people in varying ways and degrees. We even see Gandalf and Galadriel  who are the closest beings to Sauron’s peers very nearly succumbing to it’s temptation. The Hobbit’s pastoral nature is simultaneously silly their greatest source of spiritual strength. Anyway, I think you understand what I’m saying so I will shut up but I also disliked Isildur  I think it’s fine because he needs to have an arc through the series and I hope that he gets some kind of redemption since he is meant to be a tragic figure, rather than an antagonistic one.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on October 31, 2022, 03:19:30 PM
I think it’s fine because he needs to have an arc through the series and I hope that he gets some kind of redemption since he is meant to be a tragic figure, rather than an antagonistic one.
Yes, I absolutely agree with this. We see his nature isn't as noble as Aragorn's but Isildur is also a very young adult. That's what I meant by we don't need to root for them all the time. I do think it's a fair setup for an arc where he matures into a hero after already establishing a weakness that tracts. And to be fair it's a weakness a lot of people have so it's not even a moral failing really. He's just a thoughtless kid.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on October 31, 2022, 04:50:11 PM
Anyway that being said, I enjoyed it. If you can ignore the flaws it's a fun romp that amazingly just flies by, even with the ridiculous Zach Snyder slo-mo that's littered through. 6/10 would recommend. But just barely.

I saw it yesterday and concur. Now just waiting for saddam's wall of text about it.

I guess I should watch Shazam. Really haven't watched much of whatever DC has been doing lately, but I think they unironically have a chance to do something more compelling than Marvel at the moment.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on November 18, 2022, 10:57:08 PM
I'll watch the latest capeshit once a decent version of it is available online. In other generic fantasy news:

House of the Dragon (2022)

It's very tempting for critics of the LotR show to point to this one and argue that it's the perfect "this is how it's done" counterexample, especially given their concurrent airing (something that I guarantee was not a coincidence, even though Amazon will never admit it). And to be sure, the level of technical competence on display puts LotR to shame. Every episode is masterfully crafted by excellent directors and editors, brought to life by terrific actors, and overseen by experienced showrunners who know what they're doing and have a clear vision for what this show is meant to be. But I think people are missing out on properly critiquing HotD if they're only viewing it in the flattering light of how much better it is than LotR, as this show does have some major flaws.

The main issue is how frequently the show jumps ahead in time and recasts its main roles. This may have been something they had to do to properly tell this story, but the effect is rough. The story's momentum feels like it's always being interrupted. More casual viewers will probably be confused by the constantly changing faces. And most importantly, the aged-up versions of the characters we've already seen are so unlike their younger counterparts that they're essentially entirely new characters. Young Rhaenyra is cheerful and enthusiastic; older Rhaenyra is bitter and world-weary. Young Alicent is warm and caring; older Alicent is cold and manipulative. Young Laenor is solemn and dutiful; older Laenor is hedonistic and irresponsible. Young Aemond is creepy and emotionally-stilted, older Aemond is brash and assertive. It's very difficult to maintain a level of investment and interest in characters that are suddenly replaced with ones that look and act so differently.

I also have a few problems with the casting. Emma D'Arcy and Olivia Cooke are fine actresses, and I have no issue with their performances in and of themselves, but they're simply far too young to be playing Rhaenyra and Alicent. The show tries to cover up their youth with some makeup and costuming meant to make them look a little bit older, but it isn't convincing, and the effect is laughable whenever they're side-by-side with actors clearly only a few years younger than them that we're meant to believe are their sons. It's not like D'Arcy and Cooke are huge A-listers that the show couldn't have been made without, after all, and the fact that the show erred so young in casting them really feels to me like more of the weird and shitty habit that movies and TV shows have of avoiding casting actresses above a certain age whenever they can get away with it. Fabien Frankel is similarly too youthful as Criston after the main time skip, but I can at least understand that the show was in a tough position with him, as it would have been really awkward to recast a character who was a grown man and not a teenager from the beginning.

Finally, the ninth episode, "The Green Council," is a pretty bad hour of television. Hinging the central conflict of the show on a ridiculous soap opera-style misunderstanding over which Aegon a dying man was referring to was stupid. The race between Alicent and Otto to find Aegon first made no sense at all - why was it taken for granted that the first one to find him would be the one to decides what he'd do? Both the king's mother and his Hand would have plenty of access to him once he was on the throne. The focus on Arryk and Erryk as if they're suddenly main characters that we totally care about was bizarre and wrongheaded, and the fact that there's no way to tell them apart muddles any appreciation of their character development (Which one expressed unease with putting Aegon on the throne? Which one fought Criston? Which one defected? I don't know! They're fucking identical!). Turning Larys into a weirdo who's into feet robbed him of his mystique. And perhaps worst of all, the big climax with Rhaenys casually slaughtering hundreds of innocent people but then choosing not to kill the only people present that it would have actually made some sense to kill was idiotic to the point of frustration. And the show frames it as an act of magnanimity! That she's doing the right thing by not taking action to avert what promises to be a horrific war, even though she's apparently fine with hundreds of entirely innocent people dying in her wake!

Apart from the above, though, HotD is pretty good overall, and I can't wait for the next season. If you were a fan of GoT but felt burned by its monumentally shitty final season, I'd encourage you to give this one a try.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on November 30, 2022, 05:04:20 AM
I saw Black Adam and it was bad
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on November 30, 2022, 04:39:02 PM
I saw Black Adam and it was bad

maybe you are bad instead
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on November 30, 2022, 05:44:07 PM
Could be
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Rama Set on November 30, 2022, 07:53:43 PM
#bostonbad
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 01, 2023, 10:56:12 PM
Marriage Story (dir. Noah Baumbach)

As a big fan of Baumbach's previous film The Meyerowitz Stories, I really wanted to like this. It has a lot of good elements, but I think also so many things I didn't like that I'm not really able to say that I liked or disliked it overall. I think, despite Baumbach's characteristic deadpan "realism", I didn't really buy the central relationship, which was just a couple of people being angry jerks. The most intense moments between the two leads played out for me as a kind of hysterical comedy. Structurally I liked that Baumbach committed to doing quite a few long scenes which foregrounded the acting over the directing or editing, but I felt the structure was ultimately too cute in its arcs and repetitions to come across anything like as real as it seemed he wanted it to be. Randy Newman's beautifully orchestrated but cloyingly saccharine score offers neither support nor counterpoint to the tone of the film, instead seeming like it was made for something else. My experience of this film was thus of a bunch of individually mostly (and in some cases very) well done things that didn't really sit together, not even in a way that could be taken as an embodiment of the messiness of the relationship it depicts.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Roundy on January 02, 2023, 08:09:49 PM
Avatar:The Way of Water

Say what you will about the first Avatar, it was rarely boring. This one is, for long stretches. And the return of not one but two dead cast members from the first, combined with a story of assimilation into a foreign culture that mirrors that of the first, and I find myself wondering if James Cameron was truly interested in telling a compelling story or just going for fanservice.

It's a very pretty movie, just like the first. The effects are top-notch.

4/10, can really only recommend this to Avatar superfans who will see it (and love it) anyway.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 04, 2023, 08:03:47 AM
I'm Thinking of Ending Things (dir. Charlie Kaufman)

Anyone who knows me knows I'm a huge mark for Kaufman. With the greatest regret possible for someone not in control of the relevant events in any way, shape or form, Charlie Kaufman will never write a film for Andy Kaufman directed by Lloyd Kaufman. This movie isn't anything like what I imagine that would have been like, but that's fine because it's wonderful in its own way. I see a lot of comparisons to Lynch, but I think people have a habit of defining Lynch as "weird things happening with foreboding sound design". One point where Kaufman and Lynch do run along parallel lines is their love of process, albeit Lynch in the doing, Kaufman in the recording. I'm Thinking of Ending Things can very much be read as a companion piece to Synecdoche, New York, and I have a strong suspicion that your liking for this film will have a clear precedent in your liking for that one. It definitely has a lot of thematic crossover with other Kaufman films as well. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind comes to mind most readily, but I'm Thinking of Ending Things is a much more successful film precisely because it doesn't rely on a twist which, once revealed, makes the rest of the film less interesting. This is one of Kaufman's best films.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on January 05, 2023, 06:24:45 PM
Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (Rian Johnson, 2022)

While it's still an enjoyable watch due to Daniel Craig's delightfully goofy performance, this is nowhere near as good as Knives Out. I don't like how it's structured. About halfway through the movie, we're presented with a major twist and treated to a lengthy flashback and an exposition dump that tells us what's really going on. It's meant to recontextualize what we've seen in the first half, but to me, it felt more like the movie was awkwardly restarting and trying to cram a whole new story into its remaining runtime. I also feel like Johnson's eagerness to bash Elon Musk comes at the expense of the movie's story, although it's hard to go into details without spoilers. Very briefly, the movie emphasizes that the villainous Musk stand-in is dumb as well as sleazy, and so the crimes he commits are stupid and poorly thought-out. Unfortunately, because this is a mystery film, that essentially means that the plot of the movie itself is stupid and poorly thought-out. I have no love for Musk, but the story of the film is what should always take precedence, not the accuracy of the parallels to real life. I would much rather have a more satisfying story with a character who's less like Musk than a less satisfying story with a character who's more like Musk.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on January 05, 2023, 06:47:33 PM
The Menu.

It was okay. Kinda dumb. Entertaining enough.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: garygreen on January 06, 2023, 03:49:08 AM
the wolf of wall street

tbh i don't get why this movie was so highly acclaimed. the first two hours were just the same scene over and over again. jordan narrates himself doing coke and banging hookers. that's really all that happens. things pick up a little bit in the final act, but then the movie just sort of ends.

that said — i actually found it to be pretty entertaining. the cast is great. the script prefers to show and not tell. and it's absolutely hilarious at times. i think each individual scene is fantastic. it's just that there are way too many of them, and they're all the same.

Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on January 06, 2023, 03:28:40 PM
the wolf of wall street

tbh i don't get why this movie was so highly acclaimed.
Outside of the great acting and general entertainment, I think it played into a lot of male fantasies. All of the salesmen I worked with at my first job ate that shit up.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: AATW on January 06, 2023, 04:24:01 PM
Last Night in Soho

Wasn’t what I was expecting although tbh I didn’t know that much about it.
Thought it was worth a look though, it's got Ana Joy whatsherface in, who I quite like, so I asked Santa for the DVD and he obliged.
I liked it. Didn't go where I thought it would but I guess that's a good thing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: rooster on January 06, 2023, 05:23:50 PM
it's got Ana Joy whatsherface in, who I quite like
Ah yes, I too do not know the names of people I like.

It's Anya Taylor-Joy.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on January 14, 2023, 09:28:36 PM
Mank (dir. David Fincher)

A not entirely successful venture from David Fincher, who is here swept up in a sort of De Palma fantasy of artifice. The black and white doesn't really seem to do anything to service the story and is merely a case of the presentation being foregrounded. The script is witty and abounds with charm, as does, in my opinion, Gary Oldman's central performance. Yet the meta intent behind the film somewhat misses the mark; for a film about the writing of the script for Citizen Kane, it doesn't reach for the heights of its subject. It is an imitation without purpose, but reasonably enjoyable overall nonetheless. And no, I don't give a shit how much of the story it tells is true.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on February 02, 2023, 07:54:31 PM
It's a Cruddy cinema roundup! From least to most recent:

The Happening (dir. M. Night Shyamalan)
I was expecting this to be one of those overhyped "worst movies of all time" that was simply mediocre, but no. This is actually horrifically bad, and enough has been said about it over the years that mercifully I don't have to relive it in detail here.

Fantastic Four (dir. Tim Story)
Casual sexism galore as stupid men get upset about horrible women while also becoming super. Way better than Josh Trank's odious Fant4stic, but still quite horrid.

The Turin Horse (dir. Béla Tarr)
Apocalyptic potato eating and long tracking shots courtesy of the king of slow cinema. Oddly compelling but so slow I had to watch it in instalments.

X-Men (dir. Bryan Singer)
Competent and pretty good fun overall. Certainly makes for a nice change of pace after so many MCU and DCEU movies.

Manifesto (dir. Julian Rosefeldt)
Cate Blanchett dresses up in an array of disguises and reads various manifestos. I'm wary of being too harsh on this since it was originally designed to be seen as part of an installation in which all its vignettes would play simultaneously. Watching them in sequence is pretty tedious, though there are some nice ideas and Blanchett puts a good amount of oratory heft into a rather dry concept.

Ulysse (dir. Agnès Varda)
My first Varda, the French art house legend I've known of for some time but am just now getting around to. This is a short film about a series of photographs she took decades prior and the people who modelled for them. One of the most relaxing films I've ever seen.

Nightmare Alley (dir. Guillermo Del Toro)
Carnival noir! A moody slow burn with a few characteristic Del Toro twists. I had a lot of fun with this one!

Uncut Gems (dir. Joshua and Ben Safdie)
A sacred cow of contemporary cinema, and a much vaunted return to serious cinema for leading man Adam Sandler. I've really enjoyed Sandler in his previous dramatic turns with Punch Drunk Love and The Meyerowitz Stories, so I was disappointed to sit through what amounts to two hours of hateful dullards yelling at each other about nothing. I think you have to be able to sympathise with the Sandler character to care about what happens to him and I just didn't. Another GoodFellas for me.

Antiporno (dir. Sion Sono)
Sono was hired to make a "serious" plot-driven soft porn movie to help revamp Nikkatsu's "Roman Porno" genre in Japan. Sono being Sono, he gave them a postmodern psychodrama about a woman whose life is falling apart as she deals with a terrible grief and the societal double standards for women in Japan. This is an intense film and quite a difficult watch, but a sharp and wildly artsy skewering of misogynistic eroticism. Worth watching if you have the stomach for it.

Event Horizon (dir. Paul W. S. Anderson)
Before the Resident Evil movies, the reason Paul Thomas Anderson has to use his full name was trying to warn us that he by no means should be approached to direct horror movies. A spaceship bends space around itself and teleports to another part of the universe, or does it??? What if I told you it actually went... to hell?!??!?! (prety sppoky huh? lol :3) Cue 90 minutes of swishy tensionless space goings on featuring a crew of morons and a gaping hole where most of the gore was cut out because test audiences just didn't care for it. Most bafflingly, this is essentially a cheesy PG adventure movie that suddenly veers off into spooky town when you least expect it, but you only don't expect it because it doesn't make any sense.

The Other Side of the Wind (dir. Orson Welles)
Yet another legendary lost Orson Welles movie. Welles returned to Hollywood in the 1970s after it had shunned him so many decades before, naturally his first move on being welcomed back was to fashion a cinematic bayonet to stick it with. This is a satire of Hollywood, both Old and New, of auteurism, of art house cinema, of erotic cinema, of critics, of groupies and hangers on, of directors and actors and their debasement and destruction at the hands of a parasitic industry. Perhaps above all it is a self-parody. Gorgeously and chaotically shot in both colour and black and white, and on different kinds of cameras and film stocks, the film records the events of a screening party for an incomplete film by the impish and imperious master Jake Hannaford, played with acerbic aplomb by the great John Huston. Imperfect and still rough, for it was never finished and what we have here is a sort of best guess compiled from over 100 hours of footage and Welles's copious notes, this is nonetheless the kind of film that could only be made by a director who has such complete mastery of their art as to be able to coalesce their love and hate of it into a unified vision.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on April 12, 2023, 02:10:47 AM
The Super Mario Bros. Movie (Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic, 2023)

This is a thoroughly mediocre movie, and one that perfectly embodies the cynical mindset that movies geared towards kids don't need to be good, just bright and noisy enough to keep kids entertained. It arguably doesn't make any real effort to actually be good. It knows that its story is simplistic to the extreme. It knows that its characters have no depth. It knows that it ruins almost every joke it has by immediately having another character spell it out for the audience. It knows that it has almost no real narrative cohesion, instead mostly just being one setpiece lurching into another like a series of disconnected video game levels (Mario fights Donkey Kong, because reasons, which is immediately followed by the characters having a big race on Rainbow Road, because reasons). This was all by design, and it didn't need to be. There are so many family movies out there that have all the bright colors and cute characters that a kid could ask for while still being great films in their own right. It's also worth pointing out that those are the movies that will endure the test of time. Parents nowadays show their kids the Disney classics that they themselves grew up watching. I seriously doubt if anyone's going to be showing their kids this movie in ten or twenty years time.

Of course, this movie has also earned the unwavering support of legions of adult Mario fans online, primarily because of the references. Yes, this movie is packed with references, Easter eggs, and tributes to tons of Mario and other Nintendo properties. Some of them are obvious, and some of them are more subtle. I think it's great that the movie has these, but I don't believe that they're a substitute for good filmmaking. I've also heard the defense that none of the mainline Mario games have especially great stories to begin with, so there's no reason to expect a good one from the movie either. Yes, video games can get away with having bare-bones stories. It probably has something to do with the fact that, being games, they can give players great gameplay instead. Movies obviously can't do that, so this defense is more than a little flawed. Speaking of gameplay, it also kind of bugs me how this movie presents power-ups in pure video game terms, rather than incorporating them in a way that feels more natural. That's certainly not a big problem with the movie or anything, but it's something that jumped out at me as weird.

In short, kids deserve better than this, their families deserve better than this, and a gaming icon like Mario absolutely deserves better than this. Don't settle for crap just because it goes through the motions of catering to you by including King Bob-omb or playing the "DK Rap." Mario should be starring in a great movie, not a mediocre cash-in like this one.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on July 11, 2023, 04:41:06 AM
Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, and Justin K. Thompson, 2023)

spoderverse 2 is v good

It is! For one thing, it's more of what made the first one so good - really fun and inventive action, beautiful animation, and terrific voice acting. But something else that I think really speaks to the quality of this movie, especially when comparing it to other fairly recent movies/TV shows with similar premises, is that you don't really need to be all that familiar with the various spoderman properties being included, referenced, or parodied to still be invested in it. It's a nice bonus if you are, of course, but the story and characters are compelling enough to carry you through the movie even if none of the other miscellaneous spoderman stuff registers. Similarly, there's a dense layer of hidden jokes, background details, and Easter eggs that observant viewers can catch, but unlike that stupid fucking Mario movie, you don't have to spot them to enjoy the movie. Even with only a surface level  of engagement, you'll still be seeing a movie that's funny, frantic, and looks great.

I really have just one problem with the movie that I feel is worth mentioning. The first act of this movie leans heavily into a capeshit trope that I think we as a society need to permanently retire - the hero whose duties make them late for or entirely miss important social obligations, inevitably leading to an uncomfortable scene where they get angrily lectured about how selfish and lazy they are. Oh, of course they aren't really selfish and lazy, but the hero can't explain that without revealing their secret identity! The dramatic tension is palpable! Stop it with this shit. It's been done a million times by now, and has never been anything other than unpleasant and deeply frustrating to watch play out. There are so many other ways that maintaining a secret identity could create tension with loved ones without having to fall back on "they're late for and/or miss appointments a lot" every single time. Like what this same movie does with Gwen and her father, you know? That was a good idea. And what makes the whole thing worse is that I actually really like this portrayal of Miles's parents, both of whom are funny, quirky characters with distinctive personalities. They deserve better than to be wasted on this Baby's First Capeshit melodrama.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (James Mangold, 2023)

It's fine. Of course it can't touch the original three movies, and of course Harrison Ford is way too old to be starring in action movies, but it's competent, it's serviceable, it handles its main themes well, and I think it all ended up about as good as a movie like this realistically could be. I know that certain communities have been pouring hate on this movie because of Phoebe Waller-Bridge's co-starring role in it, and to give these guys their due, I'm not going to mock them for worrying that her character would be an unsympathetic Mary Sue who'd spend the whole movie showing up and humiliating Indy. That kind of awful writing for female characters in genre franchises does seem to be an actual thing now, for some reason. But if they had actually watched the movie before making their judgments, then they would know that her character is not even close to being that, and is actually very likable while also having a fun rapport with Indy. She's certainly a lot better than Shia LaBeouf was in Crystal Skull, and the movie as a whole is also a lot better than Crystal Skull.

I really just wish they could have used Mads Mikkelsen as the movie's villain better. On paper, this character is a great concept, and Mads looks terrific in every vintage outfit and pair of sunglasses he rocks. But a lot of the time when he's on screen, he's entirely silent, and when he does talk, it's usually just sort of functional "There they are!" or "Get them!" exclamations. Let him have some evil gloating! Let him have fun and memorable lines! Let him be the charismatic actor we know he is! The movie just doesn't let Mads shine as a villain, and that's awfully disappointing.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 11, 2023, 10:08:16 PM
why did you post the spoderverse 2 review twice?
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on July 11, 2023, 11:26:20 PM
why did you post the spoderverse 2 review twice?
Because It is! For one thing, it's more of what made the first one so good - really fun and inventive action, beautiful animation, and terrific voice acting. But something else that I think really speaks to the quality of this movie, especially when comparing it to other fairly recent movies/TV shows with similar premises, is that you don't really need to be all that familiar with the various spoderman properties being included, referenced, or parodied to still be invested in it. It's a nice bonus if you are, of course, but the story and characters are compelling enough to carry you through the movie even if none of the other miscellaneous spoderman stuff registers. Similarly, there's a dense layer of hidden jokes, background details, and Easter eggs that observant viewers can catch, but unlike that stupid fucking Mario movie, you don't have to spot them to enjoy the movie. Even with only a surface level  of engagement, you'll still be seeing a movie that's funny, frantic, and looks great.

I really have just one problem with the movie that I feel is worth mentioning. The first act of this movie leans heavily into a capeshit trope that I think we as a society need to permanently retire - the hero whose duties make them late for or entirely miss important social obligations, inevitably leading to an uncomfortable scene where they get angrily lectured about how selfish and lazy they are. Oh, of course they aren't really selfish and lazy, but the hero can't explain that without revealing their secret identity! The dramatic tension is palpable! Stop it with this shit. It's been done a million times by now, and has never been anything other than unpleasant and deeply frustrating to watch play out. There are so many other ways that maintaining a secret identity could create tension with loved ones without having to fall back on "they're late for and/or miss appointments a lot" every single time. Like what this same movie does with Gwen and her father, you know? That was a good idea. And what makes the whole thing worse is that I actually really like this portrayal of Miles's parents, both of whom are funny, quirky characters with distinctive personalities. They deserve better than to be wasted on this Baby's First Capeshit melodrama.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on July 12, 2023, 12:43:38 AM
That's embarrassing. I had meant to delete the first post.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on July 12, 2023, 09:44:46 PM
The Batshit Odyssey at last reaches a new milestone with the finale of the Christopher Nolan/Christian Bale trilogy!

The Dark Knight Rises (dir. Christopher Nolan)

With Christopher Nolan’s third Batman feature, the twice-failed attempt at a Batman trilogy was finally complete. Previously, Tim Burton stepped away, or was rather forced out, after his first two films were essentially considered to be too dark to merchandise to children (domestic terrorism and a guy with half his face burnt off r totes kool 4 kidz tho, sez WB execz). Joel Schumacher’s tenuously connected neon-drenched apotheoses of confusion and stupidity likewise failed to produce a much vaunted third entry before the executive branch, well, executed it. The trilogy is a strange, arbitrary standard for franchise legitimacy, but one which is predominant, especially in modern blockbuster cinema. Regardless, some credit must be given to Nolan for telling a ‘complete’ Batman story with a beginning, middle, and end. However, the connections between the three, and especially between the first two and the third, often leave me wondering why they needed to form a ‘complete’ story at all. Each one can more or less be read episodically, the only things connecting them (Batman excluded) really being the plot equivalent of Blu Tack, yet there is a third Batman movie and I’m committed to reviewing it for some reason.

It’s surprisingly difficult to talk about the third entry in a series the parts of which display impressive levels of homogeneity. It has the same platitudinous dialogue, the same mediocre action, the same everywhere-and-nowhere present day metropolitan setting of its predecessors, perhaps differing from them only in that the level of embarrassment it displays in its approach to adapting its sources far outstrips theirs. This is compounded by the sense that none of it is bad as such, but that it is remarkably unremarkable in its every detail. For a movie about a wackily voiced roidboi playing football with a nuke, very little of what occurs in its 160 minutes is even slightly arresting or engaging. Here Nolan may have produced the most soporific blockbuster hit imaginable. I specify hit because of course there have been many megabudget snorefests that didn’t really go anywhere numbers-wise. The Dark Knight Rises is not only spectacularly boring, it made over $1bn globally at the box office as well. There’s no accounting for taste, of course, and naturally the sequel to the massively popular The Dark Knight was bound to do good business.

The attempt at a byzantine plot is largely successful insofar as its constituent parts are woven together in a way that more or less flows, but in the main it is incredibly hard to care about anything that happens this time around. The caped crusader is more or less shorn of his connections to anyone and anything, and while the film outwardly states that this is the aftermath of the eight years following the death of Harvey Dent, for which Batman took the rap, the truth is that as soon as Rachel Dawes was killed there was a sudden loss of connection between Batman and the world around him. In this film nothing much seems to matter, and even when Ra’s al Ghul’s daughter Talia is revealed as the true villain near the end, the response is not one of shock, but ‘so what?’ And perhaps, if one is in a charitable mood, ‘why?’ Are we surprised to learn that Ra’s had a child? It’s quite rare for warlords to have no children, many throughout history have had dozens with sometimes as many different mothers, or perhaps even hundreds through a kind of forced adoption by which they owned the children of their conquered foes. The question ‘why?’ is actually appropriate to ask in the following sense: why in the world would Talia, given all that she tells us about her father abandoning her and her mother to rot in what is supposedly the most hellish prison on Earth, want to take up her father’s cause and avenge his death? I guess Hell Prison changes you.

The attempt to tie the series together and come full circle with Talia’s reveal only really serves to lay bare the film’s heaviest issue. While Talia provides the promised twist, that is essentially all she does. She is barely even a character, which is a shame given the long-standing and complicated relationship she shares with Batman in the comics. But she is one quasi-character in a band of several, and her uncompelling nature is hardly out of place. Alfred, Bruce Wayne’s long-suffering butler, is perhaps the closest the film comes to writing a character that doesn’t merely serve as a plot device, but even he is ultimately a doll to be moved about at will for the sake of complicating what little we actually see of Bruce’s emotional life. When he leaves because he can no longer stand to see Bruce destroy himself, what we essentially lose is but one mouthpiece for the Nolan brothers’ hamfisted dialogue. I cannot think of a character in this film who actually speaks to another character rather than to the audience, every line laden as it is with exposition that we need to know to fill in the eight year in-universe gap between the events of The Dark Knight and Batman’s less than triumphant return.

Batman in this film is a worn out husk of a man, in fact he is more or less just Bruce Wayne at this point. His injuries are too severe for him to really do much of anything except hobble about his gigantic house, or the wing of it in which he has sequestered himself. Some parallels can be made to Frank Miller’s grotesque and abysmal The Dark Knight Strikes Again, in which an ageing Batman spends a decent chunk of time recuperating from injuries that would have killed or permanently paralysed anyone else. Previously, the series featured other aspects of this comic, like the Bat-a-like vigilantes from The Dark Knight, who more or less mirror the Sons of Batman militia. The nods are there, but one is left wondering: why doesn’t Bats Bats Baby have a teenage girl sidekick who cosplays as a malformed leopard? This cherry picking will not stand! But Nolan is a man of taste after all, you can’t simply include everything from this one terrible comic he seems to be a wee bit fixated on. Chris, if you’re as embarrassed by comic books as this film would suggest, I highly recommend reading better ones for inspiration next time you decide to do a superhero movie. (Like today’s sponsor, Speedball. He bounces with balls! Smash that like button and hit the bell icon for more!)

Well, there might not be a Catgirl Carrie Kelley but there is a Catwoman Selina Kyle. And boy what a basically kinda sorta character-ish person she is! As was the case in Batman Returns, she is the taunting temptress that seduces both Batman and Bruce Wayne, but here she isn’t a dark mirror of the Bat duality, instead playing the femme fatale master thief role pretty straight. Her plot arc resembles that of Catwoman in Batman: Arkham City, released the previous year, with her plan to leave the crumbling Gotham thwarted at the last moment by her affection for Batman. In this film she is more a mirror of Talia, shadow-bound and mysterious, deadly but with a taste for vengeance that is fundamentally tempered by some sense of self-preservation. Like the eponymous man-eater of Zola’s Nana, her use, abuse, and devaluation of others is a manifestation of a combination of self-interest and class struggle, informed by a background of poverty and with the rich as its primary target. The thematics around Catwoman and her relationship with Bane’s quasi-French revolution form what is very probably the most subtle and interesting part of the film, but it is ultimately a background concern.

The film’s main villain Bane is largely without character, making this the second time he has appeared in a movie that doesn’t seem to care about who he is in the source material. In the comics he is a larger-than-life luchador hopped up on super-roids, while in this film he is a fairly normally proportioned dude with a mask and a silly voice. Much of course has already been said about the voice Tom Hardy employs in this film, a fine addition to his ever-growing portfolio of baffling accent choices, so I will simply repeat that it is silly. His ordinariness is perhaps intended to make a point, that this isn’t a world of superheroes and villains, but one of men, limited by their physicality and bound by not just their own history but the history of the world. There is value and dignity, potentially, in this approach, but Bane, like his predecessors in this and previous Batman series, has a taste for needless theatricality that yet makes him something other than just a man. He is a sort of mythological figure, one known only by name and who seems to shift from shadow to shadow across the world, unseen but for the carnage he leaves in his wake. The film would have him, or he would have himself, before the public, a sort of symbol of opposition to system and order, yet his first act within a ‘liberated’ Gotham is to impose a tyrannical order. A comment on the hypocrisy of revolution? Bane as Robespierre? Perhaps, but this is beside the point. Bane as he exists in this film has no more need of being Bane than Talia has of being Talia, indeed the entire thing is a Batman film in name only.

Batman or no, the greatest insult to the audience’s intelligence and patience is save for the grand finale. Batman flies a nuclear device that is primed to go off in mere seconds far out over the water where it can do no harm to anyone. Anyone, that is, but him! We are led to believe that he has sacrificed himself in order to save the city, and this truly would have been a satisfying conclusion, a final myth-making act of heroism that proved nothing more or less than his belief in his duty as a protector of Gotham, that he was after all a man, but that a man can effect lasting change in the world. Within a couple of minutes the film undoes this in its entirety by showing us that, not only is Bruce Wayne alive and well, he more or less planned everything. Oh Bruce! [audience laughter] Early in the film, Alfred tells Bruce that, once a year during the time that Bruce was gone (see Batman Begins), he went holidaying in Florence, and he would sit outside a certain café and look across the way hoping to see Bruce sat with a woman. With minimal acknowledgement they would briefly glance at each other, and in so doing Alfred would know that Bruce had moved on from the life of torment he had lived from childhood in Gotham, never to return—Alfred’s happy ending to an unhappy story. Cut back to the end, and a close-up of Alfred in tears before Bruce’s grave, blaming himself for Bruce’s death. Two minutes later, here’s Alfred at a certain café in Florence and gee boy howdy, whaddya know, shucks and/or perhaps maybe even possibly a little bit pshaw, who should be sitting across the way but Bruce and his girlfriend Selina Kyle? Oh Bruce! [audience laughter intensifies] And it was then that Alfred knew that everything would be alright.

Fuck. Off.

That about wraps up this pile of horse shit with a neat little bow. There is a great deal that I haven’t touched upon, but so many of The Dark Knight Returns’ issues are mere repetitions of old mistakes, lessons unlearned from prior endeavour, that it seems unnecessary to add however many more thousands of words to detail every single objection. My concluding thoughts rather appropriately return to an old objection. I really do find Christopher Nolan’s constant embarrassment at his source material so very very irritating. Why even bother making it a Batman movie if all you’re really going for is an implausible modern day revolution story, narrowly thwarted by a do-gooder vigilante and the only two intelligent cops who exist? Just imagine, the 2012 Les Misérables movie could have been un film de Christopher Nolan! Just replace Hugh Jackman with Christian Bale and you’re basically there! It’s even got Anne Hathaway! I am approximately two thirds joking. But really, what difference does it make which work of fiction you adapt for the screen if the particulars of character and relationship and time and place and story are totally arbitrary? You might as well have just made up something completely original instead of needlessly fulfilling some duty to finish out the trilogy, as if the word and concept Trilogy came down to this world in the form of divine mandate, never to be gainsaid by mere mortals. For all that I complain and throw shade, as the kids say, hindsight teaches us the valuable lesson that things can always get worse. I would take, Star Wars style, another two trilogies of Nolan’s Batman over the Snyderian tidal wave of shit that is the DCEU. So you know, swings and roundabouts. Normally I end these things with a joke, but not this time. That’s it. Go away.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on July 15, 2023, 11:31:30 AM
A new dawn for Batman is upon us, but as they say, the night is darkest before the dawn, and boy oh boy what a pre-dawn we've got to get through first. That's right, it's time for...

BATTOSHITTO GAIDEN: MAN OBU SHITĪRU

Man of Steel (dir. Zack Snyder)

Ten years ago, Warner Bros. execs looked over at the MCU and saw the quality and brilliance of how much money it was making, and they thought to themselves: you know, the Dark Knight trilogy sure did make us a lot of money, but what if, get this, what if also Superman??? Ka-ching! the members of the board exclaimed in unison. All was rosy and bright, but then came the problem: who will be the creative director of this project? After all, such an undertaking requires careful planning and forethought. Perhaps what they needed, they thought, was an auteur, someone who could bring a singular vision to bear on a franchise that would span many titles, characters, and settings, all connected but different, all unique but unified. On the other hand, you want an industry titan, someone with a proven track record at the box office who also has the grounding of experience working on a host of big budget productions that might suggest they would be capable of managing something of such magnitude as this. Enter Zack Snyder, a guy whose previous cinematic accomplishments include having made some stuff. Of course I am being just a mite unfair. Snyder enjoyed huge commercial success with his first two films, especially the second, 2007’s much memed 300, which made back its budget ten times over. Watchmen, his adaptation of the much beloved Alan Moore comic, is where things started to go south, with a box office return less than 1.5 times its budget. And, prior to Man of Steel, his last feature Sucker Punch just barely made even. Given all of this, his appointment to the position of creative overseer of the DCEU, and director of all its mainline features, comes across as just a tiny bit baffling. It reminds me of the political cartoon depicting the big-talking but somewhat incompetent Michael Gove pleading with then Prime Minister David Cameron to let him fly a fighter jet as part of efforts to repel an alien invasion on the basis that he a) ‘wrote two articles about planes’ for the Times, and b) has ‘strong opinions about aliens’. In any case, Snyder was what Warner Bros. chose and Snyder is very much what they got. Unfortunately, we got it too.

Man of Steel is the first mainstream Superman film which neither stars Christopher Reeve nor is intended as a continuation of Reeve’s character. The DCEU is entirely its own continuity and it begins with first principles, which is appropriate given that Superman himself will become a Christ of sorts within it. So we immediately go back to basics with a complete origin story, detailing the fall of the planet Krypton and the exodus of, among others, Kal El, who would be found in a field by farmers Jonathan and Martha Kent, from whom he would receive the name Clark Kent. So far I’m giving away nothing you can’t find out—with, as it turns out, eerily similar phrasing—in ten seconds on Wikipedia. This entire Krypton sequence is often singled out for praise even from the people who are otherwise dismissive of the film, and indeed the DCEU generally. I will readily admit that it is a visually striking sequence in terms of its art design, even if it, like the rest of the film, is practically devoid of colour, but almost all of its other elements seem to fall short. As I watched the mostly CGI zoom zoom kaboom antics of the first twenty minutes unfold, I was beginning to wonder why exactly I felt unmoved by what was essentially a simple (i.e.: hard to fuck up) story about two parents who, knowing they were about to die, moved heaven and earth to save their child. When the film picked up with Clark Kent as a grown adult on Earth, I began to realise that the problem was exactly this: Zack Snyder has the aesthetic sensibility of an early 2000s nu-metal music video. The opening sequence has more problems than its shot choices and colour grading, however. For one thing, it introduces a number of characters one after the other, giving us just enough information to piece together their causes and intentions but not their reasons for supporting and holding them. In other words, the backstory needs a backstory, which is always a sure sign of a brilliant narrative mind at work.

Speaking of narrative brilliance, let’s skip to the end of the film. The common thread running through the vast majority of superhero comics is the question of whether it is ever right to kill. The morality on display is simple: not killing is what separates Superman, Batman, and many others, from the villains they fight. It doesn’t matter how many times the Joker escapes from Arkham Asylum or how many people he hurts or kills, Batman’s belief in redemption is absolute and incorruptible. Batman is often cited as the more relatable hero, delivering that ideal of incorruptibility to the common man in a way that Superman cannot. Superman is, as I mentioned above, a Christ-like figure, and he can perhaps only be as good as he is precisely because he is not really human. In this film, Superman is ‘forced’—and I use scare quotes with good reason—to kill Zod. At the climax of the film, Zod has lost everything he was fighting for, his hopes of building a new Krypton on Earth are all but lost forever, but instead of giving up he decides to just kill people and force Superman to watch. The concept of forcing something on someone in this context is a weird one. Supes has Zod in a hold, and the only weapons Zod can use are his laser eyes. For some reason Supes can’t just, you know, fly up into the sky and let Zod laser eyes into the void until he tires himself out, so Supes breaks his neck. Comic storylines in which superheroes resort to killing are generally treated with a great deal of care, with great attention to detail to make sure that killing doesn’t just seem like the lazy way out of the situation. Rather, the reader should be able to accept that, in this one instance, killing becomes a necessary evil which will prevent mass death or something of similar magnitude. Here there is absolutely no reason for Superman to kill Zod, he could have done an extremely wide variety of things to deal with Zod slowly turning his head towards the dastardly deed of singeing a guy’s shirtsleeve. Snap. Yell. Shake it off. Become a journalist in the city you helped raze to the ground with all zero of your qualifications for any line of work whatsoever.

Snyder’s fatalism throughout the film likewise leads to other needless deaths. Jonathan Kent decides he wants out about a third of the way into the film, and just makes a sort of ‘nah’ gesture towards his son—who is entirely capable of saving him and everyone else from the danger—as a tornado sucks him on up to heaven. Later, when Clark explains to Lois Lane why he let his father die, the stupidity of reasoning is laid bare in a way that is neither redundant nor complementary to the actual death scene. Snyder loves the Dramatic Moment and he doesn’t really seem to care what he has to sacrifice to get it. For him, characters, reason, and indeed braincells are all valid offerings to the god of theatre, and he will present them as loudly as he can. Metropolis itself, while initially its skyscrapers fall victim to Zod’s forces, is eventually battered through and through by none other than the Man of Steel himself. It’s okay though, just show a close-up of a Daily Planet journalist saying—as if the audience hasn’t yet realised that Superman is, in fact, the hero—‘he saved us’ while wearing the most gormless facial expression possible, and everything’s gonna be alright! Yes, again, given how much of the city he destroys because smashing people into buildings looks cool, you could be forgiven for thinking that, while he isn’t a villain as such, he is kind of a feckless idiot. There is of course an argument to be made that Superman never had to face a threat like this before, and that he therefore should not be judged as one might a mature and well established superhero.  While he himself is technically a first contact for humanity, he knew nothing of his origins until his teens, and he didn’t discover the truth about his homeworld and his people until he was an adult. All this, however, is so much yada yada yada at the side of: I think anyone would know that smashing up your kitchen to catch a mouse, in the manner of Tom & Jerry, is ultimately just going to reflect poorly on you.

And speaking of smashing things up, let’s talk about the action scenes. I cannot think of a single action sequence in this film that isn’t chopped or diced or julienne fried as badly as or worse than those in Christopher Nolan’s Batman films, which is saying a lot. It’s sort of like DragonBall Z, except instead of two fighters being so fast that they disappear into a tangle of wiggling and coincidentally easy to animate lines, the camera angle changes so quickly that, while you know a fight is occurring, half the time you can’t tell who’s punching whom, nor whether someone’s getting in good hits. The entire time, the film is yelling at you THIS IS A COOL FIGHT LOOK AT HOW COOL THIS FIGHT IS GUYS IT’S FUCKING COOOOOOOOOOOOL, but you would have to be hard pressed for entertainment to take it at its word. Granted, you are watching Man of Steel, so maybe you do actually have to concede on that point. Part of the problem with the scale of the action is that there isn’t really a point where anyone is shown having a normal fight with anyone else. The crashy bangy punchy zoomy zoom is just there at some point, there is no build up to it, it springs into existence spontaneously. The formula goes like this: frame one is a guy in a plaid shirt, frame two is space punch zap zaboom, frame three is a woman gawking teary-eyed at Superman because literally every woman in this movie is a damsel in distress. With, however, the notable exception of Fighty Philosophy Lady, who explains that morality is an evolutionary weakness. Everybody in the audience furiously claps while maintaining an awe-struck look on their face. This level of profundity is a by-product of what uncritically reading Ayn Rand does to your brain.

So that’s Man of Steel. It is an unbelievably dull and lifeless movie wrapped up in and warped by its own sense of self-importance. It makes overtures to philosophical ideas but largely fails to make them cohere between theory and practice; arguably Zod is the only character who actually stands by his own principles when push comes to shove, and he’s a genocidal maniac. The weird thing is that this is the good Zack Snyder, the Zack Snyder who has people around him who are willing to say ‘no’ every once in a while. Recently I’ve seen people saying that, in the wake of the four hour long Zack Snyder’s Justice League, there should be ‘Snyder cuts’ of his other DCEU films. I would like to caution people who are on board with this idea: it is a terrible idea. It would be a better idea to start drumming up grassroots support for Snyder’s dream project of adapting Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead. That’s how bad this idea is. And I should point out, Snyder is currently citing concerns about political polarisation in society as a reason to keep the project on the back burner for the time being. But you can show him, you Snyderians, you can make his dreams come true! Don’t make him come back to this, please, whatever you do. It’s bad enough as it is. Let’s all respectfully move on now. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s me getting the fuck out of here! Peace.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 19, 2023, 08:57:51 PM
mission impossible 69: part 1

it was heckin' fun and the stunts and action are legit. probably 20-30 minutes too long in runtime.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: juner on July 21, 2023, 05:23:06 PM
doctor j rob and the crew (2023)

yep, this is the one. rip all other movies in current year.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Crudblud on August 08, 2023, 01:52:09 PM
Just seen The Flash. It was a bit wonky in a lot of places but I have to say overall it was pretty good. I don't understand the hate it's getting, certainly the most entertaining DC movie I've seen in a while.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: Shane on August 08, 2023, 10:41:23 PM
Barbie: pretty dumb but Margot is pretty and Ryan is cool. Some funny and cute parts.

OPPENHEIMER was pretty good. cillian murphy is cool. the bomb scene was kinda underwhelming for all the hype imo

mission impossible 69 part 1: yes
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on November 12, 2023, 02:09:11 AM
RoboCop (José Padilha, 2014)

Not nearly as bad as I was expecting, but still not a very good movie overall. Its biggest flaw is that it's far more interested in the sci-fi elements at play than it is in its titular character. Everything is explained, everything is debated, and everything is commented on by a team of scientists. That last point is especially annoying in the pivotal scenes where Alex Murphy is struggling to regain his humanity, and any mood or atmosphere that might be developing is ruined by constant cutting to the scientists watching him so they explain what he's doing and what it means for him. This is a movie that wants to be smart, but still treats its viewers like morons. Being more explicit with the science also hurts the movie when it goes against its own rules, as Murphy on at least two occasions manages to just force his way past his programming through the power of bullshit. That wouldn't necessarily have been a big deal if the science had been more vague, like in the original - although it's worth pointing out that Murphy in the original never breaks his programming at all - but the movie makes it a problem because it takes its science so seriously.

While the original's critiques of capitalism, policing, and the media feel timeless, the reboot dates itself immediately by being yet another 2010s action movie that devotes itself to criticizing the U.S. military's use of drones, and yet doesn't really have much to say about it beyond indicating that it's bad. I'm probably being a bit unfair about this, because this weird trend hadn't quite been beaten into the ground by 2014, but it still feels like such a boring choice of theme. It doesn't help that I've never been convinced by the anti-drone backlash that was so fashionable in the 2010s, and I'm convinced that most of it was being spread by people who didn't actually understand what drones are and how they work. The closest the movie comes to some proper satire is Samuel Jackson's talk show infotainer character, but he's not over-the-top enough for it to properly register. There are plenty of talking heads on TV these days who are far more ridiculous than him.

And then there's the main character. Holy hell, the costume is fucking awful. The drop-down visor is bad enough, but the real kiss of death is it being all black. It's such a fucking douchey look. There's no better word to describe it. The funny thing is that the movie seems to recognize that the all-black look is a dumb, juvenile way to try and make him look cool and edgy, and clearly frames it as such by having it be the demand of an out-of-touch asshole CEO, but...they still do it. Pointing out that you know what you're doing is bad isn't a great defense when you just go right ahead and do it anyway. As for Alex Murphy himself, he's fine. I don't think the movie gets off to a great start with him by portraying him as an aggressive cowboy cop who threatens informants at gunpoint, but he's at least shown to be a loving husband and father, which goes a long way towards making him sympathetic. Focusing more on his wife and son isn't a bad idea for the reboot as a way to differentiate itself from the original, too.

That is, as long as it's done well. Unfortunately, this movie can't think of anything to do with the character of Clara Murphy beyond have her be a weeping widow, someone who cries, complains, cries some more, and then complains some more. That is her character. She is there to look sad, scold Alex for riding off to do awesome RoboCop things, and to become a damsel in distress at the last minute, because why not throw another cliché in at that point? Regarding the part about her complaining, it doesn't matter that technically she's in the right all along. It's like why Skyler from Breaking Bad was such a contentious character. The movie is called RoboCop and it's marketed as being about RoboCop doing awesome things, so if you have a character who's trying to stop RoboCop from doing awesome things (as strongly visually represented by Clara stepping in front of Murphy's motorcycle and pleading with him to stop fighting crime and just go home), you're setting up the audience to dislike her as a fun-ruining killjoy. I'll grant that it's tough to portray a character who wants the hero to stop doing what the audience wants him to do, but they definitely could have handled it more carefully than they did in this movie.

There's probably a lot more I could criticize the movie for, but one detail I've got to highlight because it really bugs me is the gender-flipping of the character of Anne Lewis, Murphy's partner in the original. A lot of action movies for whatever reason only have one major female character (including the original), which is bad enough, but what makes it worse is that this movie deliberately enforces the one-woman rule. Murphy's wife becomes a major supporting character in this reboot, and therefore the character of Lewis needs to be made a man to correct for this. That has to be the thought process behind this, right? I hardly think they gender-flipped Lewis and then decided to make Clara a major character, and even if they did, it doesn't make them look much better. And even if we do accept that there can be only one major female character, I can't imagine there are a lot of people who would find an entirely passive weeping, complaining housewife to be a better character than the tough, likable, and proactive Lewis, who plays a major role in helping Murphy defeat the villains and regain his humanity in the original.

The best thing I can say about this reboot is that it has a genuinely great cast. They do their best, but they can't save this. Oh, and I guess the movie is too cool to have anyone actually utter the term "RoboCop" in it, so that's nice. Nothing like a movie indicating to you that it's embarrassed by its subject matter.
Title: Re: Just Watched
Post by: honk on February 05, 2024, 03:36:26 AM
Rebel Moon (Zack Snyder, 2023)

Zack Snyder's latest auteur piece begins with this fantastic image, and I immediately knew that I was in for a treat:

(https://i.ibb.co/Y4g1FTx/e.png)

Rebel Moon, or to give it its full title, Rebel Moon – Part One: A Child of Fire is a fascinatingly bad movie. From a screenwriting perspective, it does everything wrong. Every line of dialogue is weird, stilted, and inhuman. Every line of exposition is clumsy and ham-fisted. Every character is a stock archetype. Every plot event is a cliché. Every individual scene appears to essentially be a pastiche or a blatant rip-off of a scene from another, better movie - and to be clear, being derivative isn't inherently a bad thing. Star Wars, Snyder's biggest influence for this movie, is famously derivative. But if you're going to take it to such an extreme that you're putting a scene from another movie into your movie, then there should be a good reason why you need that scene in your movie. The scene should contribute meaningfully to making your movie better in a way that wouldn't have been possible if you hadn't used that scene. Snyder's thought process, however, seems to have begun and ended with, "Hey, this was a cool scene; it'll be a cool scene in my movie too," and that's just not good enough. It makes the movie look less like a cohesive whole and more like a patchwork quilt of lifted scenes.

It isn't just the screenplay at fault here, though. The movie is shockingly ugly for a director whose movies you could always count on to at least look good. Snyder did the cinematography for this film himself, and the result is that while his visual style is still present, what used to look provocative and stylish now just looks ugly and out of focus. Another one of Snyder's strengths that ends up diminished in this movie is the action, mainly because of Snyder's constant use of slow motion. I don't know why Snyder keeps using slow motion more and more in his movies. In his earlier movies, he understood that it could be used effectively to emphasize impacts or other key moments. Nowadays, he just seems to think that the more slow motion he adds to any given scene, the better the scene is. As a result, virtually every action scene in this movie is mostly in slow motion. Someone falling is in slow motion. Someone firing a gun is in slow motion. Someone running is in slow motion. It's surprisingly difficult to mentally keep track of how an action scene is playing out when everything is slowed down, and more importantly, if everything is emphasized, then nothing is really emphasized. That seems like a really basic concept of directing to me.

Another baffling decision for this movie is how Snyder handles the flashback scenes. The main character, Kora, has a dark and troubled past as a soldier in this setting's brutal Warhammer 40K-style military regime (they even call it the "Imperium"), and a couple of lengthy flashbacks show what her life was like back then. All well and good - but then for some reason the movie apparently forgets that it's already showing us what's happening and Kora just starts talking over the flashbacks and explaining her life story to the audience in the most dull, undisguised exposition imaginable. Again, we are already seeing these flashbacks, we are already being shown the relevant information, and then Snyder just goes, nah, we can't trust the audience to make sense of what they're seeing, better add some commentary to spell it all out for them. This is such bad, bad filmmaking. You don't do that! You don't sit the viewer down and fucking talk at them for minutes on end for no better reason than to deliver some exposition, and especially not when you don't even need to because you already have a scene that's showing the viewer the relevant information anyway! This is very obvious, very basic storytelling. Show, don't tell. It's so elementary that it's a cliché. How does Snyder not know this?

The basic plot structure of the movie feels like a video game, and that's not a compliment. The heroes travel throughout the universe looking for people to join their rebellion against the Imperium. Every person they meet has their own unique little scene, either an action scene where they show off what they can do or a dramatic scene where they reveal more about themselves, before they join forces with the heroes and then more or less fade from the movie altogether, only emerging for the occasional group shot or odd line of dialogue. I'm reminded of nothing so much as playing a party-based RPG and only seeing the characters that you don't put in your party in between missions. A relatively minor change would have made the setup much, much better - just have the heroes ask each character they recruit to meet up with them on the planet they were protecting at a certain time, they go their separate ways, and then the conclusion where the characters arrive at the planet would also be a reunion, ending the movie and setting the stage for the next part of the duology on a much stronger, more dramatic note. It would still be a bad movie, of course, because of all the other shit in it, but we'd at least be spared the awkwardness of the new recruits tagging along after the heroes with nothing to do.

I've said before that focusing on "plot holes" or general sort of "why did they do this/why did this happen" critiques is inherently very weak, very superficial film criticism, and its rise in popularity in recent years is genuinely one of the worst things that the rise of social media and the increasing prominence of fandom has done to film. I can't resist pointing out that there are plenty of bewildering examples of inexplicable plot events and character decisions in this movie that'll jump out at you even if you're not looking for them, but fair is fair - they're trivial nitpicks in comparison to the movie's fundamental, material problems, and so I won't dwell on them. The one nitpick I will focus on simply because of how incredibly distracting I found it is how obviously young this movie's Palpatine analogue is:

(https://i.ibb.co/52wK3Wn/11frafee.jpg)

Zack, if you're going to insist on casting an actor in his thirties to play the adoptive father of a character played by Sofia Boutella (this actor is in fact a few years younger than Boutella), then you've got to do a better job with makeup. Giving this guy a silly fake beard with gray flecks in it just isn't convincing when we can clearly see his babyface underneath it. I know this is the nitpickiest of nitpicks, but it's so amateurish and distracting.

There are not one, but two scenes of sexual assault in this movie, and this is genuinely one element of the movie that I didn't enjoy even ironically. It really feels like Snyder is well behind the curve on this subject. In a time when high-profile films and TV shows are putting more and more effort into treating the subject of sexual assault more delicately and responsibly, such as by putting the emphasis on the victim rather than the hero who saves her or avoiding depicting it onscreen when possible, Snyder comes along like a bull in a china shop and whips out the old trope in exactly the same hacky, dated way that he always has, the same way that pop culture has largely moved past by now. I'm not going to preach or lecture to anyone, but a depiction of sexual assault in this day and age that's as nasty and prolonged as this one comes across as deeply insensitive, and I can't help suspecting that it was deliberately provocative on Snyder's part, as doubling down on controversial elements of his movies in an attempt to defiantly ram them into his critics' faces is something that he's done in the past on more than one occasion.

That last detail aside, I actually really enjoyed Rebel Moon. This might actually be Snyder's first so-bad-it's-good movie, at least for me, because he gets everything so perfectly wrong. Unlike in his previous movies, there are no good acting performances or striking action scenes to dilute the badness on display. It's just a pure, unfiltered disaster, and I was riveted from start to finish. I don't know if anyone here would really be interested in this movie based on what I've said - are Crudblud and Snupes still watching bad movies together? They might like it! - but for me, I honestly can't wait for the upcoming second part and extended version of this movie.