George

Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1660 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.


*

Offline beardo

  • *
  • Posts: 5231
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1661 on: October 03, 2016, 05:34:36 PM »
I'm absolutely against capeshittiness
Why do you hate fun?
The Mastery.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 4139
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1662 on: October 03, 2016, 05:50:51 PM »
I'm absolutely against capeshittiness
Why do you hate fun?
I don't, I hate cheesiness.

*

Offline beardo

  • *
  • Posts: 5231
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1663 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.
The Mastery.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 4139
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1664 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.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1665 on: October 03, 2016, 07:27:28 PM »
Do you not like Pixar and Disney films?
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

Rama Set

Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1666 on: October 03, 2016, 08:01:43 PM »
Do you not like Pixar and Disney films?

She does like horror films...

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 4139
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1667 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.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2016, 11:51:31 PM by rooster »

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 4139
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1668 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.

*

Offline Crudblud

  • *
  • Posts: 2180
  • A Moist Delectable Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1669 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.

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1670 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 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.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1671 on: October 14, 2016, 02:30:27 AM »
Luke Cage (Cheo Hodari Coker, 2016)

It was pretty good.
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1672 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.
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

George

Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1673 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.

Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1674 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?
You don't think I'm going to post here sober, do you?  ???

I have embraced my Benny Franko side. I'm sleazy.

George

Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1675 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:

  • 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 explained 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
« Last Edit: November 17, 2016, 03:32:35 PM by George »

Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1676 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?
You don't think I'm going to post here sober, do you?  ???

I have embraced my Benny Franko side. I'm sleazy.

*

Offline Shane

  • *
  • Posts: 2980
  • If you will it, it is no dream
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1677 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
Quote from: Rushy
How do you know you weren't literally given metaphorical wings?

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 4139
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1678 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

*

Offline beardo

  • *
  • Posts: 5231
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #1679 on: November 02, 2016, 12:48:06 PM »
Star Trek Beyond.
Surprisingly p. good.
The Mastery.