[rooster]

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.

[juner]

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.

[rooster]

Ah ok, I'll trust your judgement then since it seems to align with my tastes.

[George]

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.

[juner]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

[rooster]

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.

[George]

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.

[Crudblud]

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.

[Crudblud]

Ex Machina (Alex Garland)

'S good.

[juner]

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.

[Blanko]

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.

[Crudblud]

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.

[Crudblud]

Citizen Kane (Orson Welles)

It's a good film. What do you want?

[Crudblud]

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.

[juner]

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.

[Crudblud]

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.

[Crudblud]

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.

[George]

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.

[rooster]

I'm absolutely against capeshittiness and you somehow thought I might like this one? Now I know not to waste my time.