Quote from: Sacrosanct;716223So....The Hobbit. Let me just put this out there and say that I went to view it as a completely different action adventure movie not tied to the book at all. You sort of have to. But there was one thing that really bothered me.
Legolas
Even if you get past the obvious reasons why he shouldn't have been in the movie, the biggest deal breaker to me is that Orlando Bloom looked 15 years older and 40 pounds heavier for a character that is *younger* than the one he played in LOTR.
Seems silly, I know. But I couldn't get past it.
Thank goodness, i live in Colorado. The movie as ever so much more bearable as a result, although I did eat too much popcorn.
I laughed when Legolas showed up, even though I knew he was coming.
The dwarfs vs. Smaug reminded me a lot of the fights between the humans and Decepticons in Transformers 3. Actually, PJ and Michael Bay have a lot in common as filmmakers. I think Bay knows exactly what he is doing though, whereas, PJ seems to think his ideas are good.
Anyway, The Desperation of Smug is now my favorite bad movie.
Quote from: Rincewind1;721298Season of the Witch
The acting in Black Death was better, but it was sooooo unpleasant and depressing to watch towards the end that I prefer Season of the Witch.
Quote from: Imperator;721296Following the recommendations here, we watched Season of the Witch and Solomon Kane, and enjoyed them. Two neat action flicks, very entertaining. And also, very Aquelarre, too.
Cool! I think both movies aren't bad at all. They certainly didn't deserver all the criticism they get on gaming forums.
Quote from: danbuter;721447The acting in Black Death was better, but it was sooooo unpleasant and depressing to watch towards the end that I prefer Season of the Witch.
Same. SotW is so very cheesy, but it's a good ride. Hansel & Gretel is similar. I can't say either of them are good films, but i find both of them very entertaining.
Quote from: danbuter;721447The acting in Black Death was better, but it was sooooo unpleasant and depressing to watch towards the end that I prefer Season of the Witch.
Quote from: One Horse Town;721528Same. SotW is so very cheesy, but it's a good ride. Hansel & Gretel is similar. I can't say either of them are good films, but i find both of them very entertaining.
Now I understand the American remake of Get Carter ;).
Jokes aside - SotW was for me simply too mediocre of a film to enjoy it that much, though I liked Hansel & Gretel (for the same reason I enjoyed Van Helsing - just a decent action flick). Black Death was a good (even great) tragic piece, and on a pure quality/artistic level, I'll take it over the SotW (which, I'll admit, I saw a few days after watching Black Death, which probably influenced my opinion as well), just like I'll take English Get Carter over American one. That said, obviously there's place for both films - there are days I'll take a bad comedy over a good tragedy/drama, not because it's a better film, but because I need a cheap laugh more than an elaborate weeping.
Quote from: Rincewind1;721536Now I understand the American remake of Get Carter ;).
Jokes aside - SotW was for me simply too mediocre of a film to enjoy it that much, though I liked Hansel & Gretel (for the same reason I enjoyed Van Helsing - just a decent action flick). Black Death was a good (even great) tragic piece, and on a pure quality/artistic level, I'll take it over the SotW (which, I'll admit, I saw a few days after watching Black Death, which probably influenced my opinion as well), just like I'll take English Get Carter over American one. That said, obviously there's place for both films - there are days I'll take a bad comedy over a good tragedy/drama, not because it's a better film, but because I need a cheap laugh more than an elaborate weeping.
Don't get me started on US remakes of classic British films. Destroyed all of them - Get Carter, The Italian Job, The Wicker Man (shudder).
Quote from: One Horse Town;721546Don't get me started on US remakes of classic British films. Destroyed all of them - Get Carter, The Italian Job, The Wicker Man (shudder).
However, there's now House of Cards, though I admit I haven't seen yet the British version. I'm also biased as I'm a big Kevin Spacey fan. Is it worth the time?
Quote from: One Horse Town;721546Don't get me started on US remakes of classic British films. Destroyed all of them - Get Carter, The Italian Job, The Wicker Man (shudder).
The original wicker man was awesome, but I was very suprised they decided to remake with an American version. Wicker Man was just so very English and 1970s, it felt so out of place in the states.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;721550The original wicker man was awesome, but I was very suprised they decided to remake with an American version. Wicker Man was just so very English and 1970s, it felt so out of place in the states.
I disagree, it'd just need to be more...Americanised in plot. Or simply be better with camera work, acting and directing. After all it's been the US sects that gave us such classics as Jonestown and Waco Siege. A hardcore hippie sect'd not be out of place.
Quote from: Rincewind1;721551I disagree, it'd just need to be more...Americanised in plot. Or simply be better with camera work, acting and directing. After all it's been the US sects that gave us such classics as Jonestown and Waco Siege. A hardcore hippie sect'd not be out of place.
The Manson family is an example of a hardcore hippie sect. I am not saying we don't have cultural elements you could draw on, i just dont think they would work as well as the original. jonestown and waco are great fodder, but if you are going to use those as inspiration, make a new film from the ground up.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;721553The Manson family is an example of a hardcore hippie sect. I am not saying we don't have cultural elements you could draw on, i just dont think they would work as well as the original. jonestown and waco are great fodder, but if you are going to use those as inspiration, make a new film from the ground up.
That I agree with (in general I'm wary of remakes), though as I said - I think the problem was more, that the film was simply just the same thing, in poorer quality, released in different times. And at least one of those could've been fixed, so it'd not be a spectacular mess it was, just perhaps a mess or a decent flick.
Quote from: Rincewind1;721547However, there's now House of Cards, though I admit I haven't seen yet the British version. I'm also biased as I'm a big Kevin Spacey fan. Is it worth the time?
Yes it is worth it IMHO
Just finished watching Elysium. The only way that the movie makes sense to me is if Delacore (Jodie Foster's character) is actually the heroine trying to save her home.
Quote from: jeff37923;722002Just finished watching Elysium. The only way that the movie makes sense to me is if Delacore (Jodie Foster's character) is actually the heroine trying to save her home.
I started to rant about this movie and then deleted it. I am SO sick of being bashed over the head with political and/or religious agendas. Can't Hollywood just make a decent scifi or fantasy movie anymore without it being a propaganda piece?
Quote from: pspahn;722281I started to rant about this movie and then deleted it. I am SO sick of being bashed over the head with political and/or religious agendas. Can't Hollywood just make a decent scifi or fantasy movie anymore without it being a propaganda piece?
Every time she talked in that movie, I wanted to punch myself in my ears
Quote from: One Horse Town;721546Don't get me started on US remakes of classic British films. Destroyed all of them - Get Carter, The Italian Job, The Wicker Man (shudder).
I didn't see any of those. The US remakes of [Rec] (Spanish), Let the Right One In (Swedish) and many J-horrors were all rather pointless and weak, though. Is reading subtitles really that difficult if you're not used to it or is there another reason they keep doing this?
Quote from: 3rik;722535I didn't see any of those. The US remakes of [Rec] (Spanish), Let the Right One In (Swedish) and many J-horrors were all rather pointless and weak, though. Is reading subtitles really that difficult if you're not used to it or is there another reason they keep doing this?
As an American, I will be one of the first to say that Hollywood often fails in their ability to be original. How it too often happens is that one movie production company makes a hit, and then every other one tries to make an inexact copy in order to cash in on the first movie's popularity. Same with television.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;716223So....The Hobbit. Let me just put this out there and say that I went to view it as a completely different action adventure movie not tied to the book at all. You sort of have to. But there was one thing that really bothered me.
I fall into the group of people who feel that different media very often demand different stories. As such I do not care whether a book or movie are true to each other, but only that they evoke similar things and are independently good.
IMNSHO PJ has done great overall with everything he's done in Middle Earth even if not every tiny piece has been great, though some of those tiny pieces have been awesome. His orcs/goblins/uruks and trolls, with only a very few exceptions, have blown me away and surpassed anything I imagined at the time of my original readings. I am loving his resurrection of Azog in the Hobbit movies and find the additional story-line and characterization an incredible addition that only improves the tale by adding depth and character to the "bad guys."
I actually think his mistake is in hewing too closely to some bits of the story. Had he allowed a dwarf or two to get killed off by the orcs or trolls along the way, I think it would have added much better drama and not made it feel quite so contrived as to how no one of consequence has been killed despite a tremendous amount of fighting.
Just saw the Hobbit, quite entertaining if you are the type of person who likes those kind of movies, which I am.
Saw The Guillotines. Was expecting a lit more action. Wouldn't have minded that it was slower and more focused on the characters, except it did not do a good job of getting me to care. The actors were all pretty good, but something abiut the way the film was edited and structured lead me not to care about events as they occured.
Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1847713/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1847713/)
Saw 47 Ronin. Better than expected. The costume design was gorgeous. The cgi was high quality, and the Ki'Rin hunt at the beginning of the film was quite thrilling. Cant help but think that they could have removed Keanu's character from the film entirely and would have ended up with a much better movie. Only real disappointment though was the Tengu. I dearly wanted to see crow-men, and the weird Star-Trek alien looking guys just didnt do it for me.
Watched American Hustle. While not a big fan of his acting chops, I have to give Christian Bale credit to his dedictation. Poor Jennifer Lawrence. She was upset because instead of kissing batman, she got stuck kissing fatman, LOL.
Overall I thought it was a pretty good movie. I do enjoy movies where there is a twist involved though.
Late to the party, I recently watched 'Real Steel'.
Undeniably the best part of the movie is the fact that a lot of the robot effects were not CGI but practical effects by the students of Stan Winston. The story was predictable, formulaic but served to set up the robot fights.
Late to the party, I just watched 'Bullhead'. Now that another Belgian movie is nominated for the Academy Awards I though it was time to catch up on the previous one. A strong movie in which the overall colour tone matches both the ever grey Flemish skies and the trauma from the past that haunts the protagonist.
Watching The Divide, a post-apocalyptic character drama that is pretty damn good in a Not-As-Suicide-Inducing-As-The Road kind of way. Very tense.
Just picked up "Night of the Eagle", an adaption of Fritz Leiber Jr's Conjure Wife.
Well done movie with a-lot of atmosphere and some really good emoting from the actors and actresses and some great mood pieces. Ends a little abruptly though.
Trying to recover a copy of the original version of Equinox, the one with Fritz Leiber's dialogue on the Necronomicon still intact. And no park ranger...
The Wolf of Wall Street: Realistic documentary about yuppie scum living it up and not really getting their just desserts. Digital techniques used appropriately to polish up a glittering world of hookers, cocaine and debauchery. diCaprio shines as the charming and thoroughly rotten Jordan Belfort, and I loved Jean Dujardin's oily Swiss banker. Also features the funniest drug-related scenes since Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and it is about as overboard as Scarface's grand finale. Still not the best movie about financial schemers (that distinction goes to Fritz Lang's Dr. Mabuse), but right up there with the greats.
The Congress: Half live-action, half animated movie about virtual realities. This topic has been thoroughly explored all the way since Stanisław Lem (Summa Technologiae, The Futurological Congress), P. K. Dick and Herbert W. Franke (The Planet of the Orchids), and is a bit of a cliché, but this retelling focuses on
- the personality-distorting/dissolivg effects of mass entertainment;
- the slimy nature of the entertainment industry;
- and it is gorgeously animated.
The beginning of the film lags a bit, and the ending lacks the mindfuck of a proper VR story, but the middle simultaneously manages to be surreal, beautiful, menacing and occasionally poignant. I liked that some of the IRL events behind the virtual world were not over-explained; and Robin Wright makes an interesting protagonist as an old woman who looks out of place among the idealised inhabitants of a fake spectacle.
The Europa Report
Good, but desperately in need of a technical advisor.
The main plot of this story was lifted from Arthur C. Clarke's 2010: Odyssey Two, in the excerpt from the Chinese mission to Europa.
Spoilers!
Hollywood has a new schtick in which to demonstrate how dangerous space travel is, the ship must undergo a casualty mid-journey and a character must die. The spacecraft itself seems to have been designed by a primary school class in that it does not have a backup communications system or a tertiary communications system or a backup of that. Having major hydrazine fuel lines (made of paper mache because they are so easy to break) located near exterior repair panels, an airlock that does not also function as a decontamination chamber, and EVA procedures that do not include some kind of manned maneuvering unit or a belief in tethers help to support this conclusion. In other words, all of the things that are common on spacecraft now have been omitted so that the almighty plot complication can happen.
Again, for the plot to happen, the crew of actors must proceed to the surface of Europa. Except they did not bother to do much of a surface survey beforehand. Well, they did not even have any drop probes to conduct a surface survey and they did not bother to check out the site from orbit at all. They just headed on in. Death and danger ensued.
You could have done the entire movie in a much smarter and more psychologically intense manner without sacrificing the Big Reveal at the end or most of the plot, they just didn't.
I'll say that the movie was better than the dimwitted Apollo 18 and its living moonrocks but not up to the standards of Deep Impact. Fun for an evening as long as you don't want to think too much.
Green Lantern. Oh dear, oh dear. Not as bad as i'd been led to believe, but eminently forgettable. In fact, i only just remembered the title. ;)
Quote from: Melan;726466Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
I watched that again recently, and it was even weirder than I remember; the version I'd watched originally must have had large chunks cut.
Has anyone else seen The Lego Movie? Everything about it is awesome, so if not, you should. There's a lot there for adults, it's not just a long commercial.
The Robocop remake reminds me of Jorge Luis Borges' Pierre Menárd, autor del Quijote in which a 20th-Century French author rewrites and publishes Cervantes' masterpiece, and a literary critic reviews it within the context of contemporary literature; observing that the exact same book, written in an entirely different era, with a distinct cultural, social, political, etc. context, takes on very different meanings.
If you've seen Tropa de Elite (Elite Squad), Padilha's "who watches the watchmen" piece on my hometown's equivalent to a SWAT and their often less-than-legal methods to enforce law in a very violent city, well... a lot of things that might not be so readily apparent take on different shades of meaning. But don't worry, Samuel L. Jackson's character is there to assist the subtlety-impaired.
But maybe the dominant question poised by this movie is not political, but touches on the bioethics of transhumanism. There is a fairly impressive graphic scene in which Murphy (Robocop), who (unlike in the original) never loses his human self-awareness, is shown the extent of his artificial prosthetics and what's left of his organic body. There's also a fair bit of tampering with a human brain and clashing of corporate interests and scientific ethics. Gary Oldman is pretty good as the reluctant scientist in charge of the project.
With regards to comparisons with the original, well, I'll put it on the Netflix queue today because it's been a while. I was just a kid when I saw it but the whole angle about ethics, both political and scientific, didn't hit me as hard back in the day.
TV show True detectives. Great TV show anyway but of interest to this crowd are the references to The King in Yellow and Carcosa.
Quote from: jibbajibba;734885TV show True detectives. Great TV show anyway but of interest to this crowd are the references to The King in Yellow and Carcosa.
Yeah, I love that show. After the finale next week, I'm going to go back and watch them all over again, this time looking for all the little clues. I've caught a bunch already, but I'm sure I've missed a ton.
If you're looking for ispiration for Uncanny Valley robots, check out the Swedish tv series 'Real Humans' (Äkta Människor). Themes include xenophobia, identity and what makes and individual. And bot-sex, off course.
Meet Anita and Odi:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WKxwNkY1H7A/T2jlWHPPnjI/AAAAAAAACTg/qVZ3uxNF5Ss/s1600/mimi_475.jpg) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Su8QcpSoXg4/UZoh_w41fqI/AAAAAAAAnI0/GN2KpV1ATyY/s640/odihubot.jpg.png)
Quote from: Ladybird;734136I watched that again recently, and it was even weirder than I remember; the version I'd watched originally must have had large chunks cut.
I may check this out again if that is the case.
Just saw 300 Rise of Empire, decent enough, lots of fake blood though, with a bit of nudity.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;735401I may check this out again if that is the case.
Fair warning, it could be that the original cut I watched was rubbish.
My DVD says approx 1hr 53min running time.
Watched the Japanese anime version of Starship Troopers. It was a 6 part OVA made in 1988.
It is not bad overall and follows the book alot closer than the live action movie. It does deviate in spots from the books of course.
I first saw it at GenCon.
Overall it is fairly good production and the power armour suits are well designed. The arachnids though are the weak point. They are these double beaked things that spit plasma globs. The OVA focuses on the training phases and does it pretty well too with the group working up through increasingly more sophisticated and armed suits till the final confrontation.
Finally got Young detective Dee: Rise of the Sea Dragon on blueray. Awesome. It is a prequel to Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame, basically sherlock holmes meets Flying Swords of Dragon Gate Inn. Great ride, incredible effects and music. Spectactular swordplay. Nice mix of supernatural and mystery. Set during the Tang Dynasty.
Caught Gamer on tv tonight. A half-way decent film actually. Some nice ideas, although the first half was more effective than the second.
I don't know if it is going to be considered 100% appropriate, but I just watched the first episode of the new Cosmos series, hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson, and I find it hugely inspirational. We humans rock.
Watched two old RPG documentaries from ages past.
The first is The Dungeons and Dragons Experience. While its dated 2004. It looks like it was filmed around 1984 especially since they show covers from the second Elmore DMG cover. and it has Tracy Hickman talking about how big Dragonlance is becoming for example. There is though interviews with Stefan Pokorny of Dwarven Forge. But DF's site indicates they started in 96? Could have swore they were around before that?
Lots of interesting views of the gaming world from the 80s.
The second is the old Sci-Fi Channel's Masters of Fantasy episode. TSR - The Fantasy Factory. Looks to be from the late 90s as TSR had just changed hands with WOTC. Lots of interesting views of various game designers and even Lorraine Williams commenting here and there. Fairly well done with a shot of Gencon too at the time. Didnt spot myself anywhere in it though. aheh.
Also lits of interesting views of the gaming world of the 90s. Of the two this one has a bit more industry notables present.
Watched Winter Solider - very good. Suffered from the usual need to fill the last 3rd with a massive action sequence but it was a really well done massive action sequence :)
Cap is great, Falcon is realy well done and just feels organic to the movie.
You get easter eggs for Crossbones, Agent 13, Doc Strange, etc etc
Makes we want to run a supers game.
However, I was checking out some boards on comments etc and one thing sprang up more than anything else and tis on Den of Geek, the mavel pages, IMDB , so pretty much a trope. Comic book fans are the most mysogynistic fuckwits I have ever encountered. I thought RPG fans could be bad but these guys .... In particular talk about a possible Black Widow spin off movie. First the overwhelmign majority basically state that BW in only in the marvel franchise as T&A, no input no plot role etc. This of course is in direct contravention of what actually happens in Avengers and CA2 where Black Widow is at the heart of the plot and doing very cool stuff, from tricking the god of trickery into revealling their plans, to vaulting onto alien jet bikes to hacking the Shield mainframe and actually has more dialogue than the rest of the cast. But then the wierd comic book part where they
i) point out that Wonder woman hasn't worked as a film - without noticing that that is becuase Wonder Woman like so much of the DC hero catalogue is plagued with chessiness rather than because female hereoes are only worth watching if they are R rated (I mean they saw Green Lantern right?)
ii) Point out that there are lots of other Marvel female heroes that are better and more interesting than Black Widow, better here being of course have more super powers. They don't seem to understand that Captain/Ms Marvel won't be a more popular film just becuase she is tougher or that no one has ever heard of Cap/Ms Marvel outside a bunch of comic book nerds.
iii) point out that other female hero movies like Elektra, Catwoman, Barb Wire (I mean really!!!) have been flops, without realising that that was because they had shit scripts and a were obsessed with female heroes being all T&A rather than being decent movies
Anyway rant over.
Quote from: jibbajibba;739781Catwoman
I liked Catwoman. It's not great, she doesn't meet Batman, but it's a decent enough film in it's own right. I think if it had been released with a different title, it would have done better.
Also, Marvel have apparantly done some prelim work on a Black Widow movie, so nyah to the "no girls allowed!" group; she also has a decent part in Iron Man 2.
Anyway, also saw Captain America 2, loved it, and they set up a ton of stuff to deal with in future. It's a fantastic action movie all the way through, and Falcon's a fun new character.
I wonder when the fallout will hit Coulson's team...
FREE TO PLAY, an excellent documentary about e-sports by Valve. Highly recommended, and available on YouTube for free (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjZYMI1zB9s).
We have a cool, but rundown semi-ghetto second run theater in North Hollywood that surprisingly has good sized screens and good sound for $3 per flick so I hop in for double or triple features sometimes.
I saw Non-Stop, Gravity and the new Robocop. I think they are all about to hit DVD and Netflix.
Non-Stop - if you like Liam Neeson + Action/Thrillers, then you will probably enjoy Taken On A Plane. I was happy with the movie until the Big Reveal which felt confused and tacked on, but then Action! happened so all was fine. Leave your brain at home. I'm a big Liam fan so I was happy.
Gravity - I am far more interested in watching a movie about how they made Gravity than ever seeing Gravity again. Sandra Bullock panics alot, which is understandable but eventually grating. If you like space cinematography, this is great stuff. Probably worth seeing for Traveller fans.
Robocop - wow, there is no way this movie should be PG-13. In the 80s or 90s, it would absolutely be rated R. The new actor for Robocop is even blander than Peter Weller and the director knows how to do some bang bang action, but he doesn't have Paul Verhoeven's nutsack because while the remake tries desperately to be edgy and "say something" it feels hackneyed. I love action flicks and cyborgs so I'm glad I saw it for 3 bucks, but it pales remarkably compared to the original.
Some friends of mine made a D&D-esque inspired indy-movie called Mythica.
Here's the kickstarter - check out the video.
Mythica
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJwupwnArxk
47 Ronin
A typically wooden performance by Keanu Reeves in a curious film. Kinda ok, but also kinda unremarkable. The story is a bit choppy as though they edited it a hell of a lot.
All right, I wasn't expecting a masterpiece or anything but by Jove, Machete Kills blows goat cock. The first Machete felt like a sincere love letter to grindhouse action movies. This one feels like Axe Cop: The Movie and I sure as hell don't mean that as a compliment.
Godzilla was similarly disappointing. I was promised two things: giant monsters kicking each other's ass, and Bryan Cranston. And I got very little of both, and nearly two hours of Aaron "can't act my way out of a paper bag" Taylor-Johnson and the similar bland Elizabeth "I've used slightly less drugs than Mary-Kate and Ashley" Olsen.
On the other hand, Captain America: The Winter Soldier was surprisingly good. Very relevant to what's happening in the world today and I think it's sending out the right message, plus it's a fun action flick and Cap and the Widow are get decent enough dialogue to feel like people (something of a rarity in comics franchise movies these days).
Quote from: One Horse Town;75150347 Ronin
A typically wooden performance by Keanu Reeves in a curious film. Kinda ok, but also kinda unremarkable. The story is a bit choppy as though they edited it a hell of a lot.
My buddy and I watched this last night. 1/2 way through and we turned into Mystery Science Theater commentary for the rest of it ;)
Quote from: The Butcher;751611Godzilla was similarly disappointing. I was promised two things: giant monsters kicking each other's ass, and Bryan Cranston. And I got very little of both, and nearly two hours of Aaron "can't act my way out of a paper bag" Taylor-Johnson and the similar bland Elizabeth "I've used slightly less drugs than Mary-Kate and Ashley" Olsen.
I on the other hand LOVED Godzilla and there was actual clapping in the audience when I saw it. Sure I might have loved a bit more of Godzilla kicking ass, but what we got was awesome. It felt like a take back to the original to me, which wasn't just about Godzilla kicking ass. That all said, it was more a mix of Cloverfield and Godzilla in style than just what most people think of a Godzilla movie.
Just watched "Bug" whoa, I think I saw it before but blocked it out; vague memory of my ex telling me that is how we would end. Next is "Mimesis" about some horror fans playing a role playing game where they experience real terror; we'll see how that goes.
I just watched HERE COMES THE DEVIL. It is a Mexican horror film. Not that scary but very interesting -- sexuality is definitely the start of the demonic in this one. Worth watching if you like horror flicks.
I can't recommend "Mimesis" it was terrible, like a LARP of Night of the Living Dead gone wrong, and I have a high tolerance for cheesy horror flicks.
Saw Rise of the Guardians last night. Fun kids flick with a note or two of darkness to it. Of course, the villain was English. Aren't they always?
Caught 10,000 BC the other night. Can't believe i've missed it for so long.
Anyway, i enjoyed it, even if it was a bit far fetched. Some nicely imagined tribes in the film. I particularly like the guys who basically wear wicker boxes on their heads!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;751613My buddy and I watched this last night. 1/2 way through and we turned into Mystery Science Theater commentary for the rest of it ;)
That's awesome. I did the same thing when I watched it two days ago. One of my 47 Ronin riffs, without context:
"How did Wonder Bread get in here?!"
Sad thing is that the story of the 47 ronin is a really interesting story. There really was no need to fancy things up, and ironically making the whole thing blander.
Quote from: One Horse Town;765144Caught 10,000 BC the other night. Can't believe i've missed it for so long.
Anyway, i enjoyed it, even if it was a bit far fetched. Some nicely imagined tribes in the film. I particularly like the guys who basically wear wicker boxes on their heads!
It inspired the Runequest 6e setting I was working in until Monster Island came along and did it x1000 better.
It's certainly far fetched, but I really enjoyed it.
Just wanted to recommend Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons to my fellow gamers again, because it just went up on Netflix. It is a bit like Kung Fu Hustle meets Army of Darkness. I got it on DVD last month or so and it was totally worth it.
I did one if my crappy overviews here: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/wuxia-inspiration-journey-to-west.html
I picked up War of the Worlds: Goliath and give it two thumbs up. It is an animated movie which looks at how the world has changed after the original Martian invasion including a multinational military force with reverse-engineered steampunk style technology for 3-legged tanks that is pretty impressive. I fell in love with this movie when Secretary of Defense Teddy Roosevelt introduced Nickolai Tesla as Chief Scientist.
Don't look for depth, just enjoy the romp.
Finally got around to watching the first of the new Star Trek movies.
God that was horrible. ANOTHER worthless time travel plot. Though saying the movie had a plot is stretching it. One idiot idea after another thrown in a blender.
The ships looked poor. The Enterprise was way too huge. Combat scenes aside from the drill battle were lackluster, especially the ship battles.
One of the few good notes was that most of the actors looked spot on. Great casting overall and you can see the potential there for something great. Totally wasted. Argh.
We went to see Dawn of the Planet of The Apes - very happy we managed to find a 2D showing of this, an increasingly rare occurrence here - and The Homesman. Would heartily recommend both.
Quote from: Omega;772637Finally got around to watching the first of the new Star Trek movies.
God that was horrible. ANOTHER worthless time travel plot. Though saying the movie had a plot is stretching it. One idiot idea after another thrown in a blender.
The ships looked poor. The Enterprise was way too huge. Combat scenes aside from the drill battle were lackluster, especially the ship battles.
One of the few good notes was that most of the actors looked spot on. Great casting overall and you can see the potential there for something great. Totally wasted. Argh.
I found Chris Pine as Kirk unbearable. There is a tendency in US cinema to praise the mavericks at all expense. It bugged me in the new Star Wars films where none of the padawan seem to be able to be modest, humble or obedient, surely critical traits for their pseudo-oriental martial training but here it's unfathomable. I mean he shows zero genuine leadership or charisma acts like a total cock so they make him the captain because non of the rest of the 2000 crew are more qualified????? Grrrrrr......
Did a few more crappy reviews of martial arts movies.
Last Hurrah for Chivalry: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/wuxia-inspiration-last-hurrah-for.html (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/wuxia-inspiration-last-hurrah-for.html)
Killer Clans: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/wuxia-inspiration-killer-clans.html (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/wuxia-inspiration-killer-clans.html)
Brothers Five: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/wuxia-inspiration-brothers-five.html (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/wuxia-inspiration-brothers-five.html)
Guardians of the Galaxy...Rocks.
Star Wars VII is going to be up against some pretty stiff opposition and its all Disney!!!
Quote from: JamesV;765172That's awesome. I did the same thing when I watched it two days ago. One of my 47 Ronin riffs, without context:
"How did Wonder Bread get in here?!"
Sad thing is that the story of the 47 ronin is a really interesting story. There really was no need to fancy things up, and ironically making the whole thing blander.
Exactly what I felt like watching the trailer for Dracula: Untold. It starts out showing scenes of Vlad fighting Turks, while a kid's voice narrates "My father was a great man, a hero so they say. Sometimes the world doesn't need another hero. Sometimes what it needs is a monster." and I'm thinking to myself holy shit are they gonna play it straight? Of course not, so the 1000x more interesting story of the real man is going to get replaced with a CGI battlefield where Dracula destroys Turkish armies like Sauron.
I was actually going to take a look at 47 Ronin until I realized it was actually about Oishi - with wizards and demons.
The Desolation of Smaug. A better film by far than the first installment, especially the first half. Oddly, i thought it was better before the dragon, but hey, i'm probably in the minority there.
It still has problems though. The Legolas & Tauriel show. I guess when you stretch out 3 hours material to closer to 9, you've got to pad it out a bit, but i got a bit annoyed with them kicking butt. It was justified in the barrel ride, but not really afterwards.
However, the biggest problem for me was undoing what was established at the beginning of The Fellowship movie - where Gandalf and co aren't sure if Sauron is about and express surprise when the ringwraiths are first spotted. Yet here we have them known to have broken out of their tomb and they are all sure that Sauron is the Necromancer of Dol Guldor.
Didn't ruin the movie or anything, just a bit pointless IMO.
Quote from: One Horse Town;775119The Desolation of Smaug. A better film by far than the first installment, especially the first half. Oddly, i thought it was better before the dragon, but hey, i'm probably in the minority there.
It still has problems though. The Legolas & Tauriel show. I guess when you stretch out 3 hours material to closer to 9, you've got to pad it out a bit, but i got a bit annoyed with them kicking butt. It was justified in the barrel ride, but not really afterwards.
However, the biggest problem for me was undoing what was established at the beginning of The Fellowship movie - where Gandalf and co aren't sure if Sauron is about and express surprise when the ringwraiths are first spotted. Yet here we have them known to have broken out of their tomb and they are all sure that Sauron is the Necromancer of Dol Guldor.
Didn't ruin the movie or anything, just a bit pointless IMO.
Yes. it was better than the first one by a long shot but my god the amount of weird-ass extra stuff added in got annoying as all hell after a while.
Also an oddly high number of technical or editing goofs in it. Im guessing editing in of stuff that was supposed to be on the extended cut that is now the whole movie.
One thing that bugged me personally is that the dwarves were near constantly grandstanding Bilbo. This really should have been called The Dwarves instead of The Hobbit.
Otherwise alot more watchable than the first.
Quote from: CRKrueger;775037Exactly what I felt like watching the trailer for Dracula: Untold. It starts out showing scenes of Vlad fighting Turks, while a kid's voice narrates "My father was a great man, a hero so they say. Sometimes the world doesn't need another hero. Sometimes what it needs is a monster." and I'm thinking to myself holy shit are they gonna play it straight? Of course not, so the 1000x more interesting story of the real man is going to get replaced with a CGI battlefield where Dracula destroys Turkish armies like Sauron.
I was actually going to take a look at 47 Ronin until I realized it was actually about Oishi - with wizards and demons.
Imhotep was an architect, engineer, physician and statesman, and pretty much a Renaissance man thousands of years before the Renaissance. Born a commoner and deified after death, he authored one of the earliest known medical treatises (the Edwin Smith papyrus), chalk-full of clever clinical observations that remain true to this day, and designed
the oldest known Egyptian pyramid. He was pretty much the Old Kingdom Leonardo Da Vinci.
But moviegoing audiences know him as Billy Zane with a shaved head and kewl powrz who got his ass handed over to him by Brendan Fraser, twice.
Trust me, Vlad Tepes and the ronin are getting off lightly.
Quote from: The Butcher;775147But moviegoing audiences know him as Billy Zane with a shaved head and kewl powrz who got his ass handed over to him by Brendan Fraser, twice.
Arnold Vosloo played Imhotep in the Mummy movies.
Quote from: One Horse Town;775200Arnold Vosloo played Imhotep in the Mummy movies.
I stand corrected.
I wonder whether that makes it better or worse, though. ;)
Quote from: The Butcher;775221I stand corrected.
I wonder whether that makes it better or worse, though. ;)
For what it is worth I always assumed it was Billy Zane as well.
Quote from: The Butcher;775221I stand corrected.
I wonder whether that makes it better or worse, though. ;)
Oh, i'm totally a film nerd.
Quote from: One Horse Town;775119The Desolation of Smaug. A better film by far than the first installment, especially the first half. Oddly, i thought it was better before the dragon, but hey, i'm probably in the minority there.
It still has problems though. The Legolas & Tauriel show. I guess when you stretch out 3 hours material to closer to 9, you've got to pad it out a bit, but i got a bit annoyed with them kicking butt. It was justified in the barrel ride, but not really afterwards.
However, the biggest problem for me was undoing what was established at the beginning of The Fellowship movie - where Gandalf and co aren't sure if Sauron is about and express surprise when the ringwraiths are first spotted. Yet here we have them known to have broken out of their tomb and they are all sure that Sauron is the Necromancer of Dol Guldor.
Didn't ruin the movie or anything, just a bit pointless IMO.
More watchable than the first by leaps and bounds. My found the first one a bit on the dull side and my wife was audibly yawning the whole through she was so bored to tears. The second one we were both able to enjoy pretty thoroughly.
Did a few more wuxia movie reviews. A bunch of old Shaw Brothers films from the 60s and 70s, starring the woman who played Jade Fox in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon:
DRAGON SWAMP (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/wuxia-inspiration-dragon-swamp.html)
THE SHADOW WHIP (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/wuxia-inspiration-shadow-whip.html)
LADY HERMIT (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/wuxia-inspiration-lady-hermit.html)
Quote from: One Horse Town;775328Oh, i'm totally a film nerd.
Do you know of any good sources for hard to find films?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;777148Do you know of any good sources for hard to find films?
I'd suggest public domain, and bargain bins.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;777148Do you know of any good sources for hard to find films?
Hulu has a bunch as part of the Criterion Collection. They are streaming, not for download, though. (They also have a fantastic anime collection.)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;777148Do you know of any good sources for hard to find films?
Depends on what you're after. There are quite a few people out there who specialise in cult cinema - which run the gamut from horror, exploitation, Japanese cinema etc
Arrow video for cult horror and Italian schlock/giallo, and oddly enough some Brain de Palma stuff and oddities.
Shameless Entertainment for much of the same but with different films in the catalogue.
Redemption/Salvation/Jezebel films for Eurosleaze like Jess Franco, Rollin and also some Japanese thrillers and bizarrely some soft-core porn titles.
Tartan entertainment for largely gory Japanese cinema like Tokyo Gore Police and the like.
Stateside, i think there's Blue Underground who cover cult cinema and Studio 88.
If you're looking for martial arts stuff, i think your best bet is Tartan entertainment from the places i know about.
These are all dvd publication houses to buy, rather than online streaming services - i haven't caught up to the 21st century yet...
Quote from: One Horse Town;777185Depends on what you're after. There are quite a few people out there who specialise in cult cinema - which run the gamut from horror, exploitation, Japanese cinema etc
Arrow video for cult horror and Italian schlock/giallo, and oddly enough some Brain de Palma stuff and oddities.
Shameless Entertainment for much of the same but with different films in the catalogue.
Redemption/Salvation/Jezebel films for Eurosleaze like Jess Franco, Rollin and also some Japanese thrillers and bizarrely some soft-core porn titles.
Tartan entertainment for largely gory Japanese cinema like Tokyo Gore Police and the like.
Stateside, i think there's Blue Underground who cover cult cinema and Studio 88.
If you're looking for martial arts stuff, i think your best bet is Tartan entertainment from the places i know about.
These are all dvd publication houses to buy, rather than online streaming services - i haven't caught up to the 21st century yet...
Right now I am looking for some 70s martial arts films. Will check out Tartan.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;777289Right now I am looking for some 70s martial arts films. Will check out Tartan.
Let me know if you find a source, I always enjoy a decent Chopsocky flick.
Quote from: Arkansan;777305Let me know if you find a source, I always enjoy a decent Chopsocky flick.
Really the best places have been e-bay and amazon. But the vendors you find through them, you can sometimes contact directly to find out about rare movies. So what I have been doing is buying movies through them and letting them know what stuff I am on the look out for. I have been trying to track down one called the Jade Raksha, and it has been really difficult finding a copy.
Here is my Golden Swallow review:
GOLDEN SWALLOW (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/wuxia-inspiration-golden-swallow.html)
Summary: Excellent movie, with exceptionally bloody swordplay. As a "sequel" to Come Drink With Me it doesn't misses the mark a bit and doesn't make adequate use of Cheng Pei-pei's talents, but that doesn't matter in light of how good the film is on its own. The climax is particularly good with Jimmy Wang killing a horde of men after he has been mortally wounded, hooked, whipped, cut, stabbed and fully impaled by four swords.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;777881Really the best places have been e-bay and amazon. But the vendors you find through them, you can sometimes contact directly to find out about rare movies. So what I have been doing is buying movies through them and letting them know what stuff I am on the look out for. I have been trying to track down one called the Jade Raksha, and it has been really difficult finding a copy.
Thanks for the tip. If I come across or hear of someone having Jade Raksha I will let you know.
Quote from: Arkansan;777980Thanks for the tip. If I come across or hear of someone having Jade Raksha I will let you know.
Thanks.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;777289Right now I am looking for some 70s martial arts films. Will check out Tartan.
This might help you out.
http://shawscope.com/index.php
Quote from: One Horse Town;778032This might help you out.
http://shawscope.com/index.php
Thanks
EDIT: Can't seem to register for some reason. I wonder if the site is still active.
Did a review of The Golden Sword:
Wuxia Inspiration: The Golden Sword (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/wuxia-inspiration-golden-sword.html)
Summary: Excellent movie. Really starting to appreciate Lo Wei more as a director and this is one of Cheng Pei-pei's best films. Great gaming material in here with a secret society that closely resembles the Drow of D&D.
Did another review:
The Thundering Sword (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/wuxia-inspiration-thundering-sword.html)
Summary: This is a soaring melodrama with infrequent but occasionally elegant swordplay scenes. I recommend this but cautiously. It feels dated and it is heavy on the melodrama. Some of the action sequences are nice, some less so.
Watched Pacific Rim yesterday. Fantastic special effects, adequate acting, bad plot/dialogue.
Saw A Dame To Kill For.
It's been getting panned by "real" critics because it flirts with satire. It doesn't flirt with satire, it copulates vigorously. I watched it with a friend, we laughed hysterically at how utterly over the top so much of the movie was.
Film noir is very difficult to write without it coming across as comedy, and Frank Miller was brilliant for managing it for Sin City...this time around, I don't think he's trying, or he is, indeed, satirizing his own work.
I saw a Dame to kill for as well, it was pretty good, I think it was satirical, seemed intentional. Eva Green is pretty racy in it.
Quote from: dragoner;785124. Eva Green is pretty racy in it.
Racy? Heh, she spent less time wearing clothes than Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls. I had no idea Green was so voluptuous.
Quote from: Doom;785287Racy? Heh, she spent less time wearing clothes than Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls. I had no idea Green was so voluptuous.
Oh yeah, she was hot in 300: Rise of an Empire also with a big sex scene with Themistocles.
I did some catching up after a few years of not really watching a lot of movies.
I got a bit tired of all those mediocre superhero movies, but now I saw two that are actually good. The first one is Guardians of the Galaxy. Recommended, very fresh action sf/superhero movie.
The second one is the latest X-Men Days of Future past. Now X-Men First Class was already very good and much better than X1/X2/X3, which I all found mediocre. The original trilogy is ok, it's decent but nothing special. First class was a lot better and more in line with the comics. This one is even better. Check it out.
I watched the Wolf on Wallstreet recently. A very decadent movie and I love it for that. There aren't a lot of qualtiy movies in cinema anymore (mostly arthouse movies nowadays), but this is one of them. To me this ranks with the likes of Wallstreet, The Godfather, Fight Club etc. Now I gotta watch American Hustle.
I watched a few martial arts movies. I watched Undisputed 2 and 3 and the Ong Bak series. All good. But what really stood out was The Raid and especially The Raid 2. OMG, that is so brutal. It's almost like Mortal Combat. Fatality!
I watched Inception again and must admit it's very good. The plot maybe isn't as smart as some people may think, but it all makes sense and works on every level.
Btw, I find the Hunger Games seriously overrated. I saw the first one and Catching Fire and the characters, the plot and the setting background are all so-so. It's mediocre, nothing special about it. And it's a Battle Royale ripoff.
I really want to go and see Guardians of the Galaxy but it's only shown in fucking 3D everywhere...
Quote from: 3rik;785647I really want to go and see Guardians of the Galaxy but it's only shown in fucking 3D everywhere...
How about this? (http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/e9b4/)
An obscure martial arts movie well worth seeing is Chocolate. It's hyper-low budget, and so the stunts are all real (no CGI, no ropes...good lord I hate those bungee ropes).
The best is a single-shot of a guy falling from the third story. One shot, no trick photography...and he faceplants onto concrete.
I saw that and thought "how is he not seriously injured?" The bloopers at the end show him being ambulanced away. That stunt alone is worth the price of admission, but there lots of very nicely choreographed fights in there.
Byzantium is a beautiful vampire movie with a stunning Gemma Atherton in one of the main roles. Highly recommendable.
After that we watched 47 Ronin, which we didn't expect to enjoy, but did. Keanu is not the protagonist and it shows, IMO.
Also, I've binge watched Penny Dreadful and holy fucking shit, a weird version of Cthulhu by Gaslight just got made. I definitely enjoyed it.
We're also progressing with Star Trek TNG, almost finished the 5th season.
Saw the new CG Captain Harlock movie.
Godds that was retarded as all absolute hell!
Aside from having a guy named Harlock and a Ship named Arcadia that vaugly looked like the Arcadia... It shared just about nothing with its origins. Someone though was a 40k fan as there are touches here and there to the point a friend even commented that this or that felt like 40k.
Im not even a fan of the Harlock series and I found the whole idiot plot just wrong wrong wrong. No invaders, no Tokarga, no Emereldas, no Tochiro! etc ad nausium.
Instead right in the opening crawl before the movie even really begins we have Immortal Harlock and his phantom ship cursed by his own dark matter after saying "fuck you. get off my lawn" to the religious human empire who are covering up just what really happened to keep everyone believing in sacred Earth. And from there it just gets stupider and stupider.
Movie looks good though. Toei blew alot on it and it shows. Except when people move... Some pretty poor animation of arms and heads especially. Oh yeah... and cape flourish... Boy the animators loved that cape flourish.
Also saw the live action Gatchaman. If anything it is even more retardedly plotted than Harlock and bears even LESS resemblance to the originals.
I'll ad this this beside the live action Cashern movie for absolute failures.
Quote from: Doom;785766An obscure martial arts movie well worth seeing is Chocolate. It's hyper-low budget, and so the stunts are all real (no CGI, no ropes...good lord I hate those bungee ropes).
The best is a single-shot of a guy falling from the third story. One shot, no trick photography...and he faceplants onto concrete.
I saw that and thought "how is he not seriously injured?" The bloopers at the end show him being ambulanced away. That stunt alone is worth the price of admission, but there lots of very nicely choreographed fights in there.
Definitely agree. Well worth watching.
Did a review of The 14 Amazons: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/wuxia-inspiration-14-amazons.html (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/wuxia-inspiration-14-amazons.html)
Quote from: Imperator;785795Byzantium is a beautiful vampire movie with a stunning Gemma Atherton in one of the main roles. Highly recommendable.
I liked
Byzantium quite a bit. Not scary, but interesting.
Last night I watched
Deliver Us From Evil and that was pretty good... at least the first 3/4 of it. Kind of like Seven crossed with The Exorcist.
Banshee Chapter was a bit of a mess style-wise but had some great elements that I'll steal for my next CoC game. It's basically a reworking of From Beyond... using some popular conspiracy folklore as a backdrop.
Finally got around to watching an old 1983 Argentinian fantasy movie called Deathstalker. Was surprisingly alot better than reviews had lead to believe. The main character is anything but a hero and the plot takes a couple of rather unexpected turns.
Some of the sword fights are actually well done and boy do they whale away at eachother sometimes. The other thing the movie has aplenty is lots and lots of bare breasts... really. But most of the guys dont wear much either so everyones happy I guess... ahem... The evil wizard actually has a rather clever plan too.
At around the last 1/4th of the movie though things start to get a little off kilter. But not awfully so. Overall not a bad movie really
Next up Hawk the Slayer, possibly the first of the D&D inspired movies. Beat out Archer: Fugitive of an Empire by a year.
I watched Snowpiercer. It's a very interesting scifi movie, though I thought the very end was a bit of a let-down. Still, I'd recommend it.
Finally managed to re-continue my Bavathon after picking up a super-cheap dvd of his 1966 classic Kill Baby Kill. Sadly, the transfer was as cheap as the dvd.
Anyway, a good gothic ghost story with a few chills and good atmosphere. Slightly weak ending because of some unnecessary exposition, but overall very good stuff. Some of the tracking shots in this movie are very similar to the kind of stuff Sam Raimi has become famous for.
Quote from: danbuter;792383I watched Snowpiercer. It's a very interesting scifi movie, though I thought the very end was a bit of a let-down. Still, I'd recommend it.
Saw a preview of Snowpiercer and it reminded me slightly of the French novel La Compagnie des Glaces and the French/Canadian TV series Grand Star based on it. Earth is in an post apoc ice age, super trains maintain civilization and ye ol Evil Corporation controls the citizens and hides certain secrets.
I watched Under the Skin and was underwhelmed. Talk about a twenty minute idea stretched into two hours!
I was supposed to see Dracula Untold last weekend with a friend but he flaked on Saturday, and I got called up for some extra hours during the Seahawks game on Sunday, so I missed it.
And I just bought a copy of Live, Die, Repeat at the grocery store on the recommendation of a Blog I read, but haven't watched it, yet. May it not find itself in the stack with Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (still in the shrink wrap after a year...), or other unwatched DVDs on the shelf.
Came across a new TV series called "The Quest" which is now up on Hulu and ABCs site for free viewing.
The Quest is a "reality competition" show. But it is really interesting in that it is set in a fantasy world.
12 contestants are called upon to become "Paladins" and cross dimension to a fantasy world called Everealm. There they are wach given a piece of the "Sunspear" which when only one Paladin is left can be assembled and used to stop a evil force called Verlox who has conquered all but one of the 12 realms.
Each episode has a challenge usually pitting teams against eachother. The three that do the worst then go to the Fates Test. Only one wins and is free to continue. The remaining two have to face a vote for who stays and who goes.
Sounds allmost boring really.
But what the producers did was to rent out Burg Kreuzenstein in Vienna, populate and outfit it as a living fantasy castle, and drop the group into it as if it were real. Peasants are working, soldiers patrolling, people are leading animals about. The works. The main NPCs are each interesting as well. Though the queen and vizier do not appear much.
Its a low fantasy setting, meaning magic is low key and in the background mostly. But there are the occasional monsters with some nice costume and animatronic work. Apparently the producers worked on the Lord of the Rings movies. The sight of the real castle across the fields was awesome.
The group is a pretty eclectic and interesting gathering. Bemusing is that the teacher is they guy that looks most like a warrior. Some are a little more self serving that others. But overall they learn to work together even as their numbers dwindle.
Some rather nice contests too were set up. Firing what look like real scorpion ballista at targets over a wall was the first event. There were also puzzle events and even a three way arena showdown. Some didnt quite go off as well like the horseback event. Which is understandable as only two I believe had any riding experience prior.
Overall I liked it and my friend who was REALLY skeptical of the show because Id described it badly REALLY enjoyed it.
Official trailer for Avengers: Age of Ultron. (http://youtu.be/tmeOjFno6Do)
I would catch part of The Quest on my breaks when I was working swing shift earlier this summer. They really did go all out on setting it up, which makes the reality contest portions rather jarring.
I think the show would do better if they kept the premise (Modern 'reality' actors, as such, in Fantasy land) and did away with the stupid contests and weeding down of people.
For Example: the only episode that stands out in my memory (probably the only one I really caught most of...) had the "Queen" poisoned, with some political infighting among her advisors, and the Paladins questing to find the cure.
So far, so good. They go to the woods and meet a crone (the makeup must have cost half that episode's budget!), who offers them the ingredients to make the antidote, but only if they pass her test.
Again, so far so good.
The test is a series of locked doors, each of which has to be beaten in a specific fashion, and each door holds one ingredient.
Again: So far so good.
There are twelve seperate doors in a row, for the twelve paladins, and... I think... eleven samples of each ingredient, so the loser can be challenged out of the contest.
And.... you lost me. Immersion broken, thank you for playing.
Some made sense in context - some didnt in a way. I think it would have worked better had each elimination been set up by the villains.
yeebus that cage elimination test was sadistic!
The vote out was the low point for me. Though still interesting. The elimination by straight up contest performance as in Full Metal Jousting felt better.
I have finally seen The Dark Knight Rises and the new Conan movies. I liked the Batman movie, though Bane's voice wasn't very intimidating. Still, it was well done, and the ending was great.
The new Conan movie had some awesome scenes. Unfortunately, the director has never heard the term "transition scene" in his life. It just jumped to the next set with little or no preparation. The finale with the collapsing dungeon was very cliche, and obviously done on a computer.
Quote from: danbuter;794286I have finally seen The Dark Knight Rises and the new Conan movies. I liked the Batman movie, though Bane's voice wasn't very intimidating. Still, it was well done, and the ending was great.
Certainly, the voice by itself is not very intimidating. That said, the "Do you feel in charge?" scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITgKLIWs5xY) was one of the most interestingly intimidating scenes I've seen in the movies.
"Witches and Bitches" on Netflix, might have gone straight to video.
It's in Spanish, but fully subtitled. Well worth watching, the monster at the end is worth the price of admission.
Movies I've seen recently that are potentially interesting:
Rigor Mortis, which has some of the few hopping vampires that actually look scary.
It's a more interesting movie if you know the backstory, that it's a serious homage to a bunch of mostly silly horror vampire Mr Vampire Hong Kong series from the 80s. In fact, several actors from the 80s movies are in this.
YellowBrickRoad
I'm not sure if this is a good movie. There are bits of it that are really cool, there's a bunch of it that's stupid, but... I think it's worth watching.
Iron Sky
Fight moon Nazis, with the glorious fuhrer, Udo Kier!
Often goofy, but it doesn't take itself seriously, so it's a rolicking good time.
Europa Report
One of the only found footage movies I've liked, it captures the spirit of space exploration better than almost any other movie I can think of. I'm not sure the framing element of out of order/scrambled continuity always works for it, but... worth watching on Netflix if you have a sub!
Dredd
Best use of Justin Bieber music evar!
(I only included this movie to make that joke)
Quote from: Will;795010Iron Sky
Fight moon Nazis, with the glorious fuhrer, Udo Kier!
Often goofy, but it doesn't take itself seriously, so it's a rolicking good time.
I wanted to like this one but it just tried too hard.
Dunno what the latest Godzilla film was like on the big screen, but it's shit on the small one. I was getting bloody annoyed with it by the end as i could hardly figure out what was going on. You'd think that a big hollywood budget would allow them to have all that cgi lit better. Shit, District 9 managed it on a shoestring budget by comparison, why not this film?
Very disappointed.
I recommend Monsters, the director's previous small budget work.
Quote from: Will;795788I recommend Monsters, the director's previous small budget work.
I wouldn't. That's shit too.
Quote from: One Horse Town;795806I wouldn't. That's shit too.
What didn't you like about it?
I didn't like the two main actors. The man was ok, the woman was cardboard. It's also bad if you're thinking 'action monster movie.'
But as a 'living life in the midst of weird almost apocalyptic weirdness', I found it compelling.
It is, however, free if you have Netflix streaming, which is a big plus. ;)
Interstellar is very good but not great.
- visuals are excellent., both on Earth as in space. I don't know if there's a 3D version but the space sequences and especialy the wormhole are very impressive in 2D on the big screen. I don't know how even half of that will come over on BluRay.
- the music is Zimmer turned up to 11 so I was glad for the subtitles and would have appreciated to hear a bit more of the explosions and stuff instead OF THAT GREAT PIPE ORGAN BLASTING IN MY EAR FOR 10 MINUTES STRAIGHT!! I guess even with an Oscar winner in your cast you still need some way to accentuate drama somehow.
- I don't know how much I should spoil on the story but I preferred the first 2/3rds of the movie to the maudlin solution.
- acting was good throughout.
- and while the science of space travel is a bit handwaved, this sure is no happy-go-lucky space travelling à la Guardians of the Galaxy or Star Trek with sexy aliens around every corner. Space mostly is big, empty, harsh and unforgiving.
Addit: man, what! Enjoying this movie and then visiting some discussion boards is like enjoying a colourful butterfly in your garden and then stepping into a lab where they cut the insect apart. What's left is a Petri dish full of mush, chitin and gooey and experts discussing why it is mathematically impossible for this animal to fly.
I saw John Wick, and I was glad that it lived up to the positive reviews. Great paced action that went with good stunts and fight choreography instead of computers and wire-work.
Also at 96 minutes, it was refreshingly brief. A good action movie doesn't waste time.
The Cabin in the Woods. It's a fun enough movie, but a tad too self-congratulatory for my liking. Not as clever a deconstruction of the horror genre as it thinks it is.
Having said that, it had some nice touches. I can't help thinking that i would have been more impressed both with the film and the Facility within the film if we'd ended up with one of the more bizarre monsters. I would have loved to see how they'd engineer the deaths if merman had actually been chosen!
The elevator scene and everything after goes a long way toward redeeming the problems I had with Cabin in the Woods.
I also suspect a lot of people took the messages in that movie way more seriously than intended.
I got a notion to watch the Fantastic Four movies... but boy were those awful. Mostly because of the writing I thought, though Ms. Alba just seemed distractingly implausible, she kinda doesn't look human. There's that 'Uncanny Valley' effect whenever I look at her.
I was excited to finally watch Bobcat Goldthwaite's Bigfoot movie 'Willow Creek'... it's low budget, found footage, slow moving... and genuinely creepy at the end, at least it was for me. From one perspective it's nearly a remake of The Blair Witch Project, which I loved... but with Bigfoot instead of a witch. Possibly 'triggering' to certain SJW types, maybe.
I also got to see The Babadook... a dark allegory about madness and grief from Australia. Mother and son vs. creepy character from a strange children's book. Well made, well acted... open to levels of interpretation.
I've always wondered at the heaping praise Alba has received over the years, so I'm with you there, more or less. That said: I got a copy of the second F4 movie for about five bucks a while back. I keep meaning to watch it, but somehow I suspect that I'm being held back by a lack of Alba accidentally stripping on the brooklyn bridge...
Either that or I'm just feeling swamped and haven't had the time to watch anything lately.
To keep up the tenor of the thread however: I have to say I really enjoyed the Rock's take on Hercules. It had a lot of dangerous dings against it, but pulled through to be a throughly enjoyable movie.
For once a sort of Post-Modern take on the ancient myths actually made a strong story! Seriously!
I have heard most excellent things about the recent director's cut, but that could be advertising hype. I do intend to check it out, however.
On that theme: Despite being a truly bad film, I keep revisiting The Immortals. I'm not sure what, aside from Micky Rourke, redeems the film in any way. I can't even say its entertainingly bad. its just... turgid and... bad.
No, wait: I do have one good thing to say about it: Seeing a western classic genre turned on its ear by cultural appropriation and fed back to us provides a uniquely alien experience. Everything is both comfortably familiar and yet new and strange at the same time.
Quote from: Simlasa;798116I got a notion to watch the Fantastic Four movies...
Quote from: Spike;798773On that theme: Despite being a truly bad film, I keep revisiting The Immortals.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE :eek:
Quote from: Spike;798773To keep up the tenor of the thread however: I have to say I really enjoyed the Rock's take on Hercules. It had a lot of dangerous dings against it, but pulled through to be a throughly enjoyable movie.
For once a sort of Post-Modern take on the ancient myths actually made a strong story! Seriously!
I think the basic idea is good, but the execution is still kind of crap. But you're right: vaguely entertaining flick. Made me curious about the comics.
Quote from: The Butcher;798819WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE :eek:
.
I am proud to say I love bad movies. I wear it like a badge of honor, and among my people the first test of adulthood is to sit through Zardoz without weeping for Sean Connery's dignity.
The second FF movie is better than the first one. But it is still flawed on so many many levels and is way way too Torch centered.
I actually like the old un-released Fantastic Four movie. Everyone looks the part and if the movie hadnt been intended for the shelves all along and gotten more funding to finish it up and clean up the plot, it would have been ok for the era really on the B movie side.
We'll see how the proposed reboot fares. Hopefully not as badly as the Spider-man reboot. ugh.
Caught Chronicle last night. Decent enough movie even if it was obvious pretty much from the beginning that one of them was going to go all Carrie at the end.
Quote from: Spike;798931I am proud to say I love bad movies. I wear it like a badge of honor, and among my people the first test of adulthood is to sit through Zardoz without weeping for Sean Connery's dignity.
There's So Bad It's Good (Zardoz) and then there's So Bad It's Horrible (FF, Immortals). Of course, YMMV.
Quote from: The Butcher;798982There's So Bad It's Good (Zardoz) and then there's So Bad It's Horrible (FF, Immortals). Of course, YMMV.
I used to host 'So bad its horrible' movie nights at my house. I own enough such movies that I could go every night for a month, multiple movies per night, without repeating.
Well, that's cheating. Some of the movies are 'so bad its good' and some are 'nearly incomprehensibly artistic, but not necessarily bad'... like Immortal Ad Vitam (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314063/).
Saw 14 Blades (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1442571/) with Donnie Yen and Zhao Wei. Sammo Hung also had a nice minor role. It was okay, could have been better. Definitely had some good moments. I was a little under the weather so maybe that influenced my initial impression. Even though the plot was really, really simple, I found the way they transitioned from scenes to be confusing periodically. The actions was pretty good, but a bit clouded by editing and effects (which was unfortunate because with an actor like Donnie Yen I'd rather see more of his actual movements). That said much of the action was well done, it is just that the special effects kept getting in the way (with a few of the effects being pretty spectacular themselves). I liked the cinematography, and I enjoyed the look. Felt like it could have been a lot better.
While we were on vacation/family visit in Mexico we saw
Interstellar and
Nightcrawler. Enjoyed both.
Quote from: jan paparazzi;785664How about this? (http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/e9b4/)
I also don't want to
pay extra for a 3D showing...
Was recently re-watching the original Slayers anime series and while looking up some info, found out that like Record of Lodoss War, it too was born from a BX D&D campaign it appears.
It definitly has the feel of someones more off the wall RP session with over the top grandstanding. Mostly centered on a redhead sorceress who teams up with a swordsman who apparently rolled a 3 for intelligence. From there things snowball between serious and decidedly not.
Quote from: Omega;800562Was recently re-watching the original Slayers anime series and while looking up some info, found out that like Record of Lodoss War, it too was born from a BX D&D campaign it appears.
It definitly has the feel of someones more off the wall RP session with over the top grandstanding. Mostly centered on a redhead sorceress who teams up with a swordsman who apparently rolled a 3 for intelligence. From there things snowball between serious and decidedly not.
Slayers always struck me as similar to Record of Lodoss War so this makes sense.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;800771Slayers always struck me as similar to Record of Lodoss War so this makes sense.
RoLW seems like it was inspired by a D&D game played by adults. Slayers seemed to me like it was inspired by a D&D game played by 8 year olds.
Nothing wrong with that I suppose, just my opinion based on how the characters acted.
Watched "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" last night. I enjoyed it very much. Makes me want to grab my Terra Primate book and run a one shot:)
Threadjack.
Quote from: Ronin;804001Terra Primate
This one's always weirded me out. A RPG that's all about zombies, I can get, zombie flicks were already a dime a dozen when AFMBE came out. But
apes? How many apes-rule-humans franchises do we know of?
Probably better handled as an AFMBE supplement. 32 pages, $5 PDF.
Still, kudos for finding use for it. ;)
Bavathon!
So, 20 years after i caught it on late-night t.v, i got a decently priced copy of Mario Bava's wonderful Lisa and the Devil. Don't go for the God-awful re-shot and cut to pieces The House of Exorcism which was more widely released to cash in on the popularity of The Exorcist. It's shit.
Now back to Lisa and the Devil. Brilliantly shot and deliciously twisted in an understated way, it's a real pleasure to watch. Rich colours, great cinematography and strong central performances from Elke Sommer and, in particular, Telly Savalas as the manakin toting butler. You have to keep your eyes open when the manakins appear, sometimes they are dummies and sometimes they are corpses - which all adds up to surreal experience that is Lisa and the Devil.
My favourite Bava film so far. A few still to go.
Quote from: NY Times"The Imitation Game" is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Illicit sex, cataclysmic violence and advanced math, most of it mentioned rather than shown.
I really, really want to see the movie that's rated NC-17 solely for advanced math.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;800782RoLW seems like it was inspired by a D&D game played by adults. Slayers seemed to me like it was inspired by a D&D game played by 8 year olds.
Nothing wrong with that I suppose, just my opinion based on how the characters acted.
It has been ages since I saw Slayers so I can't say one way or the other. I remember slayers seemed to be going for something sexier if I recall correctly.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;804710It has been ages since I saw Slayers so I can't say one way or the other. I remember slayers seemed to be going for something sexier if I recall correctly.
It is the Slayers OAVs and movies which are sexier since they feature the sorceress Naga the Nage who wears a bikini and a cape and makes fun of Lina Inverse's less endowed figure.
The OAV Ruin Explorers is also a cool anime inspiration for D&D.
I saw Jessabelle. Film starts out scary but quickly gets boring
I finally saw Pompeii. It felt like the Titanic set in ancient Rome (they basically ripped the storyline and threw in gladiators). I really had trouble buying Keifer Sutherland as a Roman senator (his father I could have bought, but he just doesn't have the presence I think). Not that his acting was bad, he just didn't fit the role. The CG effects felt pretty cheap, but it was still nice to see some of the recreations of the city. They did take a few liberties with the eruption, but it also did look surprisingly realistic in places (the pyroclastic flow was quite nice). One of the worst movies I've seen set in Rome. It is the kind of movie you might want to leave on in the background while you are doing something else, because there are a handful of moments worth catching. But beyond that, I really couldn't get that into it.
'The Hobbit - Bot5A' was... not as boring as Desolation of Smaug, but still a lot of cgi combat to cover 3 or 4 slim chapters in the book. Ok, visually and stylishly it has its moments but overall it seemed to put the focus more on added material than on scenes from the book.
Watched Starship finally all the way through. A 1984 Australian SF movie about miners being oppressed by a militaristic corporation. Why the hell does it keep getting compared to Star Wars? About all it has in common is a teen hero and a robot. Otherwise its got little in common. And the SFX werent bad really. The robot soldiers actually had personalities. Plot plods along though.
Didnt know Deep Roy was the teacher robot.
Late to the party, i know, but for once i'm pleasantly surprised that a film has lived up to the hype. Guardians of the Galaxy is great fun and for once i thought that a film could have done with an extra 10 minutes of running time.
Did a Review of Intimate Confessions of a Chinese Courtesan: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/wuxia-inspiration-intimate-confessions.html (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/wuxia-inspiration-intimate-confessions.html)
Quote from: Godfather Punk;805553'The Hobbit - Bot5A' was... not as boring as Desolation of Smaug, but still a lot of cgi combat to cover 3 or 4 slim chapters in the book. Ok, visually and stylishly it has its moments but overall it seemed to put the focus more on added material than on scenes from the book.
I watched it a week or so back without having seen any of the other Hobbit films. It wasn't bad (except for the Super Legolas crap) but it wasn't very engaging either... kind of like a big sandwich that doesn't have much flavor.
My favorite bits were the various trolls... trolls with back catapults, trolls with siegebreaker hats, trolls with artificial limbs grafted on.
Quote from: One Horse Town;806892Late to the party, i know, but for once i'm pleasantly surprised that a film has lived up to the hype. Guardians of the Galaxy is great fun and for once i thought that a film could have done with an extra 10 minutes of running time.
Even more LTTP, I watched Avengers for the 1st time yesterday and...ditto. :)
Friday night did a double feature of John Wick and Fury. Boom boom with buttered popcorn.
John Wick is an homage to Hong Kong action flicks, might as well be called "John Woo meets Neo", but I OD'd on HKAT films back when so its odd seeing something so derivative. I like Keanu and he's solid as "Gun Ted", but I kept missing the fun of Matrix. Ian McShane has a fun cameo.
Fury is a mess. David Ayer wanted to make another movie, a far more grim, more pointed commentary about war, but in order to sell tickets to pay for the huge budget, what we get is a schizophrenic movie that can't decide if it wants to be a "American Jesus luvs War!" patriotic screed or a "War is Hell" message movie. But the tank battles were cool. Made me want to play Imperial Guard in 40k. In fact, I kept feeling that I'd enjoy the movie more if it was Space Tanks instead of WW2 pseudo-history. The dude who plays Coon-Ass (Jon Bernthal?) does a great job.
The preview for Inherent Vice(?) looked very retro-fun.
I watched Becket last night, with Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton. Absolutely fantastic movie. Highly recommend it to anyone, and especially fans of the Middle Ages.
Becket on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057877/?ref_=nv_sr_1)
Watched "I Paladini - Storia D'armi e D'amori" an Italian movie based on the story "The Madness of Orlando". It was called "Hearts and Armour" in the US.
Pretty weird movie with some interesting characters that seem more at home in a D&D setting. Interesting combats and even a guy who uses a shield as his weapon (it has a claw at the end,) and a guy who shows that those pointy things on the helmet arent just for show. Weird movie indeed. But like Excalibur it cuts out a chunk of the story.
Also finally pinned down a copy of "Thor Il Conquistatore 2" AKA Beastmaster 2, another Italian movie circa also 1983. Kinda bland really which was a surprise as usually the Italian sword and sorcery shows are at least entertaining.
Aaaand. At Jannet's insistence I finally watched Conquest, another Italian sword and sorcery movie also circa 1983. Was alot more violent than I expected. Didnt realize Fulci directed it till after... oook! Its got gnolls, magic bows, a wolf themed sorceress and Fulci's usual gore.
DirecTV is showing a restored El Cid this month on pay-per-view. Like so many "epic" movies of the 50s and early 60s (especially the ones starring Charlton Heston), it's pure gilded junk but it looks absolutely beautiful. Anthony Mann and Robert Krasker had a real knack for shooting these larger than life productions. Like James Cameron, they spent ridiculous amounts of money on their spectacles (Fall of the Roman Empire more or less killed the genre until CGI made it financially doable decades later) but it looks like they spent ten times the allotted budget. The scenery and cinematography alone are worth the price of a rental.
There is a pleasant surprise here: Anthony Mann is one of only three directors (William Wyler and Sam Peckinpah being the others) who could get Charlton Heston to turn in a performance that wasn't cringe worthy, Shatneresque ham acting. On top of that, he got a performance out of Sophia Loren that wasn't totally based on her big green eyes and amazing tits!
Check it out while it's still available on DirecTV.
Quote from: Elfdart;809441DirecTV is showing a restored El Cid this month on pay-per-view.
Oh! I've always wanted to see that. My undergrad painting teacher said he was an extra in it while he was going to law school.
Last fun thing I watched was Spacemaster X-7, old forgotten 50's era scifi with Paul Frees raising up a mass of extraterrestrial flesh-eating fungous, pretty much a shoggoth by the end of the picture. 'Flesh Eater From Space' would probably have been a more memorable title.
Did a review of Ashes of Time Redux. Strange movie: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/wuxia-inspiration-ashes-of-time-redux.html (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/wuxia-inspiration-ashes-of-time-redux.html)
Finally saw Argo. Enjoyed it a lot.
Quote from: Omega;809388Watched "I Paladini - Storia D'armi e D'amori" an Italian movie based on the story "The Madness of Orlando". It was called "Hearts and Armour" in the US.
Pretty weird movie with some interesting characters that seem more at home in a D&D setting. Interesting combats and even a guy who uses a shield as his weapon (it has a claw at the end,) and a guy who shows that those pointy things on the helmet arent just for show. Weird movie indeed. But like Excalibur it cuts out a chunk of the story.
Also finally pinned down a copy of "Thor Il Conquistatore 2" AKA Beastmaster 2, another Italian movie circa also 1983. Kinda bland really which was a surprise as usually the Italian sword and sorcery shows are at least entertaining.
Aaaand. At Jannet's insistence I finally watched Conquest, another Italian sword and sorcery movie also circa 1983. Was alot more violent than I expected. Didnt realize Fulci directed it till after... oook! Its got gnolls, magic bows, a wolf themed sorceress and Fulci's usual gore.
Hearts and Armour one of my all time favouties so much so that my heartbreaker is called Hearts and Armour. Ruger, Tanya Roberts... awesome.
You sure Beastmaster 2 is italian? Marc Singer (warrior who can talk to beasts with a pet lion and maybe a ferret.. in the has to travel to the future to save cash on sets as it was obvious after the first one that it was straight to video....
Beastmaster... up there with the 80s post Conan classics, Hawk the Slayer, Barbarian Queen, Deathstalker (aka yet another remake of Yojimbo), Sword and the Sorceror.... halcyon days, back when all you needed was a Movie poster by Boris and .. well just that really.
Of course the worst ever Italian fantasy movie is Gor. They took Tarnsman of Gor and made it without Tarns obviously (too expensive) and without an actual City of Ar (too Expensive) so its in a cave most of the time. It does have Ollie Reed and Jack Palance....
Last night we watched Under The Skin... a bizarre little movie with Scarlett Johansson as... something. A creature that preys on men. It's very slow and cinematic... surreal... not much action at all and very little plot. But quite engaging, for us anyway. The kind of beautiful and horrific I'm always happy to find.
Based (very loosely) on a book where a lot more is explained... which I'm kind of glad the movie chose to ignore.
Reminded me a bit of the old Japanese movie Maborosi... another beautiful/strange movie.
Caught the remake of the Evil Dead the other day. Not a patch on the original IMO, but undoubtedly nastier.
Saw This is the End on demand and watched The Interview on Netflix (they just put it up a few days ago).
This is the End was surprisingly good. I wasn't really expecting much and rather enjoyed it. With Seth Rogan movies I find they are very hit or miss with me. This one was more in the ball park of Pineapple Express in my view.
The Interview wasn't bad, but wasn't great either. It starts out a bit slow and some of the early jokes (particularly the Lord of the Rings references) are a bit cringeworthy. As it goes on it improves a lot. By the end I was quite enjoying it, it just took time to get there. And there are some stand out scenes. The guy who plays Kim Jong-un did a great job with the role.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;812723This is the End was surprisingly good.
I found myself watching that by accident when I was trying to watch The World's End. Obvious right off that I had the wrong movie... but not having a clue who Seth Rogan is I kept watching and was kind of amazed. A lot of references I didn't get... I think I'll need to watch Pineapple Express at some point.
I haven't seen it yet, but I was happy to find out about Predestination, and find that it's on Amazon Instant Video (I don't do physical media).
It's based on the 1959 Heinlein short story, 'All You Zombies,' where a guy in a temporal agency turns out to be his own mother and father. Always loved that story.
Apparently it got great reviews, so definitely going to watch when I get a chance.
Tonight we watched the 4 hour 'Tolkien Edit' of the Hobbit movies. Since I'd only seen the last one I had no clue what bits had been removed... and it was pretty darn great. Very charming in ways the LotR movies weren't as much... and kind of fired up an enthusiasm for the setting I haven't felt in a decades.
"Witches and Bitches" on NetFlix is totally worth a viewing. It's in Spanish, but has subtitles.
It starts out as a heist (at the risk of minor spoiler)...and one of the criminals brings his 10 year old son along.
"You brought your son?!" exclaims an accomplice.
"I only get him Tuesdays and Thursdays, I'm not going to miss a moment!"
The monster at the end is a great highlight, and there is much cleverness here.
Quote from: Doom;813892"Witches and Bitches" on NetFlix is totally worth a viewing. It's in Spanish, but has subtitles.
It starts out as a heist (at the risk of minor spoiler)...and one of the criminals brings his 10 year old son along.
"You brought your son?!" exclaims an accomplice.
"I only get him Tuesdays and Thursdays, I'm not going to miss a moment!"
The monster at the end is a great highlight, and there is much cleverness here.
It is indeed an excellent black comedy. I highly recommend it - a ride of surprises from the start to the end.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;812723The Interview wasn't bad, but wasn't great either. It starts out a bit slow and some of the early jokes (particularly the Lord of the Rings references) are a bit cringeworthy. As it goes on it improves a lot. By the end I was quite enjoying it, it just took time to get there. And there are some stand out scenes. The guy who plays Kim Jong-un did a great job with the role.
The Interview is truly Streissand Effect in action - I'd turn it off after first half an hour, as it is ultimately just another Wacky American Idiots Comedy, except with a few political jokes...which aren't even that political. It definitely lacks the true biting political satire, the kind you can only find in dedicated writers, or people who actually lived under a regime and want their work to be a list of their grievances. Ultimately, it suffers a very close fate as The Dictator (though I think The Dictator was still a superior comedy) - it's just another cookie - cutter comedy, except with political undertones. Seth Rogen plotline is basically a cliche romcom.
Quote from: Rincewind1;814011The Interview is truly Streissand Effect in action - I'd turn it off after first half an hour, as it is ultimately just another Wacky American Idiots Comedy, except with a few political jokes...which aren't even that political. It definitely lacks the true biting political satire, the kind you can only find in dedicated writers, or people who actually lived under a regime and want their work to be a list of their grievances. Ultimately, it suffers a very close fate as The Dictator (though I think The Dictator was still a superior comedy) - it's just another cookie - cutter comedy, except with political undertones. Seth Rogen plotline is basically a cliche romcom.
If you are watching a Seth Rogen movie hoping for biting satire, you will be sorely disappointed. He does dick jokes and stoner comedy. I can enjoy stuff from that end of the spectrum just fine. It just wasn't his best film (Pineapple Express and This is the End are much better in my view).
The Dictator had its moments, but a lot to wade through as well. It definitely could have been much better.
I have seen 2 weeks ago the latest Ghibli release, When Marnie was there. It is a nice movie, which is more like From up on poppy hill than Princess Mononoke. A minor Ghibli is still pleasant to watch.
Saw Project: Almanac and it was all right. Overall, I wish I'd waited and caught it on Netflix or even just TV instead of paying for ticket. The basic premise was good and I don't expect time travel movies to make perfect sense but there are some inconsistencies that just bugged me and the more I think about them less I like the film. The ending in particular, doesn't seem to make much sense according to its own rules of Time Travel as far as I could suss them out. The “Found Footage” camera work was somewhat annoying and required the “indestructible camera” effect a few times to keep the movie going. Honestly, I think the film would have worked better filmed in a standard format.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;814041If you are watching a Seth Rogen movie hoping for biting satire, you will be sorely disappointed. He does dick jokes and stoner comedy. I can enjoy stuff from that end of the spectrum just fine. It just wasn't his best film (Pineapple Express and This is the End are much better in my view).
The Dictator had its moments, but a lot to wade through as well. It definitely could have been much better.
I thought The Interview was a *heck* of alot better than I expected. I was truly expecting a forgettable throwaway comedy with maybe one decent joke. I think it had about 5, and Kim was better than expected (I figured he'd be about as well as the movie made by the South Park guys).
My wife had never seen The Black Hole (Disney, 1979), we finally amended that last night!
Ernest Borgnine, Anthony Perkins, Robert Forster, Roddy McDowell in one of the last 'in house' Disney effects blockbusters, the last movie with a musical overture, and a bunch of other interesting things.
It came out the same year as Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
So, like a lot of movies before the late 1980s, the pace was... sluggish. There were a number of elements that really seemed Disney-ish. The music ranged from unremarkable to terrible (some of the music for action scenes sounded like stuff you'd hear at a high school football game, wtf).
The effects were pretty darn cool, for the time, and still retain charm -- the zero gravity stuff at the beginning was top-notch.
The story is reasonably clever and has a few twists.
But god, the pacing. And then the really turgid bit at the end with long overdone dreamy sequences.
This is one old movie I'd actually like to see remade at some point.
Quote from: Doom;814315I thought The Interview was a *heck* of alot better than I expected. I was truly expecting a forgettable throwaway comedy with maybe one decent joke. I think it had about 5, and Kim was better than expected (I figured he'd be about as well as the movie made by the South Park guys).
I think the guy who played Kim did a great job. I also think the woman who played his Sook was really good as well. I think the performances all around were pretty good. The only one that I was a bit disappointed by was Franco's (and I think that is just because he hammed it up a little too much).
Quote from: Will;814635My wife had never seen The Black Hole (Disney, 1979), we finally amended that last night!
Ernest Borgnine, Anthony Perkins, Robert Forster, Roddy McDowell in one of the last 'in house' Disney effects blockbusters, the last movie with a musical overture, and a bunch of other interesting things.
It came out the same year as Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
So, like a lot of movies before the late 1980s, the pace was... sluggish. There were a number of elements that really seemed Disney-ish. The music ranged from unremarkable to terrible (some of the music for action scenes sounded like stuff you'd hear at a high school football game, wtf).
The effects were pretty darn cool, for the time, and still retain charm -- the zero gravity stuff at the beginning was top-notch.
The story is reasonably clever and has a few twists.
But god, the pacing. And then the really turgid bit at the end with long overdone dreamy sequences.
This is one old movie I'd actually like to see remade at some point.
Maybe it is because I grew up on a lot of that stuff, but I like the slower pacing that movies had before, with introductions that spent time on the characters.
Saw Mulan: Rise of a Warrior. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulan:_Rise_of_a_Warrior) It was pretty good. I liked the battle sequences and they did a nice job by keeping it focused on just a few key characters. Some of the individual fight scenes had really great moments too. Very simple, drawn out in a good way and effective.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;814666Maybe it is because I grew up on a lot of that stuff, but I like the slower pacing that movies had before, with introductions that spent time on the characters.
Oh sure. There are slow movies I enjoy, like Dr. Zhivago. Cowboys and Aliens got dings from some people due to pacing in what I figure was an expectation of action-alien movie structure rather than a more punctuated meandering Western, but I thought it was great.
But I think in the 'old days' there were a lot of movies that could have used a faster pace and, I think, some ideas of editing and pacing just hadn't really developed by that point.
Notably, the slow initial pace of The Black Hole was actually cool, conveyed some mystery, heightened tension. But toward the end where it was a 'race against the clock,' it was just... plodding.
Quote from: Will;814670Oh sure. There are slow movies I enjoy, like Dr. Zhivago. Cowboys and Aliens got dings from some people due to pacing in what I figure was an expectation of action-alien movie structure rather than a more punctuated meandering Western, but I thought it was great.
But I think in the 'old days' there were a lot of movies that could have used a faster pace and, I think, some ideas of editing and pacing just hadn't really developed by that point.
Notably, the slow initial pace of The Black Hole was actually cool, conveyed some mystery, heightened tension. But toward the end where it was a 'race against the clock,' it was just... plodding.
I think we are just used to super fast pacing.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;814734I think we are just used to super fast pacing.
Perhaps.
I was watching a minidocumentary about editing, and there has been an evolving 'language' of movies over time.
For instance, it was common in early movies that if, say, someone was going to an office, you'd see them walk to the building, enter the lobby, cross the lobby, signal the elevator, get on the elevator, go up, get out, go over to the receptionist, wait, go in and talk to whomever.
Nowadays, you are more likely to have a 'there's the building' and skip right to the receptionist or meeting, depending.
Is that better or worse or impatient?
I'd argue that part of good art is knowing what not to say/show, and that in most cases it's made for better movie-making.
Because when it MATTERS, you can actually show all that stuff.
On the flipside, I do agree that moviegoers in general have become less able to sit and digest a slow-building movie.
Quote from: Will;814742Perhaps.
I was watching a minidocumentary about editing, and there has been an evolving 'language' of movies over time.
For instance, it was common in early movies that if, say, someone was going to an office, you'd see them walk to the building, enter the lobby, cross the lobby, signal the elevator, get on the elevator, go up, get out, go over to the receptionist, wait, go in and talk to whomever.
Nowadays, you are more likely to have a 'there's the building' and skip right to the receptionist or meeting, depending.
Is that better or worse or impatient?
I'd argue that part of good art is knowing what not to say/show, and that in most cases it's made for better movie-making.
Because when it MATTERS, you can actually show all that stuff.
On the flipside, I do agree that moviegoers in general have become less able to sit and digest a slow-building movie.
I think these sorts of things are largely stylistic. Style can evolve and these are certainly editing innovations, but that doesn't mean the current pacing is here to stay or that they would make sense to a person had you just plunked them into a film in 1975. All I know is while I like faster edits sometimes, much of the time I feel movies move forward too quickly and don't linger enough.
Quote from: Will;814742I'd argue that part of good art is knowing what not to say/show, and that in most cases it's made for better movie-making.
Because when it MATTERS, you can actually show all that stuff.
I watched some old Hitchcock films (The 39 Steps, Psycho) recently and was struck by how fast paced they seemed for their time; maybe that's just me. (And yet Psycho needed an epilogue to explain it to the audience.) Conversely, early Sean Connery as James Bond struck me as really slow paced given the genre (and also uncomfortably sexist).
The problem with "when it matters" is that as soon as you show all that stuff when the standard is not to show it, it becomes Chekhov's gun; the audience is distracted trying to figure out its significance.
I was very surprised by The Women, a black and white movie with a lot of what I found seemed a bit modern humor and a pretty snappy pacing.
_1939_
Re-watched Triangle over the weekend. Much better on second viewing than the first, but still i think fatally flawed by the very last shot. The rest of the film hangs together well, but i needed the 2nd stab at it to put it all together. Not as good as the brilliant Severance by the same director, but pretty damned clever overall. 7/10
So, in my quest for little-known European films of the 60s and 70s, i sat down to watch Baba Yaga, also known as The Devil Doll or Kiss Me Kill Me. Made in '73 and based on one of those hip comic-strips that brought us among other things, the film adaptation of Barbarella.
So, a fashion photographer comes under the spell of a lesbian witch (as you do), and suffers the fallout of a cursed camera and a doll gifted to her by Baba Yaga that comes alive at various points to walk around naked and try to kill people.
This is a strange mix of genres and styles, not helped by the fact that despite being 'The Final Cut' put together by the director, it is still obviously missing parts - the editing is very choppy in places, and although it doesn't interfere with the story (seconds lost rather than whole scenes), shows that some material has been lost to time.
Anyway, genre and style. I've seen this film described as not a horror film, but i really can't place it in any other genre - other than a few art-house pretensions, it ain't an art-house film. It's also trying to be achingly hip, which seems more in place in the late 60s than the early 70s, but hey, maybe France was lagging behind the swinging sixties, and its this that places it closer to Vadim's Barberalla than any other style. Baba Yaga has more erotic content than Barbarella, yet manages to be less explicit and far less titillating, in language and subject matter, at least - this film has much more nudity.
The film also has a number of tacked-on moments of social commentary, which like most films that contain them, date the film better than carbon dating. It's all hippy fight the power and the man, man.
There is a genuine frisson between the two leading ladies, which is testament to their commitment to the movie. Oh, did i mention that the titular witch is Carrol Baker?
Anyway, despite the social commentary included in the movie, the heroine decides she's a traditional girl after all and wins the day.
Pretty much impossible to classify, but it is actually a pretty interesting film.
Quote from: One Horse Town;815067Pretty much impossible to classify, but it is actually a pretty interesting film.
Yeah, I liked it... I should probably track down the original comic sometime.
Taxonomically I put it on the same shelf as Jean Rollin's early vampire movies... also full of nudity that is not titillating (but does well to push the alien mindset of the vampires) and also not what I'd ordinarily think of as 'horror'.
Whiplash (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d_jQycdQGo). Go see it.
That is all.
We watched Birdman... that was a good one. A good cast... and gave some voice to my general annoyance at superhero movies.
Also, Noah... best fantasy movie I've seen in a long while.
Did a review for Trail of the Broken Blade. (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/wuxia-inspiration-trail-of-broken-blade.html)
Saw the Dwayne Johnson Hercules movie the other day. Decent enough actioner, but i pretty much called all the plot-points before they happened - so a pretty hackneyed plot. They're totally a d&d party though.
Quote from: One Horse Town;818896Saw the Dwayne Johnson Hercules movie the other day. Decent enough actioner, but i pretty much called all the plot-points before they happened - so a pretty hackneyed plot. They're totally a d&d party though.
Sounds like it might be good gaming fodder.
Put up a review of the The Legend of the Black Scorpion (Also called The Banquet): THE LEGEND OF THE BLACK SCORPION (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-legend-of-black-scorpion-banquet.html). Basically a wuxia version of Hamlet.
I watched Interstellar, Nightcrawler and Whiplash recently. All recomended.
Watched American Sniper last night. It was OK when put in the right context I suppose. By right context, I mean "Changed the actual events to portray Chris Kyle as a tortured hero who sacrificed his sanity for the love of protecting his country" when the reality is that he rather enjoyed killing as many Muslims as he could. And yes, his words, not mine. I believe it was "If I could kill anyone with a Koran and get away with it, I would." And a bunch of other things too that makes him not the hero the movie made him out to be, but this isn't a thread to discuss that stuff.
So, when taken into that context ("Based on real life" often means "let's change everything but the name of the characters), it was a decent movie. But not nearly as good as one that got all the hype it did.
I absolutely agree with Hercules being a fun D&D movie. I enjoyed it as a popcorn movie. Definitely good brain fodder for running Mazes & Minotaurs.
I am disappointed Eastwood didn't give us the real American Sniper and tell the true story about Chris Kyle. But all biographical movies have huge problems because you can't distill an entire life into 2 hours of entertainment, and some film makers choose to really go off the rails and rewrite reality.
Quote from: Spinachcat;819446I am disappointed Eastwood didn't give us the real American Sniper and tell the true story about Chris Kyle. .
Yeah, I think that was a perfect opportunity to show how the military and war can really screw up a person and instead Eastwood went with American Hero angle. It's like there's this weird assumption that you can't do superhuman things in combat and still be messed up in the head (largely caused by doing said superhuman things). I dunno, maybe they think it will tarnish the legacy?
As a veteran, I think such Hollywood portrayals do us all a disservice. It was the same with Audie Murphy and most all of our war heroes. It sends a message that once you're a badass, you have to keep a badass, and can't acknowledge any demons publicly.
Anyone who says they enjoy killing other people or makes up lies about killing over a dozen looters in Katrina (along with a lot of other things) is not right in the head. I'm not blaming Kyle. I'm saying that when you put someone through a meat grinder, you can't expect them to be able to function normally in society. And that's something that we seem to refuse to acknowledge. And this was a perfect story to address that, so it's unfortunate Eastwood took the angle he did.
Back on topic. Saw Dracula Untold last night. I suppose it was alright for a movie as long as you don't compare it to any other Dracula stories and if you're not the kind of person to get caught up in continuity problems. I'm glad I didn't pay to see it in a theatre though.
My buddy and I were talking and we both agree that the movie would have been 100x better if Gary Oldman was narrating ;)
Caught Deadheads tonight. Something like the 9 millionth zombie movie and perhaps surprisingly about the 10 thousandth rom-com-zom film. It has its moments, but is not more than average.
Its pretty obvious that they ad-libbed a lot of the dialogue and like most movies that do that, most of it is miss, but it scored 1 hit for me as nutty corporate zombie hunter guy corners one of our heroes (who happen to be zombies) and totally hams it up, "Fee, fi, foe, fuck, get in the back of my fucking truck." For some reason that had me in stitches.
Tobe Hooper's nutty Lifeforce. I remember seeing this a long time ago and seeing it again, weirdly it seems like i remembered pretty much all of it. Totally bonkers, doesn't really work that well as a movie, yet strangely compelling in an odd way. Whether its the English actors hamming it up for all they're worth or Mathilda May's nipples that held my interest, i'm not sure. Fun, but frankly, pretty rubbish film.
I saw Birdman yesterday. It was good with a superb cast !
Saw White Witch of Lunar Kingdom yesterday. It is taken from the same source material as The Bride With White Hair. In a lot ways more faithful to it than The Bride is, but in my opinion not as good. I enjoyed it for the fight scenes and there were some cool elements, but it just didn't feel long enough for the amount of material they were trying to fit into it. I think it would have been a lot better if they added 30 minutes to it so it had a little room to deal with some of the threads.
I assume folks have seen this trailer for the new Mad Max movie?
Here it is on Bloody Disgusting: http://bloody-disgusting.com/videos/3338270/mad-max-fury-road-trailer-epic-can-remember-seeing/
(scroll down just a bit into the article)
The main villain looks like the maybe the same actor who played the main villain in the original wayback when.
I just finished watching Interstellar.
It has some pretty visuals, that is about all I can give it credit for.
Spoiler Alert!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
This movie is science fantasy. A lot of the engineering looks good for sets and models, but the people do not make sense. Isn't Hollywood tired of the "space madness" schtick where astronauts who are the best of the best of the best end up going insane on a mission? Matt Damon's character failed to find a habitable world while on a one-way mission, so he decides to doom humanity for his failure? What, hasn't the reconstituted NASA ever heard of giving these people a psych eval?
I won't even start on the Bad Astronomy of a world believed to be habitable around a black hole, even a galaxy mass one. If you are close enough to experience time dilation with a Tau factor of 1:61320 then you are already screwed at keeping a planet together, tidal forces alone will tear it apart.
later today im going to sit down and watch fantasia and fantasia 2000 have not watched them in a while
i want a new fantasia movie but with how much of a flop the first 2 were i know it aint gonna happen
I saw JUPITER ASCENDING by the Wachowskis (the bros who did Matrix). The movie doesn't work, and its overly long and convoluted, but it is beautiful. Its a must for sci-fi fans because the tech is great, the ships stolen from the Eldar of 40k, but gorgeous CGI of Jupiter.
But other than eye candy? I could see some of the ideas worth stealing for a space fantasy RPG, like Palladium's Phase World.
Saw What We Do in the Shadows Yesterday. Laughed my ass off. I wish this film had come out in the 90s during the peak of Vampire: The Masquerade's popularity. It takes the piss out of angsty Vampires so well.
i saw skycaptain and the world of tomorrow yesterday i had been trying to remember the name of that movie for years
Posted a review of The Bride with White Hair: HERE (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/wuxia-inspiration-bride-with-white-hair.html).
Saw an oldy but a goody the other day. Asylum. From the good old days of anthology horror movies. A mixed bag, but the first story stayed with me from my childhood, and is still pretty scary now given the limitations of special effects back then. Also features at the end of the movie what has to be the best maniacal laugh ever put to celluloid.
Also re-watched Brotherhood of the Wolf for the first time in a good few years. Doesn't really get going for the first 45 minutes or so, but turns into a rather demented tale of maimed mad-man trains animal to kill so he can get into his sister's pants, priests supporting his dementedness in order to stick it to the King and bring rebellion, and kung-fu native Americans. Oh and the animal is so a lion tricked out in armour plating replete with warhammer spiky bits. Did i mention Monica Bullici as an Italian papal spy with a nice side-line in cutting-egde fan wielding?
Totally nuts, but takes a while to get there.
Bavathon!
Arrow video have just released a newly restored print of Blood & Black Lace, Bava's influential slasher from 1964. It's one of his films that i've been waiting to see for some time. Maybe my expectations were too high, but i found it to be one of the weaker films that i've seen of his. Sure, it's nice to look at and for its time, it's pretty graphic, but it lacks some of the clever framing that can be seen in other films of his such as Bay of Blood and Lisa and the Devil. Still worth the purchase though, as its packed full of extras for the Bava student. I rank it above Hatchet for the Honeymoon but nothing else from my Bavathon so far, which is a shame.
My DVD of Never Forget came in the mail yesterday and I was able to watch it today. Still great acting by Nimoy, still powerful, and still entertaining. Well worth the money.
Had the misfortune of watching Lucy today. Jesus Christ, that was painful.
Saw Kung Fu Girl and Whiplash (both Cheng Pei-pei movies). Did couple of reviews:
Kung Fu Girl (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/kung-fu-girl-only-brave-review.html)
Whiplash (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/whiplash-review.html)
Watched John Wick. I thought it was a great action movie, and Keanu was fantastic in it. Real stunts instead of CGI, smooth fight scenes instead of hacked shots from multiple angles, and a cool world. Much, much better than any recent action movie I've seen. Recommended!
Because of the Cyberpunk thread over yonder I finally went and watched Streets of Fire.
I can't say it had me thinking of Cyberpunk but it was fun and did send me on a bender of listing out all the shows I like that share that sort of artificial/dreamlike, minimal setting... like a city with little or no visible government or citizenry... just the gangs and characters necessary for the story.
The first season of the old Peter Gunn series was great for that... but most everything else I could think of was from the 80's... The Warriors, The Wanderers, Choose Me, House of Games, etc.
I've looked but I can't find a term for that style... maybe it's just something shared in that era because of the huge impact of music videos.
Quote from: Simlasa;827613Because of the Cyberpunk thread over yonder I finally went and watched Streets of Fire.
I can't say it had me thinking of Cyberpunk but it was fun and did send me on a bender of listing out all the shows I like that share that sort of artificial/dreamlike, minimal setting... like a city with little or no visible government or citizenry... just the gangs and characters necessary for the story.
I think part of the reason it comes up in Cyberpunk discussions is that it influenced the style of Bubblegum Crisis. The movie was much bigger in Japan than in the U.S., from what I understand.
It's also a dystopia full of neon and rock and roll, so I guess it's sort of a natural connection to make, stylewise.
I just watched the restored 1967 version of Far From The Madding Crowd (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pHqo5fbiWI). I can't think of another movie more beautifully photographed.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;827645I think part of the reason it comes up in Cyberpunk discussions is that it influenced the style of Bubblegum Crisis. The movie was much bigger in Japan than in the U.S., from what I understand.
Interesting, I didn't know that.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;827645I think part of the reason it comes up in Cyberpunk discussions is that it influenced the style of Bubblegum Crisis. The movie was much bigger in Japan than in the U.S., from what I understand.
It's also a dystopia full of neon and rock and roll, so I guess it's sort of a natural connection to make, stylewise.
I don't think so.....
Streets of Fire and
Bubblegum Crisis really don't have a lot in common. I've seen both and the dystopia full of neon and rock-n-roll is a broad sweeping generalization for a pretty tenuous connection to make.
Quote from: jeff37923;827838I don't think so.....
Streets of Fire and Bubblegum Crisis really don't have a lot in common. I've seen both and the dystopia full of neon and rock-n-roll is a broad sweeping generalization for a pretty tenuous connection to make.
If you look at Pris' concerts and Dian Lane's you can see the similarity is striking. Like the way she strikes a pose, and the music style which is very bombastic like SoF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubblegum_Crisis
Quote from: Simlasa;827822Interesting, I didn't know that.
I didn't either until I read about it online. Then I saw the SoF musical numbers and thought, "Oh shit." The music is very similar, and Pris is almost a copy of Diane Lane down to her poses, if not the dress.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;827887If you look at Pris' concerts and Dian Lane's you can see the similarity is striking. Like the way she strikes a pose, and the music style which is very bombastic like SoF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubblegum_Crisis
And immediately after the musical number, Diane Lane gets victimized by Willem Defoe's character while Priss Asagari dons powered armor and then goes out to kick some Boomer ass with a mercenary group calling themselves the Knight Sabers. The opening musical scene was similar in the bands tone. The rest was like night and day.
Sure. That's why I said it influenced BGC's style. Never said it was a carbon copy of SoF. The influence of Bladerunner is also pretty obvious and BR never had girls in Powersuits either.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;828071Sure. That's why I said it influenced BGC's style. Never said it was a carbon copy of SoF.
Yeah, I get ideas off of all sorts of things... never means that what I do with those ideas will bear much of any resemblance to the source of that initial spark.
Meanwhile, a friend of mine had long been wanting to watch
Tusk. Kevin Smith's crowdfunded horror comedy about a maniacal seaman who turns a man into a walrus.
I'd heard almost nothing about it... or who was in it... so I was surprised at how gruesome it was. It certainly trumps
The Human Centipede (one of its main inspirations) for gore... but remains darkly funny throughout. Michael Parks' eccentric old salt really makes it work, IMO.
I was also surprised that my friend was the one pushing to watch it. She claims to dislike horror movies... and gore in particular... but she had no issues with Tusk, which opens up a whole new territory of movies I might be able to get her to watch.
Quote from: Simlasa;827613Because of the Cyberpunk thread over yonder I finally went and watched Streets of Fire.
I can't say it had me thinking of Cyberpunk but it was fun and did send me on a bender of listing out all the shows I like that share that sort of artificial/dreamlike, minimal setting... like a city with little or no visible government or citizenry... just the gangs and characters necessary for the story.
Streets of Fire is one of my favorite movies. You know there is a sequel, right?
Soldier boy has to rescue the daughter he had with the Singer from hell raising biker girls in the apocalyptic wasteland.
or something. I haven't seen it, it has only had a limited theater release.
Quote from: remial;828783Streets of Fire is one of my favorite movies. You know there is a sequel, right?
Soldier boy has to rescue the daughter he had with the Singer from hell raising biker girls in the apocalyptic wasteland.
or something. I haven't seen it, it has only had a limited theater release.
I've seen a clip of it floating in google; a musical number, but it doesn't even come close to the Diane Lane clips I've seen.
I think Michael Paret reprises the role. It's directed by Albert Pyun, if I remember correctly. I think he's known for golden classics like Cyborg 2. :D
Finally caught the last Hobbit movie The Battle of the Five Armies. Really enjoyed it overall, thought it was the best of the three. In fact, they got stronger as they went on. Had some really good moments in it, and 1 pace killer, which inevitably was any scene with Legolas in it. Thought it was hilarious that Dain Ironfoot nearly routed the Lake-Town army by shouting sod-off at them :D. and then said that Thranduil was "a faithless wood sprite." Good stuff.
Quote from: remial;828783Streets of Fire is one of my favorite movies. You know there is a sequel, right?
I didn't know about a sequel... but from what I can find it sounds like it never got finished... there was a screening of some rough cut but reports by those who were there are not positive at all.
Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Somehow, the first time i've seen this landmark in cinema. Not quite what i was expecting to be honest, but a good film none-the-less. Surprisingly gripping.
I got to see Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosferatu_the_Vampyre) again. Of course, it's got bizarro Klaus Kinski as Dracula, but its neither Bram Stoker's original tale, nor the 1922 masterpiece Nosferatu. Herzog creates his own creepy and strange tale.
Well, here's something that doesn't happen very often, a zombie movie that surprised me. Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things. Sure, it's a zero budget b movie in the truest sense of the word, with uniformly poor (although, not bad) acting, and not much horror, suspense, or even zombie action, but it delivers in other ways. It's not delivered with great style, but the script is pretty good and 20 years ahead of its time. The kind of snippy, sarcastic, and 'friendly' put-downs and banter that became popular in the 90s and Joss Whedon has made a career of, is in evidence here throughout the film. Added to this is the strange subject matter of the film (weird producer and his crew go to abandoned island to raise a corpse - for no apparent reason other than the producer is a tyrant and as is revealed in one brief scene, maybe has necrophiliac tendencies) and i can safely say that it's quite unlike any other zombie film i've seen.
If you don't mind true b movies, you can do a lot worse than have a look at this one.
This is beyond awesome. The Ugandan director making action movies for £100.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32531558
Quote from: One Horse Town;830018Well, here's something that doesn't happen very often, a zombie movie that surprised me. Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things. Sure, it's a zero budget b movie in the truest sense of the word, with uniformly poor (although, not bad) acting, and not much horror, suspense, or even zombie action, but it delivers in other ways. It's not delivered with great style, but the script is pretty good and 20 years ahead of its time. The kind of snippy, sarcastic, and 'friendly' put-downs and banter that became popular in the 90s and Joss Whedon has made a career of, is in evidence here throughout the film. Added to this is the strange subject matter of the film (weird producer and his crew go to abandoned island to raise a corpse - for no apparent reason other than the producer is a tyrant and as is revealed in one brief scene, maybe has necrophiliac tendencies) and i can safely say that it's quite unlike any other zombie film i've seen.
If you don't mind true b movies, you can do a lot worse than have a look at this one.
Dear lord I remember this film from when I was young---"This is a grimoire children". Up there with Meat Market and Red Neck Zombies for strange entries in the genre.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;831227"This is a grimoire children".
Grim-wahh-ee. Never heard it pronounced like that before.
Quote from: One Horse Town;831231Grim-wahh-ee. Never heard it pronounced like that before.
After seeing Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things, it became standard pronunciation in my game group.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;831227Red Neck Zombies
A Troma classic, but Curse of the Confederate Zombies is better. "The South shall rise again... and again... and again..." :D
Quote from: The Butcher;831235A Troma classic, but Curse of the Confederate Zombies is better. "The South shall rise again... and again... and again..." :D
I'm not familiar with that one. Is it recent (if it is also a Troma film I just haven't been able to watch their recent movies...something about the way they film now just seems too odd for me).
Bavathon!
So my latest watch from the Italian master is Baron Blood. Like his better efforts, the lighting and scene framing is superb throughout, but the film itself doesn't really do much. Now, i'm not against not much happening in a film, i'm a huge fan of the same director's Lisa and the Devil, for instance. but in this case, there's not enough subtext, humour, or mystery to keep your attention for too long. It looks good, as does the lovely Elke Sommer in her first collaboration with Bava, but is certainly a minor entry in the Bava catalog.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;831253I'm not familiar with that one. Is it recent (if it is also a Troma film I just haven't been able to watch their recent movies...something about the way they film now just seems too odd for me).
It's an old one actually. And I got the name wrong, it's
Curse of the Cannibal Confederates. I do admit to not having seen a Troma movie in 15+ years.
Quote from: The Butcher;831394It's an old one actually. And I got the name wrong, it's Curse of the Cannibal Confederates. I do admit to not having seen a Troma movie in 15+ years.
I'll try to track it down. I happened to catch some newer ones a few years ago (was curious what they were up to). I found their newer stuff incredibly difficult to watch (it is filmed in a very different way and comes across as amateur rather than very low-budget).
Poultrygeist is meant to be good in the traditional Troma way.
Mad Max - Fury Road is everything you'd want from a Mad Max movie, and even a little more. Just don't expect a lot of depth. This is all about 110 minutes of high octane stylish car crashes. Just what I was expecting and hoping for.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;832259...the film actually has a ton of depth. It's just not going to hand it to on a silver platter. It's going to ask you to actually engage your brain. (Although if you don't want to engage your brain, the pretty explosions are more than entertaining in their own right.)
Well yeah, it's not devoid of content but what I wanted to say is it's not a very complex movie where you get lost in the plot twists.
Quote from: One Horse Town;831389Bavathon!
So my latest watch from the Italian master is Baron Blood. Like his better efforts, the lighting and scene framing is superb throughout, but the film itself doesn't really do much. Now, i'm not against not much happening in a film, i'm a huge fan of the same director's Lisa and the Devil, for instance. but in this case, there's not enough subtext, humour, or mystery to keep your attention for too long. It looks good, as does the lovely Elke Sommer in her first collaboration with Bava, but is certainly a minor entry in the Bava catalog.
Agreed. Lisa and the Devil was a by the numbers Gothic story, but the mood and set pieces were superb. Plus Kojack!!
Quote from: Godfather Punk;831637Mad Max - Fury Road is everything you'd want from a Mad Max movie, and even a little more. Just don't expect a lot of depth. This is all about 110 minutes of high octane stylish car crashes. Just what I was expecting and hoping for.
I am waffling so much on this movie. I hear things I like then something I don't then something I like...
Quote from: Nexus;831773I am waffling so much on this movie. I hear things I like then something I don't then something I like...
Just see it. It kicks ass from start to finish; all killer no filler.
Looks like Mad Max: Fury Road is rapidly becoming another battlefront in the Culture Wars.
Quote from: Nexus;831801Looks like Mad Max: Fury Road is rapidly becoming another battlefront in the Culture Wars.
Yeah, just got back from it. It was dumb fun... barely any story beyond a slim excuse for (great) action sequences. Max himself seems a bystander to the ham-handed 'feminist' theme but whatever.
Quote from: Simlasa;831831Yeah, just got back from it. It was dumb fun... barely any story beyond a slim excuse for (great) action sequences. Max himself seems a bystander to the ham-handed 'feminist' theme but whatever.
That is what I've been wondering about. I've heard it both ways from people that have seen it and the general internet chatter. I'm not sure I'm going to try to see it and just catch it some time down the road. I have a really low tolerance for sermons lately.
Away from the political debate surrounding the movie, Mad Max seems to be getting really, really good reviews. Definitely on my list of things to see. Will see if we can make it to the theater for this one.
Quote from: Simlasa;831831Yeah, just got back from it. It was dumb fun... barely any story beyond a slim excuse for (great) action sequences. Max himself seems a bystander to the ham-handed 'feminist' theme but whatever.
I mostly agree with your assessment but with a couple of caveats.
It's dumb fun, but it's exceedingly well-crafted dumb fun. Photography, soundtrack, stunts, visual effects, the caricatural villains, hell, it's the best dumb fun money can buy.
The feminist thing is indeed completely devoid of subtlety, but the genre is hardly rife with subtle writing (more's the pity), so it didn't really bother me in and of itself.
What
did bother me is that Max does fuck-all most of the movie. Imperator Furiosa (bad Latin grinds my gears) is the real protagonist and by all rights the movie should've been named after her (as I'm told the next movie will be). Even Nicholas Hoult's character does more and gets more developed than Max. Which is a shame because Tom Hardy is a really good actor.
Quote from: The Butcher;831944What did bother me is that Max does fuck-all most of the movie. Imperator Furiosa (bad Latin grinds my gears) is the real protagonist and by all rights the movie should've been named after her (as I'm told the next movie will be). Even Nicholas Hoult's character does more and gets more developed than Max. Which is a shame because Tom Hardy is a really good actor.
So its like the defunct Syfy Flash Gorden series?
Quote from: The Butcher;831944I mostly agree with your assessment but with a couple of caveats.
Yep, I agree with all of that.
I had no real complaints except for it not really being much to do with Max.
The 'feminism' isn't preachy, just simple-minded girls vs. boys stuff.
Quote from: Simlasa;832012Yep, I agree with all of that.
I had no real complaints except for it not really being much to do with Max.
The 'feminism' isn't preachy, just simple-minded girls vs. boys stuff.
Which for one thing isn't new so I'm baffled by all the praise its getting for being innovative in that regard but secondly, seems to be want many people want.
There is zero sermonizing, just some painted signs at the beginning, and honestly it seems, to me, more a personal thing between the villian and his wives than any kind of social statement. But I don't give even a tiny little fuck for your so called culture wars and am not in the grip of a moral panic, so whatever.
At one point, some women in the wasteland exhibit wariness of some men, which seems pretty sensible. Outside of the present bulshit internalized social climate none of this would even raise an eyebrow.
And Max does plenty. How much development does a guy with three movies already really need?
Quote from: Aos;832040But I don't give even a tiny little fuck for your so called culture wars and am not in the grip of a moral panic, so whatever.
I didn't ask you too or say you were. You liked the movie, that's great. There was no challenge or insult to you offered.
QuoteAnd Max does plenty. How much development does a guy with three movies already really need?
Eh, I think if its "Mad Max" movie the storyline should be pretty much about Max. If the film was just called "Fury Road" and focused on other characters with Max as, for instance, an Easter egg it wouldn't bug me so much. Feels a bit like a bait and switch or "I.N.O." thing but the messages have been mixed so I'll probably catch it later at home and cheaper not rush to the theater.
Quote from: Nexus;832042I didn't ask you too or say you were. You liked the movie, that's great. There was no challenge or insult to you offered.
Eh, I think if its "Mad Max" movie the storyline should be pretty much about Max. If the film was just called "Fury Road" and focused on other characters with Max as, for instance, an Easter egg it wouldn't bug me so much. Feels a bit like a bait and switch or "I.N.O." thing but the messages have been mixed so I'll probably catch it later at home and cheaper not rush to the theater.
Well, it really still is his movie. He is in virtually every scene. He literally has the same arc as in Road Warrior, though, just quicker and less tiresome.
After he gets free, he makes all the major decisons- including the one that shapes the climax. He saves everyone, including the so called main character. You haven't seen it, I get that, but there is no bait and switch and it is still Max's movie. The hysteria around this thing is weird.
hypersensitive beardos/ hairylegs are propbaly not a good source of data on ANY movie, imo
Also I liked Age of Ultron, which was suposedly Age of Mysogyny from some viewpoints.
I am the queen of summer!
Quote from: Aos;832049Well, it really still is his movie. He is in virtually every scene. He literally has the same arc as in Road Warrior, though, just quicker and less tiresome.
I guess he's in it about as much as any of the others... but it feels like he's less of a free agent, more reactive than proactive... and he never does get back in his car after the first bit. He just felt a bit gimped to me. Like the scene where he finds the shotgun.
It's still great fun and very well made.
Quote from: Simlasa;832099I guess he's in it about as much as any of the others... but it feels like he's less of a free agent, more reactive than proactive... and he never does get back in his car after the first bit. He just felt a bit gimped to me. Like the scene where he finds the shotgun.
It's still great fun and very well made.
Yeah... objectively speaking, Aos
is right, he
does get to do some stuff. But for some reason, he just feels... meh. I dunno, devoid of any particular motivation beyond immediate survival (except for the big plan at that sets off the final, glorious action sequence) or personality (beyond ZOMG vague traumatic flashbacks).
I may be misremembering but the old Mad Max movies had a more memorable protagonist. I intend to re-watch them soon enough.
Quote from: The Butcher;832101Yeah... objectively speaking, Aos is right, he does get to do some stuff. But for some reason, he just feels... meh. I dunno, devoid of any particular motivation beyond immediate survival (except for the big plan at that sets off the final, glorious action sequence) or personality (beyond ZOMG vague traumatic flashbacks).
I may be misremembering but the old Mad Max movies had a more memorable protagonist. I intend to re-watch them soon enough.
The first one is tiresome, slow and simply not very good.
Road Warrior Max is the same, really, maybe slightly more mercenary, but you don't even get much in the way of vague flashbacks.
I haven't seen Thunderdome in ages, though. I may rent it this evning.
As well as being the mastemind behind the final plan, Max also saves Furioso with a blood donation. As an aside- He rescues her there. That is the opposite of feminist, btw. The situation is as related by one of the characters, a family squabble, not a political allegory.
I think that the thing about this movie is that everything (including character development and setting detail) is delivered fast and hard. If you blink you miss it. Rather than lacking, I found it refreshingly sparse.
Really, also, I can't help but think it is the high quality of the movie that places under this microscope in the first place.
Quote from: Aos;832108I think that the thing about this movie is that everything (including character development and setting detail) is delivered fast and hard. If you blink you miss it. Rather than lacking, I found it refreshingly sparse.
Really, also, I can't help but think it is the high quality of the movie that places under this microscope in the first place.
Agreed on both counts.
I have been critical of high-speed, everything-at-once moviemaking in the past. Scenes like Arnie's Conan finding a sword in a tomb, or Clint's gun-for-hire
du jour trading glances before a showdown with some black hat or other, have become vanishingly rare. And I, a precocious old fart at 35, mourn their passing. Nobody seems to care about setting up atmosphere anymore.
But to be honest, yeah, MM:FR does a fine job of conveying atmosphere without long, drawn-out scenes by dint of lush, stunning visual production values. The boundless desert, the colossal sandstorm, the strange appearance and suicidal creed of the Warboys, the plight of the women themselves...
Damn, now I want to see the movie again. :o
Quote from: Aos;832108The first one is tiresome, slow and simply not very good.
Road Warrior Max is the same, really, maybe slightly more mercenary, but you don't even get much in the way of vague flashbacks.
I haven't seen Thunderdome in ages, though. I may rent it this evning.
I liked all three of the original movies. The first one is definitely slower than the others, but I rather enjoyed that aspect of it. Society hadn't totally collapsed like in the later films so the character has more normal moments.
Looking forward to the new one. Pretty much ignoring all the internet noise from both sides.
I saw the new "Mad Max" last night.
It's a great action movie.
It's more about Furiosa than Max, but who cares, it was fun.
It's not particularly plot rich anyway, it's just one long chase scene, which was awesome..
So if you like lots of action and not much else and don't mind throwing your brain out the door for 2 hours, then you'll enjoy this.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;832111I liked all three of the original movies. The first one is definitely slower than the others, but I rather enjoyed that aspect of it. Society hadn't totally collapsed like in the later films so the character has more normal moments.
Looking forward to the new one. Pretty much ignoring all the internet noise from both sides.
I enjoyed the shit out RW, MM isn't my cup of tea, really. I like the setting and the villians, however.
I liked all three of the original but I think The Road Warrior was my favorite. Mad Max was interesting in part because it took place in a world that hadn't quite fallen yet but it was circling the drain. But it was more of a personal story.
Quote from: Aos;832108As well as being the mastemind behind the final plan, Max also saves Furioso with a blood donation. As an aside- He rescues her there. That is the opposite of feminist, btw. The situation is as related by one of the characters, a family squabble, not a political allegory.
Don't get your what you're saying here.
Quote from: The Butcher;832110Damn, now I want to see the movie again. :o
I was actually thinking that while watching it... so much stuff going on... lush details and hints at the warlords society... plus the theater I saw it in seemed to have the volume set to where I could barely hear anything the characters said, not that they said much but...
Quote from: danskmacabre;832116I saw the new "Mad Max" last night.
It's a great action movie.
It's more about Furiosa than Max, but who cares, it was fun.
It's not particularly plot rich anyway, it's just one long chase scene, which was awesome..
So if you like lots of action and not much else and don't mind throwing your brain out the door for 2 hours, then you'll enjoy this.
All that being said, it "felt" less pointless than other "leave your brain out the door" -type films of the past two decades.
I felt that the chase scenes had a point, had stakes. I cared about even tertiary characters. I gave no fucks about anyone in the transformers movies or in just about any big superhero films of late. It's a big action film, sure, but it wasn't as stupid or cynically brainless as a Michael Bay film.
Goin' old-school now, The Night of the Hunter. A film so savaged by critics at the time that Charles Laughton never directed another movie. I've seen this film a few times before, but haven't looked at it for about 10 years, i reckon. I forgot how sermonising it is at times (although that can certainly be said to fit in with the theme of the film - good vs evil, truth vs lies). Hits you on the head with it, but is certainly a classic in my view. Pretty chilling, and Mitchum beats his Cape Fear baddy with this one easily.
Quote from: Aos;832040There is zero sermonizing, just some painted signs at the beginning, and honestly it seems, to me, more a personal thing between the villian and his wives than any kind of social statement.
One facet of this multi-faceted film is that the Wives, having been horribly brutalized and exploited by men, blame all men for not only their plight but the plight of the world at large. (It's not just the slogans. They literally say this when they first encounter Max.)
Over the course of the film, Max changes their perspective. Not by arguing with them, but through the demonstration of his actions. This growth and progression is shown happening gradually in response to several key actions. (One notable example is Capable, the red-headed wife, and her relationship with Nux. That's not a relationship she would have been capable of having with him during the first 15 minutes of the film and it, in turn, transforms Nux, whose actions also contribute to the ongoing transformation of the Wives.)
One way of tracking this progression is by looking at the goals of the wives: At the beginning, they seek escape to an Amazonian society where men are largely or entirely forbidden. They transition to the idea that Max and, later, Nux should be allowed into that society. Then they turn their original on its head (while literally
turning around) to return to a society of men-and-women (which they will transform from its tyranny of patriarchy to a more enlightened cooperation).
People are claiming that the message of the film is "men are evil" have literally missed the entire point of the film.
Quote from: Godfather Punk;831637Mad Max - Fury Road is everything you'd want from a Mad Max movie, and even a little more. Just don't expect a lot of depth.
On a similar note, the film actually has a
ton of depth. It's just not going to hand it to on a silver platter. It's going to ask you to actually engage your brain. (Although if you don't want to engage your brain, the pretty explosions are more than entertaining in their own right.)
We watched It Follows last night... about a sexually transmitted haunting. Pretty good... subtle... and strange in the corners for reasons that remain unclear. It seems to be set in a slightly alternate universe... or something.
Like Dead Girl I think there's more to it than comes clear on first viewing.
Quote from: Simlasa;832334We watched It Follows last night... about a sexually transmitted haunting. Pretty good... subtle... and strange in the corners for reasons that remain unclear. It seems to be set in a slightly alternate universe... or something.
Like Dead Girl I think there's more to it than comes clear on first viewing.
I've been really curious about this film for awhile. Missed it in theaters though.
Did a review of the movie Green Snake (a 1993 Tsui Hark movie that deals with the same source material as Sorcerer and the White Snake): http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/wuxia-inspiration-green-snake.html
Quote from: Simlasa;832334We watched It Follows last night... about a sexually transmitted haunting. Pretty good... subtle... and strange in the corners for reasons that remain unclear. It seems to be set in a slightly alternate universe... or something.
Like Dead Girl I think there's more to it than comes clear on first viewing.
I recently saw
Deadgirl. Very strange movie but I thought it was pretty good. What did you notice on a second viewing?
Quote from: Nexus;832960What did you notice on a second viewing?
More of the metaphor/myth stuff going on... the dog (Cerebus? Anubis?) guarding some path to the underworld, the plant growing up through the floor in the darkness... that Deadgirl was using the boys and more in control of the situation than it seems at first glance... that she isn't a 'zombie' in the ordinary sense... more likely some imprisoned spirit/demon (Lilith?).
It Follows is interesting in the decision that there should be no cell phones or internet... but there is that odd clamshell device and a cell phone is used in the prelude segment.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;832259One facet of this multi-faceted film is that the Wives, having been horribly brutalized and exploited by men, blame all men for not only their plight but the plight of the world at large. (It's not just the slogans. They literally say this when they first encounter Max.)
Over the course of the film, Max changes their perspective. Not by arguing with them, but through the demonstration of his actions. This growth and progression is shown happening gradually in response to several key actions. (One notable example is Capable, the red-headed wife, and her relationship with Nux. That's not a relationship she would have been capable of having with him during the first 15 minutes of the film and it, in turn, transforms Nux, whose actions also contribute to the ongoing transformation of the Wives.)
One way of tracking this progression is by looking at the goals of the wives: At the beginning, they seek escape to an Amazonian society where men are largely or entirely forbidden. They transition to the idea that Max and, later, Nux should be allowed into that society. Then they turn their original on its head (while literally turning around) to return to a society of men-and-women (which they will transform from its tyranny of patriarchy to a more enlightened cooperation).
People are claiming that the message of the film is "men are evil" have literally missed the entire point of the film.
On a similar note, the film actually has a ton of depth. It's just not going to hand it to on a silver platter. It's going to ask you to actually engage your brain. (Although if you don't want to engage your brain, the pretty explosions are more than entertaining in their own right.)
Agreed, especially on your final point. When I saw the "not a lot of depth" comment, I was uncertain I'd seen the same movie.
Quote from: Simlasa;833196More of the metaphor/myth stuff going on... the dog (Cerebus? Anubis?) guarding some path to the underworld, the plant growing up through the floor in the darkness... that Deadgirl was using the boys and more in control of the situation than it seems at first glance... that she isn't a 'zombie' in the ordinary sense... more likely some imprisoned spirit/demon (Lilith?).
That is true. The dog was odd and it was so prominently featured. The lingering shot of the plant did raise questions. "deadgirl's" nature was a question too. I agree there definitely seemed to be more going on than was immediately apparent and "deadgirl" was probably more aware than it might seem. Which brings in the ending into question...
The reviews I found didn't seem to touch on this too much or called some of these aspects out as mistakes or plot holes (which I guess its entirely possible they could be...). But I think the critics decrying he film as misogynistic were taking a very shallow read. It depicted some very vile misogynistic behavior but it was glorified, encouraged or praised. If anything it showed a very dangerous, dark side of male sexuality given free reign.
The proposed sequel sounded like it would have been interesting and possibly as controversial.
Quote
It Follows is interesting in the decision that there should be no cell phones or internet... but there is that odd clamshell device and a cell phone is used in the prelude segment.
Now I want to see this even more.
The Babadook. Interesting movie actually. Great performances and zero budget can still a good horror make. I was about to say that the social interaction of the two lead actors was the main horror of the film, but of course it is. You start off with great sympathy for the mother, then end up having great sympathy for the child. Breakdowns upon breakdowns.
The Amazing Spider Man. The re-boot of the franchise. I thought it was pretty good actually. OK, Parker isn't quite the geeky nerd he is in the first series, but that's a good thing IMO. Spends too much time out of his mask when he's supposed to be in his costume, and tells too many people who he is for my liking, but overall i found it pretty entertaining and not the bust i was half-expecting.
Tomorrow Land: poorly made, muddled and ham-fists. It is also amusing as to how a movie with such overstated elitist affecations could be such an absolute bungle.
My favorite thing is the end; well you have to take it context with the rest of the movie, which is about special science people who are the best people, really- better than you, anyway, and who happen to be universally... Wait for it... White. If you walked out five minutes before the end, you might feel a little uncomfortable with this movie about white sciency saviors restoring all hope to the earth- but wait, the brown people are all in the ending, getting the torch passed to them by cute inspirational child robots, and untroubled by white folk or at least white dudes, so it's cool.
I think some executive sat throigh a test screening and pointed out the elitist messege of the movie and the fact that its wall to wall honkies and was like, "motherfuckers, this movie is whiter than a clan rally, put a a black woman chemist and an asian street musician in the ending or something!"
I think Brad Bird needs to think a little less about super special people, maybe.
Tonight we watched the new Poltergeist and I'm apparently alone in liking it better than the original. The original always felt like an inconsistent mess to me... scary tripping into funny falling over charming... back to scary and then EPIC.
Almost as if two different people directed it...
The new one cuts to the chase and remains focused. The bits that were supposed to be scary are scarier... there's barely any schmaltz... and the performances are solid if not given quite as much time to establish the friendly intimacy the original did so well at. The best parts of the original can't be beat but I think this new one is better as a whole.
It's still not really scary at all, it's a haunted house movie for kids, but at least it stays on target.
Caught that seldom-seen gem Don't Be Afraid of the Dark for the first time in years the other day. Remember it as being an effective little creepy film from back in the day, and still has a certain atmosphere to it, even if the vegy-pygmy demons are more hilarious than scary. Not to be confused with the Katie Holmes remake, which, while that film also has some things worth recommending, doesn't have the same neurotic vibe to it.
Quote from: One Horse Town;835677Not to be confused with the Katie Holmes remake, which, while that film also has some things worth recommending, doesn't have the same neurotic vibe to it.
The new one was distractingly over-produced... colored filters over everything and the sets were so baroque... it was a decent fairy tale but the original had more familiar looking people and surroundings. It was a product of its time and turned on the setup of a woman whose husband ignores her or condescends to her at every turn... some echoes of The Yellow Wallpaper.
Tonight I watched the excellent old wuxia film
A Touch of Zen... that Brendan had mentioned in his wuxia article and turned out to be a classic I'd never seen. Great stuff that has a slow build up the the action initially. Fun characters and I liked the idea of a 'haunted' fortress inhabited by various poor families who can't afford rent elsewhere. I need to remember that next time I'm laying out a dungeon... 'oh, no... no monsters or treasures here... just us peasants'.
The other night I saw
Black Belt Jones in HD on TCM. This brawl in a dark room is a textbook example of the difficulties of fighting in the dark:
LINK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bthp5UBf0TU)QuoteWHACK!
Pinky: Who the fuck hit me?
Jones: Batman, motherfucker!
:rotfl:
I'll make a point of watching a Christopher Lee film over the weekend, i think. The Devil Rides Out is a particular favourite, or maybe i'll go with Dracula has Risen from the Grave.
RIP Mr. Lee.
Something I just heard but its may be old news. Chris Heimsworth of "Thor" fame will be in the Ghostbusters remake. He'll have the Janine role, plays the receptionist for the team.
Quote from: One Horse Town;836082I'll make a point of watching a Christopher Lee film over the weekend, i think. The Devil Rides Out is a particular favourite, or maybe i'll go with Dracula has Risen from the Grave.
RIP Mr. Lee.
I just watched
Serial a few months ago, where Christopher Lee plays the leader of an all-gay motorcycle gang in Marin recruited by Martin Mull to save his daughter from a cult. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzXvB2aPqIk)
Another classic is
The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes.
Turner Classic Movies will be playing a marathon of Christopher Lee movies June 22: (http://www.tcm.com/this-month/movie-news.html?id=1098037&name=TCM-Remembers-Christopher-Lee-1922-2015-)QuoteTCM Remembers Christopher Lee (1922-2015)
Turner Classic Movies Pays Tribute to Christopher Lee on Monday, June 22 with the following festival of films. This program will replace the previously scheduled movies for that day so please take note.
The new schedule for Monday, June 22 will be:
6:15 AM The Mummy (1959)
8:00 AM The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
9:30 AM Horror of Dracula (1958)
11:00 AM Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966)
12:45 PM Dracula Has Risen From the Grave (1969)
2:30 PM Horror Express (1972)
4:00 PM The Three Musketeers (1972)
6:00 PM The Four Musketeers (1975)
Self-described with typical good humor as "tall, dark and gruesome," Christopher Lee was a remarkably prolific leading man and character actor whose six decades-long film career made him among the world's most popular and recognizable performers. He languished in bit roles for almost a decade before achieving instant fame as an elegant and sexually charged Count Dracula in "Horror of Dracula" (1958) for England's legendary Hammer Studios. Its success led to almost two decades of fright fare, during which he brought elegance and devilish charm to some of the most memorable figures in horror, including the Frankenstein Monster, the Mummy, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Fu Manchu. In the 1970s, he grew weary of the typecasting and successfully distanced himself from the genre with roles in Richard Lester's "Three Musketeers" (1973), "Airport '77" (1977), "1941" (1979) and even a deftly comic appearance on "Saturday Night Live" (NBC, 1975- ). He remained exceptionally active into the 1980s and 1990s in American and international productions and television, and enjoyed a spectacular third act with significant parts in Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hollow" (1998), Episodes II and III of the "Star Wars" saga, and Peter Jackson's epic "Lord of the Rings" trilogy (2001-03). An icon to several generations of fans and filmmakers, Lee's acting career showed no signs of slowing in the slightest, even as he neared his ninth decade.
(Biography courtesy of TCMDb)
Quote from: Simlasa;835749Tonight I watched the excellent old wuxia film A Touch of Zen... that Brendan had mentioned in his wuxia article and turned out to be a classic I'd never seen. Great stuff that has a slow build up the the action initially. Fun characters and I liked the idea of a 'haunted' fortress inhabited by various poor families who can't afford rent elsewhere. I need to remember that next time I'm laying out a dungeon... 'oh, no... no monsters or treasures here... just us peasants'.
Good movie. Lots of subtle things going on. I recommend watching Come Drink With Me and the Original Dragon Gate Inn if you haven't seen them (done by the same director). Question: how was the video quality of the copy you watched? I've never been able to find a clean version of it (always looks pretty faded).
Did a review of Zu: Warriors from the Magic Mountain:
http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/zu-warriors-from-magic-mountain-wuxia.html
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;836652Question: how was the video quality of the copy you watched? I've never been able to find a clean version of it (always looks pretty faded).
I thought it looked decent. Some of the night scenes were kind of dark but I didn't have any trouble discerning the action. I didn't think it looked faded.
I've seen Come Drink With Me multiple times but never Dragon Gate Inn.
Friday night we watched the newish Journey to the West, which got pretty silly in places but was fun. It's actually a prequel to the Journey to the West stories I'm familiar with so I was confused for a bit about why they were using that title.
Saturday morning I continued the trend and watched The Four... which struck me as a sort of wuxia take on X-Men. Lots of fun but I think I want the next one I watch to be a bit less FX-laden. Less overtly superpowered... more street level like Touch of Zen (not that that ending was 'street level'... but the rest was, relatively speaking).
Quote from: Simlasa;836743Friday night we watched the newish Journey to the West, which got pretty silly in places but was fun. It's actually a prequel to the Journey to the West stories I'm familiar with so I was confused for a bit about why they were using that title.
I think this is one of the best movies in recent years. Everything about that movie worked for me (the plot, the effects, the humor, the action, the supernatural elements). It is silly but it is Stephen Chow film so that is pretty typical of his work (if you see the films A Chinese Odyssey that has a bit of slap stick too, which is a version of Journey to the West that he stars in).
QuoteSaturday morning I continued the trend and watched The Four... which struck me as a sort of wuxia take on X-Men. Lots of fun but I think I want the next one I watch to be a bit less FX-laden. Less overtly superpowered... more street level like Touch of Zen (not that that ending was 'street level'... but the rest was, relatively speaking).
That was definitely a blend of wuxia and X-men (They even have a character who is in a wheel chair with psychic powers if I recall). If you haven't seen it, you might want to check out Brotherhood of Blades (2014). It is similar in a lot of ways to the Four, but without the whole X-Men thing going on.
Quote from: Simlasa;836743I thought it looked decent. Some of the night scenes were kind of dark but I didn't have any trouble discerning the action. I didn't think it looked faded.
.
Can you tell me what version it is (I'd like to pick up a clearer version).
Rush, not sure how much they embellished the story for the film, but a pretty good movie about the rivalry between Formula 1 drivers James Hunt and Nikki Lauda during the 1976 (or was '77?) season. I remember it pretty well from the time, so know that most of the story is at least based on fact.
The best movie I saw last year was either Nightcrawler (with Jake Gyllenhaal) or Whiplash (the jazz drummer movie). If you haven't watched those yet, then try to do so. Both very recommended.
Quote from: One Horse Town;837780Rush, not sure how much they embellished the story for the film, but a pretty good movie about the rivalry between Formula 1 drivers James Hunt and Nikki Lauda during the 1976 (or was '77?) season. I remember it pretty well from the time, so know that most of the story is at least based on fact.
Yeah, good movie. Maybe a bit shallow, but it grabbed my attention and didn't let go for the entire film. Recommended too.
Quote from: One Horse Town;837780Rush, not sure how much they embellished the story for the film, but a pretty good movie about the rivalry between Formula 1 drivers James Hunt and Nikki Lauda during the 1976 (or was '77?) season. I remember it pretty well from the time, so know that most of the story is at least based on fact.
Well, for legal reasons Hunt doesn't sleep with Stevie Nicks before the Canadian GP.
I saw Kingsman: The Secret Service, which is like a really extraordinarily violent Roger Moore era Bond film, it's a bit of a guilty pleasure.
Ah, Trancers, how i missed thee. Had a crappy copy taped off the tv from the late 80s and now have witnessed its greatness in HD. Really cheesy movie but i've always liked it even though you can carbon date it by the size of the shoulder-pads.
Dry hair's for squids!
I've never seen any of the sequels though. I think they got up to 6! Helen Hunt made it to number 3. I'll have to track them down.
Quote from: One Horse Town;838734Ah, Trancers, how i missed thee. Had a crappy copy taped off the tv from the late 80s and now have witnessed its greatness in HD. Really cheesy movie but i've always liked it even though you can carbon date it by the size of the shoulder-pads.
Dry hair's for squids!
I've never seen any of the sequels though. I think they got up to 6! Helen Hunt made it to number 3. I'll have to track them down.
I remember that movie. Always felt conflicted over the ending.
Just watched Fury. Very good movie. Wasn't super realistic, but very enjoyable.
Just saw Terminator Genisys. Surprisingly good and I enjoyed it allot. One of the better series reboots, IMO. Not the same thing all over again while being an homage to the original that honored it. Kyle Reese was more prominent while not overshadowing the protagonist Sarah Conner. Arnold was good as well and brought a surprising amount of humor to his role.
Runaway Tom Selleck and his mustache take on evil Gene Simmons and his low-budget spider robots! Forgot all about this movie. Saw it years ago. Decent little film for the B movie fan.
Quote from: One Horse Town;842419Runaway Tom Selleck and his mustache take on evil Gene Simmons and his low-budget spider robots! Forgot all about this movie. Saw it years ago. Decent little film for the B movie fan.
Loved the heat seeking bullets. I'm 89 percent sure GURPS used it for their Smart and Genius guns. The idea of a police department that deals with out of control robots is pretty gameable. A.D. Police would make good inspiration for it too.
Quote from: danbuter;839387Just watched Fury. Very good movie. Wasn't super realistic, but very enjoyable.
It deserves extra points for being the first war movie to depict tracer rounds fairly accurately -especially the colors.
Did a review of That Fiery Girl: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/that-fiery-girl-wuxia-inspiration.html
Saw In Search of General Tso on Netflix. If you enjoy General Tso's Chicken it is worth checking out. Followed up with An Honest Liar, which was pretty good too. Both are documentaries. General Tso's is basically a search for the original General Tso's chicken but also a bit of a history of Chinese Restaurants in the US. An Honest Liar is about the Amazing Randi.
I just finished The Way Back, about prisoners in a Siberian gulag escaping and walking all the way to India; and Rio Lobo, a movie that demonstrates that just as James Michener wrote the same book over and over, Howard Hawks made the same western over and over. Rio Lobo, Rio Bravo and El Dorado are more or less the same movie. All three are fun films, though I think El Dorado was the best of the three.
First up Christmas Evil which is quite amusing in a kind of cringey way. Certainly different, but pretty slow and plodding. Then more up to date, X-Men Days of Future Past. I watched the timer in this movie as much as i did for Christmas Evil. Dunno, but the newer x-men films just don't do it for me. The atmosphere just isn't very x-meny. Hopefully, now that Scott is back, we'll see some more decent Cyclops action in future - there's a character badly miss-used by the franchise.
Did a couple of reviews of documentaries I watched on Netflix this week. Reposting from my blog:
SUPERMENSCH: THE LEGEND OF SHEP GORDON
Released in 2013, Supermensch was directed by Mike Myers and Beth Aala. Before watching it, I had no idea who Shep Gordon was. The only reason I checked this one out was because of the title (I was curious who was worthy of the moniker 'supermensch') and Mike Myer's involvement.
The film opens very promisingly with a plethora of celebrities from Sylvester Stallone to Michael Douglas to Alice Cooper basically saying "what a guy". Then Shep Gordon speaks. He looks a bit nerdy, with receding curly hair and glasses, but then he says:
"I instituted a set or rules. And one was, when I was signing an artist I would sit 'em down, take my glasses off, look 'em in the eyes and say: You need to really listen to me. And listen seriously, this isn't a joke. If I do my job perfectly, I will probably kill you."
This grabbed my attention right away. Shep Gordon is basically a manager, and this is what he says to every artist he begins working with. From this I expected to see some serious rising star horror stories, instead we get a much different film. Supermensch is really just a biography of Shep Gordon, with the first half of the film focusing on his friendship and business relationship with Alice Cooper. The second half of the movie is about other artists he's managed (Teddy Pendergrass, Anne Murray, etc) and about his semi-retired life in Hawaii. The most entertaining portion of the documentary is the part dealing with Alice Cooper. In my view, that would have been a better movie: just make it all about Alice Cooper and Shep Gordon. The two were apparently really close and continue to be friends, and the stories about their early days are just fascinating (for example we learn that Shep Gordon was the one who placed the infamous chicken on stage at the Toronto Rock and Roll Revival). That part of the movie really held my interest. It was also interesting to see how he dealt with other acts and I think that could have been explored a bit as well. What I didn't enjoy as much was when the film shifted to his place in the culture of celebrity, where he sort of functions as a social hub and protector. Don't get me wrong, he seems like nice guy and probably one of the better rich and famous folks out there. But there is something about listening to celebrities talk about exclusive parties, villas, playboy mansion excursions, that feels very out of touch in this day and age.
We also see a bit of his personal drama and learn about his relationship with the Dalai Lama. I found the exploration of his marriages interesting, but his spirituality was something I really didn't have interest in. When celebrities and the rich and famous talk about God, Karma, or the meaning of life, I have a lot of trouble taking them seriously because so often their beliefs are clearly self-serving or an outgrowth of a skewed point of view. It is just a little hard to watch someone talk about the virtues of Buddhism or Jesus from the marble floors of their mansion without rolling your eyes just a little bit.
Still this was a good movie, with some moving developments later in Shep Gordon's life. I just couldn't help but be turned off a little by the celebrity interviews in the second half. I do recommend it, since it still manages to engage even when it annoys slightly. There are also some genuinely funny moments.
LOST SOUL: THE DOOMED JOURNEY OF RICHARD STANLEY'S ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU
In high school one of my favorite books was The Island of Doctor Moreau by H.G. Wells (I was a big H.G. Wells fan in general). I also was a fan of the 1932 adaptation with Charles Laughton. When they announced that a new Island of Doctor Moreau film was being made, I was beyond excited. For me this was big news. When word spread that Marlon Brando was going to be in it, that just clinched it for me. Then I went to see Dr. Moreau with my friends. I wanted to like it; I think I spent about a day after trying to convince myself it was a good movie. I never hated it as much as the general public did, I could still find something to like about it here or there because I enjoyed the book so much. But this was indeed a terrible film, one with numerous cringe-worthy moments and an overall tone that just doesn't work. It was so bad that everyone just agrees on that fact (at least, judging by its freshness rating on Rotten Tomatoes, 77% of the population concurs).
So I was curious when I saw Lost Soul listed in the documentary section of Netflix. Released in 2014 and directed by David Gregory the movie attempts to explain why The Island of Doctor Moreau became an iconically bad film.
It begins with Richard Stanley, a promising young director in the early 90s. He was originally hired to direct and write the movie by New Line Cinema. He was artsy and experimental, known for his interesting use of color in his previous movies Dust Devil and Hardware. After some cast changes (Bruce Willis and James Woods were originally to appear in the movie) and increasing tension between Val Kilmer and Stanley, the producers started to get nervous. There are conflicting accounts in the documentary, and it doesn't look like a 'two sides to every story' situation. It appears like he was either incompetent and needed to be replaced, or he upset the wrong people and got booted for that reason. Whatever was going on, there was clearly a pro-Stanley camp and an anti-Stanley camp emerging during the early stages of production. Ultimately he was replaced by John Frankenheimer. As presented in the documentary, Frankenheimer didn't particularly care for the project and was basically there because he was consistent and good at managing difficult actors. With Brando and Kilmer testing everyone's patience, he seemed like a good choice at the time.
What is fascinating is how much more bizarre the story of the film's production is than the film itself (and it is a very weird film if you've ever seen it).
Some backstory is important here. When Stanley was still involved in the movie he met with Brando to talk about him playing Doctor Moreau and the two really hit it off (at least according to Stanley's account). He also earned the loyalty of a few other key cast members (in particular Fairuza Balk and Marco Hofschneider) and the crew. Before filming began, Brando's daughter committed suicide and by the time he arrived at location, Stanley had already been fired.
When New Line fired Stanley, the agreement was he would still get paid but he had to stay a certain distance from the production. It was filmed in North Queensland Australia and New Line bought him a plane ticket back home to make sure he didn't cause any trouble. However he never got on the plane and instead it seems he just went and lived in the forest somewhere. He eventually snuck back onto the set and disguised himself as a dogman extra so he could see how badly the movie was going (he had heard rumors that his script was being butchered). Apparently he appears in the movie as a dogman.
Many of the things critics attacked the film for, were products of Brando's antics on set. He famously made a number of questionable decisions for his character and refused any suggestion to do otherwise, like wearing white face paint or placing an ice bucket on his head as a cooling hat. His most well known contribution to the movie was his miniature sidekick, played by Nelson de la Rosa. Originally De la Rosa had a much smaller background part in the movie, but when Brando spoke fake Spanish to him and he pretended to understand, Brando insisted that he must appear in every scene beside him, saying de la Rosa was the star. The documentary suggests, though interviews with other actors, that Brando was deliberately sabotaging the movie because he was angry that they fired Stanley. It is also just possible he didn't care anymore and that his daughter's death, combined with his son's arrest, may have its toll. Either way, it is clear he was intentionally messing with the new Director, John Frankenheimer, who pretty much let him get away with anything. I do think there is something to the idea that he did these things out of a sense of loyalty to Stanley, because his behavior on Moreau, was particularly outrageous and it seemed he was knowingly damaging the movie's potential success (at least based on what others reported).
Lost Soul is sympathetic to Stanley's point of view, and I can't say one way or another if it is accurate. It is certainly intriguing and if true, it explains an awful lot. It also raises a lot of interesting questions like what the movie would have been had they kept Stanley on. I'm not really sure how the movie would have turned with him as the director instead of Frankenheimer, but it does appear that he at least had a clear vision, so I think it would have been a more striking movie. For all we know it may still have been terrible or perhaps more terrible (I guess one can't totally exclude the possibility that Frankenheimer elevated the project from an even worse state). However the documentary does ring true and I think you really can't get much worse than what New Line ended up releasing in 1996, so I am inclined to think Stanley would have produced a more interesting final product.
Worth watching, especially for those of us who remember the release of the 1996 Island of Doctor Moreau.
Just watched Baahubali - the new Indian sword and sandals blockbuster. It has some awesome action scenes, sets, battles and costumes. It tears ahead at breakneck pace and seems to try to top itself at every turn. All that plus a credible version of an ancient fantasy India and Bollywood style dance numbers. If you have a theater that plays Indian films nearby I totally recommend seeing it on the big screen.
Just watched Pixels, tonight.
Not great and not bad. Recommendation is to wait for it to be released. Some scenes/things are a bit forced with the comedy. And you won't see much stuff-funnier beyond the trailer.
Now one of the landmark second generation Italian horror flicks. Dario Argento's Suspiria. Noted for being a critic's delight, what with a semi-coherent plot, ridiculous set-piece murders, and accusations of misogyny, it has a certain reputation. What is apparent is that it's a beautifully crafted and framed film with lighting effects and cinematography that can be seen as an extension of Mario Bava's work (indeed Bava aided Argento on the first of the Three Mother's Trilogy - Inferno. The lamentable Mother of Tears is the last entry in the tirlogy, made some 20 odd years after Suspiria).
Where this film improves on Bava is in the remarkable score by Goblin. A synth, prog-rock band that will be familiar to Argento fans. Their work on this film is astoundingly effective and adds immeasurably to the viewing experience.
If you can find an un-cut copy (and you should be able to in this day and age) treat yourself to the delirium inducing classic that is Suspiria.
The only thing more frightening than the first 12 minutes of Suspiria is the last 82
If you liked suspiria, you might like Santa Sangre, though it's way more artsy and much less scary (for me). It's produced by Argento's brother, and directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ3x6YgsacY
It's got references to various movies like Suspiria and even Freaks.
Spoiler for the Freaks reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhz6hqiiqz4
Every so often, SonyHD dips into its library for classic Randolph Scott "B" westerns and the latest was a classic:
Buchanan Rides Alone (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFFO3qe4Ic)
(http://www.lassothemovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Buchanan-Rides-Alone-1958.jpg)
This movie is pure camp, with Scott, Craig Stevens and a very young L.Q. Jones being the only actors anyone has possibly heard of, as well as the only actors who play it as though they realize just how hokey the movie is. Everyone else plays it straight, especially Tol Avery as the melodramatic Simon Agry, the bigshot who owns and runs a little border town in California, along with his brothers Lou and Amos, the sheriff and hotel manager, respectively.
Randolph Scott plays Buchanan, a hired gun who has just earned enough fighting in the civil war in Mexico ($2000) to buy a ranch in West Texas he has always wanted. For some reason, he chose to return to US soil by way of California. Buchanan finds out right away how the Agry family prospers in such a hole-in-the-wall town: By shaking down everyone who passes through. Hotel room for the night? Ten dollars. One meal at the saloon? Ten dollars. One bottle of watered-down booze? Ten dollars. The locals aren't terribly friendly either, which leads Buchanan to quip "This sure is a ten dollar town!"
Simon Agry's hooligan son comes riding into town on a lathered horse, as though being chased. He has scratches of his face and immediately starts trying to start trouble with Buchanan, who decks him. As Buchanan is leaving, a young Mexican man comes riding into town, leaps from his horse, enters the saloon and calls out Roy Agry. Roy, being a coward, tries to use the bartender as cover while shooting but Juan de la Vega is too fast and kills him. Roy's uncle (the sheriff) arrives with deputies to arrest Juan. While they are beating him up, Buchanan intervenes and is also arrested and charged as an accessory.
The sheriff is all set to lynch both men, but his brother, Judge Simon Agry intervenes. Not because he or anyone else gives a shit about justice for Roy, but because Juan de la Vega is the son of a wealthy landowner in Mexico and Simon thinks he can squeeze a huge ransom from Juan's father in exchange for letting him go. Buchanan is cleared: even the ridiculous kangaroo court held in a saloon can't find him guilty (When asked why he punched one of the deputies beating up de la Vega, he deadpans: "I figured it was the only thing I could do in this town that wouldn't cost me $10"). It ends up costing him much more -$1990 more- because the sheriff stole Buchanan's money and has him escorted out of town by his two flunkies: Lafe (a stooge) and Pecos (a West Texan like Buchanan).
The rest of the movie is full of twists and turns -some of which are quite laughable. All in all, Buchanan Rides Alone is eighty minutes of good, dumb fun.
Made the wife watch Top Gun with me on Netflix!
RIP Roddy Piper. Although i'm not a wrestling fan, he did appear in such cult classics as They Live and Hell Comes to Frogtown. So i might just watch one of those this weekend in tribute to him.
Quote from: danbuter;719135I watched the Solomon Kane movie. It was actually pretty good. Much better than expected, after all the complaining I'd heard about it on forums.
Just watched it based on the comments here. It was pretty fun. Humble and unpretentious, with some surprising effort put into the themes if not loyalty to the source material.
Bavathon!
So, i finally got to see the film that supposedly (along with Blood and Black Lace) started the Giallo genre. Where B&BL set the blueprint for the gloved killer that we don't see until the end of the film, The Girl Who Knew Too Much started the genre convention of an American abroad making their own inquiries into a series of murders. Of course, being a Bava film it's not that simple. B&BL is largely played straight and is quite mean in its violence, whilst TGWKTM is much more playful, with a strand of black humour throughout and an ending that will either infuriate or amuse depending on your mood.
Made partly as an homage to Hitchcock (the title being a subversion of The Man Who Knew Too Much), Bava unwittingly started the giallo genre that went on for a good 15 years after this film was made. Watch this film along with B&BL and you can see pretty much all the giallo conventions laid out for the films that followed.
I recommend The Girl Who Knew Too Much to those who like thrillers and are interested in the history of the Italian giallo genre.
Has anyone else mentioned Perfume: Story of a Murderer.
It has Dustin Hoffman and Alan Rickman in it, and truly awesome costuming (set in 19th century France, or something like).
Awesome, weird, movie, well worth it.
Another good one is "Come Back to Me" also on Netflix. It starts really slow, and there's one thing about it that makes it surprisingly credible for a horror flick...but I can't say what it is else I might ruin the movie. PM if you wanna know. ;)
I just binge-watched Broken Trail, a western mini-series with Robert Duvall and Thomas Haden Church.
(http://images.kino.de/flbilder/max07/auto07/auto30/07300071/b640x600.jpg)
Duvall plays the same flinty codger he's been playing since Lonesome Dove. In this story, the flinty codger has inherited his sister's ranch. He doesn't want the ranch, so he sells it and uses the money to buy up a bunch of horses in Oregon. He plans to sell them to a British Army buyer (who needs horses for the Boer War) and turn a large profit.
His other goal is to set thing right with his sister's alienated son by bringing him along for a share of the profits and possibly a new start in life. Both men are good guys, but crotchety as hell. They want to mind their own business but in several cases they just can't.
Along the way from Oregon to the Canadian border, they pick up an Irish fiddler who's being roughed up in a saloon. Needless to say, the two horse wranglers won't tolerate a decent guy being bullied, so they help him and bring him along.
Next they find a total scumbag driving a wagon filled with five Chinese girls. Even though he's creepy as hell and obviously trafficking the girls against their will to be used as fuck toys by miners and cowboys, they agree to make camp with him. He plies them with booze that has been drugged and robs them blind while they're unconscious. Only he overlooked the Colt revolver the nephew had under his sleeping bag. Pissed off and heeled, the nephew takes off after the slave trader, who has taken one of the girls with him.
What follows is the three horse wranglers plus the Chinese girls getting into one scrape after another, though the show has a very leisurely pace. There is not only the awkward attempts to communicate (they don't speak each others' languages), but culture shock as well. Adding more complications are the way the nephew and the oldest Chinese girl are slowly but surely becoming very fond of each other, and the uncle treating the others (especially the youngest, who is a child) like the grandchildren he never had.
But the flesh peddler who paid for the girls isn't about to just let them go, so some real thugs are brought in to bring them to the whorehouse against their will.
How the uncle and nephew cope with all these obstacles (and each other) is worth watching six hours of slow, deliberate character study in the scenic valleys of the Pacific Northwest, and I can't recommend Broken Trail enough.
(http://s18.postimg.org/gqeqlphkp/Broken_Trail2006c03.png)
RPG (2013)
Rutger Hauer is a rich old man in a cheeseball dystopian future (Everything looks like the set of a 90's Michael Ninn porno). He gives up his fortune to get his brainwaves put into the body of a young man, but then must fight and kill other seniors-turned-twentysomethings in a gladiatorial death match to keep his new body. A "Gamekeeper" explains that RPG stands for "Real Playing Game".
A stupid and utterly nonsensical Battle Royale / Hunger Games wannabe, as boring as watching paint dry, and then painting over it and watching the second coat dry. The DVD box brags "Made in Portugal!" but outside of the green-screen stuff with Rutger at the beginning the whole damn thing takes place on one single weed-covered vacant lot that could have been behind a trailer park in Boise. The pits.
UNIVERSAL SOLDIER: DAY OF RECKONING (2012)
Why do I watch so many cheap-ass, piece-of-crap B-movies? Because man cannot live by slick Hollywood product alone (You need some grit in your diet or else you get the scoots), and because every once in a great while you find an oddball diamond in the shit-pile. This movie, believe it or eat it, is one such crazy diamond. It's nasty, weird, homo-erotic, extremely violent, and about five or six times better than any movie with "Universal Soldier" in the title has any right to be.
It starts right off with a bald Jean-Claude Van Damme ordering his goons to shoot a guy's wife and little girl in their faces in front of him and then just gets darker and crazier from there, moving on to a bloodbath shootout in a brothel where the leader of the Universal Soldiers is paying a drugged-out hooker to pound nails into him! All these damaged, violent freaks turn out to be clones, mass-produced genetically-engineered super-soldiers who have escaped from government control and are attempting to rebel against their masters. Dolph Lungren -whose face has been transformed by age into something that looks like it was carved out of granite- runs an underground (Literally) "Church of Eventualism" that's like Fight Club as directed by David Croenberg. There's an incredible brawl in a sporting goods store in the middle of the movie with the combatants beating each other with aluminum baseball bats, bar-bells, etc. You watch a lot of totally average action movies that attempt nothing risky, and you feel like you're about to give up on the genre, and then you see one inmates-taking-over-the-asylum effort like this or Crank 2 and your faith is restored.
WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD (2014)
The good news: This Australian effort is one of the better of the flood of low-budget zombie flicks that have swamped us over the past few years. The bad news: That's a really, really fucking low bar to jump. Still, it has a cool Tim Bradstreet-esque gasmask-fetish road warrior aesthetic to it that will bring a flood of nostalgia to anyone who gamed in the 90's or has a copy of Deadlands: Hell on Earth on their bookshelf. Actress Bianca Bradey spends most of time onscreen gagged and has to act almost exclusively with her eyes (Her defiant face makes for a striking image). A dumb, fun time-waster best enjoyed in the company of a six-pack.
So i finally upgraded my old vhs copy of one of my favourite films. Royal Flash. It was actually the film that got me into the books. Dunno why the film was such a flop, because i think it's great. Very quotable and still makes me laugh.
"Ain't the doggies got the boar yet?"
"You're the nicest bit of tumble i've seen all year"
"Spring! Were did you Eric from?"
When whining for his life (which he spends a lot of time doing) about how he was forced to impersonate the Crown Prince "They held me down and gave me scars and forced me to wear a monocle."
Well, anyway, if you haven't seen it, you should
RIP Wes Craven. Not a great fan of his films, but his influence is undeniable.
Review of The Five Deadly Venoms: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-five-deadly-venoms-wuxia-inspiration.html
I feel like Grampa Simpson sometimes. I put on Fury Road this morning, and lost interest after about 20 minutes. The action just kept going and going and I got action overloaded and turned it off.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;853386I feel like Grampa Simpson sometimes. I put on Fury Road this morning, and lost interest after about 20 minutes. The action just kept going and going and I got action overloaded and turned it off.
Did you have any opinion on the other issues about the film?
Quote from: Nexus;853399Did you have any opinion on the other issues about the film?
Hrm. I thought the exposition at the beginning was tedious. (Show, don't tell) and the zoomy cam, I'm not sure what to call it, was kinda dumb.
It was leading up to some interesting stuff, and I really want to comment on some of the cult leader/cult follower aspects, but I feel like the topic is stillborn since I couldn't make it into the rest of the film.
Who knows, maybe I'll feel like wading back into it some day and stick it out.
PS, yes, the flaming guitar drum mobile and shiny cars racing around were neato, but not enough to sustain my attention after a while.
*Edit* Gave it another go and finished. The first chase was waaaaaaaaaaay too long for the stakes it set up. Middle was ok, and last part was so over the top that I laughed at a few of the stunts.
I still think the very first Mad Max was the best of the series.
Jupiter Ascending. A cosplay convention and a furry convention go to war.
Blast from the past. The Beastmaster. Pretty much as i remembered it, although it dragged a little at nearly 2 hours. Could have been trimmed a bit, i think. Some of it is almost laughable, but it's still a pretty fun movie.
Reviewed all the Dragon Gate Movies:
Dragon Gate Inn (1967): http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/dragon-gate-inn-wuxia-inspiration.html
New Dragon Gate Inn (1992): http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/wuxia-inspiration-new-dragon-gate-inn.html
Flying Swords of Dragon Gate (2011): http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/flying-swords-of-dragon-gate-wuxia.html
Quote from: One Horse Town;855019Blast from the past. The Beastmaster. Pretty much as i remembered it, although it dragged a little at nearly 2 hours. Could have been trimmed a bit, i think. Some of it is almost laughable, but it's still a pretty fun movie.
I've got to get that on Blu Ray.
Quote from: One Horse Town;855019Blast from the past. The Beastmaster. Pretty much as i remembered it, although it dragged a little at nearly 2 hours. Could have been trimmed a bit, i think. Some of it is almost laughable, but it's still a pretty fun movie.
Almost laughable? It's a fucking scream! :rotfl:
Saw The Dead Lands on Netflix.
It's a slow starter, but a fine look at a barely-stone age society. Well worth the watch, just for the fine fight choreography (CGI and stupid-rope free), and demonstrations of how to use the Ping Pong Paddle of Death.
The Frightened Woman, also known as Femina Ridens. Like most Italian movies of the late '60s, early '70s, it's achingly hip, with some amazing set designs and visuals. However, unlike most of the Italian thrillers and giallos i've been wading through, i found this to be a challenging watch - uncomfortable even.
I won't go into the plot details too much, but it involves kidnap and humiliating 'games'. The first twist isn't much of a twist, as it's heavily telegraphed right from the opening scene. The thing is, even though you know that twist is coming, you move from one uncomfortable scenario to another, for different reasons. The second twist, whilst less obvious, i saw coming too and is also challenging, as it basically confirms some of the views held by the person you're rooting against before twist one.
A challenging film. Not sure what it's saying, but it is certainly different.
Review of The Green Inferno (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/09/24/the-green-inferno-review)
I'm not a big fan of Eli Roth or torture porn movies in general but from the description in the article its almost tempting to see from a social commentary angle. Though its easy to see so many reasons this film is going to catch Hell from the very group it seems to poke some pretty savage (heh) jabs at.
I saw
Terminator Genisys and
San Andreas in the local second run cheapo-plex.
Terminator Genisys was better than T3 and T4. Old Arnold is campy, the new cast fails to electrify, but they are competent. The "changed future" reboot idea isn't bad, but it doesn't setup any worthwhile platform for future movies. A couple of the action scenes are notable. If you are Terminator fan, its worth seeing eventually. Better than I thought it would be.
San Andreas is a very well done paint-by-numbers disaster flick. Instead of a screenplay, they used a checklist. The Rock does Rock-stuff, Paul Giamatti does Emotional Scientist and the rest of the cast say their lines on cue. But its actually really fun to watch. The CGI and F/X are excellent and the depiction of the devastation to California is certainly frightening to behold - especially since there a real possibility of it occurring.
Terminator Genisys didn't spark any RPGing ideas, but San Andreas certainly would be an interesting setting background for a RPG session if the PCs must deal with a mission in the middle of a tectonic nightmare and its aftermath.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;854892Jupiter Ascending. A cosplay convention and a furry convention go to war.
Best review of that movie!!
Did a review of The East is Red: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-east-is-red-wuxia-inspiration.html
Hitman: Agent 47 was surprisingly good. The action scenes were fast paced and enjoyable and the characterization surprisingly interesting. I think it did a good job introducing the protagonist's female counterpart without having either being him being overshadowed or her feeling like nothing but a plot device/damsel in distress. Definitely felt like the opening film a series.
Quote from: One Horse Town;855019Blast from the past. The Beastmaster. Pretty much as i remembered it, although it dragged a little at nearly 2 hours. Could have been trimmed a bit, i think. Some of it is almost laughable, but it's still a pretty fun movie.
I loved that movie when I was a kid!
Watched The Purge: Anarchy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975578/?ref_=rvi_tt). It was a pretty interesting show. One night every year, all crime is legal in America (with caveats that high level politicians are exempt, and no bombs allowed. Guns, knives, baseball bats, etc, are all perfectly fine though).
It was an interesting look at just how messed up people are. It's presented on the in-movie news TV as a great, patriotic duty. Because of the purge, unemployment is low, there are a lot less people on welfare, and everything is just awesome for everyone...
A funny part is that all of the major banks, etc, move all their money out, so they are not good targets, and the business districts in the cities are largely deserted, because there is no good looting.
Rich people pay old poor people's families so they can murder the old person, while in the safety of their mansion. Gangs slaughter each other and anyone unlucky enough to run into them. A wacko religious lady sets up on a roof and machine guns people, while spouting religious bile about God cleansing America from the filth of the poor.
The main characters are caught outside, with one actively looking to kill a certain person, two having their car sabotaged so that they can become targets, and two dragged out of their home. Only the "killer" is in any way competent, but he ends up protecting the others as best he can.
A fun note is that the government is also sending in clandestine killing crews, because the general citizenry aren't killing enough people. They also mention how the homeless and people living in the projects are a priority target.
All in all, a good action movie. Violent, but not gory. An interesting (but unrealistic) premise.
Spoiler
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQ5ODA3ODQ2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjQzMDAyMjE@._V1__SX1381_SY743_.jpg)
Quote from: danbuter;857779I loved that movie when I was a kid!
So did I but those bat creatures freaked me right out
Quote from: danbuter;857780The main characters are caught outside, with one actively looking to kill a certain person, two having their car sabotaged so that they can become targets, and two dragged out of their home. Only the "killer" is in any way competent, but he ends up protecting the others as best he can.
Makes sense since he's the only one that planned on being out during the party.
QuoteAll in all, a good action movie. Violent, but not gory. An interesting (but unrealistic) premise.
Sounds better than the original which was an okay Home Invasion horror movie but didn't really address the basic premise which was more interesting, IMO. It almost sounds like a modern version of "A modest proposal" but with thrill killing instead of cannibalism.
Assault on Precinct 13. One of my favourite movies of all time, despite some hokey acting and one or two bits of immense cheese. We don't talk about the terrible remake though.
John Carpenter was such a good film-maker. Since Big Trouble in Little China, it's all been down-hill, sadly.
Quote from: danbuter;857779I loved that movie when I was a kid!
Rip Torn as the villain was hilarious! :rotfl:
Oh, and Tanya Roberts before she went from red to blond was hot as hell.
Quote from: Elfdart;858592Oh, and Tanya Roberts before she went from red to blond was hot as hell.
A young Tanya Roberts was hot as hell with any hair color.
Quote from: Spinachcat;857645I saw Terminator Genisys and San Andreas in the local second run cheapo-plex.
Terminator Genisys was better than T3 and T4. Old Arnold is campy, the new cast fails to electrify, but they are competent. The "changed future" reboot idea isn't bad, but it doesn't setup any worthwhile platform for future movies. A couple of the action scenes are notable. If you are Terminator fan, its worth seeing eventually. Better than I thought it would be.
San Andreas is a very well done paint-by-numbers disaster flick. Instead of a screenplay, they used a checklist. The Rock does Rock-stuff, Paul Giamatti does Emotional Scientist and the rest of the cast say their lines on cue. But its actually really fun to watch. The CGI and F/X are excellent and the depiction of the devastation to California is certainly frightening to behold - especially since there a real possibility of it occurring.
Terminator Genisys didn't spark any RPGing ideas, but San Andreas certainly would be an interesting setting background for a RPG session if the PCs must deal with a mission in the middle of a tectonic nightmare and its aftermath.
Best review of that movie!!
The weird family drama they put in disaster movies is always off putting. The stepdad stuff in SA was just unnecessary, for example. Only 2012 was worse in that regard.
I think SA would be a stronger rpg scenario if the quake released zombie gas, chuds or kaiju or something. Or all three!
I introduced my oldest son to Conan the Barbarian earlier this week. He loved it.
Saw
Unfriended recently. Despite my initial misgivings it turned out to be a pretty effective, clever horror movie. I enjoyed it. Most of the internet gripes about it turned out to be completely wrong, AFICT*. There's some interesting social commentary on online culture and cyberbullying that's not too anvil laden, IMO though I suspect some of it might be considered to verge on "victim blaming" depending on your perspective.**
Spoilers blocked.
Spoiler
*The victims weren't nerds being picked on by a Mean Girl from beyond the grave. They were pretty much typical kids. The suicide seems more like the outsider, a mean loner girl that no one really liked. In fact, its revealed over the course of the film the victims have some pretty damn unsympathetic traits and dark secrets.
**"Don't feed the trolls." Advice that could very well save your life. When the bizarre things begin to happen the characters could just log off. In fact, some advice found online warns "Don't Respond to messages from the Dead!" with evidence of dire consquences. But they don't heed it and let themselves get drawn in deep. In a way its analogous to how cyberbullying and trolling require the victim's participation to some extent.
This movie might not directly applicable for a typical rpg, maybe a narrative style game where the PCs are the targets and compete to survive (or more be the last one left...) so something like Slasher Flick could work with the film's premise.
Less directly, the players might be investigating a cluster of grisly deaths revolving a young girl's splashy public suicide or more broadly death connected with seeming messages from the dead. Come to think of it, a game where the PCs start getting or hearing about strange IMs and emails allegedly from the deceased then people start dying might make a good Halloween themed session or a scenario for a occult investigation style game like Supernatural.
For best effect, watch it uninterrupted on a computer.
Avengers, Age of Ultron
I wait for dvd/blu ray for a lot of movies now, so this is the first time I watched it.
#1. Felt phoned in. While the movie was competently made, there didn't seem to be much enthusiasm in it.
#2. I'm getting very burned out on Marvel Movieverse films. I'm sure this affected my opinion.
#3. Too many characters, not enough time to get invested or re-invested in them.
Very meh. Not bad, not good, just meh. I put it in the same level as Iron Man 3.
So, that scene from Kingsmen, the rabid fight scene in the supremacist church with Freebird playing in the background - most awesomely choreographed ridiculous bloodbath in modern film against people who totally had it coming or excessive unwatchable spastic cruelty played for camp laughs?
http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh6RN89Ub5KbSKv8cV
Saw Nightcrawler on Netflix. Was surprisingly good. I used to be a stringer (not a photographer or for television media though) and I think that biased me in favor of the film. It was pretty intense at times but they really get you invested in Gyllenhaal's character (as twisted as he is).
For a change of pace, i went Dutch for my euro-horror fix over the weekend. The marvelously titled Amsterdamned. A killer frogman is haunting the city's canals!
Not so much a horror as a thriller, really. Not much grue, but a great speedboat chase through the canals. Must have had a decent budget. Shame the script isn't up to much. The killer is kind of left-field too.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;859755Saw Nightcrawler on Netflix. Was surprisingly good. I used to be a stringer (not a photographer or for television media though) and I think that biased me in favor of the film. It was pretty intense at times but they really get you invested in Gyllenhaal's character (as twisted as he is).
Yeah-I thought it was really well done.
Just watched: Dallas Buyers Club. It wasn't near depressing as I thought it would be.
The main character reminded me of someone close-someone who refused to accept the diagnosis of doctors and a terminal prognosis.
Case studies for drugs (a minor point in the movie) or lack thereof is a real thing. Know that if you're doctor is prescribing something-they are usually getting paid.
Rant: It's really a fucked up system in the US. You should always practice due diligence when your prescribed something. Especially anything psychotropic; something for depression anxiety.
For some reason I'm stuck on Jupiter Ascending. I mean, I know. I KNOW it is a bad movie.
No, not a bad movie. A terrible bloated turd of a film, badly cast, poorly written and utterly lacking in pacing.
And yet, I not only enjoyed watching it, I went and watched it again and again.
Quote from: Spike;860075For some reason I'm stuck on Jupiter Ascending. I mean, I know. I KNOW it is a bad movie.
No, not a bad movie. A terrible bloated turd of a film, badly cast, poorly written and utterly lacking in pacing.
And yet, I not only enjoyed watching it, I went and watched it again and again.
I haven't seen it and don't know if I will, but if you've seen a movie that many times and enjoyed it (and it isn't because you hate yourself or are just there to laugh at a bad movie) I don't know that you can sincerely call it a bad movie or level those other critiques. For whatever reason it would seem it works for you.
I really like Blade Trinity.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;860097I haven't seen it and don't know if I will, but if you've seen a movie that many times and enjoyed it (and it isn't because you hate yourself or are just there to laugh at a bad movie) I don't know that you can sincerely call it a bad movie or level those other critiques. For whatever reason it would seem it works for you.
I've had this experience many times.
Quantum of Solace for example.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;860277I've had this experience many times. Quantum of Solace for example.
Same here. Seems like most of the movies I love "everybody" hates.
Quote from: Spike;860075For some reason I'm stuck on Jupiter Ascending. I mean, I know. I KNOW it is a bad movie.
No, not a bad movie. A terrible bloated turd of a film, badly cast, poorly written and utterly lacking in pacing.
And yet, I not only enjoyed watching it, I went and watched it again and again.
If you enjoy watching it, it's not a bad movie.
Quote from: Nexus;860278Same here. Seems like most of the movies I love "everybody" hates.
Who exactly is "everybody"? Critics? Friends? Family? Co-workers? Strangers on the Internet?
Quote from: Elfdart;861075Who exactly is "everybody"? Critics? Friends? Family? Co-workers? Strangers on the Internet?
Long story short: Yes. :D
But I've come to terms with it.
Opposite ends of the spectrum. Daughters of Darkness, an art-house Belgian flick about the attempts of a vampire and her female 'assistant' to turn a woman away from her husband. Not much happens, but it looks good when its not happening. In fact, once things do start to happen, the film lost my interest. For art-house buffs only. Then, Jurassic World, mega-budget Hollywood block-buster. Meh. It was ok, and again, it looked good, and one part of it seemed unnecessarily mean for a 12 certificate, but it was a case of been there, done that - ooh look, a new dinosaur.
Five Elements Ninjas, on Netflix.
This 1982 flick is old-school martial arts, runs 1 hour and 44 minutes, with about 1 hour and 15 minutes of martial arts fighting (this may be an exaggeration). A claim could be made this is more of a long demonstration of martial arts skills with some dialogue thrown in than "movie", but the overall movie plot is SO non-Hollywood it's a pleasure just in that regard.
There is a near endless display of martial arts skill here, phenomenal choreography, and subtitles that are occasionally hysterical (and sometimes a bit different than what's actually being said in Mandarin). I particularly like the guy who literally holds a sign saying "ninja." Turns out, he is a ninja, but so bad-ass that he can actually do that. Despite being just one guy, he actually fights the 4 heroes singlehandedly for quite some time, nearly penetrating their plot armor (if only he'd used poison, which is about the only trick/tactic not demonstrated at some point in the movie...there are buckets of fake blood by the way, and about 0.2 seconds where the movie justifies the R rating, assuming the fake blood isn't the reason).
As far as RPG inspiration goes, there are some tidbits here--don't split the party comes up, and watching the 4 heroes (all the same class) manage to defeat the gauntlet through preparation was pretty awesome.
Yes, there is some of the 'hanging from ropes' silliness that's so much more common nowadays, but the fights are a real treat, and they do a wonderful job of making each fight more climactic than the last. The beginning of the "movie" starts with 1 on 1, but by the end, the fights are more like 4 on 4, and all these guys are using weapons, like sword-things and knives and such. The weapons might be blunted, but it take real skill to perform these moves at great speed and considerable grace. The fights often look as much like dances as fights, but I'm not sure that's a complaint.
Considering when the movie was made, you have to give it a pass for the hokey (by today's standards) special effects, especially the blood. Get some popcorn, and be willing to laugh a little, appreciating just how much skill went into this show.
Watched Spectre.
Great opening sequence, among the best.
More relaxed Craig, more humor, fun directing with impressive attention to detail.
Tragically average car chase, great fist fight on a train, harrowing torture sequence, too long overall.
Waltz used just right (and not "too little" as some claim, less is more people). Liked the level of involvement for M, Q, and Moneypenny.
Not sure how I feel about the theme song, haunting but perhaps too weird, will have to listen again.
Solid outing. Probably low end of my personal top ten (somewhere around 9 to 11)
For reference I'm using View to a Kill / Man with the Golden Gun as the bottom and Goldeneye / Living Daylights / On her Majesty's Secret Service as my nebulous top 3.
Quote from: Doom;861567Five Elements Ninjas, on Netflix.
This 1982 flick is old-school martial arts, runs 1 hour and 44 minutes, with about 1 hour and 15 minutes of martial arts fighting (this may be an exaggeration). A claim could be made this is more of a long demonstration of martial arts skills with some dialogue thrown in than "movie", but the overall movie plot is SO non-Hollywood it's a pleasure just in that regard.
There is a near endless display of martial arts skill here, phenomenal choreography, and subtitles that are occasionally hysterical (and sometimes a bit different than what's actually being said in Mandarin). I particularly like the guy who literally holds a sign saying "ninja." Turns out, he is a ninja, but so bad-ass that he can actually do that. Despite being just one guy, he actually fights the 4 heroes singlehandedly for quite some time, nearly penetrating their plot armor (if only he'd used poison, which is about the only trick/tactic not demonstrated at some point in the movie...there are buckets of fake blood by the way, and about 0.2 seconds where the movie justifies the R rating, assuming the fake blood isn't the reason).
As far as RPG inspiration goes, there are some tidbits here--don't split the party comes up, and watching the 4 heroes (all the same class) manage to defeat the gauntlet through preparation was pretty awesome.
Yes, there is some of the 'hanging from ropes' silliness that's so much more common nowadays, but the fights are a real treat, and they do a wonderful job of making each fight more climactic than the last. The beginning of the "movie" starts with 1 on 1, but by the end, the fights are more like 4 on 4, and all these guys are using weapons, like sword-things and knives and such. The weapons might be blunted, but it take real skill to perform these moves at great speed and considerable grace. The fights often look as much like dances as fights, but I'm not sure that's a complaint.
Considering when the movie was made, you have to give it a pass for the hokey (by today's standards) special effects, especially the blood. Get some popcorn, and be willing to laugh a little, appreciating just how much skill went into this show.
They have a whole bunch of classic Shaw Brothers stuff on Netflix now. Five Deadly Venoms, Avenging Eagle and Come Drink with Me are all worth watching as well. They all use that same Shaw Brothers color blood too (the stuff that almost looks like paint).
Saw Spectre too. It's always interesting how people have different tastes in Bond films.
I didn't like much about it.
*** SPOILER WARNINGS ***
The opening sequence was gorgeous and cool, but the film started to do things I didn't like immediately as soon as the "spy/combat" action started. i.e. Just in that sequence:
* Bond changes from a great blend-in Day of the Dead costume, to a "I'm 007" business suit brandishing a machine gun, to walk on buildings as his chosen way to sneak up on his target. Yeah, obviously a brilliant "spy" move. What? The outfit means that his target and their henchmen and everyone else can see he's the maniac assassin in the crowd, whereas if he'd stayed in costume he would have blended in and been almost undetectable.
* Over-the-top helicopter hand-to-hand combat, where Bond fairly pointlessly attacks the pilot, which by odds should have just got everyone killed. This was obviously a case of the director/script making Bond doing things to create an exaggerated dramatic spectacle for the sake of being extreme, and being too lazy to come up with any in-world reason why Bond would do things that way.
Over and over, my complaints were that people should/would/could not do the things they were doing, nor in the ways they were doing them, and if the situation were not being forced, would probably happen differently and Bond would be dead, again and again and again.
My high points:
* Beautiful photography of several beautiful actual places (Mexico City, Rome, London, Austria).
* Nice-looking Aston Martins.
* Some welcome humor and not as much angst as some earlier Craig Bonds.
* Some decent combat.
My lowest points (that I remember):
* Unbelievable car chase (almost no traffic in Rome, cobblestone roads are so easy to race over smoothly, let's drive sportscars down stairs and sideways on sloped stone walls - that'll work well) and pointless bail out.
* Utterly unbelievable/stupid/wrong airplane chasing cars scene - works great even without wings, be sure to crash your plane through an opaque building to take out two moving cars on the other side - surely the girl you're trying to save will be the only one unhurt, and all the thugs in them will be taken out. Just aim it right with your wingless plane with no control surfaces. And ya you'll want to ride along for that and not get out first. Yup.
* Stupid/pointless/nonsense trap for Bond involving somehow knowing where he'd come alone, having set up bulletproof walls, etc.
* Stupid/wrong/nonsense resolution of trap leading to stupid/impossible chase of impossibly-identified helicopter by river boat, and impossible shooting down of helicopter, and another impossible crash survival by important character, etc.
* Disgusting/pointless/nonsense/silly torture scene with silly/wrong/wouldn't-work resolution.
* Stupid easy enemy base destruction, so easy it makes the whole surrender/capture/torture pointless.
Didn't like the theme song.
Still I rate it much higher than several Bond films, especially those in my "utter crap" category (View to A Kill, License to Kill).
Quote from: Skarg;864203Over and over, my complaints were that people should/would/could not do the things they were doing, nor in the ways they were doing them, and if the situation were not being forced, would probably happen differently and Bond would be dead, again and again and again.
This pretty much covers all the Bond films though. :D
They're really just glorified Saturday morning cartoons for adults, even the "serious" ones like Skyfall.
Given this is a Bond movie, I'm willing to forgive a lot of Skarg's low points.
Though I was a bit bored throughout most of the second half, something that should never happen in a Bond adventure.
The only thing I really took offense at was the Blofeld soap reveal crap.
Quote from: Skarg;864203Still I rate it much higher than several Bond films, especially those in my "utter crap" category (View to A Kill, License to Kill).
I know it is not the most popular position, but Timothy Dalton still remains my favorite James Bond. License to Kill and Living Daylights both worked great for me.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;864219I know it is not the most popular position, but Timothy Dalton still remains my favorite James Bond. License to Kill and Living Daylights both worked great for me.
Dalton was a good Bond. Handsome enough to make all his getting the girl stuff make sense, while, like Connery, still seeming like enough of an asshole to be James Bond.
Quote from: Bren;864222Dalton was a good Bond. Handsome enough to make all his getting the girl stuff make sense, while, like Connery, still seeming like enough of an asshole to be James Bond.
I've always liked Dalton as an actor and I enjoyed his darker more serious approach over Roger Moore's playboy Bond (just personal taste, I realize Moore is insanely popular with most Bond fans and a great actor).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;864223I've always liked Dalton as an actor and I enjoyed his darker more serious approach over Roger Moore's playboy Bond (just personal taste, I realize Moore is insanely popular with most Bond fans and a great actor).
Roger Moore is a bit too pretty to be credible (to me) as Bond. I think his more lighthearted style was much better suited to Simon Templar than James Bond.
If feel there's a wide spectrum even within the Bond films, and as a realism-oriented action fan, I'm sensitive to each notch along the way. I lose engagement when things make no sense, and when they do make some sense, I find it much more engaging and much more spectacular. When it makes no sense, it just seems like a cop-out. I prefer the earlier films, which were more down-to-earth and still spectacular, but generally offered understandable and possible events, with far fewer surreal events.
In Spectre, Bond loses his super Aston Martin, as far as I could tell, because he thought it would be a stylish way to go, even though it wasn't damaged and he was only being followed by one guy, so why abandon that asset? In Goldfinger, he only loses his car after putting up a much more convincing fight, and in situations that all basically made sense.
Similarly in From Russia With Love, Bond also takes out a helicopter, but not with a plain pistol in a racing boat from way too far away, at night, and with no way of knowing that was the right helicopter, and no reason why it would still be visible to a river boat after having a head start to fly away. Instead, in that film, there is a reason the helicopter is right overhead going slow, Bond uses a custom rifle, and the kill is done by hitting a passenger who drops a primed grenade into the helicopter... and I find that scene cool and relatively plausible, instead of unbelievable nonsense.
Even in recent Craig films, there are some scenes which are spectacular without being nonsense, and to me those are the best ones. Like the opening sequences of all of the previous three films. Extreme but mostly within the realm of possibility, and making a fair degree of sense. But they're also undermined (for me) when the film decides to then have a bunch of nonsense happen, because then it's no longer about the situation it's showing - it's about denying that situation and having something surreal happen, and I don't even really get why. The Spectre airplane chase is a perfect example of that effect for me. I just sit there thinking "Ok, that would never happen that way. This is embarrassing. What's the point of having an out of control airplane magically take out only all the un-named bad guys and their cars? What? What am I supposed to be engaged with now? Because pretty much anything can happen or not happen for no reason, apparently."
Quote from: Bren;864235Roger Moore is a bit too pretty to be credible (to me) as Bond. I think his more lighthearted style was much better suited to Simon Templar than James Bond.
I agree, though I think tonight I'll try watching
The Spy Who Loved Me. I have a hunch I will find the action choreography much more plausible than the fail moments in
Spectre.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;864219I know it is not the most popular position, but Timothy Dalton still remains my favorite James Bond. License to Kill and Living Daylights both worked great for me.
Dalton was not my problem with License to Kill. It was the WTF script with the "MI6 can't handle a drug kingpin" plot, and fantasy ninjas and other nonsense, particularly the finale involving again an airplane chasing cars, this time IIRC the highly effective tactic of lowering James onto moving vehicles (without a weapon?), and then when he achieves his oh-so-important goal of gaining control of a truck, avoiding a waiting head-on missile attack by naturally having the truck hit a convenient rock just in the right way needed to have the 18-wheel tanker truck bank 45 degrees or so, which nicely dodges the missile. So many levels of wrong, for me. If he's so smart, how about he just phones in the info about the tanker truck full of liquid cocaine, or if he can't resist attacking it himself, maybe bring a weapon or two or have some other plan other than jumping unarmed from an airplane onto a truck in a column of well-armed men.
Yeah, it's pretty clear Skarg and I have completely different standards for Bond films, but that's not a problem. ;)
I can usually rationalize most issues of "realism" pretty easily, for instance by using "heat of the moment" and "it's easy being an armchair quarterback when you aren't the one frantically scrambling through action set pieces" to explain tough calls like taking risks with the plane/truck/girl interactions in Spectre.
As for shooting down helicopters... well, you know, escapism.
Whoppers like Moonraker (all of it) are where I draw my generous line, but then I just watch it in complete brain-off mode and have a blast anyway. That movie is entertaining in its stupidity and Drax is a riot.
To really get on my shit list a Bond film has to seriously waste its potential. Man with the Golden Gun and View to a Kill are at the bottom of my ranking because I get frustrated at the mere memory of how they squandered their promising villains and delivered limp executions on what should have been great set pieces. Dumb Bond Girls really didn't help either.
Poor Roger Moore, I like the guy but more than half of his films are guilty pleasures (I mean, guiltier than the usual Bond film).
Dalton is also my favorite, and Living Daylights is probably my number 1 depending on my mood. License to Kill is vastly underrated, but I'd have to place it slightly under Spectre at the moment because it manages to feel longer than Spectre despite being shorter!
Quote from: Skarg;864255Dalton was not my problem with License to Kill. It was the WTF script with the "MI6 can't handle a drug kingpin" plot, and fantasy ninjas and other nonsense, particularly the finale involving again an airplane chasing cars, this time IIRC the highly effective tactic of lowering James onto moving vehicles (without a weapon?), and then when he achieves his oh-so-important goal of gaining control of a truck, avoiding a waiting head-on missile attack by naturally having the truck hit a convenient rock just in the right way needed to have the 18-wheel tanker truck bank 45 degrees or so, which nicely dodges the missile. So many levels of wrong, for me. If he's so smart, how about he just phones in the info about the tanker truck full of liquid cocaine, or if he can't resist attacking it himself, maybe bring a weapon or two or have some other plan other than jumping unarmed from an airplane onto a truck in a column of well-armed men.
I think we just like very different kinds of action movies.
I find the different tastes people have sort of fascinating, and ya clearly everyone has their own set of likes and peeves.
And so too everyone seems to have a different set of favorite Bond films. I really liked The Living Daylights, but I assume we liked it for different reasons. Moonraker was silly but I remember liking it as a teen... I think I struggle with the Daniel Craig ones because of the contrast I feel between some fairly gritty action scenes which get me to take it seriously, but then I feel let down. With Roger Moore and Jaws they tended to stay in fairly surreal semi-comedy mode, which at least didn't feel to me like they'd suddenly dropped the ball.
Quote from: Skarg;864286With Roger Moore and Jaws they tended to stay in fairly surreal semi-comedy mode, which at least didn't feel to me like they'd suddenly dropped the ball.
More like they accidentally kicked it down the stairs. ;)
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;864270Yeah, it's pretty clear Skarg and I have completely different standards for Bond films, but that's not a problem. ;)
I can usually rationalize most issues of "realism" pretty easily, for instance by using "heat of the moment" and "it's easy being an armchair quarterback when you aren't the one frantically scrambling through action set pieces" to explain tough calls like taking risks with the plane/truck/girl interactions in Spectre.
As for shooting down helicopters... well, you know, escapism.
Inane villain plots can be explained by "They're crazy, it probably won't work but its going to kill a bunch of people regardless so better stop it. " too :D
I'm pretty much with you word for word here. Really most of the situation in action movies would be fatal most of the time. A realistic Die Hard's title would have been "Die just like anyone else" and been a 30 minute scene ending with a gut shot John Mclaine weeping for his wife as his bled out.
I've probably been spoiled (or numbed) by gaming and some of the wacky ass plans (to be loose with language) PCs come up with. An action movie would have verge of being a comedy to match up with those.
QuoteWhoppers like Moonraker (all of it) are where I draw my generous line, but then I just watch it in complete brain-off mode and have a blast anyway. That movie is entertaining in its stupidity and Drax is a riot.
I admit, Moonraker is one of my favorite but I'm sci-fi geek at heart.
I haven't really enjoyed the more grounded Craig bond films. I like them as over the top super spy spectacle.
I'm curious to see how people around here rank the Bond films, so I'm starting a separate thread to avoid crowding the function of this one. :)
Ok, so I just did the exercise of re-watching The Spy Who Loved Me to see how I'd react compared to how I reacted to Spectre.
So, The Spy Who Loved Me is a very different style of film - it's part comedy, and reminded me of it's contemporary "Pink Panther" films in some scenes, such as the fight with Jaws where he gets buried in building debris and then starts peeling apart the escape van.
And, the photography, technology, editing, stunt fighting, and so on, are not nearly as polished. For example, the chase distance during the ski scene jumped fairly randomly from ranges between 200m to 10m and back each time the camera cut from view to view. And the face shots looking back at the actors during chases were very unconvincing.
And there was a lot of camp and cheese and unrealistic silliness and "parallel spy universe" stuff.
To me, the most extreme nonsense was the navigational nonsense. They establish that the enemy base is a short distance off of Corsica or Sardinia, in the Mediterranean Sea. Then they go aboard the supertanker at sea, the big bad boss launches a speedboat from it and goes back to the base. Meanwhile, Bond escapes, and they fight their way to the command room, where the map clearly shows the location of the supertanker as being in the Atlantic Ocean, SW of Portugal. The supertanker launches submarines, one of which has already made it to the west side of the Atlantic Ocean. Apparently ships are faster than jet aircraft in this universe. I also thought it was hilarious how the globe display showed the subs launching ballistic missiles in profile, so they head north towards Iceland on their courses east and west. Laugh!
But here's the thing: Despite being a comedy action adventure which doesn't pretend to be particularly realistic, I (Mr. Tactical Accuracy Critic) did not find any points in the combat or chase scenes where anyone was doing anything preposterous or impossible or that made zero sense. In fact, I thought the action was relatively reasonable in terms of what people were doing and what the results were, as long as you accept that Jaws exists (super teeth, nearly unkillable) and that Bond is a super-skilled combat expert.
Compared to Spectre, I'd say that The Spy Who Loved Me has relatively realistic action situations (even if they sometimes look more fake), and apart from navigational nonsense, nothing that makes no sense. Spectre looks good and has some realistic scenes, but it also has several scenes that to me are severe cases of not-making sense, to a degree that the 1970's action comedy does not. For example, Moore does shoot down a helicopter, but he (clearly knows it's the bad gal and not just some executive flying over London and) it's hovering right overhead, and he uses a Q Branch anti-aircraft missile to do it, not an out-of-range pistol. No pointless ejections nor pointless failures to bail. No enemy vehicles taken out without an actual plausible cause. No fake-looking sportscars having no problem with smoothly moving over bumpy stones, banked walls, stone staircases... No times when I thought he'd almost certainly have died, let alone inexplicable choices which should have got him killed. No unexplained blatant defiance of physics except perhaps Jaws and the navigation errors. Oh, and the evil boss bases made out of explosive everything - it was hilarious how at the end, a gangplank has an explosion break it in the middle, for no apparent reason except to entertain with fireworks.
Ok, I think I'm done ranting. ;-)
Favourite movies of the year to date have been Nightcrawler, which to me ranks alongside classics like Taxi Driver and Trainspotting in many ways, and The Martian which is something of a Godsend if you happen to teach Science (which I do!). :)
Other movies that have been alright, and entertaining, but not quite classics were:
Mad Max: Fury Road - Great imagery and explosive action. Only loosely connected to the original though - and essentially exists in a parallel reality to them. Didn't mind the 'feminist themes' that were criticised by some at all.
SPECTRE - Quite good in parts - good start I thought - but the ending felt a bit formulaic and they didn't quite develop the villain enough for an original motivation. Skyfall had a better villain (with the same basic idea) and felt fresher because of it.
Ex Machina - Another AI sci-fi drama movie. Well acted, thoughtful and stylish. Just kinda felt that we are still treading the same sort of Sci-Fi themes from 50 years ago really.
Macbeth - Yeah, OK. Hard work for some, especially if you have no interest in Shakespeare, but it's beautifully shot with combat sequences that look like a grown up version of 300. I actually love seeing good Shakespeare adaptations myself - this one is almost as good as the Polanski version of Macbeth from the 70s.
Still waiting on Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which will be a blockbuster regardless. I thought that Jurassic World, outside of an exciting trailer, was badly flawed in scriptwriting and plot development. It has increased the spectacle at the expense of original ideas and in my view actually spoilt the original by dumbing down exponentially. It was a weird experience being in a crowded cinema with google-eyed fans, while I was sitting their grimacing at every single dumb thing I saw (at a rate of about one dumb thing every five minutes).
Can't think of others, as of yet, although for fantasy enthusiasts the extra scenes in The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies extended edition are fun.
Spy. Heard good things about it, thought it was ok by the end, but wasn't that great. A stupendous amount of bad language for a 15 certificate though.
I caught the silents 'The Thief of Baghdad' and 'The Black Pirate' back to back on TCM the other night and that was a pretty great double feature.
I'd seen bit of 'Thief' before but not all of it... a truly great fantasy film.
Did a review of Legend of the Bat: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/legend-of-bat-wuxia-inspiration.html
I just finished the first season of True Detective. It's the best crime series I've seen since Prime Suspect. Brilliant.
Electric Boogaloo (2014), the documentary about the B-movie studio Cannon Films, the Israelis that brought you all those low-budget ninja and breakdancing movies that filled drive-in and VHS rental shelves in the 80's . Really informative and very, very funny... pretty much essential viewing for cult/exploitation movie buffs or anyone on a Reagan-Era nostalgia trip.
Just watched 'The Admiral: Roaring Currents', a naval Samurai film from 2014, how a wise and wily Admiral fares against a large fleet - strategy, tactics - if you liked Red Cliff then give it a watch.
I've been on a bit of a theater going binge (for me) the last couple weeks... mostly due to friends spur-of-the-moment dragging me out of the Man Cave.
We saw Crimson Peak (meh... visuals overwhelm the story), Trumbo (a bit too Hollywood-ized despite being about real Hollywood stuff), Steve Jobs (really good movie despite being about a subject I was indifferent about), and Star Wars (of course... even though I swore I was going to wait for it to hit the dollar theater).
Somehow I didn't end up at any of the films I was actually wanting to see... Carol, The Big Short, or that movie about the transgender person.
Hopefully I can get out to see The Hateful Eight and don't get hornswaggled into something else instead... "Ooh! That looks so violent! Let's go see Puppies: the Adorableness Part 2 instead."
Watched the legendarily bad 2011 version of Three Musketeers.
Like a lot of overblown action movies with mediocre writing, it would have made for an awesome arc in a campaign.
Also watched the 2014 Korean movie The Pirates. That was way better and more interesting, although it makes you appreciate how important Depp's performance is in his pirate movies. Characters who swing from serious to goofy-incompetent need an expert touch to pull off, and the leading man in this one didn't have the chops or the writing to back him up.
So. Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens. It's good. Not phenomenal, not mind-blowing, but good. Far better than Episodes I-III but that's admittedly not much ofa bar to clear.
I also just saw the new Star Wars film. I liked it a lot. It's definitely better than Eps 1-3, and I think it also better than RotJ.
FRIENDLY TIP: THERE IS NO AFTER-THE-CREDITS SCENE. You can leave as soon as the credits start rolling. You won't miss anything.
Kung Fury: a 30 minute sendup of cheesy 80's flicks, surprisingly well done.
Quote from: The Butcher;870005So. Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens. It's good. Not phenomenal, not mind-blowing, but good. Far better than Episodes I-III but that's admittedly not much ofa bar to clear.
Had the capability to be phenomenal. It felt rushed.
Spoiler Alert!
Spoiler
A little more interaction between Solo and the New Kids would have done a lot to fill in the Solo family tragedy and make the bridge scene a lot better. Solo dies without a final word? Weak, even though the touch was good. Nice to see Chewie kick some ass, but would have been cooler to see him finally rip some people limb from limb. I'm glad we finally got the 4th Star Wars movie, but I wish Abrams had been just a tad less faithful to the literal plot of the first movie. Also, take your time for god's sake. Those incredible scenes in the Star Destroyer graveyard missed being majestic, simply because the camera didn't linger the few seconds longer. Compare the Tattooine scenes in IV. Rey was great, Finn and Poe less so. Mark Hamill steps in to do some of the best acting in the film with facial expressions alone. Looked like SW, Felt like SW, Plot was a little too close, literally, to Star Wars, but I'm ready for more.
Spoiler
Quote from: CRKrueger;870253I'm glad we finally got the 4th Star Wars movie, but I wish Abrams had been just a tad less faithful to the literal plot of the first movie. (...) Plot was a little too close, literally, to Star Wars, but I'm ready for more.
My feelings exactly.
Quote from: CRKrueger;870253It felt rushed.
Spoiler Alert!
Spoiler
I'll say--a girl with no jedi training whatsoever pulls off the jedi mind trick, manages to resist an almost-sith's mind-reading powers, and out force-grabs a lightsaber from him?
Rushed is the word! Annoying.
Quote from: AaronBrown99;870258Spoiler Alert!
Spoiler
I'll say--a girl with no jedi training whatsoever pulls off the jedi mind trick, manages to resist an almost-sith's mind-reading powers, and out force-grabs a lightsaber from him?
Rushed is the word! Annoying.
Spoiler
Yeah, she's apparently the "Force Awakens" part, as a newly awakened Force user she can do shit only trained Jedi/Sith have done previously. (Fun Fact: The Stormtrooper she does the Jedi Mind Trick on was Daniel Craig.) I will hand it to them though, they went back to slower saberfights as opposed to the frenetic, over-choreographed, Hong-Kong style of the prequels.
Another annoying thing about the "rushed" aspect...Sure the audience has probably seen the planning scenes for destroying two Death Stars by now, but that doesn't mean we just sit down and say "Ok, we need pilots to blow the Fatal Flaw, we need a strike team to lower the shields, and we have to do this in less than an hour despite the weapon being a planet in another solar system. We good, right, now go!"
Quote from: CRKrueger;870253It felt rushed.
Yep, I had that same impression. "In a galaxy where no training or learning is necessary..." no time is 'wasted' on establishing why someone who's never fought with a sword or flown a spaceship can just walk up and do it fairly capably.
Maybe all that stuff will be in the 'Expanded Cut'.
Spoiler
Also, I'm still not clear on who the factions are. There seem to be the 'New Republic' and the senate, chugging along and doing well... but there's still 'The Resistance'... who are they 'resisting'? Wouldn't these new space nazi guys be the actual 'Resistance' since they're 'Resisting' the New Republic?
Also, what's with people on a planet being able to see other planets blowing up in real time with the naked eye? Are they all just moons? I don't get the layout... it reminded me a bit of those 'not planets' from the old Flash Gordon movie.
Spoiler
Also, I'm still not clear on who the factions are. There seem to be the 'New Republic' and the senate, chugging along and doing well... but there's still 'The Resistance'... who are they 'resisting'? Wouldn't these new space nazi guys be the actual 'Resistance' since they're 'Resisting' the New Republic?
Also, what's with people on a planet being able to see other planets blowing up in real time with the naked eye? Are they all just moons? I don't get the layout... it reminded me a bit of those 'not planets' from the old Flash Gordon movie.
Quote from: Simlasa;870338Yep, I had that same impression. "In a galaxy where no training or learning is necessary..." no time is 'wasted' on establishing why someone who's never fought with a sword or flown a spaceship can just walk up and do it fairly capably.
She's explicitly a pilot with previous experience (although she hasn't left the atmosphere). She carries a weapon and is shown to be quite capable with using it. (And she also has explicit prior experience working on the Falcon and doing mechanical repairs in general.)
QuoteAlso, I'm still not clear on who the factions are. There seem to be the 'New Republic' and the senate, chugging along and doing well... but there's still 'The Resistance'... who are they 'resisting'? Wouldn't these new space nazi guys be the actual 'Resistance' since they're 'Resisting' the New Republic?
The galaxy is divided between the Republic and the vestiges of the Empire. The First Order is politically ascendant in the latter. The Resistance is active in Imperial space, while being secretly (possibly illegally) funded by the Republic. (Some of this is from the title scroll. The bad guy talks about the rest of it in his big speech before blowing up that planet.)
QuoteAlso, what's with people on a planet being able to see other planets blowing up in real time with the naked eye? Are they all just moons? I don't get the layout... it reminded me a bit of those 'not planets' from the old Flash Gordon movie.
That I can't help you with. It's vaguely possible that the planet Maz is on is in the same system as the capital of the Republic, but that's not really consistent with the First Order and Resistance both popping up there as if it were no big deal.
Everything about the Starkiller is sloppily handled in the film, starting with, "Why do we need another Death Star, exactly?" and proceeding straight through the incredibly insufficient exposition around what appears to be the completely nonsensical destruction of the Republic's capital planet. (For example: Why the heck would the Republic's entire space fleet be located
on the planet?) You can continue on a straight line through "we don't need to bother planning this attack because the audience has already seen it three times before" and proceed through "the Resistance can only manage to send 14 X-Wings?" before wrapping up with "your trench fight is second-rate and your aerial dogfights aren't telling any sort of coherent story".
One of the interesting things about the film is the degree to which you could literally eliminate the entire Starkiller plot line and it would have absolutely no effect on the film whatsoever. (You go to the planet to rescue Rei. You destroy the shield generator so that you can escape.) I'm sure the destruction of the Republic's capital will be significant in Episode VIII, but for the most part everything involving the Starkiller is just random noise that's happening in the background of a really great film.
OK, thanks! Clears up some of my confusion...
Quote from: Justin Alexander;870406She's explicitly a pilot with previous experience (although she hasn't left the atmosphere).
Ok... somehow missed that part.
QuoteShe carries a weapon and is shown to be quite capable with using it.
So it's one of those skill systems where good with a staff equals good with all melee weapons? (I was mostly referring to the stormtrooper guy picking up the lightsaber)
QuoteAnd she also has explicit prior experience working on the Falcon and doing mechanical repairs in general.
Yeah, I picked up on that bit, no issues there.
QuoteThe galaxy is divided between the Republic and the vestiges of the Empire. The First Order is politically ascendant in the latter....
Ok, missed all of that, we were a few moments late and missed the opening crawl.
The political situation was poorly explained. As far as what Rey accomplished, she did about as well as Luke did in A New Hope. He also kicked butt, after training for a day with Ben.
Quote from: danbuter;870571Luke did in A New Hope. He also kicked butt, after training for a day with Ben.
I always took that trip to have been longer... that there was more training we didn't see.
Not that this new one gave me much sense of any time passing or distance travelled. Everywhere seems to be just down the block from everywhere else... like it's taking place in a shopping mall.
Quote from: CRKrueger;870296Spoiler
Yeah, she's apparently the "Force Awakens" part, as a newly awakened Force user she can do shit only trained Jedi/Sith have done previously. (Fun Fact: The Stormtrooper she does the Jedi Mind Trick on was Daniel Craig.) I will hand it to them though, they went back to slower saberfights as opposed to the frenetic, over-choreographed, Hong-Kong style of the prequels.
Another annoying thing about the "rushed" aspect...Sure the audience has probably seen the planning scenes for destroying two Death Stars by now, but that doesn't mean we just sit down and say "Ok, we need pilots to blow the Fatal Flaw, we need a strike team to lower the shields, and we have to do this in less than an hour despite the weapon being a planet in another solar system. We good, right, now go!"
I am so relieved to read someone else write that before I did! :-)
Quote from: Simlasa;870338Yep, I had that same impression. "In a galaxy where no training or learning is necessary..." no time is 'wasted' on establishing why someone who's never fought with a sword or flown a spaceship can just walk up and do it fairly capably.
Maybe all that stuff will be in the 'Expanded Cut'.
Spoiler
Also, I'm still not clear on who the factions are. There seem to be the 'New Republic' and the senate, chugging along and doing well... but there's still 'The Resistance'... who are they 'resisting'? Wouldn't these new space nazi guys be the actual 'Resistance' since they're 'Resisting' the New Republic?
Also, what's with people on a planet being able to see other planets blowing up in real time with the naked eye? Are they all just moons? I don't get the layout... it reminded me a bit of those 'not planets' from the old Flash Gordon movie.
And this!
I think "First Order" is essentially a boy band. See the adolescents in charge.
I did some Internet research, and apparently those populated planets and moons we see
Spoiler
introduced and destroyed in a matter of seconds are supposed to be the New Repuplic's current capital, and they and the Starkiller base are apparently in different star systems, but apparently JJ Abrams and Disney don't know or care enough about galactic distances or the speed of light to let that get in the way of jamming as many "exciting visuals" into as little time as possible.
Apparently JJ/Disney don't think the audience they made that for care enough to be told what those planets more than with some brief comment.
Quote from: Skarg;870626Apparently JJ/Disney don't think the audience they made that for care enough to be told what those planets more than with some brief comment.
I'm fine with planets/suns/moons that are in some other Spelljammeresque arrangement than our little corner of space... and planet-sized cannon that shoot through hyperspace... but if no one tells me that's what's going on then I'm likely caught off guard when Never Never Land ends up being just to the left of Tattooine.
I guess I should just chock it up to 'because magic!'
Quote from: AaronBrown99;870258Spoiler Alert!
Spoiler
I'll say--a girl with no jedi training whatsoever pulls off the jedi mind trick, manages to resist an almost-sith's mind-reading powers, and out force-grabs a lightsaber from him?
Rushed is the word! Annoying.
Spoiler
Yes, her training definitely progressed at the speed of plot. And without an eighties training montage it does feel unprecedented.y fast. But to be fair about her resisting mind reading, in the beginning of A New Hope Leia resists the Mind Probe and whatever Darth may (or may not) have done to learn the location of the Rebel Base and she is also without any Force Training (and doesn't even seem to be really strong in the Force in any of the movies).
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;869987Watched the legendarily bad 2011 version of Three Musketeers.
I actually like that movie. Sure it has little to do with anything Dumas wrote, but as a clock-punk world loosely inspired by the Three Musketeers it's a lot of fun and it's nice to see, for a change, a Porthos who isn't a clown.
I got the Brother Cadfael series in a DVD boxed set yesterday and it's brilliant. You can see the first episode (One Corpse Too Many) here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BOV3S-kPzo). There are twelve more episodes and Derek Jacobi rules them all.
(http://res.cloudinary.com/uktv/image/upload/b_rgb:000000,w_660,h_371,c_fill,q_75/v1389608824/k94kvkent8kqjnaevw9i.jpg)
Saw Force Awakens.
Spoiler
Fun, redundant, exactly what I expected. In my opinion, Finn was flawed and great, should have been the clear lead. Kylo Ren had a tough act to follow and pulled it off, but he's still a blatant Twilight generation baddie. I agree Rey had too many advantages and not enough negatives to be all that interesting. Generic action girl, especially next to Finn.
Hope they actually try to surprise us in the next one, because as it is I don't feel any urgency to see it.
Quote from: Bren;870651I actually like that movie. Sure it has little to do with anything Dumas wrote, but as a clock-punk world loosely inspired by the Three Musketeers it's a lot of fun and it's nice to see, for a change, a Porthos who isn't a clown.
Fair enough, I won't deny being entertained, but it needed more work. My main issue is it felt too rushed and no one could breathe.
Quote from: Skarg;870626I did some Internet research, and apparently those populated planets and moons we see introduced and destroyed in a matter of seconds are supposed to be the New Repuplic's current capital, and they and the Starkiller base are apparently in different star systems, but apparently JJ Abrams and Disney don't know or care enough about galactic distances or the speed of light to let that get in the way of jamming as many "exciting visuals" into as little time as possible.
The fact that it's the Republic capital world is mentioned in the scene immediately prior to their destruction and the fact that it's a hyperspeed weapon capable of striking targets in distant systems is mentioned at least twice in the film.
(I don't disagree that these narrative beats were rushed, but they weren't completely absent from the film.)
Dark Was the Night
This movie does a decent job in establishing characters and building an atmosphere. It then Flushes it all down the toilet with a silly looking CGI monster and a final scene that renders the entire rest of the movie completely moot.
Black Forest
Schlock rubbish with a stupid plot and a ridiculous twist ending.
We went out to see The Hateful Eight today... the Xmas movie I'd been anticipating way more than that other one.
We all agreed that we liked it... but I'd still say I was disappointed. I think I was expecting something more straight 'spaghetti western' and this really isn't that. Not a bad movie at all, though I think it could do with a good bit of trimming to tighten stuff up.
From the Dark
Ugh. What a dull, tedious movie. The premise is beyond hackneyed. Oh noes we have to stay in the light or it will get us! There are only a few characters and only the main couple gets any screen time, dialogue or development. The male lead is portrayed as a complete, blithering idiot and something of a wimp for no obvious reason than to make the tough, competent female lead look even better in contrast. It quickly becomes obvious that she is the only character who matters. The movie tries hard to build suspense and atmosphere but fact that the female lead is obviously the only character that actually matter makes this impossible.
Sometimes I think i should just give up on the horror genre. I love a good horror movie but finding one requires going through a lot of drek.
Quote from: yosemitemike;870771Sometimes I think i should just give up on the horror genre. I love a good horror movie but finding one requires going through a lot of drek.
That's why I read a few horror blogs... let others sort through the drek for me. Takes a while to find one that shares your tastes though.
Have you seen:
Banshee Chapter
Taking of Deborah Logan
Absentia
Oculus
It Follows
Not saying any of those are the bees knees... but at least they're putting in some effort.
I really enjoyed Occulus and It Follows, FWIW. Best horror movies I'd seen in awhile.
Just finished The Enemy Below with Robert Mitchum and Curd Jurgens.
Good movie, great acting.
Lucio Fulci's The Black Cat. Supposedly based on Poe's story, but only very loosely. It's a jumbled mess with a lot of plot dead-ends, but it does have a certain atmosphere to it and the cinematography is pretty great throughout, including a fair few cat POV shots as it slinks along plotting its next improbable feat.
Did a review of Swordsman and Enchantress: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/swordsman-and-enchantress-wuxia.html
I finally got to see all of Solomon Kane and I was surprised how good it was. Why James Purefoy isn't starring in bigger movies is beyond me.
Quote from: Elfdart;871811I finally got to see all of Solomon Kane and I was surprised how good it was.
That was my reaction as well.
After hearing John Snead mention that True Blood was a big inspiration on his 'After the Vampire Wars' book for BRP I figured I should check out that show... which until this point I'd completely ignored.
So I got through the first season and thought it was fairly entertaining, BUT... damn if the humans in the story aren't way more interesting than the vampires. That seems like a bad mark on a show about vampires 'coming out of the coffin' and into the media spotlight. So far the bulk of the vamps on show have been EXACTLY the sort of shit I'd expect to see at some old Vampire LARP club.
I'll keep watching because of the humans, but the supernatural stuff is, so far, pretty lame.
Quote from: Simlasa;872508After hearing John Snead mention that True Blood ... So I got through the first season and thought it was fairly entertaining,
I love the opening music for this show and agree that the first season and maybe even the next couple were entertaining, but enjoy it while you can. Once the shark jumping sets in, it's bad and it doesn't stop.
Quote from: Chainsaw;872922I love the opening music for this show and agree that the first season and maybe even the next couple were entertaining, but enjoy it while you can. Once the shark jumping sets in, it's bad and it doesn't stop.
So I've been hearing from various friends. I'm in the middle of season 4 and it's still feeling like about the same ratio of interesting:stupid content. A lot less sex though.
I thought True Blood continued being guilty pleasure Trash TV for quite awhile after it peeked (around seaon 3 IMO) but it did feel like it went out with a whimper in the end after dragging on longer than it should've.
South of Hell has a similar feel to the first season of True Blood though the premise is a different. I found the first three episodes interesting enough to keep watching.
Just watched Mad Max: Fury Road. It was very good, much better than I expected.
TCM has been playing a restored version of The Seven Samurai. The picture looks beautiful. I hope they do the same with Kagemusha and The Hidden Fortress.
Holy shit The Revenant was incredible. The ads and reviews made it out to be some kind of meditative mood piece but underneath the (Stunning) artsy photography is a great, red-blooded, old-school adventure film. Seriously, if you have any interest at all in the American Frontier, Native Americans, mountain men, or man-against-nature survival stories, see this one NOW.
Obscure Italian giallo of the week is Sergio Martino's Your Vice is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key. Top marks for the name alone and the film isn't too bad either. Another 'adaptation' of Poe's The Black Cat, this is a superior slice of sleaze and murder most foul.
If you are interested in seeing raw footage of Mad Max: Fury Road, with the actual stunts and no CGI, take 6 minutes to see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WulFLm06jU. These stuntmen were just amazing. I'd never want to try some of the stuff they did.
Latest Suicide Squad Traile (http://youtu.be/CmRih_VtVAs)r if anyone was interested.
Quote from: Nexus;874454Latest Suicide Squad Traile (http://youtu.be/CmRih_VtVAs)r if anyone was interested.
That was... not nearly as bad as I expected. Probably the same as every [strike]recent DC[/strike] Zack Snyder thing: flashy visuals, great production values, billions in property damage and not a lot of script.
The casting's decent but
now I am concerned Leto's Joker might be the weak link.
Anyone see Krampus? It's playing for another week. I'm hesitant about a PG-13 horror movie. Is it scary fun like Gremlins? Or just lame?
I finally saw Sicario and The Martian at the second run cheapo-plex. Both were excellent.
Sicario is nasty drug war semi-espionage. In some ways, it kinda felt like No Country for Old Men with a female lead. Sicario touts itself as "realistic" and if compared to modern CGI action movies, that's kinda true.
Definitely recommended if you run gritty modern games.
The Martian is solid "realistic" science fiction. Lots of fun to see something that isn't "space fantasy" (which I love), but I don't know if The Martian is going to inspire future astronauts or just remind everyone that space is freaking dangerous.
Definitely recommended if you run Traveller.
I just watched Mad Max: Fury Road. Greatest action film of all time? :jaw-dropping: Greatest hype of all time maybe. Yeesh, was that ever critically overrated.
Quote from: Bren;875278I just watched Mad Max: Fury Road. Greatest action film of all time? :jaw-dropping: Greatest hype of all time maybe. Yeesh, was that ever critically overrated.
Did you see my post above that showed a bunch of the actual stunts? As far as stuntmen skill and just pure danger for them, I'd say this movie is at the top of the list.
Quote from: danbuter;875387Did you see my post above that showed a bunch of the actual stunts? As far as stuntmen skill and just pure danger for them, I'd say this movie is at the top of the list.
Neat. I kinda wish they'd put something at the beginning of the movie saying "this isn't 100% CGI, we used actual stuntmen and stuff." My appreciation of the movie was somewhat soured at the time, because I couldn't quite swallow the silllieness of so many of the tactics and I kept saying to myself "I can't even pay attention to the stunts because I'm sure it's all CGI anyway...".
Thanks for showing there was something worth watching in the film. They should consider releasing "no CGI" versions of films for the afficionados.
Quote from: danbuter;875387Did you see my post above that showed a bunch of the actual stunts? As far as stuntmen skill and just pure danger for them, I'd say this movie is at the top of the list.
Saw the post, but the special effects being mostly stunts rather than mostly CGI doesn't affect my enjoyment of the movie.
OK, having seen The Hateful 8, I have to say I don't think the script quite makes sense.
>>>>>SPOILERS BELOW!<<<<<
>>>>>SPOILERS BELOW!<<<<<
>>>>>SPOILERS BELOW!<<<<<
The plot twist tends to hinge upon two different aspects of racism.
Firstly, the racism encountered between the old general and Samuel Jackson's Bounty Hunter character. It's this conflict that provides the opportunity for the outlaw gang to poison the coffee. The old general was supposedly left alive on the basis that he wouldn't say or do anything. He was clearly emoted by the bounty hunter around the tale of his son, and was clearly racist about blacks (the hatred was mutual). Yet, in the backflash scene - the big reveal - he was perfectly content it seems to sit and play chess in a shack that was run by black owners. On top of this, why exactly did they decide it was necessary to let him stay alive, when everybody else had been killed?
The other big reveal, which got the Mexican shot, was that the black owner was prejudice against Mexicans. Apparently a sign saying "No Dogs; No Mexicans" had only been taken down because of the rule regarding dogs. So why was there no mention of this, when a Mexican came into her establishment - again in the back flash?
On top of this, why decide to put the gang leader in the cellar? Why was the 'waiting game' necessary - why not just shoot or kill off the sherrif, hangman and co at first opportunity instead of putting on an elaborate act? Why did the hangman know that somebody was in league with the prisoner? Why call the movie The Hateful 8, when there are ten characters in the barn in total?
So many plot holes......
Quote from: Bren;875408Saw the post, but the special effects being mostly stunts rather than mostly CGI doesn't affect my enjoyment of the movie.
This sort of goes along with my feelings about
The Revenant. It's amazing to look at, and Mr. Dicaprio chewed on a piece of raw liver, but it doesn't get me past the empty feeling I had afterward (well, after a day or two of ponderment) that the movie was somewhat lacking, story-wise.
Marketing likes to tout all sorts of stuff that has nothing to do with whether the movie was actually good or not: "based on a true story!", "Actor X gained/lost 40 lbs. for the role!", "It took 12 years to make!", "filmed on the location of the actual events!"
Strangely, I didn't feel that way about Fury Road... which wasn't really about much of anything either, but left me feeling satisfied.
Quote from: Spinachcat;874643Anyone see Krampus? It's playing for another week. I'm hesitant about a PG-13 horror movie. Is it scary fun like Gremlins? Or just lame?
Gremlins is what came to mind while I was watching it. I think they'd make a decent double-feature.
Finally saw Looper. That was a damn good movie. Definitely worth checking out.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;875598Finally saw Looper. That was a damn good movie. Definitely worth checking out.
It's tough to make time-travel movies make sense, but that one shooting had me confused as heck, spent so much time trying to figure out that I was supposed to forget about the obvious paradox that I missed much else.
I liked it, just need to see it again and hope to not get so easily confused.
Quote from: Doom;875608It's tough to make time-travel movies make sense, but that one shooting had me confused as heck, spent so much time trying to figure out that I was supposed to forget about the obvious paradox that I missed much else.
I liked it, just need to see it again and hope to not get so easily confused.
The shooting at the end or something earlier? (that there seem to be two time lines established?)
The film definitely has some time travel consistency issues (though I'd say, with the exception of the big one I think you referred to) most actually were not as bad as in many other time travel films I'd seen. But they also were not clear on what their rules were in some key areas so it was a little hard for me to pin them down to things (initially when the guy started losing body parts, I thought it didn't make sense, but then I thought about other instances like that in the movie and the rules seemed like they might accommodate that). Usually movies like this give you a list of rules and you can use those rules to evaluate each paradox that comes up (if the rules say its okay, you kind of let it go). Looper was much more murky on this stuff. You had to pick up the rules from context. I'm still puzzling over how changes to the past work exactly. I liked that changes affected the memories of future selves (though again that seemed to raise a couple of consistency issues). But that seems to suggest there can't be multiple timelines, which kind of makes things more strict and tighter (so each paradox is a little harder to explain).
I think with time travel movies though, you are going to have paradoxes. At least, any time travel movie where you can go back in time is going to have some issue and eventually they reach points where they have to choose between what is good for the story and what is good for consistency. I've never seen a time travel film that didn't have paradoxes that leapt out at me. My view is the holes are okay as long as they add something to the movie and if patching those holes would make the movie more stale. So the body part losing scene, even though I felt it had holes when I first watched it (and I am still inclined to think it is not consistent), it added so much to that moment, and doing something else would have made it so much worse, I think it was the right choice to keep it.
But this movie felt more Noire meets 12 Monkeys, so I wasn't going in with my Hard Science Fiction hat on. If it were a time travel movie that played more like 2001, then I'd probably have had more issues with the paradoxes I kept picking up on. But for something like that, especially when it quite deliberately hand waved one of the character's request for an explanation for the rules of time travel, I was more in sit back and enjoy mode.
The director actually has an interview out there where he does address some of the plot holes and paradoxes (though he doesn't address the big one that you had in mind I believe). Many of them he does have an explanation for that actually makes sense. He points out that it just would have been too much exposition to explain each one. But he does say what the explanation is (or if he didn't have one he says it wasn't something he wanted to think about).
What I liked about Looper was the characters, the story, and the whole plot with the rain maker (that was just creepy and turned the movie in a whole new direction). I enjoyed the vibe they established for the future. I also enjoyed some of the core concepts and the way they introduced important plot elements but distracted you from them (so the whole think with TK being brought up early but dismissed as parlor trick nonsense). For me this was a nearly perfect film.
I appreciate that they did real stunts for Fury Road, but I'm most sad that they did so much work doing things that make so little sense. The film that it's based on, The Road Warrior, has action that actually makes some sense, and to me that makes all the difference. I don't really want to see actual stuntmen do things that have no reason for anyone to ever do except that they're crazy and visually extreme. Feels like such a waste of effort, to me.
It's a lot like how I feel about the gorgeous art that goes into multi-million-dollar computer game productions, but then the game underneath has fake-o mechanics that I don't really want to play.
Saw the movie The Assassin last night (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3508840/). I still don't quite know how I feel about it. On the one hand it was very well directed and beautifully shot. It is the kind of movie where I felt the director knew exactly what he was doing with each frame and achieved what he wanted. But is is very slow by design. Not only do shots linger, but there are enormous pauses between dialogue (in many instances there is no dialogue even though it is clear the characters are communicating). It has the pacing and the appeal of a sunset but I found myself getting bored. Also, not only was there very little actual martial arts, the choreography felt so opaque. There is more than one scene where the action is deliberately obscured by scenery for example. It was clearly intentional though, so I am not inclined to fault it). But even more than that, a lot of the fights didn't feel like fights. The scenes looked good, I just had trouble grabbing onto to them and understanding exactly what was happening. Again I think this is what the director set out to do, and I think the stars all did as they were meant to as well. I knew the director was on the more artsy side going in, but I think I thought it would be more action-oriented going in, so that shaped my expectations. Still I liked the premise and I liked the story. It just took so long for it all to unfold. I was also tired, so I am going to watch it again and see if a second viewing doesn't change my opinion (I find if you are lethargic when you watch it, it's easy to misjudge a slower paced film). It might be the kind of film that grows on you.
Deadlier Than the Male. '60s James Bond light. Pretty dated as these kinds of films tend to be, but fun anyway, with Elke Sommer playing against type as a nasty hit-woman!
Bavathon!
5 Dolls for an August Moon. Bava's second film dealing with a bunch of people who are as bad as each other getting picked off one by one. It doesn't have the knowing humour of Bay of Blood and is weaker than that film. Some of it seems rather hastily edited, with the very last scene confusing me for a moment before i realised what was going on. A minor Bava effort - i understand that he thought this was his worst film (i'd say that was Baron Blood from the films i've seen).
Finally watched Superman Returns. I liked it. Brandon Routh was very good as Superman, and Kevin Spacey was excellent as Lex Luthor.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;875676The shooting at the end or something earlier? (that there seem to be two time lines established?)
... (so the whole think with TK being brought up early but dismissed as parlor trick nonsense). For me this was a nearly perfect film.
The early shooting, the one that kinda makes everything confusing past that point. But no way to talk about it without spoilers, and this is a movie that you don't want to give spoilers on.
The TK didn't bother me, since it was a precursor foreshadowing what happened. I just can't call it a perfect film, that early shooting just confused me too much to enjoy the rest of the film.
I just kinda figured the main rule was "time rewrites itself instantaneously"...which sure didn't help with the pimpslapping paradox.
Now, 12 Monkeys I liked (not so much the SyFy series; I can't seem to get into any SyFy series', though production and writing have improved drastically the last few years), and I can swallow a paradox or ten in a time travel movie...but not when it smacks me in the face.
Quote from: Skarg;875741I appreciate that they did real stunts for Fury Road, but I'm most sad that they did so much work doing things that make so little sense. The film that it's based on, The Road Warrior, has action that actually makes some sense, and to me that makes all the difference. I don't really want to see actual stuntmen do things that have no reason for anyone to ever do except that they're crazy and visually extreme. Feels like such a waste of effort, to me.
It's a lot like how I feel about the gorgeous art that goes into multi-million-dollar computer game productions, but then the game underneath has fake-o mechanics that I don't really want to play.
Yeah, that was what got me about Fury Road too...great stunts, but ultimately sooooooo stupid. Very cool to use polevaulters on cars but...why not just shoot the effin' tires out?
Quote from: Doom;878060Very cool to use polevaulters on cars but...why not just shoot the effin' tires out?
Because tires in working condition would be a valuable resource, while the guys on poles were expendable?
I saw Tarantino's
THE HATEFUL EIGHT.
Short review? Meh.
I like Quentin's style, I love Westerns, and I liked the cast. BUT the damn movie is 30 minutes to 45 minutes too freaking long and drags when it should kick ass. At least it wasn't two movies like Kill Bill, another opus that needed editing down to a lean, mean better single movie.
Other Random Thoughts...
- Quentin really hates the South.
- It was weird hearing Morricone's The Thing soundtrack being recycled.
- I don't mind the movie being broken into chapters, but Quentin's sudden voice over announcing the last third of the movie was jarring.
- I don't get why he needed 70mm for a movie that takes place in one room for most of the movie.
- It was good to see Kurt Russell again. He's always fun, and Walter Goggins was really solid.
- Sam Jackson did his Sam Jackson thing. YMMV, but I like how he chews the scenery with such relish.
- I suspect everyone already knows if they are the audience for this movie, based on the Tarantino + Western pitch.
Quote from: Spinachcat;878687I saw Tarantino's THE HATEFUL EIGHT.
Short review? Meh.
I like Quentin's style, I love Westerns, and I liked the cast. BUT the damn movie is 30 minutes to 45 minutes too freaking long and drags when it should kick ass. At least it wasn't two movies like Kill Bill, another opus that needed editing down to a lean, mean better single movie.
Other Random Thoughts...
- Quentin really hates the South.
- It was weird hearing Morricone's The Thing soundtrack being recycled.
- I don't mind the movie being broken into chapters, but Quentin's sudden voice over announcing the last third of the movie was jarring.
- I don't get why he needed 70mm for a movie that takes place in one room for most of the movie.
- It was good to see Kurt Russell again. He's always fun, and Walter Goggins was really solid.
- Sam Jackson did his Sam Jackson thing. YMMV, but I like how he chews the scenery with such relish.
- I suspect everyone already knows if they are the audience for this movie, based on the Tarantino + Western pitch.
I have hopes for this, but am expecting so-so with a couple scenes of brilliance. Tarantino at this point is just too self-indulgent. He needs a partner like the Cohen brothers or Damon/Affleck. Someone who will say "Dude, what the fuck?"
I loved the movie, but...
Quote from: Spinachcat;878687- I suspect everyone already knows if they are the audience for this movie, based on the Tarantino + Western pitch.
...guilty as charged.
I went to the film with strong scepticism, and was pleasantly surprised. I expected another Kill Bill The Westerning Vol 2: Django Recycled, and instead got a Tarantinian "back to the basics" - this isn't Bastards or Django, so heavy - handed postmodernistic pastiches of the respective genres. For me, it was more of Reservoir Dogs meet 3:10 to Yuma. It is still self - indulgent, it's still no Pulp Fiction, but it is a much needed breath of fresh air compared to last flicks of Tarantino, which while highly enjoyable on the first watch, simply lost their magic to me as I tried to see them again.
Deadpool is exactly what the trailers promised. Adolescent humor, a ton of pop-culture references (up to and including Ryan Reynolds making fun of himself, a few easter eggs, and a lot of fourth-wall breaking) and the good old ultra-violence. Fun movie.
Tonight on TCM:
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TArcc_WduhE&list=PLZbXA4lyCtqp4ANa3tlp0ZzuZoiQsZJx0)
(http://www.standbyformindcontrol.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/sierramadrecover.jpg)
Not only one of John Huston's best movies, but one that comes to mind in every D&D campaign I've ever played.
Quote from: Rincewind1;878991For me, it was more of Reservoir Dogs meet 3:10 to Yuma.
That's a decent take on it.
The two halves of the movie, separated by the intermission, have a very different feel... it's a bit jarring... and there were a couple scenes that felt entirely self-indulgent and unnecessary... to the point of being irritating.
Still, I enjoyed it a lot and am glad I saw it.
I just finished watching 'The Frankenstein Chronicles'... at least the first season of it (if there is to be a second season).
A very grim and gritty bit of historical fiction that's a perfect inspiration to a horror RPG like Dark Streets. Sean Bean as a syphilitic detective attempting to uncover a villain who may be attempting to imitate the fictional Frankenstein. Mary Shelley and William Blake are both portrayed... as are the Bow Street Runners.
At times it was hitting some of the same chords for me as the first season of True Detective. Bleak conspiracy and vague horrors with hints of mysticism and the supernatural.
Good stuff.
The Revenant
Has been the best movie I have seen in recent memory, starring Leonardo DiCaprio. The Cinematographry? Simply spectacular! Totally captured the awesome wide open frontier edge-of-the-world feel of the Old West. A superb dark story albeit with considerable excessive violence, Still quite enjoyable, though.
I was going to comment on Deadpool, but really I haven't got anything pithy to say about it, apropos of this thread.
So instead I'll point out I've been watching an awful lot of kung fu cinema and real low budget stuff. I'm a little peeved, though: I started watching Brotherhood of Blades recently, and just as it started getting really interesting (instead of just modestly interesting)... the damn disc stopped playing!
One thing I noticed about such films is that my usual ability to predict the outcome of the film well before the midpoint is absent. The cultural values and tropes aren't fully internalized, so I am (usually) pleasantly surprised with how a film actually turns out.
Well, except for the Guillotines. God, what an oppressive, bleak and pointless film that was. Once I caught on, it was a bit like predicting the course of malignant terminal cancer. Not hard, but...
Quote from: Spike;880893Well, except for the Guillotines. God, what an oppressive, bleak and pointless film that was. Once I caught on, it was a bit like predicting the course of malignant terminal cancer. Not hard, but...
I viewed it as black humor. How can you not laugh at a flying hat on a string that decapitates people?
Quote from: Bren;880899I viewed it as black humor. How can you not laugh at a flying hat on a string that decapitates people?
Given that its only used successfully in the very very opening of the film? Pretty easily. No one is decapitated successfully anywhere else in the film.
I am, of course, talking about the relatively recent version where everyone dies because their boss decided to kill them all before the start of the film, not the old classic with the weird basket guillotines.
Quote from: Spike;880918Given that its only used successfully in the very very opening of the film? Pretty easily. No one is decapitated successfully anywhere else in the film.
I am, of course, talking about the relatively recent version where everyone dies because their boss decided to kill them all before the start of the film, not the old classic with the weird basket guillotines.
My mistake. I was talking about the Shaw Brothers classic from 1974 which I saw on El Rey's
Flying Five Finger One Armed Eight Pole Shaolin Exploding Death Touch Thursdays. A night not to be missed. :cool:
The original Flying Guillotine was awesome. The remake was okay but benefits from knowing the original version.
Spike I think you will find that those movies are a lot more open in terms of plot structure than we are accustomed to. I think that is one reason they are harder to predict.
Quote from: Spike;880893So instead I'll point out I've been watching an awful lot of kung fu cinema and real low budget stuff. I'm a little peeved, though: I started watching Brotherhood of Blades recently, and just as it started getting really interesting (instead of just modestly interesting)... the damn disc stopped playing!
...
I believe this one is on Netflix if you have it.
I was surprised by Brotherhood of Blades. I thought I was going to like it for some reason, but once the story gets going, it is quite good (and it has Cecilia Liu in it whose been in a bunch of good series)
Yeah, my disc crapped out right where they're having a big dinner party and the one dude finally gets his promotion, only it pretty much looks like everything is about to hit the fan.
Does it?
Um... I'll get back to you when I get a new DVD player maybe? Or I have a good enough internet connection to stream it? Which could be weeks from now... sigh.
Quote from: Spike;880961Yeah, my disc crapped out right where they're having a big dinner party and the one dude finally gets his promotion, only it pretty much looks like everything is about to hit the fan.
Does it?
Um... I'll get back to you when I get a new DVD player maybe? Or I have a good enough internet connection to stream it? Which could be weeks from now... sigh.
Things do hit the fan eventually (though can't recall if it was right after the promotion---but that event definitely helps nudge things along). The pacing in these is always a bit different from what we get in our movies though. I find if you focus on the characters, since they tend to be character driven, you enjoy them more. I will say it is definitely better than the 2012 Flying Guillotine. Another one that was fairly recent that I enjoyed and didn't expect to, was The Four (but do note that one got much more mixed reviews and is a bit of an X Men rip off blended with wuxia).
Now you have me wanting to see it again.
I saw Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: The Sword of Destiny yesterday on Netflix. I rather enjoyed it (was preparing myself for disappointment). It is a very different film from the original and much more action-adventure in tone. While I think the original is a better film by traditional standards, in a lot of ways (though certainly not all) I found this to be a better wuxia film (though it did have some issues). The action was just more of a factor. The role community of martial heroes was more prevalent throughout as well (this is very much a "I need the sword to become master of the Wulin type story). Rather than focus on a small group of characters, this has much more of a martial team approach (though Donnie Yen, Michelle Yeoh, Harry Shum and Natasha Liu Bordizzo are clearly the stars).
I think the heavy use of action, will turn off some viewers who might be expecting the more story focused and ruminating pacing of the first. For me, I was glad for it, because I think the solid fight choreography helped overshadow some of the film's weaknesses (and because it was directed by Yuen Woo-Ping, it makes sense for him to play to his strength). Like the original movie this is a Chinese and American Production, but it is more noticeable because the film is shot in English (which has its benefits and its negatives) and much of the cast seems to be American and international actors). One of the down sides of the English language is many of the American actors chose to speak (or maybe they were directed to do so) in a quasi-shakespearean accent that draws a lot of attention to itself.
The storyline is pretty good actually and quite simple. I won't spoil it, but I think they do a good job bringing Michelle Yeoh's character into the next segment. My understanding is the original movie was based on a series of wuxia novels, and I believe this one is also based on the next book in the series (however there is an english language novel for the movie, so it is unclear to me how much this new installment deviates from the original storyline----and the original novels are not translated into English as far as I know). There is more supernatural elements in this one (that is sometimes in wuxia, but I did wonder if it was added in this case as it felt more heavy than normal--at least with one character in particular).
Donnie Yen and Michelle Yeoh are great in it. It is nice to see them working together in a wuxia film again, and nice to see that they are still able to pull of some pretty involved and graceful fight choreography.
I have zero complaints about the fight scenes (in fact many of them were more entertaining to me than the original movie's swordplay). They help carry the movie and give it plenty of energy. Some of the acting felt a bit out of place and some of the elements did feel a little too Holywood, but I think they did a good job conveying the idea of the martial world to a western audience. Whereas the first film touched on that concept at times, this one dives pretty deeply into it.
There was a bit of CGI but it was pretty seamless and used mainly to give the film a sense of scope and create a more awe-inspiring environment. I may just be immune to it at this stage (because a lot of Chinese wuxia films and shows make heavy use of CGI) but I felt it added rather detracted from the experience.
The way characters are handled is a bit different from the first movie as well. Here it is more about stark characters who are part of a team and have chemistry. They delve into the background of the four chief protagonists, but the rest of the team has one or two major traits. I think this worked. I like having larger than life martial heroes in my movies. But it is definitely quite a different approach from the original film.
One thing that I rather liked were the characters backstories in this one. I don't want to spoil anything but there is a bit of mystery around some of the characters and you slowly learn their history over the course of the film. These yield some interesting surprises (in one instance helping to illuminate some of the material from the first film----though some may find that it undermines it I suppose). Personally I liked this and thought it complimented the first.
Basically watch this one for the fight scenes, the exploration of the martial world, and Michelle Yeoh and Donnie Yen. It also has some interesting characters, but in some cases you might find yourself being distracted by the delivery (I at least found the old time english accents where they appeared jarring).
Quote from: GameDaddy;880713The Revenant
Has been the best movie I have seen in recent memory, starring Leonardo DiCaprio. The Cinematographry? Simply spectacular! Totally captured the awesome wide open frontier edge-of-the-world feel of the Old West. A superb dark story albeit with considerable excessive violence, Still quite enjoyable, though.
Yeah, I really enjoyed
The Revenant. Fantastic cinematography. Portrayal of the period feels very authentic/realistic.
I'm not sure how rewatchable it is, though.
Quote from: Spinachcat;878687I saw Tarantino's THE HATEFUL EIGHT.
Short review? Meh.
I like Quentin's style, I love Westerns, and I liked the cast. BUT the damn movie is 30 minutes to 45 minutes too freaking long and drags when it should kick ass. At least it wasn't two movies like Kill Bill, another opus that needed editing down to a lean, mean better single movie.
Other Random Thoughts...
- Quentin really hates the South.
- It was weird hearing Morricone's The Thing soundtrack being recycled.
- I don't mind the movie being broken into chapters, but Quentin's sudden voice over announcing the last third of the movie was jarring.
- I don't get why he needed 70mm for a movie that takes place in one room for most of the movie.
- It was good to see Kurt Russell again. He's always fun, and Walter Goggins was really solid.
- Sam Jackson did his Sam Jackson thing. YMMV, but I like how he chews the scenery with such relish.
- I suspect everyone already knows if they are the audience for this movie, based on the Tarantino + Western pitch.
I am pretty sure the re-use of The Thing music is a deliberate riff. THE HATEFUL EIGHT's ending and setting mirror The Thing's ending and setting.
I am not sure (do not quote me) but I believe Taratino asked John Carpenter for permission to use the music...
Well, I just watched a film called Apocalypse Kiss, which is some low budget indie thing out of philly. Its got the old guy who does the Troma Videos in a cameo, and I thought it was almost Mel Brooks, for whatever that's worth.
All things being equal it was actually not bad. There were some story issues, such as the (non-spoiler!), fact that the very day after all the plot threads are wrapped up the entire world dies, making it entirely pointless. They got some good actors in the film, which sort of hides the weakness of the actors that make up the core of the studio (such as the Director's Wife, playing one of the villains... which proves why this sort of casting is always a bad idea, because while she is a villain (serial killer), she sort of plays out her plot arc like an anti-hero. Except, you know, she isn't. She just murders everyone she encounters. Also, while she isn't a bad actress (which is more obvious when watching the interviews later), her character is badly drawn. You know, because: Director's Wife.
The main villain (also a serial killer) however, is very well done, and the core conceit of the plot (cat and mouse games between killer and cop, only in this case initiated by the killer from the beginning) is actually rather smart. Its the second killer (Director's Wife...) plot that sort of keeps it from quite living up to its potential... well that and a sense that the director had far less idea of what to do with the cop half of the story than he did with the killer. Edgy guy, right? I mean, the studio icon is a pentagram, and the lesbian serial killer has a ring through her nose and shit.
Then end point, I guess, is that a common failing of these low-budget indie flicks is that while they can do a great job on tiny, tiny budgets (I don't know what they filmed on, but at one point they refer to their previous film being 46k, and that being big compared to this film...), they very often seem to fall down on what is ironically the cheapest part of making a film: The god damn story! Seriously: You should have that ready before you seek a dime in film money, if you're the 'do it all auture (sp?, whatever, its french and I don't spell french) that this guy wants to be. Polish that fucker up and trim the fat, and get your god damn wife to stop making the damn thing a fan wank about her, right?
Bah. I forgot i was going to post about Rock of Ages instead. That's what I get for saving up a weeks worth of internetting... the brain starts to fall apart.
I seem to recall this film failing like shit flavored ice cream when it came out. Maybe. Tom Cruise's take on a rock star is delightfully over the top, but there are a lot of missteps.
Lets see where to begin?
80's rock soundtrack? Excellent. Only, lets produce the musical numbers so they sound more like late 90's and 2000's era songs. I'm pretty sure a few people had voice doubles, but I'm too lazy to actually check. If so they were poorly chosen for the songs, and if not, then some people actually needed to be doubled. Does Tom Cruise really have that high pitched and weak a singing voice? I guess he does.
Keeping on the music: cheating by robbing the seventies for some iconic rock tracks may be understandable, but it weakens the film. More importantly, having every made up rock star and wanna be rock star in the film sing a wildly incompatible range of songs is... lazy. If Stacee Jaxx (tom Cruise) is supposed to be singing Bon Jovi, having him sing fucking Bon Jovi all the damn time, not go for a lazy 'hit' inclusion by suddenly turning him into Axel Rose for one song and Foreigner for another (may not be real examples. Well, Bon Jovi, yes. And SOMEONE covers Paradise City...)
Let me be perfectly honest: I haven't got the love for Mr Baldwin that Hollywood seems to have. He's done great work in the past, and is much beloved on... umm... 30 Rock?... but most of the time, like here, he seems to be.... well, phoning it in would be an improvement. Zombie acting? Prop him up in a corner in a rough approximation of a costume and have the ghost of Jim Henson stick his hand up mr baldwin's ass to make his lips quiver appropriately while the ghost of frank oz mimics his voice?
That may be too generous. There are plenty of times when he appears to be wandering through the set half stoned, and unaware that they are filming until someone shoves a cue card in his face, which he manfully reads like he's giving a lecture to a bunch of homeless people at a food bank.
Its a curious film, in part because it is such a disaster. I'll admit it, I did buy it to see Catherine Zeta-Jones (https://youtu.be/ee4ZU6auY7c) in her musical number, but even that falls flat, with choreography which is both over the top and yet incredibly lifeless.
My wife and I watched Watch on the Rhine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_on_the_Rhine) this past Saturday. I had recorded it during Turner Classic Movies 31 Days of Oscars. Neither my wife nor I had seen this before. Nor do I think we had heard of it. Watch on the Rhine is a 1943 American film drama directed by Herman Shumlin, starring Bette Davis and Paul Lukas. The screenplay by Dashiell Hammett is based on the 1941 play of the same title by Lillian Hellman. I want to see that play.
Watch on the Rhine, was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture and Paul Lukas won the Academy Award for Best Actor along with the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor and the New York Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor. Lucile Watson was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress but lost to Katina Paxinou in For Whom the Bell Tolls, and Dashiel Hammett was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay but lost to Philip G. Epstein, Julius J. Epstein, and Howard Koch for Casablanca.
This movie is great. Not good. Really, really great.
We've all seen Casablanca. I'd rate Casablanca higher...but not by much. And I recently watched For Whom the Bell Tolls (again courtesy of TMC's 31 Days of Oscars) and Watch on the Rhine is better and is better acted. Significantly better acted. Every character without exception is pitch perfect, convincing, and entertaining to watch. This movie easily makes my list of the 100 best films. It is just that good. As I said to my wife, this film doesn't show you what life was like under the Nazis before the war. We don't see Jews oppressed, stores vandalized, or goose-stepping thugs. What we do get is the feel of oppression through the characters. Through what they say and how they say it and through what they don't say, and how they don't say it. We feel what it was like for freedom loving people to live under the Nazis.
You should find it and watch it now. Right now!
The Good: The acting is superlative. The drama is tense and engaging. It makes you feel what oppression is like. The end is surprising.
The Bad: There is nothing bad. Except that it took me over 50 years to find this movie.
Rating: 4 out of 4 stars.
(Or N out of N stars for whatever value of N you choose.)
Bonus Review
I also recommend The VVitch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witch_%282015_film%29), which I reviewed here on my blog (http://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/2016/03/review-vvitch-new-england-folktale.html).
Wu Dang, with Vincent Zhao. Which I then followed with Ninja Assassin for some idiot reason.
I think I really like Wu Dang. Its a bit slow and there are some missteps along the way, notably at the very (and I do mean VERY end... last seconds last scene before credits, very...), but its got a lot of charm. Kung Fu Romance.
But I could have done without the 'Sleeping Kung Fu' bit, which it seems even the cast found a bit... goofy. I really appreciate a movie that is willing to take its time unfolding the plot, which is NOT the same thing as having a slow ass plot.
Yeah.. I may be posting here quite a bit, as I've got a lot of movies to watch, including a Clint Eastwood's Son doing Clint Western, and a Korean Film (the Man from Nowhere), and more ultra-cheap indie cinema.
Quote from: GameDaddy;880713The Revenant
Has been the best movie I have seen in recent memory, starring Leonardo DiCaprio. The Cinematographry? Simply spectacular! Totally captured the awesome wide open frontier edge-of-the-world feel of the Old West. A superb dark story albeit with considerable excessive violence, Still quite enjoyable, though.
100% in agreement with this assessment. What a glorious, amazing movie. Artistry and grit hand in hand. Slow, but as I descend into oldfartdom I increasingly enjoy slow-paced movies which take their time to build dramatic tension.
I just got back from London Has Fallen.
The premise is absurd to the point of absurdity, but it is quite refreshing to see a movie that isn't afraid to let its hero be more than a little pulpy* in his violence and nationalism. In that regards I think I can safely say it doesn't make any real missteps.
But god damn is the setup hard to swallow.
The only other problem I had was during the setup when the news stations feed the audience the bits about how difficult it is to secure a state funeral. If you've never watched the news you might not notice, but for those sheltered souls: News people don't really talk like that. Also: its painfully redundant, since we've seen the security people JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT!!!!
* I'm going back to the Red Letter Media guys talking about what went wrong with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, a notionally Indiana Jones film. Indy is a pulp hero, and therefore is allowed to kill people in shockingly violent ways, because they are bad people. In Crystal Skull, Spielberg, as an old man, was no longer as eager to let his hero be violent, and consequently the guy wearing the indy suit doesn't really kill anyone, because 'good guys don't do that'. Not Pulp.
Gerard Butler's Michael.... something or other... kills, well, everybody. Several with a knife, and even tortures one guy for the thrills of it while talking to the man's brother on a radio, and even admits it had no purpose.
Because, at the end of the day, he's a fucking indestructible pulp hero, and everyone else is a bad guy who needs a good knifing.
Grabbers. One of those comedy monster movies like Tremors or Deep Rising, except as its Irish, with extra drinking! Decent enough time-waster, but nothing to write home about. I wondered where Richard Coyle had vanished to - it turns out he's gone to straight to dvd.
Quote from: One Horse Town;886854Grabbers. One of those comedy monster movies like Tremors or Deep Rising, except as its Irish, with extra drinking! Decent enough time-waster, but nothing to write home about. I wondered where Richard Coyle had vanished to - it turns out he's gone to straight to dvd.
It's the one where you need to be drunk to avoid the monsters, no?
Quote from: Rincewind1;886857It's the one where you need to be drunk to avoid the monsters, no?
That's the one.
So, i've done plenty of Italian horror and giallo, i've touched on Dutch horror with Amsterdamned, even Belgian horror with Daughters of Darkness. Well, now i move on to some vintage 70s Spanish horror (no, not the sleazetastic Black Candles - if you haven't seen that eye-popping film, its worth looking up as long as you're a sleaze fan).
Found as an extra on the Daughters of Darkness dvd is The Blood Spattered Bride which is basically the same Carmilla vampire story as DoD and Hammer films such as Lust for a Vampire or The Vampire Lovers. Well, tBSB is much better than the 'A' film found on the same disc, even if it shares the same story-line. The unease is better, the build-up is better, and frankly, the amount of collar and cuffs flashed by the female leads in the first 30 minutes alone rises it up the sleaze ranks of 70s Euro exploitation movies. The nudity doesn't detract from the movie like some of these titles (lets face it, some of the films mentioned above are only notorious for their sleaze), tBSB does more than that - the male lead is a bit skeevy and is basically a randy old man (compared to his bride at any rate), but the bride starts off as slightly dodgy and gets progressively more aggressive so that when 'Carmilla' starts to turn her against her hubby with such charming lines as, "He spits inside your body in order to make you a slave", her work isn't very difficult.
Worth a look.
I had the good fortune to record several of the Hammer Horror Classics when they appeared on the MGM and Sony HD channels. One might think watching them in HD makes no difference but it really does. Yes the matte paintings and optical line-ups look worse but you can really see the attention to detail in what are very low-budget movies.
The Vampire Lovers looks amazing in HD, especially the day-for-night shots of the General's manor. It's still a rather odd if entertaining film. The beginning and the ending (i.e. the scenes with Peter Cushing and Douglas Wilmer) are great vampire horror. The middle, on the other hand, is well-lit Skinemax vampire soft porn where Ingrid Pitt (ROWRRRR!)...
(http://www.midnightonly.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/vampire-lovers-7.jpg)
...has her way with several girls in some pretty tame lesbian action that is still kinda hot almost 50 years later.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1H6y1_kxffw/UIVzveS9EEI/AAAAAAAAAuE/FlMbzjPsRC8/s1600/The+Vampire+Lovers+5.png)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FdjC5ldJWNw/UIV0zGJ85qI/AAAAAAAAAuU/mkHHRSyrC_8/s1600/The+Vampire+Lovers+7.png)
Spoiler
Of course with Peter Cushing on the case, it can only end one way for any vampire:
(http://45.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqtfhfyD7l1qems7ao1_500.gif)
As Joe Bob Briggs would say, "Check it out"!
I was watching this Danny Devito/Bette Midler 80's classic (Ruthless People):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVrlQ6l6d-0&feature=youtu.be&t=4011
A bit of a low quality upload, though.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;888899I was watching this Danny Devito/Bette Midler 80's classic (Ruthless People):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVrlQ6l6d-0&feature=youtu.be&t=4011
A bit of a low quality upload, though.
I remember watching Ruthless People in the theater when it came out. The way Danny DeVito handles wrong numbers had my soda shooting out of my nostrils.
Got around to checking out Man from Nowhere. Good example of Korean Cinema. Plot is similar in some ways to The Professional, but still very distinct. There are some curious cultural elements that are hard to get as a foreigner... I think there is some racial gang warfare, Chinese vs Korean, that isn't too clear. One of the bad guys is Vietnamese, but speaks only English, which is a bit of a mind-trip.
Tonight we watched The Invitation, which I'd been hearing rumbles about.
It's billed as 'horror' but I'd say 'thriller' is more accurate, though its core idea is pretty creepy to me.
I went into it knowing next to nothing about it and I'm glad I did because it's a fairly subtle movie in how it gives out the story.
Not that the story is anything new... I had it figured out pretty quick. It's just well done. No jump scares and things play out in a relatively plausible way compared to other movies of its ilk.
I was able to watch Monsters recently. Not bad, though the Monsters are not really the focus of the movie. It's a romance, actually.
Quote from: Elfdart;887967I had the good fortune to record several of the Hammer Horror Classics when they appeared on the MGM and Sony HD channels. One might think watching them in HD makes no difference but it really does. Yes the matte paintings and optical line-ups look worse but you can really see the attention to detail in what are very low-budget movies.
The Vampire Lovers looks amazing in HD, especially the day-for-night shots of the General's manor. It's still a rather odd if entertaining film. The beginning and the ending (i.e. the scenes with Peter Cushing and Douglas Wilmer) are great vampire horror. The middle, on the other hand, is well-lit Skinemax vampire soft porn where Ingrid Pitt (ROWRRRR!)...
(http://www.midnightonly.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/vampire-lovers-7.jpg)
...has her way with several girls in some pretty tame lesbian action that is still kinda hot almost 50 years later.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1H6y1_kxffw/UIVzveS9EEI/AAAAAAAAAuE/FlMbzjPsRC8/s1600/The+Vampire+Lovers+5.png)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FdjC5ldJWNw/UIV0zGJ85qI/AAAAAAAAAuU/mkHHRSyrC_8/s1600/The+Vampire+Lovers+7.png)
Spoiler
Of course with Peter Cushing on the case, it can only end one way for any vampire:
(http://45.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqtfhfyD7l1qems7ao1_500.gif)
As Joe Bob Briggs would say, "Check it out"!
It is funny since this is so tame by today's standards, but when I was young that film was like smuggling crack into the house. Got me to read Sheridan Le Fanu.
Justice League vs Teen Titans was another good one from DC Animated Universe. Very entertaining and compelling in much the same way the Justice League and Young Justice series were. There were even some subtle Easter Eggs some relating to the Teen Titans Go! Series It even got me to finally like Raven. I know how allot of people watching Netflix's Daredevil felt about finding themselves liking the Punisher.
Quote from: Nexus;892034Justice League vs Teen Titans was another good one from DC Animated Universe. Very entertaining and compelling in much the same way the Justice League and Young Justice series were. There were even some subtle Easter Eggs some relating to the Teen Titans Go! Series It even got me to finally like Raven. I know how allot of people watching Netflix's Daredevil felt about finding themselves liking the Punisher.
yah its a good movie over all more of a Damion movie then a teem titans movie though
Did a review of the martial arts movie Magic Blade. Great flick:
http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/magic-blade-movie-review.html
I watched two video games in a movie theater!
LONDON HAS FALLEN
Do you enjoy watching friends play Call of Duty? If so, you might enjoy this movie. As a movie, its an 80s Chuck Norris flick with a CGI budget. As I love action flicks, especially for $3 bucks, I can't complain. It's a textbook popcorn movie mindless action flick.
It's decent gamer brain fodder if you're running an Spy/Shooter Action RPG, but none of the action is brand new or original. You've seen all these stunts before a dozen times...probably on your Xbox.
GODS OF EGYPT
This was A LOT of fun...because I'm excited about the Godbound RPG and I am a fan of the Wargods of Aegyptus miniatures wargame. It's Mythic Superheroes in fantasy Egypt and the mix of honky and not-honky actors makes no sense, but WTF, its uber overblown fantasy Egypt, not a documentary. It's got fun CGI battle F/X, but overall its a $100M version of a Syfy cheapo.
If you're thinking about running Godbound and you think that an Egyptian setting might be cool for it, this movie would definitely be worth checking out...via streaming on Netflix.
Quote from: Spinachcat;893966It's Mythic Superheroes in fantasy Egypt and the mix of honky and not-honky actors makes no sense, but WTF, its uber overblown fantasy Egypt, not a documentary.
I've seen this one called out for 'whitewashing' but wasn't Egypt, depending on the era, a mix of peoples... some of them Greek? It always seems to come up when people are arguing over depictions of Cleopatra.
Either way it doesn't bug me.
Over the weekend we watched
Goodnight Mommy, a German horror/thriller. It has a pretty obvious twist but there's more than enough beyond that to where the movie doesn't rely on it for the creepy ideas that crept in at the end... and it gave me a wacky idea of something to put into a Call of Cthulhu game.
Quote from: Simlasa;894390I've seen this one called out for 'whitewashing' but wasn't Egypt, depending on the era, a mix of peoples... some of them Greek? It always seems to come up when people are arguing over depictions of Cleopatra.
Either way it doesn't bug me.
Over the weekend we watched Goodnight Mommy, a German horror/thriller. It has a pretty obvious twist but there's more than enough beyond that to where the movie doesn't rely on it for the creepy ideas that crept in at the end... and it gave me a wacky idea of something to put into a Call of Cthulhu game.
Would you PM me the gist of it, please?
Quote from: Spinachcat;893966I watched two video games in a movie theater!
I did too:
Hardcore Henry.
Filmed entirely in the first-person, this movie was
great! The plot was paper thin and completely off-the-wall (it can be summarized as "a telekinetic madman has kidnapped your wife and is making cyborg-soldiers to conquer the world; are you a bad enough dude to stop him?"), but that just made it all the more crazy as the silent hero kills his way through an army of bad guys. This goes through the video game tropes exactly right, and is by far the most fun I've had at a movie in a long time.
I got a chance to watch the ~5 hr German silent Dr. Mabuse: the Gambler... which was great. I'd already seen some of the later Mabuse movies but this one didn't disappoint... Mabuse is a mix of Professor Moriarty and Aleister Crowley. He'd make a great villain for a Call of Cthulhu campaign, I'm surprised he hasn't turned up in one already (I did a search but didn't see any).
Though I haven't seen Dr. Mabuse used as a villain in CoC, the films may be an influence on the Blood Brother's II scenario, Der Stille Nacht. Though maybe that was just the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.
I have just seen Avengers - Civil War and it is a nice action movie ! It was as nice as Captain America the Winter Soldier.
I saw High Rise a couple of days ago. I highly recommend it to any fan of beatnics. A veritable mix of Eyes Wild Shut with Apocalypse Now.
Just saw Force Awakens.
Very plot heavy. I felt like they were ramming the story down my throat. Terrible pacing.
Finn and Poe I liked. Rey is the Hermione of Star Wars.
The references to the original movie weren't used interetingly. Felt like a string of Family Guy "manatee jokes".
I liked the prequels better. And I mean that sincerely. For all lucas' flaws at least the prequels were bad Star Wars films. This was more like a meh film wearing a Star Wars skin.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;896688Rey is the Hermione of Star Wars.
I haven't seen any of the Harry Potter films or read the books so, while I think I get the gist, I'm not sure exactly what this means?
Quote from: Nexus;896714I haven't seen any of the Harry Potter films or read the books so, while I think I get the gist, I'm not sure exactly what this means?
Annoying knowitall character.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;896745Annoying knowitall character.
I didn't take her that way... they set up why she'd know how to fly and repair the MF... know her way around Imperial installations (after picking over crashed hulks for years). She also makes mistakes... like releasing the big tentacled things.
It bothered me more that she's instantly throwing around Jedi powers and good with a sword (which might be a Jedi power, dunno).
Watching it again the other day I just found it all kinda of technically well made but clunky... like most superhero movies.
On the recommend of a friend I watched Blue Ruin, which I hadn't heard about.
A simple revenge story, made interesting by the main character having no particular skills to aide him. Just a ruined man with a vendetta. He takes action early in the film... and the rest of the story is about dealing with the consequences.
It's a great example of a style of film I don't know a name for... but it rests somewhere near Film Noir... in spirit if not in visual style... in the way the story plays out for the characters. Kind of like No Country For Old Men and Way Of The Gun and A Simple Plan. Protagonists who aren't supermen and don't wear plot immunity on their sleeves.
Very much the sort of feel I want in horror/crime RPGs... but a hard sell to Players who expect to play the good guys and 'win'.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;896688Just saw Force Awakens.
Very plot heavy. I felt like they were ramming the story down my throat. Terrible pacing.
Finn and Poe I liked. Rey is the Hermione of Star Wars.
The references to the original movie weren't used interetingly. Felt like a string of Family Guy "manatee jokes".
I liked the prequels better. And I mean that sincerely. For all lucas' flaws at least the prequels were bad Star Wars films. This was more like a meh film wearing a Star Wars skin.
If that is how you felt, then that is your reaction, but I didn't get this at all. I thought Rey was a really compelling character as well as quite likable (which I really was worried about going in because the chatter on her online did make me nervous that she might be obnoxious or to heavy handed). But she worked for me.
I saw the movie again the other day and still really enjoyed it. No complaints. What worked was in my opinion was they went back to the core formula of a group of likable characters you want to follow. My only concern now is it sounds like they might shift to focus on other characters in the sequel. That would be a mistake in my opinion. One of the reasons the prequels felt off to me was i didn't feel like watching a core team of heroes go on a great series of connected adventures. This one felt like a return to form. But it sounds like they may try to cram in more core characters (which after years of watching shows like Game of Thrones and Walking dead, I honestly want less of, not more because you end up having to juggle too many POVs).
Quote from: Ratman_tf;896745Annoying knowitall character.
I've heard others say that about the character too.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;896854If that is how you felt, then that is your reaction, but I didn't get this at all.
I really didn't hate it as much as I thought I would. I've had some time to process the flick, and have a few more impressions.
The first part, with Rey on Jakku, being the scavenger character, Finn's defection and escape with Poe. I really liked these parts.
When the got the Millenium Falcon is where I think things went off the rails. The jerkoff over the original trilogy just got too furious for me to continue to be interested in the new characters. This is where Rey stopped being an interesting character, and was just a blah self-insertion character, there to fondle all the OT props and talk to the OT characters. Now that they've found Luke, they could drop Rey altogether and I wouldn't miss her.
Finn was much more interesting and engaging, with him being a fugitive from the New Order. Poe we didn't get enough time with, but he seemed like a fun, feisty Resistance ace dude.
So good first 30ish minutes, that turns into a boring slog for the rest of the movie.
Quote from: Nexus;896857I've heard others say that about the character too.
I think the problem is that Rey is too much of a self-insertion character. She's bland as fuck, excepting the first bit of the film. She's there, like I said, just to run around and diddle with all the original trilogy references.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;896872I think the problem is that Rey is too much of a self-insertion character. She's bland as fuck, excepting the first bit of the film. She's there, like I said, just to run around and diddle with all the original trilogy references.
She's not really connected to anything, seems to have no friends or family... just the vague whoever she's waiting for. Not much motivation to root for or reason to care about her except that she's plucky. Finn and Poe are more interesting because they've got more stuff going on, despite being secondary characters (they seem secondary).
Quote from: Simlasa;896785On the recommend of a friend I watched Blue Ruin, which I hadn't heard about.
A simple revenge story, made interesting by the main character having no particular skills to aide him. Just a ruined man with a vendetta. He takes action early in the film... and the rest of the story is about dealing with the consequences.
It's a great example of a style of film I don't know a name for... but it rests somewhere near Film Noir... in spirit if not in visual style... in the way the story plays out for the characters. Kind of like No Country For Old Men and Way Of The Gun and A Simple Plan. Protagonists who aren't supermen and don't wear plot immunity on their sleeves.
Very much the sort of feel I want in horror/crime RPGs... but a hard sell to Players who expect to play the good guys and 'win'.
I think the term you are looking for is Neo-Noir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-noir)
Saw Captain America: Civil War today. in general it was pretty good though about 2/3rd, 3/4 of the way through it seemed to turn into Iron Man 3.5. Iron Man is becoming kind of a writer's darling, IMO and I found it particularly grating here.
I just saw Monkey King II (here is the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uzTY7SiLSM). I think it was better than the first one (here is a review I did of the first one: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-monkey-king-and-monkey-goes-west.html).
The movies are based on Journey to the West, a classic Chinese novel about a monk who travels with spirited beasts or demons to obtain some Buddhist sutras in India. I liked the first film, but this one felt more like an adventure and dealt more with the Journey part of Journey to the West. In the first one Donnie Yen played Monkey, and in this one they had another actor from the first film take on the role instead (the guy who played Bull Demon King). He did a good job. I think his monkey was a little darker, more brooding and ominous (Yen's was much more playful). Gong Li plays Baiguijing, the Bone Demoness and steals the show. I still prefer films like A Chinese Odyssey or Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons to this one, but it is good entertainment and has some great effects. If you do watch it, it might be worth reading chapters 27-29 of Journey to the West (http://www.innerjourneytothewest.com/english/books/JTW/JTW27.html) before viewing (pretty sure those are the chapters it covers but I could be wrong). Or read up on this wiki entry to know the basic premise of the portion of the book they are drawing from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baigujing
Saw Ex Machina last night for the first time. Wow, this was an incredible movie. I dismissed it for some reason when I saw the previews (I don't know why but somehow I mistook it for a completely different kind of film). I like science fiction that moves a little slow and takes time to explore the characters and situation, so this might not be something everyone will like. It isn't heavy on effects or action (though the effects they do use are quite good). I liked everything about this one, the acting, the writing, the look and feel. It was one of those rare 'this is why I watch movies' experiences.
Ex Machina was great. ;)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898476Saw Ex Machina last night for the first time. Wow, this was an incredible movie. I dismissed it for some reason when I saw the previews (I don't know why but somehow I mistook it for a completely different kind of film). I like science fiction that moves a little slow and takes time to explore the characters and situation, so this might not be something everyone will like. It isn't heavy on effects or action (though the effects they do use are quite good). I liked everything about this one, the acting, the writing, the look and feel. It was one of those rare 'this is why I watch movies' experiences.
I agree that is was a great movie. I went in hoping that it would be an uncomfortable (in a good way) exploration of humanity and AI, and I wasn't disappointed.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;898736I agree that is was a great movie. I went in hoping that it would be an uncomfortable (in a good way) exploration of humanity and AI, and I wasn't disappointed.
It was strange. I've heard such good things about it but I didn't really care for it. Had no interest in seeing it in the theater and a friend talked me into watching it with her. I ended going off play on around online about quarter through. It felt slow and had no characters I found engaging or cared about. But the subject matter wasn't really my cuppa to begin with. From a technical standpoint it seemed like a fine movie.
Quote from: Nexus;898757It was strange. I've heard such good things about it but I didn't really care for it. Had no interest in seeing it in the theater and a friend talked me into watching it with her. I ended going off play on around online about quarter through. It felt slow and had no characters I found engaging or cared about. But the subject matter wasn't really my cuppa to begin with. From a technical standpoint it seemed like a fine movie.
Certainly wouldn't expect it appeals to everyone. I tend to like slower science fiction with lots of character interaction. There are only four characters for the most part (and one of them doesn't talk) so if you don't find them engaging, it is definitely going to be a dull slog all the way through. Personally I enjoyed them.
Quote from: Nexus;898757But the subject matter wasn't really my cuppa to begin with.
How about Kill Command, or Cargo (the German one)?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898759Certainly wouldn't expect it appeals to everyone. I tend to like slower science fiction with lots of character interaction. There are only four characters for the most part (and one of them doesn't talk) so if you don't find them engaging, it is definitely going to be a dull slog all the way through. Personally I enjoyed them.
I don't mind a slow paced movie, sometimes a long burn is best particularly for some breeds of suspense and horror.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898763How about Kill Command, or Cargo (the German one)?
Can't say I've seen them. What's their premise?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;898736I agree that is was a great movie. I went in hoping that it would be an uncomfortable (in a good way) exploration of humanity and AI, and I wasn't disappointed.
I don't know that it was an uncomfortable exploration for me. But I did find it a compelling and interesting exploration.
Quote from: Nexus;898778Can't say I've seen them. What's their premise?
Kill Command: cyberpunk, an island, a small force of soldiers tasked with deactivation of combat robots that apparently went haywire
Cargo: hard SF/cyberpunk, a spaceship, that something is not right with cargo is the smallest problem the crew is about to face
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898779I don't know that it was an uncomfortable exploration for me. But I did find it a compelling and interesting exploration.
One of those existential questions that hovers in the back of my thoughts is "What is mind?" Which runs smack into ideas about AI. Dunno if that makes more sense. :)
My local 2nd run theater had a double feature for $3. The large popcorn was $6.25, so you could get a refill between flicks. Lots of Latinos frequent the theater (its in North Hollywood) so the theater puts out a jug of hot sauce for the popcorn. I've become really addicted to salted, buttered, spicy gooey popcorn.
CRIMINAL
Kevin Costner partially gets Ryan Reynold's CIA brain from Droopy Dawg Tommy Lee Jones while Gary Oldman yells incoherently and makes bad decisions.
Costner actually does a good job, but the movie is a B action paycheck for everyone else. So why do we root for evil dude Costner? Because his dad tossed him out a car window as a child which damaged his frontal lobe so he never developed impulse control or any sense of right or wrong. Then when he gets Ryan's memories written over his damaged zone, he experiences emotion and a conscience. Then he shoots all the bad guys. The End. Not a terrible premise, but better explored in the Angel TV series.
Who should see it?
I don't know. It has action, espionage, acting and mostly takes place in the UK, but dozens of movies do those flavors far better. From a gaming perspective, the ONLY value of the film may be Costner's transition from villain to hero and his discovery of his humanity - and how its not a nice smooth "I'm Chaotic Evil - BOOM - I'm Lawful Good", but instead its kinda rocky. Maybe inspirational for a certain type of redemption character arc.
10 CLOVERFIELD LANE
This is a sequel / not sequel. You don't need to see the first film. In fact, as a fan of Cloverfield, I was kinda confused WTF was the connection between this film other than the title. I'm sure this was an independent screenplay that got the Cloverfield name tacked on for marketing. However, this was a GOOD human monster movie. It's claustrophobic, but never gets dull. It's a smart movie that keeps you guessing as subplots develop and your assumptions of who is telling the truth, and what the truth may be keeps getting tossed about. I found it very fun. It's got lots of suspense, messed up human dynamics in a bomb shelter, and then some cool surprises that are worth the wait. Also, because its so claustrophobic, the movie should play fine on the small screen.
Who should see it?
Its definitely a "should-see" for all horror fans. While not ground breaking, its a clear winner for how a small cast and small budget can deliver on the big screen. From a gaming perspective, I recommend it highly to horror GMs, especially those who enjoy human scale slow growing psychological scares in their game. How the movie introduced the subplots organically will also be interesting to GMs. Lots of good stuff to learn here.
Batbitch vs. Superfart is opening there this weekend so I may do another spicy popcorn double feature with 10 Cloverfield Lane. I am interested to see what GM tips I can pick up from a second viewing. The conflicting motivations of the PCs versus the "external threats" versus the questions of "what is true" would be really interesting for a one-shot horror RPG session.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;898759Certainly wouldn't expect it appeals to everyone. I tend to like slower science fiction with lots of character interaction. There are only four characters for the most part (and one of them doesn't talk) so if you don't find them engaging, it is definitely going to be a dull slog all the way through. Personally I enjoyed them.
yah i know what you mean like an anime im fond of noir there are only 4 recurring characters ever one else is ether
a: a faceless grunt or
b: a one episode character thats dead by the end of the episode
if had friends of mine no be able to get in to it far that reason
also dos all this talk of AI remind any one else of A.I. Artificial Intelligence
"The Witch" was very moody, atmospheric and moved a slow yet not leisurely pace. I'm nut sure I'd call it a horror movie, at least not one as conventional audiences might think of it. It was more creepy and disturbing than "scary" and the ending definitely got under my skin but in a good way. The filming, particularly the use of color is interesting and adds to the sens of mystery and that there is more going below the surface both a supernatural and mundane sense. I'd recommend to fans of suspenseful low key horror and occult driven movies.
Quote from: Spinachcat;89881810 CLOVERFIELD LANE
This is a sequel / not sequel. You don't need to see the first film. In fact, as a fan of Cloverfield, I was kinda confused WTF was the connection between this film other than the title. I'm sure this was an independent screenplay that got the Cloverfield name tacked on for marketing.
I figured the connection was a tease, like all the online nonsense that surrounded
Cloverfield. So I was prepared for there to be only vague thematic ties.
As it was I found myself a bit disappointed. Things are pretty much just as they appear and the ending felt like an arbitrary roll on a random event chart. Good acting though.
I might have set myself up for a let down by having watched
The Divide just a few days earlier... similar but all around messier... and somehow more effective on me.
X-Men:Apocalypse is dumb as fuck. Mildly entertaining, but seriously dumb. I found it somewhat difficult to watch unironically.
Quote from: The Butcher;899567X-Men:Apocalypse is dumb as fuck. Mildly entertaining, but seriously dumb. I found it somewhat difficult to watch unironically.
Compare to Days of the Future Past, does the new X-men movie sucks ? I kinda want to see it but your impressions have sort of lowered my interest in this flick.
Finally saw The Martian. Quite enjoyed it. Reminded me of a lot of older science fiction but still felt new.
I just picked up Priest for cheap at a truck stop. Eight bucks. Its a terrible movie, but in all the best ways. Maggie Q proves why she never quite made it as an actress, and is criminally underused at the same time. Karl Urban is at his very urbanist as a cowboy vampire. Jarvis struggles manfully to overcome whatever strange disability stranded him in the wastelands of acting after A Knight's Tale showed he was a breakout star... Its even got a cameo of Vampire Bill from True Blood as a vampire victim!
I can't wait to watch it again. Given my track record, I'll hate it. Hell, I loved Tank Girl in teh theater, and I weep for shame at admitting that now. God, what a freakshow trainwreck that was.
Quote from: Spike;902680I can't wait to watch it again. Given my track record, I'll hate it. Hell, I loved Tank Girl in teh theater, and I weep for shame at admitting that now. God, what a freakshow trainwreck that was.
Were you on drugs at the time?
Or a huge Tank Girl fanboy on drugs?
Human Lanterns review: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/human-lanterns-movie-review.html
I'll just leave it here. Some of might consider it mildly amusing.
Avengers play D&D. (http://imgur.com/a/XFOCr) :D
ok an old favorite ill recommend a western but not the normal kind
there aren't very meany movies made set in the fur trade era and several of them are turkeys this one is fantastic
the mountain men (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHG2G3c51D4)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;903729I'll just leave it here. Some of might consider it mildly amusing.
Avengers play D&D. (http://imgur.com/a/XFOCr) :D
ahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahah
nice find
Quote from: Bren;903450Were you on drugs at the time?
Or a huge Tank Girl fanboy on drugs?
Honestly? I never read the comics/graphic novels the movie was based on, and I've never worked in a job where drug use was remotely possible if I wanted to keep working. I can't wait until I'm independently wealthy and can do ALL THE DRUGS, just as a giant fuck you to the Da Man!
I will finally be a rebellious teenager, sometime in my eighties...
I've seen the new trailers for the Ghostbusters remake and I have to admit. I can't let go of the butthurt over the omission of my gender in any "important" role being heralded as as complete, major and utter improvement over the original enough to give the movie a far shot. Petty yeah. geeky probably but there it is.
Quote from: Nexus;903902I can't let go of the butthurt over the omission of my gender in any "important" role being heralded as as complete, major and utter improvement over the original enough to give the movie a far shot. Petty yeah. geeky probably but there it is.
I bolded that bit... is it actually being 'heralded' as such? This isn't even a remake is it? I thought it was more of a spinoff.
Quote from: Simlasa;903930I bolded that bit... is it actually being 'heralded' as such? This isn't even a remake is it? I thought it was more of a spinoff.
By the usual suspects and some of the crew along, IIRC the director. As far I know its a remake but I haven't looked into much at all.
Quote from: Nexus;903902I've seen the new trailers for the Ghostbusters remake and I have to admit. I can't let go of the butthurt over the omission of my gender in any "important" role being heralded as as complete, major and utter improvement over the original enough to give the movie a far shot. Petty yeah. geeky probably but there it is.
Oh no! Another childhood ruined retroactively (http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2016/06/03)
1. When will we see the end of this plague of film promoters claiming that some current film is better than some other films it might be compared to? Thank goodness we can at least count on all other advertising to be completely unbiased and objective!
1 would earning a little money as a subject in the Bechdel-Turing test ease the butthurt?
I will probably see Girlbusters at the 2nd run theater. I'm happy to give it a fair shake and hopefully it will be funny enough for $3. There's talent in that cast and the central idea is solid, so hopefully its not a disaster (just a bad preview).
Quote from: Spike;903893I will finally be a rebellious teenager, sometime in my eighties...
Then no one will know whether your bad memory is due to drugs or old age.
Quote from: rawma;903943Oh no! Another childhood ruined retroactively (http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2016/06/03) 1. When will we see the end of this plague of film promoters claiming that some current film is better than some other films it might be compared to? Thank goodness we can at least count on all other advertising to be completely unbiased and objective!
1 would earning a little money as a subject in the Bechdel-Turing test ease the butthurt?
You can relax. My childhood memories haven't been ruined. The original hasn't ceased to exist. But your concern is touching. The point you seem to have missed in your rush to soothe my feelings is that my issue isn't that the film is being promoted as better and has nothing to do with expecting advertising to unbiased and objective.
Its the reason they're promoting it as better. Not better effects, a better story, better actors, better story ot being hipper ot whatever. Its said to be better by certain because there are no major male characters with the secondary Janine slot filled by a man who appears to be there as tongue in cheek joke. As a man I find that insulting just like I'd find it insulting if Winston's role was filled by a white man as an "improvement" though to a lesser degree. I'd be actively pissed in that case. This is just tiresome and annoying like the bait and switch Fury Road felt like. So I've decided not to give the film my money.
Quote from: Spinachcat;903967I will probably see Girlbusters at the 2nd run theater. I'm happy to give it a fair shake and hopefully it will be funny enough for $3. There's talent in that cast and the central idea is solid, so hopefully its not a disaster (just a bad preview).
I've heard the more recent trailers are better.
And speaking of add remakes...
http://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/2016/06/11/james-franco-tori-spelling-lifetime-tv-movie-cult-classic-remake/85608858/
tl;dr: The 1996 archetypal stalker boyfriend Life Time Channel Movie "Mother, May I sleep with danger" has been remade. The new version is directed by James Franco and swaps out of the obsessive boyfriend with lesbian vampires. Not posers or goths, actual, blood drinking vampires.
Girlbusters?
No, thanks. AD 2016, people should realize that remakes rarely work, especially the ones made by people who believe they are capable of challenging a classic that still attracts the attention and positive acclaim in spite of being decades old. Gender switch has little to do with that (aside of being one of worst ideas for "strong selling point").
Seriously, some people should simply stay at homes, continue to snort coke and think themselves funny or creative instead of attempting to prove that.
Anyway:
I've been watching Borgman a few days ago. It's too vague and leaves way too many questions unanswered without delivering much in return (so the audience would have fun filling gaps on it's own), to be considered "good". The only redeemable value is that the story might be a good background for religious/paranormal scenario.
(http://fs3.www.ex.ua/show/138541538/138541538.jpg?800)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;904049AD 2016, people should realize that remakes rarely work, especially the ones made by people who believe they are capable of challenging a classic that still attracts the attention and positive acclaim in spite of being decades old.
Yet there have always been plenty of remakes... some of which ARE the recognized classics... like
The Maltese Falcon and
The Wizard of Oz.
The original versions still have something to offer I think... such as the femme fatale in the original Maltese Falcon being MUCH more plausible as a lure for Sam Spade.
Really, I don't think remakes are any more likely to suck, as movies, than 'original' fare. Sequels though... those seem to be much more of a safe bet of being strong on suckage... with a handful of exceptions.
A sequel (actually a prequel to a remake) I saw recently, that I thought was pretty good, was the 2011 take on
The Thing... which did have the female heroine thing but it didn't feel forced. I hadn't heard much good about it but I was surprised how much I liked it. The monsters are icky and nasty and it felt like it honored what had come before, rather than trying to pave over it or slavishly duplicate it.
Quote from: Simlasa;904061Yet there have always been plenty of remakes...
Way I see it, remake is almost always destined to be a pale shadow of the original version. That one might find a few that don't, doesn't change that. It's proverbial exception proving the rule, I guess...
BTW,
The Thing's prequel was damn awesome movie, and yeah, the director masterfully connected both movies - have you seen the post-credit scenes and scenes deleted from "TT 0"? Amazing job. That the lead character was woman was of no importance, at least if you ask me - it was simply a movie so well done, that there was hardly any ground for "forced inclusivity" accusations or something...
Quote from: JesterRaiin;904062Way I see it, remake is almost always destined to be a pale shadow of the original version.
In the eyes of the folks who know and love the original? Sure... but new audiences will often appreciate the 'upgrade' to current stars they are familiar with and modern sensibilities and FX.
QuoteBTW, The Thing's prequel was damn awesome movie, and yeah, the director masterfully connected both movies - have you seen the post-credit scenes and scenes deleted from "TT 0"?
I saw the post credit stuff... but not the deleted stuff... I'll have to hunt that down.
QuoteThat the lead character was woman was of no importance, at least if you ask me
Not for me either... but it's one of the various complaints I've seen against it.
Quote from: Simlasa;904064In the eyes of the folks who know and love the original? Sure... but new audiences will often appreciate the 'upgrade' to current stars they are familiar with and modern sensibilities and FX.
They might.... Or they might not, it can go either way. I can easily name examples supporting each possibility.
QuoteI saw the post credit stuff... but not the deleted stuff... I'll have to hunt that down.
]Here they are (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+thing+2011+%5BDELETED+SCENE)
QuoteNot for me either... but it's one of the various complaints I've seen against it.
Weird.
I'd understand Aliens vs Predator being accused of it - the movie was simply too weak to cover the fact that the main character is black Ripley's wannabie and her Arnold's impersonation was so damn terrible and out-of place that it reduced her performance to a mockery. I still liked the movie, though. ;)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;904066They might.... Or they might not, it can go either way. I can easily name examples supporting each possibility.
Which just goes along with my idea that the fact of it being a remake is not enough, on its own, to say whether or not it will connect with an audience and be well-received. A lot of kids have no clue about older movies... they'll just judge the thing on its own merits.
If I show you a movie right now, something you've never seen, and you like it... if I tell you afterward its a remake will you automatically think less of it?
Remakes can thrive without any reference/knowledge of what's gone before... unlike sequels, generally.
Quote from: Simlasa;904069Which just goes along with my idea that the fact of it being a remake is not enough, on its own, to say whether or not it will connect with an audience and be well-received. A lot of kids have no clue about older movies... they'll just judge the thing on its own merits.
Two things here: One, we're talking
Ghostbusters. "No clue about the predecessor" rule doesn't apply to the wide audience and two, even if it did, the
Girlbusters has so bad press already, that it's impossible to not know it's a remake and truckloads of people for some reason aren't happy about that, what leads straight to "ah, heck, I'm gonna watch the original until the new movie arrives".
Sure, one might produce some queer person known to him and say "here's Johnny, my bro, the guy doesn't realize Ghostbusters exist", but the only reasonable answer to that is to give sincere condolences concerning the choice of buddies. ;)
...
Robocop is still considerably fresh example of a remake nobody really asked for, and plenty of people were against. I'd bet a sixpack of good beers it will be the same with
Girlbusters.
Quote from: Simlasa;904061Yet there have always been plenty of remakes... some of which ARE the recognized classics... like The Maltese Falcon and The Wizard of Oz.
The original versions still have something to offer I think... such as the femme fatale in the original Maltese Falcon being MUCH more plausible as a lure for Sam Spade.
Really, I don't think remakes are any more likely to suck, as movies, than 'original' fare. Sequels though... those seem to be much more of a safe bet of being strong on suckage... with a handful of exceptions.
A sequel (actually a prequel to a remake) I saw recently, that I thought was pretty good, was the 2011 take on The Thing... which did have the female heroine thing but it didn't feel forced. I hadn't heard much good about it but I was surprised how much I liked it. The monsters are icky and nasty and it felt like it honored what had come before, rather than trying to pave over it or slavishly duplicate it.
There was a prequel to Thing Thing (I assume you mean John Carpenter's The Thing)?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;904070Two things here: One, we're talking Ghostbusters. "No clue about the predecessor" rule doesn't apply to the wide audience and two, even if it did, the Girlbusters has so bad press already, that it's impossible to not know it's a remake and truckloads of people for some reason aren't happy about that, what leads straight to "ah, heck, I'm gonna watch the original until the new movie arrives".
I was making a general reference.
I saw a preview the other day for another upcoming remake and I'm guessing most folks don't have a clue about the older movie (though it showed recently on TCM).
Also, color me skeptical about the 'bad press' for the new Ghostbusters, so far all the bitching I've seen is coming from noxious YouTube dude-bros.
Quote from: Nexus;904073There was a prequel to Thing Thing (I assume you mean John Carpenter's The Thing)?
Yep, 2011, called The Thing. It's all about what went down in that Norwegian camp mentioned in Carpenter's The Thing.
Quote from: Simlasa;904087Yep, 2011, called The Thing. It's all about what went down in that Norwegian camp mentioned in Carpenter's The Thing.
Well, I'll be damned; that slipped right by me. Maybe I just assumed it was a remake and put it out of my mind.
Edit: The amusing part being that Carpenter's The Thing is a remake too.
I'm totally fine with remakes, reboots and reimaginings. I have only one concern - the final result must be very good. I happy to give the new generation the chance to revisit a past project to make it their own, but the final product must be damn well worth watching. Sadly, that rarely happens.
I believe one of the big problems is trying to remake classics. I would never try that. Instead, the better idea would be to revisit an "almost good" movie of the past that provides a strong enough "oh I remember that movie" base, but few people are deeply emotional about.
Quote from: Nexus;904092Well, I'll be damned; that slipped right by me. Maybe I just assumed it was a remake and put it out of my mind.
I vaguely remember hearing about it when it was about to come out... but for whatever reason never thought of it again. Only one of my friends has seen it/knows about it.
I only ran across it by accident recently and thought, "Hmmm... I wonder if this is any good?"... and I was surprised that I liked it.
Quote from: Spinachcat;904093I'm totally fine with remakes, reboots and reimaginings. I have only one concern - the final result must be very good. I happy to give the new generation the chance to revisit a past project to make it their own, but the final product must be damn well worth watching. Sadly, that rarely happens.
I believe one of the big problems is trying to remake classics. I would never try that. Instead, the better idea would be to revisit an "almost good" movie of the past that provides a strong enough "oh I remember that movie" base, but few people are deeply emotional about.
One film I'd really like someone to take another stab at is "The Last Action Hero". There was so comedic potential in the premise.
Warcraft is crap, of course. Bad writing, worse acting, but the worse of all is the unapologetic embrace of the unlifelike, borderline caricatural aesthetics of the videogames.
Christ. I wanted to post my thoughts on Zootopia, but after Girlbusters came up, well Zootopia's themes will keep us on the "social commentary" spiral.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;904123Christ. I wanted to post my thoughts on Zootopia, but after Girlbusters came up, well Zootopia's themes will keep us on the "social commentary" spiral.
Go for it. I've been very curious about that movie. The trailers are pretty funny.
Quote from: Simlasa;904080I was making a general reference.
I saw a preview the other day for another upcoming remake and I'm guessing most folks don't have a clue about the older movie (though it showed recently on TCM).
"In general" rarely applies when remakes of famous movies are discussed, I guess. We're living in times of global Internet - even if you don't know the original one NOW, people are gonna inform you about that. Sure, there's a possibility (there always is, no matter what) that you're gonna somehow miss trailers, articles, discussions and comments concerning the movie up to the moment it's gonna see the daylight, but heck, this says more about your "luck", rather than determines some sort of rule. ;)
QuoteAlso, color me skeptical about the 'bad press' for the new Ghostbusters, so far all the bitching I've seen is coming from noxious YouTube dude-bros.
I see it everywhere - on reddit, and its local equivalents, movie-focused forums/blogs and even in comment section on completely unrelated sites (the moment the relevant article is presented or someone mentions the movie). Heck, last time I've seen it it was on RPG-related forum, void of "offtopic" section. :D
Anyway, see, the bitching is kind of reasonable, I guess. The general narrative is that people simply wanted the original movies to be left alone, and this was extra easy to do. All the producers and director had to do was to give people a sequel, a story about, say, Ghostbusters' cell in other city led by all-female group, or something. The negativity would still exist, but it would be far lower.
They chose otherwise, they thought it would be good idea to rustle people's jimmies, on their heads be it, so to speak. ;)
Quote from: Spinachcat;904093I'm totally fine with remakes, reboots and reimaginings. I have only one concern - the final result must be very good. I happy to give the new generation the chance to revisit a past project to make it their own, but the final product must be damn well worth watching. Sadly, that rarely happens.
I believe one of the big problems is trying to remake classics. I would never try that. Instead, the better idea would be to revisit an "almost good" movie of the past that provides a strong enough "oh I remember that movie" base, but few people are deeply emotional about.
This sums it up perfectly and in more elegant way that I could express. :)
Quote from: Nexus;904092Well, I'll be damned; that slipped right by me. Maybe I just assumed it was a remake and put it out of my mind.
Edit: The amusing part being that Carpenter's The Thing is a remake too.
The movie is damn good, even on its own.
Allow me to share this little precious gem written by none else than Peter Watts:
"The Things" (http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/) :cool:
Quote from: JesterRaiin;904132All the producers and director had to do was to give people a sequel, a story about, say, Ghostbusters' cell in other city led by all-female group, or something.
See, I'd read somewhere that's actually what it's about... but you're saying it's not?
QuoteAllow me to share this little precious gem written by none else than Peter Watts:
"The Things" (http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/) :cool:
Aha! I'd been looking for that, but had myself convinced Charles Stross wrote it.
Quote from: Simlasa;904178See, I'd read somewhere that's actually what it's about... but you're saying it's not?
Apparently not, the
Girlbusters is supposed to rewrite some portions of the classic, more along the lines of "it didn't happen, we're first Ghostbusters, no Viggo, no Gozer, no Rick Moranis".
QuoteAha! I'd been looking for that, but had myself convinced Charles Stross wrote it.
Not all what's good comes outta Stross' workshop of horrors. ;)
Quote from: Simlasa;904178See, I'd read somewhere that's actually what it's about... but you're saying it's not?
.
I've run into several people with that same question, enough to do some light double checking in case I got the story wrong and it appears to e a reboot/remake not a spinoff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters_(2016_film)
Quote from: Nexus;904125Go for it. I've been very curious about that movie. The trailers are pretty funny.
Alrighty. Gonna be some spoilers.
Zootopia.This one was barely on my radar. Another animated CGI movie with talking animals. We have a metric fuckton of those floating around.
But Zootopia came up as the subject of an episode of Honey Badger Radio, a Men's Rights show on youtube. Alison Tieman, whom I am a fan of, was of the opinion that the themes of the movie meshed so well with the subject of Men's Rights, that she thought it was intentional. After watching the film, I'm not so sure. On to the review.
[social commentary]
Without the social commentary, this
is just another animated CGI movie with talking animals. What makes Zootopia stand out is that the movie's main theme is about individual justice, and prejudice. Which conflicts a lot with the idea of social justice, and prejudice. I'm sure you've heard the SJWs arguing that racism is prejudice
plus power. Which is a revision of the actual idea of justice.
Spoiler
By putting the prey animals in the role of villian, it turns the idea of who has power and who doesn't on it's head. Predators are physically powerful, but the prey are socially powerful.
Everyone has prejudices, and anyone can abuse their power.
[/social commentary]
Aside from that, Zootopia is competent, but not exceptional. There are funny bits, and sad bits, the usual "Local X overcomes prejudice and becomes a Y despite being the underdog, by being creative and not giving up, yay!" story. Worth a rental or purchase if you've got a Netflix and chill kinda weekend.
[nerd commentary]
The whole thing about predators "evolving" (*Morbo* "Evolution does not work that way!") into vegetarians is an understandable contrivance, but whereas Mickey, a talking animal, owning Pluto, a not-talking animal, can be shrugged off as a cartoon-ism, the predator/prey thing is a central feature of the movie, and pretty hard to ignore. Like if a Mikey and Pluto short was about animal rights.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;904199Aside from that, Zootopia is competent, but not exceptional. There are funny bits, and sad bits, the usual "Local X overcomes prejudice and becomes a Y despite being the underdog, by being creative and not giving up, yay!" story. Worth a rental or purchase if you've got a Netflix and chill kinda weekend.
[nerd commentary]
The whole thing about predators "evolving" (*Morbo* "Evolution does not work that way!") into vegetarians is an understandable contrivance, but whereas Mickey, a talking animal, owning Pluto, a not-talking animal, can be shrugged off as a cartoon-ism, the predator/prey thing is a central feature of the movie, and pretty hard to ignore. Like if a Mikey and Pluto short was about animal rights.
Thanks for the review. It matches my impression. It looks entertaining but not something I'm going to go out of my way to see. I was if and how the movie dealt with food issue. I was expecting it either to get handwaved or non mammalian animals weren't sapient (I don't think you see any in the trailers). The evolution thing is an odd solution but it works for a light hearted movie. Its certainly not as creepy as some of the alternatives I've seen. As long as its not vegan propaganda... ;) :D
Quote from: Nexus;904205Thanks for the review. It matches my impression. It looks entertaining but not something I'm going to go out of my way to see. I was if and how the movie dealt with food issue. I was expecting it either to get handwaved or non mammalian animals weren't sapient (I don't think you see any in the trailers). The evolution thing is an odd solution but it works for a light hearted movie. Its certainly not as creepy as some of the alternatives I've seen. As long as its not vegan propaganda... ;) :D
I don't remember seeing any fish. I imagine they'd be intelligent too, especially the sea mammals. (Who are not fish, you know what I'm trying to say.)
The bugs flying around a character in a segment of the movie didn't seem to be intelligent, none of them talked or anything. So maybe bugs are exempt from the intelligence-o-rama, but then that brings up the anthromophosizing of insects and bacteria and slugs and microbes and oh dear I've gone cross-eyed.
I think he's right about the mammalians being the sapient ones. I don't remember any humanized birds or reptiles or fish or anything (no crustaceans, insects, arachnids, etc...). The rabbits have a population boom but they are rural farmers producing food and there is not (yet?) a land crisis. Cut material indicates they thought of this a bit mainly as a joke and even made a (concept art and/or cut) image of a poster promoting self-sterilization for rabbits). They also seem to favor quality of environment over industry and have better technology that 21st Century Earth - the city environments customized for various types and sizes of animals are pretty amazing to see.
I'm not a great fan of modern Disney/Pixar/whatever animated films, but I liked Zootopia quite a bit. It's probably my favorite of those I've seen. Zootopia struck me as fun and funny and clever, and I loved the city environment. I am a sucker though for cute animals and harmonious sustainable futures, so I am biased in favor. :-)
Quote from: Skarg;904453I think he's right about the mammalians being the sapient ones. I don't remember any humanized birds or reptiles or fish or anything (no crustaceans, insects, arachnids, etc...).
Humm. This brings up the possibility that the predators could get their protein from seafood, fowl and/or bugs. The movie seems to have gone completely in a veggie/fruity direction, with cats eating donuts and foxes eating blueberries, so it's a moot point, but an interesting/still confusing one. (Why are only mammals "evolved"?, how did the preds switch from a meat diet?, etc...)
Is there an in setting/story incident that creates the intelligent animals or is it just the way it is?
Quote from: Nexus;904478There is an in setting/story incident that creates the intelligent animals, not "its just the way it is"?
Nope. There's a short segement that opens the movie, in the form of a kid's school play, explaining that predators used to eat prey, and then explains it with "And then, we evolved".
Any guess would be as good as mine after that.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;904526Nope. There's a short segement that opens the movie, in the form of a kid's school play, explaining that predators used to eat prey, and then explains it with "And then, we evolved".
Any guess would be as good as mine after that.
Thanks, I was somewhat getting the impression there might be from some of theorizing.
Quote from: Nexus;904543Thanks, I was somewhat getting the impression there might be from some of theorizing.
:) The movie's main focus is on the two main characters, the rabbit and the fox, and the situation they find themselves in. They don't go into nerdy evolution theorizing past that setup. The reason I picked on that nit, is because the idea of predators, prey and their behaviors is part of the plot, and so it rubs up against real world evolution and animal behavior with anthropomorphosized cartoon animals. Is the rabbit character justified in being concerned about the fox character wanting to eat her? It's a bizarro question in a world where lemmings drive tiny cars and work in office buildings.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;904615:) The movie's main focus is on the two main characters, the rabbit and the fox, and the situation they find themselves in. They don't go into nerdy evolution theorizing past that setup. The reason I picked on that nit, is because the idea of predators, prey and their behaviors is part of the plot, and so it rubs up against real world evolution and animal behavior with anthropomorphosized cartoon animals. Is the rabbit character justified in being concerned about the fox character wanting to eat her? It's a bizarro question in a world where lemmings drive tiny cars and work in office buildings.
ok i haven't seen the movie yet but my under standing from some of the guys i watch on youtube was that they still ate protean but not other sentient animal they ate bugs and that the evolution was referring to social evolution not physical genetic evolution
Quote from: kosmos1214;904639ok i haven't seen the movie yet but my under standing from some of the guys i watch on youtube was that they still ate protean but not other sentient animal they ate bugs and that the evolution was referring to social evolution not physical genetic evolution
I never saw anything like that addressed in the movie. The protein thing.
They show a cheetah eating donuts and breakfast cereal, and the fox character eating blueberries.
As for genetic versus social evolution, maybe? They don't specify in the movie, that I can remember.
Been watching "German Angst (http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt3398436/)".
(http://kinobanda.net/uploads/1452294210_poster.jpg)
It presents three separate stories, all dealing with the idea of "German Fear". While not especially original, it's worth watching. I find it quite interesting from the philosophical point of view and I think it might be quite useful as a source of inspiration for supernatural-based sessions. For example, there's a story about secret sex club/cult - very good idea for "help me infiltrate them, guys" type of scenario.
Side note, one of directors is Jörg Buttgereit, the guy behind "Nekromantik" duology, considered one of worst (as in "man, it's sick!") exploitation movies in the history of moviemaking.
Did a Vlog review of Death Duel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGBsYHHvUbI)and of Journey to the West Conquering the Demons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CFJSZ4F4zg).
Finally convinced my wife to watch Automata.
(http://1.fwcdn.pl/po/00/41/630041/7664509.5.jpg)
It's a very well done movie, one of "does robotic evolution threaten the mankind" genre. The scenario is great, Banderas' performance is great, the scenery, photos, music, everything is great about it. The only thing I regret is that I didn't watch it earlier.
From the perspective of our hobby? There's little RPG-relevant material not introduced by, say, Blade Runner. Rather slow pacing featuring little action doesn't help either.
Still, an awesome piece of art, definitely worth watching.
The fact that it only cost me £1 for a special 2 disc edition with 4 hours (!) of special features did not stop me thinking that Naked Weapon was a crap film. The fights are ok, although the holding of 'poses' mid-fight are obviously there to hide the fact that the actors couldn't fight. The only upside was that Maggie Q flashed a bit in it. The film is full of awkward moments and ill-advised attempts at levity (when you're the good guy having a debate with yourself as to whether to take advantage of a drugged woman isn't really funny). For an exploitation film it's pretty mild too, so it loses on multiple fronts.
Not worth the £1 i spent on it.
Quote from: One Horse Town;906536Not worth the £1 i spent on it.
Barbarian!
The Conjuring 1 and 2 are decent, workman like horror movies. They're very by the numbers but effectively done formula. Worth a watch and there are some bits that could interesting to steal for a occult investigation game or scenario. The religious message might get a bit heavy if you're sensitive to that.
The Boy was more interesting but less relevant to gaming, IMO. The premise is a familiar one but the film plays with it in some interesting ways and the movie shows but doesn't tell allot leaving it to the viewer to figure out what's going on.
Why I think The Boy is less relevant to gaming
Spoiler
The twist would be likely be revealed fairly quickly since its largely maintained by the fact the protagonist aren't ghost hunters or psychic investigators of any sort or even determined and focused on "solving the mystery" as PCs usually are though they aren't suffering from PIS either. A friend of mine who's more into Horror says The Boy is almost as direct rip of a low budget, but good horror movie called "Housebound".
Quote from: One Horse Town;906536The fact that it only cost me £1 for a special 2 disc edition with 4 hours (!) of special features did not stop me thinking that Naked Weapon was a crap film. The fights are ok, although the holding of 'poses' mid-fight are obviously there to hide the fact that the actors couldn't fight. The only upside was that Maggie Q flashed a bit in it. The film is full of awkward moments and ill-advised attempts at levity (when you're the good guy having a debate with yourself as to whether to take advantage of a drugged woman isn't really funny). For an exploitation film it's pretty mild too, so it loses on multiple fronts.
Not worth the £1 i spent on it.
I rented that when it first came out on video. I don't remember it being particularly good, but at least Cheng Pei-Pei had a minor role as I recall.
London has fallen: Leonidas kills Arabs in UK
The movie stays true to its title - there's Leonidas and he kills Arabs. In UK (former EU). There's blood, screaming, some nice gun-kata moves and occasional parental advice and profound wisdom shared by Two-Face Lannister, who was elected the president of USA. In addition, "American Moments" make a few cameos.
As a movie, it's ok for a dull evening, but nothing more.
In context of RPG, it's actually nice idea for a scenario - escort/protect mission in secluded part of some famous city.
(http://mediafiles.cineplex.com/Central/Film/Posters/23221_320_470.jpg)
Finally watched Cap Am: Civil War. It was a disappointing experience.
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/627af571cb3969f3a9f4e8da87cb6a53/tumblr_o5y81q4X5j1rcm2tgo1_500.jpg)
The movie is, simply put, stupid. Half of dialogues consists of pseudo-philosophical gibberish and the other half seems forced, serving no other purpose than time-filler.
Scenario is bad. The story holds together thanks to things that didn't exist or played any important role in any of earlier movies - suddenly one of bad guys is the guy who killed certain character's parents (huh, they were killed?), suddenly one of other heroes knows about that even if it should influence his earlier actions and choices, suddenly Wakanada plays a major role in geopolitics, suddenly the general mistrust...
Everyone makes choices they aren't supposed to: Iron Man vices for becoming a government puppet, so does "I'm like a quadruple-triple-double-agent, I know better" Assassin-girl. Cap' expresses his mistrust towards it and says he wasn't very fond of the army, even though it was his family for the majority of his life as the Cap'.
Battles are confusing - Vision, the most powerful entity around does nothing for most of time. He doesn't even enters the battle, even though he is there. He seems to simply float somewhere out there, offscreen and contemplate shit. When he finally decides to lift a finger he acts like he just discovered he can fart laser rays and is extremely sloppy at it.
And the worst thing is the bad guy. I'm not saying he is a bad actor, or unlikable guy in real, but come on. With a face like that he should be called "Doctor CuntFace", or "VaginaSnout-Man". Blergh. His motivation is stupid, his plan couldn't work, and the outcome, even if he were to succeed wouldn't change much.
All in all: waste of time, avoid/10.
(http://images-cdn.moviepilot.com/images/c_scale,h_370,w_655/t_mp_quality/gp38ewjzp0xx37n6eqgy/defending-the-main-problems-with-captain-america-civil-war-967427.jpg)
I put up a video review of Chor Yuen's Web of Death (a martial arts movie from the 70s): https://youtu.be/KDmkwcuAc30
I enjoyed Civil War, and Wakanda has gotten increasing name checks leading up to this movie, so that's one of your points shot down. Another: Iron Man/Tony Stark's parents being dead has been true since the first Iron Man, and they've been hinting that that there was more to the story since at least Winter Soldier (specifically that Hydra did away with the Senior Stark in order to take over Shield from within... the computer face told Captain America that before they blew the bunker up with a missile...)
I'll make it up to you:
The entire world is pissed off at the Avengers for shit OTHER PEOPLE did, that the Avengers tried to, and generally succeeded at, stopping. Like, we're upset at the police officer that stops an armed robbery, because the robber shot someone before the Cops got there? Is that how the world works?
No, seriously: The Avengers are to blame for the Chitari (or whatever) invading New York City, for Ultron dropping the entire country of 'not slovakia' and for a suicide bomber trying to steal a bioweapon. They got the bioweapon, and kept hundreds of people from dying to the bomb, but a half dozen wakandans still bought it, so the Avengers are murderous sonsabitches now...
If you notice, however, not one mention of the Hulk rampaging through most of African New York (can't keep up with all the made up nations in the films. Hell, half the countries in real-life Africa have changed their names since I first learned them...).
That's right: An actual Avenger does bad stuff, but that's never mentioned in the list of Avenger 'crimes'.
Never mind the weird geo-politics of it all. Seriously: The secretary of defense of the United States does not have the power to surrender sovereignity over US extranational actions by treaty. That's something CONGRESS has to ratify.
Someone recently blogged that they could accept almost any goofy shit in a story. Magic, physics defying super powers, people having conversations in their normal voice in hard vacuum...whatever. But the one thing that ruins immersion in a story is people acting in ways that defy normal human behavior. Civil War treads all over that point with the way they hammer the Avengers for not quite being heroic enough, as if that is serious villain behavior.
Quote from: Spike;907053But the one thing that ruins immersion in a story is people acting in ways that defy normal human behavior.
Ain't that the truth, ain't that the truth...
"Hey, Avengers, we realize the world has suddenly became bigger, that there are not only internal but also external dangers threatening our little, blue world, and you might be our first and - God help us - last line of defense, so how about you sign the agreement that puts you on the leash, OR ELSE":
the movie.
I thought George Lucas wasn't involved in writing the script, but this shit reeks of his greedy presence.
People doing stupid or just short sighted shit for purely political reasons, out of fear or lust for power is pretty in character for humanity in general. The impression I got from Civil War is that it was never about "safety" per se but about control. Some of the Powers that Be saw the Avengers (and metahumans in general) as a threat to the status quo and their personal power as well a general "Weird new thing" that scared them. So they were pulling any strings to get them under (their) control. Rational, reasonable or not. I could see a push in the real world to control a group of extremely powerful beings that seemed bent on doing what they wanted on a global scale. If for now other reason than to keep other groups from getting similar ideas.
And using paper thin justifications to attempt to control people and remove freedoms via fear mongering isn't unknown.
Civil War was the most political superhero movie so far and its formed some very polarized opinions as a result. There are so that feel strongly that it was Cap and his side that were in the wrong and being too "'murican" and gung ho cowboys instead of acknowledging the authority of higher powers. So there you go.
Personally, I enjoyed the movie and that, in the end and despite all the high minded geopolitical stuff, it was actually a very personal story about consequences (even how "No good deed goes unpunished."), one man's revenge and how even the mighty have to remember how their actions can affect the "Little People". Which isn't to say the Avengers were wrong but just something any heroic figures should keep in mind.
Edit: Personal bias, the movie was LIGHTYEARS ahead of the comic series in every meaningful way, IMO so I'd be hard pressed to judge it too harshly.
Quote from: Nexus;907064People doing stupid or just short sighted shit for purely political reasons, out of fear or lust for power is pretty in character for humanity in general. The impression I got from Civil War is that it was never about "safety" per se but about control. (...)
I sympathize with what you're saying, but at same time I despise the execution as presented by the movie.
Consider the scene where Hurt approaches the group of superheroes. Mind you, they are people who fend off whole alien army, featuring flying monsters the size of a carrier, supported by Loki who was effectively
a god. And they proved not only to be their equals, but capable of kicking their asses back to the shithole they came from.
...when all what the mankind had to offer was to nuke the shit of whole city.
...in spite of people still being there...
...and that it would, like... kill those people...
...but some people think that it's Avengers who need to be controlled...
...even though they their saved/lost ratio is enormously high...
...and since while in combat no piece of paper is gonna change a thing...
...and despite the fact that since parting ways with Hulk, Avengers are doing a good job at self-control...
...uhhh....
Anyways. Hurt approaches them from the position of power. "Do this, or ELSE" he said, (not offensive at all). And then he conveniently walks out of the room, saying "discuss the shit" rather than stay there and answer the questions.
Like the one, when Cap' asks what if Avengers won't be allowed to react to some threat, or are gonna get the order to attack "wrong" people (or something like that - details elude me, I'm sure there's a transcript of the scene). And (IIRC) Iron Man gives him some vague, unsatisfying answer.
Why him? He isn't the representative of the "other side". Hurt is, but he doesn't feel like represent it. Because it's apparently not very important to make this arrangement come true. "Just deal with that shit".
"Or else"Nope, thank you. I'm out. As far as I'm concerned, whole movie is like that.
Unreasonable and poorly made.
Side note:
(https://www.outerplaces.com/images/Luthor.jpg)
...because some piece of paper supported by an internally-conflicted body is enough to assure total control over Avengers. Logic.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;907071I sympathize with what you're saying, but at same time I despise the execution as presented by the movie.
Fair enough. Different strokes for different folks. I wanted to share my viewpoint not change your mind. I enjoyed Civil War a great deal; thought it was one of the better Marvel movies but I'm not going to try and cram that opinion down everyone's throat. The main thing I didn't much care for was the love affair the writers seem to have with Iron Man though. He comes across as bordering on a writer's darling for the MCU. One of his comics was called "The Invincible Iron Man" its not a literal description of his powers.
Quote from: Nexus;907072Different strokes for different folks.
Most definitely! :)
Just watched the new Three Musketeers movie, the one with Milla Jovovich. I've got too much to say here. I'll probably put a review type post later. Short version: Paul W.S. Anderson has probably heard a lot of things about good storytelling, and tried to use them, but has NO IDEA how.
You know: complex things like Foreshadowing, or setting up a reveal. Hard stuff.
On the other hand, at least he is trying.
Did another Chor Yuen film review, this time it was Duel for Gold, a pretty cool movie about bandits who steal a pile of gold and turn against one another. Did this at 1:00 AM so a bit different than my previous ones: https://youtu.be/wTfIhA_IA9I
So..... Girlbusters. :cool:
[video=youtube;u-Pvk70Gx6c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Pvk70Gx6c[/youtube]
Don't mince words, sir. Tell us how you really feel!
Quote from: Nexus;907574Don't mince words, sir. Tell us how you really feel!
It looks like the movie is as predicted by audience - weak.
Side note: this reality we're living in is weird. Money - serious money that could go to poor people or similar just cause - is used to confirm that people are able to predict correctly that the movie is gonna be shit based on its premise. :rolleyes:
From that review it actually sounds worse than I thought it was going to be. I expected it was going to be like most remakes an uninspired money grab trying to recapture what made the original a success in the most obvious, lazy and ham-fisted manner possible with the occasional anvil laden feminist message in this case. But the reviewer made it sound much worse.
Quote from: Nexus;907581But the reviewer made it sound much worse.
Yeah. It seems that Thor is its only redeemable value.
Back on topic:
13 Hours. From the perspective of RPGs, there's not much value - it's pretty simple "fight or die" scenario, that might be easily converted to anything, from fantasy to zombie- settings. On its own, it's damn awesome movie, one of best "siege" scenarios I've ever seen and probably the only one where dynamic, shaky camera actually works.
It tells a story of American embassy (or similar facility) in post-Kadaffi Libya, besieged by local fighters, and the brave effort of a few soldiers who attempt to survive waves of enemies.
Starring: Manly moments, beards,
Office guy, Captain Flint, American moments, "human to marmalade" machine guns, smoke, night, goats, corpses, helluva of good action.
(http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/13-hours-the-secret-soldiers-of-benghazi-2016/large_large_yH26AEd2JY5PtbL95nwrh0t3sWi.jpg)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;906925It was a disappointing experience.
So was the actual comic book/crossover/event
Quote from: Ronin;907629So was the actual comic book/crossover/event
I didn't read it - as far as I'm concerned, Marvel universe lost its charm long years ago. I like the movies and SHIELD Agents series, though.
Did a review of Painted Skin by King Hu. This is a 1993 but based on the same material as the movie with Donnie Yen made in 2008. I enjoyed it, but not the best King Hu movie. Similar in a lot of ways to A Chinese Ghost Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULWOhIEPqQE
I think making fun of Girlbusters became my hobby. :D
https://www.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/4sak6g/ghostbusters_then_vs_now/
(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/teen-titans-go/images/1/14/Batman%26Grodon.PNG/revision/latest?cb=20130619190222)
Quote from: Ronin;907629So was the actual comic book/crossover/event
To put it mildly. Civil War turned one of my friends off superhero comics entirely.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;907583Yeah. It seems that Thor is its only redeemable value.
The comments about the other male characters being assholes and idiots was amusing. My first thought was "watched much tv recently?" Its not an uncommon trend these days. I don't think its misandry for the most part (it might be part of it in some cases) but more because guys, particularly white guys, are the safest to make assholes. And a certain degree of pandering to the audience. Women make up a large percentage of viewers.
Quote from: Nexus;907890because guys, particularly white guys, are the safest to make assholes.
Yep. We rarely bitch about being exploited so it makes us an easy target. Good thing that we often don't make a damn about it. :cool:
Quote from: Nexus;907890The comments about the other male characters being assholes and idiots was amusing. My first thought was "watched much tv recently?" Its not an uncommon trend these days. I don't think its misandry for the most part (it might be part of it in some cases) but more because guys, particularly white guys, are the safest to make assholes. And a certain degree of pandering to the audience. Women make up a large percentage of viewers.
I think some of it is just a pendulum swing. A lot of 1960s TV depicted women as not too bright, not too brave, not too useful, and usually in need of rescuing as the classic damsel in distress. So I see current pop media fashion as a swing in the other direction. Of course sitcom TV has often depicted men as morons. Shows in the 1960s like Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie were classic examples. So no pendulum swing in the other direction there.
Quote from: Bren;907907I think some of it is just a pendulum swing. A lot of 1960s TV depicted women as not too bright, not too brave, not too useful, and usually in need of rescuing as the classic damsel in distress. So I see current pop media fashion as a swing in the other direction. Of course sitcom TV has often depicted men as morons. Shows in the 1960s like Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie were classic examples. So no pendulum swing in the other direction there.
Though in some shows, Bewitched and Jeannie for instance, many of the female characters weren't prizes either. And there were likable characters of either gender. It also wasn't, IMO, quite as nasty. Lucy of I love Lucy was something of a ditz but sometimes she was right, succeeded and was quite likable despite her flaws and it t was the guys who are wrong, idiots or needed help. Allot of the idiot men in sitcoms are useless with no redeeming features usually married to beautiful intelligent women that was, at the least, competent. To the point you had to wonder why they were drawn to these losers (whom they seemed to resent more than care about). IMO, things were more equitable in the mockery department in the late 80s/90s and, to use the pendulum analogy has really started swinging past the middle.
But its going to be a subjective call and the fact women generally garner more sympathy and slights against them are taken as worse should be considered.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;907906Yep. We rarely bitch about being exploited so it makes us an easy target. Good thing that we often don't make a damn about it. :cool:
Its interesting to watch the differing reactions to male and female villains in current pop culture.
Did a review of Heroes Shed No Tears. A kind of 'weeping swordsmen' wuxia film by Chor Yuen, released in 1980: https://youtu.be/n2IhF8rVG0Y
Quote from: Nexus;907889To put it mildly. Civil War turned one of my friends off superhero comics entirely.
Yeah marvels civel war comic imho seems to have gobbled(turkey) all the way to the bank.
Quote from: Nexus;907916Though in some shows, Bewitched and Jeannie for instance, many of the female characters weren't prizes either. And there were likable characters of either gender. It also wasn't, IMO, quite as nasty. Lucy of I love Lucy was something of a ditz but sometimes she was right, succeeded and was quite likable despite her flaws and it t was the guys who are wrong, idiots or needed help. Allot of the idiot men in sitcoms are useless with no redeeming features usually married to beautiful intelligent women that was, at the least, competent. To the point you had to wonder why they were drawn to these losers (whom they seemed to resent more than care about). IMO, things were more equitable in the mockery department in the late 80s/90s and, to use the pendulum analogy has really started swinging past the middle.
But its going to be a subjective call and the fact women generally garner more sympathy and slights against them are taken as worse should be considered.
Depends on your taste i never found Lucy particularly likable.
Its also worth remembering that sitcoms lean in that general direction more then other programs.
I cant remember a sitcom where any one was likeable off the top of my head.
Scratch that there was Becker and several where likable there.
In the rest of the tv world there come the likes of Honey West,Victoria Barkley(the big valley), and ms Kitty(Gun smoke).
With sitcoms the characters are supposed to be exaggerated and idiotic to a degree (that is where the humor comes from). I think too often people are asking for sitcoms these days that reinforce what they want to see in the world. Homer is funny because he is a Moron. George Costanza is funny because he is a selfish prick. I don't want to see role models in my sitcoms. I want to see people who are so broken they do outrageous things that make me laugh. So I think both sides asking for shows, movies and books to reflect their political sensibilities are missing the point. You are just going to get boring content.
Quote from: kosmos1214;908069Yeah marvels civel war comic imho seems to have gobbled(turkey) all the way to the bank.
Depends on your taste i never found Lucy particularly likable.
Its also worth remembering that sitcoms lean in that general direction more then other programs.
I cant remember a sitcom where any one was likeable off the top of my head.
Scratch that there was Becker and several where likable there.
In the rest of the tv world there come the likes of Honey West,Victoria Barkley(the big valley), and ms Kitty(Gun smoke).
It is all subjective. Perhaps a better way to put it is she was intended to likable and sympathetic. If that succeeded or not is up to the individual viewer. Contrast to Archie Bunker who was meant to be an unlikable bigot and practically "heavy" of All in the Family but became a curiously beloved character. Characters in comedies that run a long time tends to also get increasingly exaggerated to generate more humor. Sheldon Cooper goes from a fairly typical if very social awkward geek to a complete basket case. Sometimes this goes too far like with Homer Simpson. He went from a hapless but generally well meaning "Everyman" to a blithering idiot then such a jerk the movie was in part meant to redeem.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;908125With sitcoms the characters are supposed to be exaggerated and idiotic to a degree (that is where the humor comes from). I think too often people are asking for sitcoms these days that reinforce what they want to see in the world. Homer is funny because he is a Moron. George Costanza is funny because he is a selfish prick. I don't want to see role models in my sitcoms. I want to see people who are so broken they do outrageous things that make me laugh. So I think both sides asking for shows, movies and books to reflect their political sensibilities are missing the point. You are just going to get boring content.
I like for their to be some sympathetic characters in a comedy. Assholes being assholes to each other (Its always Sunny in Philadelphia) gets old for me after awhile and it gets to the point I want to see the pricks get some kind of comeuppance which doesn't happen in a number of them. You can have humor without everyone being pricks and speaking for myself, I'm not asking for role models just characters that I don't actively dislike if I'm suposed to watch them week after week.
Airlift (http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt4387040).
Indian drama about Indian minority attempting to flee Kuwait during Iraq's invasion.
The movie is as it is - you need to like this kind of stories to enjoy it, period.
Nevertheless, it's damn good material for RPG scenario, where PCs are businessmen who lose all their stuff overnight and attempting to flee war torn country is their only option.
(http://static.wixstatic.com/media/ff920a_bc357c1e9fc541fe99d82aebba021883.jpg/v1/fill/w_480,h_695,al_c,q_90,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/ff920a_bc357c1e9fc541fe99d82aebba021883.jpg)
Quote from: Nexus;908207I like for their to be some sympathetic characters in a comedy. Assholes being assholes to each other (Its always Sunny in Philadelphia) gets old for me after awhile and it gets to the point I want to see the pricks get some kind of comeuppance which doesn't happen in a number of them. You can have humor without everyone being pricks and speaking for myself, I'm not asking for role models just characters that I don't actively dislike if I'm suposed to watch them week after week.
Sure. That is different. I am talking more about reading politics into every comedic choice (sometimes a stupid dad is there, not as commentary on manhood and womanhood, but because men doing stupid shit is funny). My tastes are probably different than yours on that front and that is fine. I don't think it is bad to have sympathetic characters. My point is demanding that all comedy or the bulk of comedy have characters that reflect our inner ideologies, to me, that is a bit stupid. Demanding the characters make us feel good about ourselves is equally stupid. I also just don't think the content of comedy is the message. Just because a show has people behaving like stereotypical geeks (like Big Bang Theory or IT Crowd) or because it has characters who are nasty assholes (like Seinfeld or Always Sunny), doesn't mean it is commentary on those things or an endorsement of them. They are just useful as a source of humor. I'd just rather watch a show about funny characters than about characters the make me feel good about being a man, a geek, Italian American or whatever identity I happen to carry that is reflected int he content of the show. Personally, stuff like Seinfeld, Sunny in Philadelphia and Married With Children, is more amusing than stuff like Growing Pains and Saved by the Bell. Not just because they are funnier shows but because the characters are not meant to be likable and much of the humor flows from that. The latter are intended to be wholesome, intended to match the sentiments the viewers already carry with them. I just don't see comedy as a vehicle for social engineering.
In general, I see what you mean but there is a point where at least the choices do reflect popular opinions. When almost ALL you see is stupid dad or bimbo woman or sassy but not to bright "urban" black, for example. Of course when that point is reached is where the question lies. Perspective is going to affect that. The show Married with Children had allot of potentially offensive stereotypes but they were spread around. Even got slammed from feminists to ultra conservatives. But different groups bitched it about it slandering them as if it was the sole target. If you're going to do "people doing stupid things' I prefer it if the stupid is spread around, I admit it. If the men (or women) are all compentent relatable human beings and their opposite number of all morons and assholes it does send a signal even if its unintentional.
But yeah, I think you have a point about people generally being over sensitive currently. I feel that some comedy has gotten why to cynical though. It kills the humor for me when the show or movie in question just makes me feel bad about humanity in general or the situation seems more tragic than funny. It less about making me feel good than its make me feel bad.Also when a show or movie hails itself as progressive and enlightened the virtue signalling makes any flaws more glaring (See Ghostbuster 2016).
Quote from: Nexus;907889To put it mildly. Civil War turned one of my friends off superhero comics entirely.
Yup, since then Marvel and DC have pretty much trashed their universes since then. Constant reboots, and retcons. Civil War and Garth Ennis leaving Punisher was pretty much the end for me.
Quote from: Nexus;908259But yeah, I think you have a point about people generally being over sensitive currently. I feel that some comedy has gotten why to cynical though. It kills the humor for me when the show or movie in question just makes me feel bad about humanity in general or the situation seems more tragic than funny. It less about making me feel good than its make me feel bad.Also when a show or movie hails itself as progressive and enlightened the virtue signalling makes any flaws more glaring (See Ghostbuster 2016).
I just don't pay attention to that stuff. All I care about is if things I watch make me laugh. Generally I think the more deliberately political humor gets, the less funny it tends to be (unless it is particularly clever). But I am seeing politicization of humor in general now (liberals only laugh at liberal jokes and conservatives only laugh at conservative jokes). Not that humor wasn't political before, it just feels more like people only will listen to stuff they agree with (or worse mistake people saying things they believe for punchlines).
I don't really understand either side getting bent out of shape over the new Ghostbusters. It is either going to be funny or it isn't. I'll find out when and if I see it. But I don't particularly care about the political or cultural discussion around it (whether it is people complaining about the movie, or people complaining about the complainers). Generally the women in it are performers I consider funny when I've seen them on SNL and in other movies. Whether this will be funny, I don't know. That depends a lot of things and the concept of the film, whether it is an all female, all male or mixed cast, whether they are marketing it as progressive, that is all pretty immaterial to the question of whether it makes me laugh....that boils down to the jokes and performances (for this kind of movie I'll wait till it comes on demand to find out if succeeds). I can certainly understand people discussing and even arguing over the quality of the film. What I don't get is people aligning their like/dislike of the film with their politics. And the intensity of the discussions make no sense to me.
Quote from: Ronin;908324Yup, since then Marvel and DC have pretty much trashed their universes since then. Constant reboots, and retcons. Civil War and Garth Ennis leaving Punisher was pretty much the end for me.
I couldn't find it in me to continue with the stuff after the guys decided to kill Superman, replace him with rather boring characters and then backpedaled from this obviously idiotic plan.
Fortunately, there's an ocean of alternatives.
Repo Men. (http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt1053424/)
The movie is a few years old, but it doesn't mean everyone knows it. I wouldn't think twice about calling it a fine example of considerably early stage of cyberpunk-ish reality. It's a very good movie featuring good scenario, noteworthy performance and well done dialogues.
From the POV of RPGs: While pretty much every CP game features ripperdocs, artificial enhancements, and all troubles involved, I don't think I recall many settings/scenarios founded on the idea of corporations "lending" artificial organs and PCs/NPCs reclaiming them just like that. Terrific idea for an adventure.
(http://electroshadow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/6-repomenbig1.jpg)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;908350I couldn't find it in me to continue with the stuff after the guys decided to kill Superman, replace him with rather boring characters and then backpedaled from this obviously idiotic plan.
Fortunately, there's an ocean of alternatives.
Death of Superman was when I checked out of the big two (DC Marvel) comics. It's not as if they hadn't killed off Sueprman before, but the calculated feel of it attempting to cash in on the collectible aspect of comics... it was just too blatant for me.
All the brouhaha over Cap saying "Hail Hydra", for example, I was like "WTF have you fuckers ever read a goddamn comic? They'd put his ass in a tutu and have him vomit lobster claws at Galactus if they thought it would sell comics."
And excellent film, and a bit of a mindfuck, but better done than most.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;907578It looks like the movie is as predicted by audience - weak.
Currently its at 72% percent on rotten tomatoes and has gotten some fairly glowing reviews. I wonder if this going to turn into another Fury Road where if you don't like you're a Regressive Patriarch or something. Amusingly around here some of the most vocal defenders so far have been Right Wing Talk radio shows. Sometimes within breath of making some disparging comment about Hillary Clinton or some other "Leftie" woman's looks, age or uppity 'tude. Talk about Strange Bedfellows.
I'm curious how its going to do at the box office.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;908331I just don't pay attention to that stuff. All I care about is if things I watch make me laugh.
Tastes and tolerances will vary; I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong. This is my opinion, nothing more.
Its grates on me when it starts becoming obvious that its not "this person is stupid and its funny" but "this class of people is stupid; lets mock them." Bells and whistles celebrating how "progressive" and enlightened it is make it worse when it bigotry and sexism same as anything just with different targets. "Can't you take a joke?" only goes so far and there's two much of a double standard about it these days.
Quote from: Nexus;908422Currently its at 72% percent on rotten tomatoes and has gotten some fairly glowing reviews. I wonder if this going to turn into another Fury Road where if you don't like you're a Regressive Patriarch or something. Amusingly around here some of the most vocal defenders so far have been Right Wing Talk radio shows. Sometimes within breath of making some disparging comment about Hillary Clinton or some other "Leftie" woman's looks, age or uppity 'tude. Talk about Strange Bedfellows.
I'm curious how its going to do at the box office.
Uehehehehee, this is gonna be good. I'm sure
Girlbusters appreciation will be used as a sign of mental problems.
"I knew there was something wrong with him. Fer fux sake, he liked Girlbusters." ;)
Quote from: Ratman_tf;908404Death of Superman was when I checked out of the big two (DC Marvel) comics. It's not as if they hadn't killed off Sueprman before, but the calculated feel of it attempting to cash in on the collectible aspect of comics... it was just too blatant for me.
All the brouhaha over Cap saying "Hail Hydra", for example, I was like "WTF have you fuckers ever read a goddamn comic? They'd put his ass in a tutu and have him vomit lobster claws at Galactus if they thought it would sell comics."
Ain't that the truth...
Heck pretty much every major superhero was killed and brought back in this or other way, so it's not that people are gonna commit suicide because of yet another story arc following same path. But when it's done for propaganda/money purpose. There's something not right about that...
Quote from: Nexus;908422Currently its at 72% percent on rotten tomatoes and has gotten some fairly glowing reviews. I wonder if this going to turn into another Fury Road where if you don't like you're a Regressive Patriarch or something. Amusingly around here some of the most vocal defenders so far have been Right Wing Talk radio shows. Sometimes within breath of making some disparging comment about Hillary Clinton or some other "Leftie" woman's looks, age or uppity 'tude. Talk about Strange Bedfellows.
I thought Fury Road was a pretty good film that touched on a lot of Men's Rights topics, like male disposability, and female hypoagency.
Of course, it was mostly good mindless action movie fun.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;908547I thought Fury Road was a pretty good film that touched on a lot of Men's Rights topics, like male disposability, and female hypoagency.
Of course, it was mostly good mindless action movie fun.
I loved Fury Road because of all that action, scenes and memorable characters.
I disliked it because everyone, including rocks on the street got more lines than Max and thanks to this I couldn't understand what's its place in the franchise.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;908597I loved Fury Road because of all that action, scenes and memorable characters.
The stunt sequences were incredible even more so for being largely (all?) practical effects not cgi
QuoteI disliked it because everyone, including rocks on the street got more lines than Max and thanks to this I couldn't understand what's its place in the franchise.
Yep, that's the thing the bugged me and allot of people. It felt like a bait and switch. If it had been called "Fury Road" and billed as the story of a bad ass woman warrior in the post apocalypse no problem there. Hell, they could have even kept Max's role as an surprise cameo. But giving him top billing seems off.
Quote from: Nexus;908611Hell, they could have even kept Max's role as an surprise cameo. But giving him top billing seems off.
You, Sir, have hit the nail on the head.
Still, it's praiseworthy that
Fury Road was produced as a side story, rather than reboot/retcon it. To think that we could've been given
Mad Maxine, portrayed by Gabourey Sidibe or a person similarly unfit for combat scenes, but hey! She's a woman and a black one... Sheeesh. :rolleyes:
That's one of biggest problems in casting, as far as I'm concerned - it's not that people are chosen for "wrong role". The worse thing is that often
bad actor is selected and we're being told that we shouldn't mind, because inclusivity
hooooooooooo!
For example, there's the case of Idris Elba being cast as Roland for King's
Dark Tower movie. While black Roland is stupid concept, I know that Elba is going to play the role well because he is damn good actor. So, if people find it important to enrage the fanbase, they should at least attempt to prove they are somewhat correct by casting good actors instead of some morons who couldn't recognize good acting even if it were to kick them in their arse.
Max didn't have to talk to be the pivotal character. He saved Furiosa and the wives when they were trying to escape from Joe, and he was the one who came up with the plan to return to the Citadel, while the women (you really can't get away from the gender politics in the movie) were standing around with their thumbs up their asses.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;908678Max didn't have to talk to be the pivotal character. He saved Furiosa and the wives when they were trying to escape from Joe, and he was the one who came up with the plan to return to the Citadel, while the women (you really can't get away from the gender politics in the movie) were standing around with their thumbs up their asses.
...not to mention he fought with his fists, mano-a-mano, like a true hero. ;)
Still, I'd love to hear more from the guy. An occasional grumbling isn't enough. Especially since Tom Hardy is damn fine actor, with a potential of delivering awesome and memorable verbal performance. I feel like plenty of potential was lost, just like diCaprio's in "Revenant". :mad:
Quote from: JesterRaiin;908616You, Sir, have hit the nail on the head.
Still, it's praiseworthy that Fury Road was produced as a side story, rather than reboot/retcon it.
I thought (like some others) that that was the path the going with Ghostbusters 2016. Either another Ghostbusters operation or a "next generation" deal not a full reboot as it turned out.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;908597I loved Fury Road because of all that action, scenes and memorable characters.
I disliked it because everyone, including rocks on the street got more lines than Max and thanks to this I couldn't understand what's its place in the franchise.
Max has all of 14 lines (AFAIR) in Road Warrior.
The short of it is that Max has always been an odd sort of Supporting Hero rather than a full on Protagonist. In Thunder Dome the main characters were Auntie whatever and Fake Anne Heche.
The only Mad Max Movie about Max himself is... wait for it... Mad Max.
The guy behind the Series has gone on record stating that there is no canon between the films. No two Max films are linked, so trying to place it in the franchise is a waste of time. Thus he felt no need to remain true to Max Rockitanski's child's gender (boy in the first film, girl ghost in Fury Road...), nor age (ghost is almost ten, child killed as toddler...), and so forth.
Quote from: Nexus;908687I thought (like some others) that that was the path the going with Ghostbusters 2016. Either another Ghostbusters operation or a "next generation" deal not a full reboot as it turned out.
I hoped for that too. Unfortunately, "life has killed that dream I dreamed".
Oh well, at least it will be easier to disregard the reboot as "irrelevant". ;)
Quote from: Spike;908718Max has all of 14 lines (AFAIR) in Road Warrior.
The short of it is that Max has always been an odd sort of Supporting Hero rather than a full on Protagonist. In Thunder Dome the main characters were Auntie whatever and Fake Anne Heche.
The only Mad Max Movie about Max himself is... wait for it... Mad Max.
The guy behind the Series has gone on record stating that there is no canon between the films. No two Max films are linked, so trying to place it in the franchise is a waste of time. Thus he felt no need to remain true to Max Rockitanski's child's gender (boy in the first film, girl ghost in Fury Road...), nor age (ghost is almost ten, child killed as toddler...), and so forth.
Interesting.
Heck, perhaps in the end they are gonna release a movie, where Max turns to be an insane man living in some post-apo shelter, who rather than simply die, attempts to find his way out of abyss via numerous adventures taking place in that "mad" head of his.
I would watch that.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;908728I hoped for that too. Unfortunately, "life has killed that dream I dreamed".
Oh well, at least it will be easier to disregard the reboot as "irrelevant". ;)
Interesting.
Heck, perhaps in the end they are gonna release a movie, where Max turns to be an insane man living in some post-apo shelter, who rather than simply die, attempts to find his way out of abyss via numerous adventures taking place in that "mad" head of his.
I would watch that.
An interpretation of the movies I thought it was pretty cool was that there was no "Max" at least not in the sense of single real person. He was sort of a culture hero in Post Apocalyptic world, a legend that many wasteland tribes use to explain their origins or how they survived some great tribulation. As such he's part myth, part compilation of several people or even a "just so" story. Perhaps even attached to leaders to lend them a sense of power "Cheiftainess Furiosa once rode with the Road Warrior, fought at his side. It is known."
Quote from: Nexus;908802An interpretation of the movies I thought it was pretty cool was that there was no "Max" at least not in the sense of single real person. He was sort of a culture hero in Post Apocalyptic world, a legend that many wasteland tribes use to explain their origins or how they survived some great tribulation. As such he's part myth, part compilation of several people or even a "just so" story. Perhaps even attached to leaders to lend them a sense of power "Cheiftainess Furiosa once rode with the Road Warrior, fought at his side. It is known."
So Max being more a mindset or (brace for it) "a class" rather than a single person?
I didn't know about this concept. As long as you erase that "Rockatansky" surname, it seems reasonable.
It kind of reminds me about this masterpiece:
(https://i2.wp.com/theroverfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/The-Rover-Movie-Poster-Art-Outtakes06.jpg)
There's the scene, where Weyland explains to the police officer that he did something bad in the past and the worst part of it was that there was no retribution, while he felt he deserved it. It resembles a confession, but it's also an expression of inability (perhaps unwillingness) to accept the world as it is.
Perhaps this might be applied to the idea of "Max" - you succumb to the savagery but then you go through a period of temporary insanity, while your point of view adjusts to the new reality and if you manage to make peace with the present, you emerge as a man capable of surviving in the new world, while still believing and following some ideals of pre-apocalypse world.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;908872So Max being more a mindset or (brace for it) "a class" rather than a single person?
More like a legend or a folk hero who are often conglomerates of different people and events and tall tales. There may have been an actual Max or maybe not but the legacy and legend are the important part, an aspect of Wasteland cultural heritage anf inspiration during the long climb back. I think the notion was largely inspired by the epilogue to Beyond Thunderdome. But its a pretty cool idea and an interesting framing mechanism for the franchise. It offers allot of freedom since folks tails and myths don't have to have strict continuity, tone or mood.
Quote from: Nexus;908884More like a legend or a folk hero who are often conglomerates of different people and events and tall tales. There may have been an actual Max or maybe not but the legacy and legend are the important part, an aspect of Wasteland cultural heritage anf inspiration during the long climb back. I think the notion was largely inspired by the epilogue to Beyond Thunderdome. But its a pretty cool idea and an interesting framing mechanism for the franchise. It offers allot of freedom since folks tails and myths don't have to have strict continuity, tone or mood.
I won't lie: this is becoming more and more interesting. Do you, perhaps, remember some links where people discuss the topic?
I mean, hell, the archetype of "Max", legendary "spark of hope", "that guy" everyone speak about could've become great equivalent of post-apocalyptic Paladin. And the better question: why didn't I think about it earlier?
Reviewed Heroes Shed No Tears (Awesome movie with plenty of blood and swordplay): https://youtu.be/n2IhF8rVG0Y
...and reviewed Temple of the Red Lotus (an early color wuxia movie from 1965): https://youtu.be/xvKQ8ExUCiE
Still working on improving my mic levels, so apologies if the sound isn't terribly high.
TCM showed S.O.B. -Blake Edwards' middle finger to Hollywood. So many great performances (especially Richard Mulligan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFUuG3UgIj0), who doesn't say a word for most of the movie), but Robert Preston really stole the show:
[video=youtube;axzKFG0K4h0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axzKFG0K4h0[/youtube]
Teeth (2007) is an odd movie, difficult to categorize. Its billed as a horror comedy which I suppose is close enough though the “horror” elements are, IMO, fairly minor. Perhaps except for certain members of the audience. And even then somewhat defused by other aspects of the movie. The movie's protagonist is a teenaged girl named Dawn O'keefe. Dawn, among other things, is the spokesperson for her high school Abstinence Society and in general a “goody two shoes”. Dawn lives in a mixed family with her natural father, a kind but quiet man, her ailing step mother and brooding, sullen step brother who seems both to dislike, even fear her but also have some perverse attraction
From the opening scene, Teeth establishes its quirky style, showing Dawn heading home to upbeat music with nuclear plant cooling towers looming in the background as an unremarked on possible origin for her Dawn's soon to be revealed problem, a problem tha comes violent when a boy she meets after a chastity group meeting attempts to rape her.
Teeth is 9 yrs old but there is a twist so I'll spoiler block the rest except to say the movies tag line “Every Rose has its thorns” and the protagonist's last name are a big hint. I enjoyed the movie in generally though I'm still a little puzzled as too why considering some of unspoken themes.
Spoiler
As you may have guessed, Teeth deals with the topic of vagina dentata which Dawn, to her initial horror, discovers she has during the attack inadvertently emasculating and killing the boy who attacks to her and later biting from the fingers off a patronizing heavy handed gynecologist. Much of the movie is her trying to cope with her problem along with her family issues which grow much worse after her mother passes away under questionable circumstances which comes to a head in a truly bizarre, disturbing (and foreshadowed in a flashback) act of revenge.
Teeth could be considered a coming of age. There are elements of that: growing, learning to accept differences and yourself, taking responsibility even budding sexuality. There's female empowerment as well, not surprising given the premise. But from another perspective, it could be seen as a story about innocence lost, corruption and budding monstrosity. The final scene really highlights that choice for the viewer.
The feminist messages unfortunately gets heavy handed. In fact that all the male characters in the movie are assholes. There's not really one sympathetic make figure in the movie. The closest is Dawn's stepfather Bill and he's weak willing and depicted as a coward, bullied by his violent son. Men are either rapists, manipulating liars, cowards or emotionally callous assholes like Dawn's ham handed gynecologist.
Most of them get their punishment at, well, not Dawn's hands per se... And some additional humiliation later in cut away scenes where the staff makes some disparaging comments about their endowment and other features during the surgeries to reattach their severed bits. For a horror movie, Teeth has an extremely low body count with only one confirmed death though one victim might have preferred death.
Teeth has a fairly unusual style that plays with expectations. There's a split scene depicting a Boys and a Girls locker room where the girls are mostly dressing out, in their underwear or gym clothes, a fairly realistic even somehat modest depiction of a high school girls lockers room while the Boys locker is shot in a more prurient fashion with lots of full frontal nudity like homoerotic (or het female?) fantasy. Or when Dawn goes to a male friend, semi hysterical over earlier incidents he gives her a sedative and they end up having sex. But she's aware of what he gives her, he tells her. Was the sex consensual seems to be the question the scene is meant to pose. Dawn, at least, seems to think so. As the next morning they do do again (her eager surprisingly angst free embrace of sexuality is another expectation that's slightly subverted) but the situation takes a horrific turn after another reveal.
Gaming wise Teeth doesn't offer allot. It could be the backstory for a very unusual villain (or heroine?) or the cause of a bizarre crime spree for the PCs to track down in a setting with allowance for at least a little weird. Dawn's nature could be expanded on on in few ways like maybe she's not the only “changed” person in that town (there is that power plant). In any case, I think its worth giving a look just for the odd style and dark humor.
How about TV series?
The Last Kingdom (http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt4179452/)
(http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6899455.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/The-Last-Kingdom.jpg)
Poor man's Jon Snow joins other people in an attempt to emulate Vikings' atmosphere in a plot that's probably the best example of how NOT to construct scenarios. ever.
It's hard to tell what the series is exactly about, since it's impossible to determine what happens thanks to all camera operators suffering from advanced Parkinson's syndrome. This in turn should be enough for everyone to stop watching the series in the middle of the second episode. Just like we did.
As for the plot itself: there are some people with axes and round shields fighting people with swords and square shields. Also there are buildings and grass plains. And mud. And horses. About the rest I can't be sure.
HOWEVER, this piece of art has unquestionable value in context of RPGs: once the vision is switched off and one relies on audio alone, there's a possibility to find interesting [strike]plot holes[/strike] plot hooks, like "announce to the butchers of your family that you survived the slaughter, so they approach the local lord (?) first and accuse you of being the butcher, so now you can't approach the lord and explain who the true slaughterers were", or "abduct your lord's wizard and adviser, and threaten to kill him, so you the lord - the one that is supposed to help you - gets angry like hell and pays little attention to the incomprehensible blabbering oy tours, bonus: no proofs backing up your argumentation whatsoever". Amazing.
Truly, a series every blind and deaf man should appreciate.
Posted a video on the restored A Touch of Zen blue-ray (just getting over being quite sick so a little cloudy headed in this one). Bottom line is this is an awesome restoration for a movie that desperately needed it. Really enjoyed seeing it the way it was meant to be: https://youtu.be/2Yl5AhTv_D0
Stranger Thins. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4574334/)
(http://www.robots-and-dragons.de/sites/default/files//styles/artikel_-_bild__ber_artikel/public/field/image/preview/stranger-things.jpg?itok=0QNIhh9Z)
I don't know why this series is considered "best paranormal series ever" - and I hear this a lot.
Don't get me wrong, it's well done series featuring plenty of interesting elements, quite acceptable scenario, dialogues and cast that deliver good performance.
However I perceive it as Stephen King's "IT" meets Zalgo, meets Jessica Alba "Dark Angel", meets "Poltergeist", meets... etc, etc.
Were it to be presented as a RPG scenario, I'd expect at least part of the group to throw a remark along the lines of "wait a minute, I think I've heard that before..."
Still, I'd play it. Or run it. And I think I know what RPG I'd pick for that task:
(https://gebryan.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/a0f4b8fe-6172-4ea6-a089-fc9ebfa0cc78iphone_photo.jpg)
Bonus: juvenile protagonists of the show play D&D. :cool:
Funny: the picture of teh kids on the bicycles made me think of the movie E.T.
Then I saw the last line. THey are playing D&D in one of the first scenes of E.T.
Hmmmm......
Quote from: Spike;909321Funny: the picture of teh kids on the bicycles made me think of the movie E.T.
Then I saw the last line. THey are playing D&D in one of the first scenes of E.T.
Hmmmm......
This whole series is full of references, but its authors don't hide that. In fact, they wink at the watcher and smuggle an info about what they are gonna "borrow" pretty soon.
There's for example "JAWS" movie poster on the wall... And then, there's a scene featuring water "reservoir". Or this - certain character say to other character she got tickets for "POLTERGEIST" movie and later you see a character speaking "from beyond" via contemporary piece of technology...
It's funny really. It adds another layer to the experience. "
Oh, it's EVIL DEAD poster... Hmmmm... Will Bruce Campbell make a cameo? Perhaps someone is gonna lose his hand? Chainsaw anyone? Boomstick your primitives?" ;)
Ah... that makes sense then, sounds pretty cool actually.
I'm really digging Stranger Things. We're on episode 3, trying not to binge watch so we can enjoy it for a longer time frame.
I wouldn't call it the best paranormal series evar. But it is really good.
LOOK OUT EVERY ONE IT IS COMING!!!!!!!!!!
I saw a commercial for a remake of the magnificent 7 the other day.
I dont even need t see the movie the ad all ready tells me its going to be bad real bad.
Quick question to anyone that's seen Ghostbusters 2016, Is Chris Hiemsworth's character so stupid that, when pained by a loud noise, he covers his eyes or was that just the way it looked in the trailer?
Quote from: kosmos1214;909638LOOK OUT EVERY ONE IT IS COMING!!!!!!!!!!
I saw a commercial for a remake of the magnificent 7 the other day.
I dont even need t see the movie the ad all ready tells me its going to be bad real bad.
[video=youtube_share;SAxzahvUgyo]https://youtu.be/SAxzahvUgyo[/youtube]
Saw Batman v Superman last night.
Hot mess.
Overwrought, way too long, gratuitous, indulgent. Perfect summer action movie I guess. I didn't care for it at all.
I really enjoyed Dawn of Justice. I love the atmosphere and how it took the characters and updated them for modern times while keeping their core intact. The fight scenes really were different from the Marvel movies, more "epic" for lack of a better word. Not necessarily better but bigger. There were a few things in it that I didn't expect from the trailers and hype and it felt like a great set for future Justice League movies. I also thought it was cool how it dealt with some similar themes to Civil War but in a different manner.
Loved Wonder Woman's presentation. Strong, fierce and competent but not used a sledgehammer to be some kind of MESSAGE int he audience. She was a cool female character that kicked ass not a symbol.
All in all, I found it to be exciting and engrossing. It made me give a damn about DC material when normally I don't care much beyond the animated universe. I'd have to rank it as pne of my favorite Superheroes.
which is pretty funny, Nexus, as Wonder Woman was literally written to be a message to the audience. Of course, that early message was spoilt by the fact the writer was also a damn kinky bastard. Wonder Woman is a bondage bunny...
Quote from: Spike;910132which is pretty funny, Nexus, as Wonder Woman was literally written to be a message to the audience. Of course, that early message was spoilt by the fact the writer was also a damn kinky bastard. Wonder Woman is a bondage bunny...
Yep, Wonder Woman was the embodiment of her creator William Marston's femdom fantasies and to illustrate the joys of willing submission to superior women. Her original message was that woman should be in charge, more or less. The comic regularly featured thinly (or not all) veiled bondage fantasy and submission scenarios from the Amazon's "games" to her lasso. That made the reaction to Wonder Woman series silly, IMO, as it didn't "add" anything to the original story lines or mythology, it just didn't sanitize them. Part of that was Wonder Woman's adoption as a feminist icon (understandable) with the expected protectiveness and, recently, prudery (IMO) and a touch of denial.
There's no doubt the character has changed some 1941 but the empowerment aspects of her have always been there in some form and I don't have a problem with that. What I enjoyed about presentation in Dawn of Justice was that it wasn't heavy handed. She didn't constantly show up Bruce and Clark but wasn't a damsel in distress for them either but a contributing member of an impromptu team and an interesting character in her own right. I wanted to know more about this version of her. I suspect she'll be more in the forefront on her own movie and there might be more overt "Girl Power" but it will be a movie about Wonder Woman so that's to be expected :)
Denzel
D'onofrio
Ethan Hawke
Chris Pratt
Peter Saarsgard
The sheer acting ability in this movie could have made it one of the greats.
It looks like it's going to be a movie in full "High Hollywood Action w/Humor" mode, a mindless popcornfestivalofcool.
Just what was needed, more of the same.
Watching Red Letter Media's review of Star Trek Beyond... I thought the previous two nuTreks were steaming turds, and I didn't even want to watch Beyond on dvd. But now I might.
Anyone seen Suicide Squad? Critics have trashed it but the couple of people I know that have seen it loved it. I've enjoyed the darker DC films so far so I'm looking forward to this one.
Saw Suicide Squad last night. Full of near misses, I thought. Amanda Waller (Viola Davis, the goverment spook putting it all together) is a bigger villain than any of the villains, at least on screen. In fact, that's my biggest problem with the film: That it pulls all its punches regarding how bad the main characters are. They TALK bad, and there is plenty of exposition about how bad they are, but that is it.
Still: For the first time since Jack Reacher I've actually liked Jai Courtney in a role... and for once they didn't have him play the military guy (Though he DID have a rank....), which went to some unknown to me Swedish dude, who did not impress me. Margot Robbie impressed me, which was a bit of a surprise. Aside from the tattoo aesthetic, which I don't like, she really did look the part, and her 'new yawk' accent, while a bit mannered, was better than most brit/aussie attempts to play 'american'. Yes, as much as they mock our attempts at british accents, we yanks can do the same to their actors just fine. THe change from King Shark to Killer Croc fit very well, as King Shark is just a damn goofy looking character.
THoughts: Too much damn exposition. Too much time wasted on introducing the characters, and setting up the remarkably simple plot (but complex sounding plot), the Joker Subplot took way too much energy for way too little pay off. Still entertaining.
On the Joker: The biggest misstep here was essentially this: You can have Batman without Robin, but you can't really have Robin without Batman. Likewise: You can have the Joker without Harley, but Harley is defined by her relationship to the Joker. Writing a Joker who is defined by his relationship to Harley is an easy trap to fall into in a movie that is, ultimately, about Harley Quinn (in a backdoor sort of way), but is a definitional mistake. If it was a sort of rose-colored glasses POV take on teh Joker (say, through Harley's eyes), it would make sense, but the movie, like so many others, doesn't have a POV, or rather the POV is the objective outside observer (The Audience). Leto did a fine job as Joker as written, but as written it just didn't work. Its a B-plot that doesn't go anywhere, doesn't really interface with teh A-Plot at all...
Hmm. Spoiler Alert:
Spoiler
The big denoument of the Joker Plot, is the JOker's mid-film attempt to rescue Harley from the clutches of the squad. He hijacks the helicopter they were going to use to evacuate the mission area (Midway City), and pins everyone down with a minigun while Harley runs to the copter, having disabled her suicide bomb remotely. Helicopter flies off, is shot down by Waller's orders, and Harley rejoins the team, thinking her Puddin' is dead. Waller gets on another copter and is shot down by the big bad and captured. Remove the Joker's attempt to rescue harley quinn from the film what do you have? Harley with the team, Waller shot down and in need of rescue. Five to ten minutes of eye candy that leaves you exactly where you started, minus some very tiny character development moments. Harley's lack of a suicide bomb does not feature in the plot the rest of the film in any way, and seems very convienently forgotten by all and sundry.
On the subject of the A-Plot, it seems very like they want it to be a case of 'creating your own worst enemy', with the Enchantress, Waller's pet witch/extra-dimensional godling, rebelling against Waller and trying to destroy the world. Problem: Waller didn't wake the Enchatress from her slumber, and it seems to me that Waller's control over the Enchantress, while aggrivating her attitude towards humanity, only delayed the inevitable long enough to put together a team that might reasonable stop her from taking over the world and ruling it as a dark and evil queen. Seriously: The enchantress is pretty much a bitch all on her lonesome, and exists separately of Waller's control. Also it really doesn't require 'metahumans' to stop the Enchantress, the way it plays out. The Heavy beats Diablo in a fight and is killed by a purely mortal bomb, planted by a mortal soldier, and the Enchantress, at the end, is killed by Flag, another purely mortal soldier. A strong guy throws a bomb, a decent, but not impossible, shot detonates it. Waller doesn't need superhumans, she needs better soldiers. More guys like Flag, who have (as the Pundit puts it) Protagonism!
One thing that was modestly surprising to me was how big a roll Batfleck played in the film. Dunno why I was surprised, I just was. Guess I forgot they are attempting to build up the DC-Avengers (justice league, I know...), to compete with Marvel.
I want to clarify my opening statment about near misses: The movie is actually good in any number of ways. It keeps falling short of greatness. Diablo, for example, is improved over the comic version. In the comic version he's guilt ridden over killing random women and children by accident. In the movie version he killed his own family when he lost control during an argument over his criminal activities. It may be an ancient cliche (Hercules!), but it makes his non-violence attitude much more real, much more believable. That ancient cliche has been around for a reason. However: There isn't a real sense of his bonding to the Team, possibly due to the ham-handed exposition and wasted time in the film, and his 'do nothing' attitude in early action scenes is just sort of lame. We get a few scenes that suggest how Flag might earn the respect of these criminals along the way... but then he never really does until, shockingly, he just cries a little about being in love with Cara Delvignie (Like... duh!), who is the Enchantress's host body. And that is all it apparently takes.
What do I mean?
Well, twenty fuckign minutes into the film they FINALLY start assembling the team (which doesn't finish for another twenty fucking minutes, I swear!). Flag and Waller give Deadshot guns and let him show of his skills (which are almost completely wasted in the rest of the film), 'trusting' him with guns. Flag takes the time to actually ask Killer Croc why he's in a sewer cell in the basement... all implying at least a modicum of respect and understanding of their humanity that the guards lacked. Of course, once they get their gear and get ready to mission this bitch up, he goes straight up disrespect and 'i will kill you for blinking' on them at every turn, insulting Deadshot as a serial killer and coward and so forth... in short doing everything in his power to prevent them from liking or respecting him. Fine, except liking and respecting him is their 'character growth arc' so far as the movie is concern. Team bonding and so forth, so that pretty much comes out of left field at the end of the god damn movie.
I swear to christ: If you can explain who the characters are and what they are doing in a one minute trailer... hell, in a twenty fucking second teaser, why the hell does it take half the god damn movie, and what feels like hours of exposition, to actually set up the god damn team???
Also: The trailers ahead of the film: one and all they annoyed the hell out of me for one reason or another. THe Wonder Woman trailer? Looked awesome... and also preachy as fucking hell. LIke: I get it: She is a strong independent woman better than any man, but seriously: When does a secretary describe her job as 'Going where he tells me, doing what he tells me', so that Wonder Woman can point out that (predominantly female) secretaries sound like Slaves?* Dafuq?! Also: as... interesting... an image as it is, one simply does not "hide" a broadsword down the back of a backless evening gown with the hilt all up in your neck. Still, it looked very pretty. Lots of 'very exciting' action shots.
*Point of fact: Any employee might reasonably describe their job in terms that sound like slavery, omitting that this is a voluntary and paid position. THe correct response from the male lead around this point of the trailer should be to say "If that's what you think about your job, you're fired.", and continue on, telling Wonder Woman "There, I've manumitted my 'Slave', shall we continue?". A more human response to the question "What is a Secretary" is something like "I answer phones and manage his appointments and correspondence".
Quote from: Spike;912032*Point of fact: Any employee might reasonably describe their job in terms that sound like slavery, omitting that this is a voluntary and paid position. THe correct response from the male lead around this point of the trailer should be to say "If that's what you think about your job, you're fired.", and continue on, telling Wonder Woman "There, I've manumitted my 'Slave', shall we continue?". A more human response to the question "What is a Secretary" is something like "I answer phones and manage his appointments and correspondence".
Secretaries get paid. Slaves... well they got paid too in many cultures. Anyway, yeah, that was a big cringe moment. The best they could get for Feminist Woman to bitch about in the trailer? Sad trombone.
Ironcially, I think the WW flick is going to be roasted by the PC cult. Probably over how WW isn't a fat, muslim transsexual or something like that.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;912131Secretaries get paid. Slaves... well they got paid too in many cultures. Anyway, yeah, that was a big cringe moment. The best they could get for Feminist Woman to bitch about in the trailer? Sad trombone.
Ironcially, I think the WW flick is going to be roasted by the PC cult. Probably over how WW isn't a fat, muslim transsexual or something like that.
Can i get a link to this WW trailer i cant seem to find it on youtube.
might not have made it to internets yet. Suicide Squad was just released on Friday, after all... God knows how slow the Internet is... fucking Al Gore.
I saw a double feature of Captain America: Civil War and X-men: Apocalypse.
Hot damn, that was fun. Probably going to go back and do it again, but I am a Marvel fanboy and an X-men junkie and I love Bryan Singer's directing style so I'm the core audience.
Neither movie is perfect, but both are popcorn munching summer fun. If you run Supers RPGs, you should see both movies, especially CA:CW because their blend of street heroes vs. mega heroes was quite interesting, and even more so, how the machinations of normies can screw up a Supers' day.
Also, the pacing of combat was inspiring and something Supers GMs should consider because players are coming to the table with mental images and expectations, not from comic books they read, but from comic movies they watched.
still haven't seen Apocalypse, damnit, but I did enjoy Civil War.
On the subject of upcoming trailers, I did see the Dunkirk Trailer... well, it was really just a teaser... before SS. It could be good. Looked at bit too stylized, but its a teaser, so who knows? Its a Nolan Flick.
Quote from: kosmos1214;912154Can i get a link to this WW trailer i cant seem to find it on youtube.
Unless there's a new one I haven't heard of... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451279/
Quote from: Ratman_tf;912264Unless there's a new one I haven't heard of... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451279/
Xie Xie.
Finally got mah shit together and watched a movie while killing time... I should say my backlog of movies to watch (that is DVDs lying around gathering wool... we've moved beyond dust here...) has grown to nigh epic proportions. Watching them all might be comparable to a labor of hercules at this point!
American Ultra. Hey, for once I actually liked Kristin Stewart in a movie! This is two in a row! (Jai Courtney's turn as Captain Boomerang in Suicide Squad, remember?). I guess it helps she's playing a stoner! Irony: She looks less stoned in this than in anything else I've seen her in... including oscar red carpet appearances.... heh.
THe movie is odd, as you might expect. Its a sendup of the Jason Bourne flicks... not quite a parody or satire, and it never calls itself out, but it is what it is. Jesse Eisenberg (who never quite looks right as either a bumbling nincompoop stoner or a hardass kill, but nevertheless puts in a yoeman's work), is a bumbling stoner who has panic attacks when he tries to leave town, and his long suffering girlfriend (who, SPOILER ALERT!, should know better), puts up with him. THey smoke a lot of weed. A lot of weed.
Curiously, though, its the bumbling nincompoop who is holding down a job (well, Kristin Stewart works SOMEWHERE... we see her answer her work phone when the plot kicks into gear)., and one day a strange woman walks up to him and says Chrome Potato, Mandalbrot Set is active, Hercules is running the ball... or some such thing. Cue wacky hijinks, as Topher Grace (From That 70's Show), running the CIA like his own personal fiefdom, tries to kill Bumbling Nincompoop to clear the books of a wasted asset. And fails miserably, seemingly wiping out half the town in the process. Walton Goggins is Topher's version of Bumbling Nincompoop, a giggling arsonist turned superhuman killer (jason Bourne style).
The Plot has holes big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through. Almost everyone dies, and the people who live look like extras on a zombie movie (seriously) when its all said and done. Its also a hell of a lot of fun, if only in part because our pastiche of Jason Bourne never switches over to a stone killer, he stays a bumbling nincompoop stoner the entire film... just a BNS who, in the immortal words of Liam Neeson Has Certain Skills that Makes Him Very Dangerous.
Naturally the girlfriend spends half the movie (maybe less. A lot less actually. A third maybe?) as a guest of Topher Grace and Walton Goggins, so the big climax is a rescue fight in a small town general goods store, complete with a humvee blasting fireworks out the front windsheild, a man killed with a can of Spam, and a deadly screwdriver vs claw hammer showdown between our two MKUltra made killers. Goggins is actually somewhat subdued in his part, Topher Grace can't escape the fact that he is, in fact, a wenie, so he hams it up and, well... its a fun way to kill two hours.
Hmm... just watched Gods of Egypt last night. Practically forgot I had it. Was closer on the mythology than I thought it would be, by a massive long shot. On the other hand, despite liking pretty much everything Alex Proyas does, and being a fan of the big cheeseball Gerard Butler, I actually think I didn't quite like it.
Then I watched November Man today. Pierce Brosnan plays a spy, bit of a stretch. Has an executive producer credit, so I guess he can't complain about being typecast. Got it for Olga Kurylenko. She even gets dolled up as a hooker for old times sake, i thought she was done with that sort of thing? As spy movies go, especially with an old leading man, it wasn't too bad, but the politics! Dear god, the politics! Once again we have a 'not Putin' becoming president of russia as a mcguffin (hint: If you're stealing your leading lady from Hitman, try not to steal the plot while you are at it!)... we've got a corrupt CIA agent going on about how Chechnya was invaded by Russia for the oil, just like America invaded Iraq for oil... sigh. We've got a manufactured excuse for the second chechnyan war as an excuse to invade..
Look, either make up your geopolitics entirely, like they do in Anime, or keep your snide political commentary out of events you clearly don't care to read up on... I especially like the plot point where the CIA, who did the dirty work (a fake terrorist bombing of russian soldiers) in Chechnya for the russians, will somehow use that to blackmail the Russian President, and thereby control all of Russia like a puppet state. Its like they were holding a contest to see how much they could insult the audience's intelligence!
Aside from cheap popcorn action flick stuff, it fails at almost every level of a spy movie. Mostly because it doesn't actually seem to care that it IS supposed to be a spy movie, and a vaguely serious one at that. Its like they took the worst lessons from Jason Bourne!
Note: count how many CIA agents are killed by the CIA in this movie! Bresnan kills seven in the first real scene of the movie himself, and his protege-nemesis (shades of The Mechanic), kills a CIA asset on orders to put the whole god damn plot in motion! That's the first fucking scene!
I'm reasonably certain that this movie kills as many CIA agents as the Agency has ever admitted to losing publicly in the field, and its all done by the 'Good Guys'. Oh sure, there is a slick russian assassin (who I am reasonably certain is played by a former gymnast, not that they actually bother using that!)... who manages to kill a journalist and her own pet hacker before being done in by a social worker with a shovel. Sigh. Worst Sexy Assassin Evah.
Maybe I'll do a mini-review comment on God of Egypt later. Now I'm afraid to watch The Survivor, which puts Pierce Brosnan in the bad-spy role as an Assassin against Milla Jovovich. Seeing as she demands the right to show us her vag in every film (even the PG 13 Three Musketeers had her strip down to tap shorts and a corset!), I imagine she'll get naked. Maybe in a Shower, then Brosnan will begin stalking through the darkened apartment, and she won't actually be in the shower at all. I'm calling it now. I'll let ya know if I'm psychic after I've watched it.
well, the good news is that I'm NOT a psychic, though the movie did hint at a shower scene, and Brosnan DID manage to stalk Milla through a dark apartment and not find her. Actually, the lack of a shower (all together, scene or no scene) is rather interesting, given that Milla survives at least two bomb blasts and a run through the underground leading up to that point. Guess she likes the smell of semtex.
Overall its a much better spy movie in almost every way. Sure, the director can't keep it taut and tense without cheating by making Milla's own people leap to the conclusion (for no real good reason) that she apparently blew herself up, thus is a terrorist who should be shot on sight rather than captured and brought in.... but c'est la vie, right? Or, you know, she never tries to call anyone a second time to check in, so a single missed phone call? Pfft. Guess it wasn't meant to be, right?
Brosnan's assassin is definitely shades of Day of the Jackal, the original not the Bruce Willis remake. The plot is lacking... Milla is a low value target, Brosnan is not just going to kill her because he's an assassin... he's also the guy they hired to do their big terrorist (or "Terrorist") attack... Milla has the luck of the very gods for finding dangerous improvised weaponry in random locations.... but all in all a decent romp through (mostly) London.
Still, everything these days gotta be all false flag and shit. Chechnyans don't wanna kill russian soldiers, so the CIA does it so Russia can go to war (see November Man above). Islamists don't want to blow up New York City, its a business man trying to make a billion on short selling the stock markets the day after the attack, in conjunction with romanian scientists mad at the american beaurocracies for fatally delaying his ailing wife's medical visa. Sigh.
So. One really goofy scene I gotta mention. Remo Williams is a mole in the Embassy Visa Department, and has betrayed everyone because terrorists have his son, reported killed in Afghanistan. Ok, so that's good spy movie character motivations and stuff. Of course, Remo Williams is a little long in the tooth for a good spy movie, so we kill him early (and I won't talk about Milla tossing the gun that clearly misfired on the forth shot, rather than just clearing the jam (cause if it were empty the slide would lock to the rear... c'mon, film!!! Also: Four shots? Even for a pocket pistol that's low. Bet that sucker holds eight, double stack mag, betcha. Caliber is our big variable here...)).
Anyway, Milla and the one guy on her team that doesn't believe she's the bomber (who blew herself up, because reasons...), meet up at Remo Williams. Okay, so it IS a bit odd that, in the wake of Remo Williams dying publicly in a park due to lead poisoning, immediately after his birthday party is bombed, doesn't trigger a massive security lockdown on all his stuff... but whatever. While there they find a room in his apartment set up for his dead son, like a shrine.
Cool, brah. Also, plenty of evidence that proves Remo was the traitor.
The weird part is that there is a god damn hasp and padlock on the god damn door. Inside the apartment. Like... Remo expects to lock his son in after he's returned from Afghanistan or some shit.
I mean, I know he's stashed the blackmail evidence in there, but those are just a couple of CDs... seriously. Stick them in a dvd case for Ishtar or Battlefield Earth and you're golden. Or if you really wanna be subtle? The Phantom Menace.
EDIT:::: Bah. Its not Remo Williams who is the Embassy Mole, its Max Cherry. Fred Ward will never forgive me for this... sigh.
Finally saw The Big Short.
Depressing. Confusing. Disjointed. Sadly important to watch because the US "housing bubble" is on the rise again, because Wall Street learned the exact wrong lessons from the last debacle. If you have Netflix, you can probably just watch the first 15 minutes & the last 15 and be good for the key issues (especially the post script). Or just skip the movie and read the book if you want the nitty gritty on the wackiness of bonds, CDOs and criminal regulatory agencies.
Gaming stuff? Nada comes to mind.
Gods of Egypt:
Howard Taylor of SchlockMercenary did a review when this film came out that suggested it would have been better if they'd stripped the Egypt out of it and made it a generic fantasy setting.
I disagree. Having seen the film, I disagree vehemently. In fact, based on that sentiment I was actually quite shocked when I saw the film at last at how much Egyptian Myth was in the damn film. Hell, Set fights Horus for control over Egypt with a fucking Was. Ra asks Set to help him on the Barge of the Sun, fighting off the demon Apophis! There are nine fucking gates in the lands of hte dead, and shit is weighed against a feather (not the heart, but if you have seen the movie you might understand why this is an acceptable departure).
Its hardly a textbook story of egyptian myth, of course. Its not meant to be by any stretch. Its a popcorn flick, and thats all its meant to be.
Curiously, while I quite like Gerard Butler, and I can see how talented the cast was, the cast was the biggest problem I had with the film. Gerard Butler just struck me as a bad fit, and Costeau-Walder's Horus made my teeth hurt for reasons I can't quite articulate. The mortal character (Bek?), aside from having a narrator voice that was no relation to the character voice (always irritating), made me think entirely too much about Cory Haim's comments about rampant pedophilia in casting young male actors... which is never a good thing to be reminded of when watching a popcorn action flick.
No way to game The Big Short, but part of the reason it was so "confusing" is the underlying financial fustercluck was so confusing. I mean, they tried to explain with metaphors (the endless blackjack game conga line of domino destruction was my favorite), but I concede they weren't the best.
I've been following the financial shenanigans in detail for a while, and was a licensed stockbroker that even did some investment banking in 1989...and still found the movie not that easy to follow. I watched the movie twice in succession (Netflix rocks like that), it was an easier go the second time around.
Eric Idle has a documentary on the banking system/crisis done with puppets, it's a little bit easier to follow.
No gaming potential in the Big Short?
Someone has execute all the fuckers responsible. Why not the PCs? :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;913637No gaming potential in the Big Short?
Someone has execute all the fuckers responsible. Why not the PCs? :D
That there's been a movie for (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2368553/)
Quote from: CRKrueger;913637No gaming potential in the Big Short?
Someone has execute all the fuckers responsible. Why not the PCs? :D
That's the sort of game it inspires for me, too. Made me think of Assault on Wall Street too, Ronin.
Stranger Things
on Netflix
Got the chance to screen this last night after reading a review on G+. Ended up binging and retiring at about 4 AM after watching all eight episodes of this Netflix Original series. Have to give this two thumbs up, the whole series is a homage to the early heyday of Dungeons and Dragons and the movie begins with four kids in a basement in Indiana playing D&D and meeting Demogorgon... Winona Ryder is back too. She still looking good!
https://www.netflix.com/browse?jbv=80057281&jbp=0&jbr=0
Man, I tried Stranger Things, watched the first few episodes twice just to make sure, gave up on episode 6.
A friend told me they actually called the game D&D (they dance around it). I think it's like the last words in the movie?
It's not as a mush of crud like Sens8...but I don't see how it got 5 stars.
Quote from: GameDaddy;914047Stranger Things
on Netflix
Got the chance to screen this last night after reading a review on G+. Ended up binging and retiring at about 4 AM after watching all eight episodes of this Netflix Original series. Have to give this two thumbs up, the whole series is a homage to the early heyday of Dungeons and Dragons and the movie begins with four kids in a basement in Indiana playing D&D and meeting Demogorgon... Winona Ryder is back too. She still looking good!
https://www.netflix.com/browse?jbv=80057281&jbp=0&jbr=0
I had a similar experience. I was pretty reluctant to watch it initially (everyone telling me to watch something usually has the opposite effect). But I needed a break from what I needed something to watch while I mapped and decided to turn it on as background noise. I got hooked pretty quickly, put my mapping aside and binged in about two days. Really enjoyed it. Nice blend of 80s inspiration that all blended real well. Curious if they can pull it off again in season two.
Yeah I just watched Stranger Things too. I thought it was good in many ways, though not super-wonderful. My main gripes were standard TV stuff like the way they SLOWLY reveal a bit of clue at a time, and stall the development by having no one have complete information-sharing conversations with each other, having the characters split up, and cutting to other characters just to kind of draw things out. Several things seem to not really make sense or play out as they should/would, although mostly it's not too terribly awfully bad - not as bad as most other TV. It was good enough though to keep (even) me watching and to have me think about how it could be used for an RPG scenario, and how differently it would likely play out with RPG players making decisions, and a sandbox GM doing some more reasonable cause & effect.
The RPG sessions in the show are kind of interesting to see. Not too condescending, but of course still warped to fit their audience expectations and time considerations. Interesting how the kids consult the D&D book to try to understand what is going on with the other realm.
So, I've been watching a fair number of independent studio cinema lately... you know, the little fly by night studios with forgettable names. I mentioned Apocalypse Kiss a while back, which was the third or forth such movie I'd seen in the last year.
Last night I watched Death Hunter. Apparently this studio has at least six movies out (based on their trailers)... maybe not studio but production team?
So the first problem (possibly) with Death Hunter was that the producer is also the star. I mentioned the big failure of Apocalypse Kiss was that the Director over-wrote a leading part for his wife. In this case, Death Hunter actually... doesn't do too bad. Sure, the guy can't act, but then nobody in Death Hunter can! Arguably he is the least worst actor in the film. Also, he shaves his head at one point solely for the cover jacket shot... so you can't argue with his dedication to the role.
Seriously though: If you're making a film and can afford helicoptor and/or crane shots for your friends walking through the mohave desert, you can pony up a hundred bucks or so to pay for someone to actually write a script for you! Death Hunter, while ambitious in its failure of Special Effects, has an idea of a script, and then fails to even deliver on that much!
The tag line for this 'film' was half werewolf, half vampire and 100% ready to kick ass (or something like that).
Yeah. About that. There is precious little ass kicking going on, and the hero is exactly 0% vampire. So two out of three points in your blurb line are false.
Basically the movie fails to commit to much of anything. There are a lot of special effects, but they are hilariously bad. There is a cute girl who strips down to her underwear for plot unrelated reasons, but the film is so dark, and the camera is on her face pretty much the whole time, that you can't really care. There are... um... fights? but they are so bad that it is a mercy they are so short.... there are chase scenes that mostly consist of the various werewolves and vampires managing to stand in the road directly in front of moving cars to be run over... there or four times in a row. Hell, there is even a joke about a guy trying to find a condom to get jiggy with it, and almost (but not quite) settling for saran wrap. No, no.. he finds a condom right after that, so it can't even commit to the guy so desperate for protection to get laid he tries saran wrap.
It can't even commit to the plot. It starts with guy on an anniversary camping trip getting lost and out of gas at a vampire bar, and right after his wife admits she is pregnant, the vampires kidnap her and try to kill him (cue second car vs monster chase in the first half hour... sadly, yes... getting this far into the plot takes half an hour). He escapes into the desert, only to be bit/clawed by a werewolf. A jedi (seriously, dude has a hooded cloak), saves him from becoming a full werewolf, while giving him all the powers, and then it becomes a Heroes Journey, learning to become a prophecies Dark Knight who will end the monsters threatening all life in the Mohave Desert, also Finding Faith. Then the old guy dies, the hero shaves his head, and it becomes about this car full of idiot kids driving into the desert being rescued by the Terminator (our now bald Hero). Only in the last ten minutes does the hero realize he needs to rescue his pregnant wife/vampire by killing the head vampire, so he drags the surviving kids with him to the vampire lair, abandons them, and... um... fights?... the lead vampire before killing him by saying 'ya gotta have faith'. George Michael, eat yer heart out!
And they all walk into the night, having ignored the werewolf threat entirely.... except for the bitchy one, who wanders off alone and gets eaten.
And that is a wrap!
Even for three bucks I felt like I got robbed.
Ok. I lied about that. It was more entertaining than drinking a beer at a bar. But just barely.
Next up in my Queue: MacGyver Season One boxed set.
I'll probably 'review' Strike Back Season Two (Which is really Season Three, but that's a secret...) in the meantime. Back to the salt mines for now, however...
I reviewed Bloody Parrot, a wuxia/horror film from 1981. This one is filled with gore and nudity, and great fight choreography: https://youtu.be/_2yImpWBOL0
I've just finished watching Game of Thrones season 5, and there was one aspect I want to rant about, the part that bugged me badly, which are a few scenes where I notice what seem to me like major continuity/reality issues, mainly with violations of time/space, i.e. who is where when.
There's a scene by the icy shore where they show a palisade and thousands of wildlings. Visibility is clear up to hilltops maybe a mile away, with at least a thousand people milling around in the snow outside the wall. There are rumbling sounds, the gates get closed with still at least a thousand people outside the wall, and then there's an cloud of snow and in a matter of seconds the thousand people all go silent. Someone goes to peek because somehow they have no lookouts on their palisade, and sees a running zombie charging and reaching the gate, so evidently it took about 2 minutes (I checked) for the zombie to go from not even visible on the far horizon, to being right at the gate. (Then later they're able to jump off a high cliff and splat, but then get right up and run - I guess they have supernatural bone strength for falling purposes only... :-P )
Then there's a scene with hundreds(?) of assassins appearing in a crowd, and between cuts there are either a bunch of them nearby, or no one where they used to be, either out of laziness or a sloppy attempt to make the scene seem chaotic. It's as if 9/10 of them are illusions which vanish and reappear randomly sometimes with camera cuts, but it doesn't seem to mean to be really the case as no characters say anything about it.
And finally there's a scene where it's even more ridiculous than the above, but thankfully it has no effect on the outcome, where someone is out in the mountains with clear open ground and no one at all in sight as far as the eye can see, and no sound warning, but then a thousand or more horsemen appear and come from all directions toward and meet the character in seconds. That shit drives me insane, as it makes paying attention to the spatial situation (something I usually like to do) largely irrelevant (except for rant fuel).
Oh there's another scene where an army that supposedly had little cavalry before, suddenly is all mounted and again isn't detected until too late. Apparently almost no one uses scouts or body guards when the writers in this season want to sloppily have them get overpowered, despite the ever-rising rate of people having bad or fatal things happen to them because of basic lack of precautions.
At least some "sleeping guards" got executed. They need to um... eliminate some of the writers or continuity people, too, I think...
Blame Once Upon a Time in the West. After that everyone wants anything that is 'off camera', even for a second, to move like fucking magic.
Speaking of Game of THrones, I haven't seen it myself, but apparently there was a big fuck-off battle where the hero (Snow maybe?) single handedly charges the enemy army and gets away with it. LIke: no feathering with a thousand arrows, no heavy cavalry stomp... just... let him run all the way up to us and murderize a few of our guys until his own side gets motivated to join in.
Sounds bad, but honestly I only watched the first season for the tits. And also because Peter Dinklage is a sexy beast.
If so, it's in the second half of the 6th season, which I'll probably see the second couple of days. Though the all-cavalry versus all-infantry battle I mentioned does start with the foot commander standing out in front of his men by several paces, and though practically everyone dies, that commander is one of the last few standing, most of which battle they don't show at all, to the point that it sort of seemed like effectively everyone on both sides had died, until later when someone congratulates one of the leaders on the "victory".
The combat in the GoT seems a very mixed bag to me. I'm reading my way through the books though and the combat there is far better in terms of detail and making a fair amount of sense, and being somewhat tactically interesting. The shows are now ahead of the books though, so they're not just dumbing down and half-ignoring/re-writing something more well thought-out; now they're making up stuff, and as people mentioned here, it's noticeably fluffier.
But they still do a good job of visualizing many things, such as costumes and settings, and the characterizations are often very good. Dinklage is good and still kicking in season 6, though his character is even more interesting in the books.
The settings look very good too, usually, though the ridiculous exaggerated scale of the buildings (skyscraper-sized stone towers - must be fun with stairs) is surreal and grinds my gears a little, too.
Even I am still enjoying watching it, except for the moments when people teleport around for "visual excitement".
I did a review of Crippled Avengers. Directed by Chang Cheh (Golden Swallow, Five Elemental Ninjas). Lots of acrobatic fight sequences: http://shawbrothersuniverse.com/crippled-avengers-brendan-d-review/
Quote from: Spike;916071...
Speaking of Game of THrones, I haven't seen it myself, but apparently there was a big fuck-off battle where the hero (Snow maybe?) single handedly charges the enemy army and gets away with it. LIke: no feathering with a thousand arrows, no heavy cavalry stomp... just... let him run all the way up to us and murderize a few of our guys until his own side gets motivated to join in. ...
Ok I watched the rest of the latest season (6). I saw the battle you're referring to, and it's no worse than the ones I was complaining about, possibly better. It's the most fighting they've shown of any of the battles in the series. I have mixed feelings about it. I think there were some good aspects, but also aspects I don't like (the "arrows are super-effective against armored men" cliche/mistake being the one I liked least). The other major complaint I had with it is a milder version of the problem I mentioned above, with the way they show movement of fighters being weird.
In the part you mentioned, the guy by himself avoids volleys of arrow in a way that makes some sense - he rides forward and the arrows have some flight time so they miss, until he gets closer and then they kill his horse. Then a wall of cavalry is charging and he prepares to get run down, but then just as they're about to hit "poof" his own cavalry arrives at his position at exactly the same time. I'm actually relatively willing to give that a pass as a way to show the guy didn't notice his own horse was approaching from behind, being focused on the enemy and having just fallen off his horse, but if I were editing the scene, I would have shown it a little differently. Mainly, I'd have to re-watch, but I think they show a view of him that would've shown his own horse coming if they were really that close.
The parts that bugged me much more were the arrow deadliness cliches, and some of the other movements and tactics that seem exaggerated. All in all, it wasn't the worst, and had some good points.
There was also another battle before that that was pretty spectacular, involving dragons flying over ships and a city, which were quite nice. Except for the part before that, where there was annoying overuse of the "exploding flaming catapult bombardment" cliche. :-P
I'm kind of sick of arrows being as effective as rifles and catapults being a bit like 20th Century incendiary artillery.
Games of Thrones battles (the HBO series) are horrible, terrible, amazingly bad. As near as I can tell, Westeros has yet to have even a half-ass competent military mind in their multi-thousand year history.
Pretty much every single battle is resolved by a "surprise attack" from somewhere...nobody has understood how scouts work?
Spoilers, as I rant in more specific detail...
And, as you've noted, nobody has the slightest clue how to defend a walled fortification. Not only is the wildling palisade poorly defended, putting it at the base of a cliff is awesome-stupid, as any chucklehead can just devastate the palisade by tossing rocks down. I bet you can't find a single city/village in real-earth that was built so stupidly. And, again, maybe a few scouts to at least give warning against such a tactic would make some sense, but, oh yeah, Westeros hasn't invented the concept of "scouts" yet. It never even occurred to anyone to put an outpost at the top of the cliff just to see better? I mean, there's an ocean right next to the place....
We get to see Winterfell's main gate (a thin plywood door) bashed down by a "surprise" attack from a giant...when the defenders knew an enemy army was in the area. No murderholes, no sentries on the walls, no nothing. Just "oopsie, giant at the gates."
The Masters attack...and it never occurs to them to have at least some sort of plan to deal with a dragon, even though they have spies in the city and know, very well, there are dragons around? Instead, they attack with a bunch of wooden ships...not even archers. Keep in mind, that whole region was dominated by dragonlords for a very long time. I could see them underestimating the dragons, but completely discounting how effective a flying firebreathing creature would be against a wooden ship with sails? Seriously?
And, again, it's a surprise attack by the Masters, with their ships. Where's that spy network, to let Tyrion know that the Masters are outfitting a huge navy? Where are the sentries on the walls, to see the ships coming from miles away? It's like GoT was set up like an MMO, where visibility is always measured in dozens of feet, at best.
Whew, good thing the Children of the Fail built that...ok, enough spoilers.
But, yeah, the military tactics in GoT really start to grate if you think about them.
Yep. Good points. The fighting in the books makes at least a bit more sense.
We just watched The Conjuring 2... my gosh that was some horrible fucking crap... if I'd been watching it alone... well, I wouldn't have been watching it, but I really had to hold myself back from yelling at the screen. Not scary at all... but most of my irritation probably comes from the overt Christian messaging and the presentation of the Warrens as anything other than scam artists.
I didn't like the first one either and the ONLY reason I let myself get talked into watching this one is because it's based on the same source material as Ghostwatch, which I do find genuinely creepy.
Obviously I'm odd guy out on this one... it appears to be quite popular... which, of course, just adds to my irritation about this shitty movie. Gah!
Did a video review of Bat without Wings (1980). A wuxia mystery adventure with a villain who looks like a member of KISS: https://youtu.be/Hm7uChao9bQ
Due to comments in a non-movie thread I watched The Big Lebowski yesterday. So some good came out of that for me. :) Thanks Kyle, Kruger, et al for recommending it. It was good, though it's not my favorite Coen brothers film. I suspect it would have been even more enjoyable to have watched it in a group rather than solo.
Hell, I used to watch that movie once a week with friends, drinking white russians. It was a half assed excuse to get together every... I forget which day of the week, just pick one and roll with it... and hang out.
So, Strikeback. This is a strange little show. I understand it started on the BBC for one season and got picked up by Cinemax for a season way back in 2010 or 2011. So when I got season 2 in a box, its season two from Cinemax. I have season one (from Cinemax) somewhere, but I only made it half way through the season.
For those not in the know, its a show about an off the books British counter terrorism team. A very small team, two guys (one American ex-delta force, ex CIA assassin, and one British SAS), with a support team of a dozen or so people, some of whom will take to the field with the two main dudes. Its a TV setup, of course, utterly impractical in real life.
Being a Cinemax show there is a lot of skin. In fact about ten minutes into the first episode we are treated to an entirely gratuitous, James Bond would Blush, sex scene. The set up is the American is about to go on a solo suicide mission into Somalia to rescue British Embassy personnel, so a random girl from the Embassy he's never met before tosses him some pity sex. She even tells him thats what it was.
I'll note for the record however, that unlike the first Cinemax season, the on screen nudity and sex drops off precipitously after that. Sure, the Mossad assassin gets her freak on with the American again (the British half of the team gets the hard actorly duty of mourning his murdered wife, instead of nude romps with pretty women. Did they roshambo this?), but that's pretty much it for 12 episodes.
Also unlike the previous season, this season is almost entirely confined to Southern Africa, whereas the previous season hopped the western hemisphere. A rich old white guy (Lannister Senior) is trying to make South Africa... or really any country in Africa... a Nuclear Power so they will be able to set their own destiny rather than being pawns of the west. Rather unforgivably, however, the show seems to treat Africa as a rather small and tightly packed land mass. People bounce from Somalia to South Africa to... Niger and then Algeria, then to Zimbabwe, then back to South Africa. Now, maybe they realize these countries aren't all that close together, but given the way the politics in the show play out it does seem that they managed to blend them together into one coherent mess.
Case in point; While operating in Zimbabwe not only is the support team taken down by corrupt South African politicians (who, really, shouldn't have influence over Zimbabwe...), but the city in Zimbabwe they are operating out of magically seems to become Johannesburg once the action shifts, as if both countries share a J-burg. Now, I'm willing to chalk this up to a bit of slop rather than error, and the fast paced "DRAMA!" of Television means that details get lost along the way... but it does seem shady.
On the upshot, it does feature Rhona Mitra, one of my favorite unknown actresses... those these days her face is looking a little... waxy. She keeps her kit on, so to speak.
Even discounting the excessive, gratuitious nudity of the previous season (there are five now I think? They don't number these damn things, they give them names... this one was... Vengence?), I do think the previous season... at least the first half, was better.
Quote from: Spike;917974Even discounting the excessive, gratuitious nudity of the previous season (there are five now I think? They don't number these damn things, they give them names... this one was... Vengence?), I do think the previous season... at least the first half, was better.
I hate it when shows do that. Newsflash! The odds are quite high that you the writer of that show are not the next Bill Shakespeare, and even Bill fucking Shakespeare sometimes numbered his fucking plays so people knew which part of Henry IV to watch first and that Henry V came after the two Henry IV parts.
Finally saw Black Mass. Remember reading the book when it first came out and enjoyed the movie a lot. The local stuff was all done pretty well and Depp made for a really menacing Bulger. Cumberbatch was good but his accent felt a bit weird.
Saw Monster Hunt on Netflix last night. It was pretty good. Sort of family friendly but funny and plenty of action.
I thought Cumberbatch's accent wasn't credible, either, but it was nice to see him in a non-intimidating role.
Quote from: Doom;918381I thought Cumberbatch's accent wasn't credible, either, but it was nice to see him in a non-intimidating role.
I think he did a great job in the role. My complaint was strictly about the accent. What is interesting is I went and watched some videos on youtube of Billy Bulger. His Boston accent is actually a bit weird. It isn't a typical southie accent at all. I can't say that I remembered it sounding that way before, but based on that, I think I have to backpedal a little on my previous complaint and say he does kind of sound like him (I think Billy Bulger was maybe trying to sound more high class). Here is a clip of him speaking (he says words like "path" in what I would call an upscale Boston accent): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QplKAP7tkSM
It really is a hard accent to get though. I used to have one when I was a kid, and lost it when I moved to the west coast. Even after being back here since I was thirteen, I can't fake the accent either.
Did a review of the Assassin (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lslxXd9TNHg&feature=share). A 1967 Chang Cheh film, starring Jimmy Wang Yu (from the One-Armed Swordsman). Awesome movie. Takes its time. Fewer fights than some other wuxia movies but the great story and characters make each fight count (and the final battle is one of the best I've seen).
Ok technically its a documentary series but a while back i watched hey moe hey dad.
If you are a 3 stooges fan id say give it a look its a very interesting look at there careers as comedians and a peek at there personal lives.
Did a review of Tsui Hark's awesome remake of The One-Armed Swordsman: The Blade (1995). Really cool film. Brutal, set in historical China but almost feels post apocalyptic. Highly recommend this one. It is a remake but nothing like the original. It just hits some of the same beats and has characters filling largely the same role (but it is so different from Chang Cheh's version): https://youtu.be/XMMsZaAdRTk
Tsui Hark is amazingly talented. I've always wanted to see The Butterfly Murders and Dangerous Encounters, but I've never seen a subtitled version on DVD.
Quote from: Spinachcat;920985Tsui Hark is amazingly talented. I've always wanted to see The Butterfly Murders and Dangerous Encounters, but I've never seen a subtitled version on DVD.
You cannot go wrong with Hark.
There is supposedly a subtitled version of Butterfly Murders on eBay right now for about 15 dollars.
I recently watched Dark City. It features a secret group that generates and rearranges the world and the characters' situations every night. It reminded me a lot of many of the discussions here in the pen & paper RPG forum about GM's who improvise and/or make up the world to suit their purposes. It also reminded me of playing with a GM who doesn't have a great memory and who tries to force outcomes and makes up stuff on the fly (and how it can drive me crazy and feel like a nightmare or hell).
I also attempted to finally watch Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, and failed to get past the part where somehow they're suddenly towing a building-sized captured robot from New York into the mountain-sized mountain-based hangar of the mercenary hero. Talk about being aggressively impossible at every turn! I take comfort that it seems to be an unpopular film, but wow that's a fine example of what I hate about unrealistic cliche nonsense.
Sky Captain was totally about cool imagery and tapping into icons that never quite were. It's pretty weak as a film, but as a collection of 1 to 3 minute shorts, it's nifty.
And, yeah, Dark City was underrated.
I love both those films, but I will admit that Sky Captain is very hard to watch again. Which probably means I love it like I love Tank Girl... meaning I really do hate it, but I so remember loving it when I first watched it I'm reluctant to admit that my taste for a first watch film is all too often backwards (meaning I hate good films the first time and love terrible films the first time... only later do I realize what a Fool!! A FOOL I TELL YOU!... I have been...).
If I try to continue watching Sky Captain, I'm going to have to try to convince myself that it's intentionally being ridiculous to the point of parody, which it probably is. I suppose it's referencing silly serial films and exaggerating.
Quote from: Skarg;921861If I try to continue watching Sky Captain, I'm going to have to try to convince myself that it's intentionally being ridiculous to the point of parody, which it probably is. I suppose it's referencing silly serial films and exaggerating.
I find it makes sense if you think of it as say a 1930s-40s children's movie serial.
That is to say your only supposed to view the events as fantastical fiction thats not likely to ever happen.
Kinda like how your not supposed to think of how strong godzillas bones have to be or how thick its skin is.
Reviewed Heaven and Hell by Chang Cheh (the director who made the Five Venoms and One-Armed Swordsman). This is probably the strangest martial arts film I've ever seen. Like Willy Wonka meets Bruce Lee and Monkey King. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiITeU3Jje0
Saw Kubo and the Two Strings in the movie theater. Really enjoyed it. Nice mix of music, martial arts and animation.
Saw The Dwarvenaut on Netflix, documentary about the man behind Dwarven Forge. It's unfocused and meandering, but does a decent enough job of showing the guy as, well, just some guy. Harmless fare.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;923764Saw Kubo and the Two Strings in the movie theater. Really enjoyed it. Nice mix of music, martial arts and animation.
Yeah that was good. I ended up watching it almost by accident but quite enjoyed it.
Quote from: Doom;923962Saw The Dwarvenaut on Netflix, documentary about the man behind Dwarven Forge. It's unfocused and meandering, but does a decent enough job of showing the guy as, well, just some guy. Harmless fare.
I enjoyed that one.
Quote from: Doom;923962Saw The Dwarvenaut on Netflix, documentary about the man behind Dwarven Forge. It's unfocused and meandering, but does a decent enough job of showing the guy as, well, just some guy. Harmless fare.
I agree, not the worst way to spend 90 minutes. A story about a normal joe, who happens to be one hell of an artist, and a huge geek to boot.
Star Trek Beyond. I was told by a co-worker that her husband, a die-hard Trekkie, liked this movie a lot more than the previous two, so I had some hopes.
I made it 25 minutes in, and turned it off. I'm just... tired of all the zoom ins and zoom outs and frantic action style. I get bored of it pretty quickly.
Finally got to watch through a good chunk of Fang of the Sun Dougram, the anime series that Battletech drew so extensively from (among other anime of the time). You can definitely see many elements that would become important in Battletech like the importance of terrain, tactics and both acquiring and cutting off supply lines. Also infantry and mundane vehicles, especially helicopters are still a viable threat to the mecha.
The series follows a boy from earth as he joins an ever growing rebellion staged by colonists on a distant world. The series follows several angles, primarily the political side and the tactical side.
Quote from: Omega;924300Finally got to watch through a good chunk of Fang of the Sun Dougram, the anime series that Battletech drew so extensively from (among other anime of the time). You can definitely see many elements that would become important in Battletech like the importance of terrain, tactics and both acquiring and cutting off supply lines. Also infantry and mundane vehicles, especially helicopters are still a viable threat to the mecha.
The series follows a boy from earth as he joins an ever growing rebellion staged by colonists on a distant world. The series follows several angles, primarily the political side and the tactical side.
Mind if i ask where you found it, I got to watch maybe 10 eps and would greatly like to watch the rest of the series.
Was sold at a convention along with the anime version of Starship Troopers.
Unfortunately it was only the first 20 or so episodes.
And the Starship Troopers anime is alot truer to the books than the movies ever were. Still changes things and ommits some aspects, especially near the end, but not to the unrecognizable levels the movies do.
Crusher Joe is still on the "to find" list.
Addendum: Just saw a clip from Crusher Joe. So that is where they got the Locust battlemech from. Looks like some sort of robot sentry.
Quote from: Omega;924546Was sold at a convention along with the anime version of Starship Troopers.
Unfortunately it was only the first 20 or so episodes.
And the Starship Troopers anime is alot truer to the books than the movies ever were. Still changes things and ommits some aspects, especially near the end, but not to the unrecognizable levels the movies do.
Crusher Joe is still on the "to find" list.
Addendum: Just saw a clip from Crusher Joe. So that is where they got the Locust battlemech from. Looks like some sort of robot sentry.
Okay thank you. If I find a way to watch it I'll let you know.
I got season 1 of Lexx for 3 bucks at a gas station.
Dear lord it was bad. I was only able to make it through all four mini-movies because Eva Habermann is very very pretty, and that cheap dress she was wearing was very, very short.
One thing that I noticed is that a major theme of the show seems to be human cannibalism. Every single episode, every major theme seems to involve eating people. Also, I know know that on the spectrum between everyman and big-damn-hero you actually can go too far towards everyman and wind up at 'unhero'. That would be Stanley Twiddle. A characer so unheroic he makes heroes less heroic just by standing near them. Frodo was a god damn triathelete, olympian and sexual demigod next to Stanley Twiddle, and positively heterosexual at that!
It was so bad I'm now longing for the second season of Killjoys.
Quote from: Spike;924714I got season 1 of Lexx for 3 bucks at a gas station.
Dear lord it was bad. I was only able to make it through all four mini-movies because Eva Habermann is very very pretty, and that cheap dress she was wearing was very, very short.
One thing that I noticed is that a major theme of the show seems to be human cannibalism. Every single episode, every major theme seems to involve eating people. Also, I know know that on the spectrum between everyman and big-damn-hero you actually can go too far towards everyman and wind up at 'unhero'. That would be Stanley Twiddle. A characer so unheroic he makes heroes less heroic just by standing near them. Frodo was a god damn triathelete, olympian and sexual demigod next to Stanley Twiddle, and positively heterosexual at that!
It was so bad I'm now longing for the second season of Killjoys.
Oh wee oh, um paaa ray, oh wee oh, parum Brunnen-G!
Lexx isn't the best, but had to deal with losing that main character actress really early (lawdy she was hawt), and that's the kinda thing that can nuke a series. The replacement sorta grew on you. The sets were so hokey bad, but Stanley (Tweedle) and Kai's acting was so convincing, and the universe was so interesting that you eventually give enough of damn to overlook the mushed up bits. It'd be a great RPG universe. It had it weak episodes, but the high points were very high indeed...except for those gadawful sets. They must have gone through 50 tons of foam insulation on that show.
Give it some more time. It's no Star Trek, or even FarScape...but it really does hit a stride once you get past the wildly uneven bits in the beginning.
Just saw The Bodyguard, a Chinese action flick, on Netflix.
Surprisingly good action sequences, though bit of a slow starter.
Quote from: Doom;924896Oh wee oh, um paaa ray, oh wee oh, parum Brunnen-G!
You know, I actually did like the music.
QuoteThe sets were so hokey bad, but Stanley (Tweedle) and Kai's acting was so convincing,
Convincing? Sure. I like Michael McManus's work as Kai, though I can't find anything else he's done that I would watch, so I got nothing to compare it to. The problem with Tweedle isn't the acting, its that the character conception is so very, very terrible that its painful to watch.
Quoteand the universe was so interesting that you eventually give enough of damn to overlook the mushed up bits. It'd be a great RPG universe.
None of that shows up in the six hours of season 1. Ok, maybe Episode Two, when they went to the Bannen-G ancestral homeworld. Other than a horrible misuses of Tim Curry, the world and episode weren't to terribly bad. Kai got some good lines in, which is unusual given his character concept (Zombie assassin?). You know: "I'm going to watch the Supernova. I hear its a once in a lifetime show."
QuoteGive it some more time. It's no Star Trek, or even FarScape...but it really does hit a stride once you get past the wildly uneven bits in the beginning.
If you say so. I may watch season two eventually, especially if I can find it for three bucks.
Saw Fire and Ice on Amazon. Ralph Bakshi's rotoscoped animation worked well with the characters and the backgrounds were gorgeous. Too bad the the story is a little dull.
It was okay, but I prefer Wizards.
I'm another fan of Lexx. It reminds me of old Heavy Metal comics and goofy scifi like Barbarella... and that Russian movie, 'Kin-dza-dza!'.
Quote from: Spike;925028. Convincing? Sure. I like Michael McManus's work as Kai, though I can't find anything else he's done that I would watch, so I got nothing to compare it to. The problem with Tweedle isn't the acting, its that the character conception is so very, very terrible that its painful to watch.
Oh, Tweedle is much, much worse than you think. He and Kai get some good backstory eventually.
Quote from: JamesV;925098Saw Fire and Ice on Amazon. Ralph Bakshi's rotoscoped animation worked well with the characters and the backgrounds were gorgeous. Too bad the the story is a little dull.
It was okay, but I prefer Wizards.
Helped that it has better production values than Lord of the Ring.
Quote from: Simlasa;925120I'm another fan of Lexx. It reminds me of old Heavy Metal comics and goofy scifi like Barbarella... and that Russian movie, 'Kin-dza-dza!'.
Saw it when it was originally just called "Tales From a Parallel Universe" Never got into it though. But points to HBO, Showtime and others for the oddball efforts like this and that weird adult SF anthology. Among others back then.
Doctor Strange is a bitchin' good flick. Lush visuals, sprinkles of Eastern philosophy and a neat, if very simplified, "supers vs. Cthulhu" plot.
I also
loved the short but meaningful portrayal of pre-accident Strange as an hypercompetent but total asshole surgeon who refuses bad cases so as to not compromise his track record and/or believe themselves too good to care for people in the ER because they have 1000 papers on high impact factor journals to their name or make more money than God or whatever. These people sadly exist and they
suck.
Of course, seeing the movie really breathed new life into my old desire to run Mage: the Awakening. Lots of great correlation to Awakening cosmology. Spoilers ahead:
Spoiler
- Dormammu and/or the Dark Dimension as an Annunaki
- The Ancient One as the sympathetic mentor or even Hierarch who's working Abyssal magic on the side for a greater cause
- Caecilius (fantastic Shadow Name! "The Blind Man" in Latin) as the broken Acamoth who's actually got a point about The Ancient One being an asshole
- Mordo as the ally (I wanna say Adamantine Arrow) who'll be horrified upon discovering the dumb shit the Pentacle has been pulling and will join the Seers or even go full Banisher
Quote from: The Butcher;928839Doctor Strange is a bitchin' good flick. Lush visuals, sprinkles of Eastern philosophy and a neat, if very simplified, "supers vs. Cthulhu" plot.
I also loved the short but meaningful portrayal of pre-accident Strange as an hypercompetent but total asshole surgeon who refuses bad cases so as to not compromise his track record and/or believe themselves too good to care for people in the ER because they have 1000 papers on high impact factor journals to their name or make more money than God or whatever. These people sadly exist and they suck.
Of course, seeing the movie really breathed new life into my old desire to run Mage: the Awakening. Lots of great correlation to Awakening cosmology. Spoilers ahead:
Spoiler
- Dormammu and/or the Dark Dimension as an Annunaki
- The Ancient One as the sympathetic mentor or even Hierarch who's working Abyssal magic on the side for a greater cause
- Caecilius (fantastic Shadow Name! "The Blind Man" in Latin) as the broken Acamoth who's actually got a point about The Ancient One being an asshole
- Mordo as the ally (I wanna say Adamantine Arrow) who'll be horrified upon discovering the dumb shit the Pentacle has been pulling and will join the Seers or even go full Banisher
I've been wondering this for awhile. Is the shaven headed woman glimpsed in the trailers a (gender swapped?) Ancient One or another character? I'm not familiar with Dr. Strange canon.
Quote from: Nexus;928868I've been wondering this for awhile. Is the shaven headed woman glimpsed in the trailers a (gender swapped?) Ancient One or another character? I'm not familiar with Dr. Strange canon.
Yes, she is the Ancient One.
Quote from: rawma;928956Yes, she is the Ancient One.
Wasn't the Ancient One a wizened old Asian man in the comics?
Quote from: Nexus;928990Wasn't the Ancient One a wizened old Asian man in the comics?
Are you just trying to stir up trouble? Yes, that is my understanding, although I have not read the comics. I did go to the movie with someone who was offended that the character was no longer Asian, who was OK with the character being a woman, but who otherwise enjoyed the movie.
Spoiler
When brought to meet the Ancient One, Strange first assumes an older Asian man in the room is the Ancient One. You can take that as a commentary on the change to the character or as just pointing up Strange's arrogant tendency to assume he always knows what's going on (which wouldn't have worked if the character had still been an old Asian man). That she isn't wizened despite being ancient is a salient plot point, but I'm not going to try to nest spoiler tags.
Quote from: Nexus;928990Wasn't the Ancient One a wizened old Asian man in the comics?
Yes and a lot of people were evidently fucking outraged, read all about it here (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/doctor-strange-screenwriter-single-decision-887289) and here (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-racial-erasure-essay-20160418-story.html) and all over the Internet.
Quote from: The Butcher;928999Yes and a lot of people were evidently fucking outraged, read all about it here (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/doctor-strange-screenwriter-single-decision-887289) and here (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-racial-erasure-essay-20160418-story.html) and all over the Internet.
I can imagine. Honestly I don't know enough about the character it knows if the gender swap is meaningful at all but making it seems like there would have been more effort to make her look ancient. Some practical make up effects could have done that.
Quote from: rawma;928996Are you just trying to stir up trouble?
No, I asked a question about a character I vaguely remember from a some comics I flipped through over 20 yrs ago and a Tv movie I vaguely recall from the 80s that very well might have been a woman in the series, a shapeshifter with many guises, have had multiple incarnations, etc.
Quote from: Nexus;929002What are you on about? No, I asked a question about a character I vaguely remember from a some comics I flipped through over 20 yrs ago and a Tv movie I vaguely recall from the 80s that very well might have been a woman in the series, a shapeshifter with many guises, have had multiple incarnations, etc.
The officials have reviewed the instant replay, and, yes, I should have put some sort of smiley after that; my bad. :(
But really, it wouldn't have been that hard to find the information on this internet thing, and being persistently clueless about the main thing in the movie that's drawn the usual outrage that outrages this site can easily look disingenuous. If you just wanted the outrage in the thread without posting it yourself, you got the response you wanted from the Butcher. If not, you got the information you weren't willing to look up. With regard to why she wasn't made to look more ancient, it
is explained in the movie; magic or something, I think ;).
Quote from: rawma;929005The officials have reviewed the instant replay, and, yes, I should have put some sort of smiley after that; my bad. :(
But really, it wouldn't have been that hard to find the information on this internet thing, and being persistently clueless about the main thing in the movie that's drawn the usual outrage that outrages this site can easily look disingenuous. If you just wanted the outrage in the thread without posting it yourself, you got the response you wanted from the Butcher. If not, you got the information you weren't willing to look up. With regard to why she wasn't made to look more ancient, it is explained in the movie; magic or something, I think ;).
I do have other things to do aside from hang out online and look up potentially spoiler laden reviews of movies I intend to see. iraPlus I prfer actually getting answers from people. I asked. For one things its usually much less tedious and a\has more pleasant and informative resuts result, Unless I misread his post he didn't mention the comic book character or any relation it might have had to the female version in the movie (say, a guise the Ancient One employed, for example) thus the follow up question. As fo her appearance, I think its a dubious choice, particularly with gender swap, but that's just my opinion.
Quote from: Nexus;929010I do have other things to do aside from hang out online and look up potentially spoiler laden reviews of movies I intend to see. iraPlus I prfer actually getting answers from people. I asked. For one things its usually much less tedious and a\has more pleasant and informative resuts result, Unless I misread his post he didn't mention the comic book character or any relation it might have had to the female version in the movie (say, a guise the Ancient One employed, for example) thus the follow up question. As fo her appearance, I think its a dubious choice, particularly with gender swap, but that's just my opinion.
Hmm, OK. Have your questions been answered?
I'm pretty sure they didn't avoid making Tilda Swinton look ancient because she's a woman (the character is supposed to be centuries old, so in any event she's not going to look as old as that). She's the chief [STRIKE]sorcerer[/STRIKE] sorceress; besides gender, she has a striking enough appearance to set her apart, even if it's not from looking ancient. Nor is it that she never plays characters who look old; compare her character in The Grand Budapest Hotel.
Quote from: rawma;929012Hmm, OK. Have your questions been answered?
.
Yep.
Watched The Appaloosa last month, that's the Marlon Brando Western. Its bad, mostly because it is dull as fuck, but on the other hand it totally gave me the final clue to put together my psychological profile of Brando, like all good internet psychologists. Clearly the man hated himself*
Pretty much all you need to know about the film can be summed up in the first scene, when a badly bewigged (and fake beard? Wig-beard?) Brando rides into some town, unmounts the horse the film is named after and goes to confess his sins.
It goes a bit like this:
"I killed a bunch of people, did a bunch of bad stuff... but I think its okay because it was war, and they were bad people. We good padre?"
That lame ass, half assed take on a troubled man confessing his sins pretty much sets the tone of the film. I think the Academy Award went to John Saxon's Chuy Martinez almost to slap Brando in the face with his lack of effort... not that Saxon doesn't actually deserve it. Chuy is complex and compelling character, and of course, the villain.
*That's not actually a joke.
Did a review of Dragon (also called Wuxia) starring Donnie Yen. Quite good: https://youtu.be/VAB1Um3ndsE
That link where the Marvel guy blamed the SJW's though was just horseshit.
They didn't cast a Tibetan because China would have boycotted the movie, and they don't have the balls to tell them to go fuck themselves.
The Japanese vs. Korean vs. Every other type of asian is just a complete and total horseshit excuse.
Ken Watanabe, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, Daniel Dae Kim, George Takei, Chow Yun Fat, Hiroyuki Sanada, there's a frickin' ton of Asian actors they could have used and people would have eaten it up.
If they wanted to pat themselves on the back for casting a woman, Ming Na-Wen, Joan Chen, Gong Li, Zhang Ziyi, Lucy Liu, not to mention the 800lb kickass bitch in the room Michelle Fucking Yeoh. Yeah, no one likes her...
You're telling me Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One is going to have more draw than Michelle Yeoh? Go eat a bullet, Cargill.. Don't worry, you have no brains to splash against the wall, you'll be fine.
It's not even the main character, so they can't use the same excuse they used for Scarlett in Ghost in the Shell.
Fine Tilda Swinton is a good actor and granted she's alien-looking as fuck, but come on.
Quote from: The Butcher;928839Doctor Strange is a bitchin' good flick. Lush visuals, sprinkles of Eastern philosophy and a neat, if very simplified, "supers vs. Cthulhu" plot.
I also loved the short but meaningful portrayal of pre-accident Strange as an hypercompetent but total asshole surgeon who refuses bad cases so as to not compromise his track record and/or believe themselves too good to care for people in the ER because they have 1000 papers on high impact factor journals to their name or make more money than God or whatever. These people sadly exist and they suck.
Yep. I thought it was a really good movie. I haven't been all that interested in the superhero movies, because I was never super into comics, but I did like Doctor Strange as a kid and wound up collecting a lot of the comics as an adult, so I was hyped about a Doctor Strange movie, but also a little anxious, because they made a Doctor Strange movie before (1978) and it was pretty bleh. But the new movie does a way better job of being true to the source material: some changes to details, as is typical of the Marvel Universe movies, but 60%-70% true to the "letter" and 95+% true to the "spirit". The visuals are very true to the artwork in the '60s/'70s era comics.
The bit about the pre-accident Strange is a good example. In the comics, he's not only an asshole, but motivated primarily by greed. The movie does try to temper that by showing he has a good streak, but lets his ego get in the way.
Quote from: Nexus;928868I've been wondering this for awhile. Is the shaven headed woman glimpsed in the trailers a (gender swapped?) Ancient One or another character? I'm not familiar with Dr. Strange canon.
Yes, she's the Ancient One, as a woman and as an ancient Celt, instead of an old, Asian man. In the early comics, it's never really said what nationality the Ancient One was, although it's vaguely implied that he's Tibetan. The movie moves the location to Nepal, which isn't too bad, but decides to move the monastery into the backstreets of Kathmandu instead of out in remote mountain wilderness. That's kind of odd. The monastery is also a little more multicultural in the movie than in the comics. But then, the movie also makes the monastery the headquarters for a global organization of sorcerers. I blame that on movie audiences disliking subtlety.
When the previews revealed that the Ancient One was going to be played by a non-Asian woman, I was more concerned about the non-Asian part, because it seemed like whitewashing. Since the character is now a Celt, that's not as big a deal, although it does raise questions as to the motives of the producers for making that change. The gender swap alone wasn't a problem, because there was nothing that the Ancient One did in the comics that was expressly male or female. The Ancient One could theoretically work with either gender. It did worry me for two other reasons:
(1) Did they do it because they were going to make Strange and the Ancient One lovers? That would just be wrong. It's a mentoring relationship, not a romantic one.
(2) Did they do it because they plan on cutting out all the other female characters in the Doctor Strange story, and then thought "Oh shit, we need more women!" That's bothersome not just because of sexism, but because there were several powerful, important female characters in Strange's story, and they really have to gut the story if they cut them out.
Fortunately, there's no hint of #1. But there are only two women with names in the movie, so that's troubling. Furthermore, because of the way Dormammu has been changed so he doesn't seem like a Faltine, but more like a unique supernatural entity, that suggests that his sister Umar the Unrelenting is written out of the story, which may mean that there won't be a Clea, Strange's apprentice, love interest, and eventually wife. Or, if she does show up, she will lose a lot of her depth. That could harm the Doctor Strange long-term character arc. I wasn't expecting Clea to be in the movie -- she'd probably show up in the sequel. But it's unpleasant to think the character may have already been ruined or cut entirely.
It's hard to say what is going to happen to other female characters from the Doctor Strange comics. Topaz was a late-period apprentice, so I didn't expect her to show up. Morgan le Fay is a villain and could show up as Mordo's ally in the sequel. Valkyrie is a Defender and may show up in that movie. We'll have to wait and see.
Saw *most* of Doctor Strange as well. Most because we had to leave 2/3rds the the way in because there was a group in the theater both talking loudly during the film and incessantly on all their phones. So the people I was with got fed up packed it after the ushers failed to catch the jerks. The Theater was though really good and refunded the tickets.
Overall what saw if it I liked alot. casting of the Ancient One and the choice of villain was a "huh?" moment and some other oddities. But I'll just assume some of that is some quirk or holdover from of Ultimate Marvel.
Quote from: talysman;930012Yep. I thought it was a really good movie. I haven't been all that interested in the superhero movies, because I was never super into comics, but I did like Doctor Strange as a kid and wound up collecting a lot of the comics as an adult, so I was hyped about a Doctor Strange movie, but also a little anxious, because they made a Doctor Strange movie before (1978) and it was pretty bleh. But the new movie does a way better job of being true to the source material: some changes to details, as is typical of the Marvel Universe movies, but 60%-70% true to the "letter" and 95+% true to the "spirit". The visuals are very true to the artwork in the '60s/'70s era comics.
The bit about the pre-accident Strange is a good example. In the comics, he's not only an asshole, but motivated primarily by greed. The movie does try to temper that by showing he has a good streak, but lets his ego get in the way.
Yes, she's the Ancient One, as a woman and as an ancient Celt, instead of an old, Asian man. In the early comics, it's never really said what nationality the Ancient One was, although it's vaguely implied that he's Tibetan. The movie moves the location to Nepal, which isn't too bad, but decides to move the monastery into the backstreets of Kathmandu instead of out in remote mountain wilderness. That's kind of odd. The monastery is also a little more multicultural in the movie than in the comics. But then, the movie also makes the monastery the headquarters for a global organization of sorcerers. I blame that on movie audiences disliking subtlety.
When the previews revealed that the Ancient One was going to be played by a non-Asian woman, I was more concerned about the non-Asian part, because it seemed like whitewashing. Since the character is now a Celt, that's not as big a deal, although it does raise questions as to the motives of the producers for making that change. The gender swap alone wasn't a problem, because there was nothing that the Ancient One did in the comics that was expressly male or female. The Ancient One could theoretically work with either gender. It did worry me for two other reasons:
(1) Did they do it because they were going to make Strange and the Ancient One lovers? That would just be wrong. It's a mentoring relationship, not a romantic one.
(2) Did they do it because they plan on cutting out all the other female characters in the Doctor Strange story, and then thought "Oh shit, we need more women!" That's bothersome not just because of sexism, but because there were several powerful, important female characters in Strange's story, and they really have to gut the story if they cut them out.
Fortunately, there's no hint of #1. But there are only two women with names in the movie, so that's troubling. Furthermore, because of the way Dormammu has been changed so he doesn't seem like a Faltine, but more like a unique supernatural entity, that suggests that his sister Umar the Unrelenting is written out of the story, which may mean that there won't be a Clea, Strange's apprentice, love interest, and eventually wife. Or, if she does show up, she will lose a lot of her depth. That could harm the Doctor Strange long-term character arc. I wasn't expecting Clea to be in the movie -- she'd probably show up in the sequel. But it's unpleasant to think the character may have already been ruined or cut entirely.
It's hard to say what is going to happen to other female characters from the Doctor Strange comics. Topaz was a late-period apprentice, so I didn't expect her to show up. Morgan le Fay is a villain and could show up as Mordo's ally in the sequel. Valkyrie is a Defender and may show up in that movie. We'll have to wait and see.
The only male characters that matter are Strange, Mordo and the bad guy, so 3 guys vs two girls is nothing to care about. Yes there's Wong, but he's only in about five mins of the film and it's played for laughs.
Quote from: Omega;930327Saw *most* of Doctor Strange as well. Most because we had to leave 2/3rds the the way in because there was a group in the theater both talking loudly during the film and incessantly on all their phones. So the people I was with got fed up packed it after the ushers failed to catch the jerks. The Theater was though really good and refunded the tickets.
I hate it when people can't shut up in a movie. That's what shot the Blair Witch Project, the first time I saw Silent Hill and a few others to Hell for me so I sympathize.
QuoteOverall what saw if it I liked alot. casting of the Ancient One and the choice of villain was a "huh?" moment and some other oddities. But I'll just assume some of that is some quirk or holdover from of Ultimate Marvel.
That what the changes like to me, more "huh..." than WTF?. :)
Quote from: talysman;930012Yep. I thought it was a really good movie. I haven't been all that interested in the superhero movies, because I was never super into comics, but I did like Doctor Strange as a kid and wound up collecting a lot of the comics as an adult, so I was hyped about a Doctor Strange movie, but also a little anxious, because they made a Doctor Strange movie before (1978) and it was pretty bleh. But the new movie does a way better job of being true to the source material: some changes to details, as is typical of the Marvel Universe movies, but 60%-70% true to the "letter" and 95+% true to the "spirit". The visuals are very true to the artwork in the '60s/'70s era comics.
The bit about the pre-accident Strange is a good example. In the comics, he's not only an asshole, but motivated primarily by greed. The movie does try to temper that by showing he has a good streak, but lets his ego get in the way.
Yes, she's the Ancient One, as a woman and as an ancient Celt, instead of an old, Asian man. In the early comics, it's never really said what nationality the Ancient One was, although it's vaguely implied that he's Tibetan. The movie moves the location to Nepal, which isn't too bad, but decides to move the monastery into the backstreets of Kathmandu instead of out in remote mountain wilderness. That's kind of odd. The monastery is also a little more multicultural in the movie than in the comics. But then, the movie also makes the monastery the headquarters for a global organization of sorcerers. I blame that on movie audiences disliking subtlety.
When the previews revealed that the Ancient One was going to be played by a non-Asian woman, I was more concerned about the non-Asian part, because it seemed like whitewashing. Since the character is now a Celt, that's not as big a deal, although it does raise questions as to the motives of the producers for making that change. The gender swap alone wasn't a problem, because there was nothing that the Ancient One did in the comics that was expressly male or female. The Ancient One could theoretically work with either gender. It did worry me for two other reasons:
(1) Did they do it because they were going to make Strange and the Ancient One lovers? That would just be wrong. It's a mentoring relationship, not a romantic one.
(2) Did they do it because they plan on cutting out all the other female characters in the Doctor Strange story, and then thought "Oh shit, we need more women!" That's bothersome not just because of sexism, but because there were several powerful, important female characters in Strange's story, and they really have to gut the story if they cut them out.
Fortunately, there's no hint of #1. But there are only two women with names in the movie, so that's troubling. Furthermore, because of the way Dormammu has been changed so he doesn't seem like a Faltine, but more like a unique supernatural entity, that suggests that his sister Umar the Unrelenting is written out of the story, which may mean that there won't be a Clea, Strange's apprentice, love interest, and eventually wife. Or, if she does show up, she will lose a lot of her depth. That could harm the Doctor Strange long-term character arc. I wasn't expecting Clea to be in the movie -- she'd probably show up in the sequel. But it's unpleasant to think the character may have already been ruined or cut entirely.
It's hard to say what is going to happen to other female characters from the Doctor Strange comics. Topaz was a late-period apprentice, so I didn't expect her to show up. Morgan le Fay is a villain and could show up as Mordo's ally in the sequel. Valkyrie is a Defender and may show up in that movie. We'll have to wait and see.
Thank you for the additional information :)
Quote from: Warboss Squee;930454The only male characters that matter are Strange, Mordo and the bad guy, so 3 guys vs two girls is nothing to care about. Yes there's Wong, but he's only in about five mins of the film and it's played for laughs.
"Characters that matter" is subjective, which is why I didn't use that as a criteria. "Has a name" is objective. You could try to define the subjective judgment of whether a character "matters" as "having a role in the story, which would make it better, although it still has a subjective element. But Wong, despite his short screentime and comedic elements, is definitely part of the story, as is Dr. West, who is introduced as a minor mundane rival but later must be trusted to do the right thing, and Pangborn, who is a crucial character for two character transitions. We can argue about whether Thor was "in the movie" or not. He's definitely not part of the main story, but he's setting up a future story.
Oh, and then there's this insignificant male character called "Dormammu". Although arguably they've transformed him from a male character into a cosmic force.
Quote from: Omega;930327Saw *most* of Doctor Strange as well. Most because we had to leave 2/3rds the the way in because there was a group in the theater both talking loudly during the film and incessantly on all their phones. So the people I was with got fed up packed it after the ushers failed to catch the jerks. The Theater was though really good and refunded the tickets.
Overall what saw if it I liked alot. casting of the Ancient One and the choice of villain was a "huh?" moment and some other oddities. But I'll just assume some of that is some quirk or holdover from of Ultimate Marvel.
It does appear that the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or whatever it's called, makes a lot of changes to the storylines in the comics for cinematic purposes. They like things to be quicker (shortening Strange's training time) and more blunt/explicit (open supernatural warfare instead of subtle influences.) In some cases, the production decisions result in something good: the changes to Mordo surprised me, but seem to be for the better.
I was a little concerned that the changes to Mordo and his relation to Strange would affect a central moral core to the character arc as presented in the comics. Strange finds the monastery after years of having his arrogance stripped from him, only to be flat out denied what he was looking for. There was no hint of "you have a special destiny, you should study magic." Nor did he see magic as a good replacement goal for his ambitions. What happened was he caught Mordo invoking Dormammu, and Mordo then put a spell on him to prevent him from warning the Ancient One. Strange was completely helpless. But then he made a moral decision to ask to study with the Ancient One, not for personal gain, or to make his ego feel better, but because he felt Mordo had to be stopped and it seemed like the only way, even though he didn't know if or when he would ever be skilled enough to defeat Mordo.
The producers of the movie, though, seem to think that was too subtle and not dramatic enough. The Ancient One still doesn't see a special destiny for Strange, although ironically Mordo sees great potential in him. But Strange doesn't choose to study magic for purely moral reasons. It's more because of ego. This actually becomes a central focus of the story, where Strange has to learn "it's not about you".
They do make a moral point late in the film, though, where Strange wins the battle at the New York Sanctum Sanctorum but kills an evil henchman in the process, then has to school Mordo and Wong on why that was morally wrong. I was glad of that.
Finally saw the Hateful Eight last night. I really enjoyed it. But it was quite different from a lot of his other movies for some reason (something about the pacing or the mood). Very claustrophobic, and it is all pretty much set inside a cabin (with the exception of the opening and a few scenes around the cabin).
Watched Valdez Is Coming. Written by Elmore Leonard (I almost said Larry Elmore... the fuck?), but it lacks almost all of his normal charm. You can see bits of it here and there, like when Burt Lancaster's Bob Valdez is talking about his rabbit gun, but its generally pretty grim and lifeless. Not that I mind grim films... its the lifeless part that bugs me.
The plot is pretty mean too. Bare, dirt grubbing mean.
Spoiler (for a 1976 film you'll probably never watch)
This is not how it is revealed, but:
A rich woman murders her husband so she can hook up with another man, who is a rich, conniving coward. Said rich coward thinks (Belieives?) he corners the murderer (a black army deserter) in a cabin with his posse, and Valdez, the constable on the mexican side of hte border winds up killing the man while trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution, especially once he finds out it is a case of mistaken identity. Dead man has a very pregnant apache wife, so Valdez tries to get the men of the posse to pony up four hundred dollars of charity money for her, with 200 coming from the rich coward. Rich coward crucifies (not the usual way: he ties valdez to a cross and lets him drag his carcass through the woods hunched over and helpless) Valdez instead.
Valdez, it turns out, used to ride with General Crook in the Cavalry, so he gets his duds out and goes on a mad spree, eventually kidnapping the woman to lure the rich coward out. Big chase, woman confesses her sin after learning to admire Valdez as a good man (or something), and after killing pretty much all of the rich coward's men except his second in command (known only as Segundo... sigh) and a handful of Segundo's loyal troops, Valdez is pinned down just short of the pass he plans to take to freedom. Segundo, finally figuring out his boss is a coward, sits back while Valdez offers a choice: Draw or Pay. Film ends.
Yup. Its all about getting a donation for the widow of a man wrongly killed (by the hero) by a posse, and the woman who actually did the original crime apparently won't suffer a bit, thanks to a timely face-heel turn.
Like I said, dirt grubbing mean. I saw that a reviewer from back in the day commented that it did the impossible: Sucking all the character from Burt Lancaster (Valdez).
THe interesting thing to me was, watching this along side a bunch of other westerns, spanning twenty odd years, was how much difference there was in the treatment of race, particularly Mexicans, only ten years after the Appaloosa, for example...
Another Western I watched was Fort Utah. I'm not going to go into detail, but it was curious to watch a film about a real character (Tom Horn, probably the quintessential Western character in many respects, a real gunfighter and dangerous man, who was eventually hung, possibly, and if so ironically, being set up to take the fall for murder he didn't (may not have...) committed... though he undoubtedly deserved to be hung for something by that point. Fort Utah was a real place. THe plot? Utterly fantastic from what I can tell. It's a bit like telling the story of how George Washington sacked the Alamo while it was occupied by the French from Louisiana.
A player I know pointed me at "Hanno Cambiato Faccia" a very strange Italian suspense movie which evolves into a sort of vampire movie as it progresses. Though the corporate owners name was a clue... Adolfo Celi plays Giovanni Nosferatu, said owner of a massive business empire with his influence spread far and wide.
While the movie was not to my liking really. It had very much the feel of what I would expect a very old and established vampire in Vampire:tM to be. Very influential and very long term goals that effect generations. This was made in 71 and I wonder if anyone at White Wolf saw it or knew of it.
Just finished watching the Quatermass II TV mini-series and later in the show noticed that the amoniaid controlled hosts were speaking in the same sort of repetition as Warhammer Skaven do.
Wonder if someone at GW was a fan of the show?
KUBO AND THE TWO STRINGS
I rarely see movies twice in the theater. When I walked out of Kubo, I would happily walked back in for the next showing, but since I had seen the last show of the day, I'm seeing it again this week. It was the most amazing stop motion work I have ever seen (and I love stop motion).
It's a PG movie, but not a typical modern kid's movie pandering to spastic tweens or "mommy & me" toddler matinees. Kids will enjoy Kubo specifically because it does not talk down to them or pull its punches. I'm not kidding - Kubo has one eye because his grandpa plucks one out of his head. Instead, the film explores the themes of good and evil within one's family, the price of love and sacrifice, and courage all wrapped up with pseudo-samurai myth and magic.
Here's the trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4-6qJzeb3A
RPG stuff? Definitely goodies for fans of L5R, Exalted or other Asian-inspired fantasy. Some interesting plays on musical magic, face masks and origami that I can see inspiring chargen options.
Quote from: Spinachcat;931792KUBO AND THE TWO STRINGS
I rarely see movies twice in the theater. When I walked out of Kubo, I would happily walked back in for the next showing, but since I had seen the last show of the day, I'm seeing it again this week. It was the most amazing stop motion work I have ever seen (and I love stop motion).
It's a PG movie, but not a typical modern kid's movie pandering to spastic tweens or "mommy & me" toddler matinees. Kids will enjoy Kubo specifically because it does not talk down to them or pull its punches. I'm not kidding - Kubo has one eye because his grandpa plucks one out of his head. Instead, the film explores the themes of good and evil within one's family, the price of love and sacrifice, and courage all wrapped up with pseudo-samurai myth and magic.
Here's the trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4-6qJzeb3A
RPG stuff? Definitely goodies for fans of L5R, Exalted or other Asian-inspired fantasy. Some interesting plays on musical magic, face masks and origami that I can see inspiring chargen options.
I enjoyed this one as well. I didn't even realize people were still doing real stop motion and it took me a while to figure out that was why it looked so unusual (I am just so accustomed to all CG).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;931850I enjoyed this one as well. I didn't even realize people were still doing real stop motion and it took me a while to figure out that was why it looked so unusual (I am just so accustomed to all CG).
I assumed it was cgi too from the trailer. That's impressive.
Quote from: Nexus;931975I assumed it was cgi too from the trailer. That's impressive.
Laika Studios, who made Kubo, have made four movies so far, all of them stop motion, and all of them at least good if not great. I bought Kubo sight unseen based on how much I've liked their previous stuff.
For the curious, their library is: Coraline, ParaNorman, The Boxtrolls, and now Kubo and the Two Strings.
Did a video review of Reign of Assassins. Very good wuxia movie, up there with good stuff from the 90s and 70s: https://youtu.be/ZCnFn_9Lw1s
Why Rogue One will be the first Star Wars movie that I skip in the theater, because you all care so much about my opinion. :D
After Force Awakens, and seeing the previews, I have zero desire to watch Rogue One.
The OT and PT, were based on other films. Hidden Fortress, Dam Busters, Flash Gordon serials.
Force Awakens was based on the Star Wars films themselves, to an incestuous degree. There no new DNA going into Star Wars. And it shows.
That there are SJW politics brewing around the new flicks certainly makes the appeal even less. But that's not my primary reason to skip RO.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;934375Why Rogue One will be the first Star Wars movie that I skip in the theater, because you all care so much about my opinion. :D
After Force Awakens, and seeing the previews, I have zero desire to watch Rogue One.
The OT and PT, were based on other films. Hidden Fortress, Dam Busters, Flash Gordon serials.
Force Awakens was based on the Star Wars films themselves, to an incestuous degree. There no new DNA going into Star Wars. And it shows.
That there are SJW politics brewing around the new flicks certainly makes the appeal even less. But that's not my primary reason to skip RO.
Rogue One is the first Star Wars movie I've been interested in since the first prequel. I haven't even seen The Force Awakens. I can't tell you exactly why either exceot it looks like it has a different, maybe some grittier take on the Star Wars universe that reminds me of the Star Wars rpgs I've been in. But that's just the impression I got from the trailers so it could be dead wrong.
What sjw politics have been formed around the movie?
Quote from: Nexus;934398Rogue One is the first Star Wars movie I've been interested in since the first prequel. I haven't even seen The Force Awakens. I can't tell you exactly why either exceot it looks like it has a different, maybe some grittier take on the Star Wars universe that reminds me of the Star Wars rpgs I've been in. But that's just the impression I got from the trailers so it could be dead wrong.
What sjw politics have been formed around the movie?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/11/media/star-wars-rogue-one-donald-trump/
http://screencrush.com/rogue-one-female-lead-angry-fans/
Quote from: Ratman_tf;934400http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/11/media/star-wars-rogue-one-donald-trump/
http://screencrush.com/rogue-one-female-lead-angry-fans/
Huh.. I guess every things political these days. We're definitely living in Interesting times.
Rogue one just looks kinda bland to me so far. There dont seem to be any non-human aliens at all in it? Least didnt see any in the trailers so far?
I too am planning to skip Rogue One.
On the other hand, I watched the Remake of the Man from UNCLE the other day. Personally Ive never seen the original, and the sixties is before my time, so I recruited an Old Person (TM) to watch it with me and make general commentary. I suspect my recruit was not personally familiar with the original show, as there was no pertinent commentary on said show, but apparently the recreation of the Sixties was pretty damn good.
The only other comment I got was that Superman and The Lone Ranger should have swapped parts in this film. Superman was slick as Napoleon Solo, and The Lone Ranger was physically impressive but fairly dull as Illya Karylko (Er... the russian)... It was good popcorn fare for all that, but there is that one scene were they pushed the PG 13 of it all to the very, absolute, limit. Like they were dragging it out (it does not further the plot and only marginally helps establish character. Curiously there was a scene later that could have been identical except for furthering the plot, but they chose to cut to 'the next day' clean. Actress problems maybe??) just as long as humanly possible.
Not that I"m complaining, mind you.
Quote from: Nexus;934398Rogue One is the first Star Wars movie I've been interested in since the first prequel. I haven't even seen The Force Awakens. I can't tell you exactly why either exceot it looks like it has a different, maybe some grittier take on the Star Wars universe that reminds me of the Star Wars rpgs I've been in. But that's just the impression I got from the trailers so it could be dead wrong.
To me it looked like something meant to hold fans over until Episode 8. I liked episode 7 but I was originally not that interested in Rogue One. When I found out Donnie Yen was on board, that seemed like something interesting to add to Star Wars and so I will probably see it in the theater (and I only usually catch 1-2 movies in the theater a year).
It's been entertaining watching the SJWs chew on each other over Rogue One. The director has been politically stupid too which has added to the lolz.
I'm paying to see AT-ATs and Vader, but for me, the advantage of a great 2nd run theater nearby is never worrying if a film is worth full price. I am sure Rogue One will totally be worth $3 with $6.25 popcorn. And since they do free refills on the popcorn, I will probably see the next showing too.
It's Star Wars so it should be good scifi RPG fodder for future games.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;934442To me it looked like something meant to hold fans over until Episode 8. I liked episode 7 but I was originally not that interested in Rogue One. When I found out Donnie Yen was on board, that seemed like something interesting to add to Star Wars and so I will probably see it in the theater (and I only usually catch 1-2 movies in the theater a year).
I'm interested in part because it does appear to be such a standalone film without many ties to the franchise's big name and metaplot beyond the Death Star so gives a chance to see things aside from the main story. Again, totally drawn from the trailers so might be wishful thinking. :)
What I've seen of the political stuff doesn't bug me, seems like people looking for something to get worked up over on all sides. Rogue One has a woman as the main protagonist. That shouldn't be an issue. Its not being promoted as major aspect of the film, something that make its innately better or morally superior to other films in the franchise or sci-fi movies in general. Its not a gender swap, as far I've seen the men in the film aren't all buffoons or assholes. Some of the heroes of the Rebellion are women but that's been true since the first movie. No big deal there.
Edit: The above is my opinion about Rogue One, not the issue over all.
Quote from: Nexus;934460What I've seen of the political stuff doesn't bug me, seems like people looking for something to get worked up over on all sides. Rogue One has a woman as the main protagonist. That shouldn't be an issue. Its not being promoted as major aspect of the film, something that make its innately better or morally superior to other films in the franchise or sci-fi movies in general. Its not a gender swap, as far I've seen the men in the film aren't all buffoons or assholes. Some of the heroes of the Rebellion are women but that's been true since the first movie. No big deal there.
When it comes to movies, shows, books and politics, both the left and the right are getting insanely annoying. Everyone seems to evaluate media on their political merits first, and whether the message is one they approve of (or worse, whether it somehow adds to their comfort level). I've watched tons of enjoyable, even great, films that had messages I didn't support. That it is affecting Star Wars is doubly annoying (between the people telling me to hate Episode 7 because they think it is a feminist propaganda piece and the people telling me I have to love Chuck Wendig's novel or I am a Sad Puppy, it is infuriating). I liked episode 7 because I enjoyed it, not because of the political message. I really disliked the Chuck Wendig book because the writing style didn't appeal to me and the characters didn't hold my interest. I will happily debate people who like things I dislike or dislike things I like. It is just really weird to me that we are in a moment now where the first assumption in that discussion is they feel different from me about a movie because they are my political enemy. It is especially infuriating to see this among science fiction fans because I grew up reading science fiction and there was long an ability in the genre for people to absorb and engage ideas they disagreed with. Now as soon as someone catches a whiff of an idea they don't like, it is like the movie or book has cooties.
If people can't even watch the same movies now, that doesn't bode well for anyone.
Personally, politics aside, I like female leads in action movies. I enjoy action movies with male leads too, but in my view it is good to have a mix because men and women bring different things to the table in those kinds of performances (sort of like in dance).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;934468When it comes to movies, shows, books and politics, both the left and the right are getting insanely annoying. Everyone seems to evaluate media on their political merits first, and whether the message is one they approve of (or worse, whether it somehow adds to their comfort level). I've watched tons of enjoyable, even great, films that had messages I didn't support.
I can't get on a high horse about disliking media with a message you don't share or approve of. I find it grating when it comes across as being preached at rather than entertained, worse its particularly ham fisted or carried on on a meta level by the film makers. It feels like there's been a rising tendency to do either or both lately ane there have been movies in particular that were wrecked for me by it. So I can't dismiss others reactions without being a hypocrite (I really should have marked my previous post as an opinion about the film not the topic over all). So far, the Star Wars franchise hasn't struck me as overly politicized but different people have different tolerances.
The only thing that turns me off about female action movie leads on the "combat waif", the primarily hand to hand combatant that looks like she weighs 100 pds soaking wet with rocks in her pocket that easily beats up and tosses around guys built like Brock Lesner and Dolph Lungren with no in story explanation. That's less of an issue in stories where most of the combat is gun play and other high tech conflicts.
Quote from: Nexus;934478The only thing that turns me off about female action movie leads on the "combat waif", the primarily hand to hand combatant that looks like she weighs 100 pds soaking wet with rocks in her pocket that easily beats up and tosses around guys built like Brock Lesner and Dolph Lungren with no in story explanation. That's less of an issue in stories where most of the combat is gun play and other high tech conflicts.
My attitude will vary on things like this depending on genre. I don't mind someone being 100 pounds in an action movie as long as they look like they are in athletic enough shape to kick and punch. If it is meant to be gritty and realistic, and you have a 100 pound fighter overpowering a 200 pound fighter, then I think it presents a believability issue (but the key word is overpowering---a smaller character who fights smart and wins, is a different story). But if we are talking Kung Fu movie, I am all for the small fighter doing exceptional things (but again, I'd like the person to actually be in shape and not look like a nerd doing cosplay).
The biggest deal killer for me in action movies isn't so much size but physique. If someone is a martial artist, I expect that they look like a person who trains in whatever style they are using.
To explain a bit further
What I mean is when in a nominally "realistic" (as in no magic, no ultra tech, no psychic powers or "chi") story characters that are built like Summer Glau or Napoleon Dynamite kicking the ass of people built like Lesner or Brienne, especially if using some straight forward punch up style combat style. I'm not saying they have to be bruiser but have some muscle tone and athleticism not be rail thin fashion model types that don't look like they're ever finished a whole sandwich in their life let alone thrown a punch. Bruce Lee wasn't a huge guy but was a great martial artist. Female boxers and MMA fighters aren't all huge but they look like they can fight.
And I admit, withe female action stars I respect the fight scenes more when they actually get hit even if they're fighting men. Mooks missing don't bother me in that regard but in "important" fights it bugs the heck of me when all of sudden their allegedly skilled opposition can't land even a glancing blow. Course, its really no less annoying with men (See: Steven Segal) and it can be risky to make more equivalent exchanges. I've seen some movies accused of glorifying violence against women in that case. And to be fair, allot of people are uncomfortable with a woman suffering violence in almost any context.
Quote from: Nexus;934478I can't get on a high horse about disliking media with a message you don't share or approve of.
Slacker.
Quote from: Spinachcat;934511Slacker.
I'd be a hypocrite to claim I don't get annoyed by entertainment that feels like a political screed for something I don't agree with. There are some things I can tolerate more than others like I detest racist implications. (real world "races" anyway). And I have gotten more short tempered over the years about it, It seems like its all so Anvil laden these days. The only way some of it could be more overt is if the done with pop up text bubbles.
Quote from: Nexus;934489To explain a bit further
What I mean is when in a nominally "realistic" (as in no magic, no ultra tech, no psychic powers or "chi") story characters that are built like Summer Glau or Napoleon Dynamite kicking the ass of people built like Lesner or Brienne, especially if using some straight forward punch up style combat style. I'm not saying they have to be bruiser but have some muscle tone and athleticism not be rail thin fashion model types that don't look like they're ever finished a whole sandwich in their life let alone thrown a punch. Bruce Lee wasn't a huge guy but was a great martial artist. Female boxers and MMA fighters aren't all huge but they look like they can fight.
And I admit, withe female action stars I respect the fight scenes more when they actually get hit even if they're fighting men. Mooks missing don't bother me in that regard but in "important" fights it bugs the heck of me when all of sudden their allegedly skilled opposition can't land even a glancing blow. Course, its really no less annoying with men (See: Steven Segal) and it can be risky to make more equivalent exchanges. I've seen some movies accused of glorifying violence against women in that case. And to be fair, allot of people are uncomfortable with a woman suffering violence in almost any context.
I would agree. I think physique is important in action movies. I am less worried about bulk and build and more worried about whether the person actually has any trapezius muscles or if their neck is flat like a board (this was the reason I found Rey in Episode 7 believable as an action lead, because for her frame, her muscles looked right to me for someone who knew how to fight).
I think on female action sequences, I am thinking more along the lines of Hong Kong action movies, where the stars get hit plenty. In a movie like
Yes, Madame for example, where Michelle Yeoh and Cynthia Rothrock are dishing out plenty of punishment, but also get thrown into walls and punched/kicked as much as anyone else.
Quote from: Spike;934438... On the other hand, I watched the Remake of the Man from UNCLE the other day. Personally Ive never seen the original, and the sixties is before my time, so I recruited an Old Person (TM) to watch it with me and make general commentary. I suspect my recruit was not personally familiar with the original show, as there was no pertinent commentary on said show, but apparently the recreation of the Sixties was pretty damn good.
Yeah, I watched TMFU reboot recently too, and it was pretty good. It was a good 60's recreation, though of course the action was modern CGI level and more explicit/impossible-feats-like that one was liable to find in a 60's show. I have watched many episodes of the the original The Man From UNCLE, which was even more campy and varied from fairly interesting/serious (like a slightly less believable original Mission Impossible episode) to something largely ridiculous/farcical and with the main actor (Robert Vaughn) not taking things seriously at all (almost heading towards the frontiers of Get Smart territory). I thought the reboot was pretty good and vastly more appealing to me than the Tom Cruise reboot of Mission Impossible, for my tastes, anyway.
QuoteThe only other comment I got was that Superman and The Lone Ranger should have swapped parts in this film. Superman was slick as Napoleon Solo, and The Lone Ranger was physically impressive but fairly dull as Illya Karylko (Er... the russian)...
The characters are somewhat different from the original show, yeah.
Quote from: Nexus;934489... Bruce Lee wasn't a huge guy but was a great martial artist. ...
I just watched Bruce Lee in
Way Of The Dragon on Netflix, and when he flexes his torso with his shirt off... w o w! His bones move in some pretty interesting ways, and it's like his chest turns into a side of beef that seems to be all muscle and about to morph into a CGI werewolf or something, except it's actually just him flexing. And then he moves like's casting the Teleport Foot Into Foe's Face spell... or the Blink defense spell from GURPS Magic.
Quote from: Skarg;934593I just watched Bruce Lee in Way Of The Dragon on Netflix, and when he flexes his torso with his shirt off... w o w! His bones move in some pretty interesting ways, and it's like his chest turns into a side of beef that seems to be all muscle and about to morph into a CGI werewolf or something, except it's actually just him flexing. And then he moves like's casting the Teleport Foot Into Foe's Face spell... or the Blink defense spell from GURPS Magic.
There is at least one BL flick... I think its the one he's actually dead in, where it starts with a trippy 'special effect' of him waving his hands around, and leaving afterimages. Story goes that they originally were going to re-film it, with him moving slower (as the effect was simply the inability of cameras of the day to keep up with his movements), but they wound up liking it so they kept it. Basically he was so fast that he could appear twice in a single frame of film, at least for small movements.
Quote from: Spike;935323There is at least one BL flick... I think its the one he's actually dead in, where it starts with a trippy 'special effect' of him waving his hands around, and leaving afterimages. Story goes that they originally were going to re-film it, with him moving slower (as the effect was simply the inability of cameras of the day to keep up with his movements), but they wound up liking it so they kept it. Basically he was so fast that he could appear twice in a single frame of film, at least for small movements.
Damn, I had heard that some of his fight scenes were slowed down because his movements didn't look believable at full speed but I never this before.
I re-watched The Raid:Redemption. It's an Indonesian movie about a police raid to grab a crime lord at his apartment lair gone very wrong* thanks to corruption in their ranks. It's up to one survivor to badass his way out for himself and his wounded partner. The movie is full of pacey and brutal fighting sequences and is a neat showcase for Indonesia's martial art, Silat.
*It's not that unique, but I thought it was an interesting coincidence that about a year later Dredd came out using a very similar setup. Good thing that Dredd was awesome too.
Did a review of The Boxer's Omen, a kind of black magic gore-fest: https://youtu.be/_b6V2qTViFY
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;942905Did a review of The Boxer's Omen, a kind of black magic gore-fest: https://youtu.be/_b6V2qTViFY
I've been recently rekindling my love for the Wuxia films - which ones'd you recommend as essential viewing for someone who's seen a couple films beyond the usual Bruce Lee/Jackie Chan stuff, but not that much overall? Good starters basically.
Quote from: Skarg;934593I just watched Bruce Lee in Way Of The Dragon on Netflix, and when he flexes his torso with his shirt off... w o w! His bones move in some pretty interesting ways, and it's like his chest turns into a side of beef that seems to be all muscle and about to morph into a CGI werewolf or something, except it's actually just him flexing. And then he moves like's casting the Teleport Foot Into Foe's Face spell... or the Blink defense spell from GURPS Magic.
Speaking of Way of the Dragon, is it just me, or is there playing a very close variation of Frank's leitmotif from Once Upon A Time In The West when Chuck Norris' enters the screen for the first time?
Sat down and watches a pair of Italian westerns from the late 60s as my mom liked a certain set of these, particularly Trinity and some other obscure ones.
First off watched "Se incontri Sartana prega per la tua morte" (If You Meet Sartana Pray for Your Death) which is the first in the Sartana series starring Gianni Garko who played the character through the original series. The other is the last in the series, "Buon funerale, amigos!... paga * Sartana" (Have a Good Funeral, My Friend... Sartana Will Pay)
Surprisingly well made and with an interesting twist on the usual western tales as Sartana seems allmost supernatural at times. Also lots of tricks and psychological warfare to unnerve his foes or turn them against eachother.
Quote from: Omega;942931Sat down and watches a pair of Italian westerns from the late 60s as my mom liked a certain set of these, particularly Trinity and some other obscure ones.
First off watched "Se incontri Sartana prega per la tua morte" (If You Meet Sartana Pray for Your Death) which is the first in the Sartana series starring Gianni Garko who played the character through the original series. The other is the last in the series, "Buon funerale, amigos!... paga * Sartana" (Have a Good Funeral, My Friend... Sartana Will Pay)
Surprisingly well made and with an interesting twist on the usual western tales as Sartana seems allmost supernatural at times. Also lots of tricks and psychological warfare to unnerve his foes or turn them against eachother.
If you/she liked Sartana, give Sabata a try, as it's the same director and very similar idea ("James Bond in the West"), but with Lee van Cleef as the titular character...and it has a man with a deadly banjo (played by the main villain from Sartana no less). Also, a noticeably bigger budget than the first Sartana. It's a bit more light-hearted than If you meet... tho.
SW is a genre with a surprisingly high percentage of good films beyond the well known (and masterful) Leone films. Alex Cox (Repo Man, Sid and Nancy) has a great book out where he writes about SW films and I discovered many gems via it including CEMETARY WITHOUT CROSSES and CALIFORNIA.
Quote from: Rincewind1;942930I've been recently rekindling my love for the Wuxia films - which ones'd you recommend as essential viewing for someone who's seen a couple films beyond the usual Bruce Lee/Jackie Chan stuff, but not that much overall? Good starters basically.
I don't think there is any wrong place to start here, and I think everyone would have a slightly different list. I recommend starting with some of these and if you find a director you like, seek out more of that person's movies: Come Drink With Me (1967), House of Flying Daggers (2004), The Assassin (1967), Duel for Gold (1971), Heroes Shed No Tears (1978), The Heroic Ones (1970), Lady Hermit (1971), The Last Hurrah for Chivalry (1979), Killer Clans (1976), The Bride with White Hair (1993), Any of the Dragon Inn movies, Swordsman II (1991--the whole trilogy is good but this is the crucial one to see), Ashes of Time (1994---get the redux version), Hero (2002), Reign of Assassins (2010), Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame (2010), The Blade (1995), Tai Chi Master (1993).
I think there are a lot of others worth seeing, but might have more caveats with them. I like a lot of King Hu movies (he did Dragon Inn and Come Drink with Me), but they are probably not as immediately exciting as some other wuxia. But I highly recommend Touch of Zen. I only put a couple of his films on the list, but it is always worth checking out Chang Cheh movies (and they have a ton of his stuff on Amazon Prime right now). I left more supernatural films off the list, but might include A Chinese Ghost Story, Zu: Warriors from Magic Mountain, and Holy Flame of the Martial World as well. It is worth seeing the Temple of the Red Lotus trilogy as well (I think he second movie, Twin Swords, is the best of the three).
Come Drink With Me is awesome. Not sure if it is strictly Wuxia but The One Armed Swordsman is also terrific, the earlier films spend more time on character than fighting compared to the later films (or more accurately they are shorter films and so have shorter action sequences).
I always considered the Bruce Lee/Jackie Chan films as a related but different stream of martial art films from the Wuxia or Heroic Bloodshed films.
I'll second Chang Cheh, he did some great cartoonish films like The Five Venoms and Masked Avengers late in his career but his early films like Vengeance!, The Deadly Duo and Boxer of Shantung manage to be as OTT but less silly and even rather grim and effective.
My two favourite 'kung fu' films I always recommend are The Prodigal Son and Mad Monkey Kung Fu. Some of the best fight choreography I've seen.
Quote from: Voros;942995Come Drink With Me is awesome. Not sure if it is strictly Wuxia but The One Armed Swordsman is also terrific, the earlier films spend more time on character than fighting compared to the later films (or more accurately they are shorter films and so have shorter action sequences).
I'd say One Armed Swordsman is wuxia. It is also one of Cheng Cheh's visually more gorgeous movies with a stronger focus on story. I'd even say it is a masterpiece.
QuoteI'll second Chang Cheh, he did some great cartoonish films like The Five Venoms and Masked Avengers late in his career but his early films like Vengeance!, The Deadly Duo and Boxer of Shantung manage to be as OTT but less silly and even rather grim and effective.
You sir have excellent taste. I like the early and late stuff from Chang Cheh. The later stuff is reliably good for carnage at the end.
Yeah don't get me wrong, I love the late stuff too but I was surprised by the different tone in the earlier films. It is all great.
Quote from: Voros;942946SW is a genre with a surprisingly high percentage of good films beyond the well known (and masterful) Leone films. Alex Cox (Repo Man, Sid and Nancy) has a great book out where he writes about SW films and I discovered many gems via it including CEMETARY WITHOUT CROSSES and CALIFORNIA.
Absolutely. The definite must see are the works of the other two of "Three Sergios" - Sergio Sollima and Sergio Corbucci. Mercenary (Or Professional Gun), Companieros, The Big Gundown (talk about underestimated classic that never got a proper release), "Run, Man, Run," Original Django (far superior to Tarantino's pastiche turned by accident into parody in style and substance). I haven't seen Face to Face yet, so can't comment on that one, but critics generally see it as better than Run, Man, Run, so it should be a good watch.
And of course, the absolute masterpiece of the genre, and one I'd say to give a run for the money to all of Leone's films except Once Upon A Time In The West (for that was an artistic masterpiece, as well as one with a tremendous budget by the standards of the genre, and it shows...plus Henry Fonda ideally pulls playing off an archeotypical black-dressed villain, I mean you can't help but appreciate the mastery of style of the film, when you gaze upon the duel of Man with Harmonica, ragged but with a white hat, against a head-to-toe clad in black Frank...but I'm getting off track).
The Great Silence. You'll be hard pressed to find a better Kinsky role outside of Herzog's films (and maybe "And God Said To Cain," but that whole premise is "what if Kinsky was a good guy for once"). The ultimate deconstruction of both Classic and Spaghetti Westerns. If you feel like you can take a massive kick to the balls that this film is, it's a must-see. It's a shame Corbucci never had a chance to make a big budget version of it - a proper artistic counterpoint to Leone's "Once Upon A Time In The West." Where "Once upon..." explores the archetypes, cliches and common myths and devices of westerns, "The Great Silence" explores how these narrative devices actually work in a framework that assumes that even the Spaghetti Western's Gunslinger (a far more shady and grey character than Classic Western gunslinger in general) was a far too idealistic myth.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;942960I don't think there is any wrong place to start here, and I think everyone would have a slightly different list. I recommend starting with some of these and if you find a director you like, seek out more of that person's movies: Come Drink With Me (1967), House of Flying Daggers (2004), The Assassin (1967), Duel for Gold (1971), Heroes Shed No Tears (1978), The Heroic Ones (1970), Lady Hermit (1971), The Last Hurrah for Chivalry (1979), Killer Clans (1976), The Bride with White Hair (1993), Any of the Dragon Inn movies, Swordsman II (1991--the whole trilogy is good but this is the crucial one to see), Ashes of Time (1994---get the redux version), Hero (2002), Reign of Assassins (2010), Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame (2010), The Blade (1995), Tai Chi Master (1993).
I think there are a lot of others worth seeing, but might have more caveats with them. I like a lot of King Hu movies (he did Dragon Inn and Come Drink with Me), but they are probably not as immediately exciting as some other wuxia. But I highly recommend Touch of Zen. I only put a couple of his films on the list, but it is always worth checking out Chang Cheh movies (and they have a ton of his stuff on Amazon Prime right now). I left more supernatural films off the list, but might include A Chinese Ghost Story, Zu: Warriors from Magic Mountain, and Holy Flame of the Martial World as well. It is worth seeing the Temple of the Red Lotus trilogy as well (I think he second movie, Twin Swords, is the best of the three).
Thanks, I've really only seen House of Flying Daggers from these ones, so I'll be on the watch for some cheap DVDs, heh.
Quote from: Rincewind1;943088Thanks, I've really only seen House of Flying Daggers from these ones, so I'll be on the watch for some cheap DVDs, heh.
Just beware of bootlegs because they can suck in terms of image quality and even have the wrong subtitles. Right now amazon is being flooded with crappy bootlegs (and unfortunately they appear to be supplanting the legit copies in many instances). The covers are kind of a dead give away in most cases.
Personal favourites for martial arts movies are...
Kid with the Golden Arm: Lots of twists and turns in that one all from a rather simple plot of get gold from Point A to Point B.
Flying Guillotine: yeesh that movie creeped me out as a kid!
Eighteen Bronze Men: Martial arts dungeon!
And a couple of others.
We watched The Lobster tonight... hilarious black comedy... best thing I've seen in a while. Gave me some nasty ideas for if I ever run a Paranoia-type game.
I just got done watching all three Librarian films. They are, by no means, good films. But they do have a certain light hearted charm. I notice that Commander Riker directed them, and they appear to be based off of a series of books? Maybe?
Light hearted charm, a little fun for 90 minutes or so, but if I was inclined (I AM, I AM!!!) I could tear them so far apart they'd need a Magic Compass to find some of the pieces. I guess there was some fan backlash about including vampires in the last one? I dunno... I mostly watched it because I've got a weird thing for Stana Katic... but the second one actually was the one that set my teeth on edge, what with the casual disregard for (admittedly made up) historical artifacts.
Ok, the first one was pretty bad, what with the 'waltzing' through a mayan temple in Brazil (ugh...and more ugh) to bypass the corridor of death traps and the amazingly waterproof book, but the second one has this guy with a pretty clear love of history and knowledge drawing lines on a three thousand year old scroll to illustrate a point, and tossing the 'Book of Soloman' into lava at the end... more or less just because? I mean: Officially he does it to beat the badguy, but really teh badguy was already pretty well beaten by that point, so... yay?
Not that Three is much better, what with it STARTING with the casual distruction of a Ming Vase (bought for ONE MILLION POUNDS!!!! MWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!), just to get a little rock out of it. I mean a little rock, and ending with the...sigh... self immolation by sun of Stana Katic's vampire character. The Cliche! It BURNS!!!!
Never mind the sheer idiodicy of the entire premise...
Charming? Absolutely.
Will I watch them ever again?
I sort of doubt it. Its hard to keep my brain that dead for that long. I'd rather watch a Vin Diesel movie again if I'm going to go through that much work to ignore the stupid.
If anyone is looking for a good set of tv movies, I recommend the Jesse Stone serious starring Tom Selleck.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;944794If anyone is looking for a good set of tv movies, I recommend the Jesse Stone serious starring Tom Selleck.
Yep, good stuff, if a little depressing overall in tone.
Quote from: One Horse Town;944947Yep, good stuff, if a little depressing overall in tone.
A bit, but I love them.
Of course, a large part if thst is love for Tom Selleck.
Just watched an east German "Iron Curtain" Western called "Spur des Falken" from 1968.
Surprisingly well done with good costumes and sets. Apparently there were a couple of these. This though was the only one availible. Straight up westerns was about the last thing one would expect to see being made in Germany and the USSR.
Watched The Huntsman: Winter's War because I'm a masochist who will watch any fantasy, sf or horror film. The first was very forgettable and so is this one despite a good cast, nice production values and occasionally bad to good CGI. If it only had a good script and director. Instead it is a mashup of GoT and Frozen, but not even as campy fun as that sounds. It rips off GoT so hard there are some scenes that nearly impinge on copyright.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]702[/ATTACH]
Just saw that Huntsman movie too and yeah...damn was that an awful script. I guess I should figure out how to put a spoiler tag on, but the movie is such shite I doubt I'll be ruining it for anyone, and I have to rant about the insane plot holes here.
So many, but the big one for me is the Hunstman sees his true love die, and flees for his life. 7 years later, his true love appears, loaded down with badass fighting skills and apparently on her own.
And she's pissed off that the Huntsman "abandoned" her. WTF? Lady, you had 7 years to track him down (and he's well known in the place, at risk of exposing another plot hole)...and he freakin' saw you get stabbed through the chest.
Really tough to swallow the consequence, because her being angry with is a subplot. But I like the dwarves' CGI effects, very nice.
I saw DOCTOR STRANGE and HACKSAW RIDGE last night.
El cheapo theater with good screens and wonderful sound. $12.25 for the double feature with a large refillable popcorn.
DOCTOR STRANGE
I'm a Marvel fan and I've bought loads of comics over the decades, but I am no canon junkie. From my perspective, Doc Strange works really well with my memory of the comic book character and it will be fun to see him in the next Thor and/or Avengers movie. As usual, Sherlock Holmes gives a solid performance, Tilda Swinton gets paid to be weird and the supporting cast is okay, but underused overall. Rachel McAdams has a huge 3D mole on her face. It may have gotten its own credit.
RPG bits: definitely worth viewing for all GMs of modern settings with magic. In many ways, I felt I was watching Mage: the Awakening: the Movie.
HACKSAW RIDGE
It's well done Oscar bait (Mel Gibson directing) and I believe it will hold up years from now as an important anti-war movie. Also best PR the 7th Day Adventists ever got from Hollywood. It's not some hippy dippy anti-USA SJW screed, but a brutal look at the price paid by those who live and those who die and the bizarrely random aspect of warfare where zinging bullets miss or hit without care. Performances are good to great, the script is solid, and the action is what you expect in the post-Saving Ryan's Privates era (aka, lots of exploding meat and screaming).
RPG bits: It won't inspire you to add more realism to your RPGs. If you run modern-ish warfare settings, the combat scenes certain are chock full of atmosphere and ambiance to add to your games...but you probably already got those from other recent war flicks.
Saw Gantz: 0 on Netflix. It's one long monster-bash, lean on plot...but still awesome. The monsters are hysterically good.
In non-movie. But sadly related non-news... The Traveller TV series that Kickstartered in 2014 still hasnt been produced. They did though release a short clip about 5 months ago. But now are doing other videos not for the Traveler series.
Quote from: Omega;949090In non-movie. But sadly related non-news... The Traveller TV series that Kickstartered in 2014 still hasnt been produced. They did though release a short clip about 5 months ago. But now are doing other videos not for the Traveler series.
As in cash grab and run????
I just watched X-Men: Apocalypse. I liked it a lot. It definitely changed comic book canon, but in good ways. The script was good, the actors were spot-on, the action and special effects were excellent, and lots of fun characters showed up, even if only as a background character.
I liked the girl from GoT as Jean Grey.
Quote from: kosmos1214;949096As in cash grab and run????
Thats the big question. But when one of the actresses was questioned her response was "I can not say" which is a really bad sign.
Maybee its in production still? But why are they doing other shorts and not what they were paid for years after they got the money?
I doubt this is another Chevalier/DtctAC incident. But its puzzling to say the least.
Quote from: Omega;949452Thats the big question. But when one of the actresses was questioned her response was "I can not say" which is a really bad sign.
Maybee its in production still? But why are they doing other shorts and not what they were paid for years after they got the money?
I doubt this is another Chevalier/DtctAC incident. But its puzzling to say the least.
Ok thank you.
Quote from: Omega;949452Thats the big question. But when one of the actresses was questioned her response was "I can not say" which is a really bad sign.
Maybee its in production still? But why are they doing other shorts and not what they were paid for years after they got the money?
I doubt this is another Chevalier/DtctAC incident. But its puzzling to say the least.
Actually it might be worse. The creator behind the KS, Ken Whitman has multiple unfulfilled Kickstarters, with little sign of progress over the years that has been explained away in sleazy and most likely dishonest terms.
A large chronology of his many misdeeds can be found here: https://notanotherdime.blogspot.com/
ugh. Thats not a good sign at all.
And on a related to movies note. Just found out the hard way that IMDb deleted their forums.
The claim was that there was too much unfriendlyness. But alot of that was limited to certain circles and the place was good for calling out companies that use shills and other tricks to boost themselves.
Though deleting the forums totally does conveniently cover up all their covert fora deletions over the years. Not as bad as Yahoo. But never a good sign.
Quote from: Omega;949990And on a related to movies note. Just found out the hard way that IMDb deleted their forums.
Yeah, that sucks. After I'd watched a movie that I liked I'd go over there to what people had said/were saying.
There was a good bit of nastiness, like most forums, but also a lot of good information and interesting discussions.
Made the sight a lot less useful for me, actually.
Quote from: Omega;949990And on a related to movies note. Just found out the hard way that IMDb deleted their forums.
The claim was that there was too much unfriendlyness. But alot of that was limited to certain circles and the place was good for calling out companies that use shills and other tricks to boost themselves.
Though deleting the forums totally does conveniently cover up all their covert fora deletions over the years. Not as bad as Yahoo. But never a good sign.
Some of us wrote off IMDb back when they crowd sourced everything, and then after they had the data, locked a lot of the crowd sourced information behind pay walls.
Quote from: Simlasa;950060Yeah, that sucks. After I'd watched a movie that I liked I'd go over there to what people had said/were saying.
There was a good bit of nastiness, like most forums, but also a lot of good information and interesting discussions.
Made the sight a lot less useful for me, actually.
Yep. Now lost is the commentary by an actress who played one of the robots in Silent Running and other commentary from behind the scenes that youd likely otherwise never hear of.
Also now its alot easier to hide all those dirty little secrets and shill review scams.
Going to repost about Tale of Tales (2015) since I'm new this this subforum and didn't realize this was the thread to post about movies. Despite the huge success of LOTR we haven't had many well made fantasy films since.
This is a sumptuously designed, grotesque and often vividly violent adaptation of the classic Italian folk and fairy tales by Basile. Directed by the same director of the excellent mafia docudrama Gomorrah. Excellent cast and great use of non-CGI effects. Of interest to anyone interested in fairy tale or fable-like fantasy or vividly realized sense of place.
[video=youtube_share;-zft6lQUaQ4]https://youtu.be/-zft6lQUaQ4[/youtube]
After barely stepping into a theater over the last several years I had a blow-out weekend and went out for three films in one day.
First, I took my friends' kids to see Kong: Skull Island, which was lots of fun. There's a half-hearted attempt at a 'message' and most of the dialogue is forgettable... but the big fight sequences are great cartoon action. I also liked that it had nothing to do with King Kong... it was pretty much a different skull island in a different timeline. Had me wanting to get out Monster Island for Mythras and give it another spin.
After that I went with a different friend to see Get Out. I'd had two different friends give me near opposite opinions of the movie... one of them praising it as the 'best horror movie I've seen in years!' and the other telling me it was 'full of SJW nonsense!'. I'd only seen the preview which had seemed like it spilled a lot of the beans... some sort of racial retelling of The Stepford Wives... but done as a joke. Well, it's a crappy preview, I'll say that. Not that the movie had many surprises, it shares a LOT of territory with movies I like better, but I still felt it was very well done and effective... and genuinely creepy in parts.
It did feel a bit rough in its mixing of satire, horror, and outright comedy... but it was no SJW wankfest either.
Might be inspirational material for a Call of Cthulhu game, and Lovecraft did write a story that has some similar elements.
Later, I went with a whole other group to see Moonlight. I guess it won some Oscars but it didn't strike me as being anything like the sort of stuff I usually expect to get Oscar attention. Much smaller and intimate... low budget... no stars I recognized. Tells its story in snatches... didn't cater to audiences with short attention spans or who need everything spelled out in triplicate. Probably the best thing I saw this year since The Lobster (which I still think was fucking brilliant!).
I saw A Chinese Odyssey Three. This is a sequel to A Chinese Odyssey 1&2 which came out back in 1995. Those were awesome takes on Journey to the West. They were gonzo and off the wall slap stick but still done with lots of heart. Did a great job re-working the original material into something totally new. Part Three came out last year. I wanted to like it, but it really didn't work for me. Did a podcast on it (shifting from youtube to pod bean): https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-y8rwj-68837c
Well it took me almost two years, but I finally finished watching that gorgeous CGI wankfest version of Captain Haarlock. Is that the sort of plot of the classic Haarlock stuff, cause if so I don't think I'll bother.
I mean, dude takes a shot from a planet destroying super-weapon to the face and... has to shake it off.
Gosh, sort of makes all the battles that led up to that moment sort of... low impact. I also felt sort of weird about accurately guessing twenty minutes in that the 'new guy' on the ship, Logan, was somehow going to become Captain Haarlock at the end, replacing the current Captain Haarlock... which I thought was poorly handled. The emotional moment is there, but then they muddle it by just having the old Haarlock sitting in his captain's chair, not quite dead yet or something.
I don't know if the translation was bad, but whenever dialog is advancing the plot it tends to get wonky and incomplete, like they are shoving twenty hours of story and character development into an hour and a half of film, and rather than select the portions they want to tell, they just sort of randomly toss bits around, though Logan and Haarlock both get decently complete (ish) arcs for all that.
Quote from: Omega;949090In non-movie. But sadly related non-news... The Traveller TV series that Kickstartered in 2014 still hasnt been produced. They did though release a short clip about 5 months ago. But now are doing other videos not for the Traveler series.
It will probably never be produced since it is a Ken Whitman project.
Quote from: Spike;950784Well it took me almost two years, but I finally finished watching that gorgeous CGI wankfest version of Captain Haarlock. Is that the sort of plot of the classic Haarlock stuff, cause if so I don't think I'll bother.
I haven't braved the CGI version but the other Haarlock anime I've seen weren't bad. They had a sense of being later tales of some well-known figures... but I liked that.
What you describe sounds much more muddled in comparison.
Quote from: Simlasa;950700After that I went with a different friend to see Get Out...
Later, I went with a whole other group to see Moonlight...
Thanks for your thoughts. I love horror films and have been only hearing good things about Get Out. I'm also a fan of The Lobster and Moonlight was originally a short film so much of what you say about it makes sense.
Saw Belladonna of Sadness. A 70s Japanese animated film based on a classic literary text by Jules Michelet about medieval witchcraft. The music by Satoh is terrific 70s prog/jazz and the at-first barely animated but beautiful artwork eventually builds towards some mind-blowingly great moments. There is some explicit sexuality and disturbing emphasis on sexual assault but it never feels exploitative. Mucho recommended.
[video=youtube_share;c9LUA3NgQN0]https://youtu.be/c9LUA3NgQN0[/youtube]
Saw "Get Out" earlier on Tuesday afternoon.
It was a VERY Good - much like a modern take on a classic "Outer Limits" or "Twilight Zone" type premise. Youing man is dating a girlfriend for 5 months, she asks him up to the family mansion to meet her parents. Small problem - he's black and she hasn't told them yet.
As we find out later that last detail not as big a problem as it might seem at first.
Best 'creepy' part? - the party scene where it is mostly upper middle class white Liberals trying to appear 'good' or well-meaning. It was both funny and creepy in a subtle way.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Spike;950784Well it took me almost two years, but I finally finished watching that gorgeous CGI wankfest version of Captain Haarlock. Is that the sort of plot of the classic Haarlock stuff, cause if so I don't think I'll bother.
I mean, dude takes a shot from a planet destroying super-weapon to the face and... has to shake it off.
Saw it too a year or so ago and was utterly unimpressed. Its fucking awful.
Its got about zero to do with the actual Harlock series other than a guy named Harlock and a ship named Arcadia. Instead its some sort of screwed up pseudo time displacement/ghost story thing with a rather incoherent plot. Its like they slapped the title on some random SF movie.
Find the original anime. Watch that instead. Yes its weird still. But at least it makes sense.
Did a review of Terra-cotta Warrior, directed by Ching Siu-Tung (who also did A Chinese Ghost Story and Swordsman II). An odd fish out of water story about a chamberlain serving in the emperor during the Qin dynasty who gets entombed as a terracotta soldier and finds himself unearthed in the 1930s. Stars Gong Li and Zhang Yimou: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-ypa7r-68b0d6
Quote from: Spike;950784Well it took me almost two years, but I finally finished watching that gorgeous CGI wankfest version of Captain Haarlock. Is that the sort of plot of the classic Haarlock stuff, cause if so I don't think I'll bother.
The 1979 TV series is much better. There's an actual plot and themes and stuff. The Harlock stuff after that, and especially the CGI film, are IMO just junk.
I came to post my thoughts on
Passengers. The film is good. Jennifer Lawrence is Jennifer Lawrence. Pretty and average acting skills. Chris Pratt makes a potentially creepy character sympathetic, which brings me to my big nitpick.
Spoiler
A huge-ass ship with 1500 some passengers is fully automated for a 120 year cryogenic trip to a colony planet. And there is absolutely no failsafe in case of cryonics failure. For all the resources dumped into the trip, an emergency crew of cryonics techs and a section of the medbay to put people back into sleep is just handwaved away with a few comments about how there has never been a failure before.
I have to wonder if there was a better way to set up the scenario, because I was like "Yeah! Wake 'em all up! That's what they get for not having basic emergeny procedures in place!"
So I really didn't empathize much with Aurora being pissed about being woken up. Shit, they all would have died if Lawrence Fishburne's character hadn't woken up. It was all set up in such a goony way.
...Aaand they had the capacity to install automated pods to put early risers back to sleep. But didn't because plot. *durr*
Otherwise, I liked it. Worth the watch. Disclaimer: I haven't seen the very end yet. I made it to the big climax and had to set it aside for a bit. I'll finish it up tomorrow and post if there's anything mitigating about my criticism.
*edit* Finished, and the setup is even worse.
Did a review of Eight Diagram Pole Fighter. Great action starring Gordon Liu with Kara Hui and Alexander Fu Sheng. Lots of teeth getting knocked out with poles and cathartic violence: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-2qaqx-68ba8c
Love Eight Diagram Pole Fighter! Will have to add your podcast to my tablet.
Quote from: Voros;951979Love Eight Diagram Pole Fighter! Will have to add your podcast to my tablet.
Thanks. I appreciate it. Just a heads up (like I said in the other thread) the podcast is pretty much me talking for 10-20 minutes without any edits. So it isn't all that glossy and I tend to meander.
Wolf Hall is brilliant. That is all.
Quote from: Omega;951579Saw it too a year or so ago and was utterly unimpressed. Its fucking awful.
Its got about zero to do with the actual Harlock series other than a guy named Harlock and a ship named Arcadia. Instead its some sort of screwed up pseudo time displacement/ghost story thing with a rather incoherent plot. Its like they slapped the title on some random SF movie.
Find the original anime. Watch that instead. Yes its weird still. But at least it makes sense.
It almost seems like someone wanted to make a Rogue Trader movie, but the rights weren't available.
Near psychelic levels of badness in Wizards of the Lost Kingdom. Available on Youtube currently.
[video=youtube_share;ALdOd-dBT4w]https://youtu.be/ALdOd-dBT4w[/youtube]
Did a review of Killer Constable. An atmospheric anti-hero film set during the Qing dynasty. Chen Kuan-Tai plays a ruthless constable trying to track down the men who stole gold from the imperial treasury: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-meu5b-68c403
Quote from: jeff37923;950821It will probably never be produced since it is a Ken Whitman project.
ugh! And I was just a half hour ago adding Pencil Dice to the
Controversial or Fraudulent Kickstarters list over on BGG and that is one of his too.
Quote from: Voros;952122Near psychelic levels of badness in Wizards of the Lost Kingdom. Available on Youtube currently.
Seen that. Not as bad as some make it out to be. It is a kids show overall (Despite some of the weirdness). Its also very much a "random stuff happens" plot right down to the ending.
Quote from: Spike;950784Well it took me almost two years, but I finally finished watching that gorgeous CGI wankfest version of Captain Haarlock. Is that the sort of plot of the classic Haarlock stuff, cause if so I don't think I'll bother.
I mean, dude takes a shot from a planet destroying super-weapon to the face and... has to shake it off.
Gosh, sort of makes all the battles that led up to that moment sort of... low impact. I also felt sort of weird about accurately guessing twenty minutes in that the 'new guy' on the ship, Logan, was somehow going to become Captain Haarlock at the end, replacing the current Captain Haarlock... which I thought was poorly handled. The emotional moment is there, but then they muddle it by just having the old Haarlock sitting in his captain's chair, not quite dead yet or something.
I don't know if the translation was bad, but whenever dialog is advancing the plot it tends to get wonky and incomplete, like they are shoving twenty hours of story and character development into an hour and a half of film, and rather than select the portions they want to tell, they just sort of randomly toss bits around, though Logan and Haarlock both get decently complete (ish) arcs for all that.
Quote from: Omega;951579Saw it too a year or so ago and was utterly unimpressed. Its fucking awful.
Its got about zero to do with the actual Harlock series other than a guy named Harlock and a ship named Arcadia. Instead its some sort of screwed up pseudo time displacement/ghost story thing with a rather incoherent plot. Its like they slapped the title on some random SF movie.
Find the original anime. Watch that instead. Yes its weird still. But at least it makes sense.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;951802The 1979 TV series is much better. There's an actual plot and themes and stuff. The Harlock stuff after that, and especially the CGI film, are IMO just junk.
I came to post my thoughts on Passengers. The film is good. Jennifer Lawrence is Jennifer Lawrence. Pretty and average acting skills. Chris Pratt makes a potentially creepy character sympathetic, which brings me to my big nitpick.
Spoiler
A huge-ass ship with 1500 some passengers is fully automated for a 120 year cryogenic trip to a colony planet. And there is absolutely no failsafe in case of cryonics failure. For all the resources dumped into the trip, an emergency crew of cryonics techs and a section of the medbay to put people back into sleep is just handwaved away with a few comments about how there has never been a failure before.
I have to wonder if there was a better way to set up the scenario, because I was like "Yeah! Wake 'em all up! That's what they get for not having basic emergeny procedures in place!"
So I really didn't empathize much with Aurora being pissed about being woken up. Shit, they all would have died if Lawrence Fishburne's character hadn't woken up. It was all set up in such a goony way.
...Aaand they had the capacity to install automated pods to put early risers back to sleep. But didn't because plot. *durr*
Otherwise, I liked it. Worth the watch. Disclaimer: I haven't seen the very end yet. I made it to the big climax and had to set it aside for a bit. I'll finish it up tomorrow and post if there's anything mitigating about my criticism.
*edit* Finished, and the setup is even worse.
My introduction was through galaxy express 999(the movie not the tv show) and as a harlock fan I find it's a good way to introduce people to the leggi-verse as A whole.
SPLIT
Do you like or hate M. Night Shamalama? That will color your appreciation or lack thereof. He made Split for $9M and it made $240M so he must have captured some zeitgeist. Its a pretty good thriller - nothing amazing, nothing terrible - and no major plot holes. James McAvoy - Prof X with Hair - gets to play lots of different personalities imprisoned in one body and the captured girls do the captured girl thing. There was a strange lack of finishing arc for the Hero Girl character that did puzzle me.
RPG fodder? Split takes dissociative identity disorder, a real world illness, amps it up to 11, and whips in some supernatural oddness. For GMs, its interesting plot fodder for a supervillain, but nothing you probably haven't seen in a dozen comic books.
ARRIVAL
I can't review this without ranting vitriol. Throughout the film, characters do stuff that makes no fucking sense, just to further the movies' messages of multi-layered pretentiousness masquerading as serious ideas. Maybe its all mind-blowing if you are a really stoned freshmen philosophy major. Jeremy Renner has nothing to do but bask in the glory of Amy "Scientist???" Adams and Forest Whitaker pops in every 10 minutes to remind you he's still in the movie, also doing nothing of interest. The director did Sicario last year which was really excellent. Either that one or this one is the fluke.
RPG fodder? It's a 2 hour class in how-NOT-to-do science fiction. Unless you have a table of morons, no group of players are going to be this lame, and they would laugh at a GM who made all the NPCs so completely one dimensional just to hammer the GM's "message" into them.
The director of Sicario is French Canadian and has made several good films in Canada so it was no fluke. Haven't seen Arrival yet, seems to provoke wildly different responses. He's making the sequel to Blade Runner.
Quote from: Spinachcat;952516ARRIVAL
I can't review this without ranting vitriol. Throughout the film, characters do stuff that makes no fucking sense, just to further the movies' messages of multi-layered pretentiousness masquerading as serious ideas. Maybe its all mind-blowing if you are a really stoned freshmen philosophy major. Jeremy Renner has nothing to do but bask in the glory of Amy "Scientist???" Adams and Forest Whitaker pops in every 10 minutes to remind you he's still in the movie, also doing nothing of interest. The director did Sicario last year which was really excellent. Either that one or this one is the fluke.
RPG fodder? It's a 2 hour class in how-NOT-to-do science fiction. Unless you have a table of morons, no group of players are going to be this lame, and they would laugh at a GM who made all the NPCs so completely one dimensional just to hammer the GM's "message" into them.
Huh. I really liked it. I'll have to think about your criticisms.
Just saw The Raid: Redemption. This was an incredible movie. Wish I knew about it when it came out because it is one of the best action films I've seen. It is almost all action, with a mix of gunfire and martial arts, but it never gets dull and keeps doing new and interesting things. Very intense and bloody. Here is the review: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-twui7-68cd07
Last night we watched A Tale of Sweeney Todd... with Ben Kingsly as the barber and Joanna Lumley as the baker. Good penny dreadful without any pretenses or singing. Appearances by the Bow Street Runners and a very grotty atmosphere made it good fodder for a game of Dark Streets.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;952580Just saw The Raid: Redemption. This was an incredible movie. Wish I knew about it when it came out because it is one of the best action films I've seen. It is almost all action, with a mix of gunfire and martial arts, but it never gets dull and keeps doing new and interesting things. Very intense and bloody. Here is the review: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-twui7-68cd07
I am genuinely surprised you only saw it now, considering I'm not 1/100th the Wuxia fan you are, and managed to see it pretty soon actually. Maybe it had a bigger release in Poland than US?
But yes, a spectacular film. Shame Raid 2 is not living up to the expectations.
Quote from: Rincewind1;952816I am genuinely surprised you only saw it now, considering I'm not 1/100th the Wuxia fan you are, and managed to see it pretty soon actually. Maybe it had a bigger release in Poland than US?
It wasn't aware of the movie until about two months ago. I think it was pretty big here as well. I don't know how widespread it was release in movie theaters though. I think it must have been pretty well known in the states because I saw a lot of favorable views in big sources.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;952580Just saw The Raid: Redemption. This was an incredible movie. Wish I knew about it when it came out because it is one of the best action films I've seen. It is almost all action, with a mix of gunfire and martial arts, but it never gets dull and keeps doing new and interesting things. Very intense and bloody. Here is the review: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-twui7-68cd07
If you've seen The Raid, go and see Dredd shortly after. Hmmmm......connection?
Quote from: Rincewind1;952816But yes, a spectacular film. Shame Raid 2 is not living up to the expectations.
Did you see Raid 2? I liked it but it is very different, much more a moody HK gangster/cop film completely unlike the first film but with an utterly brilliant set piece fight in a prison yard.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;953027If you've seen The Raid, go and see Dredd shortly after. Hmmmm......connection?
I thought the same thing but then realized Dredd is actually based on an early Judge Dread storyline.
Did a review of The Spiritual Boxer: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-6za6x-68ffae
Quote from: Voros;953029I thought the same thing but then realized Dredd is actually based on an early Judge Dread storyline.
No it wasn't. It was an original script by Alex Garland (of 28 Days Later and Sunshine fame). There wasn't any particular script from any comic book.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;953583No it wasn't. It was an original script by Alex Garland (of 28 Days Later and Sunshine fame). There wasn't any particular script from any comic book.
I doubt I will see the Dredd movie, but I am curious what connection you felt there was (was it a similar plot line?).
Did a review of Legendary Weapons of China. Doing a series of Lau Kar-Leung movies. This one has great fight choreography, solid physical performances and a nice blend of action, comedy and drama: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-xa4pa-6902d7
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;953611I doubt I will see the Dredd movie, but I am curious what connection you felt there was (was it a similar plot line?).
You are missing out. It was an exceptional film. Up there as one of the best comic adaptions I've ever seen.
Unfortunately, the premise of "cops" clearing out a building from the ground floor up was coincidentally similar to The Siege, but I don't think that hurt the film as much as the bad taste left by the Stallone film, the general obscurity of the character this side of the pond, the use of 3d when people were starting to tire of it, and the sad marketing failure.
But I highly recommend checking it out on netflix
Quote from: Tristram Evans;953613But I highly recommend checking it out on netflix
I was hesitant to watch it, based on the first one... and the previews looked iffy.
It only kinda touches on what I like about the comics... but as it's own thing it's fun.
I thought the first movie was ok to a point. Stallone really did have the right look for Dredd. If only theyd kept the damn helmet on. That and some other issues kinda doomed it.
The new Dredd looks so damn mediocre and generic it could have been any other SF cop movie. Which is a recurring problem of late. Pretty sad when the old movie feels more like Judge Dredd than the new.
I liked both films for what they were, though I think the newer one does a better job of the grimness of Dredd's dystopian future (while the former captures the goofiness better).
For what it's worth, catch Demolition Man if you can. I remember it being pretty weak 20 years ago, but YE GODS it was hysterical when I saw it a few weeks back.
Quote from: Omega;953632Pretty sad when the old movie feels more like Judge Dredd than the new.
The new one has less of a budget, but gets the character 100%, which to me was far more important than hoverbikes.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;953611I doubt I will see the Dredd movie, but I am curious what connection you felt there was (was it a similar plot line?).
Dredd is a much better representation of the world and attitude of the comics than the previous Judge Dredd movie, and the performances of Karl Urban and Olivier Thirlby are definitive representations of Dredd and Anderson, respectively. It could have done with a more satirical script though (closer to something like Robocop), and the market was doomed by the R18 certificate it got in many countries. There are a few good lines, but they needed more.
But the plot seems to take a big nod on from The Raid, and apparently Alex Garland had gone through several scripts before settling on something that was stripped down to his liking. The fact that a very similar script had emerged about a year earlier from Welshman, Gareth Evans (the director of The Raid) may just be coincidental.
That said, both are excellent, albeit very violent movies - and both can be enjoyed by the targeted audience. If you like The Raid you will like Dredd and vice versa.
Quote from: Doom;953668I liked both films for what they were, though I think the newer one does a better job of the grimness of Dredd's dystopian future (while the former captures the goofiness better).
For what it's worth, catch Demolition Man if you can. I remember it being pretty weak 20 years ago, but YE GODS it was hysterical when I saw it a few weeks back.
I remember liking Demolition Man when it came out. Been ages since I've seen it though. I remembered liking Running Man as well, but saw that again recently, and while I enjoyed it, it didn't hold up as much as I recalled (a lot of the stuff felt a bit dated, and it felt a bit cheaply done at times).
Did a review of My Young Auntie. I think this is a great movie with a nice blend of martial arts and comedy, but it probably isn't for everyone. I've heard from plenty of folk who just couldn't get into the story and didn't find the slapstick entertaining. There are plenty of great Kung Fu scenes, but there is a lot more to the film than that. Lots of genres in this one: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-j2bt4-690741
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;953690I remember liking Demolition Man when it came out. Been ages since I've seen it though. I remembered liking Running Man as well, but saw that again recently, and while I enjoyed it, it didn't hold up as much as I recalled (a lot of the stuff felt a bit dated, and it felt a bit cheaply done at times).
Personally I find both those hold up okay as A whole Though I've only seen them as reruns and never at the time they came out so that may be coloring my opinion.
That and I kind like the 80s 90s ascetic of older sci-fi.
Quote from: kosmos1214;953725Personally I find both those hold up okay as A whole Though I've only seen them as reruns and never at the time they came out so that may be coloring my opinion.
That and I kind like the 80s 90s ascetic of older sci-fi.
I first watched Running Man when it came out so my perspective may be different. Personally though I like the aesthetic, I just remember Running Man feeling higher production value/high quality when I first saw it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;953727I first watched Running Man when it came out so my perspective may be different. Personally though I like the aesthetic, I just remember Running Man feeling higher production value/high quality when I first saw it.
I under stand what you mean I have had A similar feeling with the likes of star wars ep 1 and final fantasy 10-2 but as some one who has watched old movies his whole life I have come to understand that it has to do with the change in what we are used to as being technologically capable. A good example is the movie Jason and the Argonauts the monsters and skeletons might look chinsy today but at the time they where A sfx marvel. Same apply in the case of running and Demolition Man. If we aren't careful the fact we have become used to more capable sfx and cgi can make older movies and games look much worse then they are. I find the trick is under standing how hard the thing was to do at the time and in under standing that you realize just how hard it was to make that given game or movie at the time.
Any way just my 2 cent's on the thing.
Quote from: kosmos1214;953731I under stand what you mean I have had A similar feeling with the likes of star wars ep 1 and final fantasy 10-2 but as some one who has watched old movies his whole life I have come to understand that it has to do with the change in what we are used to as being technologically capable. A good example is the movie Jason and the Argonauts the monsters and skeletons might look chinsy today but at the time they where A sfx marvel. Same apply in the case of running and Demolition Man. If we aren't careful the fact we have become used to more capable sfx and cgi can make older movies and games look much worse then they are. I find the trick is under standing how hard the thing was to do at the time and in under standing that you realize just how hard it was to make that given game or movie at the time.
Any way just my 2 cent's on the thing.
That is a little different from what I am saying. Growing up with this stuff, to me these old movies don't look that chincey. But Running Man seems comparatively to be lower quality than other films coming out at the time (not anything about the effects in particular, just the overall sense of how slickly it was produced). If I take similar movies from the same period, like Robocop. there is just no comparison I think. Robocop beats it in terms of quality on multiple levels. What I was saying was, I remembered Running Man being comparable to that level of quality but when I rewatched it, it didn't seem to be.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;953735That is a little different from what I am saying. Growing up with this stuff, to me these old movies don't look that chincey. But Running Man seems comparatively to be lower quality than other films coming out at the time (not anything about the effects in particular, just the overall sense of how slickly it was produced). If I take similar movies from the same period, like Robocop. there is just no comparison I think. Robocop beats it in terms of quality on multiple levels. What I was saying was, I remembered Running Man being comparable to that level of quality but when I rewatched it, it didn't seem to be.
Ah i see your point I don't think it looks that bad for the time imho but I do see your point. Could it be that your possibly comparing it to the bigest budget movies of its time and it not being the huge budget type be the cause do you think?
Quote from: kosmos1214;953738Ah i see your point I don't think it looks that bad for the time imho but I do see your point. Could it be that your possibly comparing it to the bigest budget movies of its time and it not being the huge budget type be the cause do you think?
You guys talking about the originals or the remakes?
Original Robocop had a budget of 13 million in 1987 dollars.
Original Total Recall had a budget of 50-65 million in 1990 dollars, one of the most expensive movies at that time.
Robocop was nominated for a few Academy Awards for sound, and won one for sound editing.
Total Recall received a Special Achievement Academy Award for special effects.
Robocop had more computerized special effects with HUDs, etc. and robotics with the ED's which ages better I think, where Total Recall was focused primarily in make-up, which kinda doesn't.
Quote from: CRKrueger;953773You guys talking about the originals or the remakes?
Original Robocop had a budget of 13 million in 1987 dollars.
Original Total Recall had a budget of 50-65 million in 1990 dollars, one of the most expensive movies at that time.
Robocop was nominated for a few Academy Awards for sound, and won one for sound editing.
Total Recall received a Special Achievement Academy Award for special effects.
Robocop had more computerized special effects with HUDs, etc. and robotics with the ED's which ages better I think, where Total Recall was focused primarily in make-up, which kinda doesn't.
Sure, but what does Total Recall have to do with anything?
Quote from: CRKrueger;953773You guys talking about the originals or the remakes?
.
I was talking about the originals (haven't seen the remakes).
Quote from: Tristram Evans;953790Sure, but what does Total Recall have to do with anything?
I think I mentioned Total Recall in one of my posts.
Quote from: Omega;953632I thought the first movie was ok to a point. Stallone really did have the right look for Dredd. If only theyd kept the damn helmet on. That and some other issues kinda doomed it.
The new Dredd looks so damn mediocre and generic it could have been any other SF cop movie. Which is a recurring problem of late. Pretty sad when the old movie feels more like Judge Dredd than the new.
I felt like the Stallone version was based on the feel of the earlier comics (a bit more campy and trying to protect and serve in the most efficient way possible), while the Karl Urban version had more of the feel of the latter comics (a bit more serious and dark with less "protect and serve" and more "respect my authority"). I do agree that the Karl Urban version does feel more like Generic Future Cop Movie Version #31415 than a Judge Dredd movie.
Quote from: Tod13;953829I felt like the Stallone version was based on the feel of the earlier comics
It captured the
look to a certain point, but devoid of the black political humour and commentary on Western society.
Quote from: Tristram Evans;953790Sure, but what does Total Recall have to do with anything?
(https://img.memesuper.com/f2c7cf3b8cae1ec9f2b833660e2c3b8e_posted-by-mccheese-on-jun-17-homer-doh-meme_300-360.png)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;953822I think I mentioned Total Recall in one of my posts.
I don't know whether you did or didn't...that doesn't excuse my brain fart in seeing "Running Man" and thinking "Total Recall".
Running Man was released the same year as Robocop for over twice the money spent. I remember somewhere in there they switched directors and Arnie wasn't happy, that might be partly why, but you're right, it looks cheesier then Robocop for all the money they spent.
Quote from: CRKrueger;953871Running Man was released the same year as Robocop for over twice the money spent. I remember somewhere in there they switched directors and Arnie wasn't happy, that might be partly why, but you're right, it looks cheesier then Robocop for all the money they spent.
Yeah, that is exactly it. Not saying it is an awful movie. I just remembered it being up there with Robocop. But watching them both again fairly recently Robocop still looks like a great movie, while Running Man felt more middle of the road. When I watched Robocop again, I wanted to watch it several more times right after. With Running Man, I was all set after that viewing.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;953821I was talking about the originals (haven't seen the remakes).
Same I've never seen the remakes ether I actually tend to try and search out the originals when it comes to moves(or at least the seminal versions in some cases) for example the 1st time I watched Dracula as A movie it was the old silent film (Nosferatu I had to look it up) then I saw the version staring Bela Lugosi now It's been years sense I have seen either though. I actually tend to avoid remakes as A whole.
Quote from: CRKrueger;953871(https://img.memesuper.com/f2c7cf3b8cae1ec9f2b833660e2c3b8e_posted-by-mccheese-on-jun-17-homer-doh-meme_300-360.png)
I don't know whether you did or didn't...that doesn't excuse my brain fart in seeing "Running Man" and thinking "Total Recall".
Running Man was released the same year as Robocop for over twice the money spent. I remember somewhere in there they switched directors and Arnie wasn't happy, that might be partly why, but you're right, it looks cheesier then Robocop for all the money they spent.
You know that would explain some things in the movie (I never knew they switched directors) I always chalked up A lot or that type of stuff more to the kind of production being as it's the kind of move where you have to build tons of 1 use sets.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;953872Yeah, that is exactly it. Not saying it is an awful movie. I just remembered it being up there with Robocop. But watching them both again fairly recently Robocop still looks like a great movie, while Running Man felt more middle of the road. When I watched Robocop again, I wanted to watch it several more times right after. With Running Man, I was all set after that viewing.
Yeah I'll be honest I can't truly give A full commentary on the difference between the 2 I have never really seen robocop out side of some clips and A 1/3 or 1/2 viewing on TNT when I was A kid. But from what I have seen they sure didn't spare the studios pocket book any.
Quote from: kosmos1214;953878Same I've never seen the remakes ether I actually tend to try and search out the originals when it comes to moves(or at least the seminal versions in some cases) for example the 1st time I watched Dracula as A movie it was the old silent film (Nosferatu I had to look it up) then I saw the version staring Bela Lugosi now It's been years sense I have seen either though. I actually tend to avoid remakes as A whole.
.
I loved Nosferatu when I was a kid. They played that movie at my church on a projector for some reason and it was the scariest thing I'd ever seen. Got hooked on silent horror movies for a while when I was in highschool (back when you would get extremely varied quality versions on VHS).
Quote from: kosmos1214;953878Yeah I'll be honest I can't truly give A full commentary on the difference between the 2 I have never really seen robocop out side of some clips and A 1/3 or 1/2 viewing on TNT when I was A kid. But from what I have seen they sure didn't spare the studios pocket book any.
It isn't just about the budget. It is the overall quality of the movie. I definitely suggest you see Robocop from beginning to end if you haven't seen it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;953882It isn't just about the budget. It is the overall quality of the movie. I definitely suggest you see Robocop from beginning to end if you haven't seen it.
Yeah I should It's on that list of movies I should see some time along with the likes of the godfather. I should probably just try and plan A thing with some friends and watch the damn thing.
Quote from: kosmos1214;953885Yeah I should It's on that list of movies I should see some time along with the likes of the godfather. I should probably just try and plan A thing with some friends and watch the damn thing.
Just don't watch the remake. Ever.
Quote from: Tristram Evans;953853It captured the look to a certain point, but devoid of the black political humour and commentary on Western society.
Very much so. In fact the Stallone version doesnt seem to have much commentary on anything at all. The plot is just the generic "evil exile guy trying to take over the establishment" sort of plot.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;953881I loved Nosferatu when I was a kid. They played that movie at my church on a projector for some reason and it was the scariest thing I'd ever seen. Got hooked on silent horror movies for a while when I was in highschool (back when you would get extremely varied quality versions on VHS).
If you can ever find it check out Cabiria from 1914. One of the early Italian Maciste movies and some suprisingly good effects, sets and visuals. Had a really crummy version from a DVD set and later found a much better version.
Also during my western binge came across Hawk of the Hills from 1927, which think mentioned before.
Quote from: Omega;953908If you can ever find it check out Cabiria from 1914. One of the early Italian Maciste movies and some suprisingly good effects, sets and visuals. Had a really crummy version from a DVD set and later found a much better version.
That sounds interesting. I will see if I can find it.
I reviewed The Tigress of Shaolin: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-r5g8z-691d77
Wasn't bad but felt a little off. Had some cool ideas. Kung Fu looked pretty good. Had a cold doing this one.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;954003That sounds interesting. I will see if I can find it.
Its available free online (copyright free, so if you like I can link you to it). I used several images from it in a long-running call of Cthulhu campaign featuring the cult of Moloch as the primary antagonists.
So....is this a fake?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]824[/ATTACH]
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;953611I doubt I will see the Dredd movie, but I am curious what connection you felt there was (was it a similar plot line?).
It's no masterpiece but the Dredd film has its fans. It is also fuzzy to me but I recall an early comic where Judge Dred has to clear out a high rise full of criminals. I could be misremembering the comic but that is essentially the storyline of Dredd.
I think the Stallone version is terrible and I'm a Stallone fan.
I am a fan of the Dredd soundtrack though. Minimal electronic bass terrorism.
I review A Moment of Romance, a 1990 Hong Kong action film. Plenty of high speed chases, with some cool motorcycle scenes, and just about everyone gets stabbed at some point: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-zn7w4-692a18
Rogue One
Neat story. Boring characters. (With a couple of exceptions. Most notably, the droid character)
CGI characters suck. Stahp it! They always look plasticy-shiny compared to practical effects.
800 times better than Force Awakens, though I consider that a low bar.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;954097So....is this a fake?
It was real for a time as I was offered a cameo on it for reasons peculiar. But it fell through as the execs kept wanting to add things in and eventually it puttered out. Pretty sure its still DOA.
I did a review of The Young Vagabond. It is a good kung fu comedy that gets quite serious and dramatic in the last fifteen minutes or so: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-gvy8a-693482
So I saw John Wick 2 last night, on top of Ghost in the Shell.
It delievered.
Like, the damn film is goofy as hell all over the place, but it knows that and owns the hell out of that shit. We've got a god damn bad-ass chick evil assassin who only talks in sign language, we've got John Wick sticking a knife in a dude's chest and telling him its right in the damned aorta... and if he doesn't pull it out he'll be fine. We've got a showdown in a house of mirrors.
The one thing this film seriously fails to deliver, much as the first one did, is the idea of John Wick as some sort of supernatural boogieman of assassins. Leon, in the Professional, does this, but John Wick just comes across as a dude who can kill a bunch of other dudes trying to kill him. Like, at some point, you expect his luck will run out and thats the end of the fucking boogieman, right?
That said his first assassination... in two films now that I think about it... is pretty much bad ass in the classic boogieman sense of bad ass, not the 'look how many stunt men I can mow down' sense of badass.
Its early in the film so I'm not really spoiling it, so let me set it up:
John is out to kill a woman, the head of the Camorra, with a seat at the High Table of Assassins. He's doing this because he's got a debt of honor he's got to fulfill to someone else... he doesn't want to kill her, right?
It turns out they've got a history, they are friends... maybe they were once more than friends, the film doesn't go there but its an easy leap to make. This wealthy, powerful, and yes vicious criminal woman, knows John is there to kill her. So what does she do? She strips down naked, lets her hair down, gets in her bath and cuts her wrists because god damn if she isn't going to die on her own terms. She asks John if he believes in Damnation, saying she thought she'd somehow escape it herself, they hold hands, and as she faints from bloodloss, he puts a bullet through her skull, saving her from the Sin of Suicide.
Sweet bloody jeebus is it an awesome and quiet little scene. Its pretty much the LAST quiet scene in the entire film, or at least the last notable quiet scene. From then on its a non-stop action exstravaganza.
That sort of carefully set up, constructed and thought out scene is exactly what I want in my hit-man movies, where even characters we barely know have real moments, real feelz, and the deaths actually mean something. Its doubly nice that this scene is the one that, above all others preceding it, really sets the plot into motion, its sort of the crux of the plot and that sort of attention to detail is one of the things that make these otherwise popcorn fare action films so memorable. We can compare and contrast the killing of the puppy in the first Wick film, where this sort of over the top villiany is handled so adroitly that it is moving and affecting despite being utterly cliched.
That said, the opening set piece of the film is sort of a let down. I mean: I suppose we do get a bit of boogieman myth building. Peter Stormare does his Stormariest best... but other than linking the two films it really serves little purpose to the film itself, and I was sort of left wondering just how self destructive John Wick actually is....
We saw Life yesterday. A decent monster movie with few surprises.
Nothing really 'bad' about it but, aside from good visuals and acting it's nothing special either.
The humans are likeable and competent, until the story calls for them to do stupid stuff.
The creature isn't particulary scary/creepy to look at... actually kind of pretty/cute, which might have been the point. It's not a 'monster'. It seemed kind of overpowered for its given backstory, I think... a bit too perfect.
A few important scenes were confusing... one of them is a visual shell-game which I didn't think worked as good storytelling.
I'd say it's good for a DVD rental but no reason to rush out to the theater.
Did a review of a couple of films starring Ti Lung. Opium and the Kung Fu Master is a pretty good one about a martial hero addicted to opium who must overcome his addiction to face his enemy: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-7xfi7-69405d
A Better Tomorrow is an awesome John Woo film about a criminal trying to go straight: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-w8y4m-695562
I picked up A Better Tomorrow ages ago. Interesting movie. Though the ending felt was allmost excessively depressing. Though mercifully not as bad as Golo 13.
Quote from: Omega;955794I picked up A Better Tomorrow ages ago. Interesting movie. Though the ending felt was allmost excessively depressing. Though mercifully not as bad as Golo 13.
I have to admit I like movies that end like this one. I think one of the things that makes it work is the sad bit at the end.
One of these days I'll find a copy of Witch from Nepal and finally see Woo biting zombies. :eek:
Quote from: Omega;955877One of these days I'll find a copy of Witch from Nepal and finally see Woo biting zombies. :eek:
That is on Amazon Prime in the US right now.
Edit: Just watched it. Will put up a review shortly.
Quote from: Omega;955877One of these days I'll find a copy of Witch from Nepal and finally see Woo biting zombies. :eek:
Just did a review of it: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-s5ezm-697c3e
I watched The Last Witch Hunter a few days back. It's a fun popcorn action movie. Predictable at times, but the action was well done.
And meant Chow Yun-fat biting zombies. Not Woo. Though that would be funny too.
Good to see its at a more reasonable price now.
Quote from: Omega;955999And meant Chow Yun-fat biting zombies. Not Woo. Though that would be funny too.
Good to see its at a more reasonable price now.
The zombie scene is pretty quick but good. The movie felt somewhere between Boxer's Omen, Mannequin and The Heroic Trio to me. Much of the movie focuses on the love triangle.
A friend of mine saw Power Rangers 2017. Thought I'd pass on their review:
QuoteGood movie. The film’s not going to go down as a great classic of cinema, but it’s pretty solid. It’s got a long run time, but there’s no padding. The script is really tight, and the cinematography varies between solid and downright creative. Overeall, It feels a lot more real than the original series, more grounded. Rita was probably the most different from the show (At least the US version). She's not comedy relief here, but rather creepy and slightly disturbing. Plenty of color, but not the candy-box colors of the original. In particular, the Pink Ranger’s pink is no longer near-fluorescent. It’s a darker metallic pink that actually looked pretty good. Solid B, IMO.
Quote from: Nexus;956174A friend of mine saw Power Rangers 2017. Thought I'd pass on their review:
Can't wait for the 2017 Teletubbies movie by Michael Bay.
Yanno.... its weird: I've never seen an entire episode of Power Rangers so I'm hardly an expert on the topic, but I swore all the reporting had Elizabeth Banks playing Divatox, not Rita Repulsa (even IMDB, under Divatox, listed the new upcoming (at the time) movie), and the character design for Banks seemed to owe something to Divatox not Repulsa.
Yet, that is the second review saying it was Rita Repulsa.
Of course the first review I saw basically said Elizabeth Banks was apparently shooting her own movie from her own script and the film makers just ran with it... which even I know sounds like the classic Power Rangers, with the original cut scenes from a thirty year old Japanese TV show spliced in.
Welp. I gotta free movie ticket to use today... if nothing else interesting is playing, I'll happily burn it to watch Elizabeth Banks read the telephone book, and maybe some really fake CGI. Heisenberg running the Rangers as unwitting drug mules could be worth a laff.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;956184Can't wait for the 2017 Teletubbies movie by Michael Bay.
I wasn't into the tv show as a kid but I admit, the trailers looked interesting enough that I plan to give the film a look on video but I'm not going out of my way to catch it in the theater. Same with Logan but since most of my favorite theaters shut down its hard to get motivated to go anymore.
More overwrought desaturated costume designs and a plot thats little more the title and some names from the original and could have been anything else. Once again. What the hells the point? This has been a consistent failure of these remakes for a long time now.
Quote from: Omega;956305More overwrought desaturated costume designs and a plot thats little more the title and some names from the original and could have been anything else. Once again. What the hells the point? This has been a consistent failure of these remakes for a long time now.
Wait... are you complaining that Power Rangers is being bastardized?
I mean: I'm cool with it if you are, but... power rangers?
Quote from: Nexus;956304I wasn't into the tv show as a kid but I admit, the trailers looked interesting enough that I plan to give the film a look on video but I'm not going out of my way to catch it in the theater. Same with Logan but since most of my favorite theaters shut down its hard to get motivated to go anymore.
I'm pretending you're talking about a Teletubbies movie. :)
Did a review of Bullet in the Head by John Woo. I think this one is pretty interesting. It gets pretty dark by the end of the film: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-af6yp-699f78
Quote from: Spike;956315Wait... are you complaining that Power Rangers is being bastardized?
I mean: I'm cool with it if you are, but... power rangers?
Nah. I'd complain about the mercifully short lived Kamen Rider Saban did. ugh. And Im not even a fan of Kamen Rider.
But in general Im getting really sick and tired of hollywood leeching all the colour out of fucking every damn superhero show.
Watched Masked Avengers, but instead of a review tried a round table discussion with Kenny and Elliot. There is a 44 Minute recap at the start, and the discussion begins after that point. I quite liked this one. Lots of acrobatic martial arts, deadly traps, and a nasty cult of assassins. There is great fodder in Masked Avengers for gaming: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-fkhzc-69a4d0
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;956607Did a review of Bullet in the Head by John Woo. I think this one is pretty interesting. It gets pretty dark by the end of the film: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-af6yp-699f78
Probably my second favourite Woo next to Hard Boiled.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;956884Watched Masked Avengers...
That film is terrific fun, enjoying the podcast too.
Quote from: Nexus;956174A friend of mine saw Power Rangers 2017. Thought I'd pass on their review:
To me it will never top the hilarious outsider inspiration of Ultraman (1972).
Quote from: Voros;957045That film is terrific fun, enjoying the podcast too.
Thanks. We are still experimenting with that movie discussion format.
Quote from: Spinachcat;946265
DOCTOR STRANGE
I'm a Marvel fan and I've bought loads of comics over the decades, but I am no canon junkie. From my perspective, Doc Strange works really well with my memory of the comic book character and it will be fun to see him in the next Thor and/or Avengers movie. As usual, Sherlock Holmes gives a solid performance, Tilda Swinton gets paid to be weird and the supporting cast is okay, but underused overall. Rachel McAdams has a huge 3D mole on her face. It may have gotten its own credit.
RPG bits: definitely worth viewing for all GMs of modern settings with magic. In many ways, I felt I was watching Mage: the Awakening: the Movie.
I watched the Dr Strange movie last week--a little nervous because Strange is my only favorite superhero. The nice thing is that Dr Strange has had his beginning story retold so many times that canon can be pretty flexible.
I liked the take on Mordor and thought Chiwetel Ejiofor was an awesome fit for the character.
I hated Strange's love interest and thought her politics stupid, but the annoyance was low-level for a Hollywood movie.
I disliked the need to explain why magic worked--it was flat, kind of like mitichlorians for the Force.
For RPGsI liked how magic was used as weapons and shields, constructed into shields with "sharp" edges, or used as a whip. In the game I'm writing that we're playtesting, for a lot of the magic it says the character can use a real weapon for it or can use a magical/metaphysical weapon, the later being like what they used in the movie.
I also liked the personification of Dr Strange's cloak of levitation--it was really fun and I might steal that for something in one of my games.
Quote from: Tod13;957086I also liked the personification of Dr Strange's cloak of levitation--it was really fun and I might steal that for something in one of my games.
Its simmilar to how it acted in some early depictions. The difference was that Strange was mentally commanding it. rather than it being some sort of goofy sidekick/pet. Was though funny in the movie.
Watched the first episode of the anime series "Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash" which takes the "transported to fantasy world" premise and plays with the idea of what would happen to total novices tossed into a D&D style setting.
The art looks really good. But the animation in several spots feels off. Also the characters start off not very likable. But then that may be the point.
But if anything watch it just for the goblin battle. This was alot of fun to see how an intelligent opponent can be a real pain to deal with.
Aside from that and the art though I just didnt like it. I may try ep2. But assuming it follows the books this isnt going to end well and I just dont like these sorts of bleak settings. Probably not helped by the good looking, but occasionally choppy animation points.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;956184Can't wait for the 2017 Teletubbies movie by Michael Bay.
I would see that in a second.
It would rule so hard.
I review Deadful Melody, a 1994 wuxia movie where Brigitte Lin blazes a revenge using the power of music. This one was lots of fun: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-xj82x-69c842
If you havent seen it allready have a glance at Zu: Magic Mountain, another martial arts movie from way back. Had it on VHS and thought it was quirky. The wizard catching the meteor with his eyebrows was great. And that is about all I can remember of the movie anymore aside from it was not as dynamic as I'd hoped. :o
Much more interesting was Satomi Hakken-den, AKA, Legend of Eight Samurai which starts off a little slow but builds up to quite a battle. Very much has the feel of what I'd expect Oriental Adventures: The Movie to look like. And it has Hiroyuki Sanada and Sonny Chiba in.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;957531I review Deadful Melody, a 1994 wuxia movie where Brigitte Lin blazes a revenge using the power of music.
I've been watching a fuzzy copy of that on Youtube. It is lots of fun. But like you mention on your podcast, the fast editing in action scenes is a challenge to follow at times.
Quote from: Omega;957641Much more interesting was Satomi Hakken-den, AKA, Legend of Eight Samurai which starts off a little slow but builds up to quite a battle.
That's a fun one, it gets pretty wild... dead nude witch bathing in a lake of blood, sorcerer guy turning into a giantflying snake... and who could forget the disco soundtrack.
Quote from: Omega;957641If you havent seen it allready have a glance at Zu: Magic Mountain, another martial arts movie from way back. Had it on VHS and thought it was quirky. The wizard catching the meteor with his eyebrows was great. And that is about all I can remember of the movie anymore aside from it was not as dynamic as I'd hoped. :o
.
I love that movie. There is a somewhat restored bluray version that came not too long ago.
Quote from: Simlasa;957643I've been watching a fuzzy copy of that on Youtube. It is lots of fun. But like you mention on your podcast, the fast editing in action scenes is a challenge to follow at times.
.
A lot of 90s wuxia has that kind of editing. I think the intent is to give it a relentless feeling of action. I think what makes it hard to follow sometimes isn't just the editing, but also the shot angles (lots of angles shots in the 90s as well). So you are constantly looking at things from the ground up or the corner of the ceiling down.
I did a review of Shaolin Intruders, a mystery with lots of well-choreographed fight scenes and a cool backstory: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-w5fig-69ea6b
I watched Suicide Squad yesterday. It was a fun popcorn flick. Certain parts could definitely have been improved, but it was a decent movie. Viola Davis was awesome as Waller, and the other characters all were ok to good (not a fan of this Joker).
Teen Titans: The Judas Contract: Another excellent entry into the DCAU. It effectively retold the classic stort arc with enough changes to make it interesting and weave it effectively into the DCAU's continuity. The character development was well done, IMo, with nice touches of humor and pathos. The more mature mood of DC's animated movies continues in this one though there are some nods to the to lighter humorous depictions on the Teen Titans in the Teen Titans Go! though I didn't spot any outright winks at the 4th wall this time out. I was impressed by how the writers didn't dance around some of the aspect of the plot that may have offended some, particularly given the recent complaints about the original I've seen though some of those elements were altered slightly.
Quote from: Nexus;958618The more mature mood of DC's animated movies continues in this one though there are some nods to the to lighter humorous depictions on the Teen Titans in the Teen Titans Go! though I didn't spot any outright winks at the 4th wall this time out. I was impressed by how the writers didn't dance around some of the aspect of the plot that may have offended some, particularly given the recent complaints about the original I've seen though some of those elements were altered slightly.
Probably because Teen Titans Go was not really a Teen Titans show. Nickelodeon just slapped the title and looks on some leftover Flapjack or Spongebob scripts. You arent going to see 4th wall antics because they have absolutely no place there. The original comics had their humorous moments. But it was never the focus of the series and hence why some detested the cartoon and despise Go.
Justice League: Gods and Monsters: In the interest of full disclosure, If this storyline/alternate universe appeared in DC comics, I'm not familiar with it. But it is a pretty interesting, if darker look at the Justice League "Big Three"'s themes and mythology. And the ideals of heroism in general. It does it without being too preachy and heavy handed and leaves some things open to debate even at the end. I really enjoyed it both as a straight up comic book story and a variation on the DC universe that could be interesting to see revisted though it appears to be standalone story.
Quote from: Nexus;958715Justice League: Gods and Monsters: In the interest of full disclosure, If this storyline/alternate universe appeared in DC comics, I'm not familiar with it. But it is a pretty interesting, if darker look at the Justice League "Big Three"'s themes and mythology. And the ideals of heroism in general. It does it without being too preachy and heavy handed and leaves some things open to debate even at the end. I really enjoyed it both as a straight up comic book story and a variation on the DC universe that could be interesting to see revisted though it appears to be standalone story.
It didn't appear in the comics It's an original stand alone made by the guys who have made the other movies.
Warcraft - The most D&D movie ever made? Or I guess most Warcrafty at least, never got into Warcraft as the hulky armor and spikes aethestic remind me too much of the worse 90s superhero comics.
This film by the very talented Duncan Jones, son of Bowie and director of the excellent Moon and solid sf thriller Source Code, is not quite the disaster I had been led to expect but there was something deeply and profoundly unengaging about it all. Perhaps it is all the CGI and loads of magic thrown around right out of the gate which makes it feel weightless or perhaps just poor plotting and bland characterization. The second half improves noticeably and I actually found myself caring more for the CGI Orc protagonists than the whitebread humans. Too bad we'll never get a sequel as this may have been the rare example of a series where the second film would be stronger (X-Men and the Godfather come to mind).
I wonder what the prospective producers of the D&D movie took from the failure of this very D&Dish film? One flaw for me was the earnestness with the CGI Orcs coming across as a bit silly but I'm not sure a winking humour would have helped either and as I said by the mid-point the serious tone does start to pay off a bit I think. Apparently they want to go with a Guardians of the Galaxy approach for the D&D film which could work wonderfully but requires a real talent like Gunn at the helm to pull off successfully.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]908[/ATTACH]
Did a review of Shaolin Prince. This movie is awesome and gonzo for a wuxia film. Directed by fight choreographer Tong Kai, he only directed three movies and they are all quite good. Here is the review: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-68dpn-69f978
Also reviewed Savage 5. This is a pretty cool Chang Cheh film where the heroes have to fend off a group of bandits who attack an isolated and peaceful town. The cool bit about it is the movie downplays the effectiveness of Kung Fu against aggressive bandits with knives and other weapons, so the threat feels real: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-x4swg-69f7b9
Quote from: Voros;958812Warcraft - The most D&D movie ever made?
Not even remotely.
As for a new comedy D&D movie. Well the first one was ever so successful wasnt it?:rolleyes:
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;958906Did a review of Shaolin Prince. This movie is awesome and gonzo for a wuxia film. Directed by fight choreographer Tong Kai, he only directed three movies and they are all quite good.
Hmmm... it seems there's more than one Shaolin Prince, is that right? The image on your podcast review seems to match the one Youtube has up for cheap streaming, but is listed as 1974 and has a different director, Chang Cheh.
But same image matches what IMDB has up for the 1982 version.
Confusing world of Hong Kong cinema.
Quote from: Simlasa;959276Hmmm... it seems there's more than one Shaolin Prince, is that right? The image on your podcast review seems to match the one Youtube has up for cheap streaming, but is listed as 1974 and has a different director, Chang Cheh.
But same image matches what IMDB has up for the 1982 version.
Confusing world of Hong Kong cinema.
I think that is a youtube issue. If this is the youtube video you are thinking of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbNMqBpdhTQ, then that is a clip of the Tong Kai version that I reviewed for the podcast (not directed by Chang Cheh and Alexander Fu Sheng isn't in it). In fact the scene in the clip is the one with the Water General and the Fire Eater attacking the officials trying to carry the babies from the palace. In '74 Chang Cheh did do a couple of Shaolin movies but this one definitely isn't it. I think that youtube streaming may just have the wrong information up. But it is possible they are playing the wrong clip and if they are, you could end up getting a movie called Shaolin Martial Arts (which is also streaming on Prime in the US). Shaolin Martial Arts is much more of a straight forward Kung Fu type film, but Shaolin Prince has a stronger wuxia vibe to it.
Quote from: Voros;958812snip ]
Actually unless there has been a statement it did very well in china and we are likely getting a sequel it may not be as big budget but its more likely then not to happen.
Probably mentioned this movie before.
Finally pinned down a better copy of Jin Bei Tong, AKA: Kid with the Golden Arm. Probably one of my favourite of the Shaw Brothers movies (Along with Infra-Man! and Flying Guillotine.) Brings back the cast from Wu Du/Five Venoms and shows that "caravan guard" is the most awesome job EVER! (If you live long enough...) A group of adventurers and government agents, (along with some hirelings) are assigned to safeguard a shipment of gold and face off against a gang of highly skilled killers. Lots of interesting characters, neat traps, and well done combat moments.
This was one of the movies that I envisioned Oriental Adventures playing out like if you removed the magic and Japanese elements.
Quote from: kosmos1214;959282Actually unless there has been a statement it did very well in china and we are likely getting a sequel it may not be as big budget but its more likely then not to happen.
Well hopefully they're not sequels like Starship Troopers has sequels, i.e. direct to cable garbage.
Quote from: Omega;959512Finally pinned down a better copy of Jin Bei Tong, AKA: Kid with the Golden Arm. Probably one of my favourite of the Shaw Brothers movies (Along with Infra-Man! and Flying Guillotine.) Brings back the cast from Wu Du/Five Venoms and shows that "caravan guard" is the most awesome job EVER! (If you live long enough...)
I know I'm a broken record but this movie is loads of fun. They dumped a load of Shaw Brothers classics on Netflix but last I looked they took down Mad Monkey Kung Fu which broke my heart.
Apparently they have a shop on YouTube? Have you checked that for it?
No, thanks for the heads up! Found it and will watch it again tomorrow night, wanted to show my wife it.
Quote from: Omega;959512Probably mentioned this movie before.
Finally pinned down a better copy of Jin Bei Tong, AKA: Kid with the Golden Arm. Probably one of my favourite of the Shaw Brothers movies (Along with Infra-Man! and Flying Guillotine.) Brings back the cast from Wu Du/Five Venoms and shows that "caravan guard" is the most awesome job EVER! (If you live long enough...) A group of adventurers and government agents, (along with some hirelings) are assigned to safeguard a shipment of gold and face off against a gang of highly skilled killers. Lots of interesting characters, neat traps, and well done combat moments.
This was one of the movies that I envisioned Oriental Adventures playing out like if you removed the magic and Japanese elements.
That movie is awesome.
Did a review of Duel to the Death. Lots of crazy, over-the-top action in this one. Good gaming fodder too: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-8bbzv-6a3d83
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;959277I think that is a youtube issue. If this is the youtube video you are thinking of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbNMqBpdhTQ, then that is a clip of the Tong Kai version that I reviewed for the podcast (not directed by Chang Cheh and Alexander Fu Sheng isn't in it).
Yep, turned out the Youtube one was indeed the one you'd talked about. There's some kooky stuff in it. That whole final fight with the guy in the sedan chair... that was wild. Great stuff!
So I just got done with a twofer: Underworld Bloodwars and Mechanic Resurrection.
Not much to say about Underworld. I like the franchise, but I know its shit from start to finish. This one is refreshing because Len Wiseman is nowhere to be found, I think. Actually, watching the special features, the interviews with several of the established actors in the film, was quite fun. They seem to know its all in fun, and clearly enjoyed what they were doing, which makes for a fun watch. Heck, Kate Beckinsale actually has some character development, which reminds me that once upon a time she was actually a decent actress.
Mechanic Ressurection threw me for a loop. I already know any movie with The Statham in it, no matter how big or small the role, is already going to be a good watch. Hell, he actually made me enjoy a Melissa McCarthy movie!!!! I didn't think that was possible!
There are four names emblazoned on teh cover of Mechanic. The Statham, of course. Jessica Alba, Tommy Lee Jones and Michelle Yeoh. Pretty much every prediction I made about the movie from those four names, excepting The Statham, was wrong to some degree or another. TLJ has a minor role that both was, and was not, in his normal wheelhouse. Fun, but not quite what I expected. Alba was modestly less wooden and vacuous in her role... as she approaches her dotage she may even one day become a watchable actress instead of a vortex of suck on a vaguely pretty face. More that that, her role wasn't quite what I expected. Short form: She's a modern take on teh Damsel in a Dress... I mean Distress. You know what I mean: The Damsel that half rescues herself? Actually, I think there was a missed plot opportunity in there regarding Chekov's Gun, to whit: The Statham's Watch.
Anyway: A fun watch, if a bit relentless with The Statham. This somehow manages to be more Statham than the Crank Movies, without nearly the fun. I did think there were some problems with the Topics of the Day set dressing... but I've reached a point in my movie watching where even mentioning something in the Topics of the Day is enough to get my dander up. Reversing the usual military beef with the Rules of Engagement was also a personal beef, even if only mentioned in passing.*
* For the record: Anyone who has served in a modern warzone is very likely to believe that the modern Rules of Engagement are written to either get soldiers killed, or have them thrown in jail for doing soldier stuff to stay alive. Alba's 'Military Veteran' instead bitches that the RoE seemed designed to prevent her from saving the lives of civilians in the warzone. Not just wrong, compltely reversed. This is not an invitation to talk about the truth of the typical complaint vs the movie complaint... If you think soldiers are wrong to feel that way, that's your cross to bear, but that is the complain that you would hear.
Statham's films are underrated but I found The Mechanic: Resurrection pretty weak and I liked the first film.
But heres the big question, how many of you folks have seen the original "Mechanic"? It's a fun Charles Bronson movie. I wouldnt say its good, I mean its no godfather. But a fun movie.
Quote from: Ronin;960011But heres the big question, how many of you folks have seen the original "Mechanic"? It's a fun Charles Bronson movie. I wouldnt say its good, I mean its no godfather. But a fun movie.
I like it. It's got enough of that 70s bleakness to keep me entertained.
I stay generally stay away from Statham's movies, I'm not the audience for that sort of thing.
I have, at a drive in. Oddly its one of the few of his movies I've ever seen. That and Magnificent Seven, Red Sun, Master of the World, and White Buffalo.
Of those I liked White Buffalot alot as its a really strange movie with some good effects and visuals.
Quote from: Simlasa;959949Yep, turned out the Youtube one was indeed the one you'd talked about. There's some kooky stuff in it. That whole final fight with the guy in the sedan chair... that was wild. Great stuff!
If you haven't seen it, Holy Flame of the Martial World is another one that amps up the kookiness.
FInally got a chance to watch the classic noir "The Third Man". A very good film set in post war Vienna. A definite good watch.
The last shot of The Third Man is classic. So memorable.
I wasn't doing a full review, mind. I have seen, and consider myself a fan of, the Bronson version of The Mechanic, and if I was touching upon the remake I'd have gone into it a bit... but frankly there is so little sequel in this sequel that it didn't seem worth the bother. Sometimes ya just enjoy watching the Statham do his thing for an hour and a half and trust that the reasons he's doing his thing are stupid and not worth wasting any energy on, right?
To me the most interesting element of the film is the three other headliners and how they are used versus expectations.
We picked up Dungeon Siege with Statham in it several years ago. According to my friend whos played the games the movie had about nothing to do with the game. Was though neat to see Statham and Burt Rynolds in it.
Quote from: Ronin;960011But heres the big question, how many of you folks have seen the original "Mechanic"? It's a fun Charles Bronson movie. I wouldnt say its good, I mean its no godfather. But a fun movie.
I saw it in one of those cheapo 3-movie sets, featuring Bronson this time. It was that movie, another one about some Mormon town, and one more I forget. The Mechanic wasn't a bad waste of time.
Quote from: Ronin;960011But heres the big question, how many of you folks have seen the original "Mechanic"? It's a fun Charles Bronson movie. I wouldnt say its good, I mean its no godfather. But a fun movie.
Well I have seen it all in all I say its A pretty good movie.
The Mechanic and Mr. Majestyk were on afternoon TV all the time when I was a kid. Probably seen both 3-4 times at least.
Watched The Duel with Ti Lung and David Chiang. Intense knife fights, great story. Had a discussion about it rather than a straight forward review: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-q8a7c-6a75ef
Finally got to see a subtitled version of an old 60s Russian horror movie called Viy. Saw part of it wayyyy back untranslated as part of a compilation.
Pretty interesting, it a bit slow in the middle, movie about a priest who through a series of mishaps ends up having to deal with a rather persistent witch. Some pretty good costuming and effects and kind of like Evil Dead it flips from humor to horror several times.
Apparently there has been a modern remake. Same name. Totally different plot.
Finally saw Mad Max Fury Road, I was expecting car crashes and explosions with a little acting thrown in and the movie did not disappoint there. Definitely only worth the money if you saw it in the dollar theater and I just don't get why it was proclaimed to be a pro-Feminist movie unless you worship Charlize Theron.
Y'all are saved from a monster 'live-review' of Guardian's of the Galaxy Vol. 2 by the fact that my computer hates me. Seriously, the damn touch pad right in front of teh keypad... which I cannot turn off in any way, seems to interpret my hands being anywhere near the keys as orders to fuck up what I'm doing.
Anyway, in short form: It was good in that tongue in cheek way deconstruction of movie cliches that the first only touched on, though there were some painful running gags, mostly involving Drax the Destroyer, that wore thin very, very fast. Also: am I not mistaken in my impression that Drax the Destroyer has kicked almost exactly zero ass in two movies now?
I'll short form, no spoil, it for ya: this film in one of a handful in recent memory that seems to grasp that great stories have big underlying themes that are not the actual plot.. like how Kirk facing mortality was a big feature of the first Wrath of Khan. Here the Themes are the importance of family, of belonging and of forgiveness and redemption.
This is fucking Yondu's film. He owns it.
Little known actresses in supporting roles also crush it, especially the woman playing Mantis. Its an over the top scenery chewing naif role, and she manages to keep it real despite the absurdity. The actress playing Ayesha, the Sovereign High Preistess does a marvellous job with a very understated role, not as impressive by nature, but no less skillful. Both are doing it through absurd amounts of special effects. I'll give Gunn credit: he can use talent.
Baby Groot is Totes Adorbs... *
*This poster does not condone, nor endorse, the use of outdated tween shit-speak to describe things. If you imagine this poster has, in fact, done any such thing this poster invites you to check again, then, preferrably after watching the film in question.
Quote from: jeff37923;960932Finally saw Mad Max Fury Road, I was expecting car crashes and explosions with a little acting thrown in and the movie did not disappoint there. Definitely only worth the money if you saw it in the dollar theater and I just don't get why it was proclaimed to be a pro-Feminist movie unless you worship Charlize Theron.
There is a bit of a theory out there that George Miller is old enough and canny enough to have deliberably conned everyone regarding the feminism in Fury Road. It was not imagined that there was a... or supposed to be a... feminist message in the film, as it was endorsed by at least one prominant feminist (forget who) who was somehow involved in the creation. Miller clearly doesn't buy the waif-fu shit himself, but clearly was willing to milk the publicity.
There is a whole list of ways that the film seems to deliberately subvert the feminism being crowed about, from Max being able to handily beat Furiosa (and friends) despite suffering a large number of disadvantages to take her truck, to the failure of the Green Land (or whatever it was called), despite being entirely run by women.
The Nostalgia Critic on Youtube has a good middle of the road view on the controversy for this film in his review, as he does for Fem-Ghostbusters. I don't necessarily agree with all his points in either case, but for a 'I don't take sides' take on the controversy he's got a good read.
Did a review of the New One-Armed Swordsman: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-2p7mm-6ac2b6
This one isn't really connected to the first in terms of story. David Chiang takes up the title role but is supported by Ti Lung as a fellow hero. The original is a classic but this one is incredibly entertaining and has some cool-ass sword fights (the dual-wielding fight scene at the beginning is pretty awesome).
Quote from: Spike;961151There is a bit of a theory out there that George Miller is old enough and canny enough to have deliberably conned everyone regarding the feminism in Fury Road. It was not imagined that there was a... or supposed to be a... feminist message in the film, as it was endorsed by at least one prominant feminist (forget who) who was somehow involved in the creation. Miller clearly doesn't buy the waif-fu shit himself, but clearly was willing to milk the publicity.
There is a whole list of ways that the film seems to deliberately subvert the feminism being crowed about, from Max being able to handily beat Furiosa (and friends) despite suffering a large number of disadvantages to take her truck, to the failure of the Green Land (or whatever it was called), despite being entirely run by women.
The Nostalgia Critic on Youtube has a good middle of the road view on the controversy for this film in his review, as he does for Fem-Ghostbusters. I don't necessarily agree with all his points in either case, but for a 'I don't take sides' take on the controversy he's got a good read.
Eve Ensler. I've opined that the feminism in Fury Road is the kind of "Women are weak and vulnerable victims of everything men do, so men better shape up and be very, very good to women." I'd go so far as to call it Patriarchal Feminism.
But they didn't browbeat it. It's just a thing in the background, while cars crash into each other.
Moana
I didn't seek this out. Wound up getting it for mom on Mother's Day and watching it with the family.
The trope of "Plucky princess breaks the rules and saves the day" is getting old now. It had some nice songs, that I've forgotten overnight. A couple of goofy sidekicks that are good for the occasional laugh. It's humor and style are very contemporary, and I suspect won't age well.
The Disney corporate machine cranks out another processed product.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;962290Eve Ensler. I've opined that the feminism in Fury Road is the kind of "Women are weak and vulnerable victims of everything men do, so men better shape up and be very, very good to women." I'd go so far as to call it Patriarchal Feminism.
That almost sounds like a odd feminist rebranding of Chivalry.
Quote from: Nexus;962306That almost sounds like a odd feminist rebranding of Chivalry.
Some would argue that feminism is chivalry twisted by ideology. I think there's a bit of truth to it.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;962307Some would argue that feminism is chivalry twisted by ideology. I think there's a bit of truth to it.
Yeah, I can see that especially in light of the attitude some of its male adherents espouse, "White Knighting", etc
Logan: I regret not seeing this movie much sooner than I did. Its still pretty recent so I'll stay far away from spoilers but I have to disagree with some of detractors that felt it wasn't a superhero story. I felt it was, a very moody, more grounded than most superhero story but was one. It didn't feel like a deconstruction like some call it though there is some aspect of that but in the sense of examining how the genre works and can looked at in different ways. The R rating is earned though, its violent, bloody and grim but has heart and some emotional depth and even warmth that's touching. The conclusion, while bittersweet feels like a solid wrap for the character's story. I thought a friend that said it made her cry at the end might have been over reacting but I understand why did.
New Star Trek
Star Trek: Discovery (http://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek-discovery/video/LeDfVOm_JkJcYJF9ju2izuFJBnF_qJsG/star-trek-discovery-first-look-trailer/?ref=__iv_p_1_g_27257289007_w_kwd-314010009511_h_9016549_ii__d_c_v__n_g_c_195683162383_k_star%20trek%20discovery%20trailer_m_p_l__t__e__r_1t1_vi__&utm_source=paidsearch&ftag=AAM-00-10ach8i&vndid=google$null$null$star%20trek%20discovery%20trailer)
Quote from: GameDaddy;963007New Star Trek
Star Trek: Discovery (http://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek-discovery/video/LeDfVOm_JkJcYJF9ju2izuFJBnF_qJsG/star-trek-discovery-first-look-trailer/?ref=__iv_p_1_g_27257289007_w_kwd-314010009511_h_9016549_ii__d_c_v__n_g_c_195683162383_k_star%20trek%20discovery%20trailer_m_p_l__t__e__r_1t1_vi__&utm_source=paidsearch&ftag=AAM-00-10ach8i&vndid=google$null$null$star%20trek%20discovery%20trailer)
ME: Michelle Yeoh...
ALSO ME: But Star Trek sucks now
ME: Michelle Yeoh.
ALSO ME: But Enterprise was so shitty
ME: MICHELLE YEOH!
ALSO ME: Dangit
Quote from: GameDaddy;963007New Star Trek
Star Trek: Discovery (http://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek-discovery/video/LeDfVOm_JkJcYJF9ju2izuFJBnF_qJsG/star-trek-discovery-first-look-trailer/?ref=__iv_p_1_g_27257289007_w_kwd-314010009511_h_9016549_ii__d_c_v__n_g_c_195683162383_k_star%20trek%20discovery%20trailer_m_p_l__t__e__r_1t1_vi__&utm_source=paidsearch&ftag=AAM-00-10ach8i&vndid=google$null$null$star%20trek%20discovery%20trailer)
Looks dreadful.
I actually like Chris Pine as an actor, but he in no way captures Kirk. Then again, I don't think I blame him. I think the writers are only allowed to present the shallowest and most superficially recognizable comedic-spit take traits of Kirk... anything too accurate would be 'regressive' or something. Sort of like the bowlderization of Khan.
As it happens I caught the scene from the original series episode where Khan convinces the crew woman to betray the Enterprise to him. I'm mildly shocked that they are allowed to show such ungentlemanly behavior anymore... I figure its only a matter of time before it is quietly memory holed for being bad-think.
Quote from: Spike;963093I actually like Chris Pine as an actor, but he in no way captures Kirk. Then again, I don't think I blame him. I think the writers are only allowed to present the shallowest and most superficially recognizable comedic-spit take traits of Kirk... anything too accurate would be 'regressive' or something. Sort of like the bowlderization of Khan.
As it happens I caught the scene from the original series episode where Khan convinces the crew woman to betray the Enterprise to him. I'm mildly shocked that they are allowed to show such ungentlemanly behavior anymore... I figure its only a matter of time before it is quietly memory holed for being bad-think.
TOS was about solving problems in space. All kinds of problems. They seem to have forgotten that part of Trek. And it's most of why I don't care about the nuTrek, or Discovery.
And I totally agree. The OS characters in nuTrek are Flanderized versions. And really uninteresting for it.
Quote from: Nexus;962436The conclusion, while bittersweet feels like a solid wrap for the character's story. I thought a friend that said it made her cry at the end might have been over reacting but I understand why did.
My wife teared up and I was surprisingly moved. I think the Shane reference was inspired and that little girl is a hell of an actress.
Did a review of King Boxer (AKA Five Fingers of Death), a classic Kung Fu movie that was an early entry in the international Kung Fu craze: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-6ccc2-6af440
Quote from: Voros;963264My wife teared up and I was surprisingly moved. I think the Shane reference was inspired and that little girl is a hell of an actress.
Oh my God, that was an incredibly clumsy sentence. Please allow me to rephrase. When a friend said she cried at the end I thought she might have been overreacting but now that I've seen it, I understand why she did. The conclusion, the movie overall are surprisingly moving. I liked that it didn't lay everything right out for you. The '20 minutes into the future' touches were nice as well. And yes, she was an amazing actress. Child actors tend to catch allot of flack (disproportionate, IMO) especially in Geek circles but I haven't heard many complaints about Laura's depiction. I thought all the kids were good, just didn't get as much screen time. And Shane was a good metaphor, I agree.
I admit I did wait until after the credits out of habit. I was half expecting their to be some after credits epilogue that would wreck the mood. Thankfully there is not and the choice of music to play over them was excellent.
Spoiler
Gestures like how she turned the cross to form an X can either come across as emotionally powerful or extremely cheesy, even manipulative. I think it worked out perfectly, powerful and moving in turn. It also struck me that it all sort of ended where it began: in the wilderness in/near Canada. Nice book ending, IMO X-24 proved to be an effective stand in for Sabeertooth physically and metaphorically as Wolverine's bestial murderous side, the soulless killing machine he could have been.
Quote from: Spike;961150I'll short form, no spoil, it for ya: this film in one of a handful in recent memory that seems to grasp that great stories have big underlying themes that are not the actual plot.. like how Kirk facing mortality was a big feature of the first Wrath of Khan. Here the Themes are the importance of family, of belonging and of forgiveness and redemption.
Agreed. I was suprised at how well those themes were woven into the film.
Quote from: Spike;961150This is fucking Yondu's film. He owns it.
Word. Gunn and Rooker did such a great job with him, I didn't care he was so different from the comic character.
Quote from: Spike;961150Little known actresses in supporting roles also crush it, especially the woman playing Mantis. Its an over the top scenery chewing naif role, and she manages to keep it real despite the absurdity. The actress playing Ayesha, the Sovereign High Preistess does a marvellous job with a very understated role, not as impressive by nature, but no less skillful. Both are doing it through absurd amounts of special effects. I'll give Gunn credit: he can use talent.
Yep. The actress playing Mantis had great chemistry with Drax, and sold that role.
Quote from: Spike;961150Baby Groot is Totes Adorbs...
Totes Magotes.
*This poster does not condone, nor endorse, the use of outdated tween shit-speak to describe things. If you imagine this poster has, in fact, done any such thing this poster invites you to check again, then, preferrably after watching the film in question. [/QUOTE]
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;963012ME: Michelle Yeoh...
ALSO ME: But Star Trek sucks now
ME: Michelle Yeoh.
ALSO ME: But Enterprise was so shitty
ME: MICHELLE YEOH!
ALSO ME: Dangit
Michelle Yeoh is enough to get me on board to watch. The trailer seems fine enough. Sonequa Martin-Green is a good actress, so I like the idea of her in the main role. I haven't watched the reboot films though so I feel like I am missing some of the causes of the anger (to me this looked like a pretty standard trailer for a television series).
Maybe folks should start a television thread though to talk about this and other series. This thread is about movies, and one of the few successful threads in this subforum. Probably better to do a separate thread for TV.
Quote from: Nexus;963292Oh my God, that was an incredibly clumsy sentence. Please allow me to rephrase
That's okay I understood you, just sharing my reaction. I'm a big Western fan so those scenes definitely played to me. I'm not a 100 percent convinced about the idea of superhero movies being 'adult' and 'dark' but this is definitely the most successful one in that style that I've seen because it is both film and culturally literate. You get the feeling the director/writer have life and cultural sources beyond the typical nerdcanon.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;963099TOS was about solving problems in space. All kinds of problems. They seem to have forgotten that part of Trek. And it's most of why I don't care about the nuTrek, or Discovery.
Which intellectual problem was being solved in this episode?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]972[/ATTACH]
I joke because I love. This is actually one of my favourite Trek episodes. It is campy, pulpy and full of very heavy handed sermonizing but that makes me love it all the more.
Quote from: Voros;963551Which intellectual problem was being solved in this episode?
I joke because I love. This is actually one of my favourite Trek episodes. It is campy, pulpy and full of very heavy handed sermonizing but that makes me love it all the more.
I was thinking of the Gorn episode when I wrote that post, but couldn't really find a way to include it, so thankyou! :)
[video=youtube_share;eVpi80iWFeE]https://youtu.be/eVpi80iWFeE[/youtube]
Most people remember that Kirk fought the Gorn, but they rarely mention how that episode ended. That it was a kind of test of humanity and mercy. Something I daresay is really lacking in modern Trek since Abram's reboot. Eh maybe in the last one, but I couldn't get past the frantic swarm attack scene, so I wouldn't know.
Another interesting thing about that episode is that it is based on Frederic Brown's short story Arena but it completely changes the ending and meaning of the story. Brown was usually a satrical writer but Arena is a surprsingly humourless war propaganda story with some very unpleasant ideas in it.
But we're getting off movies again, someone should start a TV thread for sure.
on star trek personally I haven't seen any of the new movies but I'll give this A go As for all the 2nd run of tv shows the only 2 I found to be any good where voyager and enterprise.
Even then there's a bunch of voyager that I can do with out part of it is I find that tng ds9 and a fair chunk of voyager forgot that star trek is about human story's and real problems.
Enterprise and voyager are the only 2 that ever remembered that and voyager only remembered it off and on but unlike tng and ds9 it at least remember that these ships are populated by human beings(and aliens) with real thoughts feeling and emotions rather then soap opera characters.
Quote from: Voros;963627Another interesting thing about that episode is that it is based on Frederic Brown's short story Arena but it completely changes the ending and meaning of the story. Brown was usually a satrical writer but Arena is a surprsingly humourless war propaganda story with some very unpleasant ideas in it.
But we're getting off movies again, someone should start a TV thread for sure.
We had one it died a slow painful death the conversation just isn't consistent enough to keep one going hence I personally don't care if this thread bounces off target from time to time cuz this one will manage to hang around we used to have a book thread too.
Did a review of The Chinese Boxer (the movie that was at the start of the Kung Fu Craze in the early 70s): https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-63u43-6b41fb
Wow, that new Star Trek looks awful. I assume it's in the same alternate continuity as the terrible new movies. And they've once again made the mistake of going backwards in time and doing a prequel instead of continuing forward in the timeline. Kind of hard to care much about what happened "10 years before Kirk" since we know how it will work out no matter what happens in any given story.
Oh well. I'm not their target audience. I don't think any of the youngsters are that interested in Star Trek these days, so I assume they are marketing to hard core Trekkie's. They couldn't even get it in a major network's primetime schedule?
Its not the getting there that matters, its the How they got there that does. Like a Columbo mystery. You know right off who did it. The story is about how the criminal got caught. So here, much like Enterprise, the interest will be what happened, not what will happen.
Quote from: Omega;964715Its not the getting there that matters, its the How they got there that does. Like a Columbo mystery. You know right off who did it. The story is about how the criminal got caught. So here, much like Enterprise, the interest will be what happened, not what will happen.
yep exactly thats what peaple tend to miss about prequels in general that they aren't about the end but the journey.
Quote from: Dumarest;964684Wow, that new Star Trek looks awful. I assume it's in the same alternate continuity as the terrible new movies. And they've once again made the mistake of going backwards in time and doing a prequel instead of continuing forward in the timeline. Kind of hard to care much about what happened "10 years before Kirk" since we know how it will work out no matter what happens in any given story.
With the precedent set by nuTrek, that they're willing to use time travel to create an alternate reality, that's not necessarily the case.
Yeah I've never been too concerned with plot and find the internerd obsession with 'spoilers' tiresome. We all know how a Greek tragedy is going to end, doesn't make them any less fascinating in my book.
Particularly odd when it comes to big budget genre films where the plots are so predictable, in fact one of the pleasures of genre films is the predictability of their plots. We're not exactly talking about Hitchcockian twists are we?
Eh, I prefer to avoid spoilers. Knowing exactly what's coming lessens the experience for me even I can predict it. I don't flip to the end of books even when I'm pretty sure of where they're going either. I guess am I'm an Internerd. (Duh, I spend a significant portion of time on sites like this one. :D)
I don't mind spoilers when treated reasonably but when someone loses their shit because someone wants to discuss a film in depth or it is years, even decades, old I have to roll my eyes.
Quote from: Voros;964913I don't mind spoilers when treated reasonably but when someone loses their shit because someone wants to discuss a film in depth or it is years, even decades, old I have to roll my eyes.
Fair enough. It is a little late to complain about reveal for "The Usual Suspects" (Kaizer Soze is the janitor wit the peg leg).
Quote from: Voros;964913I don't mind spoilers when treated reasonably but when someone loses their shit because someone wants to discuss a film in depth or it is years, even decades, old I have to roll my eyes.
Quote from: Nexus;964918Fair enough. It is a little late to complain about reveal for "The Usual Suspects" (Kaizer Soze is the janitor wit the peg leg).
I am sorry but I call bull on that line of thinking.
Not all of us are 95 years old and have read the plot synopsis for every book movie and tv show to come out in the last century and a half and would rather be able to guess at it by our selves even if its predicable FYI this sight has spoiler tags so if A(you have both seen the movie) and or B (you don't care about spoilers amongst your selves) there's nothing to stop you just use the damn things. If another person doesn't want to discus a movie they haven't seen guess what that's there choice.
The Usual Suspects that nexus brought up is a very good example I only saw that last year for the 1st time and I'm damn glad I didn't know any thing going in.
Quote from: kosmos1214;964926I am sorry but I call bull on that line of thinking.
Not all of us are 95 years old and have read the plot synopsis for every book movie and tv show to come out in the last century and a half and would rather be able to guess at it by our selves even if its predicable FYI this sight has spoiler tags so if A(you have both seen the movie) and or B (you don't care about spoilers amongst your selves) there's nothing to stop you just use the damn things. If another person doesn't want to discus a movie they haven't seen guess what that's there choice.
The Usual Suspects that nexus brought up is a very good example I only saw that last year for the 1st time and I'm damn glad I didn't know any thing going in.
I've never seen The Usual Suspects.
By the reasoning, you can never openly talk about anything...ever since there might be somebody, somewhere that hasn't seen it. Losing your shit because someone "spoiled" that Ash is a robot in the original Alien or Norman Bates is the killer is silly. No one should be expected to spoiler tag movies that are decades old. If the movie, book, story whatever has been around so long that the twist is common knowledge its not everyone's responsibility to keep so called secret forever. Hell, what qualifies as Spoiler varies from person to person.
There's expecting some courtesy and there's being kind of entitled. I've been "spoiled" about old movies, books, etc. It happens and might be disappointing but its nothing major and its expected or should be after a certain point,. My rule of thumb is that if the movie is almost as old as I am and I don't want to spoiled
watch it as soon as possible and don't be surprised if I do get spoiled. Especially if it is or was a popular film. But really the Outraged at spoilers cut off point is much sooner realistically when the Interwebz and all.
Ash is a robot? noooooo! :(
The funniest Spoiler Story I got is the very day I went to go see Alien Ressurection I happened to pick up a newspaper that had a whopping two paragraph min-review of the film. A single throw away line was that Wynona Ryder (one of my favorite actresses at the time) was playing a robot. Just that.
And about ten minutes into the movie I twigged that... I wasn't supposed to KNOW THAT!!!!
Sigh.
Ruined a GREAT FILM for me. Srsly, u guyz.
Did a review of Vengeance!, a 1970 Chang Cheh movie that blends flashes of Peking Opera with gritty knife and open-handed fighting. Set during the Warlord Era, it is about revenge against a moody and atmospheric backdrop. I think this one is a masterpiece, but a bit on the slow side at times. The slowness helps build the characters and your investment in them, so when the fights do break out, it feels like more is at stake. Best bit in my mind is the stylish contrast of Peking Opera with the regular fight scenes: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-nywut-6b4faa
I also love Vengeance and agree it is a masterpiece that should be more appreciated. The amount of knife fighting her definitely gives it all a grim edge. I notice that a number of modern Korean action films are heavy on knife fighting as well, I wonder how much this film is an influence on that?
Quote from: Voros;965127I also love Vengeance and agree it is a masterpiece that should be more appreciated. The amount of knife fighting her definitely gives it all a grim edge. I notice that a number of modern Korean action films are heavy on knife fighting as well, I wonder how much this film is an influence on that?
I don't know if there is a direct link or not, but I imagine it is quite likely, since Chang Cheh looms so large. He did knife fights in other films as well like the Duel.
The axes and knives at the end of Boxer of Shantung has to be one of the most violent sequences in film up to that point as well.
I'm trying to decide whether or not to go watch Baywatch. The trailers look absurdly funny but...
I've noticed this thing with these nostalgia movies. Baywatch was undoubtedly a stupid, stupid show, even for the... what? Late eighties?
But the CHARACTERS weren't stupid. In a general sense, I mean. I don't actually know, really, but I can guess that they were either normal intelligence people, or organically stupid because some actors are just stupid people... its not a career where being stupid can actively get you killed or, for that matter, hinder your career progression.
But these Nostalgia Movies take the natural stupidity of the show's premise (whichever show) or simply the cheese that is episodic television (coupled with a healthy dose of 'its not current or trendy right now'), and distill that down into characters that are absurdly, comedically, epically stupid.
Now: From the trailers I've seen, Baywatch may do it better than most movies of this ilk. Only the main characters appear to be sub-functional, and in fact I appreciated the bit in the trailer where the policeman is calling out teh Baywatch crew for essentially NOT BEING POLICE!
OMG! I've been waiting for a movie to be self aware enough to realize that, yes, your main characters can't just do action movie stuff without someone calling them out for... whatever!
And yes, the Rock... I mean Dwayne Johnson... is charming and charismatic as ever... though I have to say that in recent movies he's starting to look a bit... strange, in an almost uncanny valley sort of way. I don't know what's going on, but it sort of freaks me out to look at him. Heebie Jeebies. I've had to revoke my man-crush on him as a result.
So... yeah. My choices are slim right now. Guardians for the second time, Pirates movie... or Baywatch. Yeah, my local theater (as of now) is lame stuff...
What? I like kung fu movies, but damn... this thread can get pretty one note about them if I don't spice it up now and again. Some of you guys seriously need to broaden your horizons!
So, against my better judgement... and because I couldn't be arsed to wait an extra twenty minutes to watch Guardians a second time, I saw Baywatch.
It was... mixed. Not only is that the most i can really say about it, it literally describes much of the movie. The Rock is charming and likeable, and he's playing a guy that everyone loves... except that the character is, in fact, a collossal douchebag. Zac Effron is almost playing TWO characters... one is a sub-human IQ having jock who is all superficial charm, the other is a relatively ordinary guy with a troubled past trying to find his way in life...
I'm not explaining it very well, actually. For a good chunk of the film, continuing almost to the very end, Zac Effron's character is saying almost exactly the same things almost any one of us would be saying if we found ourselves in his position. He is the voice of reason and common sense, the one who sees just how absurd the Baywatch team is acting in their wanna-be Mission Impossible/CSI behavior... but then in other scenes he's got the brain power of a sponge and is actively supporting the shenanigans...
On one level I suppose a certain level of this is expected. I mean they have in-character gags about how certain characters only move in slow motion and are always just a little... not too much... wet. The entire cast appears to be Genre-Savvy.... which makes for an unusual watching experience. You aren't REALLY watching a movie based on Baywatch, you're watching... a movie about a movie based on baywatch? I think The Big Hit did the whole incepted movie-making better, but I suppose in that they were helped by being an original property.
For the record, Hasselhoff and Pamela Anderson do make Cameos, in a technical/classical definition of cameo appearance (I believe. I've never gone to film school...). The only way I suppose they could be more technical cameos is if they appeared in small bits of jewelry...
Also: This film earns... or owns... its R rating. Maybe a bit of an odd choice for a film based on a TV show, but go for it, I guess. It is raunchy and dirty enough for two other adult films, including an extended on-screen penis.
As I work my way through my massive stack of dvds, I finally caught Extraction. You might recall that its been flogged everywhere DVDs are sold... I don't know about its exposure in trailers/youtube etc, but the damn video was sold in every walmart and truck stop across the country (I'd know...). Its got Bruce Willis in it, according to the box cover. I think they paid him for maybe half a movie... probably less than that in both screen time AND what he does on screen... which MOSTLY consists of standing (or sitting) there and being Bruce Willis.
I figured out very quickly that this movie exists to see if Kellan Lutz is Action Movie Star material... with a sideline in giving Gina Carano a little more practice at actressin'. As a movie its a dismal failure... directed by some hipster douche who clearly knows people with movie studio money but not much else. Its told a lot in exposition and the McGuffins are stupid.
As for Kellan...
Well, he has the physicality for the role. But looking at him... I can't help thinking about rumors of casting couches and trading favors for shots at the big time. He's still a better actor than Carano, and perhaps because it's his shot at the big time he even seems to do a better job with the ass kicking parts, though the editor is clearly a fan of 'more cuts is always the answer'... which gets old. And, of course, there is that traditional Hollywood thing were people are mostly indestructible until you find their off-switch and knock them out harmlessly until the next scene.
Quote from: Spike;965408What? I like kung fu movies, but damn... this thread can get pretty one note about them if I don't spice it up now and again. Some of you guys seriously need to broaden your horizons!
I try to limit the movie talk to stuff relevant to gaming and that is mostly genre films. Although an RPG based on Godardian gangster films could be fun.
Quote from: Voros;965756I try to limit the movie talk to stuff relevant to gaming and that is mostly genre films. Although an RPG based on Godardian gangster films could be fun.
If Spike finds it irritating, I will just watch more kung fu movies.
Quote from: Voros;965756I try to limit the movie talk to stuff relevant to gaming and that is mostly genre films.
Same here. I watched the Anvil! The Story of Anvil documentary the other night, but not really gaming related. I'll happily talk about a gangster movie or kung fu flick here though.
Quote from: Spike;965456Also: This film earns... or owns... its R rating. Maybe a bit of an odd choice for a film based on a TV show, but go for it, I guess. It is raunchy and dirty enough for two other adult films, including an extended on-screen penis.
The penis is on screen an extended time or its extended while its on screen?
Quote from: Nexus;965874The penis is on screen an extended time or its extended while its on screen?
And is it Dwayne's Johnson?
Like 99.99% of these horrible nostalgia remakes, Baywatch looks to be also going for the "parody" gag. Are all these damn things made by one company? It seems like it! They all seem to have the same mentally stunted theme of mocking the show they are remaking and I'm well beyond sick of it even for shows I didnt like. The other ones I despise are the ones that drop the shows characters into modern non-TV show settings AND mock them at the same time.
end rant. Least till the next one.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;965927And is it Dwayne's Johnson?
Heh. If the answer is yes, I can guarantee three more tickets due to some serious crushes in my group.
It is an extended appearance by the penis of a dead body, with Zac Effron exploring the taint of said body for needle marks, while The Rock films it for Youtube as a prank. Its onscreen for a good two or three minutes, but is not extended as it is dead, nor is it The Rocks... though he and Zac Effron do funny voices as their respective balls talking to eachother, which was surprisingly funny.
Quote from: Spike;966666It is an extended appearance by the penis of a dead body, with Zac Effron exploring the taint of said body for needle marks, while The Rock films it for Youtube as a prank. Its onscreen for a good two or three minutes, but is not extended as it is dead, nor is it The Rocks... though he and Zac Effron do funny voices as their respective balls talking to eachother, which was surprisingly funny.
Ah, I'm going to have to disappoint some friends then, alas.
Thanks
Quote from: Nexus;966690Ah, I'm going to have to disappoint some friends then, alas.
Thanks
well, as a consolation prize, you can tell them that The Rock does in fact refer to his balls as being old and wise.
Sat through an uncensored version of Horror Planet, AKA: Inseminoid. This is a pretty weird UK SF show. For some reason I assumed it was an Italian movie? Lots of little things in the background going on. Sloooooooow paced though till all hell breaks lose. And something never noticed before. But this is a joint Shaw Brothers movie? Apparently they funded the cave location to film at. Chislehurst Caves in Kent. And a brief exterior shot done at Gozo in Malta.
Basic story is a research group on an alien planet studying ruins of a dead civilizarion. One member flips out, another gets artificially impregnated with alien stuff and then she flips out and people start getting offed messily. Not a show for the kids.
I used the basic premise of the xenoarcheological site as a Star Frontiers adventure.
Another horror SF movie adapted to Star Frontiers was Titan Find, AKA: Creature. Really neet premise of the creature remote animating crew to act as lures. Making for a very tricky foe. Some rather gruesome effects though so not for the kiddies.
Valhalla Rising (2009) - Thinking about Taboo season 2 reminded me of this Refn (Drive, Bronson) film with Mads (Hannibal) playing a mute Scandinavian slave called One Eye. Imagine Conan the Barbarian as reimagined by Werner Herzog and you have some idea of what the expect from this very violent, stark yet psychedelic art film.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1073[/ATTACH]
The Culpepper Cattle Co. (1972) A downright minimalist 'revisionist' 70s Western about a naive kid who signs up for a cattle drive but soon finds the rough and ready 'reality' of the trail has little to do with romance or heroism. This film is full of familiar 70s character actors but no big stars and has more than its fair share of mostly amoral violence. It seems to be almost heading to a more conventional ending until one final darkly ironic twist that still manages to be bittersweet.
"There's more to life than just cattle, Mr. Culpepper."
The first film produced by Jerry Bruckheimer of all people.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1074[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Voros;969729The Culpepper Cattle Co. (1972) A downright minimalist 'revisionist' 70s Western about a naive kid who signs up for a cattle drive but soon finds the rough and ready 'reality' of the trail has little to do with romance or heroism. This film is full of familiar 70s character actors but no big stars and has more than its fair share of mostly amoral violence. It seems to be almost heading to a more conventional ending until one final darkly ironic twist that still manages to be bittersweet.
"There's more to life than just cattle, Mr. Culpepper."
The first film produced by Jerry Bruckheimer of all people.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1074[/ATTACH]
I'll remember this one, looks like my kind of Western.
Quote from: Rincewind1;969779I'll remember this one, looks like my kind of Western.
I'm not into westerns but I have to admit I'm curious about this film now.
Did a review of Holy Virgin Vs. the Walking Dead: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-jrfp5-6c013b
The title and what I'd heard about it might have set my expectations too high. There were parts that I liked (the fight choreography and the volume of martial arts in the movie for example), but I got a bit bored. I should say though the subs were lagging in the one I watched and that definitely could have impacted my assessment (it got quite disorienting when the delay was long enough). Basic premise is Donnie Yen plays a professor or school teacher whose female students are murdered by the moon monster (a green eyed guy with acid washed jeans who is basically can't be killed). Turns out there is a big cult from Cambodia behind it all. The Moon Monster directs his attention to Donnie Yen's ex-wife (as does one of the detectives on the case) and they have to go to South East Asia to destroy the thing, where they join up with Princess White of The High Wind Tribe (she has a sword that can kill the Moon Monster when it is at its weakest).
Quote from: Voros;969710Valhalla Rising (2009) - Thinking about Taboo season 2 reminded me of this Refn (Drive, Bronson) film with Mads (Hannibal) playing a mute Scandinavian slave called One Eye. Imagine Conan the Barbarian as reimagined by Werner Herzog and you have some idea of what the expect from this very violent, stark yet psychedelic art film.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1073[/ATTACH]
This one is always popping up on my feed but I have ignored it for some reason. That sounds kind of interesting. Is it so artsy it is unwatchable or is it just artsy enough that it still works as a movie?
Quote from: Nexus;969794I'm not into westerns but I have to admit I'm curious about this film now.
It a gem. The 70s has a lot of great, gritty character study Westerns. They are what made me fall in love with the genre and come to love the classics from the 40s and 50s.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969829This one is always popping up on my feed but I have ignored it for some reason. That sounds kind of interesting. Is it so artsy it is unwatchable or is it just artsy enough that it still works as a movie?
Works for me. YMMV. It has a story just no one talks much and zero is explained. If you've seen and liked AGUIRRE WRATH OF GOD you should be okay. That film is an obvious influence.
And if you haven't seen AGUIRRE do yourself a favour and check it out. It is German arthouse slow but has amazing visuals and atmosphere. An influence on APOCAPLYPSE NOW, it is about a group of Conquistadors travelling through the Amazon seeking El Dorado. Klause Kinski's greatest performance. Even if you don't like it it will be worth seeing as it is a seminal movie experience. Best to catch in a proper theatre of course.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1081[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Voros;969710Valhalla Rising (2009) - Thinking about Taboo season 2 reminded me of this Refn (Drive, Bronson) film with Mads (Hannibal) playing a mute Scandinavian slave called One Eye. Imagine Conan the Barbarian as reimagined by Werner Herzog and you have some idea of what the expect from this very violent, stark yet psychedelic art film.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1073[/ATTACH]
I remember my buddy and I watching this when it first came out, and after it ended looking at each other with mutual looks of "What in the fuck did we just watch".
Quote from: Voros;970026It a gem. The 70s has a lot of great, gritty character study Westerns. They are what made me fall in love with the genre and come to love the classics from the 40s and 50s.
Now I'm missing this video store on UK campus. They either had or could find just about anything and the owners knew enough to make some great recommendations once they knew what you liked.
Quote from: Voros;970027Works for me. YMMV. It has a story just no one talks much and zero is explained. If you've seen and liked AGUIRRE WRATH OF GOD you should be okay. That film is an obvious influence.
And if you haven't seen AGUIRRE do yourself a favour and check it out. It is German arthouse slow but has amazing visuals and atmosphere. An influence on APOCAPLYPSE NOW, it is about a group of Conquistadors travelling through the Amazon seeking El Dorado. Klause Kinski's greatest performance. Even if you don't like it it will be worth seeing as it is a seminal movie experience. Best to catch in a proper theatre of course.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1077[/ATTACH]
Aguirre is indeed excellent. Kinski pulls off the driven fanatical egomaniac perfectly.
Quote from: Voros;970026It a gem. The 70s has a lot of great, gritty character study Westerns. They are what made me fall in love with the genre and come to love the classics from the 40s and 50s.
It was the age just after the end of Spaghetti Western era, after all, which were mostly revisionist Westerns in nature by default (with exception perhaps of more light-hearted ones like Sartana and Sabata, or the more cliched ones like The Grand Duel). El Topo, High Plains Drifter, Hired Hand, Pat Garret & Billy The Kid, Outlaw Josey Wales - all from the 70s.
I just tried to watch the Brother's Grimsby.
I made it, arguably, half way through before giving up entirely. I say arguably, because a bit before that I started skipping through scenes just to end the torment before realizing I was never going to enjoy any part of the movie after Mark Strong's over the top spy/commando run through some african hellhole that was the opening bit. It just got worse and worse as it went along.
My first thought on its horrific failure was that Sasha Baron Cohen is undeniably a gifted entertainer, often compelling even in minor parts. But, contrary to his own belief he isn't actually funny. A good part of being funny is timing, both in the delivery of a joke, and knowing when its gone on long enough. He routinely runs his schtick into the ground, then hires an excavator to keep digging so he can keep burying it. He's the guy who finds a gravestone for a dead horse and goes looking for a stick. The end result is fairly universally unpleasant.
My second thought was that it is a deeply insulting film. This is a bit more delicate a critique, but the essence of it goes like this: There is undeniably a lot of humor to be mined from class divides, and a lot of humor to be had by poking fun the way lower and working class communities tend to fill their limited time. This comes across more like savage mockery from an outsider. Poor people can poke fun at themselves, and often do... and that humor can be expropriated by others and used without too much difficulty without being insulting. This is a different beast, this is looking down at the behaviors of the poor from a lofty pearch then heaping scorn upon it, larded up by the mocker donning the guise of the mocked.
Quote from: Rincewind1;970148It was the age just after the end of Spaghetti Western era, after all, which were mostly revisionist Westerns in nature by default (with exception perhaps of more light-hearted ones like Sartana and Sabata, or the more cliched ones like The Grand Duel). El Topo, High Plains Drifter, Hired Hand, Pat Garret & Billy The Kid, Outlaw Josey Wales - all from the 70s.
I just listed Hired Hand in my top 5 westerns. Love it and Pat Garrett. Missouri Breaks is a great Western/horror film I think. One of the most memorable death scenes in a movie.
This weekend I pulled a double feature of The Mummy and Wonder Woman. I may or may not (I've been short on time lately...) do long form review/analysis of one or the other, but I'll drop a few comments here.
Wonder Woman: I agree with a reviewer who said it's equal to a Mid-tier MCU film, its only getting such praise because DC has been putting out so much shit that it looks better by comparison. I enjoyed it, aside from a few clunkers of lines and, more importantly the use of General Ludendorff as the(a) villain who gets the usual movie treatment for villains. I guess there was no Beer-hall putsch in the DC universe then? No Mein Kampf? Ludendorff? Really? Sweet fucking jeebus, that's almost as bad as if the British villain was a young Neville Chamberlain. Seriously, I know many people don't know their history, but there is only so far you can take it without insulting those of us who DO. Don't get me wrong, from a casual reading of Ludendorff's political philosophy the over the top warmongering of the movie version isn't entirely out of place, but damn.
Beyond that I do have some commentary about the importance of good writing (as in Wonder Woman is hindered by sub-par writing, though saved by just about everything else...) but that will take more time than I have here.
The Mummy:
I almost didn't see this due to the bad reviews it was getting, though I trust Tom Cruise to deliver, and he does in spades. The only real thing I think driving much of the bad press is that the trailers and ads for this are wildly off-track. Clearly this movie is meant to be closer to the 1997 Brendan Fraser/Rachel Wiesz flick than the sort of films advertised (think The Ring, maybe...), though still quite a bit darker than the 1997 (the Book of the Living makes a cameo, by the way).
Probably the weirdest comment I saw was on Pajiba, reminding me of why I no longer read them, saying that Tom Cruise's ego led him to being cast as a culturally appropriating Gary Stu, or something like that, and though a multi-million dollar celebrity actor hardly needs me defending his honor, the comment was so bizzare I feel I HAVE to address it, so you guys get to hear it from me (Yay!?)
two parts: Culturally appropriating? From whom? He's playing an American Army soldier in Iraq. Is there something about this role that cries out for a hero from ISIS (yes, the Mummy is from Iraq, near Mosul. Roll with it)? Is there no tradition of american soldiers in iraq? If anyone is culturally appropriating its the british female lead, seeing as she's ordering the US army around in Iraq, which makes no damn sense on any number of levels, but then its the sort of stupid action/horror/comedy where you can ignore that because England is so much more atmospheric for horror-comedy than say, Iowa.
Gary Stu? He's a dishonorable thief who pretty much gets his ass kicked the entire film, whether because he's horribly outnumbered by psuedo-ISIS in the opening gunfight, or because Zombie-mummies in vast numbers. Not only that he's pretty much is the mental bitch of the Mummy the entire film, not even in charge of his own mind. He doesn't get the girl, he doesn't win because of any sort of Special Wonderfulness (aside from, arguably, Twu Luv)... tell me when you hear anything about him that say's 'Gary Stu'... Go on, I'll wait.
So the first half of that complaint is basically ideological bitching from the perpetually aggrieved and second I can only guess is some sort of personal animosity from the writer about Cruise, which probably informs the first half of the complaint as well.
Is The Mummy a great flick? No, but it is reasonably enjoyable. Its Schlock Horror with a side of Snarky Humor.
Perhaps summing the film up best is the scene where Tom Cruise's character has just come back from the dead, utterly uninjured after a horrific plane crash(having woken up in the morgue) and he just goes to a bar and starts drinking, never questioning what's going on, while the ghost of his best friend/side kick keeps trying to get his attention so they can talk in the ladies room.
Picked up the Italian 1971 western Black Killer with Klaus Kinski as the lead. Interesting role he plays and I think this is the first western I have seen with him in the lead role even. Apparently theres a few of these so I'll have to look those up too. As usual for the Italian movies it has a good musical score and plays out fairly well overall at a leisurely meandering pace punctuated with some well done as usual shootouts and action.
This would be a good example of a non-gunslinger/lawman/outlaw role in a western RPG. Yet the character is pretty competent with his trademark gadget and Kinski has that unusual likable yet creepy charisma going.
I've seen a few Westerns with Kinski as the lead, And God Said to Cain by Margheritti is a good one.
Not to butt into the Western discussion (seriously, its pretty interesting) but I was curious if anyone's seen Wonder Woman and their thoughts on it? I seriously waffling on seeing that on in the theater like I was Batman vs Superman.
Quote from: Nexus;971496Not to butt into the Western discussion (seriously, its pretty interesting) but I was curious if anyone's seen Wonder Woman and their thoughts on it? I seriously waffling on seeing that on in the theater like I was Batman vs Superman.
It's the best movie DC has put out since Batman Begins. Take that for what it's worth.
If the other DC movies had even been within spitting distance of being remotely decent, WW would be just good. As it stands, it raises the bar for what to expect, but I don't think the other movies going forward are going to meet.
I also liked WW. It manages to be lighthearted, pull off a romance and treat WWI seriously. The boss fight at the end is weak and they don't have a compelling villain as is so common in these films, DC or Marvel, but there's lots to like. Its funny many were doubting Galdot before the film came out but she is uttlerly magnetic and charming on screen. The film reminded me of the original Superman film and I've subsquently read the director Jenkins mention Donner's film as an influence.
I see Pundit's next release is called The Child Eaters which reminded me of this excellent horror film from last year: WITCH. A very assured debut by Eggers, like many of the best horror films this intensely imagistic film has the air of a waking nightmare.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1104[/ATTACH]
Thanks for the WW information guys.
Quote from: Voros;971941I see Pundit's next release is called The Child Eaters which reminded me of this excellent horror film from last year: WITCH. A very assured debut by Eggers, like many of the best horror films this intensely imagistic film has the air of a waking nightmare.
The Witch is excellent. Moody atmospheric and deeply creepy. There's very little terror or straight up thrills but the sense of impending doom and the claustrophobic feeling the setting exudes is great.
Quote from: Nexus;971496Not to butt into the Western discussion (seriously, its pretty interesting) but I was curious if anyone's seen Wonder Woman and their thoughts on it? I seriously waffling on seeing that on in the theater like I was Batman vs Superman.
Somehow this question makes me very sad... maybe because just three posts above it was a very long post that started with Wonder Woman commentary by someone I know and, occasionally, respect.
You wound me, man... I'm bleeding over here
I just got done watching Everly, a Selma Hayek vehicle. You remember her right? Apparently she still has enough pull to get movies made around her. Who knew?
How to best describe it?
Take the big climactic battle at the end of The Professional. Swap out Leon with an (sadly) over the hill yakuza hooker (with a heart of gold?), replace the corrupt cops with... corrupt yakuza... and remove most, if not all, of the tension, artistry and emotion.
Then stretch it out for ninety god-damn minutes of amazingly tedious 'action' and gratuitous fake blood.
A former friend of mine told me it was awesome. I have since buried his dismembered corpse at a crossroads since he was clearly in league with the devil. No one but a damned soul could possibly enjoy this movie, much less think it was awesome, and I love Mean Guns.
Don't get me wrong, it has some charms, but how could I watch a reasonably punchy ninety minute film about a hooker with guns taking on what appears to be All The Yakuza in her spacious hooker-apartment and yet spend the entire film watching the clock and wishing I was doing just about anything else? I mean... I barely have the energy to mock it relentlessly, which is why this comment will be one of my shortest on the topic of shit I've watched.
Oh, I also watched The Statham flick Wild Card. I'd seen the final fight on youtube before (The Statham killing a bunch of dudes in an alleyway with flatware), but didn't realize it was this film. I'm still ghey for The Statham, but this goes into the 'Expendables' pile of shit I won't bother with despite my man-crush. Lots of cameo appearances for the letterhead... in fact that's pretty much the entire cast of the film except for The Statham himself. It should read: Starring The Statham and Cameos. I did like the... sidekick? the sole supporting cast member that actually, you know... supported the cast? Annoyingly squeaky voice, but oddly likeable character/actor combo.
After my last post I went and watched A Knight and Day, which I had gotten from the Walmart dollar bin a couple of weeks back.
Remember that flick? Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz? Died like a misbegotten abomination before the lord and disappeared? I'd forgotten about how bad it was reputed to be.
But my general Tom Cruise Rule (which only starts AFTER Days of Thunder... though I should admit I've never watched DoT... I've already seen Top Gun, yo) applies. The man may not make great movies, but he does make enjoyable movies.
Huh, look at that. Knight and Day (or however they stylize it) was actually a pretty decent little action flick, despite the general vacuum of talent that Cameron Diaz is (lovely woman, I will not deny. My testosterone levels doubled when she walked out of the rain in The Mask... but seriously, in 15 years of acting between that moment and Knight and Day she had barely progressed from The Mask in acting ability... meaning, pretty much, that her delivery of lines isn't DOA. And that's about it.). I can speculate about its monumental failure in the public.
A: Its a cute little film on a mega-blockbuster budget. Shut down Boston I-93 for three weeks? Film a run and gun battle on the rooftops of Salzburg with two dozen extras? Film a car chase in the Running of the Bulls in Seville? That's the sort of thing Event films do. This is Ronin on Matrix Sequel money.
B: its a subversion of the action/spy genre. This could get a bit wordy and if this film were better known it would probably be moderately controversial, but I'll do my best to keep this managable and intelligable.
We usually say, oh, Deadpool is a subversion of the Superhero films when in reality it pretty much hits every single super-hero flick beat, it just does it in a foul mouthed and audience aware sort of way. (I totally stole this from a Youtuber, he contrasts it with One Punch Man, actually. Pretty good analysis).
Knight and Day is, on the surface, a fairly typical action/spy film, this one involving an ordinary citizen (diaz) being pulled into this spy world against her will. Only everything is cranked to eleventy and there is little to no effort to make anything 'make sense'. It rises to teh level of parody, or self-satire, what with Tom Cruise's character hanging on the hood of a car during a car-chase/gun battle while making small talk with Diaz (in hte car) about her bridesmaid dress as she steers the car from the back-seat and around the dead guy in the driver's seat. The movie is ludicrous at times... pretty much all of the time, such as Diaz's ex-boyfriend fireman, who is so low-key in his reactions to events that at one point, after he's been shot by Cruise (who tells Diaz (accurately it turns out) that its the best thing that could happen to him) he's being interviewed as a hero-fireman and he mentions that 'it doesn't even hurt much'.
The key to understanding the subversion, I think, lies in the recurring trope of Cruise drugging Diaz, leading to a choppy montage where she inevitably wakes up days later (or 18 hours later, according to the film) in some deeply improbable, yet exotic location. A private island getaway/safe house in the Azores, a hotel in Salzburg, the Orient Express (and one of the few failures of the film, I think, is that it WAS Salzburg and not a hotel on the Cote D'Azure... Cruise provides early on a bucket list of Someday events that actually includes the majority of the set pieces, I believe)... and then at the end she does the same to him.
By the way, a similar technique was used to great effect in Groot 2.. I mean Guardians of the Galaxy, when exiting action would be happening... off screen, as if to acknowledge that we've all seen this before and, in fact, would probably be bored by it rather than entertained.
THe interesting facet is that the subversion seems to occur organically through the film making process, rather than being a deliberate choice from the beginning. Clearly, based on the 'viral videos' the pr people cooked up, they were well aware of what they had done/were doing. A lot of the action comes down to Tom Cruise (and Cameron Diaz) doing his own stunts and pushing the envelope, pushing the action scenes to greater levels of absurdity. There is a bit on the DVD about the airplane fight (great example of the overuse of the spy-tropes... every single passenger and crew member, including the pilots, is an assassin there to kill Tom Cruise) about how they deliberately used every single element of a plane they could think of in the fight, from seatbelts to those obnoxious little windows, and even the cabin curtains. Once you realize its deliberate the absurdity takes on a greater meaning, a purpose. Its hard to call it bad film making.
But because it IS a subversion, through self-parody, I think it turned a lot of people off who took it as a 'serious' action film (say Mission Impossible). Or they tried to view it as a comedy, because it clearly is funny, and had to wonder at why all the jokes are spy-action film tropes taken to the logical extreme.
Weirdly, despite not particularly liking Diaz, I can't really imagine another actress working at the time that would have served in the same role. Gabrielle Anwar maybe? Lucy Liu? Leaving aside that I think a... flat... actress actually serves the film better for reasons that would drag this post on for far to many more words... I can't think of many actressess, good or bad, that could handle the pretty, actiony, and (god...) funny that this film needs.
Watched Shaolin Kung Fu Mystagogue the other day. I liked it, but felt like there was not enough atmospheric music (there is even a weird moment in the movie when a cool song strikes up suddenly, then just disappears). The version I saw was on Amazon and only 1 hour 13 minutes, so it might be it was edited down and some of these elements were taken out as a result. Image quality was a bit on the grainy side as well (but no worse than a lot of other movies from this time). Lots of cool weapons and nice fight sequences. Cool brother and sister duo for the heroes. Interesting villain with spinning blades called "Bloody Birds". Lots and lots of traps. In fact this movie has tons of stuff that GMs can pull into their games.
Did a discussion on it last night: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-phje8-6c8271
That reminds me... I see a lot of reviewers talk about the music of films alla time. Me? I'm a damn musical guy, like I really should be doing it professionally (based on my background and life history) but somehow I got derailed and never followed that thread...
But oddly I never really pay attention to it in movies. Soundtrack music? Sure.
I mean: I notice sometimes when its really heavy handed, or in scenes where its done sloppy (like Brendan's example of just cutting out mid scene)... but somehow it never occurs to me to comment on it when I discuss a movie I've watched.
I feel almost like an inferior viewer for this lapse, and I feel even worse when I think about my musical background. I should be MORE sensitive than most, not less!
Bah. Instead of watching Dark Matter or one of the twenty or so movies stacked up that I haven't seen yet, I rewatched John Wick Chapter 2.
I have no regrets. *
*White lie. It didn't hold up as well to the second viewing as the first film did. A bunch of mild quibbles with actors and some of the edits that got grating when I wasn't distracted waiting for the next thing (having seen the Next Thing in the previous viewing, you know.). Also, now that I've seen Ruby Rose in a few things I've got a feel for her acting chops. She doesn't have enough for the level of exposure she's getting, and I'm pretty sure she's not going to improve any time soon. JW2 was my first exposure to her, and as an unknown she was fine... its the realization its not the character but the actress I'm seeing on screen that damages her on the repeat showing.
Quote from: Spike;972492That reminds me... I see a lot of reviewers talk about the music of films alla time. Me? I'm a damn musical guy, like I really should be doing it professionally (based on my background and life history) but somehow I got derailed and never followed that thread...
But oddly I never really pay attention to it in movies. Soundtrack music? Sure.
I mean: I notice sometimes when its really heavy handed, or in scenes where its done sloppy (like Brendan's example of just cutting out mid scene)... but somehow it never occurs to me to comment on it when I discuss a movie I've watched.
I feel almost like an inferior viewer for this lapse, and I feel even worse when I think about my musical background. I should be MORE sensitive than most, not less!
Bah. Instead of watching Dark Matter or one of the twenty or so movies stacked up that I haven't seen yet, I rewatched John Wick Chapter 2.
I have no regrets. *
*White lie. It didn't hold up as well to the second viewing as the first film did. A bunch of mild quibbles with actors and some of the edits that got grating when I wasn't distracted waiting for the next thing (having seen the Next Thing in the previous viewing, you know.). Also, now that I've seen Ruby Rose in a few things I've got a feel for her acting chops. She doesn't have enough for the level of exposure she's getting, and I'm pretty sure she's not going to improve any time soon. JW2 was my first exposure to her, and as an unknown she was fine... its the realization its not the character but the actress I'm seeing on screen that damages her on the repeat showing.
I used to be a musician so I think that feeds my interest in music in movies. Honestly for me music is one of the most important parts of a film. When I was younger I was more familiar with the film composers than directors of movies I liked (and I would watch a movie just because some composer I liked scored it). It doesn't need to be a full soundtrack or anything. Sometimes just a well placed clip of music at the right moment can really amp up my interest in the drama. Still even an absence of music in this movie wasn't that big a hurdle to me enjoying it (I just think it would have been ten times better with good music).
I should clarify there was incidental music in the movie meant to give it atmosphere, but it just didn't land with me and there were not enough memorable musical moments.
I love film soundtracks, they play a very big role in the power of a horror film like the previously mentioned Witch. A particularly great recent soundtrack I picked up is the one for Under the Skin, creepy and hypnotic. Johnny Greenwood's soundtrack to There Will Be Blood is also terrific. Even just okay films like the recent Man from U.N.K.L.E. has a fun modernist retro soundtrack.
On the other end though are filmmakers who purposefully avoid soundtracks, usually for aesthetic or even spiritual reasons. Tarkovsky moved away from soundtracks but was interested in exploring the use of electronics for soundtracks as he considered it more plastic. Bunuel and later Bresson are two directors who worked without soundtracks, what I notice is that their sound design can be quite elaborate too in compensation.
I'm not a fan of the modern style of drenching the whole film in pop and rock songs. It comes from Scorsese but even he overuses it and guys like Wes Anderson can almost ruin their films by exploiting it. Refn's Drive is probably the best modern use of pop songs on the soundtrack I think. The underrated Wonderland film about John Holmes also uses period rock well.
My top 5 soundtracks, off the top of my head in no order:
1. Taxi Driver
2. In the Mood for Love
3. John Carpenter's The Thing
4. Onibaba
5. McCabe and Ms. Miller
heh. I have hung onto a few movies simply because there was some music in it that I liked.
Aaaaand for something gaming related...
Broke out my aging copy of Scourge of Worlds. This is WOTCs so far only try at an interactive movie. Essentially a pick-your-path movie.
This one is set in Greyhawk and follows some of the example characters from the 3e books. Regdar, Lidda and Mayalee.(Mialee?) Human Fighter, Halfling Thief and Elven Wizard. Basically looking for a former friend, a cleric whos looking for the titular Scourge of Worlds. Depending on the choices you make you may end up helping him or not.
Overall it wasnt bad for a CG movie. There were some limitations and the haflings neck bent at some freaky angles. Combat movements are a bit too stiff and slow. But overall not a bad effort. And the choices you made during the movie will help determine what ending you get. Theres 3 or so. Apparently there is an improved version of the movie. but never seen it.
I did a review of Martial Club. A solid Lau Kar Leung movie about rival martial arts schools. Gordon Liu plays Wong Fei-Hung. Kara Hui is his close friend's sister and together they face Master Lu's school who has recently tricked an honorable hero (played by Johnny Wang) to work with them. It is pretty light in tone but has some moments where it veers into more serious territory (it pulls back at the last moment in each case but does a good job of upping the stakes and making you feel like this light martial arts movie could turn grim and characters might die). Fight scenes are pretty awesome and it starts with some cool lion dancing: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-3kpi9-6c925e
Quote from: Omega;972764heh. I have hung onto a few movies simply because there was some music in it that I liked.
Heh, I can see a familiar feeling out there :P
I can't say that the Fight Club was bad (because it's awesome) but if it was any worse I'd say that almost everybody should watch it at least because of it's soundtrack :D
Well, "Selma" Hayek may be able to get movies made but she still can't get any one to spell her name correctly...so I'd say she's on the B-list at best.
Quote from: Omega;971446Picked up the Italian 1971 western Black Killer with Klaus Kinski as the lead. Interesting role he plays and I think this is the first western I have seen with him in the lead role even. Apparently theres a few of these so I'll have to look those up too.
"The Great Silence"/"Il grande silenzio" from 1968 is another great Kinsky western. Apparently, it was never released in the USA until 2001.
Quote from: Dumarest;973179Well, "Selma" Hayek may be able to get movies made but she still can't get any one to spell her name correctly...so I'd say she's on the B-list at best.
I can't spell MY name right half the time... what's your point?
Quote from: Spike;973448I can't spell MY name right half the time... what's your point?
No, no, it's
SPIKE who has a point. Dumarest just carries a knife down his boot.
Quote from: Pyromancer;973311"The Great Silence"/"Il grande silenzio" from 1968 is another great Kinsky western. Apparently, it was never released in the USA until 2001.
At first I read that as "another great
KINKY Western."
Too bad I was wrong!
Quote from: Pyromancer;973311"The Great Silence"/"Il grande silenzio" from 1968 is another great Kinsky western. Apparently, it was never released in the USA until 2001.
Corbucci made several great SW. He is probably the greatest next to Leone of course. The Big Silence is terrific but a bit rough technically compared to his other films, probably due to shooting conditions. Companeros is totally different in tone but also great.
Quote from: Voros;974265Corbucci made several great SW. He is probably the greatest next to Leone of course. The Big Silence is terrific but a bit rough technically compared to his other films, probably due to shooting conditions. Companeros is totally different in tone but also great.
Indeed. Mercenary is also excellent - worse story than Companeros (which is a great political film, though of course the message is pretty obvious, what with one of the main characters totally not looking like Che Guevara), but better action I'd say. Although Mercenary has one excellent, absolutely genius scene - the one in which the villain, after his henchman is shot in cold blood, falls down, holds the lifeless body, and is crying genuine tears over it, swearing vengeance. I was genuinely shocked to watch it, as usually in Westerns, especially Spaghetti ones, the henchmen might've been as well wearing Goon T-shirts with a painted target on it, and it feels just so weird to see such a human reaction from a clearly dark and disturbed character.
Speaking of unjustly obscure Westerns, for every fan La Resa Dei Conti (The Big Gundown/Colorado) is a must-see. Best performance of Van Cleef, in my opinion, save perhaps Angel Eyes.
I've yet to track The Mercenary down, or it's on my huge to watch pile. The Big Gundown is terrific, I'd say that there are more worthwhile SWs than almost any other genre in Italian film. Lots of gems.
Quote from: Voros;974482I've yet to track The Mercenary down, or it's on my huge to watch pile. The Big Gundown is terrific, I'd say that there are more worthwhile SWs than almost any other genre in Italian film. Lots of gems.
I am myself trying to get a good copy of And God Said To Cain, as I heard it is a quite spectacular experiment in gothic horror.
I saw Journey to the West 2: The Demons Strike Back last night. Will probably write a full review later but was disappointed with it. The first one was great and extremely memorable. Had a lot of laughs, action and heart. This one, and granted I may just have been groggy so I am hoping a second viewing tonight might change some of this, was a confusing mess of CG. It continues a bit after the first one, with Tang Sanzang traveling west with Monkey, Pigsy and Sandy to obtain sutras. They face classic foes from Journey to the West (The Spider Demons and Red Boy). They also encounter the Bone Demon (with a bit of a twist) but it just didn't work for me. I think part of it was the leads didn't carry the movie as well, it also wasn't directed by Chow, and maybe Hark just wasn't the right choice given the tone of the original. Also, you can feel the absence of Shu Qi (Yao Chen was pretty good though). The times I did enjoy tended to be when the movie was reminding the audience about parts of the first one. It had its moments. But honestly I think I enjoyed Monkey King 2 more than this (which is not what I expected at all). My expectations might have been high though because the original was so good.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;975174Also, you can feel the absence of Shu Qi (Yao Chen was pretty good though).
I always feel the absence of Shu Qi in every movie she isn't in. She's dreamy and a damn fine actor.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1140[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Voros;975338I always feel the absence of Shu Qi in every movie she isn't in. She's dreamy and a damn fine actor.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1140[/ATTACH]
I think she is a great lead, but I have to admit that The Assassin bored me to tears. I just could not get into the Assassin.
I watched Spiderman:Homecoming last night. I didn't see the Andrew Garfield series of films, mostly due to Spider-Fatigue, so I can't compare them. Quick thoughts:
A decent film, but I'm putting it near the bottom of the pile for MCU films, with Thor: The Dark World, and just under Iron Man 2.
My God! Its NOT an origin film!!! Mirable!
Zendaya impressed me as an actress if only because I didn't recognize her, despite knowing she was in the film.
Trailers are deliberately misleading... now, trailer making is something Hollywood has struggled to get right, but I'm not liking this idea.
Spider-suit: Not liking. Yeah, I know web shooters are tech, but its never been about the high-tech in the suit, but the man in the suit (Ironically a theme introduced very late in the film. Like I said, Its bottom of the barrel for MCU films. Entertaining, but not really a great, or even good film.). In fact, the Man in the Suit theme is handled weakly all around from its late introduction, to the denouement, it just fails to deliver. Ironic again, since Spidey's big opponent is... a Man in a Suit.
I just came back from seeing Wonder Woman and I give it two thumbs up! Outstanding movie, and I don't like a lot of superhero movies.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;975435I think she is a great lead, but I have to admit that The Assassin bored me to tears. I just could not get into the Assassin.
Yet to see it. The director is a great arthouse director but well known for his slow, druggy pace. Flowers of Shanghai is my favourite of his. Curious to see how his style transfers to wuxia, probably not too well from the sounds of it.
Eh, I forgot to mention that Spiderman: Homecoming had one of the lamest 'Twists' I've ever seen for a film. No... not really the lamest twist ever, but certainly one that got an insane amount of effort put into setting it up. I'ma try to Spoiler-tag this, but if it doesn't work, y'all been warned.
Spoiler
If you recall the Trailers, Peter Parker's jonesing for some rando chick named Liz (not a big Spidey fan myself, and even I know that your choices are limited to 'doomed to die tragically' Gwen Stacy, or inexplicably hot girl next door Mary Jane that he will one day marry.). Liz is, for the record, a Senior (Parker is 15 in the film and presumably a Sophomore). Zendaya is playing the anti-social Michelle, seen in the trailer mocking Parker's fixation on Liz. Parker eventually get Liz to go with him to Homecoming, despite turning into the class fuck-up due to Spidey duties. Liz's dad turns out to be... shocker (no, really, I was actually blindsided by this. I blame drugs), The Bad Guy, Michael Keaton's Vulture, who... duh duh DUM!... knows Pete is Spiderman. Cue big fight, Vulture is Captured, and Liz has to move to Oregon (rather than just.... graduating? I mean: Senior! whatever...) to escape the shame of it all.
TWIST: Michelle, the anti-social activist girl, is also known as... MJ! As in Mary Jane. Only... not.
Ugh. Shoot me now.
Quote from: Voros;975794Yet to see it. The director is a great arthouse director but well known for his slow, druggy pace. Flowers of Shanghai is my favourite of his. Curious to see how his style transfers to wuxia, probably not too well from the sounds of it.
The movie is very well shot, it has lots of beautiful scenes, and I think if you like arthouse style films, it might be entertaining. I can't really handle stuff on that end of the spectrum for too long without losing interest, so it was mainly the boredom factor that lost me. It also felt kind of like a wuxia movie for people who don't necessarily like wuxia if that makes sense (though I suppose if you like both wuxia and arthouse, it would be a good fit). It just didn't bring the stuff I tend to find compelling about the genre. I don't mind artful stuff if it also holds my interest. The pacing here was simply too slow. But also the fight scenes were...confusing at times. I am sure it was done deliberately, but so many of the fight scenes were disrupted with oddly chosen obstructions. I found it hard to follow. Sometimes that can be effective. I've seen wuxia movies where that is used to good effect. This wasn't shaky cam, but it had a similar result for me where i just lost interest in trying to follow some of the fights. Not all mind you. I remember there being a pretty cool roof top exchange (though that one was mainly dialogue if I recall). And Shu Qi is great. I just would rather see her in something more like Reign of Assassins.
Quote from: jeff37923;975616I just came back from seeing Wonder Woman and I give it two thumbs up! Outstanding movie, and I don't like a lot of superhero movies.
Well they actually did wonder women the super hero not wonder women the feminist symbol.
That in and of it self helps A lot. Wonder women is A very interesting character when you actually write WW and shouldn't be hard to write A good WW movie but peaple seem to have had A hard time doing something that simple.
Quote from: Spike;975802Eh, I forgot to mention that Spiderman: Homecoming had one of the lamest 'Twists' I've ever seen for a film. No... not really the lamest twist ever, but certainly one that got an insane amount of effort put into setting it up. I'ma try to Spoiler-tag this, but if it doesn't work, y'all been warned.
Spoiler
If you recall the Trailers, Peter Parker's jonesing for some rando chick named Liz (not a big Spidey fan myself, and even I know that your choices are limited to 'doomed to die tragically' Gwen Stacy, or inexplicably hot girl next door Mary Jane that he will one day marry.). Liz is, for the record, a Senior (Parker is 15 in the film and presumably a Sophomore). Zendaya is playing the anti-social Michelle, seen in the trailer mocking Parker's fixation on Liz. Parker eventually get Liz to go with him to Homecoming, despite turning into the class fuck-up due to Spidey duties. Liz's dad turns out to be... shocker (no, really, I was actually blindsided by this. I blame drugs), The Bad Guy, Michael Keaton's Vulture, who... duh duh DUM!... knows Pete is Spiderman. Cue big fight, Vulture is Captured, and Liz has to move to Oregon (rather than just.... graduating? I mean: Senior! whatever...) to escape the shame of it all.
TWIST: Michelle, the anti-social activist girl, is also known as... MJ! As in Mary Jane. Only... not.
Ugh. Shoot me now.
yeah that twist is super lame.
Quote from: jeff37923;975616I just came back from seeing Wonder Woman and I give it two thumbs up! Outstanding movie, and I don't like a lot of superhero movies.
I can't get past the sword and the Xena costume, but I'll take your word for it. Also, I really do not like Chris Pine. Something about his face and mannerisms comes across to me as annoying and smug. But I seldom see movies in the theater anyway; the last one I remember going to was
Captain America Meets the Winter Soldier. So what made it good?
(Wonder Woman for me will always be Lynda Carter. ;))
Quote from: Dumarest;975856I can't get past the sword and the Xena costume, but I'll take your word for it. Also, I really do not like Chris Pine. Something about his face and mannerisms comes across to me as annoying and smug. But I seldom see movies in the theater anyway; the last one I remember going to was Captain America Meets the Winter Soldier. So what made it good?
(Wonder Woman for me will always be Lynda Carter. ;))
Like what was mentioned above by kosmos 1214, they made a Wonder Woman (the superhero) movie and not Wonder Woman (the feminist symbol) movie. The character was strong and intelligent when needed, vulnerable and naïve when needed, and had a tremendous amount of nuance to her. I do not believe that a man could have directed this movie, but it required a woman who could bring out those nuances in a capable actress like Gal Gadot. In a lot of the superhero movies I have seen, the main character is nothing that can be related to by the audience and they might as well be someone in a mask pretending to be human. Wonder Woman is an amazon princess from a mysterious island protected by a magical barrier, but the way that she acts and reacts to the world around her is believable and can be related to by the viewing audience - that is a rare thing in most superhero movies IMHO and requires the perfect balance of writing, directing, and acting to pull it off.
And actually, Chris Pine is more of a foil to Gal Gadot antics than anything else in the movie. ;)
I think the original comic book WW was feminist in intention and that is in the film but not overplayed. It retains the simple visual appeal and power of an Amazonian goddess.
Gadot and Jenkin do capture the mix of good hearted strength and naivete that Christopher Reeves and Donner did in the first Superman movie. Both also have effective romantic storylines. Jenkins has acknowledged Donner's film as an influence. The only fault I would point out in this film by comparison as it doesn't have a villain as appealing or memorable as Hackman's Lex Luthor.
I can't get over the horrible misuse of the actual historical figure of General Ludendorff being so terribly misused.
I'm sort of in a weird place vis a vis Chris Pine. I genuinely like his work as an actor, but he always seems horribly miscast except in the bad films, when he's perfectly cast... strange place for an actor to be.
Quote from: Voros;975873I think the original comic book WW was feminist in intention and that is in the film but not overplayed. It retains the simple visual appeal and power of an Amazonian goddess.
Gadot and Jenkin do capture the mix of good hearted strength and naivete that Christopher Reeves and Donner did in the first Superman movie. Both also have effective romantic storylines. Jenkins has acknowledged Donner's film as an influence. The only fault I would point out in this film by comparison as it doesn't have a villain as appealing or memorable as Hackman's Lex Luthor.
Personally I found the BIG BAD at the end of the movie to be fantastic remember they needed an actor who could do more then the whole I'm the bad guy routine.
Perticularly when......................
Spoiler
there was that slight narrative change at the end where the real enemy was the war it self rather then Aries and it was fantastically well done.
As to the WW feminism thing yes feminism is A part of the character but All to often they forget that WW is A complex interesting person and put out WW the feminist symbol as A stand in.
Mostly because it takes work to write WW the character. The other part comes in to play is that the feminism in WW isn't really the modern 3rd 4th or 5th or what ever wave type that you tend to see in modern times. It's different and A bit from what to meany people is A forgotten era. Thus WW tends to have issues with people on the feminist side of things trying to "correct" her because they don't think she plays to the "pro women" side of things when really she does and its just that they are morons who don't know how the worlds changed in the last 100 years. Hence they don't fully under stand just how pro women she actually is.
Quote from: Dumarest;975856I can't get past the sword and the Xena costume, but I'll take your word for it. Also, I really do not like Chris Pine. Something about his face and mannerisms comes across to me as annoying and smug. But I seldom see movies in the theater anyway; the last one I remember going to was Captain America Meets the Winter Soldier. So what made it good?
(Wonder Woman for me will always be Lynda Carter. ;))
Well frankly the Lynda Carter show was pretty crummy and is A good example of someone not wanting to do WW.
Quote from: Spike;975939I can't get over the horrible misuse of the actual historical figure of General Ludendorff being so terribly misused.
I'm sort of in a weird place vis a vis Chris Pine. I genuinely like his work as an actor, but he always seems horribly miscast except in the bad films, when he's perfectly cast... strange place for an actor to be.
Yeah that was A bit much. The FMJ bullets in all the slow-mo scene bugged me A bit and the mark 3 land ship painted German.
Quote from: kosmos1214;976088Well frankly the Lynda Carter show was pretty crummy and is A good example of someone not wanting to do WW.
Aside from being the best version of Wonder Woman to date, but whatever, you like your WW as a Xena knockoff, that's all right. I don't have to watch or read the comics anyway.
Quote from: Dumarest;976292Aside from being the best version of Wonder Woman to date, but whatever, you like your WW as a Xena knockoff, that's all right. I don't have to watch or read the comics anyway.
Dude I LOVED the Carter Wonder Woman (many of my socks didn't) but even I have a hard time supporting this argument.
Did a review of Chor Yuen's The Black Lizard. It is available on prime. Enjoyed it, blend of wuxia, mystery and horror. Some cool twists along the way: https://bedrockgames.podbean.com/e/black-lizard-review/
Quote from: Spike;975460I watched Spiderman:Homecoming last night. I didn't see the Andrew Garfield series of films, mostly due to Spider-Fatigue, so I can't compare them. Quick thoughts:
A decent film, but I'm putting it near the bottom of the pile for MCU films, with Thor: The Dark World, and just under Iron Man 2.
I'm curious what you would put at the top of the pile.
I liked Homecoming, and in particular... It wasn't more intelligent than the other MCU films, but I found it a lot more palatable for there to be some dumb choices by a high school sophomore - as opposed to even more idiotic choices from people like a billionaire CEO, world-class scientists, and top secret agents.
Quote from: Voros;975873I think the original comic book WW was feminist in intention and that is in the film but not overplayed. It retains the simple visual appeal and power of an Amazonian goddess.
Gadot and Jenkin do capture the mix of good hearted strength and naivete that Christopher Reeves and Donner did in the first Superman movie. Both also have effective romantic storylines. Jenkins has acknowledged Donner's film as an influence. The only fault I would point out in this film by comparison as it doesn't have a villain as appealing or memorable as Hackman's Lex Luthor.
I think the reliance on Greek Gods, specifically Ares is part of the problem. I remember watching the animated WW movie, and while it was interesting, the end where WW punches Cheetah, and I yelled out "I wanna see that movie!"
Quote from: jhkim;977218I'm curious what you would put at the top of the pile.
I liked Homecoming, and in particular... It wasn't more intelligent than the other MCU films, but I found it a lot more palatable for there to be some dumb choices by a high school sophomore - as opposed to even more idiotic choices from people like a billionaire CEO, world-class scientists, and top secret agents.
The cheap and easy answer is the Guardians movies... because they really don't fit with the rest of them, despite the Infinity Stones/Thanatos tie ins.
More honestly? Some of it will come down to taste, but I've been very impressed with the Captain America films.... I'd probably put Winter Soldier near the top, along with one of the Avenger's films (probably the first one though I think I enjoyed the Age of Ultron more).
Weirdly I was thinking about it the other way round the other day, trying to rank the worst up, so I'm a bit wrongfooted, funnily enough...
For those of you with Amazon Prime and like free animated features, I recommend Technotise: Edit and I. It is on little animated film out of Serbia with a lot of influence in design from Moebius' artwork. It is subtitled, but the facial expressions of the characters more than makes up for it. Very well and artistically done little piece about the universe and our place in it as seen through the eyes of a slacker college student. Consider it a palette cleanser between watching other films.
Eastern European animation is often crazy good and Moebius is a favourite. May have to try out Amazon Prime soon.
Quote from: Voros;979687Eastern European animation is often crazy good and Moebius is a favourite. May have to try out Amazon Prime soon.
Amazon Prime is about $100/year for membership and has been one of the best expenditures that I have ever made. I have gotten extraordinary value for my money.
Quote from: jeff37923;979708Amazon Prime is about $100/year for membership and has been one of the best expenditures that I have ever made. I have gotten extraordinary value for my money.
I agree. I have gotten way more use out of it than my netflix account. However, I am a little annoyed that they've been shifting content to those premium channels (movies that were on prime suddenly are only available if you get STARS or Hi-YAH).
Tempted to cut cable but I love my TCM and HBO boxing.
Just watched Ghost in the Shell. (2017 live action film) I rather liked it. Wasn't super great, but wasn't bad.
I've only watched a bit of the anime(s), so I can't comment much on the accuracy to the source material. But then, I've seen a lot of anime that took great liberties when translating from the manga, and hell, most American book to movie adaptations for that matter.
Another Western viewing. (which I may have mentioned previously.) This one being "Il grande silenzio" The Great Silence which originally had a limited to nil US release. This one has Jean-Louis Trintignant as the quiet, allmost pacifistic bounty hunter armed with a Mauser. Klaus Kinski as a ruthless bounty hunter. Vonetta McGee as the vengeful widow.and Frank Wolff as the rather likable sheriff (a rarity in these shows.)
The whole thing is filmed in showbound terrain with some really gorgeous scenery and an interesting twist on the usual bounty hunter westerns. Theres two versions. One with a VERY bleak ending and one with a suprisingly happy ending for a western.
While it doesn't break any new ground,
Atomic Blonde is a fairly solid spy thriller and enjoyable action movie. Counter to what the trailers might indicate the fight and action scenes are enjoyable and intense with a refreshing lack of shaky-cam and "She-fu". Having Charlize Theron perform her own fight and stunt work really helps add to verisimilitude and the fights can be brutal and intense, coming across as highly skilled people doing their level best to kill each other. The protagonist isn't untouchable like in some action movies though she is very good and tough as nails.
In fact
Spoiler
The film is framed as flashback and in the beginning we see her recovering in an icebath and her body is practically one wince inducing head to toe bruise
Overall, a good film to see if you're in the mood for some a good action movie with great fight scenes without some of the modern convention that can annoy some viewers.
Good to hear I love a good action movie.
Did a review of Buddha's Palm. A very late night movie review where my vocabulary evaporates: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-nfctb-6e4f84
Buddha's Palm pretty much has everything (including a a creature that looks like it was spawned from Jim Henson's workshop). It is wuxia with heavy doses of magic, has lots of colorful characters, wild mystic kung fu and interesting special effects. It is also on Amazon Prime at the moment (don't know how long it will be up there).
That movie is a lot of fun. It reminded me of Boxer's Omen minus all the horror elements.
Quote from: Voros;980862That movie is a lot of fun. It reminded me of Boxer's Omen minus all the horror elements.
Boxers Omen is a very interesting movie. That is definitely way, way, darker and intense than Buddha's Palm. One of the few films where I cringed my way through certain scenes. Have you ever seen Chang Cheh's Heaven and Hell?
Holy Flame of the Martial World and Battle Wizard are in the same zone as Buddha's Palm as well (there were a bunch of early to mid 80s Shaw Brothers films that got a bit more crazy and took more chances).
I probably need to revisit Boxer's Omen I haven't seen it in years.
I have seen Heaven and Hell, it is a very pretty film, not how I would usually describe Cheh. I haven't seen Holy Flame or Battle Wizard but I have seen Demon of the Lute. These lighter fantasy films seemed aimed at kids and the special effects are surreal and charming.
The folk/pop Buddhism of these films is also very interesting. Reminds me of that scene in Ong Bak (I think the first one) where the giant head of Buddha crushes the bad guy. Not at all like the rationalized and near secular form of Buddhism promoted in the West.
I just got back from the Hitman's Bodyguard. You know? I thought I'd be more entertained by Ryan Reynolds and Samuel Jackson riffing off of one another, but some dickhead thought they needed to be more Odd Couple-ish, which meant amping up Jackson's... Jackson and muting the fuck out of Reynolds. Reynolds is many things, but its actually sorta hard to buy him as a prissy uptight with no luck with the ladies.
So. First mistake.
There are some 'big reveals' that... aren't. Maybe I'm old, but so very much of this is utterly predictable. I'm not going to spoil anything (its not really super plot relevant and, well, its telegraphed so blatently you'd think the director was secretly winking at us the whole time...)
So Reynolds is a down on his luck bodyguard two years after an armsdealing client was sniper murdered at the very end of a successful delivery. Reynolds blames his ex-girlfriend, an Interpol agent, because he is an emotionally retarded man-child around her (no shit, the movie pretty much says that word for word at one point) and his entire jet-setting-superspy... I mean bodyguard... gig went to shit.
Jackson is a hitman with a heart of gold (sigh. Plot point: He only kills Bad Guys. They almost decide to get into moral and theological discussion about this, then check out for more 'splody'), who nevertheless has tried to kill Reynolds 29 times over the course of Reynold's career (minus, apparently, the last two years...).
Hey! Who do you think killed Reynold's client and sent his jet setting life into a tailspin? Right, it was the girlfriend all along! No... no... c'mon now, I know you can figure this out.
So, blatantly telegraphed... everything.
Well, not quite everything. See, the 'framing device' for this plot is Gary Oldman playing a Slobodan Milosovich (er... you spell it!) character on trial at the Hague. Jackson is the only witness who apparently is credible? Like... the Hague has a habit of just releasing tin-pot dictators on trial for genocide back to run their old country? That's... that's a thing right? I mean.... if the REAL Milosovich had been found not guilty he'd be back running Serbia the same day, right? That's how these international tribunals work, right?
So he's got pretty much all of Belarus armed with machine guns stationed between... was it Manchester?... and The Hague trying to kill Jackson before he can be brought to testify, and Jackson isn't trying to escape because they've got his girl (Salma Hayek, in a much better take on the same role as Everly) in jail, and his testimony is the price for her freedom.
Oooh! And... fuck me if I've never seen THIS plot device before!!!!... the ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INTERPOL is a traitor selling out Jackson for a payday. Which, by the way, is pretty much a pointless call back to that very, very VERY tired cliche. No, seriously, at best it serves to tie up a few loose ends setting the plot in motion, but otherwise fails to move the idiotball... I mean plot... any further. Oldman doesn't need or even respect his mole in Interpol.
Ooooh.... try and guess what happens to Gary Oldman at the end of the movie! I mean, this question is probably harder in my post than it is watching the film, but seriously... go ahead!
The action was good, the scenery was good, a lot of the jokes and subtle details were good. So there was that.
I mean, if I must be honest, this is a decently crafted flick beset what I can only call "Hollywood Cancer". Pointless tropes that nevertheless get introduced simply because they are expected? Check. Forcing interesting and charismatic actors to play characters from a show made seventy fucking years ago? Check. Surprise Gotcha plot twists that would have trouble surprising a five year old? Fucking Double, triple, quintuple check. Characters that go from superhuman to wimp and back to superhuman at the speed of plot? Oh, that and spades.
Now... on the topic of exploding cars. Seriously... I'm pretty sure this film was going for a genuine wink and nod to the idiocy of cars exploding in action films. I mean, BOY HOWDY do cars explode in this film. I mean they seem more fragile than the cars in The Last Action Hero, but the timing of said explosions leaves me no doubt that its absolutely deliberately mocking cars exploding in action films. I mean: there are plenty of cars that don't explode... plenty of car parts flying around during a demolition derby chase through amsterdam but nary a fireball in sight (except for the one hit by the LAW rocket, but they actually CUT AWAY from that explosion...)
So, I'm giving a half star for having the balls to turn explody cars into a deliberate joke without actually talking about it (a la Last Action Hero, which, really, is an under appreciated gem of a film).
Did a round table discussion of Bride with White Hair 2: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-khb67-709556
Here is the discussion to part one: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-gk8e6-6e2c69
The first one is a great movie if you haven't seen it. The second is pretty good, but I think falls a bit short of the first. The basic story is a woman named Ni Chang, who is raised by wolves, then trained in an evil cult by two sorcerous siamese twins, falls in love with a swordsman from Wudang sect, Cho Yi Hang. This is all against the backdrop of the fall of the Ming due to Wu Sangui's betrayal (who is a character in the movie). As the Ming dynasty falls, Ni Chang is falsely accused of killing the leader of Wudang, putting her at odds with Cho Yi Hang and leading to crazy showdown. The second movie deals with the aftermath of the first film and the grudges it creates.
Quote from: Spike;986329I just got back from the Hitman's Bodyguard. You know? I thought I'd be more entertained by Ryan Reynolds and Samuel Jackson riffing off of one another, but some dickhead thought they needed to be more Odd Couple-ish, which meant amping up Jackson's... Jackson and muting the fuck out of Reynolds. Reynolds is many things, but its actually sorta hard to buy him as a prissy uptight with no luck with the ladies.
So. First mistake.
There are some 'big reveals' that... aren't. Maybe I'm old, but so very much of this is utterly predictable. I'm not going to spoil anything (its not really super plot relevant and, well, its telegraphed so blatently you'd think the director was secretly winking at us the whole time...)
So Reynolds is a down on his luck bodyguard two years after an armsdealing client was sniper murdered at the very end of a successful delivery. Reynolds blames his ex-girlfriend, an Interpol agent, because he is an emotionally retarded man-child around her (no shit, the movie pretty much says that word for word at one point) and his entire jet-setting-superspy... I mean bodyguard... gig went to shit.
Jackson is a hitman with a heart of gold (sigh. Plot point: He only kills Bad Guys. They almost decide to get into moral and theological discussion about this, then check out for more 'splody'), who nevertheless has tried to kill Reynolds 29 times over the course of Reynold's career (minus, apparently, the last two years...).
Hey! Who do you think killed Reynold's client and sent his jet setting life into a tailspin? Right, it was the girlfriend all along! No... no... c'mon now, I know you can figure this out.
So, blatantly telegraphed... everything.
Well, not quite everything. See, the 'framing device' for this plot is Gary Oldman playing a Slobodan Milosovich (er... you spell it!) character on trial at the Hague. Jackson is the only witness who apparently is credible? Like... the Hague has a habit of just releasing tin-pot dictators on trial for genocide back to run their old country? That's... that's a thing right? I mean.... if the REAL Milosovich had been found not guilty he'd be back running Serbia the same day, right? That's how these international tribunals work, right?
So he's got pretty much all of Belarus armed with machine guns stationed between... was it Manchester?... and The Hague trying to kill Jackson before he can be brought to testify, and Jackson isn't trying to escape because they've got his girl (Salma Hayek, in a much better take on the same role as Everly) in jail, and his testimony is the price for her freedom.
Oooh! And... fuck me if I've never seen THIS plot device before!!!!... the ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INTERPOL is a traitor selling out Jackson for a payday. Which, by the way, is pretty much a pointless call back to that very, very VERY tired cliche. No, seriously, at best it serves to tie up a few loose ends setting the plot in motion, but otherwise fails to move the idiotball... I mean plot... any further. Oldman doesn't need or even respect his mole in Interpol.
Ooooh.... try and guess what happens to Gary Oldman at the end of the movie! I mean, this question is probably harder in my post than it is watching the film, but seriously... go ahead!
The action was good, the scenery was good, a lot of the jokes and subtle details were good. So there was that.
I mean, if I must be honest, this is a decently crafted flick beset what I can only call "Hollywood Cancer". Pointless tropes that nevertheless get introduced simply because they are expected? Check. Forcing interesting and charismatic actors to play characters from a show made seventy fucking years ago? Check. Surprise Gotcha plot twists that would have trouble surprising a five year old? Fucking Double, triple, quintuple check. Characters that go from superhuman to wimp and back to superhuman at the speed of plot? Oh, that and spades.
Now... on the topic of exploding cars. Seriously... I'm pretty sure this film was going for a genuine wink and nod to the idiocy of cars exploding in action films. I mean, BOY HOWDY do cars explode in this film. I mean they seem more fragile than the cars in The Last Action Hero, but the timing of said explosions leaves me no doubt that its absolutely deliberately mocking cars exploding in action films. I mean: there are plenty of cars that don't explode... plenty of car parts flying around during a demolition derby chase through amsterdam but nary a fireball in sight (except for the one hit by the LAW rocket, but they actually CUT AWAY from that explosion...)
So, I'm giving a half star for having the balls to turn explody cars into a deliberate joke without actually talking about it (a la Last Action Hero, which, really, is an under appreciated gem of a film).
So how many thumbs up? :D
Just out of curiosity, did you not see any reviews before you spent your money on this movie? Everything I saw and heard indicated it would be lousy.
You gotta understand my circumstances, man! I live in a town of 1200 people, I work 12-14 hour shifts with a rotating weekend... at night, and the nearest movie theater is an hour's drive away, and only has three screens. Alien Covenant didn't even come to my area, not that I was going to see it.
Never mind my internet problems can pretty decisively be linked back to the only local provider essentially being run by hamster wheels.
So.
No. I saw a poster for it. But then again, I pretty much expect everything coming out of Hollowwood to be utter shit, with rare and unexpected gems surprising, generally, even the people who made them. There is a reason I've formally disowned Star Wars after the Farce Awakens, you know.
But I actually like Ryan Reynolds, even as I respect his limits as an actor (as in: he's got more charm and verve than actual talent), so I expected to see Ryan Reynolds. Not Felix Unger.
And while I'm a bit tired of Samuel Jackson, I still generally like him while also respecting his limits as an actor (see Verve etc), so I sort of expected to see him, not Oscar Madison.
Ok, so I got more Sam Jackson than Oscar, but still.
but to answer your question: All the Thumbs, of course. Wait. I'm a damn internet pika... I got no thumbs!!!
Saw Atomic Blonde just before it left the theatres and enjoyed the hell out of it. Particularly liked the fight with the keys in the East Berlin movie theatre showing Tarkovsky's Stalker, which just got re-released in theatres btw!
Logan Lucky I also dug. Like a game of Fiasco that goes right, sorta.
Quote from: Omega;980195Another Western viewing. (which I may have mentioned previously.) This one being "Il grande silenzio" The Great Silence which originally had a limited to nil US release. This one has Jean-Louis Trintignant as the quiet, allmost pacifistic bounty hunter armed with a Mauser. Klaus Kinski as a ruthless bounty hunter. Vonetta McGee as the vengeful widow.and Frank Wolff as the rather likable sheriff (a rarity in these shows.)
The whole thing is filmed in showbound terrain with some really gorgeous scenery and an interesting twist on the usual bounty hunter westerns. Theres two versions. One with a VERY bleak ending and one with a suprisingly happy ending for a western.
This movie depressed me with the original ending. I respect the director's balls in sticking to his vision, but over time it's felt like a bad decision on his part. It robs the audience of the payoff that something like TGTBTU gives.
Quote from: Rincewind1;974310Indeed. Mercenary is also excellent - worse story than Companeros (which is a great political film, though of course the message is pretty obvious, what with one of the main characters totally not looking like Che Guevara),
Four Of The Apocalypse, directed by Lucio Fulci, is also kind of odd in that way. They have a bit with Tomas Milan who looks like a stand in for Charles Manson. You could put that character in a hippie commune and not make it look out of place.
Four of the Apocaplyse also has a very psychedelic folk soundtrack I love. I think it is one of the best films Fulci made. I prefer his non-horror films actually.
Quote from: Voros;988371Four of the Apocaplyse also has a very psychedelic folk soundtrack I love. I think it is one of the best films Fulci made. I prefer his non-horror films actually.
I haven't seen non-Horror Fulci except for FOTA and Massacre Time. FOTA was interesting to watch, but I didn't enjoy Massacre Time as much as I thought based on the kickass trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK_e3EtbL_8). For one, Franco Nero wasn't much of a hero or badass as compared to George Hilton's character. I still have it, so maybe it deserves another watch.
I'll have to check his other non-horror stuff.
Definitely see Don't Torture a Duckling, his gialli masterpiece.
Been meaning to watch that one.
Quote from: Spike;987404You gotta understand my circumstances, man! I live in a town of 1200 people, I work 12-14 hour shifts with a rotating weekend... at night, and the nearest movie theater is an hour's drive away, and only has three screens. Alien Covenant didn't even come to my area, not that I was going to see it.
Never mind my internet problems can pretty decisively be linked back to the only local provider essentially being run by hamster wheels.
So.
No. I saw a poster for it. But then again, I pretty much expect everything coming out of Hollowwood to be utter shit, with rare and unexpected gems surprising, generally, even the people who made them. There is a reason I've formally disowned Star Wars after the Farce Awakens, you know.
But I actually like Ryan Reynolds, even as I respect his limits as an actor (as in: he's got more charm and verve than actual talent), so I expected to see Ryan Reynolds. Not Felix Unger.
And while I'm a bit tired of Samuel Jackson, I still generally like him while also respecting his limits as an actor (see Verve etc), so I sort of expected to see him, not Oscar Madison.
Ok, so I got more Sam Jackson than Oscar, but still.
but to answer your question: All the Thumbs, of course. Wait. I'm a damn internet pika... I got no thumbs!!!
I know the feeling about the internet I have one of those legacy plans that's cheep AF but it sorta feels like............
(http://i.imgur.com/qMW4F2p.gif)
And at times it sort of............
(https://media.tenor.com/images/59c05eb3adb8b08481520ddf752a23e5/tenor.gif)
Also fun fact pikachus do in fact have thumbs In official art it's just hard to see because there fingers are so short.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/pq2pU6B2Ht3pu/giphy.gif)
(https://assets1.ignimgs.com/thumbs/userUploaded/2016/2/5/pikachu-1454710746106_1280w.jpg)
Now as I am A 23 year old talking about Pokemon I need to point out that I do not care what you think of me because.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/tImsWFHdzyc8w/giphy.gif)
Now if some one feels A desperate need to be A douche bag all I ask is that you have the common decadency to let me don my armor.
(https://am21.akamaized.net/tms/cnt/uploads/gallery/pikachuhellokitty-armor/thumbs/thumbs_hellokitty1.jpg)
And remember folks.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/16/0b/ae/160bae409d052ceae1c1acb99607b18f.jpg)
"The common decadency," eh? ;)
Have to admit I have no idea what Pokemon is all about. I thought it was a card game or something.
Quote from: Dumarest;988732"The common decadency," eh? ;)
Have to admit I have no idea what Pokemon is all about. I thought it was a card game or something.
Sort of it's originally A video game for the original gameboy and still going on the modern DS line. Then it had A tie-in anime for the 1st generation of games that's still going. Actually if I'm being honest the anime is likely A large part of why the whole franchise is still going as the original writer for the anime super over wrote it. You see the He had A vision for how the Pokemon world had to be put together to explain some of the central preemies to the point where he got permission to write and publish 2 novelizations that as head writer while not truly cannon where defiantly influences in the earlier seasons. If you want details this vid can fill you in A bit.
[video=youtube;Kyf_XXBEnj8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyf_XXBEnj8[/youtube]
Quote from: Dumarest;988732"The common decadency," eh? ;)
Have to admit I have no idea what Pokemon is all about. I thought it was a card game or something.
Originally a pair of linked Game Boy games in 96. Essentially fantasy/sci-fi cockfighting with monsters. Each of the two cartridges had unique monsters so you had to link up with someone else and trade if you wanted a full set. It and Digimon are likely inspired by the Tamagotchi digital pets that were a craze at the time.
The card game and anime came out around the same time. Digimon had a CCG too. Anime series came out a year later. An animated movie a year after that.
Very milti-media.
On topic. Ive so far seen only two of the movies The first and the 5th. I thought the first one was so so really. Somehow the art actually looks lower quality than the overall good quality of the series. The 5th movie was alot better. Each movie tends to focus on some really big and/or legendary monster and the nut of the weeks plot to catch it which usually wreaks some sort of severe damage.
YMMV if its of any interest or not. Im kinda neutral still.
And heres a weird one. A UK movie called Gunbus from 1986 (Also known as Sky Bandits. But I have only seen it as Gunbus.)
This is like what you'd get if you combined Boot Hill with Dawn Patrol. With a nod to Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines. Which is also an awesome movie!
A pair of cowboys/robbers end up sentenced to be part of a makeshift British WWI aeroplane unit. Near the end theres a battle with a super armed zeppelin. A very odd movie indeed that plays like someones RPG session where the GM said WTF and just broke out Dawn Patrol for the final battle.
I saw A cool movie to day Thunderheart.
It's about an fbi agent who is 1/4 Indian who gets sent to a reservation to clear up a murder and it takes more then a few unexpected turns and ends very unexpectedly.
Defiantly worth taking A look.
Quote from: kosmos1214;993076I saw A cool movie to day Thunderheart.
It's about an fbi agent who is 1/4 Indian who gets sent to a reservation to clear up a murder and it takes more then a few unexpected turns and ends very unexpectedly.
Defiantly worth taking A look.
The Val Kilmer one?
Quote from: Dumarest;993088The Val Kilmer one?
Yeah that looks to be the one (1992) tbh I had never heard of the movie before.
Quote from: kosmos1214;993284Yeah that looks to be the one (1992) tbh I had never heard of the movie before.
That's right around when he still made good movies...what was that noir he made with his wife? Kill Me Again?
Edit: checked, yeah, that was pretty good.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1634[/ATTACH]
Is that the girl from The Singing Detective (TV Show)?
Watched today the Russian movie "Mechte navstrechu" (A Dream Come True) from 1963. This is the movie that Roger Corman used parts of to make the movie Queen of Blood. Its a very sloooooooooooooooow movie and deals quite a bit with the science and politics of the mission and some of the hazards.
Also watched again "Planeta Bur" (Planet of Storms) from 1962 about an expedition to Venus. This one was also edited to make two movies. Its fairly well done and I like it more than Mechte navstrechu.
It is an interesting contrast in styles.
Quote from: Omega;993399Watched today the Russian movie "Mechte navstrechu" (A Dream Come True) from 1963.
Where/how did youwatch it? I've been curious to see it for a long while. Were there English subtitles?
I own a copy of Planet Of Storms (Planeta Bur) and it's fun. One of the Corman movies that re-used it was a thing I saw as a kid and made a big impression.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;993389Is that the girl from The Singing Detective (TV Show)?
Haven't seen the TV version but Wikipedia lists her in the credits. Most people probably know her from
Willow.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1636[/ATTACH]
Just saw Wonder Woman. I liked it a lot more than I thought I would. They really humanized her.
But Ares, what a letdown. Weakest WW villian evar.
The endings of modern superhero movies are always a CGI letdown. But I think WW is one of the best til it gets there. The scene in the French town after the battle is terrific.
It's funny. I have little interest in seeing Wonder Woman though I liked her depiction in Batman vs Superman. She's just not a character I'm particularly interested in aside from her interaction with others and in the abstract (which she tells about the development of comics). I probably will see it at some point an might be pleasantly surprised. I have generally enjoyed the modern era superhero films with few exceptions.
Quote from: Dumarest;993484Haven't seen the TV version but Wikipedia lists her in the credits. Most people probably know her from Willow.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1636[/ATTACH]
It's Joanne Whalley.
In the 80s she was the hottest girl on British TV - partially because of the (in)famous greasing scene from The Singing Detective - where, as a Nurse, she has to grease the patient with a repulsive disease that causes his skin to blister and peel, including around his penis, while he desperately tries to avoid embarrassing himself by not thinking about her and taking his mind away from sexual thoughts. Its quite hilarious. She also played Christine Keeler in the biopic about The Profumo affair,
Scandal.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;994484Weakest WW villian evar.
You clearly haven't read many WW comics. Lousy villains are part of why she never made the A-list.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1669[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1670[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1671[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Dumarest;994925You clearly haven't read many WW comics.
Admittedly no. My exposure to WW's rogue's gallery is through the other media. (cartoon, TV, movies) and the occasional comic. I was going for a bit of hyperbole there.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;994827It's Joanne Whalley.
In the 80s she was the hottest girl on British TV - partially because of the (in)famous greasing scene from The Singing Detective - where, as a Nurse, she has to grease the patient with a repulsive disease that causes his skin to blister and peel, including around his penis, while he desperately tries to avoid embarrassing himself by not thinking about her and taking his mind away from sexual thoughts. Its quite hilarious. She also played Christine Keeler in the biopic about The Profumo affair, Scandal.
Yeah, she is still looking very nice these days. I saw that she is on some fantasy show, I think.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;994970Admittedly no. My exposure to WW's rogue's gallery is through the other media. (cartoon, TV, movies) and the occasional comic. I was going for a bit of hyperbole there.
Well, I heard that for the sequel in 2019 they're teaming up Angle Man and Doctor Psycho against her, so be on the lookout for that.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1679[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1680[/ATTACH]
Actually, that sounds like fun. I'd go see that one.
I was about to say some of the worse villians in comics are part of the charm.
Quote from: Voros;995355I was about to say some of the worse villians in comics are part of the charm.
The C-Listers are allot of fun. And sometimes some of the most persistent. Seriously some of these guys show up for one, maybe two issues yet people remember and talk about them years or decades later. They can be refreshing touch of gonzo to break up the Serious Business and at times serve to illustrate that even the mighty can be hindered by a lowly loon with a weird power or insane but clever plan. And some times some luck or good timing.
Talked about The Delightful Forest: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-dcqmn-745ed9
Delightful Forest was released in 1972 and directed by Chang Cheh and Sao Hsueh-Li. It is a kind of origin story for Wu Song from the Water Margin. Really good movie in my opinion. Ti Lung is very convincing as Wu Song and the fight sequences are pretty creative and sharp. Simple but interesting story. Basically Wu Song kills a couple who poisoned his brother, goes to prison, then gets released by the warden's son to help him deal with a villain named Door God who has taken over his gambling hall/restaurant. The ending is bloody and spectacular.
Quote from: Voros;995355I was about to say some of the worse villians in comics are part of the charm.
Well, when your name is Angelo Bend and you think you need to come up with an angle to succeed at crime, of course you invent the Angler and become Angle Man. And that is why comic books used to be awesome.
Angle Man and Dr Psycho look and sound very Silver age but their power sets aren't too shabby to tell the truth.
Quote from: Dumarest;995484Well, when your name is Angelo Bend and you think you need to come up with an angle to succeed at crime, of course you invent the Angler and become Angle Man. And that is why comic books used to be awesome.
I was reading Steranko's Nick Fury comics recently and the storylines were basically 'Everything a 12 year old would think is Awesome, All at Once!'
Today too many superhero comics are 'The Creepy Power Fantasies of Guys who were beat up in High School and Can't Let It Go + Boobs, all at once!'
I admit. I have no objection to power fantasies and boobs.
Superhero comics have always been power fantasies, but there's a difference between the power fantasy of a 12 year old kid and the creepy power fantasy of an arrested adult.
Quote from: Voros;995539Superhero comics have always been power fantasies, but there's a difference between the power fantasy of a 12 year old kid and the creepy power fantasy of an arrested adult.
Exactly. And what went wrong with comics is that comics fans grew up and started writing the comics to reflect their arrested development, appealing mainly to other grown men with similar issues. Before that, comics were written by guys who didn't love and breathe for Spider-Man nailing the Black Cat and so on.
Quote from: Voros;995539Superhero comics have always been power fantasies, but there's a difference between the power fantasy of a 12 year old kid and the creepy power fantasy of an arrested adult.
Wait, we're talking about comics?
:D
I'll stop cluttering up the thread now.
Watched "It! the Terror from Beyond Space" a rather well done 1958 SF movie not about a trip to Mars, but the return under arrest of the only survivour of the first trip to Mars. And man do they treat this guy like dirt on the flimsiest of "evidence"! I ended up half rooting for the monster that stowed on board to off em.
This movie and Voyage of the Space Beagle form the inspirations for the original Alien movie. Except here the crew are freaking armed to the teeth and not afraid to fire heavy ordinance within the ship. Apparently it was also the last movie Ray "Crash" Corrigan played in. He was the monster.
Quote from: Omega;996670Watched "It! the Terror from Beyond Space" a rather well done 1958 SF movie not about a trip to Mars, but the return under arrest of the only survivour of the first trip to Mars. And man do they treat this guy like dirt on the flimsiest of "evidence"! I ended up half rooting for the monster that stowed on board to off em.
This movie and Voyage of the Space Beagle form the inspirations for the original Alien movie. Except here the crew are freaking armed to the teeth and not afraid to fire heavy ordinance within the ship. Apparently it was also the last movie Ray "Crash" Corrigan played in. He was the monster.
Interesting. I'll have to check them out.
Blade Runner Blackout 2022 (http://www.crunchyroll.com/blade-runner-black-out-2022/blade-runner-black-out-2022-blade-runner-black-out-2022-748417) is available to stream on Crunchyroll. This is a short 15 minute movie that tells what happened between the original Blade Runner movie and the new Blade Runner 2049 coming out soon. Astounding visuals in an anime format done by the same director who is responsible for Cowboy Bebop. Not a bad way to spend a quarter of an hour.
I actually just re-read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and was struck by how little Blade Runner resembles it. I really have no interest in the sequel. I like the movie as its own thing but I feel no need for "what happened 35 years later." Kind of like how I don't care about seeing the Star Wars prequels and new movies. Or Stayin' Alive after Saturday Night Fever, or Ghostbusters II. I prefer to just leave a good thing alone. I'm glad we've gotten no more Beetlejuices or Heatherses.
I tend to agree but there are the rare exceptions. Godfather II for instance, or more recently The Trip film series.
Bladerunner, 2049 is getting a lot of rave reviews at the moment. It doesn't have any bearing on whether I will like it or not, but it does have a bearing on whether I watch it or not.
I want to see Blade Runner 2049, the trailer is intriguing but I don't think I have time to see the other 2047 movies to catch up and I hate going in cold.
I watched Batman and Harley Quinn with my sister on Tuesday pretty cool little picture especially if you where A fan of the DC animated universe as it set there.
One thing to be a where of is that it's really more of A Harley Quinn movie then A Batman movie and the ending is sort of sudden but satisfying enough.
Oh and after you have watched it who else wants to do to that deli?
Quote from: kosmos1214;998904I watched Batman and Harley Quinn with my sister on Tuesday pretty cool little picture especially if you where A fan of the DC animated universe as it set there.
One thing to be a where of is that it's really more of A Harley Quinn movie then A Batman movie and the ending is sort of sudden but satisfying enough.
Oh and after you have watched it who else wants to do to that deli?
Is this a new cartoon in the same style as the 1992 Batman series? That's probably my favorite Batman incarnation since Adam West.
I've seen Bladerunner:2049. It's difficult to discuss without giving away loads of spoilers. Suffice it to say that it is consistent in tone, pacing and underlying themes to the original movie, and compliments the original well.
Some sequels work, depending on the relative remit of the direction (as with most movies really). Trainspotting 2 was also an excellent sequel released this year. Other sequels suck mainly because they are just a cash grab in and/or they are produced and directed by individuals who have no creative integrity to the original.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;999321I've seen Bladerunner:2049. It's difficult to discuss without giving away loads of spoilers. Suffice it to say that it is consistent in tone, pacing and underlying themes to the original movie, and compliments the original well.
I'm on the fence on this one. I loved the original Blade Runner, and the Red Letter Media review leads me to believe that it's similar in tone and pacing.
But the previews are all explosions and inception horns. I know previews aren't the movie, but damn am I sick of explosions and inception horns. There's a part of me that winces at the mental image of Transformers: Blade Runner.
I'll probably watch it when it comes out on Blu-ray.
On the topic of Transformers, the Plinkett review of The Last Knight is the most insightful one I've heard in a long time.
[video=youtube_share;PiRS1b--TTQ]https://youtu.be/PiRS1b--TTQ[/youtube]
inception horns?
Quote from: Nexus;999545inception horns?
https://inception.davepedu.com/
Quote from: Ratman_tf;999539I'm on the fence on this one. I loved the original Blade Runner, and the Red Letter Media review leads me to believe that it's similar in tone and pacing.
But the previews are all explosions and inception horns. I know previews aren't the movie, but damn am I sick of explosions and inception horns. There's a part of me that winces at the mental image of Transformers: Blade Runner.
I'll probably watch it when it comes out on Blu-ray.
On the topic of Transformers, the Plinkett review of The Last Knight is the most insightful one I've heard in a long time.
[video=youtube_share;PiRS1b--TTQ]https://youtu.be/PiRS1b--TTQ[/youtube]
It's not anything like Transformers. The explosions are mainly for the trailers. I think Bladerunner has always had a problem of selling itself as an action movie when it's basically a mystery movie - which tends to confuse the audience and possibly accounts for the limited box office, despite home viewing popularity.
I always thought Mark Kermode's review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was most insightful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_D2XKRbYmM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_D2XKRbYmM)
Man do those Transformers movies suck. Not sure I can fooled into suffering through another one. I'm a fan of trash and find myself bored out of my mind. Bay's Pain & Gain on the other hand was enjoyable trash.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;999549https://inception.davepedu.com/
Thanks
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1755[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Voros;999612Man do those Transformers movies suck. Not sure I can fooled into suffering through another one. I'm a fan of trash and find myself bored out of my mind. Bay's Pain & Gain on the other hand was enjoyable trash.
I quit at Transformers 3*, and that's only because I'm a Transformers fan and had the foolish hope that Bay would rein in the stupid eventually. After 3 it finally sunk in that they weren't going to get any better.
*I actually turned the movie off during the 3rd act, I was so bored.
The only Transformers movie I've seen or will see:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1761[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Dumarest;999288Is this a new cartoon in the same style as the 1992 Batman series? That's probably my favorite Batman incarnation since Adam West.
Yes it is.
well addin the fart jokes and the sexual innusendo between harly and nightwinf likt thehy yere fucking and i guess you could say that vut its a real rachk
Quote from: Dumarest;999694The only Transformers movie I've seen or will see:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1761[/ATTACH]
I could never get onboard with Rodimus Prime as a kid. When that movie came out, I wanted nothing to do with it.
In terms of the new movies. I enjoyed the first one, but I do think the transformers themselves looked kind of idiotic (maybe it is just my eyes but I couldn't really see them all that well, they just looked like masses of moving metal to me). But it hit a lot of interesting nostalgia buttons and getting the original voice actor for Optimus Prime was a plus. The second one did nothing for me. And I completely skipped out on the third one.
Quote from: HappyDaze;999918well addin the fart jokes and the sexual innusendo between harly and nightwinf likt thehy yere fucking and i guess you could say that vut its a real rachk
Say what?
Quote from: Dumarest;1000119Say what?
That's nothing, you should read his comment in the Biscuitian Banned thread. Clearly he has some really good, or really really bad booze going...
Looks like they broke the budget with this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=98&v=DhtsgboAMUM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=98&v=DhtsgboAMUM)
Quote from: TrippyHippy;999321I've seen Bladerunner:2049. It's difficult to discuss without giving away loads of spoilers. Suffice it to say that it is consistent in tone, pacing and underlying themes to the original movie, and compliments the original well.
Some sequels work, depending on the relative remit of the direction (as with most movies really). Trainspotting 2 was also an excellent sequel released this year. Other sequels suck mainly because they are just a cash grab in and/or they are produced and directed by individuals who have no creative integrity to the original.
Thanks for not spoiling.
Discussed two Iron Triangle movies: Duel of Fist and Angry Guest
The movies are connected. Duel of Fists is about a man who goes to Thailand to find his long-lost brother and discovers he is a Thai boxer who gangsters are trying to kill in the ring. After that situation comes to a head the second movie picks up with them going to Hong Kong together, but the bad guy from the first movie breaks out of jail and tries to get his revenge.
Duel of Fist: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-ts3hs-766973
Angry Guest: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-wf6yd-77c5ea
Saw Bladeruunner: 2049. Loved the look and world-building, the violence packs a punch and it wasn't predictable to me. The relationship with the hologram was one of the most interesting parts of the film. Great cinematography by Deakins, as usual.
Quote from: Voros;1000935Saw Bladeruunner: 2049. Loved the look and world-building, the violence packs a punch and it wasn't predictable to me. The relationship with the hologram was one of the most interesting parts of the film. Great cinematography by Deakins, as usual.
I agree the relationship between the hologram and the replicant was a major issue and well done.
In one of these threads I was talking about Tina Cote, who did a bunch of Albert Pyun films in the 90's, so in honor of that discussion I picked up two more movies featuring her to add to my collection.
So I started watching Heatseeker, which is about cyborg gladiators in the very near future (2019!!!!). Well, Cyborg Kickboxers. Its the first Pyun film I think I've seen that actually has, like, extras*.
Its also the very worst Pyun film I've seen, by a country mile! I mean... at one point the hero is getting ready to bust into the Evil Corporation lab and his new best friend (a fellow Kickboxer and a rival corporate board member!) gives him a special gift before leaving him to get his fiance/trainer (Tina Cote) back. That special gift is literally the key to the door they are standing in front of!
Production values are off the hook, but the writing! Oh, oh god, the writing! The acting isn't exactly top shelf either. I'd say Ms. Cote stands head and shoulders above the rest, but then she literally stands head and shoulders above the rest (she's like... really tall for an actress. Not quite Brooke Sheilds tall, but even in simple flats she is a couple inches taller than everyone else in the film!), but the way the film is shot and written, its hard to say that her acting is any good either.
EDIT::: Bah, Footnote: * I'm not counting the sheer masses of people in Mean Guns. Those are Stunt Men, not 'Extras'.
According to imdb she's only 5'8". Are these movies made in Munchkinville?
Most movies are made in Munchkinville, from what I understand. Six foot plus actors are regularly consigned to roles as Heavies because they dwarf most actors, and according to legend, most actors heights are 'padded' to make them sound 'normal sized'.
I've never actually worked in the industry, but I did briefly meet William Fichtner lo these many years ago (and he is not 'known' as a short actor), and I... a normal sized fellow (six footer) dwarfed him, so I tend to believe the rumors.
At least in Heatseeker, Tina Cote is visibly taller than all three male actors she regularly interacts with, if only by an inch or two. I don't recall her height sticking out in Mean Guns, and she spent that movie in high heels, but then clearly it was a much better movie in almost every aspect, so maybe they just got better about disguising relative heights, or maybe the male actors she was paired with were chosen to ensure they were tall enough that it didn't show?
Quote from: Spike;1005690Most movies are made in Munchkinville, from what I understand. Six foot plus actors are regularly consigned to roles as Heavies because they dwarf most actors, and according to legend, most actors heights are 'padded' to make them sound 'normal sized'.
I've never actually worked in the industry, but I did briefly meet William Fichtner lo these many years ago (and he is not 'known' as a short actor), and I... a normal sized fellow (six footer) dwarfed him, so I tend to believe the rumors.
At least in Heatseeker, Tina Cote is visibly taller than all three male actors she regularly interacts with, if only by an inch or two. I don't recall her height sticking out in Mean Guns, and she spent that movie in high heels, but then clearly it was a much better movie in almost every aspect, so maybe they just got better about disguising relative heights, or maybe the male actors she was paired with were chosen to ensure they were tall enough that it didn't show?
I know Tom Cruise and Michael J Fox are "fun size" actors but isn't the biggest movie star of the moment Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson?
So little guys are drawn to acting? I don't see many movies or TV shows.
Took a friend out to see Thor: Ragnarok and it was OK. Not the best or the most entertaining Marvel movie but watchable. The action scenes moved so fast at times that you couldn't tell what was going on besides a blur of fists, hammers, and spikes. A jarring but cool to me bit was how the world of Sakarr was done in the style of Jack Kirby with a lot of bright colors, bold edges, and costumes that looked like they weighed 50 pounds. The cast hit their marks and Cate Blanchett makes for a convincing Hela.
I'd say that it was almost worth watching in a theater, but is better suited for Blu-Ray on a home theater system.
Saw RAW tonight. A French art/horror film about a vegetarian young woman who develops a taste for human flesh. I'm a jaded horror fan and there were some truly squirm inducing scenes in this one. The kind of sex/death body horror that Cronenberg pioneered but the Japanese and French have sustained. Great Goblin-like score by the English Jim Williams who has done most of the excellent scores for Ben Wheately's films.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1905[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Spike;1005690Most movies are made in Munchkinville, from what I understand. Six foot plus actors are regularly consigned to roles as Heavies because they dwarf most actors, and according to legend, most actors heights are 'padded' to make them sound 'normal sized'.
I've never actually worked in the industry, but I did briefly meet William Fichtner lo these many years ago (and he is not 'known' as a short actor), and I... a normal sized fellow (six footer) dwarfed him, so I tend to believe the rumors.
At least in Heatseeker, Tina Cote is visibly taller than all three male actors she regularly interacts with, if only by an inch or two. I don't recall her height sticking out in Mean Guns, and she spent that movie in high heels, but then clearly it was a much better movie in almost every aspect, so maybe they just got better about disguising relative heights, or maybe the male actors she was paired with were chosen to ensure they were tall enough that it didn't show?
Antonio Banderas is really short to I have A friend who's A few decandes older then me who got to meet him once and he had to look down on him.
And he's not A tall man at all.
Quote from: jeff37923;1005740Took a friend out to see Thor: Ragnarok and it was OK. Not the best or the most entertaining Marvel movie but watchable. The action scenes moved so fast at times that you couldn't tell what was going on besides a blur of fists, hammers, and spikes. A jarring but cool to me bit was how the world of Sakarr was done in the style of Jack Kirby with a lot of bright colors, bold edges, and costumes that looked like they weighed 50 pounds. The cast hit their marks and Cate Blanchett makes for a convincing Hela.
I'd say that it was almost worth watching in a theater, but is better suited for Blu-Ray on a home theater system.
I really liked Thor. It was fun. Very fun.
I don't mind the action sequences. They are indestructible invincible beings punching isn't how you beat them. That said it bugs me when Hulk uses weapons his body is harder than any object he could pick up and swing at you.
What would you say the best marvel is?
This one was easily the most fun since Gardians 1.
Quote from: Headless;1006007What would you say the best marvel is?
Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and Captain America 1 were very very good. Captain America 2: Winter Soldier was pretty good too, same with the first Avengers movie. I haven't seen Avengers2: Age of Ultron yet.
I'll go with that ranking. I would just throw Ragnarock in there too. I just found it fun. There were a couple times it was trying a little too hard to be Gaurdians, the spinning part with the fire deamon at the beginning. But it was solid.
Have you seen. Search for the wilderpeople?
That directors earlier movie Sam Niels in it the grand masters assistant is in it. Good movie too. Terrible cover art.
Quote from: Headless;1006007I really liked Thor. It was fun. Very fun.
I don't mind the action sequences. They are indestructible invincible beings punching isn't how you beat them. That said it bugs me when Hulk uses weapons his body is harder than any object he could pick up and swing at you.
What would you say the best marvel is?
This one was easily the most fun since Gardians 1.
Of the movies I still think the first Iron Man is their best product to date. They seem to be getting dumber and dumber, climaxing with big fight scenes that go on too long.
Quote from: Voros;1005762Saw RAW tonight. A French art/horror film about a vegetarian young woman who develops a taste for human flesh. I'm a jaded horror fan and there were some truly squirm inducing scenes in this one. The kind of sex/death body horror that Cronenberg pioneered but the Japanese and French have sustained. Great Goblin-like score by the English Jim Williams who has done most of the excellent scores for Ben Wheately's films.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1905[/ATTACH]
Looks like a juicy movie that you can really sink your teeth into then chew the fat about with your friends for hours; though the gore might be hard to swallow and leave a bad taste in some people's mouths.
His What We Do In Shadows is hilarious.
Agree with Jeff's picks for the best Marvel. Ant-Man was surprisingly good too.
Quote from: Voros;1006229His What We Do In Shadows is hilarious.
Agree with Jeff's picks for the best Marvel. Ant-Man was surprisingly good too.
I haven't seen Ant-man. It didn't grab me as I wasn't really interested in the character.
Neither was I. I don't want to oversell it as perhaps I overrated it as I went in with low expectations and was pleasantly surprised that it was actually a hybrid superhero/heist movie in the same way the second Cap film was a superhero/70s thriller hybrid.
Quote from: Nexus;1006256I haven't seen Ant-man. It didn't grab me as I wasn't really interested in the character.
The first half that was actually about Ant-Man/Scott Lang was enjoyable. The second half suffered from the usual descent into an endless fight sequence that has plagued most Marvel films.
First Iron man was good. But Iron monger as a big bad was lame.
Chorigraphing interesting Fight scenes is a metaphysical problem. Super hero's are harder than steel denser than uranium, contain more potential energy than dynamite and can fly and shoot lazer beams. Their only vunriblity is plot. Its not like you can put them in an arm bar.
What did you think of the fights in winter soldier? Or the three way at the end of civil war?
Quote from: Headless;1006318First Iron man was good. But Iron monger as a big bad was lame.
Chorigraphing interesting Fight scenes is a metaphysical problem. Super hero's are harder than steel denser than uranium, contain more potential energy than dynamite and can fly and shoot lazer beams. Their only vunriblity is plot. Its not like you can put them in an arm bar.
What did you think of the fights in winter soldier? Or the three way at the end of civil war?
With the metaphysical stuff, if they have powers and invulnerabilities, then I think the fight scenes should at least be internally consistent and a product of cause and effect. Ideally they present some weakness that can be exploited and the tactics used in the fight open up that weakness. I think more than the metaphysics, for me as a viewer, the thing that turns me off to the action is it is all so CG oriented that nothing feels grounded. I don't mind a bit of it to compliment the performance of the actors, but it just doesn't feel all that real to me and I lost interest in superhero movies a couple years in as a result. I think if they went to a back to the basics approach that emphasized the actor's physical performance it would capture my interest more. I may be being unfair to the genre though as I don't really watch many super hero movies these days (for all I know there is a franchise that does exactly this).
Do they have fight choreographers on set when they make marvel movies?
Quote from: Headless;1006318What did you think of the fights in winter soldier?
Went on WAAAAY too long and too much over the top leaping about and punishment for me...and personally I'm not a fan of giving Captain America super speed and super strength as the movies have now done. I like him better when he's "peak human ability."
Quote from: Headless;1006318Or the three way at the end of civil war?
I honestly don't remember what you are referring to. What "three-way"? I'm guessing if it wasn't memorable it wasn't very good.
Cap and winter against Iron man in the abandoned soviet bunker.
As these fights go it was confined and technical and brutal. But still hardly Bourn or Bruce lee.
@Bedrock. Are you excited about the new Bruce lee movie coming out? The one about him fighting a shaolin monk?
Quote from: Headless;1006333Cap and winter against Iron man in the abandoned soviet bunker.
As these fights go it was confined and technical and brutal. But still hardly Bourn or Bruce lee.
@Bedrock. Are you excited about the new Bruce lee movie coming out? The one about him fighting a shaolin monk?
I am not hopeful but I am reserving judgment until I see it. My understanding is they will do the Wong Jack Man fight. I used to gobble up Bruce Lee biographies and memoirs by people who knew him. There are so many different accounts of what actually happened in that fight, I think the interesting thing about it is how people choose to remember it. I'd honestly rather see a straightfoward biopic that focuses more on how he adapted after that fight. To me the interesting thing about Bruce Lee is the ideas he developed over time. Whether he won or lost a particular fight, isn't something I would like to see the drama hinge on. What I always read was, regardless of how the fight panned out, Bruce Lee was troubled by his lack of wind and stamina during it, so he started to change a lot of his conditioning routine and began focusing more on practical stuff. Not sure how accurate that is. Books about Bruce Lee are notoriously misleading and lots of them are just about the author landing a buck. And many of them were written by people who were there but also have their own agenda (Joe Lewis has a lot of interesting first hand accounts, but many of his observations are clearly self serving). But I'll watch it and see. I think most people are better off just watching his movies. Hopefully the biopic rekindles an interest in those.
Quote from: Headless;1006333Cap and winter against Iron man in the abandoned soviet bunker.
It was dramatic but strained credibility. Cap has about zero chance against Iron Man and the movie has to make the shield more than it really is for the fight not to be over in a nanosecond.
This stuff is why I have found the Marvel movies less and less likeable: as time goes on, they start to get more and more over the top in imitating bad action movie sequences.
Captain America can be difficult to depict since "peak human capacity" can imply different things from "Olympic Athlete" to "low end superhuman" depending in part of you consider "peak" to mean high but relatively common levels of performance or statistical outliers and world records. Aim to low and his performance (even survival) seems improbable,but aim to high and he can lose as a 'mere' human that succeeds through, tactics, training and sheer guts and determination.
I think the movies settled on a good point personally but its just my opinion.
Quote from: Dumarest;1006301The first half that was actually about Ant-Man/Scott Lang was enjoyable. The second half suffered from the usual descent into an endless fight sequence that has plagued most Marvel films.
Agreed, this is a plague on the Marvel films. Unless you count Logan, but that film is so different in tone and intent from the other Marvel films.
Quote from: Nexus;1006203Looks a juicy movie that you could really sink your teeth into then chew the fat about for hours with your friends. The gore might be hard to swallow though and leave a bad taste in some people's mouths.
:D
Other modern extremly unpleasant French horror films I'd recommend to the experienced horror hound: INSIDE and MARTYRS.
Quote from: Voros;1006446:D
Other modern extremly unpleasant French horror films I'd recommend to the experienced horror hound: INSIDE and MARTYRS.
Unpleasant or unsettling? Because if a movie's unpleasant I'll have to pass...enough unpleasant stuff in my line of work already.
Depends how you define it. I found both unsettling but I also mean they are very violent gory, not subtle horror at all.
Quote from: Voros;1006445Agreed, this is a plague on the Marvel films. Unless you count Logan, but that film is so different in tone and intent from the other Marvel films.
I like the fight scenes in the Marvel movies. But I consider them mostly action movies, I guess and the effects are generally top notch, IMO.
I usually prefer my action short and to the point. Most action in US films lacks the choreography that gives martial arts films their elegance.
Quote from: Voros;1006940I usually prefer my action short and to the point. Most action in US films lacks the choreography that gives martial arts films their elegance.
I am happy with extended action sequences but I want them to be interesting and I want to feel something when I am watching them. Some of my favorite fight scenes are quite lengthy. My big problem when I watch a lot of the superhero movies, and it might just be that I am getting old, is I don't feel anything and am overwhelmed by the CG. I don't think CG is a deal breaker though for action. I enjoyed the way it was blended with action in movies like Flying Swords of Dragon Gate and Journey to the West Conquering the Demons. I also enjoyed it in Cloud Atlas and in the new Star Wars movie.
Quote from: Voros;1006940I usually prefer my action short and to the point. Most action in US films lacks the choreography that gives martial arts films their elegance.
Actually quite a few of them do, as a number of martial arts choreographers have been working in the US at LEAST since the Matrix made a bajillion dollars.
My problem is that you start to see the same fight choreography in film after film and it gets old. There is something nice about watching a kung fu flick when you want kung fu fighting, and something NOT A KUNG FU flick when you don't. Contra you guys here, I'm finding American Action movies to be a little toooooo slick and, well, Kung fu flick in their action scenes, and I'd wish they'd stop.
Its one of the things I appreciate about The Statham. He's got his own action team and his films all fight like Statham Films, not Yeun Woo Ping Films, say.
Stratham is good but as the Martix showed hiring a great choreographer doesn't lead to great actions scenes imo if the actors are limited. Compare to John Wick, where Reeves now has way more experience performing martial films.
Saw the new Thor film and enjoyed the hell out it. More a comedy than even an action film it is also the first comic book film to capture the visual look of psychedlic sf fantasy Kirby.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1928[/ATTACH]
Watched RED SONYA (1985) on TCM. I think I often confused it with the boring Conan sequel CONAN THE DESTROYER. Amazingly, this film was directed by Richard Fleischer, he also did DESTROYER. Fleischer directed several tough gems in the 70s including SEE NO EVIL, THE LAST RUN, MR. MAJESTYK and the excellent THE NEW CENTURIONS. COMPULSION is also very good.
This...not so much but it clips along at a better pace than DESTROYER and is much more fantastic than the original CONAN, recalling Italian sword and sandal films of the 60s, which makes sense at the set designer worked with Fellini and the score is by Morricone, although a fair bit of it is just bits cribbed from his spagetthi westerns. The evil queen is played by the actress who was the warrior love of Conan in the first film. Arnold isn't Conan in this but some fella called Kalidar. Brigette Nielsen is no acting champ, but then neither is Arnold, she looks great though. Apparently the actress from the fun S&S film HUNDRA was considered for the role at one point. No masterpiece but fans of B-movies should find this fun enough with a beer in hand.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1927[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Voros;1007173Saw the new Thor film and enjoyed the hell out it. More a comedy than even an action film it is also the first comic book film to capture the visual look of psychedlic sf fantasy Kirby.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1928[/ATTACH]
Any movie directed by Taika Waititi was always going to be comedic. He basically took the schtick he established in What We Do in the Shadows and applied it to the supers genre.
Quote from: Voros;1007408Watched RED SONYA (1985) on TCM. I think I often confused it with the boring Conan sequel CONAN THE DESTROYER. Amazingly, this film was directed by Richard Fleischer, he also did DESTROYER. Fleischer directed several tough gems in the 70s including SEE NO EVIL, THE LAST RUN, MR. MAJESTYK and the excellent THE NEW CENTURIONS. COMPULSION is also very good.
This...not so much but it clips along at a better pace than DESTROYER and is much more fantastic than the original CONAN, recalling Italian sword and sandal films of the 60s, which makes sense at the set designer worked with Fellini and the score is by Morricone, although a fair bit of it is just bits cribbed from his spagetthi westerns. The evil queen is played by the actress who was the warrior love of Conan in the first film. Arnold isn't Conan in this but some fella called Kalidar. Brigette Nielsen is no acting champ, but then neither is Arnold, she looks great though. Apparently the actress from the fun S&S film HUNDRA was considered for the role at one point. No masterpiece but fans of B-movies should find this fun enough with a beer in hand.
Its a fun movie that I felt didn't got a fair shake. Its no masterpiece but watchable and an enjoyable way to kill a couple of hours. Never got why the big reveal about the Evil Queen was so mocked when it was first released. The point seemed obvious: She was delusional and insane.
Yeah, those old Conan movies were heavily trashed when they came out, but when I saw them a few years ago, I was surprised just how well they've aged.
They are fun. Soyna on the otherhand wasn't it was dull. I was quite disappointed.
I'm not a fan of DESTROYER, I find it as dull as you appear to find SONYA. Gotta grade them all on a curve those as most of the S&S films of the 80s are terrible and near unwatchable and I say that as a fan of Z-grade trash.
It has been a while since I've seen Red Sonja so honestly would need to watch it again to weigh in. The Destroyer I liked. It was a fun and entertaining movie but I didn't enjoy it as much as the Barbarian. For me, Conan the Barbarian is just a really good movie. In terms of the music, the action, the look, the villain, the drama, the setting, the adventure and characters, it was striking to me when I first saw it and it remains one of my favorite films.
I liked Destroyer. It was light fun (felt one Conan's comic book adventures, IMO) but I agree that Barbarian was better. Though I thought the recent remake was better than Barbarian
I thought the re make was terrible. Really aweful worst of the bunch, worse than Sonja.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1959[/ATTACH]
This one right? I can't tell you what it was about, but I do remember I didn't like it.
On a related note are they making Conan the King? With Arny? When I went looking for that pic I found this one.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1960[/ATTACH]
I enjoyed the remake. Not as much as the original Barbarian but not anywhere as bad as people had warned me about.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1008640I enjoyed the remake. Not as much as the original Barbarian but not anywhere as bad as people had warned me about.
I thought it felt the most like Conan stories I've read, never got why it was so reviled.
I enjoy Conan the Destroyer every time. I'm not going to say it's a great movie but it's entertaining and utterly D&D right down to the assembly of various class representatives on their dubious quest. Fun stuff. I thought the first movie was all right but frequently dull. Red Sonja bored me, mostly. Didn't see the last Conan movie as I saw a commercial or two and it looked really bad. Plus I see on average one of two movies per year at the theater, so it takes a heck neck of a lot to get me into a movie theater...it has to be something I really want to see on the big screen. I'm more of a books and records person.
The original Conan the Barbarian was great. I hadn't read the original Howard yet, but I liked it well enough.
Destroyer was fun, and gave our gaming group some great one-liners.
[video=youtube;rk9WHasIZk0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk9WHasIZk0[/youtube]
I thought the new Conan was dull, I made it about a half-hour in and turned it off when I realized I wasn't paying attention.
Since then I've read some of the original REH Conan, (Plus some Solomon Kane, I need to get the King Kull collection) and I really wish someone would make a movie with the kind of flair and tone that Howard put into his short stories.
Quote from: Dumarest;1008703I enjoy Conan the Destroyer every time. I'm not going to say it's a great movie but it's entertaining and utterly D&D right down to the assembly of various class representatives on their dubious quest.
Never thought about it that way, but it did have a "D and D" vibe in that sense.
Quote from: Nexus;1009137Never thought about it that way, but it did have a "D and D" vibe in that sense.
:D
I think it's the best D&D movie so far.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
(Sitting on a park bench while my kids ride scooters.)
Happy Thanksgiving Dumarest. No sitting on a park bench here but the snow has melted away!
Quote from: Voros;1009170Happy Thanksgiving Dumarest. No sitting on a park bench here but the snow has melted away!
We are in the midst of a heatwave. Not as bad as L.A., though, but it's very hot!
My kids saw the DVD of Jason and the Argonauts on the shelf so we may be watching that later. They liked the parts of Clash of the Titans that they saw.
DCAU's Batman vs Two Face was a wonderfully nostalgic homage to the old Batman television show with the same tongue in cheek humor and melodramatic seriousness mingled with some self aware and self referential humor thrown into the mix as good natured parody. The voice actors include some Adam West and Burt Ward as the caped crusaders (natch). Its a fun light hearted watch and a change of pace from more "grown up" superhero movies. If you enjoyed the original show and have fond memories of it, I'd especially recommend giving this one a watch.
Quote from: Nexus;1009356DCAU's Batman vs Two Face was a wonderfully nostalgic homage to the old Batman television show with the same tongue in cheek humor and melodramatic seriousness mingled with some self aware and self referential humor thrown into the mix as good natured parody. The voice actors include some Adam West and Burt Ward as the caped crusaders (natch). Its a fun light hearted watch and a change of pace from more "grown up" superhero movies. If you enjoyed the original show and have fond memories of it, I'd especially recommend giving this one a watch.
Yeah, I had it on pre-order from Amazon and got it upon release. Fun stuff. Only the second time Adam West and William Shatner acted together, I believe. Shatner did a great Two-Face and I like how they drew Harvey Dent to look like Kirk in Star Trek the Animated Series.
So I finally got around to watching X-Men Apocalypse.
I never really got the idea I was watching a movie, it was more like watching an idea for a movie. It was almost painfully little more than a collection of tropes and mandated callouts. *
I think I can never again say the words "Because of COURSE!"... I've used up my lifetime allotment here, I am no longer capable...
The sad thing is, most of the actors were really good, most of the SCENES... taken in near total isolation... were actually pretty good too. I mean, somehow they DID suck all the life out of Nicholas Hault... I swear for most of his scenes he is WORSE than the actors you've never heard of, which is weird... but honestly it did feel a lot of the time that the actors simply weren't given any direction at all.
* What am I talking about? Well. So in the scene at Alkali Lake (Because.. OF COURSE!), they unleash Wolverine/Weapon-X (Because... OF COURSE), who goes on a murder rampage (Because... OF COURSE), and Because OF COURSE Colonel Stryker can't be killed in this film, since he's a reoccuring baddy, 'now is the scene where he makes his escape'. So... he just sort of walks away. Then sort of flies away in a helicopter. Because OF COURSE ...
I mean, I guess you could say there is a weak attempt at some sort of character development? Like he just sort of slinks away because he's a slimy little coward? But really it just felt like the writers put a note on the script for the director and actor to have him 'exit stage right' so they wouldn't have to explain how the berserk Weapon-X didn't manage to kill him?
Sort of like how they apparently didn't bother to tell any of the guards who's PRIMARY JOB is wrangling superhumans that standing five feet from Wolverine on a rampage and shooting him with BULLETS was a waste of time, because we see like twenty or thirty dudes... who should ALL FUCKING KNOW BETTER... do just that. Because if you wrote them like actual characters with, you know, motivation and shit, then you'd actually have to write a reason they are getting butchered like slightly retarded sheep. Which would me actually doing a script.
Its appalling to me that this movie cost probably a hundred million dollars to make and nobody bothered to hire a writer to actually, you know, write a script. Its like the gave the coffee gopher/intern an extra cuppa joe to string together a vaguely coherent sequence of typical scenes he's expect to see in a movie called X-Men Apocalypse.
Jesus, man. I'd have fucking written it for fucking free just to avoid this shitshow we got. SO much money and talent... sooooo much effort... and no script.
They're still making X-Men/Wolverine movies? Geez...
Quote from: Dumarest;1009463They're still making X-Men/Wolverine movies? Geez...
They have to. If they stop Marvel get the property back. They don't have to be good. They just have to make them.
Quote from: Headless;1009485They have to. If they stop Marvel get the property back. They don't have to be good. They just have to make them.
Last one I saw was the terrible one where Professor X and Cyclops were written out in the first few scenes for no apparent reason. Somebody gave me the "trilogy" on DVD...they found a loving home at the local Goodwill. How many are there now?
Logan was excellent.
Quote from: Voros;1009566Logan was excellent.
Yeah, I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. I thought X-23's tribute at the end was really fitting and poignant.
This might be weird, but I literally just watched the first ten seconds of Rise: Blood Hunter and I obviously can't judge it yet... I mean: I'm good, but ten seconds? Nah, bro... I need at least 30.
Anyway I had a thought about one of the many many things going wrong with modern entertainment... everyone is trying to pull the same edgy, popular tricks that have been a staple of modern entertainment in multiple media forms for the last thirty odd years, if not longer. I mean: I'm watching a film about vampires and vampire hunting and we got a dude sitting in what looks like a bar and a hot girl/hooker sits next to him.
One of them is obviously going to be a vampire. Which one? Does it matter? We've seen it play out in each of the many, many permutations that could possibly be done. He's a vampire, she's a vampire. The Not Vampire is a victim, the Not-Vampire is a Hunter...
Just about any way this scene plays out... will not be a surprise. It can't be. We've already seen it before.
So: As an experiment, after I started this post I went ahead and played the entire scene out to see if maybe I was 'wrong'. So what happens? Lucy Liu interrupts, hires the hooker, a bit of cheesecake lesbian foofarah, then Lucy stuns the girl with the most obvious setup ever... then Emperor Palpitane's body Double wheels in to prepare to chow down on the girl and Lucy Liu, at the last minute, stakes him with a hand crossbow.
So.
No surprises. A smidgen of is she/isn't she tension over the Hooker's status, up until the 'go wash your hands' gimmcrackery, and another smidgen of tension as we wait to find out if Lucy Liu is going to let the girl die for later redemption or if its just an absurdly long con of a scene. Shocker, just an absurdly long con of a scene.
So I didn't predict much of anything, but never-the-less the film failed to deviate even once from the flow-chart of vampire hunting movies. It's official... Blade was more innovative in its first seven minutes. And its not even the movie's fault. Its entirely systemic, the industry is stagnant, so self referential and closed to outsiders that there isn't room (yet) for a truly fresh idea, which is one reason I really should be focusing more on the Apocalpyse Kiss level films for my entertainment...
EDIT::: Corrected the title of the film. For some reason I thought this was a live action adaption of an anime. Maybe it is, but not whatever I was thinking about. Still being predictable... now that I know its one of those pretentious angst 'woe is me' vampire-vampire hunter films. You know, where the heroine wakes up in a morgue alone with a toe tag, and we'll spend half the flick learning how she became a vampire in teh first place...
Spike, what did you do that was so awful that it makes you feel guilty enough that you punish yourself by watching so many bad movies? There are plenty of good ones out there so I assume you are seeking these out as some kind of penance.
That's just it, Dumarest... they are all bad movies. Even the Good movies are actually bad, we just praise them for hurting us just a little less that usual, like some sort of abuse victim.
Since I can't make this a better Cinema, I have to find my enjoyment where I can, in the simple pleasure of returning the hurt to the movies that hurt me by pointing out just how very bad they all are...
Hmm... that's pretty dark. If my browser would let me I'd link to a youtube video of frolicking kittens to lighten the mood, but I guess you'll just have to imagine that the frolicking kittens are real...
I actually forgot I was watching Rise: Blood Hunter for a while because I got caught up watching Youtube videos. I didn't realize it dated back to 2007 until Mako popped up. Weird costume choice for him by the way in that we was wearing a dark grey mohair jacket over a white turtleneck. I totally thought he was a priest.
Then I realized I'm a really bad person because when some character actor I recognize but can't name and Carla Guigino (who I adore!) were about to Vampire rape Lucy Liu... I was grateful when the vampire dude pimp slapped he to get her to stop begging for her life. I mean: I agree he's a really bad guy and he's about to do a really bad thing, and even Carla Guigino doing a slow sexy strip shouldn't make this at all sexy, but god it was a relief not to listen to Lucy's begging for her life for even another second.
Yanno... for a movie that seems to have completely slipped under the radar there is an awful lot of on-screen talent in this film. And at thirty minutes in I can safely say they are REALLY On-Screen in this film too...
But yeah. I'm definitely going to hell.
EDIT:::: Well this movie took another turn down moron lane. These vampires kill before they rape and don't even have fangs, which.. fine, whatever, but then when Lucy Liu... I guess TURNS INTO A BABY VAMPIRE when they're done with her Naked Carla Guigino greets her to the world of hte undead (by licking the blood splatters of her face, but whatever)... and...
then the dump the 'not really a body' baby vampire in a dumpster anyway to be picked up by the police and taken to the morgue? Why? Why would you do that? In what way does that make any sense? Are you, like, desperate to get a coroner to do a Vampire Autopsy to uncover the secrets of your undead existance or something? Because that seems like the hard way to go about it when you're filthy fucking rich and have goddamn MAKO as just one of your butlers/batmen.
I mean: Whatever possible legal/logistical reasons you may be solving, I'm absolutely sure you're making at least twice as many when naked women are waking up in the morgue literally thirty goddamn seconds after their families have identified their bodies. But at least they only spent a quarter of the movie getting to Lucy Liu is a Vampire instead of the Half I predicted earlier. So... go FILM! WOLVERINES!!!
EDIT OF AN EDIT.... ITS LIKE... 16 EDITS!: Seriously though. Vampires. Without. Fangs. Its not original, and this film isn't being clever with it, as they are clearly undead, and if any one thing, any one change could have saved this film at the box office... it would be giving their goddamn vampires goddamn fangs. I'm not even kidding. Fangs, people. Its not hard to give vampires fangs. I swear their cute little ritual knife-necklace props probably cost as much as a decent set of costume fangs, so you aren't even saving money. I'm surrounded by assholes!
Quote from: Dumarest;1009764Spike, what did you do that was so awful that it makes you feel guilty enough that you punish yourself by watching so many bad movies? There are plenty of good ones out there so I assume you are seeking these out as some kind of penance.
He's not even watching Good-Bad films. Of which there are many.
Quote from: Spike;1009431...
* What am I talking about? Well. So in the scene at Alkali Lake (Because.. OF COURSE!), they unleash Wolverine/Weapon-X (Because... OF COURSE), who goes on a murder rampage (Because... OF COURSE), and Because OF COURSE Colonel Stryker can't be killed in this film, since he's a reoccuring baddy, 'now is the scene where he makes his escape'. So... he just sort of walks away. Then sort of flies away in a helicopter. Because OF COURSE ...
I mean, I guess you could say there is a weak attempt at some sort of character development? Like he just sort of slinks away because he's a slimy little coward? But really it just felt like the writers put a note on the script for the director and actor to have him 'exit stage right' so they wouldn't have to explain how the berserk Weapon-X didn't manage to kill him?
Sort of like how they apparently didn't bother to tell any of the guards who's PRIMARY JOB is wrangling superhumans that standing five feet from Wolverine on a rampage and shooting him with BULLETS was a waste of time, because we see like twenty or thirty dudes... who should ALL FUCKING KNOW BETTER... do just that. Because if you wrote them like actual characters with, you know, motivation and shit, then you'd actually have to write a reason they are getting butchered like slightly retarded sheep. Which would me actually doing a script.
Its appalling to me that this movie cost probably a hundred million dollars to make and nobody bothered to hire a writer to actually, you know, write a script. Its like the gave the coffee gopher/intern an extra cuppa joe to string together a vaguely coherent sequence of typical scenes he's expect to see in a movie called X-Men Apocalypse.
Jesus, man. I'd have fucking written it for fucking free just to avoid this shitshow we got. SO much money and talent... sooooo much effort... and no script.
If you're looking for realism and logic I think you're going to be disapointed watching superhero movies based on comics for 12-year-olds.
Quote from: Voros;1009930If you're looking for realism and logic I think you're going to be disapointed watching superhero movies based on comics for 12-year-olds.
It's a bit like bitching about movies based on fairy tales not being realistic. Or most action movies for that matter. 'Realistically' most action characters should be dead several times over.
Quote from: Nexus;1009932It's a bit like bitching about movies based on fairy tales not being realistic. Or most action movies for that matter. 'Realistically' most action characters should be dead several times over.
I assumed the dead dog as motivation in John Wick was a bit tongue in cheek btw. I get the connection to his deceased wife too but it also seemed to be a kind of parody of action films and a purposeful mocking of the 'you can't kill the dog' truism of modern Hollywood. What did you think?
Quote from: Voros;1009936I assumed the dead dog as motivation in John Wick was a bit tongue in cheek btw. I get the connection to his deceased wife too but it also seemed to be a kind of parody of action films and a purposeful mocking of the 'you can't kill the dog' truism of modern Hollywood. What did you think?
I took it as fairly straight given some of the lengths I've seen and read of people going to over dogs and other pets. And John Wick really had allot of rage to vent and those guys made them a convenient target for it. He had an excuse to be a 'bad man' again,
Quote from: Voros;1009930If you're looking for realism and logic I think you're going to be disapointed watching superhero movies based on comics for 12-year-olds.
Well, you can make a superhero movie where the characters do things that make sense for them to do within the logic of superhero movies* and have good scripts, direction, and acting. It's been done. Spike just likes to self-flagellate with outright bad movies.
* obviously it will never make sense in our reality for anyone to don spandex, a cape, and a vision-obscuring mask and mete out vigilante justice.
Well... I did watch Mission Impossible Rogue Nation after Rise: Blood Hunter, so its not like everything I watch is 'bad'. It sort of reinforces my point that the bar for a film to be considered a 'good film' has been lowered, as I can't imagine a 90's audience of filmgoers being all that impressed by Ethan Hunt's plan to trick Solomon Lane at the end of the film... it plays clever but actually isn't... but beyond some similar minor details its a good flick.
Quote from: Dumarest;1009969* obviously it will never make sense in our reality for anyone to don spandex, a cape, and a vision-obscuring mask and mete out vigilante justice.
Hey, that's how I spend most of my weekends, thank you very much.
Spike. If you were 12-20 and had only seen dozens (possibly many dozens) of movies in your life, this would be surprising and edgy and would blow your fucking mind.
Quote from: Headless;1010025Spike. If you were 12-20 and had only seen dozens (possibly many dozens) of movies in your life, this would be surprising and edgy and would blow your fucking mind.
I think you're talking about the "trick" in Mission Impossible? I mean, you don't quote me so I'm not sure.
I don't really think so.
Compare, oh, the way the first movie in the franchise unfolds. I don't think Tom Cruise names Jon Voight's character or Jean Reno, as the bad guys... but the clues are on camera (the Drake Hotel bible, the knife in the 'Black Room'), so when he reveals himself in the mask its actually pretty cunning.
In Rogue Nation he runs down a bunch of random streets killing nameless mooks until Lane shows up. Lane shoots at him and misses, and Cruise/Hunt dives through the broken glass into a hole where he's set up the trap for Lane.
It works nearly entirely at random. How does Cruise get Lane to show up? He... just refuses to die to Mooks basically. How does he 'lure' Lane to the hole? He runs vaguely in that direction. I mean: we can assume Hunt/Cruise knows where he's going and all that, but what does that have to do with luring Lane? Why doesn't Lane shoot at Cruise when he sees him down in the hole?
Where exactly are the clever bits?
Like I said; Still a fun movie with plenty of solid MI/Spy action, but its not actually clever at any point.
Quote from: Nexus;1010013Hey, that's how I spend most of my weekends, thank you very much.
I suspected as much, but it doesn't mean it makes sense.
Quote from: Dumarest;1010038I suspected as much, but it doesn't mean it makes sense.
Fair enough. :D
@spike.
No I'm not talking about any specific movie or trick. I'm talking about your dis-satisfaction with movies in general.
Quote from: Headless;1009485They have to. If they stop Marvel get the property back. They don't have to be good. They just have to make them.
Exactly. Its like with the D&D movies. Solomon apparently has to produce one or show working on one regularly to retain his stranglehold on the D&D movies. Probably hence the deal for another studio to produce it? Who knows.
The whole reason the FF movie was made way back was to retain the rights. The actors didnt know it was intended to go in a vault.
This happens alot in Hollywood unfortunately.
'capeshit' meets anime: Batman Ninja Trailer
[video=youtube;wId8XY6y_HA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wId8XY6y_HA[/youtube]
Man.... up until the giant steampunk mecha-hand that trailer was eighteen fucking shades of awesome!
Of course, after the giant steampunk mecha-hand it was... Wild Wild West. Not the good one from TV either*
*I've never seen the TV one...
The Babysitter is a fun Netflix horror-slasher-comedy that was much better than I expected.
Just re-watched the original Day of the Dead. It's still pretty riveting to watch how Romero portrays things going to chaos.
Oh, and I hadn't realized the actor who played Peter in the original was the preacher in the remake.
And watching Tom Savini as the biker leader is still kinda awesome.
Quote from: Dumarest;1009161:D
I think it's the best D&D movie so far.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
(Sitting on a park bench while my kids ride scooters.)
For me, the best D&D movies are the Mythica series of movies, with Kevin Sorbo and Melanie Stone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg_t3y3zoMQ
Watched Your Highness. Much the same team that did Eastbound and Down and Vice Principals. It is an odd film but not as funny as those TV series. Not the stoner comedy the trailers seem to suggest. The White People nudity was inpressive for a modern Hollywood film which even in the raunchy comedy genre tend to be rather puritan about T&A. Also surprised by the Natalie Portman thong/butt shot. Much more of an overt fantasy film that I expected too with lots of magic and some monsters. Not as bad as I expected (hence why it took me seven years to get around to seeing it) but not as funny as it could have been.
This is actual dialogue from the film btw, which gives you some idea of the tone of the humour.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2001[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Tod13;1011369For me, the best D&D movies are the Mythica series of movies, with Kevin Sorbo and Melanie Stone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg_t3y3zoMQ
Not familiar with those. Thanks for the link.
Speaking of movies more D&D than the D&D movies.
Recently dusted off and watched two of my favourites again.
First is Archer:Fugitive from the Empire. 1981. Ive noted this one before in other threads. Aside from a slow start this failed pilot for a TV series is clearly inspired by D&D and not bad really. And it has one of the coolest fantasy weapons in it. The Heartbow. A magic bow that shoots explosive arrows. And some really good makeup effects for the snakemen. A brash young Rangeresque hero teaming up with a vengeful Druidesque heroine and a surprisingly useful Thief. When I first saw it way back in its original broadcast I thought it really was a D&D movie.
The other is The Sword and the Sorcerer. 1982. Another one with that D&D feel I've mentioned before. Though not as strongly a feel as Archer. Still it has the coolest fantasy weapon, the Slysword. A sword that shoots swords! Lots of twists and turns in the plot and things dont allways go as expected. Lee Horsley made for a likable hero too.
81-82 also saw the release of Mazes and Monsters and Dragonslayer. I still need to replace my copy of Dragonslayer.
Quote from: Omega;1012334The other is The Sword and the Sorcerer. 1982. Another one with that D&D feel I've mentioned before. Though not as strongly a feel as Archer. Still it has the coolest fantasy weapon, the Slysword. A sword that shoots swords!
.
It won't be the coolest until it shoots swords that ALSO shoot swords, in flight. A SIRV if you will? Maybe a MSRV?
Then, sir, I will accept your suggestion that it is the coolest fantasy weapon, but not before.
I feel a little stupid for not picking up on this sooner, but it seems highly likely to me that Luke Skywalker is going to play the role of Yoda in the Remake of Empire Strikes Back.
Anyone putting down some ducats on that?
Quote from: Spike;1012379I feel a little stupid for not picking up on this sooner, but it seems highly likely to me that Luke Skywalker is going to play the role of Yoda in the Remake of Empire Strikes Back.
Anyone putting down some ducats on that?
That would require violating my rule that I don't acknowledge any Star Wars movies copyrighted after 1983.
Quote from: Spike;1012378It won't be the coolest until it shoots swords that ALSO shoot swords, in flight. A SIRV if you will? Maybe a MSRV?
Then, sir, I will accept your suggestion that it is the coolest fantasy weapon, but not before.
Those are in .Hack//GU... :eek:
Sat down and watched finally my oooold con copy of the original Japanese version of the live action mecha/cyberpunk/dungeoncrawler movie Gunhed from the late 80s.
Gunhed really feels like someones RPG gaming session of a bunch of adventurers/scavengers working their way through a vast abandoned and automated and very trapped island complex. The sort of adventure that would fit right in with Cyberpunk 2020 or Shadowrun(with a few tweaks). There to scavenge valuable salvage instead they get entangled in the reactivation of an old conflict. Its odd too because some of the actors in the international cast are speaking english and everyone else isnt. The miniature effects are great and they even built a to-scale Gunhed. Very much a sort of cyberpunk dungeoncrawler.
Later got the US dub in the 90s and its ok. Though they make 7 sound even weirder. They even got simmilar sounding voice talent for some.
Quote from: Omega;1012895Sat down and watched finally my oooold con copy of the original Japanese version of the live action mecha/cyberpunk/dungeoncrawler movie Gunhed from the late 80s.
Gunhed really feels like someones RPG gaming session of a bunch of adventurers/scavengers working their way through a vast abandoned and automated and very trapped island complex. The sort of adventure that would fit right in with Cyberpunk 2020 or Shadowrun(with a few tweaks). There to scavenge valuable salvage instead they get entangled in the reactivation of an old conflict. Its odd too because some of the actors in the international cast are speaking english and everyone else isnt. The miniature effects are great and they even built a to-scale Gunhed. Very much a sort of cyberpunk dungeoncrawler.
Later got the US dub in the 90s and its ok. Though they make 7 sound even weirder. They even got simmilar sounding voice talent for some.
On the voice talent for the dub is it beater or worse then the USA dub of sakura wars tv? (I use that as my personal bench mark for A good sound A like dub cast).w
I'm not sure this goes here but I've been enjoying Marvel's The Punisher on Netflicks. Punisher is a controversial character but when he's handled well I think he can be very compelling, real in a way that many comic characters aren't. And this series captures that aspect of him very well, IMO. As you'd expect it is very violent and not the somewhat sanitized violence the other shows have, but bloody and visceral. Castle isn't invulnerable and its gives the fight scenes so real tension and the acting and writing help to keep things exciting but grounded. The character feel believable. Even if don't normally care for the character I'd suggest giving it a try for a couple of episodes, You might be pleasantly surprised.
Sometimes I wish I had Netflix; I hear Daredevil is good, too.
Quote from: kosmos1214;1013131On the voice talent for the dub is it beater or worse then the USA dub of sakura wars tv? (I use that as my personal bench mark for A good sound A like dub cast).w
I dont know? I've never seen the original Sakura Wars OVA. Just the bub in the 90s.
Still looking for a replacement for my copy of Hakkaider, another odd post apoc setting combimed with the "metal hero" theme. Fairly well done and a nice fight at the end. That and Mirai Ninja (Cyberninja in the dub.) Another fun and really weird post apoc movie.
Another on my "to replace list" is the Starship Troopers anime from 1988. A 6 part OVA that focuses alot on the power armour suits, and the harsh training. I think half the series is the boot camp and training. It stays a bit more true to the book. But also diverges in the design of the aliens and some other aspects. My old con copy was missing episode 2 or 3.
Dont think its ever made it to the US officially?
Quote from: Omega;1013217I dont know? I've never seen the original Sakura Wars OVA. Just the bub in the 90s.
Still looking for a replacement for my copy of Hakkaider, another odd post apoc setting combimed with the "metal hero" theme. Fairly well done and a nice fight at the end. That and Mirai Ninja (Cyberninja in the dub.) Another fun and really weird post apoc movie.
No not the OVA the tv show anime. it had different voice actors for the dub then the other sakura wars animes (ovas movie and the like).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakura_Wars_(TV_series)
https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=582
Though you may not have seen that ether if you aren't in to Sakura Wars.
Quote from: Omega;1013219Another on my "to replace list" is the Starship Troopers anime from 1988. A 6 part OVA that focuses alot on the power armour suits, and the harsh training. I think half the series is the boot camp and training. It stays a bit more true to the book. But also diverges in the design of the aliens and some other aspects. My old con copy was missing episode 2 or 3.
Dont think its ever made it to the US officially?
Unless I am mistaken no it's never had A official us release.
No thoughts yet on The Last Jedi?
Quote from: JRT;1014521No thoughts yet on The Last Jedi?
Saw it yesterday and I liked it very much.
I haven't seen it yet. I will wait for things to quiet down and watch it after the holidays.
Quote from: JRT;1014521No thoughts yet on The Last Jedi?
It was a direct invitation to the older generation of fans to fuck straight off and, preferably, die horribly.
Quote from: JRT;1014521No thoughts yet on The Last Jedi?
I'll post the link to my review as soon as it's done rendering.
Quote from: Thornhammer;1014606It was a direct invitation to the older generation of fans to fuck straight off and, preferably, die horribly.
Uh huh. Someone's delicate sensibilities about a film series for kids have clearly been intruded upon.
Quote from: Voros;1014659Uh huh. Someone's delicate sensibilities about a film series for kids have clearly been intruded upon.
I am a big fan of the director, but I have to admit he seems an odd fit for Star Wars. I intend to go in with an open mind. At the same time, some of the rumblings I've heard have given me to wonder if I will enjoy it. I am here to see Star Wars, and that does come with some expectations. It won't ruin my world if I don't like it, and I won't be angry. But if it is trying to make Star Wars edgy or connect it directly to current politics in a clumsy way, it will probably affect my enjoyment. Today I was actually intrigued by a Chuck Wendig article someone circulated on the subject, because he made the point that the director uses your expectations against you so you don't know what to expect. That I could see working. But then he said the one thing that made me scratch my head and realize this might not be a movie I will enjoy: "The comfort food of the Episode VII has become the molecular gastronomy of Episode VIII- ingredients we thought we knew, resolved into new forms: foams and suspensions, gelees and pancakes and cocktails, a thing we expect to be sweet is suddenly sour and salty, another thing is disassembled and deconstructed, a third thing isn't supposed to be edible but somehow, it is."
My review is up. https://youtu.be/5E3oqmUiFow
The first bit is spoiler free, but to really discuss both the good and the bad...spoilers b
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1014821My review is up. https://youtu.be/5E3oqmUiFow
The first bit is spoiler free, but to really discuss both the good and the bad...spoilers b
Thanks for posting. The spoiler mark is a good idea.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1014825Thanks for posting. The spoiler mark is a good idea.
I'm trying to include content on my channel that isn't just lets plays, so I've been playing with some editing software.
It's a start.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1014673I am a big fan of the director, but I have to admit he seems an odd fit for Star Wars. I intend to go in with an open mind. At the same time, some of the rumblings I've heard have given me to wonder if I will enjoy it. I am here to see Star Wars, and that does come with some expectations. It won't ruin my world if I don't like it, and I won't be angry. But if it is trying to make Star Wars edgy or connect it directly to current politics in a clumsy way, it will probably affect my enjoyment. Today I was actually intrigued by a Chuck Wendig article someone circulated on the subject, because he made the point that the director uses your expectations against you so you don't know what to expect. That I could see working. But then he said the one thing that made me scratch my head and realize this might not be a movie I will enjoy: "The comfort food of the Episode VII has become the molecular gastronomy of Episode VIII- ingredients we thought we knew, resolved into new forms: foams and suspensions, gelees and pancakes and cocktails, a thing we expect to be sweet is suddenly sour and salty, another thing is disassembled and deconstructed, a third thing isn't supposed to be edible but somehow, it is."
Thing is that people see politics in everything these days, I get the feeling those complaining about the 'politics' of the new SW are fine with Lando Carlissian just because he was introduced when they were kids otherwise they'd be losing their shit over that. The obsession with politics in pop culture on the left and the right is overblown and I don't care to engage with it, beyond mickery.
Personally I always liked SW as a kid but I never became obsessed and think the canon-mongers and nitpickers have drained the fun out of the original series, seems they are determined to do the same with the new films. I think a lot of this is OCD personalities applying adult sensibilities to pulp adventure material inspired by serials for kids.
Thankfully there is a new generation of kids growing up on the films who will delight in them as much as we did with the original films, largely free of the adult neurotics currently plaguing the whole thing.
Quote from: Voros;1014871Thing is that people see politics in everything these days, I get the feeling those complaining about the 'politics' of the new SW are fine with Lando Carlissian just because he was introduced when they were kids otherwise they'd be losing their shit over that. The obsession with politics in pop culture on the left and the right is overblown and I don't care to engage with it, beyond mickery.
Personally I always liked SW as a kid but I never became obsessed and think the canon-mongers and nitpickers have drained the fun out of the original series, seems they are determined to do the same with the new films. I think a lot of this is OCD personalities applying adult sensibilities to pulp adventure material inspired by serials for kids.
Thankfully there is a new generation of kids growing up on the films who will delight in them as much as we did with the original films, largely free of the adult neurotics currently plaguing the whole thing.
I was never a canon monger, but I was a fan, and just like when you are the fan of anything, certain expectations come into it. That doesn't mean I am closed minded about being delightfully surprised by things I didn't expect. I just felt, being a fan of the director's other films, he seems like an odd fit for Star Wars.
Personally I don't care for the complaining on the left or right about Star Wars. It is like Ghostbusters all over again. On the one hand, people on the right seem to be saying I need to hate it, people on the left seem to be saying I need to love it. I don't care about any of that. But some of the things I've heard have made me wonder whether I will like it. And while I agree people see politics in everything lately, I've also noticed plenty of media companies happy to cater to that demand in very clumsy ways. A well delivered political message is one thing, but when movies clearly are just aiming for a political demographic by going down a checklist, that is annoying. Clumsy was the key word. I don't object to political messages in movies, commentary etc. But if it is heavy handed at the expense of the story and characters, it can be a mess. One thing that caught my attention in the Wendig article was he said the movie plays with your expectations, which I like. That is a promising thing to hear. On the other hand he compared it to deconstructive molecular gastronomy, which could just be Wendig reaching for a metaphor, or could mean the movie is taking Star Wars into some pretentious territory. Either way, I intend to see it, decide for myself if I like it. But if I don't like it, I am not going lie and I will say why. Doesn't mean I'll be a jerk about it either.
All that said, my gut, based on all I've heard, is that I will probably enjoy it. I heard a lot of negative stuff before The Force Awakens came out, and I enjoyed that a lot.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1014829I'm trying to include content on my channel that isn't just lets plays, so I've been playing with some editing software.
It's a start.
I enjoyed it.
Quote from: JRT;1014521No thoughts yet on The Last Jedi?
I thought FA was blah, so I'm waiting for cable. I don't care about spoilers, so I've read a few.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1014890I enjoyed it.
Appreciate that. Good practice for my lore series I've started.
Saw it tonight, it was fun and overlong like a lot of movies these days. The space casino detour is definitely tacked on but otherwise I enjoyed it. Have no idea what the 'politics' are in here beyond anti-facism (like every SW film) and war profiteers. Jesus that debate on the net is tiresome.
Quote from: Voros;1014953Saw it tonight, it was fun and overlong like a lot of movies these days. The space casino detour is definitely tacked on but otherwise I enjoyed it. Have no idea what the 'politics' are in here beyond anti-facism (like every SW film) and war profiteers. Jesus that debate on the net is tiresome.
The politics in the movie largely centres around what was discussed in the space casino sequence. At least according to The Guardian editorial:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/dec/17/why-star-wars-is-a-political-force-to-be-reckoned-with (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/dec/17/why-star-wars-is-a-political-force-to-be-reckoned-with)
For me, I though The Last Jedi was fine, but a bit inconsistent with plot holes and the like. I didn't regard that as a major thing though, and liked the general direction the movie take and though Hark Hamil's last outing as a jaded Luke Skywalker was the best thing about it. I have read some of the nerd rage reviews about it, and while some of the criticisms (about plot holes, mainly) are valid, I find some of the other things making me realise that I really despise some Star Wars fanboys. If the internet was alive in 1981, the same fans would be outraged by finding out that Darth Vader was Luke's father. It's a plot twist, but these are things that actually make a story interesting. The plot twists in the movie are explained within the context of the themes and dialogue, but some are too dogmatic to assimilate it into their own vision of what Star Wars should be.
One criticism I've heard is about the bombers "dropping" bombs in space. And others have rightly pointed out that this happened in Empire, and that they could easily be self-propelled bombs, and that Star Wars isn't the hardest sci-fi in the first place. :D
But it does make me think that the less engaging a movie is, the more watchers are inclined to nitpick. If the movie isn't entertaining, nitpicking can be.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1015010One criticism I've heard is about the bombers "dropping" bombs in space. And others have rightly pointed out that this happened in Empire, and that they could easily be self-propelled bombs, and that Star Wars isn't the hardest sci-fi in the first place. :D
But it does make me think that the less engaging a movie is, the more watchers are inclined to nitpick. If the movie isn't entertaining, nitpicking can be.
Well A friend of mine once described starwars combat as ww2 / Korean tactics with A sci-fi veneer and that I find it A pretty good some up for how combat functions.
(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/funny_1.jpg)
(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/funny_2_0.jpg)
(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/funny_3a.jpg)
(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/funny_4.jpg)
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1015010One criticism I've heard is about the bombers "dropping" bombs in space. And others have rightly pointed out that this happened in Empire, and that they could easily be self-propelled bombs, and that Star Wars isn't the hardest sci-fi in the first place. :D
But it does make me think that the less engaging a movie is, the more watchers are inclined to nitpick. If the movie isn't entertaining, nitpicking can be.
It's a bit late in the day to start analysing the physics in a Star Wars movie.
Quote from: kosmos1214;1015110Well A friend of mine once described starwars combat as ww2 / Korean tactics with A sci-fi veneer and that I find it A pretty good some up for how combat functions.
Lucas straight out says it, what with the DS trench run being inspired by Dambusters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dam_Busters_(film)) and using WW2 films to visualize the dogfights in the films. (http://www.starwars.com/news/from-world-war-to-star-wars-dogfights)
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015113It's a bit late in the day to start analysing the physics in a Star Wars movie.
... :D
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1015010One criticism I've heard is about the bombers "dropping" bombs in space. And others have rightly pointed out that this happened in Empire, and that they could easily be self-propelled bombs, and that Star Wars isn't the hardest sci-fi in the first place. :D
But it does make me think that the less engaging a movie is, the more watchers are inclined to nitpick. If the movie isn't entertaining, nitpicking can be.
Don't worry, just listen for the sound of bombs being dropped or the soung of those ships closing in on you to avoid them. Because you know, sound in space.
Quote from: joriandrake;1015193Don't worry, just listen for the sound of bombs being dropped or the soung of those ships closing in on you to avoid them. Because you know, sound in space.
http://canyouactually.com/nasa-actually-recorded-sound-in-space-and-its-absolutely-chilling/
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aural_sensor
In the end, we know they do it because drama and cool. But it's not a complete impossibility. Just very unlikely for someone to make a sound system on a starship so they can "hear" stuff.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1015240http://canyouactually.com/nasa-actually-recorded-sound-in-space-and-its-absolutely-chilling/
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aural_sensor
In the end, we know they do it because drama and cool. But it's not a complete impossibility. Just very unlikely for someone to make a sound system on a starship so they can "hear" stuff.
I wouldn't be so grumpy regarding Star Wars if they hadn't cut most of the history of it out of canon. Still, while I used to protect the franchise before, criticism like that for sound (or now the bombs) is justified.
Then again, this is sci-fantasy on the edge between typical scifi and classic magical fantasy, so I give it some leeway.
(I still want HK-47, Mara, Tyber Zann and the Ebon Hawk as canon)
People are still bitching about sound in space?
Quote from: joriandrake;1015193Don't worry, just listen for the sound of bombs being dropped or the soung of those ships closing in on you to avoid them. Because you know, sound in space.
Well, they have shown that people imagine they are hearing sound in GIF files, so maybe everyone is just hearing imaginary sound in space.
Quote from: Omega;1015332People are still bitching about sound in space?
In space, everyone can hear the bitching.
Watched Kuso by Flying Lotus, like the grossest session of Over the Edge ever. A post-apocalypic, disease ridden sf setting could be extracted from the weirdness though.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2077[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Voros;1014871Personally I always liked SW as a kid but I never became obsessed and think the canon-mongers and nitpickers have drained the fun out of the original series, seems they are determined to do the same with the new films. I think a lot of this is OCD personalities applying adult sensibilities to pulp adventure material inspired by serials for kids.
There you go. Star Wars is for
children . Adults getting worked up over a fantasy series changing from when they were 6 just need to grow up and move on to adult entertainments or at least accept that they are no longer the target audience. My son loves all things Star Wars no matter how schlocky and senseless they are. He's eight. He is the target audience. We are not.
Quote from: Dumarest;1015541There you go. Star Wars is for children . Adults getting worked up over a fantasy series changing from when they were 6 just need to grow up and move on to adult entertainments or at least accept that they are no longer the target audience. My son loves all things Star Wars no matter how schlocky and senseless they are. He's eight. He is the target audience. We are not.
If you make a shitty movie, and people bitch, just say "It's for kids!"
Besides, FA shows that they're also aiming at the nostalgic older fans, otherwise why go to such much trouble to copy ANH and include all the old SW tropes and characters? Kids don't care about that old crap.
Hell, why did ANH have space politics?
[video=youtube_share;YnNSnJbjdws]https://youtu.be/YnNSnJbjdws[/youtube]
What kid cares about the power struggles and policies of the bad guys?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1015606If you make a shitty movie, and people bitch, just say "It's for kids!"
Besides, FA shows that they're also aiming at the nostalgic older fans, otherwise why go to such much trouble to copy ANH and include all the old SW tropes and characters? Kids don't care about that old crap.
Hell, why did ANH have space politics?
[video=youtube_share;YnNSnJbjdws]https://youtu.be/YnNSnJbjdws[/youtube]
What kid cares about the power struggles and policies of the bad guys?
You're responding to things I never stated, so you are either disingenuous or obtuse, take your pick. Even the best Star Wars films are for children. I assume that angers you because you don't want to admit to having juvenile tastes. It's okay for adults to enjoy children's entertainments, too, though, so you shouldn't worry about it so much. What a jackass you must be.
Edit: you think that's "politics"? Laughing my ass off at your naivete.
Quote from: Dumarest;1015618You're responding to things I never stated, so you are either disingenuous or obtuse, take your pick.
I just dislike the "It's for kids" excuse. Take it however you like.
QuoteEven the best Star Wars films are for children. I assume that angers you because you don't want to admit to having juvenile tastes. It's okay for adults to enjoy children's entertainments, too, though, so you shouldn't worry about it so much. What a jackass you must be.
Edit: you think that's "politics"? Laughing my ass off at your naivete.
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I'm angry. I'm not the one calling someone a jackass. (yet)
I'm fine with juvenile tastes. I like the old 80's Transformers cartoons. I'm pretty far from throwing stones in glass houses over that.
I call it politics. It's not deep, it doesn't have to be. It is a juvenile space adventure movie, setting up the bad guy's power structure and why they do some of the things they do.
Laugh all you like. I'm not the one who got his bonnet rustled over a message board reply.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1015606If you make a shitty movie, and people bitch, just say "It's for kids!"
It's not a shitty movie though. It's just a movie that has enraged fans for not being what they wanted to remind them of their preconceived ideas developed from childhood. As such, you could regard it as legitimate entertainment for an adult but, if it enrages you because you think it's somehow ruined your childhood, then you seriously need to grow up.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015642It's not a shitty movie though. It's just a movie that has enraged fans for not being what they wanted to remind them of their preconceived ideas developed from childhood. As such, you could regard it as legitimate entertainment for an adult but, if it enrages you because you think it's somehow ruined your childhood, then you seriously need to grow up.
My feeling is both the fans of the new film and the critics against it are getting way too precious about their takes. Its a movie. Some people will like, some won't. Some will think it is okay. But the annoying thing is it is almost like a test of who you are as a person whether you like it or not.
I would challenge the idea that this is a movie designed exclusively for children. The Star Wars movies are an all-ages deal. Especially when many of the fans came of age in the 70s and 80s. They want the young viewers, but they want the older viewers too. I think getting hugely upset about not liking it, would be misguided. But just having a negative opinion of the movie because you didn't enjoy it is entirely fair.
I haven't seen it yet. I will probably get a chance after Christmas. I have to say though, some of the things I've heard make me wonder whether I am going to enjoy it as much as the last one. To me, Star Wars is steak and potatoes faire, and I have things I like about it going in. I like the way the Jedi have been presented in past movies. If they are going to turn that on its head, I am not sure I will enjoy it as much.
The trouble I have with the fans criticisms is the manner of the criticism. I've no problem with people saying that it has plot holes, or bad acting or whathaveyou - in other words rational criticism. But what I've seen for the most part is for people doing entirely emotional takes on this like 'they've murdered Luke!' or the like. For the record, the way Luke Skywalker has matured and develops through this movie is the best thing about it. A lot of the other, related, criticisms largely stem from this and are frequently explained in the dialogue. That is, these are not rational criticisms - just emotional ranting.
I went in and saw it when it came out and my initial impressions were that it was a bit long, and there were a few issues of pacing, plotting and the like. So I didn't think it was a perfect film, however, it was perfectly fine as a Star Wars movie. I saw it in NZ, so we were among the first to see it in the world and it was a sellout midnight showing. Nobody at the show I saw went away unhappy, or feeling that they had been personally insulted (as some people have literally claimed online). I went home and didn't really think anything of it. Then two days passed or so, and we started to get this avalanche of ranting online.
It was at this point, I realised just how much I really despise these types of fan. Fans don't love things, they hate.
Well I think people going on rants is stupid but I don't think everyone has to agree on whether Luke's development is a good choice.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1015669Well I think people going on rants is stupid but I don't think everyone has to agree on whether Luke's development is a good choice.
Well, in a way, I just feel sorry for people like you who will never have a chance to see the movie without the context of the hullabaloo of certain fans screaming how much they hate it.
I don't think everyone has to agree on the choices made about Luke's development, but it's akin to seeing the development of Wolverine in Logan - another craggy, ageing character different to the first time we saw him - the character development is kinda the
whole point of the movie. We haven't seen the character of Luke Skywalker for over 30 years, and people have this expectation of him being this superman type of figure. If they portrayed him as such, without flaws or any type of personal development at all, there really wouldn't be any type of story at all to tell.
It's akin to Luke Skywalker turning up to find Yoda, and discovering he is a small, green annoying alien who lives in a swamp jungle. If Yoda had just been the 'great warrior' that Yoda refutes 'wars not make one great', then the Empire Strikes back would have been a duller movie because of it. In fact, this has been said many times now, but if you consider the various twists and failings of the characters in Empire Strikes Back as the equivalent of the various twists in The Last Jedi, then these critics would be tearing that movie up too.
So these criticisms are not about the movie's qualities at all, they are to do with rejecting story development and anything that confounds their preconceptions.
For me, I grew up with Star Wars, but it's become less of an all consuming passion for me as I've grown up. There are other things, including geek things, that occupy my headspace and allow myself to detach from it. However, this franchise won't die because of the shrill shrieking of online nerds. They'll all be back next year to watch Solo and also, after the've calmed down, to see the final episode of this new trilogy in 2020 (and the rest that follow). People about to see the movie for themselves, should be taking all these outbursts with a heavy pinch of salt. As I said above, there are some flaws in the movie, but it is not worth the outcry we have seen by some.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015679Well, in a way, I just feel sorry for people like you who will never have a chance to see the movie without the context of the hullabaloo of certain fans screaming how much they hate it.
I have news for you Trippy, the haters and the lovers are the new star wars are being equally annoying. You are both shading peoples' opinions of the film. Personally I am going in hoping to enjoy it. And I am trying to ignore the bulk of what I am hearing (I haven't watched any of the reviews on youtube or read any). I've stuck to non-spoiler discussions where I can. But I've heard enough to know there are things I might not enjoy, which is fine, it is okay to have a sense of a film before you see it as long as you keep an open mind. I am not worried about the haters or the lovers shading my opinion though, because they were doing the same thing for A Force Awakens. People were screaming when that came out (and it was essentially a pretty similar discussion) and I ended up loving it.
QuoteI don't think everyone has to agree on the choices made about Luke's development, but it's akin to seeing the development of Wolverine in Logan - another craggy, ageing character different to the first time we saw him - the character development is kinda the whole point of the movie. We haven't seen the character of Luke Skywalker for over 30 years, and people have this expectation of him being this superman type of figure. If they portrayed him as such, without flaws or any type of personal development at all, there really wouldn't be any type of story at all to tell.
Again, I haven't seen it yet, so I only have a vague sense of where it is going. But I am all for development, but I don't necessarily want every character to take a dark or cynical arc. Luke Skywalker is a character where I think I'd probably not enjoy seeing the direction it sounds like they took him. That doesn't mean I don't like those kinds of stories. But to me, there is a reason I go to see star wars. I have expectations. And that isn't a bad thing. I don't have to agree with you about the direction the film goes when I walk out of the theater. There isn't one objective way to react to the movie.
QuoteIt's akin to Luke Skywalker turning up to find Yoda, and discovering he is a small, green annoying alien who lives in a swamp jungle. If Yoda had just been the 'great warrior' that Yoda refutes 'wars not make one great', then the Empire Strikes back would have been a duller movie because of it. In fact, it's been done many times now, but if you consider the various twists and failings of the characters in Empire Strikes Back as the equivalent of the various twists in The Last Jedi, then these critics would be tearing that up too.
Sure, and if the way they handle Luke adds that kind of thing to the film, I might love it. If, on the other hand, it feels weirdly out of character and like they are trying to do a hip take on an old character, I'll probably not enjoy it. But we will see. I am just saying, I resent being told by people who dislike it, I am supposed to hate it for some reason, and I equally resent being told by people who like it, that I am stuck in the past if I don't like the direction it goes in. It is just a fucking movie.
QuoteSo these criticisms are not about the movie's qualities at all, they are to do with rejecting story development and anything that confounds their preconceptions.
Those are not mutually exclusive things. I think when you are talking about a saga like star wars, how it ties into the past films and material is going to be a part of the quality. And whether the direction they go in, even if it is unexpected and new, could still be done poorly. It could be a decision that weighs down the film. I mean it is a movie, and we are talking about our reactions to it. If someone doesn't like it, they don't like.
QuoteFor me, I grew up with Star Wars, but it's become less of an all consuming passion for me as I've grown up. There are other things, including geek things, that occupy my headspace. However, this franchise won't die because of the shrill shrieking of online nerds. They'll all be back next year to watch Solo and also, after the've calmed down, to see the final episode of this new trilogy in 2020 (and the rest that follow). People about to see the movie for themselves, should be taking all these outbursts with a heavy pinch of salt. As I said above, there are some flaws in the movie, but it is not worth the outcry we have seen by some.
Star Wars is far from an all-consuming passion for me. But I enjoy it, and I am looking forward to this and the next film. I am taking everyone's opinion with a grain of salt, including your's. For me, it is going to be about how I feel walking out of that theater. I am not there to cheerlead or destroy a franchise and I am not there to please the internet. I am there to watch a movie and react to it.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015642It's not a shitty movie though. It's just a movie that has enraged fans for not being what they wanted to remind them of their preconceived ideas developed from childhood. As such, you could regard it as legitimate entertainment for an adult but, if it enrages you because you think it's somehow ruined your childhood, then you seriously need to grow up.
Cool. Like I said, I thought FA was boring, so I'm waiting for video to see TLJ, so I can't put too much into an informed opinion yet.
But that excuse can be used to dismiss legitimate criticism. I didn't like it when Lucas used it to defend the prequels, and I don't like it now in defense of the sequels.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1015682Star Wars is far from an all-consuming passion for me. But I enjoy it, and I am looking forward to this and the next film. I am taking everyone's opinion with a grain of salt, including your's. For me, it is going to be about how I feel walking out of that theater. I am not there to cheerlead or destroy a franchise and I am not there to please the internet. I am there to watch a movie and react to it.
Great. Well, you and watch the movie and get back to us, because at the moment it's a pretty futile conversation when we are trying to discuss the 'issues' without giving away spoilers. You say you don't want shade? Then why discuss about it online first? And yes it is just a fucking movie, which is one of the first points I made about it.
The point about mentioning that SW is mainly for children (something Lucas and all his film buddies from De Palma to Spielberg recognized before the first film ever came out) is that we have grown men losing their shit online over
a pop culture kids film or 'family' adventure if you prefer. It is the absurd lack of perspective the ranters are displaying that is so eye-rolling, similar to the pathetic Rick and Morty BBQ sauce 'controversy.'
And sure adults can enjoy art intended for kids, Treasure Island and Huckelberry Finn are for kids and masterpieces of English language literature, but by definition art for kids is going to be limited in certain ways (sexuality, emotionally, politically) and adults should approach it with that in mind.
Anway, so De Toro's Shape of Water tonight: imagine if Alan Moore's Necronomicon was done as an overt romance. Very much a fairy tale with broad characters, Michael Shannon's villian in particular has zero shades of grey, that draws on the classic monsters films of the 50s (the poetic swimming scene in The Creature from the Black Lagoon most obviously), Sirk melodramas and even musicals and 1960s spy thrillers. Sally Hawkins is as great as everyone says, but isn't she always?
Game wise it would be interesting to tweak a game of CoC's Dunsmouth along these lines.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2052[/ATTACH]
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015686Great. Well, you and watch the movie and get back to us, because at the moment it's a pretty futile conversation when we are trying to discuss the 'issues' without giving away spoilers. You say you don't want shade? Then why discuss about it online first? And yes it is just a fucking movie, which is one of the first points I made about it.
I am discussing it because I am annoyed by the way both sides are putting pressure on people by turning how we react when we are into that theater into some kind of character test.
Quote from: Voros;1015719The point about mentioning that SW is mainly for children (something Lucas and all his film buddies from De Palma to Spielberg recognized before the first film ever came out) is that we have grown men losing their shit online over
a pop culture kids film or 'family' adventure if you prefer. It is the absurd lack of perspective the ranters are displaying that is so eye-rolling, similar to the pathetic Rick and Morty BBQ sauce 'controversy.'
I agree you have grown men losing their shit, which is bad whether the movie is meant for kids or not (still I would challenge the idea that Star Wars is purely for kids---it is kid friendly for sure, but then I am not walking in expecting it to tackle adult themes or to not have things in it that kids find cute and fun-I've never criticized that stuff, and I've always liked things like the Ewoks). But my point is the people who love it are also losing their shit online as well, and they are being just as ridiculous about it. I am looking at my facebook feed right now and the fans of the movie are making posts that are just as annoying, baiting and juvenile as the people who want me to hate the film (and both are desperately trying to shape the opinions of the public on the matter). And the people who love it making these posts are grown men and women as well. And the truly infuriating thing is they are basically using the conversation as a proxy for much larger, completely unrelated issues.
What I see from fandom on Star Wars The Last Jedi is best summed up below.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2053[/ATTACH]
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015642It's not a shitty movie though. It's just a movie that has enraged fans for not being what they wanted to remind them of their preconceived ideas developed from childhood. As such, you could regard it as legitimate entertainment for an adult but, if it enrages you because you think it's somehow ruined your childhood, then you seriously need to grow up.
No. Its just a shitty movie.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015662But what I've seen for the most part is for people doing entirely emotional takes on this like 'they've murdered Luke!' or the like. For the record, the way Luke Skywalker has matured and develops through this movie is the best thing about it. .
Wow. No. What fhey did to Luke was fucking awful. Even Hamill thinks so.
Quote from: Aglondir;1015767Wow. No. What fhey did to Luke was fucking awful. Even Hamill thinks so.
Well, actually much of his reactions have been edited online to show more than was actually said and suit a particular narrative - the videos have edited out where he has said in conclusion that he actually likes the way his character developed for example. Even then, you are ignoring apparently 93% of professional critics who liked the movie. I note that this has now been assumed by some fans to be a massive conspiracy too.....
jeff37923, you get my first 'thumbs up' of the year.
Merry Christmas.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015787Well, actually much of his reactions have been edited online to show more than was actually said and suit a particular narrative - the videos have edited out where he has said in conclusion that he actually likes the way his character developed for example. Even then, you are ignoring apparently 93% of professional critics who liked the movie. I note that this has now been assumed by some fans to be a massive conspiracy too.....
What are the conspiracy theories?
Quote from: Aglondir;1015802What are the conspiracy theories?
That, supposedly, all these reviewers had taken bribes from Disney and so on. People apparently cannot compute that anybody would have reached a positive conclusion upon their own viewing.
Now for me, the movie lies somewhere about a 70% rating, insofar that I think some of the pacing and contrived plotting in the middle area could have been better. But it's not the worst Star Wars movie ever, and the actual things that people are bitter about, for me, are what I actually consider to be the interesting developments. jeff37923's post above summarises it well and, as others have, I will note that this is a movie that mirrors Empire Strikes Back insofar that it is deliberately trying to confound expectations in order to give the setting a greater thematic depth overall. That is why the critics, generally, like it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1015728...But my point is the people who love it are also losing their shit online as well, and they are being just as ridiculous about it. I am looking at my facebook feed right now and the fans of the movie are making posts that are just as annoying, baiting and juvenile as the people who want me to hate the film (and both are desperately trying to shape the opinions of the public on the matter). And the people who love it making these posts are grown men and women as well. And the truly infuriating thing is they are basically using the conversation as a proxy for much larger, completely unrelated issues.
I agree to the degree that I read a LA Times piece recently that talks about how 'subversive' the new film is in a ridiculously over-reaching piece.
To me this reflects people conflating political action and pop culture to a juvenile degree, as if the question whether or not some TV show, film or comic is 'problematic' or not is a life or death political battle. It use to be that taking pop culture seriously was seen as a 'brave' stance, by the likes of Kael or Sontag back in the 60s, but these days it has got out of hand and the political content of some disposable pop products is treated with an earnestness outstripping its actual significance either aesthetically or politically.
Quote from: Voros;1015892I agree to the degree that I read a LA Times piece recently that talks about how 'subversive' the new film is in a ridiculously over-reaching piece.
To me this reflects people conflating political action and pop culture to a juvenile degree, as if the question whether or not some TV show, film or comic is 'problematic' or not is a life or death political battle. It use to be that taking pop culture seriously was seen as a 'brave' stance, by the likes of Kael or Sontag back in the 60s, but these days it has got out of hand and the political content of some disposable pop products is treated with an earnestness outstripping its actual significance either aesthetically or politically.
My intent is to give this film a fair viewing and not let the internet chatter interfere. What bothers me is people are staking so much it emotionally that they are making it so, if I do come out with a different opinion than them, they are going to read political and other things into it. But that isn't how I evaluate movies. Even if I do agree with the politics of a film, I am always wary when a big company like Disney appears to be co-opting my political philosophy. If a franchise this large does have a political message you agree with, it is probably a could idea to be a little suspicious, since this is, at its heart, a money-making and merchandise selling venture.
The best (and funniest) criticism of TLJ is by Screen Rant. It's a screenwriter pitching the proposal to a Disney exec, and his stunned and puzzled reactions. (Warning: spoilers):
https://youtu.be/1v2PV52WNLY
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1015904My intent is to give this film a fair viewing and not let the internet chatter interfere.
Doubtful. You are already having a good old chat about it on the internet and relating your own philosophy pertaining to this movie that you have yet to see.
I don't know how deep you can analyse the politics of this movie, or whether you even should but, when reviewers are already pushing their own political ideology into their reviews, I guess it becomes inevitable. It is just a movie and people will keep on buying the toys regardless.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015951Doubtful. You are already having a good old chat about it on the internet and relating your own philosophy pertaining to this movie that you have yet to see.
Trippy, with all due respect, you can't see inside my mind and know what I am thinking. I have expectations like I do when I see any film, and some things I've heard, have made me wonder whether I'll like it. But I had similar reservations going into Force Awakens and enjoyed it just fine. I am pretty good at giving a film a fair shake despite concerns going in. In fact, having my expectations a little lower will probably help me enjoy the film (I find it is way easier to really hate a movie if you go in thinking it is going to be awesome and it does something to disappoint you; whereas if I go in wary, the movie has to do a lot less to win me over). The only point I've really been trying to make this entire thread, is whether I like the movie or not, it isn't a commentary on anything beyond the film itself. And I am just getting fed up with people on the internet trying to project that onto peoples' reactions. I am honestly hoping to go and see a good movie. But I am not going to say I enjoyed myself if I didn't either. And if something like Luke being presented in a way that doesn't feel in keeping with the character to me (and I really don't know if that will be the case), I don't think me deciding "I didn't like that character choice" makes me stuck in the past or crying about my childhood. I don't think I am being terribly unreasonable here at all. And, importantly, all I am talking about is having the possibility of those criticisms on my tongue when I leave the theater. I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know whether I feel that way about it. I just know people on the internet are getting mad and projecting if you do feel that way about it. By the same token, I am sure if I come out loving it, there will be people on the other side trying to drag me down to their negative view of the movie. It is just a movie. I want to be able to feel about it, however I feel about it. Increasingly that is somehow becoming controversial.
QuoteI don't know how deep you can analyse the politics of this movie, or whether you even should but, when reviewers are already pushing their own political ideology into their reviews, I guess it becomes inevitable. It is just a movie and people will keep on buying the toys regardless.
I am guessing people are reading a lot into it. Some of the reviews point to things in the film that sound like they could stand in for any number of things. So I am sure plenty of that is going on (and the director spoke about some of the criticisms, and sounds to me like he wasn't going for what a lot of the critics seem to think he was going for). But the big difference this time, that gives me pause, is it is the people who love the movie who are highlighting the political subtext.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1015953Trippy, with all due respect, you can't see inside my mind and know what I am thinking.
I can read what you are saying though - and this is precisely what you are doing. You are engaging in online chatter about a movie, expressing your thoughts about it, and then telling everybody that you won't allow anyone to influence your viewing of it. It's inevitable, bluntly.
With regards to the criticism of the movie, like I say I do differentiate between criticisms that highlight actual flaws and those which just amount an emotional inability to process anything new or unexpected. That was my point, in a nutshell.
And it's not just people who are liking the movie who are giving it a political subtext. The most angry criticism of this movie is coming from the Alt.Right, arguing it's been taken over by SJWs and feminists, and overrun with 'Asian bitches' and that 'Purple Haired cunt' who are making the male characters look like 'complete dicks'.
No, I'm not exaggerating.
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-alt-right-female-characters-1201910095/ (http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-alt-right-female-characters-1201910095/)
You want to see politics in your movie reviews? There it is.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015958I can read what you are saying though - and this is precisely what you are doing. You are engaging in online chatter about a movie, expressing your thoughts about it, and then telling everybody that you won't allow anyone to influence your viewing of it. It's inevitable, bluntly.
I don't know why you are getting so defensive here Trippy. You may be reading what I am saying, but I think you are being far from charitable in your reading of my words. I am talking about it because I may go see the movie, and peoples' reactions are on my mind. I am giving my thoughts before I go see it. My plan is to hopefully enjoy it. And I am saying what I've heard that makes me wonder if I will but I intend to give it a fair shake. I am a very optimistic movie goer in general. So I am there, hoping to have a good time when I see a film. I am not saying those conversations won't help influence my expectations. I am saying I resent that both the fans and critics seem bent on not allowing me to have an opinion of the film that deviates from their's without name calling. And I am saying I intend to go in, like I do with any movie, hoping to be entertained.
We are allowed to talk about movies and speculate before we see them. That is part of the fun. And we've already been talking and speculating for two years. I don't see any harm in doing so leading up to watching it.
QuoteWith regards to the criticism of the movie, like I say I do differentiate between criticisms that highlight actual flaws and those which just amount an emotional inability to process anything new or unexpected. That was my point, in a nutshell.
Case in point. You are just resorting to ad homs here.
All I can give Trippy is my reaction to the movie. And tell you what I liked and didn't. I can also draw distinctions if I think something was done well, but just didn't work for me. But there is still a lot of subjectivity involved. Again, I am quite sure I am capable of handling new things. And with different movies my bar for shifts in tone and character are going to be higher and lower. You are turning something that is a matter of taste into a question of character. And again, I hope I love this movie. I haven't seen it yet. I just don't want to come out of the film, and if I disliked it, be concerned that if I voice that opinion people will say "Your emotionally incapable of processing anything new". Maybe there are people who can't process anything new, and that is impacting their enjoyment of this film. I am 100% certain I am not a person incapable of processing new things.
I've seen too many films that critics loved, and I thought they were wrong about it. And there are definitely films where the critical consensus shifts after release. Saying it has to be a good movie because critics liked it, I think is a weak argument. I think you can definitely say the movie was well received by critics when critics like a film. And I don't think one should dismiss critical consensus out of hand. I just don't think that always reflects the quality of the movie. Sometimes critics are right, sometimes they are blinded by their own aesthetic standards (and sometimes those aesthetic standards are bunk).
This whole discussion I am having with you, is exactly the kind of thing I am complaining about. I haven't seen the movie yet. I might love. All I've said is there are some things that make me wonder, and if I don't like something, I'll say so. But your already on the attack here, challenging my ability to still give The Last Jedi a fair viewing. The effect you are having, for people who haven't seen it yet, is just as negative as when somebody screams about how horrible it is. It is just enervating as a viewer to get berated by either side, before you've even seen the thing. It isn't fun. You are complaining about the toxicity level on the other side (which I agree is certainly there) but dude, you are being just as toxic.
QuoteAnd it's not just people who are liking the movie who are giving it a political subtext. The most angry criticism of this movie is coming from the Alt.Right, arguing it's been taken over by SJWs and feminists, and overrun with 'Asian bitches' and that 'Purple Haired cunt' who are making the male characters look like 'complete dicks'.
No, I'm not exaggerating.
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-alt-right-female-characters-1201910095/ (http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-alt-right-female-characters-1201910095/)
You want to see politics in your movie reviews? There it is.
Trippy, I never said it was just the people who liked it making it political. I think there are a lot of stupid things being said on the right side of the aisle about this movie. Really this just highlights what I am talking about, people using the film as a proxy for some other cultural conflict going on. From what I've heard from friends who have seen it, the political stuff, while it may be there, is pretty light, and easy to ignore. Most of them seem to think people on both sides are reaching with the political analysis of the movie. I just get annoyed with anyone investing that much energy grappling with whether a movie cheerleads their point of view or not.
All I want is to feel however I feel about the movie without being judged harshly by people. Or worse, people assuming I hold a set of political beliefs because of how I feel about the film. That is the nonsense that is putting me in a foul mood before I even see the thing. But I was pretty clear I don' like feeling pressured from either side of the aisle on this one.
My dislike of the movie has nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with rejecting anything new. If the latter were true, we all would have rejected ESB because it had AT-ATS and Yoda. Rather, my dislike of the movie is based on two questions: Was it a good movie, and Was it a good Star Wars movie? On Rotten Tomatoes, the audience rating for TLJ is lower than The Phantom Menace. That may change as time goes on, but when you are hated more than Jar Jar there's probably a better reason than "the fans can't handle anything new."
As for politics, I agree with both sides. It's great to see female characters that matter for a change. On the other hand, it's a travesty that the male characters are Tools and Fools, or denied their agency as heroes.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1015963I don't know why you are getting so defensive here Trippy. You may be reading what I am saying, but I think you are being far from charitable in your reading of my words.
That's because I think you're being a bit disingenuous. Nobody is forcing you to engage with me in debate here. I'm just expressing my view, having seen a movie and seen the online negative reviews that emerged about a day or so later.
You haven't seen the movie, as you keep saying, but are immediately attributing my comments as attempting to influence you - "toxic" as you say - which is not the case. You can watch the movie and make up your own mind, but to go around seeking to engage with people about this subject matter and expressing your own counter views, you are largely just setting out your own stall for how you will find the movie when you see it. That's nobody else's fault. If you want to shut off all influences, don't engage. Till then, the best response is to say 'I've not seen it yet so I can't comment' rather than pontificate. If you end up watching the movie, and come out saying good or bad comments, I will judge you accordingly on your analysis by those comments alone.
And that is all I'm doing when I say that some of the reviews I have read online are offensively bad: illogical, unaware, foul mouthed, racist, misogynist, self-entitled and bigoted. I make no apologies for pointing that out, because they make no apologies for making those videos in the first place.
Quote from: Aglondir;1015967My dislike of the movie has nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with rejecting anything new. If the latter were true, we all would have rejected ESB because it had AT-ATS and Yoda. Rather, my dislike of the movie is based on two questions: Was it a good movie, and Was it a good Star Wars movie? On Rotten Tomatoes, the audience rating for TLJ is lower than The Phantom Menace. That may change as time goes on, but when you are hated more than Jar Jar there's probably a better reason than "the fans can't handle anything new."
As for politics, I agree with both sides. It's great to see female characters that matter for a change. On the other hand, it's a travesty that the male characters are Tools and Fools, or denied their agency as heroes.
And also on Rotten Tomatoes the professional critics are rating the movie with a 92% thumbs up. If you read the actual audience ratings you will see that many of the individual ratings are extreme - giving 1/2 stars vs 5 stars sort of thing. The result is a middling score in the 50s.
With regards to the politicised reviews, I'm not accusing you of having them, but they are there on some videos and some of them are truly disgusting the way they have tried to make that an agenda.
The reaction to change? Well, it is worth reminding that Empire Strikes back is 35+ years old now, so if people haven't now had a chance to adjust to it's revelations by now then they really do have issues - but it is actually a matter of historical record that some critics did slate ESB when it came out for things like the awkward romance between Han and Leia, the petulance of Luke Skywalker, the fact that Yoda was an annoying small green alien who looked nothing like what a 'great warrior' should look like, or the stupidity of the characters getting caught by Boba Fett or Darth Vader respectively, or Han getting frozen, Luke getting his hand cut off and finding out Vader was his father and the general downbeat of much of the movie. Since then, and after the final instalment of Return of the Jedi concluded the full arc, fans have come to appreciate it.
Was it a good movie/bad movie? Time will tell, and people can be their own judges, but it won't be fully settled till the full story is known in any case. In 35+ years from now, I'm willing to bet people will a lot more forgiving than certain fans are now in the heat of anger.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015958I can read what you are saying though - and this is precisely what you are doing. You are engaging in online chatter about a movie, expressing your thoughts about it, and then telling everybody that you won't allow anyone to influence your viewing of it. It's inevitable, bluntly.
With regards to the criticism of the movie, like I say I do differentiate between criticisms that highlight actual flaws and those which just amount an emotional inability to process anything new or unexpected. That was my point, in a nutshell.
And it's not just people who are liking the movie who are giving it a political subtext. The most angry criticism of this movie is coming from the Alt.Right, arguing it's been taken over by SJWs and feminists, and overrun with 'Asian bitches' and that 'Purple Haired cunt' who are making the male characters look like 'complete dicks'.
No, I'm not exaggerating.
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-alt-right-female-characters-1201910095/ (http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-alt-right-female-characters-1201910095/)
You want to see politics in your movie reviews? There it is.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/12/20/rotten-tomatoes-confirms-its-55-last-jedi-audience-score-is-100-authentic/#4799c3c14231
Considering the scores of Bright and The Orville as well, I think there's a much simpler explanation. Professional critics are shit at their jobs.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1016036https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/12/20/rotten-tomatoes-confirms-its-55-last-jedi-audience-score-is-100-authentic/#4799c3c14231
Considering the scores of Bright and The Orville as well, I think there's a much simpler explanation. Professional critics are shit at their jobs.
Until you agree with them, right? So if these same critics rated a movie you like highly thats fine, but of you disagree with them then they are shit (or at least 92% of them)? You take each critic as they come, but for
all of them to be wrong? Nah - it's a bad explanation.
Anyway, in that article they don't offer any theory for the disparity between the ratings, but just clicking through the audience reviews it is obvious. Lots of people are voting to the extremes - as pointed out previously. The mean average, as a consequence ends up in the mid 50s.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1016038Until you agree with them, right?
Me personally? Man, I hope not. I like that there are critics out there who don't like what I like. Differences make the world go round, and a critic may know more about Welsh documentaries (to pull an example out of my ass) than I do.
QuoteSo if these same critics rated a movie you like highly thats fine, but of you disagree with them then they are shit (or at least 92% of them)? You take each critic as they come, but for all of them to be wrong? Nah - it's a bad explanation.
What struck me is the amount of the disparity for TLJ.
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/robcain/files/2017/12/Star-Wars-RT-scores-2.jpg)
That gap is frikkin huge. It makes me consider the idea that movie critics nowadays are really out of touch with the audience.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1016057Me personally? Man, I hope not. I like that there are critics out there who don't like what I like. Differences make the world go round, and a critic may know more about Welsh documentaries (to pull an example out of my ass) than I do.
What struck me is the amount of the disparity for TLJ.
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/robcain/files/2017/12/Star-Wars-RT-scores-2.jpg)
That gap is frikkin huge. It makes me consider the idea that movie critics nowadays are really out of touch with the audience.
When the original trilogy came out, Rotten Tomatoes didn't exist. All those ratings are done 20 years + after the movies had long since entered into the romanticised memories of fans.
And in any case, again, the audience score for The Last Jedi is due to the extremes in which the ratings are being placed by the voters. It's difficult to get a high score when you have people going on and giving the movie a half point rating (the lowest possible), but it is equally balanced out by fans putting at a 5 (the max) - so the disparity is with some fans but not all. The Phantom Menace may be slightly higher overall, but most of the ratings are generally in the mediocre 50 something mark (including the professional critics). There was a greater consensus that the movie was mediocre, whereas The Last Jedi is getting more extreme emotions (in both directions).
You'll also note that these are generally the same professional critics for Rogue One and The Force Awakens, so when you are claiming they are shit at their jobs, it should be noted that they are being more consistent than the audience scores in the way they rate the films.
I am a bit wary of sites like Rotten Tomatoes, at least this early out of the gate, because people can spam reviews on them. At the same time, when a book or movie gets bad reviews, it is now becoming a PR move to turn that into some kind of angry fan thing (which isn't always). What I will say is I do think there is a big gap between what audiences consider to be a good movie and what critics often consider a good movie to be. The wider that gap gets, the less they are even speaking the same language about media. I do think that is an issue, but it is way bigger than one Star Wars movie.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015986That's because I think you're being a bit disingenuous. Nobody is forcing you to engage with me in debate here. I'm just expressing my view, having seen a movie and seen the online negative reviews that emerged about a day or so later.
You haven't seen the movie, as you keep saying, but are immediately attributing my comments as attempting to influence you - "toxic" as you say - which is not the case. You can watch the movie and make up your own mind, but to go around seeking to engage with people about this subject matter and expressing your own counter views, you are largely just setting out your own stall for how you will find the movie when you see it. That's nobody else's fault. If you want to shut off all influences, don't engage. Till then, the best response is to say 'I've not seen it yet so I can't comment' rather than pontificate. If you end up watching the movie, and come out saying good or bad comments, I will judge you accordingly on your analysis by those comments alone.
And that is all I'm doing when I say that some of the reviews I have read online are offensively bad: illogical, unaware, foul mouthed, racist, misogynist, self-entitled and bigoted. I make no apologies for pointing that out, because they make no apologies for making those videos in the first place.
I don't know why you think I am being disingenuous Trippy. I've been as honest as I can and I've been trying to be consistent here as well. I am just saying how I feel about the discussion surrounding the movie.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1016088I don't know why you think I am being disingenuous Trippy. I've been as honest as I can and I've been trying to be consistent here as well. I am just saying how I feel about the discussion surrounding the movie.
Well, can we just leave it at this until you see the movie, then we can debate without concerns over spoilers and the like.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1016087I am a bit wary of sites like Rotten Tomatoes, at least this early out of the gate, because people can spam reviews on them. At the same time, when a book or movie gets bad reviews, it is now becoming a PR move to turn that into some kind of angry fan thing (which isn't always). What I will say is I do think there is a big gap between what audiences consider to be a good movie and what critics often consider a good movie to be. The wider that gap gets, the less they are even speaking the same language about media. I do think that is an issue, but it is way bigger than one Star Wars movie.
Who pays attention to the audience ratings on RT? There's a reason the ratings on RT are taken more seriosuly than imdb for instance. I could care less what the lowest common denominator internet opinion on a film is. That's like using Youtube comments to arrive at an opinion.
And film critics have long recognized certain films as 'critic proof.' The terrible Transformer movies are a prime example. As a horror and genre fan one gets to know which critics are biased against genre films and those who aren't, if Kermode at the BBC or Turan at the LA Times give a horror film a good review it means something to me. But it is clear the internet 'backlash' against the new SW is in RL tiny in effect as the films are making more money than God.
Quote from: Voros;1016127And film critics have long recognized certain films as 'critic proof.' The terrible Transformer movies are a prime example.
[video=youtube;ObpcGNCU944]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObpcGNCU944[/youtube]
Rotten Tomatoes aren't the only movie polling site in any case:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2060[/ATTACH]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt)
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1016190Rotten Tomatoes aren't the only movie polling site in any case:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2060[/ATTACH]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt)
That's true.
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-wars-episode-viii---the-last-jedi
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1016203That's true.
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-wars-episode-viii---the-last-jedi
And even in the metacritic poll, you can see that the review writers are mostly polarised to the extremes. The big notable difference to the IMDB ratings though is numbers. The metacritic has attracted just under 5000 voters and reviews overall, whereas the IMDB has had 211,197 recorded votes. There is a sense of angry posters being more vocal and likely to write angry reviews than those that are just casually content with it. IMDB is a bigger, more well known site and so I'd suspect a lot of their more positive votes are just casual clicking on the rating icon without leaving any comments. A silent majority, if you will.
Same thing with things like youtube. If there are a few thousand youtube bloggers ranting about why they hated a movie, they can make a lot of noise. It doesn't mean they represent the majority of the overall audience though.
Rotten tomatoes is a more useful site. It has 2 numbers, the thing to realize is they measure different things. Exactly what those things are I couldn't say.
As for then last Jedi. Having seen it I would say that the audience score is getting drug down by something, and the critic score is inflated.
Which is to say the levels of what ever the audience score measures is higher in that movie than the score would indicate. And the level of what ever the critic score measures, which is different from the audience score, is lower than the score would indicate. Something is confounding the indicators, possibly the same thing for both scores. If I had to guess I would say it's selfawareness. Or its own mass, the franchise is to heavy to get accurate readings.
What score would you give it, Headless, if you don't mind me asking?
Quote from: Voros;1016127Who pays attention to the audience ratings on RT? There's a reason the ratings on RT are taken more seriosuly than imdb for instance. I could care less what the lowest common denominator internet opinion on a film is. That's like using Youtube comments to arrive at an opinion.
And film critics have long recognized certain films as 'critic proof.' The terrible Transformer movies are a prime example. As a horror and genre fan one gets to know which critics are biased against genre films and those who aren't, if Kermode at the BBC or Turan at the LA Times give a horror film a good review it means something to me. But it is clear the internet 'backlash' against the new SW is in RL tiny in effect as the films are making more money than God.
We are trying to figure out what audiences think about the movie and discussing if there is a larger gap than unusual between the critical and audience consensus. The RT scores have been part of the discussion, because the gap there is bigger. So it seems relevant to discuss here.
On critics and lowest common denominators. I just consider myself a regular filmgoer and I find I am usually more in line with the audience scores than the critic scores. With a handful of exceptions, I don't pay much attention to what critics say about a film.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1016249What score would you give it, Headless, if you don't mind me asking?
Hard to say. With spoiling anything I did find it drug a bit at the begainning. It showed its studio, maybe too much, there was a gag or two straight out of 'Guardians of the Galaxy.' They were ok in Thor, I don't think they belonged in star wars.
Critic score should have been in the low 80s. Audience score should have been low 70s. Or maybe flip them. I did say I know they measure different tho us but I'm still not sure what exactly those things are.
So if the Critics' score ought to have been low 80s, and the audience score a low 70s, then a mean of somewhere around the mid 70s?
For me, I'd have rated it about the same as that. So there you go.
I did say I think the critics and audience score measure different things right.
I think that would be like taking an average of temperature and rain fall. You will get a number, but I don't know that it makes sense.
Quote from: Headless;1016340I did say I think the critics and audience score measure different things right.
I think that would be like taking an average of temperature and rain fall. You will get a number, but I don't know that it makes sense.
I'm just taking an aggregate.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1016284We are trying to figure out what audiences think about the movie and discussing if there is a larger gap than unusual between the critical and audience consensus. The RT scores have been part of the discussion, because the gap there is bigger. So it seems relevant to discuss here.
On critics and lowest common denominators. I just consider myself a regular filmgoer and I find I am usually more in line with the audience scores than the critic scores. With a handful of exceptions, I don't pay much attention to what critics say about a film.
There has been a concerted campaign by some pathetic fools to drive down the RT audience score for the new SW film so it can hardly be taken as representative of the actual audience reaction. And in fact the audience score on such sites has zero validity as a tracking of audience reaction as it is a completely random, self-selecting sample.
I don't decide whether to see a film or not based on any star or percentage system, audience or critic. I use RT to read actual reviews, usually by critics I've gotten to know by reading them regularly. By getting to know a good critic I'll be swayed into spending time on a film based how well they argue the case for or against a film. I've read many negative reviews but due to reading between the lines seen that the film would still be of interest to me.
I know it is fashionable to dismiss film critics but I don't buy it, I've learned about more good films from critics than any other method and that includes genres like horror, Japanese or Korean genre films B-films,, etc. The idea that all critics are opposed to genre films just doesn't stand up, from Gavin Smith to Kim Newman many of them are experts on certain genres. There are a handful of amateur critics out there on blogs and specialist websites who are just as good as the pros but they are rarely posting to RT or imdb which tend to be full of misinformed, illiterate babblers.
Quote from: Voros;1016346I know it is fashionable to dismiss film critics but I don't buy it, I've learned about more good films from critics than any other method and that includes genres like horror, Japanese or Korean genre films B-films,, etc. The idea that all critics are opposed to genre films just doesn't stand up, from Gavin Smith to Kim Newman many of them are experts on certain genres. There are a handful of amateur critics out there on blogs and specialist websites who are just as good as the pros but they are rarely posting to RT or imdb which tend to be full of misinformed, illiterate babblers.
First, if you like critics, that is fine. I am not opposed to them. I just have my reservations and my own take on these things. What follows isn't meant to be hostile. I am just trying to give you a sense of where I am coming from.
I never said all critics are opposed to genre films, so not sure where that is coming from. But I generally find I am more with the audience than with critics, so I take critical reviews with a grain of salt. Increasingly I find myself just not looking for the same kinds of movies as many critics. So there are a handful who I pay attention to (not because they are critics and better than other views, but because as individual reviewers they give me the information I want and are good at conveying their experience of watching the movie). If you find heeding certain critics gets you more bang for your buck when you decide what to watch, more power to you. I wouldn't dismiss critical consensus or audience reactions out of hand (and in this case I agree, it is way to early to know what the audience numbers mean because we are still in the edit and flame war stage of a highly anticipated new release---same thing happens with Doctor Who episodes when they first come out, though on a much smaller scale). I just wouldn't give it undo weight either. Ultimately, what matters to me is how I feel when I am there watching the movie. My goal when I talk about films and when I review them, is to not be snooty about it. So I avoid the snooty critics. Critics that are snooty, and there are many (I can't stand New Yorker film review for instance), are a big turn off to me as a movie fan. There are also a lot of critics who, in my opinion, are more interested in their brand as a critic than in what they actually thought of a film. And with the proliferation of online reviews by people who are just as informed as critics who happen to write for major papers or platforms, I have found myself going less and less to the big critics. Some of these people, like the Silver Spleen, in my opinion, are way better than the more established genre critics (granted though, he has a background in film). So while I think there is value to be extracted from critics, I think it is helpful to be wary of them because so many times, I have had a critic describe a movie in certain terms, then when I go to see it myself, I find myself having almost the opposite experience that they were painting. Or I've just read reviews that are earnest, but the reviewer clearly is interested in stuff I have no interest in. A good example of this is how well reviewed The Assassin (2015) was. A lot of top critics liked that movie. I was bored to tears watching it. That is fine. People have different expectations of movies.
We probably just have very different tastes in things, which is fine. I didn't go to film school or study literature. I don't find critical analysis particularly interesting. I don't tend to read my movies through that sort of a lens. My measure of a good movie is very simple: how did the movie make me feel? Did I find myself thinking it about it a lot after? Do I want to go back and watch it again? The more I answer in the affirmative to those questions, the better I think a movie is.
So the reviewers and spoilers I've heard make me not so hopeful for Last Jedi. It sounds like a hodgepodge of half-baked ideas. And Leia can fly? What the fuck is up with that?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1016356And Leia can fly? What the fuck is up with that?
I have heard this complaint and I don't understand why this bothers people. Unless it is executed in a particularly stupid way, I feel like a reveal that she has force powers (which has been hinted at since Empire) would be a fitting conclusion for her story (given that Carrie Fischer passed away before the final film).
Hoping to get a chance to see this today or tomorrow.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1016359I have heard this complaint and I don't understand why this bothers people.
It just sounds odd as fuck. We don't see anyone actually fly, even the powerful Jedi/Sith, in the previous films. Hey, maybe in the new continuity, Jedi can do anything they want. *shrug*
QuoteUnless it is executed in a particularly stupid way, I feel like a reveal that she has force powers (which has been hinted at since Empire) would be a fitting conclusion for her story (given that Carrie Fischer passed away before the final film).
That's the trick, isn't it?
It is weird. Flying ain't the half of it, no her force powers have nothing to do with Carrie Fisher dieing.
I would say more but plenty of people haven't seen it yet. I don't know why I'm holding back, it seems those that haven't seen it yet are the most active on this thread.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1016354First, if you like critics, that is fine. I am not opposed to them. I just have my reservations and my own take on these things. What follows isn't meant to be hostile. I am just trying to give you a sense of where I am coming from.
I never said all critics are opposed to genre films, so not sure where that is coming from. But I generally find I am more with the audience than with critics, so I take critical reviews with a grain of salt. Increasingly I find myself just not looking for the same kinds of movies as many critics. So there are a handful who I pay attention to (not because they are critics and better than other views, but because as individual reviewers they give me the information I want and are good at conveying their experience of watching the movie)..
No offense taken, we're just debating movies after all! I do think critics have historically been biased against genre films, horror in particular, but feel that has changed over the years. It sounds like you’re looking for much the same in a film writer as I do, I prefer a conversational style that communicates intelligently what a critic liked or disliked in a film. Some of the more academic critics can be excellent though, David Bordwell writes very well about the art of editing in HK action films for instance.
I like all kinds of films, from trashy B-films to slow-as-fuck arthouse films so I read a pretty wide variety of critics and websites. It helps find the gems out there, particularly in a genre like horror where a lot of films are produced but it is hard to find the better modern films. I don’t have the time to waste watching mediocre films these days.
I agree that there are some excellent genre-specific review sites on genres like horror, martial arts and B-films that are just as good as the ‘mainstream’ critics.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1016356So the reviewers and spoilers I've heard make me not so hopeful for Last Jedi. It sounds like a hodgepodge of half-baked ideas. And Leia can fly? What the fuck is up with that?
She doesn't fly. The Force has often been portrayed as a form of telekinesis so she uses the Force to move in zero gravity. That it is being critized shows the imagination failure and nit picking of so many SW 'fans.'
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1016366It just sounds odd as fuck. We don't see anyone actually fly, even the powerful Jedi/Sith, in the previous films. Hey, maybe in the new continuity, Jedi can do anything they want. *shrug*
Personally, I am not bothered when they amp up some of this stuff. If you look at the prequels (and to a degree in the original trilogy), people are clearly leaping, doing multiple flips and performing feats that would be in line with something like Lightness Kung fu in wuxia movies. When they brought more of that wuxia vibe to the prequels, that felt like a good fit to me. But even without grabbing from wuxia, I feel like force telekenisis can easily explain someone flying (I never got big into expanded universe, but had friends that were super into it and I recall one of them mentioning the force being used to fly in some of the books). Even without that, I think if they want to add other Jedi paths, particularly with a character like Leia who doesn't seem to have formal Jedi training but is force sensitive, it would help expand the Star Wars universe in a cool way. I can imagine some kind of Jedi-like meditation technique where one learns how to levitate or fly, but maybe not how to fight. I think I would like some explanation though. I find it helpful to understand if the film is operating with some kind of physics in mind (even if the physics are totally fictional) or if they are just making it up as they go.
QuoteThat's the trick, isn't it?
Absolutely. Like I said, I haven't seen it. And this scene could totally be done wrong (and I can imagine how a scene like this might be done poorly). I just don't think 'she can fly' is bad on its own.
Quote from: Voros;1016375No offense taken, we're just debating movies after all! I do think critics have historically been biased against genre films, horror in particular, but feel that has changed over the years. It sounds like you're looking for much the same in a film writer as I do, I prefer a conversational style that communicates intelligently what a critic liked or disliked in a film. Some of the more academic critics can be excellent though, David Bordwell writes very well about the art of editing in HK action films for instance.
I like all kinds of films, from trashy B-films to slow-as-fuck arthouse films so I read a pretty wide variety of critics and websites. It helps find the gems out there, particularly in a genre like horror where a lot of films are produced but it is hard to find the better modern films. I don't have the time to waste watching mediocre films these days.
I agree that there are some excellent genre-specific review sites on genres like horror, martial arts and B-films that are just as good as the 'mainstream' critics.
I haven't read the Bordwell book, but that is an example of exactly the kind of thing I'd happily read. Because it is talking about a practical aspect of movie making. That said, I think people sometimes go off the deep end with that stuff as well (getting so focused on technique they experience the movies in a way other audiences simply don't---and to a degree technique is meant to be invisible). Or they lord it over people to make their opinion on a movie sound more impressive. The same thing happens in music. I can go on and on about the techniques a writer or performer is using, but at the end of the day, that alone doesn't make it a good piece of music (and I've heard many great pieces of music that were more a product of intuition than technique---and sometimes too much great technique is bad or masks a lack of inspiration). But I do find knowing that stuff handy, especially if it helps me express a thought about what I am seeing (sometimes I will see a movie, be moved by a shot, and have to describe it in purely flavorful language rather than technical language, because I don't really know the latter). So that kind of critical stuff, I am fine reading. It is when I get into the more theoretical stuff, I tend to lose interest. Also pretentiousness bothers me in critics. I want their honest opinion. A lot of critics sound like they are saying what they think they need to say to sound smart or cultured. I want someone who doesn't care if liking or hating a particular movie makes him or her a rube in the eyes of certain critics and viewers. I don't like critics who feel like they are sneering at people they consider less sophisticated than themselves (and I feel like there are a lot of people like that in the critic community).
Quote from: Voros;1016378She doesn't fly. The Force has often been portrayed as a form of telekinesis so she uses the Force to move in zero gravity. That it is being critized shows the imagination failure and nit picking of so many SW 'fans.'
*Shrug* My problems with it were:
1. TFA, and moreso the supplemental material (which Lucasfilm has been emphasizing is now canon since 2014), made it pretty clear that Leia never got beyond the rudiments of Jedi training. This may be less of an issue when seen in conjunction with Rey's ability to do just about anything without any training. :)
2. It gave me flashbacks to the end of
Star Trek: Nemesis. :)
I saw the film on Saturday, and it was more or less what I expected based on the review of my go-to reviewer and the spoilers I'd been exposed to--a fun ride and a visual delight, but with overdone humor, conflicting thematics (sacrifice to save lives is good except when it's not?) and highly debatable characterization choices. Then again, I'm not sure I went in with an open mind. I am
heavily invested in the Expanded Universe, and while I was perfectly willing to give the New Canon a chance, I'm just not finding it as satisfying as my curated, selective vision of the EU. There's nothing in the New Canon that's hit the lows of the old EU, to be sure, but I could ignore most of that stuff, and there's nothing in it that matches the stuff I liked the best, either.
Spoiler
I have no complaints with Rey's origin, although I'm not sure that Episode IX will mine the potential meaning I see there. My major issues with the film were the pointlessness of Snoke, the overdone humor and irony coupled with relentless bleakness and apparent cynicism--a subtext in TFA that this film doubled down in in many regards--and the characterization of Luke Skywalker, especially with Ben's backstory. I'm sorry, but the idea that Luke Skywalker, who threw away his lightsaber and faced suffering and death rather than kill Darth Vader, would even for a moment draw a lightsaber on his nephew ... it feels contrived and of a piece with the aforementioned cynicism.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1016451*Shrug* My problems with it were:
1. TFA, and moreso the supplemental material (which Lucasfilm has been emphasizing is now canon since 2014), made it pretty clear that Leia never got beyond the rudiments of Jedi training. This may be less of an issue when seen in conjunction with Rey's ability to do just about anything without any training. :)
2. It gave me flashbacks to the end of Star Trek: Nemesis. :)
I saw the film on Saturday, and it was more or less what I expected based on the review of my go-to reviewer and the spoilers I'd been exposed to--a fun ride and a visual delight, but with overdone humor, conflicting thematics (sacrifice to save lives is good except when it's not?) and highly debatable characterization choices. Then again, I'm not sure I went in with an open mind. I am heavily invested in the Expanded Universe, and while I was perfectly willing to give the New Canon a chance, I'm just not finding it as satisfying as my curated, selective vision of the EU. There's nothing in the New Canon that's hit the lows of the old EU, to be sure, but I could ignore most of that stuff, and there's nothing in it that matches the stuff I liked the best, either.
Spoiler
I have no complaints with Rey's origin, although I'm not sure that Episode IX will mine the potential meaning I see there. My major issues with the film were the pointlessness of Snoke, the overdone humor and irony coupled with relentless bleakness and apparent cynicism--a subtext in TFA that this film doubled down in in many regards--and the characterization of Luke Skywalker, especially with Ben's backstory. I'm sorry, but the idea that Luke Skywalker, who threw away his lightsaber and faced suffering and death rather than kill Darth Vader, would even for a moment draw a lightsaber on his nephew ... it feels contrived and of a piece with the aforementioned cynicism.
This lines up with the review over at The Alexandrian.
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/39260/reviews/the-last-jedi-a-reflection-and-a-critique
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1016456This lines up with the review over at The Alexandrian.
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/39260/reviews/the-last-jedi-a-reflection-and-a-critique
Interesting, complex, and multi-faceted review. While I don't agree with all of the points, I do like the conclusion:
Quote from: Tthe AlexandrianSo, here's my final verdict: As a Star Wars film, The Last Jedi earns a D. Separated from the saga and treated as a form of indulgent fan fiction, I give the film on its own merits a B+.
If you can, like me, separate this film from its destructively nihilistic base through the simple mental expedient of saying #notmystarwars with positive instead of negative intentions, then I highly recommend The Last Jedi. It's a wonderful and beautiful and powerful film.
But I won't blame you if you can't.
(Edit: I have no idea if Spoiler Warnings even matter in this thread any longer, but here's the obligatory warning that some may follow, even though they were mentioned upthread.)
I give it an F because of Rian's abyssmal character choices (Leia, Luke, Rey); disrespecting the audience with lazy storytelling (Snoke, Rey's parents, Phasma); the continuity-busting hijinks which invalidate all of the previous movies, and make one wonder if he's even seen the prior films (hyperspeed ramming as a weapon, becoming a Jedi without training, questionable tech insertions.)
Applying the "not my X" mantra with positive intent is a tricky thing to do; several episodes of Star Trek shine when you think of them as something else. And applying "mental blind spots" also works: I managed to tune out Jar Jar's presence, but it still brought TPM down more than one notch. I can't do either of those for TLJ. Flying Princess Leia, Luke Failwalker, and Rey Needs No Training are horrible ideas that never should have made it past the lamestorming session.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1016087What I will say is I do think there is a big gap between what audiences consider to be a good movie and what critics often consider a good movie to be. The wider that gap gets, the less they are even speaking the same language about media. I do think that is an issue, but it is way bigger than one Star Wars movie.
This is not the first time this disparity has happened: Batman v Superman (Crirtics 27, Audience 63). That's a 36 point spread, almost as high as TLJ's 40 point spread (91/51, and falling on both since I last checked two days ago.)
You're on to something with the quoted phrase, which deserves a few days of thought.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;1015989The reaction to change? Well, it is worth reminding that Empire Strikes back is 35+ years old now, so if people haven't now had a chance to adjust to it's revelations by now then they really do have issues - but it is actually a matter of historical record that some critics did slate ESB when it came out for things like the awkward romance between Han and Leia, the petulance of Luke Skywalker, the fact that Yoda was an annoying small green alien who looked nothing like what a 'great warrior' should look like, or the stupidity of the characters getting caught by Boba Fett or Darth Vader respectively, or Han getting frozen, Luke getting his hand cut off and finding out Vader was his father and the general downbeat of much of the movie. Since then, and after the final instalment of Return of the Jedi concluded the full arc, fans have come to appreciate it.
I was too young to pay attention to critics back then, and now I'm too old... but I can assure you that no one who walked out of the theater back in '80 after seeing ESB thought anything like that. We were excited, memerized, even speechless about what we had just seen. It was like nothing that had come before, including the first film. I don't think a movie will ever elicit that sense of magic, wonder, and sheer majesty as ESB did. Perhaps it was due to our youth; the right movie hitting at the right time in our lives. Or perhaps today's youth also experience this same sense of magic in Star Wars movies? I sense they are only mildly impressed.
Quote from: Aglondir;1016479I was too young to pay attention to critics back then, and now I'm too old... but I can assure you that no one who walked out of the theater back in '80 after seeing ESB thought anything like that. We were excited, memerized, even speechless about what we had just seen. It was like nothing that had come before, including the first film. I don't think a movie will ever elicit that sense of magic, wonder, and sheer majesty as ESB did. Perhaps it was due to our youth; the right movie hitting at the right time in our lives.
Critics weren't as (or didn't seem as) numerous and prevalent. Siskel and Ebert were the only movie critics I was even aware of back then.
Now, hundreds of reviews are a few seconds away via the internet.
Most of my Star Wars fandom info came from stuff like Starlog magazine... back when magazines were the internet. :)
QuoteOr perhaps today's youth also experience this same sense of magic in Star Wars movies? I sense they are only mildly impressed.
I'm sure they're entertained. I'm pretty skeptical that, in 30 years, the sequels will be anything like how the original trilogy is remembered.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1016456This lines up with the review over at The Alexandrian.
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/39260/reviews/the-last-jedi-a-reflection-and-a-critique
Lines up with mine as well.
Read it. I agree with him. Except I don't think it negates the victories of the previous generation, illustrates that the peace is harder to win than the war. More to say, hands too cold to type.
I just heard of Orville the first time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9juvAoaPu4
and now I'm already a fan due to this one video, I'll watch it all (edit: the episodes) as soon as possible
Quote from: joriandrake;1016581I just heard of Orville the first time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9juvAoaPu4
and now I'm already a fan due to this one video, I'll watch it all (edit: the episodes) as soon as possible
It's a good show. I have some nitpicks, but they're just nitpicks.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1016451*Shrug* My problems with it were:
1. TFA, and moreso the supplemental material (which Lucasfilm has been emphasizing is now canon since 2014), made it pretty clear that Leia never got beyond the rudiments of Jedi training. This may be less of an issue when seen in conjunction with Rey's ability to do just about anything without any training. :)
I have no idea how you got that from TFA and I don't give two shits about 'supplemental material' or 'New Canon' (the capitalization here is laughable and part of the problem).' I watch these as popcorn adventure films for families and kids and that's all I care about.
This kind of OCD thrashing in the weeds talk is what led to the beatiful nuking of the mess that was the EU. People applying Thesis level attention to a homage to Buck Rogers is absurd.
Voros,
Thank you for reminding me why I shouldn't discuss Star Wars.
Quote from: Aglondir;1016476This is not the first time this disparity has happened: Batman v Superman (Crirtics 27, Audience 63). That's a 36 point spread, almost as high as TLJ's 40 point spread (91/51, and falling on both since I last checked two days ago.)
You're on to something with the quoted phrase, which deserves a few days of thought.
There's absolutely nothing new about it, there have always been a 'gap' between critical and popular reception. Critics were underwhelmed by the original SW and many of the huge hits of the 80s (and have been proved right when they praised Empire btw). The Transformer series continues to rake in dough although critics detest it.
Film critics are not worried about that long standing difference anymore than literary critics sweat the sale numbers of the semi-literate Da Vinci Code. Critics are
supposed to be looking at films more rigorously than the average person. The assumption that a critic functions solely as some kind of consumer guide is part of the problem, the best critics have never seen their role as just reviewers.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1016620Voros,
Thank you for reminding me why I shouldn't discuss Star Wars.
Sorry if I was too harsh, I honestly don't mind people disliking the film but criticizing it because of absurdly nit picking nonsense that has nothing to do with how they function as films is why there has been such a disconnect between 'fandom' reaction and the general audience.
Quote from: Aglondir;1016479...Or perhaps today's youth also experience this same sense of magic in Star Wars movies? I sense they are only mildly impressed.
My nephews and nieces love Star Wars.
Quote from: Voros;1016623Sorry if I was too harsh, I honestly don't mind people disliking the film but criticizing it because of absurdly nit picking nonsense that has nothing to do with how they function as films is why there has been such a disconnect between 'fandom' reaction and the general audience.
Understandable. I do think that Leia's Force use felt like we missed a step between the hints in V/VI and the full use in VIII, but it wasn't more than a brief blip on the suspension of disbelief. And as I said, part of that was that it reminded me of a weak moment in a worse film.
As Ratman has said if one found the film engaging as a whole it is unikely such nitpicking would be taking place. Hence why the poor dialogue and wooden actiing in the original films is so often ignored but rabidly criticized in the newer films.
But I also get the feeling many fans have simply outgrown the series and will always be nitpicking rather than enjoying it for what it is. They are never going to get that sense of wonder they experienced as kids again.
Quote from: Voros;1016645As Ratman has said if one found the film engaging as a whole it is unikely such nitpicking would be taking place. Hence why the poor dialogue and wooden actiing in the original films is so often ignored but rabidly criticized in the newer films.
.
I don't think this is the case. My feeling on the dialogue and acting in the first movies is the actors all have very good chemistry and variable acting levels. But the chemistry is there and the casting seemed to work. Even if people weren't the best actors in the world, they had a charisma or spark. I think in the prequels, the dialogue most people have in mind is the stuff between Anakin and Padme. And they just didn't have chemistry and something was really off about the deliveries. I don't know if it was the direction, the dialogue or the actors, but I never once doubted the love between Han and Leia, no matter how cheesy the dialogue. With Anakin and Padme, they just never seemed to be in love.
That said, you also had great actors in the prequels delivering lines solidly. I think mainly it is the Padme and Anakin thing (I didn't really notice an issue until I saw Episode II in the theaters. And it was definitely those Anakin and Padme scenes that pulled me out of the movie.
In the newer movies (the first one at least, as I haven't seen the second one). I feel like the acting and chemistry is closer to the original trilogy. For example, Emo Kylo Ren doesn't work on paper for me (I was dreading it walking into the theater) but when I actually saw him on the screen, I liked the way the actor pulled it off.
Just watched Bright, a new Netflicks movie. I see the critics are already shredding it but I liked it, kind of Shadow Run meets Alien Nation with a side of Cast a Deadly Spell.
Basic premise is the modern world with fantasy races. It follows a human police officer with the Los Angeles Police Dept who gets partnered with the first orc police officer in the LAPD. Stuff happens, things blow up, good fun. My wife and I liked it, decent action flick that went a bit differently than I initially expected.
It came out last week so I'll leave it at that to avoid any spoilers. Don't read the Wikipedia entry if you are worried about spoilers they pretty much go through the whole movie scene by scene.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1016730Just watched Bright, a new Netflicks movie. I see the critics are already shredding it but I liked it, kind of Shadow Run meets Alien Nation with a side of Cast a Deadly Spell.
Basic premise is the modern world with fantasy races. It follows a human police officer with the Los Angeles Police Dept who gets partnered with the first orc police officer in the LAPD. Stuff happens, things blow up, good fun. My wife and I liked it, decent action flick that went a bit differently than I initially expected.
It came out last week so I'll leave it at that to avoid any spoilers. Don't read the Wikipedia entry if you are worried about spoilers they pretty much go through the whole movie scene by scene.
Ooh, yeah. I liked it too.
Watched "Babes in Toyland" with Laurel and Hardy circa 1934. A fun BW movie even now and the ending is a blast. It was one of my main inspirations for playing dart users in D&D. The little Mickey Mouse character was fascinating. Hard to believe that was a monkey performing some of those movements. Really well done.
Then watched the 1961 Disney version with Ray Bolger as the wonderfully hammy villain. Great battle at the end with the toy-scale free-for-all.
Then finally watched "Babes in Toyland" from 1986 with Drew Barrymore and... Keanu Reeves? Yep, thats him. Richard Mulligan as the villain. Really weird movie which is oddly slow paced. A kinda dull end to the set so far.
Theres also an animated version from the late 90s which I dont have and only saw once and do not care to see again really. Good art overall with a Don Bluth feel to it. But oddly lacking in tone or "feel" of the story. I'll have to hunt it down and see what felt off.
I just watched the unjustly ignored Hammer classic Curse of the Werewolf and for low-budget British horror, this is about as good as it gets. Apparently Hammer was supposed to make a horror film about the Spanish Inquisition, but the censors squelched that after Spanish-style sets and costumes were already put together. So the producers simply changed the setting of their werewolf movie from France to Spain and shot it using the sets and costumes for the Inquisition movie.* The cast is great, especially Oliver Reed in one of his very first roles as the werewolf -and not just because he already looked like one.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2071[/ATTACH]
* Showing ingenuity like Roger Corman did when he shot Masque of the Red Death on the sets built for Beckett, or when Lucas and Spielberg borrowed the life-size U-boat built for Das Boot to make Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I love Curse as well, one of the best classic-era Hammers.
In contrast I just rewatched Maximum Overdrive, a camp classic and one of the dumbest films ever made. Forgot it actually had a decent B-movie film cast. Some of the bit parts are incredibly broadly played even by exploitation standards.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2072[/ATTACH]
King's love of trash shines through and he apparently made this at the peak of his cocaine addiction and it shows. Dialogue and humour has never been King’s strong suit and this brings that home. Despite that I find it perversely enjoyable, although it never really tops the delirium of its opening scenes.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1016648In the newer movies (the first one at least, as I haven't seen the second one). I feel like the acting and chemistry is closer to the original trilogy. For example, Emo Kylo Ren doesn't work on paper for me (I was dreading it walking into the theater) but when I actually saw him on the screen, I liked the way the actor pulled it off.
I strongly disliked VIII when I saw it a few days ago, and was iffy about VII, but I agree the acting in them is fine, whereas I-III suffer from very poor performances, including by Ewan MacGregor(!).
Quote from: S'mon;1016996I strongly disliked VIII when I saw it a few days ago, and was iffy about VII, but I agree the acting in them is fine, whereas I-III suffer from very poor performances, including by Ewan MacGregor(!).
Why did you not like VIII?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1016648I don't think this is the case. My feeling on the dialogue and acting in the first movies is the actors all have very good chemistry and variable acting levels. But the chemistry is there and the casting seemed to work. Even if people weren't the best actors in the world, they had a charisma or spark. I think in the prequels, the dialogue most people have in mind is the stuff between Anakin and Padme. And they just didn't have chemistry and something was really off about the deliveries. I don't know if it was the direction, the dialogue or the actors, but I never once doubted the love between Han and Leia, no matter how cheesy the dialogue. With Anakin and Padme, they just never seemed to be in love.
That said, you also had great actors in the prequels delivering lines solidly. I think mainly it is the Padme and Anakin thing (I didn't really notice an issue until I saw Episode II in the theaters. And it was definitely those Anakin and Padme scenes that pulled me out of the movie.
Teen romance is always cringeworthy, from Romeo & Juliet to Sixteen Candles. I think the actors playing Anakin and Padme did a pretty good job of playing a clingy mamma's boy and a goody two shoes.
QuoteIn the newer movies (the first one at least, as I haven't seen the second one). I feel like the acting and chemistry is closer to the original trilogy. For example, Emo Kylo Ren doesn't work on paper for me (I was dreading it walking into the theater) but when I actually saw him on the screen, I liked the way the actor pulled it off.
The writing and acting in 7 and 8 came across to me as rather smarmy and playing to the audience in Whedonesque fashion.
And don't get me started on how completely fucktarded the plot/story/setting are for episodes 7 and 8. By the way, I hear Rian Johnson is going to make a James Bond film where 007 doesn't fight bad guys, drive cool cars or bang hot chicks.
Quote from: Elfdart;1017036Teen romance is always cringeworthy, from Romeo & Juliet to Sixteen Candles. I think the actors playing Anakin and Padme did a pretty good job of playing a clingy mamma's boy and a goody two shoes.
.
I don't know if it was the actors or the direction, because honestly I've enjoyed their performances in other movies, but this doesn't explain the problem in my book. It wasn't just typical teen romance cringe, that was genuinely bad acting and chemistry between them (and the dialogue certainly didn't help). But Episode II was where I consciously remember deciding something was wrong and it was around the fireplace scene. Romeo and Juliet it was not.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1017043I don't know if it was the actors or the direction, because honestly I've enjoyed their performances in other movies, but this doesn't explain the problem in my book. It wasn't just typical teen romance cringe, that was genuinely bad acting and chemistry between them (and the dialogue certainly didn't help). But Episode II was where I consciously remember deciding something was wrong and it was around the fireplace scene. Romeo and Juliet it was not.
I don't think it's supposed to be a great romance, but a bad relationship between a pair of damaged teenagers (he does end up choking her, after all). As you said, the actors are much more likable in other movies, so it's not lack of talent. I'd add that George Lucas writes and directs teenagers very well (sometimes too close to home), as anyone who has seen
American Graffiti knows, so it's not like the guy who made Terry the Toad and Debbie (as well as Steve and Laurie) seem plausible and likable couldn't have done it for Anakin and Padme if he wanted it that way. The "romance" in AOTC and ROTS doesn't come across well because it's not supposed to. It's one of the reasons the Emperor comes to power.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1017043I don't know if it was the actors or the direction, because honestly I've enjoyed their performances in other movies, but this doesn't explain the problem in my book. It wasn't just typical teen romance cringe, that was genuinely bad acting and chemistry between them (and the dialogue certainly didn't help). But Episode II was where I consciously remember deciding something was wrong and it was around the fireplace scene. Romeo and Juliet it was not.
Even a great actor can fail under bad direction. Look at Jeremy Irons, he's usually great, but in the D&D movie he chewed his way through
all the scenery.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1017052Even a great actor can fail under bad direction. Look at Jeremy Irons, he's usually great, but in the D&D movie he chewed his way through all the scenery.
Wait. What D&D movie?
Quote from: Elfdart;1017045I don't think it's supposed to be a great romance, but a bad relationship between a pair of damaged teenagers (he does end up choking her, after all). As you said, the actors are much more likable in other movies, so it's not lack of talent. I'd add that George Lucas writes and directs teenagers very well (sometimes too close to home), as anyone who has seen American Graffiti knows, so it's not like the guy who made Terry the Toad and Debbie (as well as Steve and Laurie) seem plausible and likable couldn't have done it for Anakin and Padme if he wanted it that way. The "romance" in AOTC and ROTS doesn't come across well because it's not supposed to. It's one of the reasons the Emperor comes to power.
Again, I just don't buy it. The whole fall of Anakin is predicated on him wanting to save Padme, so I think you were meant to believe in the love story. It just didn't work because of a lack of chemistry, bad dialogue and bad acting (which could have been a product of circumstances and directing). And even bad romances require good acting and good chemistry. They are not devoid of passion and love, just filled with other complications.
Natalie Portman is a good actress (eg. Black Swan) but she is terrible in the SW films because of poor direction. Good point about American Graffiti but clearly the Lucas of the later SW films is a shadow of the director who made that film and THX1138.
The actors of the original films, particularly Guiness, Ford and Fisher, lifted the often poor dialogue (Empire has better dialogue but Lucas either doesn't know or care to capture the 40s-style patter rhythmn correctly) with their screen charisma and I think the same is often true of the new films. Hence the famous story of Ford telling Lucas 'you can type this shit but you can't say it.'
Headless, did you say King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword was okay? I just suffered through it, outside of the creepy cthulhusirens it was that uniquely modern problem of super-hectic yet super-boring at the same time. Over edited, over-narrated, too many montages and pedestrian action sequences.
The flacid plotting renders the film the equivalent of reading an entire novel written in the passive voice. Rendering Jude Law as a shitty video game boss for the fight scenes has to be one of the worse ideas in a long time. Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes was suprisingly entertaining and I think The Man from UNKLE was against all odds his best film but this is mind-numbingly mediocre.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2076[/ATTACH]
@ Voros
I liked it. Its was weird. It wasn't deep. And once you started plotting the beats to the right tune, (Riche London gangster flicks, instead of King Aurthur) it was predictable. But I liked it.
The sirens were weird and gross and I don't like gross things, but I liked them. They felt correct for the setting, the Authoriean part of the setting. Fey, Unseelie.
I think I really like that half the movie was an acid trip.
UNCLE was good. The first Holms, was good. The second, the one where Moriarty causes ww1 was terrible.
Quote from: Headless;1017125I liked it. Its was weird. It wasn't deep. And once you started plotting the beats to the right tune, (Riche London gangster flicks, instead of King Aurthur) it was predictable. But I liked it.
That is all that matters in my book.
Just typing a reply to see if this thread is working properly.
I can read it now. Wierd.
Well over christmas I saw what may very well the best movie version of A cristmas carol I have ever seen and that good sir is saying some thing.
scrooge a christmas carol 1951
It maintains A number of the more important scenes from the book that are all to often cut.
Best version hands down is A Muppets Christmas Carol.
Since this one is so so long, going to close it. Guys can you start a new thread for Movies?