Main Menu

Last movie watched...

Started by SmallBlueThing, 04 February, 2011, 12:40:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Funt Solo

#15330
++SPOILERS AHOY++

Quote from: wedgeski on 01 March, 2021, 01:02:15 PM
I Care a Lot. If nothing else, this film justifies its existence by the light it shines on yet another blood-soaked, money-gorging corner of America, but as a story I didn't get on with it. Call me old-fashioned, but I love to have someone to actually root for. We're watching Rosamund Pike having a really bad few days, yet everything she goes through she's brought on herself and it couldn't possibly be happening to a nastier piece of work. The mum? She knows exactly what's up, so we can't sympathise with her. The son? Pretty clear right from the beginning what kind of nasty shit he's into. The girlfriend? She displays a few superficial pangs of conscience but deserves not much better than the protagonist. The lawyer? A scumbag. The judge? Useless. So from the mid-point on, I asked myself why I was watching...and yet watch I did, waiting for some come-uppance. An odd, well-performed little film that didn't push my buttons.

I had the same experience - Pike's character is set up as the villain, with the mum as perhaps the person to root for, but then that gets undermined and by the end of things the mum is just a MacGuffin. So, then the son is the person to root for, but he's also a terrible villain. Where she takes away the lives of vulnerable older people, he takes away the lives of vulnerable young women. Still, the film sets itself up so for a large chunk of Act II, we're supposed to be rooting for him. Then it flip-flops so that we're supposed to root for Pike. Then we're supposed to like them both as if this is Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

It's a movie with no moral compass whatsoever. The early scenes, where a distraught son confronts Pike's character outside the courtroom, and says he hopes she gets r*ped to death - well, she is in the wrong, but his reaction is like incel diatribe. Are we supposed to root for the son (who's morally in the right, except for what he's saying to her in that moment) or Pike's character? Also: evil lesbians and dwarfs.

Not a movie for a snowflake like me.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

TordelBack

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 28 February, 2021, 06:26:55 PM
... Cap's argument resonates with me, as one might suspect. It came as a shock to realise that Cap wants what I want, the right to say No. Superficial, of course, but it deepens my love for CW and Cap's character - after decades of grindingly dour anti-heroes, Cap's instinctive and indomitable white hattery feels like a breath of fresh air.

Very much agree here. Cap's journey through his three films (and to an extent the other four) is superbly done, the simple "I don't like bullies" attitude remaining intact even as his understanding of who those bullies are is challenged. A determination to serve, but ultimately on the terms of his own conscience.

As to the recent FF reboot, that one isn't MCU-proper, it was a Sony take: we still have that (hopefully-fantastic fourth) version to look forward to.

Recrewt

None of the Sony made Fantastic Four movies have been that good but that last one was especially poor and dogged by stories of studio intervention and multiple reshoots.  They really didn't have a clue what they were doing and the real shame is that they had arguably the best Marvel villain with Dr Doom. 

I'm very interested to see how then integrate X-Men and the Fantastic Four into the MCU. 

Dandontdare

#15333
The MCU is like the comics - if like me, you grew up loving that interconnectedness where everyone has their own books but with frequent guest appearances and occasional big crossover events, then the movies worked very well. I've watched them all several times, and could stick Avengers Assemble on pretty much any day of the week. Even the weakest (Thor 2 IMO) isn't bad, and I'll happily rewatch it. There have been other good comic-to-movie transitions, but these 23 were the first ones that for me truly recreated the comfortable thrills of a shared universe that I so fondly remember. For a True Believer, I think they were an amazing sequence - Excelsior! (side note - why didn't they call it the marvel movie universe (MMU) so we could differentiate with the marvel comics universe (MCU)?).

My only big gripe with Winter Soldier is the cliched 'sticking chips in a computer against a deadline' climax. So sick of these ticking-clock contrivances taking the place of more imaginative plotting, and why do these ships and bases always have vast inner spaces with precarious walkways? Still, I recognise it's just a narrative maguffin and Steve's journey is the important part, as mentioned above.

Bored with the free stuff, I decided to splash out and rent something at the weekend - Amazon can fuck off with their £16 to rent Wonder Woman 1984 (seriously? I know they have to recoup some money with covid, but almost three times the cinema price to watch a critically so-so movie on my laptop? Nope). So instead, I went for New Mutants.

Very disappointing. The young cast do very well with what they're given, with the exception of an untypically flat performance from Maisie Williams, but it's a lacklustre and predictable affair that seems to be missing an Act 3. Charlie Heaton is particularly good as Sam 'Cannonball' Guthrie, and Sunspot and Magick were also fine, but the protaganist Dani Moonstar is rather dull. [spoiler]Young mutants are experimented on in a cruel hospital, but bust out. I was expecting "and then they..." to follow, but that's where it abruptly ended - I don't mind movies setting up a sequel as long as they actually give us a full movie, but this was just acts 1 and 2 stretched to fill the time. Every cliche you can imagine crops up but the only real threat they face are their own powers. The lone captor hints at an interesting backstory, but it's never developed and once the kids come to terms with their powers and PTSD, they just bust out and that's it.[/spoiler] Even the SFX aren't amazing - With Rahne for example, we never get a good transition scene - we glimpse a full wolf at one point (played by "Chuck" apparently) but most of the time she just sprouts unconvincing sideburns and claws and then jumps on people's backs flailing her arms about and screaming, like a toddler in Wolverine cosplay having a meltdown at comic-con.

Also been on a spy thriller kick recently. I watched three of the later Mission Impossibles in random order, and although Tom Cruise plays exactly the same character in every film he makes, they were rollicking silly good fun. I couldn't face downgrading to the poorer-cousin Jack Reacher films, so I went for the Bournes. The original three are essentially the same film over again, but it's a good one so who cares. They are notable for car chases in which a beat-up stolen taxi or police car takes multiple chassis-crunching high speed impacts and still performs like a Ferrari. Watched the Jeremy Renner reboot and whilst it essentially follows the same playbook (down to the improbably robust vehicles), it wasn't as entertaining. Matt Damon isn't exactly Mr Charisma but I guess it's easier to root for the tortured amnesiac than the desperate junkie.

Radbacker

Bliss, an Amazon Prime original.  Owen Wilson being serious and Salma Hyek (?) trying to appear grungy and grotty (unsuccessfully I might add, she gorgeous no matter what).  All a bit confusing but I think it's meant to be, I watched it as a Sci-fi movie about VR and all senate realities but after and reading some other reviews and people's thoughts it could also just as easily been a story about drugs and addiction.  Certainly interesting 🤔 and maybe worth a second watch, generally well acted and well filmed and quite confusing to f you try to dig deeper which is either how it's meant to be or because it actually wasn't really any good 😆😆

CU Radbacker

pictsy

Dark City

I really enjoy this film and I think it is mostly because of the aesthetic.  The story is fine and the noirish film is very appreciated, but the style is what keeps me watching.  Also, when I first watched it I had a slightly snobby attitude of "The Matrix?!?  pffft, I prefer Dark City!"  Even though I have warmed slightly more towards The Matrix (the first one only) I still prefer Dark City.

One thing I definitely noticed in this watch through is the editing of the film.  It has created a very fast pace as nothing lingers.  I'm not sure there is a shot that is more than 20 seconds long.  It wasn't distracting, but it was definitely there.

milstar

Ladyhawke (1985)

I suppose the 1980s weren't kind to historical fantasy movies. Unless it was Arnie's Conan. This movie...well, it could have been better. I don't know how better, but it just didn't cut for me. Maybe it's the music score, which sounds very dated. Very 1980s, and here I don't mean it in a good way. Some tracks are just timeless, regardless of the decade they were created. I suppose they were aiming for a contemporary niche, but more it sounds annoying. The movie suffers also from uneven pacing. Some scenes feel pointless and do nothing to move the plot. Matthew Broderick is fine, I guess, as a petty thief, who does a bit of Ferris Bueller here (or should I accurately say, Ferris Bueller impersonates this character from Ladyhawke). Possibly a bit of War Games there. Rutger Hauer character is mostly on point, but I wish that filmmakers made him more sympathetic. And Michelle Pfeifer seems miscast here. And the actor who plays the bishop is terrible. Action scenes look mediocre, with hackneyed editing. I suppose I expected more from transformation scenes, but probably that's because I am used to 2000s sfx. Today, you'd probably get to see man transforming to a wolf or vice-versa completely, but for the 1980s it looks pretty decent, not cutting edge, but it does the job. On a brighter note, great, breathtaking Italian scenery pervades the film. Truly beautiful and beautifully shot landscapes. When I look back, Ladyhawke might seem like a movie I would enjoy in my teens, which is probably the core demographic this film is made for. And if anything, I've seen worse from Richard Donner (the director) - 16 Blocks or Timeline.
Reyt, you lot. Shut up, belt up, 'n if ye can't see t' bloody exit, ye must be bloody blind.

milstar

Return of the Living Dead (1985)

I get how this might be appealing to someone. A zombie film with black humor and ushered in rock/punk 1980s aesthetics, but I am turned off by the film. Party because I find zombies interesting when you blast them away in RE series. Pacing is very slow and tedious. Almost all characters are two-dimensional jerks, who feel like they don't take themselves seriously and there's not a single character that is interesting enough. . Acting is quite over the top. Guys screaming like drama queens lol! And what is with that goth chick dancing bare naked in the graveyard? Totally gratuitous. Being horror comedy, you can expect a bit of both, but I find here comic elements choking horror ones. There's practically no tension in the movie. On a brighter note, ROTLD doesn't give us much gore and zombies look cheap and comedy occassionally delves into hysterics (like the dog scene). But mostly is not funny. And I say this as someone who loves 1980s.
Reyt, you lot. Shut up, belt up, 'n if ye can't see t' bloody exit, ye must be bloody blind.

pictsy

Meet the Feebles

Mean spirited, gross stereotyping cynicism.  I guess if you're going to make a Muppet's parody that has no taste or class, that's what it'll have to be.

I think this is the first Peter Jackson film I ever saw and it is still enjoyable to watch.  It's pretty impressive considering it's limited budget, but that probably just adds to gross charm of the film, I guess.  Especially with the haggard puppets.

milstar

Quote from: pictsy on 04 March, 2021, 12:00:36 AM
Meet the Feebles

Mean spirited, gross stereotyping cynicism.  I guess if you're going to make a Muppet's parody that has no taste or class, that's what it'll have to be.

I think this is the first Peter Jackson film I ever saw and it is still enjoyable to watch.  It's pretty impressive considering it's limited budget, but that probably just adds to gross charm of the film, I guess.  Especially with the haggard puppets.

Lol, it's uncannily off-beat knowing that the man who made his fame with epic fantasy trilogy like LotR, started his career doing gross-out, over the top gory comedies (this, Braindead and whatsisname of his first movie), done on shoestring budget.
Kinda reminds me on a discussion I had when I said that Joker isn't the film that Todd Philips is going to be remembered, after a string of successful, raunchy comedies.
Reyt, you lot. Shut up, belt up, 'n if ye can't see t' bloody exit, ye must be bloody blind.

pictsy

The Mighty Ducks

Disney underdog sports film with kids playing hockey.  I don't like sports, I don't care about hockey and kids can be awful in films.  I do like underdog stories and I also like this film.  My form teacher used to get this (and it's sequel) out for us to watch at the end of terms and I remember really enjoying it despite myself.  I recognised it was corny back then and it is even more blatant now.  It is jam packed full of lessons and morals and messages.  My favourite is wealth inequality is real and has an actual effect on peoples accessibility and ability to do well in life.

There is a lot of stupid stuff in this film as well. The cartoon villainy is very amusing.  Lane Smith constantly adjusting his collar just to make sure we know he's a very bad man is delightful.

Emilio Estevez is also my favourite Estevez.

I've also discovered that a TV series is starting this year with Emilio reprising his role


Funt Solo

Hunt For The Wilderpeople - this has the same sort of location-driven charm and surreal streak as movies like Local Hero and Starstuck (1982), and blazes through the first act but meanders quite a bit in a tricky middle. It's definitely a feelgood movie, but lacks a definite message beyond the value of real friendship.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

TordelBack

Quote from: Funt Solo on 05 March, 2021, 05:04:39 AM
...but lacks a definite message beyond the value of real friendship.

It's also a searing exposé of the skuxx life.

(And eminently rewatchable).

judgeurko

Quote from: Funt Solo on 05 March, 2021, 05:04:39 AM
Hunt For The Wilderpeople - this has the same sort of location-driven charm and surreal streak as movies like Local Hero and Starstuck (1982), and blazes through the first act but meanders quite a bit in a tricky middle. It's definitely a feelgood movie, but lacks a definite message beyond the value of real friendship.
Isn't that a good enough message?

Funt Solo

Quote from: judgeurko on 05 March, 2021, 12:26:23 PM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 05 March, 2021, 05:04:39 AM
Hunt For The Wilderpeople - this has the same sort of location-driven charm and surreal streak as movies like Local Hero and Starstuck (1982), and blazes through the first act but meanders quite a bit in a tricky middle. It's definitely a feelgood movie, but lacks a definite message beyond the value of real friendship.
Isn't that a good enough message?

Yes, so the reason I was reaching is because it also touches on questions of state control vs. personal freedom while also allowing that state involvement could be a benefit. Like real life, it's complicated.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++