Discuss and rate the last movie you watched

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT
 

Xprimentyl:
I wouldn't call them humble; "Texas Hat" thing is usually said by Texans in a disparaging way and pisses them off. But you're no far off; the actual term is "Oklahomans" (casually "Okies.") And as the bounty is still legit, I'll be putting one, bound and gagged, in the post for your authorities. Or should this exchange take place in international waters? My lacking any official affiliation with law enforcement, I can see some calling this rightful extradition a "kidnapping."

And the punctuation thing has been happening when I try to quote people forever, a couple years at least; doesn't happen all the time but more often than not. A lot of people have mentioned it; you're just no seeing it?

Well, perhaps being thought of as someone's hat isn't as glamorous as one would assume. Aww, 'Okies' is an acceptable improvement! Kinda cute too. That new information shall be archived for mysterious later uses.
Probably best to stick to international waters just to be safe. There's always some overzealous law enforcement looking for legitimate business deals to misinterpret as crimes. And the animals getting thrown in evidence/contraband pits might not be great for future diplomatic relations, especially between swan and hedgehog representatives.

The punctuation problem does appear to be very recent. I did test it with a couple of others and seemed to not occur, so maybe there's some delinquent, exotic, forged punctuation font/font reader problem that this site gets confused between conversions? I know nothing about font science, so am basically making shit up here for graspy answers.

Johnny Novgorod:
Us.
I enjoyed the movie, in many ways it's less heavy-handed than Get Out but also a bit more shapeless in that very comfy insert-metaphor-here way of pleasing the crowd. Good directing and filmmaking. Peele's overhyped as a writer, he's Twilight Zone good but not that good. Americans are so starved for intelligent screenwriting they'll take simple set-ups and pay-offs for genius. The middle drags on with your unstoppable-stalker cliches but solid beginning and ending. Left the theater satisfied.

Us as well.

You pretty much nailed my sentiments, so no sense in repeating you; it was much better than I anticipated. But I don't think Peele is overhyped; I just think no one expected someone with a cartoonish comedic background to step to the plate and deliver competent, moderately intelligently written and entertaining thrillers that make relevant sociopolitical commentary. Both "Get Out" and now "Us" are two of the more memorable movies I've seen in quite some time which is more than I can say for 90% of what's on offer nowadays; i.e.: we watched about 4 or 5 other movies over the past three days, and I struggle to remember what they even were.

Pet Sematary 2019.
It's a good remake in that it's not that hard to course-correct the cheesiness of the original... still can't help feel that the original managed its scares better. Too many jump scares in the remake, which looks and feels like a lot of other similar scary movies of today. And they do the same thing the It remake did of making your monsters try-hard scary (1990 Pennywise looks like a plausible clown, which makes him so much scarier; 2017 Penny looks like a heavy metal cartoon, or the Twisted Metal mascot). I think the 1989 cat looks vastly more haunting than the one in the remake.

Johnny Novgorod:
Pet Sematary 2019.
It's a good remake in that it's not that hard to course-correct the cheesiness of the original... still can't help feel that the original managed its scares better. Too many jump scares in the remake, which looks and feels like a lot of other similar scary movies of today. And they do the same thing the It remake did of making your monsters try-hard scary (1990 Pennywise looks like a plausible clown, which makes him so much scarier; 2017 Penny looks like a heavy metal cartoon, or the Twisted Metal mascot). I think the 1989 cat looks vastly more haunting than the one in the remake.

That's a bit sad. Pet Cemetry, with the first half of Signs, are the only movies I've ever found scary

trunkage:

Johnny Novgorod:
Pet Sematary 2019.
It's a good remake in that it's not that hard to course-correct the cheesiness of the original... still can't help feel that the original managed its scares better. Too many jump scares in the remake, which looks and feels like a lot of other similar scary movies of today. And they do the same thing the It remake did of making your monsters try-hard scary (1990 Pennywise looks like a plausible clown, which makes him so much scarier; 2017 Penny looks like a heavy metal cartoon, or the Twisted Metal mascot). I think the 1989 cat looks vastly more haunting than the one in the remake.

That's a bit sad. Pet Cemetry, with the first half of Signs, are the only movies I've ever found scary

I imagine it's gonna change a lot from person from person. I don't think the original is very good but there's something very creepy and jarring about how the corny parts mesh with the scary stuff. Church and Gage are horrifying in the original because they're mundane enough that they look belieavable even when channeling ancient evil. That clash of cute and horrible just doesn't happen in the new one. Everything looks so broody and grungy that it feels like no wonder it turns into a scary movies. They're really asking for it.

I'm also not a fan of the twist.

Dave Made A Maze
What a delightful little surprise. Went in with zero information, seemingly to work entirely in its favour, and is partly why am a little cautious about how to describe this. The first few minutes were a mild worry as it looked like it could've easily been a family-guy-esque (McFarlane-esque?) type of comedy, but that quickly faded and its charm got its hooks in at that point. Despite the title, the character seen through is Annie, played by Meera Rohit Kumbhani, the eponymous artist's girlfriend and closest to the audience's cypher to a bunch of adult children. It's mostly comedy with some horror elements, though the gore is probably the cutest gore I've ever seen.
After having seen it and wondering if the whole thing was merely conjured by my bored, overactive imagination, did go and look up what other opinions were on it. Though predictably quite mixed, as they usually are with this type of uniqueness, one word cropped up enough to confuse me, and that is "hipster." I'm not sure what that word even means anymore, it seems to now just apply to anyone young (under 35?) and involved in creativity, which....can I call bollocks to please? The word is being watered down just like "dark" and "gritty." Oh and "millennials."

Anyway, if you have a fondness for arts and crafts taking the place of the average cgi and set design, like The Science of Sleep, then this is probably a safe way to spend just over an hour. A simple metaphor overall, but it doesn't claim to be more than that.

Alita: Battle Angel

So the backstory is Astroboy and the story is Phantom Menance. It's even got it's version of pod racing. Except you get stuck on Tatoonie. And no fun battle scenes. The love story is as well written as the Star Wars prequels. I couldn't care less about the love interest, who was clearly just there as a plot device.

She literally had no growth over the course of the movie. She did get upgrades which apparently is a substitute for character development. Or personality.

It becomes abundantly clear that a bunch of people are being forced into crimes, even with actual mind control. But she straight up murders them without thought. Is she supposed to be the good guy?

I actually watched this two weeks ago and completely forgot that I did. This is the worst kind of movie.... boring.

Can we stop with the amnesia already? Between this and Captain Marvel, I'm maxed out this konth

3/10

If this is a good representation of the manga, I have no desire to see it.

"Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse"
Got the 4k version from Microsoft for only $13.
More an origin story for the Miles Morales' version of Spiderman, we get to see a number of alt universe versions of Spiderman take on Miles' version of Kingpin and lackeys. Very pretty to look at, fun story. You won't remember it in t-30 but a good time. My biggest beef:


7/10

Shazam!

I don't know what to rate this one. First act is okay. Normal first act stuff. Second act draaaaggggeeeeddd on. But the third act made up for the first two. By far the best superhero third act in a long time. Don't be spoiled on this, the ending was so much fun.

Anyway, I'm angry about it, but it gets a 8. The first half is that bad because the third act gets a 10.

Edit: Also, I'm over training/ power testing montages. Even if they spruce them up here with humour

THe Dirt Dozzen: The OG boxed crooks must do something to get tie off or sentence commuted. Lee Arvy is a major that is tasked with assassinating as many raning officers of the Nazi army as they can at a chataue that is used as a party place for them. To accomplish this he takes a dozzen soldiers, who have comital crimes ranging from worthy of 20 years of hard labor to death by hanging.

While the premis is far from realistic (you're going to trust 13 men with issues of respecting comand, including 2 psycos, a rapist, several murderers, and a few guys who had Inteligence as their dump stats with something this important) its still the prototype for films and game units like The Expendables, The Sucidide Squade, or Warhammer 40k's penal unit.

Its a fun romp, and it has its moments.

Mission: Impossible II (7/10)

Ask people to rank the Mission: Impossible films, and MI2 usually ends up at the bottom. I've never been one to rank it that far down, and to this day, never really got the criticism it received. Well, not all of it at least. Going into this film again, I was quite prepared to have childhood nostalgia shattered. Or, I was willing to have my positive stance on the film reaffirmed. At the end of the day, having watched it, I'll say this - MI2 is not a great film. But it is a good film, in spite of numerous flaws.

I'm going to get into those flaws first. For starters, there's a lot of unnecessary stuff in the film. The worst offender is the car chase between Ethan and Nyah - not only is it lifted from GoldenEye (and is less enjoyable), but it doesn't actually further the plot, or rather, it artifiically extends the plot from the villa where Ethan meets Nyah. And speaking of Ethan and Nyah, this does bring me into the second issue. I can't call the relationship between them bad, but it's extremely weird that Nyah gets emotionally invested upon their second meeting, to the point where they're sharing a bed together. When people say that MI2 was trying to copy James Bond, this is one of the reasons why. Even if this was a James Bond film, it would still be offputting because while intercourse is common in Bond films, emotional investment between Bond and the "Bond girl" usually comes towards the end.

Third issue is that in some of the action, it's either irreguarly paced, or shot with too much slo-mo. For instance, the bike chase at the end is fun initially ,but it drags on a bit, and the beach fight between Ethan and Ambrose also drags on, and there's no reason why we need the whole "second gun in the sand, spin around and shoot" thing, unless it was the writer's intention to show that Ambrose has the reflexes of a slug. And fourth issue, there's a lot of contrivances in the film that can be summed up as "reasons." Why don't they go after Ambrose straight away? Reasons. Why can only one computer read Nyah's chip? Reasons. Why aren't they working with ASIS? Reasons. Why does McCoy spill the beans so quickly? Reasons. Why does Nyah not infect anyone after being injected with Chimera? Reasons. Like, in some cases, reasons are technically given, but from a writing standpoint, they're clear contrivances.

Yet in spite of all this, I do actually like the film. I can have contrivances if the plot remains engaging, or at the least, fun. And yes, the film is fun. I do feel it flows quite well actually. I like the characters. I like the 'spy feel' that goes on with Ethan and his team. I like the characters, as hammy as they can be. I even like the nostalgia of a film set in 1999, with mobile phones that aren't touchscreen based, and clunky cameras with memory cards being treated as if this is high tech. MI 2 was released in 2000, and I will admit that it does have a sense of childhood innocence for me. Like, before what happened the following year, and how in the two decades since then, the world's never felt as innocent as it once was. Or granted, this is a 90s kid speaking, because I know that terrible stuff happened in the 90s as well.

At the end of the day, MI2 is fun. It's different from MI1, sure, but I think this is a pretty weak argument, because even if there's more action in MI2, every MI film since 1 has upped the action regardless, or at least, had more action than the first film. Overall, the film is silly, but damn if it's not enjoyable. So, of all the Mission: Impossible films I've seen, this still takes the no. 2 spot. I can better appreciate the film's flaws, but they're not enough to sink it for me.

SHAZAM!

Easily the best DCEU movie to date. The plot isn't anything really anything special. From the beginning, it goes in directions you'd expect a movie about a foster kid to go. The movie does throw one curveball. One thing that I'd never have expected and something I need more of these comic book movies to do. The movie also does a good job of getting me to care about Billy's new foster family. The parents, in particular, are sweet, kind, and patient. I love 'em! I'm also proud of the trailers for not spoiling some great moments. This is the most fun I've had watching a DC movie yet and now I'm interested in DCEU's future films. Well, maybe not Flashpoint.

Just saw Shazam, and it was pretty good. It wasn't what I would say exceptional, but it was a nice little movie.

I'd say what I appreciated most was that it had some teeth and guts to it. There's a scene that's the aquivalent of the Spider-Man 2 Doc Ock hospital scene, and it was really nice to finally feel some tension again in a supervillain being evil. And I like that Billy and Freddy actually do really unsafe stuff to show off the superpowers, like Billy trying to cut his own hand off with an axe, or Freddy setting Billy on fire as a prank. They felt like teenagers that weren't sugar coated, they actually swore and talked about drug addicts and tits.

Pet Semetary (6/10)

Pet Semetary. Proof that in the year 2019, poor spelling is still kewl.

So, to be honest, I didn't have much enthusiasm for this, but since my movie-going is dependent on what films are showing after work on Saturdays these days, it was either this or Wonder Park. So, instead of talking animals who want to help you, it's undead animals who want to kill you. Or not, actually - I actually thought this would be Zombie Animals: The Movie, but instead, the pet cemetary is actually a really minor part of the plot. It can barely even be called a catalyst for it, because the supernatural elements don't really have anything to do with the semetary itself, but rather what lies beyond it. We get a zombie cat, sure, but by the end of it we're dealing with zombie zombies, where the time of resurrection apparently goes from a day to a matter of hours. And...okay, I'll be honest, horror isn't really my preferred genre. I can enjoy horror films, but this one isn't even a bittersweet ending, this is a dark, depressing ending with no light at the end of the tunnel whatsoever. I could go into various nitpicks, but I don't think it's fair of me to do so. But I will comment that a lot of the time, the 'rules' of the setting appear to shift in accordance with the demands of the plot.

So, on one hand, did this film keep me on edge? Towards the end, yes, when we'd moved past the jump scares. Did this film leave an impact after seeing it? Saturday night/Sunday morning would say yes. But did I enjoy it? Well, at the end of the day, not really. It's a combination with me not being that enamored in the genre, coupled with various gripes with the plot. I can't help but be reminded of Escape Room, where calling it a horror film would be generous, but I did enjoy it more. So, the film's fine I guess, but not really my thing. Maybe I should have seen Wonder Park...

...scratch that, probably not.

Dumbo (Live action/CG version).

I was no huge cheerleader for the 1941 original. Rewatching it a couple of years back it struck me as one of the shortest and most weirdly paced of the Disney classics. It carries the supposedly heartwarming message that even an oddball and an outcast can find acceptance - just so long as you can compensate for your other-ness by having a cool and lucrative ability that can be cashed in on; then your former tormentors will welcome you back with open arms. Even for the capitalistic wartime years that must have been difficult to swallow.

And yet, being one of my childhood staples, I suppose I was invested enough in the original's formula to be primed to be annoyed by deviations to the script. Of which there are MANY here. The biggest departure is the decision to change it from a talking animals movie to a "told through the eyes of humans" movie, so to that end two annoying kids become our guides for the duration - one instantly forgettable boy who is basically a yapping puppy in human form, and an anachronistically feminist girl with the kind of forehead the Hindenberg could have safely crash-landed on, and who channels a Hermione Granger kind of insufferable smartarsery. Colin Farrell is their demon-battling, veteran, amputee, widower father; and Eva Green puts on a silly French accent as the main antagonist Michael Keaton's reluctant lover. The best performance by far is by Danny Devito, who is still in fine form and reassuringly grounds every scene he's in.

As a brief aside, I was disappointed but not surprised to note that the two main female characters are presented as utterly good: the young girl is a paragon of courage and wisdom, and Eva Green's cruelly exploited showgirl gets to have her "phoenix rising from the ashes" moment. In comparison every male character, which the possible exception of the mute and sexless Dumbo himself, is flawed, thick, greedy, vengeful, brutish, or a figure of fun (or a combination thereof). While I'm not going to picket Disney HQ with the rest of my local Mens Right's chapter quite yet, the expected contemporary undercurrent of gender politics is all present and correct.

This movie features a flying elephant named Dumbo, no mistake, but in every other sense this is a different film to the original. This is not a musical. There is no supporting cast of animals. What we get instead, almost insultingly, are brief allusions to the original. A white mouse wearing a hat appears in one scene (the original's narrator character) and then is forgotten. Soap bubbles briefly become, in Dumbo's imagination, dancing elephants from the famous drunken Elephants on Parade cartoon sequence.

This is a very dark film - in a quite literal sense, as almost every scene takes place at dawn, dusk, at night, or in the gloom of the circus tent. There are also many melancholy moments with not very much in the way of slapstick or comic relief as an antidote; as a film aimed at children it verges on being a little too hopeless or frightening at places. If you happened to leave the theatre 10 minutes before the ending credits for a toilet break, you would miss virtually every happy and uplifting scene in the whole film; crammed, as they are, into the hasty deus-ex-machina resolution.

There were a few parts where a "blink and you'll miss it" quip or reference got a wry smile out of me, and I also admired the self-awareness it must surely have taken to depict the villain's theme park as very close to an early Disney World. In summary I found it a tolerable film but lacking in the original's ribald charm or even much in the way of spectacle despite plenty of CG. It adds further doubts in my mind whether Disney truly know what they're doing with their Gatling-gun release schedule of live action remakes.

Hellboy
Just caught the new one tonight. I really enjoyed it. While I would rate the original Perlman slightly higher than this one, I would still heartily recommend it.

Now, while I found the movie quite entertaining, I have to point out that it does have a few glaring flaws. For one, while it is clearly created by a director that makes horror films, the movie has a problem keeping consistency in tone. It really feels like the director created a movie that was a horror film at its core and then the producers (all 15 of them) felt they needed to add their own "special" touches to the editing, causing it to flip between moments of whimsy and moments of gory horror. It does detract from the movie, but it isn't a deal-breaker for me.

Also, Milla Jovovich does her best with the villain as written, but it is a villain that really could use a bit of a rewrite in order to flesh her personality out (if you will pardon the pun). Further, Ian McShane does an excellent job, but I think John Hurt did a better job developing and portraying the character of Professor Bruttenholm, at least from the viewpoint of someone who has enjoyed to Dark Horse comics.

On the upside of things, David Harbour does an excellent job filling Perlman's shoes and gives a wonderful interpretation of the titular character. Daniel Day Kim is an excellent supporting character as is Sasha Lane. Their portrayals give a great deal of strength to the story. With the ending teasing a sequel, I do hope the movie does well enough to let the story be continued.

When all is said and done, the only real criteria for whether or not a movie is "good" comes down to the simple question of: Did you find it enjoyable and entertaining? And, at least for me, I say yes.

Avengers: No One's Ever Really Gone

I was pleasantly proved wrong on some counts and proved right in a bunch of others. I'm not sure I like how the prologue swiftly wraps up the cliffhanger at the end of Infinity War. On the one hand it's pretty unexpected and made me interested in where would we go from there, but then the movie doesn't really go anywhere for its first hour and it felt forever before we finally had a plot. Once the movie did, I was super pumped for it. I like that it doesn't involve big car chases and CGI battle scenes, for a change. Most of it felt adventure-oriented rather than action-oriented.

Judging the pay off on a character basis, I'm not sure I like or agree with most of them, but that's getting into spoiler territory. I got some TLJ vibes from retconning a lot of the build-up and development (mainly Tony, Cap and Thor) and throwing it to waste with really weird choices that felt out of character and completely uncalled for. Widow also gets a raw deal. Everyone outside the original Avengers (and Ant-Man and Nebula) doesn't really matter much to the plot. I was surprised how little Carol and Danai were used, given their billing in promotional material and the recent Captain Marvel movie.

oh the avengers response train is gonna be so overwhelming here, no doubt it's ...

...

wait, where is everyone? hellooo?

*super fun party noise echoes down from other end of hallway*

...?

those kiddos and their blasted energy drinks. alright, might as well take advantage of this serene moment

Welcome to Marwen

thoughts going in: I wonder if there's a community of middle-aged male doll-house enthusiasts who are fed up of always being seen as creepy at best, sort of like the clown communities annoyed by...well, the same portrayal of clowns in popular media. And I wonder if this film will do anything to not only help these folks plight, but also combat my own perception of them being creepy as fuck

thoughts going out: well, while it sort of managed that some way after the halfway point, I'm not sure the use of a score similar to that of the Silent Hill film's piano melody (and game maybe too? haven't played the original) for the first half and the end credits did anything to aid in that. it's a little different with an extra chord or two, but I recognise those group of notes anywhere. plus the film as a whole felt lacking in multiple ways that are difficult to pin down. it's a tricky one, there are many individual elements to respect, yet as a whole it adds up to less and I can't quite pick any particular thing to highlight as a negative. oh well

Into the Spiderverse
yeah, it's alright. evident shared high quality with the Lego movie what with the same writers, it shows. though as a non-comic fan, I get the unavoidable impression that a million references are flying right over my dumbass ignorant head in every scene. the chromatic aberration, however, kept making me wonder if I'd accidentally put it on 3D glasses mode

Avengers: End My Suffering

I liked the middle part. One Chris goes to town. Karen Gillan is super hot in that outfit (though I am undecided on the bald 'n' blue).

The rest of it sucks. So that's three out of ten. But maybe 4/10 for some nice details. The end credits are wank.

The Hummingbird Project (6/10)

So, there's something odd about this film that I'm going to get into before anything else - I'm pretty certain that this is basically an adaptation of the book 'Flash Boys', which is an account of basically the same story, of building a straight fiber optic line to shave miliseconds off the rate of transactions in stock exchange. To be honest, the film doesn't explain the concept that well, and even after reading the book, I didn't really get it either. That said, I haven't found any acknowledgement of this anywhere - it's quite possible that Hummingbird is simply adapting it from the source material rather than Flash Boys, but whatever the case, Flash Boys did it first, and despite its status as being non-fiction, I'd argue did it better.

Whatever the case, the film deals with the construction of a fiber-optic cable from the Kansas Stock Exchange to New York. Cable needs to be as straight as possible to shave miliseconds off the transmission time, to give the corporation a head over its competitors, because miliseconds are that important in trading. Protagonist has a 'David complex,' as in, the project is his 'Goliath.' Bearing true to that (and that conflict is the essence of drama), they encounter all sorts of hurdles along the way, not the least of which is cutting straight through the Rocky Mountains. This is in addition to competition from another firm who's also trying to shave miliseconds off transmission time, but are using microwave towers instead. Oh, and the protagonist gets cancer, because of course he does.

This film is...messy. Jesse Eisenberg is playing the lead, and I can't help but be reminded of his role as Mark Zuckerburg - portraying the socially awkward brilliant savant and whatnot. However, Social Network does it much better, least in regards to direction. But what's also noticable is that the film's attempt at theme is messy as well. It makes half-hearted attempts at the idea of life going too past, of focusing on one thing to the exclusion of everything else, but it doesn't convey said theme particuarly well. Simiarly, there's an argument to be made that the film is a critique on capitalism (or at least mindless pursuit of profit), but again, it doesn't really do anything with it. Eisenberg stated in an interview that (paraphrased) "if the people in the film actually put their intelligence to use, we could have solved the climate crisis by now", and that's arguably more profound than anything in the film itself. It gives lip service to the environmental impact of the line (deforestation in the Rockies), but again, lip service. And lip service isn't engagement with theme.

So, the film is okay. Flawed, but okay.

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part

The first Lego movie was exactly the kind of movie I don't find funny. Which isn't to say it wasn't funny, objectively speaking, but that it was a type of humor that simply didn't do anything for me. It had a lot of cool visual ideas and did a fantastic jobs making Lego constructions come to live, a positive message about the importance of playing together... it was overall a perfectly good kids movie that simply didn't do much for me personally.

The sequel is more of the same in pretty much every sense. Humor that doesn't appeal to me, neat visuals, positive moral about playing together. I wish I had something more to say but really, that's just about it.

Ghost in the Shell
a high-budget cyberpunk production with a talented cast?? you don't get this often...sign the me the hell up!

(said the past self)

this is probably one of the more focused examples of sci-fi imagery (occasionally) inspiring far more interesting inner thoughts than any of the writing ever could. every time an image set off a thought chain of "oh there's so much to explore with what's implied here, I do hope that we're going to do just that" ...the film itself consistently wallowed in the most shallowest, surface-level interpretation of any potential sci-fi intrigue, to the point where I'm left wondering how oblivious to any of that imagery the creators were. why is sci-fi so regularly disappointing? good ideas done bad...bad ideas done good...good ideas done good but are ignored by all but a select few weirdos so the bean counters end up believing that good ideas done good are actually bad. perhaps if the film felt less inclined to speak its dumb mind all the time, leaving the (occasional) imagery on its own to tell a far better story in the minds of the more curious, that would've improved the experience somewhat

oh well, might as well prepare for the next cyberpunk disappointment, for past self is still loitering around present self, being all hopeful and shit for future self...

The Mortal Engines

It was fun. There's a very regrettable lack of good Fantasy movies recently and I'd say that, overall, Mortal Engines is a good fantasy movie. The main conceit is a very silly one, a story about a world where large cities on wheels and treads act like... well, basically pirate ships, attacking and cannibalizing each other for ressources. What it most reminded me of was probably the famously unsuccesful Kevin Costner vehicle Waterworld, itself more or less Mad Max with pirates. Just like Waterworld it has a pretty big focus on world building and visually impressive, if not exactly very narratively relevant set pieces. But I think the plot works well enough to make Mortal Engines slightly more than just a collection of cool steampunk visuals.

It follows a pair of teenagers foiling an evil engineer's evil plan to build a weapon in London that would let them violently conquer a civilization in Asia. Is it a blunt metaphor for British imperialism? Suppose so. Does that detract from it? Not if you ask me. I think the characters are all overall well defined enough to lend the movie a bit of substance beyond obvious politiccal commentary told through a plot that's, more or less, Steampunk Star Wars. Of course "Steampunk Star Wars" is a premise you hardly need to sell me on in the first place.

It does have a bit of what I like to call "Man of Steel Syndrome", something it shares with Star Wars: Rogue One, among other things, where it has a big, climactic action sequence that starts somewhere in the third act and then never seems to end. And, mind you, it might be a perfectly good action sequence but it vastly overstays it welcome. Also, the female protagonist wasn't exactly a very interesting variation on the "tough, angry, serious brown haired girl" archetype that a lot of modern fantasy movies seem to have as their protagonist.

Still though, I thought it was a fun movie. It's a shame it was as unsuccesful as it was, I really wouldn't have minded more movies set in that world. Of course the story of this one wraps up just fine so it's not like it ended on a cliffhanger or anything but again, it's the setting itself that makes for a decent enough hook. Shame about that.

PsychedelicDiamond:
Still though, I thought it was a fun movie. It's a shame it was as unsuccesful as it was, I really wouldn't have minded more movies set in that world. Of course the story of this one wraps up just fine so it's not like it ended on a cliffhanger or anything but again, it's the setting itself that makes for a decent enough hook. Shame about that.

I mean if you were that hungry for more then you could read the books

PsychedelicDiamond:
The sequel is more of the same in pretty much every sense. Humor that doesn't appeal to me, neat visuals, positive moral about playing together. I wish I had something more to say but really, that's just about it.

Pretty much the same for me, tho I did kind of get an urge to go spelunking in the attic for my old Lego's, so I guess the movie kind of succeeded in its main goal.

Avengers: Endgame (7/10)

I won't spoil anything, so no worries there. It gives us all it needed to. The moments everyone wanted to see, the story points that needed to be there... it was exactly as much the movie it needed to be. However it presents a bit of a problem. Ever since... probably the first Avengers movie, there's been talk about "superhero fatigue." The idea that the comic book superhero movie is an oversaturated genre and interest is going to dwindle with all the movies and characters hitting the big and small screen. Now so far, that really hasn't really manifested. The Marvel movies in particular are all still very successful and even some of the competitors have done well here and there. But A:E presents an interesting problem. Let's say there really is a sense of superhero fatigue out there. And (in my opinion) A:E represents a pretty satisfying "end" to the MCU. Now, its not the end and there's several movies planned and are going to go forward. But I'm curious to see if at least some of the more "casual" fans might seize on this "opportunity" to get out... ESPECIALLY if the next movie lands with more of a thud than a bang. As important as A:E is in the MCU... I'm thinking Spiderman: Far From Home may be even more important for the MCU. Not continuity wise, but more important to keep people invested in the MCU in general. I really don't know how it will turn out, but I'm interested to see how Marvel handles it... and how successful it is in terms of fan engagement. It could be that A:E may have wrapped things up "too well."

Kyrian007:
Avengers: Endgame (7/10)

I won't spoil anything, so no worries there. It gives us all it needed to. The moments everyone wanted to see, the story points that needed to be there... it was exactly as much the movie it needed to be. However it presents a bit of a problem. Ever since... probably the first Avengers movie, there's been talk about "superhero fatigue." The idea that the comic book superhero movie is an oversaturated genre and interest is going to dwindle with all the movies and characters hitting the big and small screen. Now so far, that really hasn't really manifested. The Marvel movies in particular are all still very successful and even some of the competitors have done well here and there. But A:E presents an interesting problem. Let's say there really is a sense of superhero fatigue out there. And (in my opinion) A:E represents a pretty satisfying "end" to the MCU. Now, its not the end and there's several movies planned and are going to go forward. But I'm curious to see if at least some of the more "casual" fans might seize on this "opportunity" to get out... ESPECIALLY if the next movie lands with more of a thud than a bang. As important as A:E is in the MCU... I'm thinking Spiderman: Far From Home may be even more important for the MCU. Not continuity wise, but more important to keep people invested in the MCU in general. I really don't know how it will turn out, but I'm interested to see how Marvel handles it... and how successful it is in terms of fan engagement. It could be that A:E may have wrapped things up "too well."

This is essentially the question I first raised in the movie-specific thread: "where'd all this hype come from? I'd thought everyone was tired of superhero movies?" Then I learn that this is apparently but the end of a first act?? Where do they go from here? The MCU's been dry humping and fondling for a awhile; this was finally THE act, and the load has been blown in spectacular fashion; I think now's the time for the requisite post-coital nap. If the MCU's planning a round two, it's gonna need some jaw-dropping new moves get it up again.

PsychedelicDiamond:

It follows a pair of teenagers foiling an evil engineer's evil plan to build a weapon in London that would let them violently conquer a civilization in Asia. Is it a blunt metaphor for British imperialism? Suppose so. Does that detract from it? Not if you ask me.

I think it could be read as environmental as well. Shan Guo is supposedly sustainable, while the traction cities go around tearing up the landscape in an unsustainable manner. It's worth noting that Shan Guo is at least multi-ethnic, if not multicultural, and the Chinese had to build a wall against the Mongols long before the British came.

Still though, I thought it was a fun movie. It's a shame it was as unsuccesful as it was, I really wouldn't have minded more movies set in that world. Of course the story of this one wraps up just fine so it's not like it ended on a cliffhanger or anything but again, it's the setting itself that makes for a decent enough hook. Shame about that.

I'll second this. I really liked the film, and it sucks that we're not going to get anything more from it. Still, least it's self-contained.

Sherlock Gnomes
this was not a viewing choice, but an obligation. saying that, it's not as bad as anticipated. but it is rather a non-entity. sometimes you can tell a story is made because a person or two really wanted to tell that story. But, other times you get the impression the story only exists because an Elton John fan with an intense desire to share their selection of gnome puns to the public decides to utilise whatever high position they're in to pull a drag-net of high-name celebrities for voice cameos once more because they didn't get all the puns they wanted in the first film
animation is a bit wonky, which isn't as off-putting as characters that appear to not gel with the voice they're given. especially the antagonist, Moriarty (spoiler alert, but seriously who the fuck cares about this film?), who looks like an American food-chain mascot on amphetamine while voiced by what sounds like Alan Carr on amphetamine (who, for the sake of non-Brits, is an extremely camp Brit comedian/show host with a distinctive high-pitched voice). his design looks like it's from a different film entirely, the whole inclusion is jarring and unexplained, maybe it's a reference to some past UK chain? everyone else is gnomes, as they should be

anyway, I only wanted to add some ideas for further titles with gnome puns if this Elton John fan is looking. the "review" was merely an enabler;

Gnomeward Bound/Gnomecoming (self-explanatory, don't ask)

Grass Wars: Attack of the Gnomes (ok, these are probably going to all be self-explanatory)

ThunderGnome (maybe not?)

Wherever I May Gnome (umm...)

Gnome-Booth

Indiana Gnomes: the Mystic Gnomes

Gnomehound

Ugh, I can't do this anymore! sorry for everything. the film is kinda dull and unfunny. there, done!

Detective Pikachu

Not particularly good but cute and entertaining in a refreshingly simplistic way, coming from the self-grandiose bombast of superhero tanks. As a former 20-something Poke fan I guess I'm the target audience - the lead is also a former 20-something Poke fan who sort of gets roped back "into" Pokemon, and most of the Pokemon in the movie are Gen 1, which is where I drew the line. The creatures look good on their own but the clash with live-action is hit and miss. Reynolds is fun in that irreverent but also inoffensive way of his. Story is generic and assembled from a bunch of much better kiddie pictures from the last few years; to mention them would be to give away some of its "surprise" plot points. I was never completely sold on the world itself, Pixar and Ghibli remain the champs of that kind of thing. I guess my main complaint is there isn't much to the "Detective" angle - Pikachu isn't particularly good or bad at it, he's just along for a ride that's happening with or without. Could've been played for laughs, could've been played completely straight. Instead we just get a Sherlock hat.

The Fifth Element

I like this movie. Fun, full of detail, annoying but not too much. Plot is simple but full of energy. Computer effects are used sparingly enough not to date the movie a whole lot (it's from 1997).

8/10

Johnny Novgorod:
Detective Pikachu

Not particularly good but cute and entertaining in a refreshingly simplistic way, coming from the self-grandiose bombast of superhero tanks. As a former 20-something Poke fan I guess I'm the target audience - the lead is also a former 20-something Poke fan who sort of gets roped back "into" Pokemon, and most of the Pokemon in the movie are Gen 1, which is where I drew the line. The creatures look good on their own but the clash with live-action is hit and miss. Reynolds is fun in that irreverent but also inoffensive way of his. Story is generic and assembled from a bunch of much better kiddie pictures from the last few years; to mention them would be to give away some of its "surprise" plot points. I was never completely sold on the world itself, Pixar and Ghibli remain the champs of that kind of thing. I guess my main complaint is there isn't much to the "Detective" angle - Pikachu isn't particularly good or bad at it, he's just along for a ride that's happening with or without. Could've been played for laughs, could've been played completely straight. Instead we just get a Sherlock hat.

As an adult, is it worth seeing just for the novelty of seeing a live action Pok?mon movie?

PsychedelicDiamond:

Johnny Novgorod:
Detective Pikachu

Not particularly good but cute and entertaining in a refreshingly simplistic way, coming from the self-grandiose bombast of superhero tanks. As a former 20-something Poke fan I guess I'm the target audience - the lead is also a former 20-something Poke fan who sort of gets roped back "into" Pokemon, and most of the Pokemon in the movie are Gen 1, which is where I drew the line. The creatures look good on their own but the clash with live-action is hit and miss. Reynolds is fun in that irreverent but also inoffensive way of his. Story is generic and assembled from a bunch of much better kiddie pictures from the last few years; to mention them would be to give away some of its "surprise" plot points. I was never completely sold on the world itself, Pixar and Ghibli remain the champs of that kind of thing. I guess my main complaint is there isn't much to the "Detective" angle - Pikachu isn't particularly good or bad at it, he's just along for a ride that's happening with or without. Could've been played for laughs, could've been played completely straight. Instead we just get a Sherlock hat.

As an adult, is it worth seeing just for the novelty of seeing a live action Pok?mon movie?

Well, yes and no. I was having fun picking out Pokemon in the background and guessing what would show up next. In hindsight there isn't *that* much variety. Only a couple of Pokemon are actual characters (or actively involved in the plot at all); most of them serve as gimmick-inspired visual gags or are otherwise relegated to crowd shots (which seem to cycle across the same dozen or so Pokemon, almost as if they're randomly generated to fill in space without bumping into copies of themselves). Overall it felt less of a "Pokemon movie" (it doesn't really feel "about" Pokemon, like the Lego movie is about Lego) and more of a boilerplate "follow the setpiece" thriller which happens to contain a (surprisingly restrained) number of Pokemon.

Aquaman

I bought a new TV and I needed something really colorful to watch to help me calibrate the colors.

It's honestly a more fun movie than I expected, but everything in it is cribbed from other better movies, and probably some video games.

Black Panther, Uncharted 3, Pacific Rim, Journey to the Center of the Earth, all get represented. Unfortunately the writing is terrible, the leads have no chemistry, and any time 2 people are just talking on screen without any action the dialogue tends to basically be unbearable, including the attempts at humor.

4/10 but did look really good on my TV.

Shazam! (7/10)

So, well done Warner Bros. Not only have you made the best DCEU film so far, but you've also made the first genuinely good DCEU film. Or the director has, or the writers, or, well, you get the idea.

That's not to say the film is perfect though, so before anything else, I'm actually going to list its key flaws first, including:

-The boardroom scene. Those of you who've seen the film will know what I'm talking about. This scene feels really out of place compared to the rest of the film, and the tonal whiplash is noticable. It's weird, because we see the same creatures later on, and they're far less, well, deadly, when dealing with the protagonists.

-Not all of the protagonists get equal screentime. Now, that's kid of to be expected, but it's still noticable. As in, of the "Shazam Family," Billy and Freddy get the most screentime, Pedro/Eugene get the least, and Darla/Mary linger somewhere in the middle. Again, I get that fleshing all of them out to the same extent would be time-prohibitive, but it's a difference that's noticable.

-The end fight sequence is pretty lacklustre. Pacing doesn't feel right, and it lacks a sense of climax. Doesn't help that the villain is...well, he's certainly one of the weaker ones in the DCEU. He's not Steppenwolf level, but he's hardly Orm/Zod-level either as far as character depth goes.

So, now that that's handled, let's look at what the film does right:

-Paced pretty well, gripes at the ending aside. There was never a moment when I was bored or impatient.

-While not all characters are developed equally, the characters that do get spotlight are engaging. Least the protagonists are. Billy and Freddy are. It actually feels pretty true to teenagers, as in, Freddy's got his obsession with superheroes (but I can't help but wonder if the studies he cites actually exist in-universe, since superheroes exist in-universe as well), and Billy lets the power of Shazam go to his head because...well, he's a juvenile delinqunet. Not everyone's Peter Parker. And even the other kids at least get personality traits, even if they're one note. Darla's especially cute.

-Film's pretty funny. Like, not Deadpool 2 levels of funny, in that it doesn't exactly skewer the genre, but it had me laughing quite a bit.

Minor note, mixed on the sins. As in, I like them from a design perspective, but they lack individual designs with the exception of Gluttony. As in, you could put them all in a row, and good luck telling which sin was which. Even Envy, which arguably gets the most 'character development' of the sins, still looks like the rest of them when in a group. Also, another minor note, this is arguably the most stand-alone film in the DCEU. Like, Supes makes a cameo, and he and Batman are mentioned a lot, and the JL characters make cameos in the end credits, but you really don't need to have seen any other DCEU film to get this one. Even Aquaman referenced the events of Justice League, but Shazam makes no references at all.

So, yeah. I liked Shazam. If you're after a superhero flick that takes itself seriously, but not too seriously, and just want a fun time, you'll enjoy this one. It's far removed from the likes of Man of Steel, or, well, really any other film in the DCEU in terms of tone, but I'm not sure how you could do a darker story with this without it coming off as being try-hardy. As in, you have the Wizard playing things straight, but the film knows it's silly and frames it as such, while not skipping out on gravitas when the story calls for it. So, not asking for the whole DCEU to be like this, but I would like Shazam 2 to be like this, just, with maybe more character development for the other kids if they're going to be sticking around.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here