Discuss and rate the last movie you watched

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NEXT
 

Last two movies I've seen were Spider-Man: Homecoming and Shazam, thematically connected by both being about kids trying to be good superheroes. I mean, I also watched Ingmar Bergman's Autumn Sonata inbetween but, you know, whos care about that shit?

Spider-Man: Homecoming

What can you do with a Spider-Man movie that hasn't already been done? Turn it into a High School comedy, seems to be the MCUs answer and it works out... fine. Watching Homecoming after having seen the slick, modern remix of the Spider-Man mythos that was Into the Spiderverse it's hard not to feel a little underwhelmed, which is a shame, because there's really not much wrong with it. Peter Parker (Tom Holland) is a high school kid, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Junior) is his superhero mentor (I'm not entirely sure why they're going for that Batman and Robin thing with Iron Man and Spider-Man but hey, why not), Michael Keaton is playing a gang boss using stolen alien technology, Spidey has not only one but two cute, ethnically mixed love interests... it's all pretty quaint. Listen, Marvel has this stuff down to a science, they can make an adequate superhero movie in their sleep and this is just about what you'd expect. Likeable characters, goofy jokes, mildly conservative subtext, actors who are way to good for this sort of thing... you know the deal. I'm not as frustrated with the MCU as I used to be, maybe I'm going soft but I've come to enjoy them for what they are. And I did enjoy this for what it is.

Shazam

It was awful and I hated it. I might be harsher on the DCEU than it deserves because of that whole Snyder thing, but you know what? I actually thought Aquaman was fun, if not by any means actually good. This wasn't. Asher Angel plays orphan boy Billy Batson who, after some contrivances, gets superpowers bestowed upon him by a wizard (Djimon Hounsou) which give him the ability to turn into superhero Captain Marv... I mean Shazam. There's an almost comically generic villain played by Mark Strong who absorbed the powers of demons, hilarity ensues as Billy comes to terms with his new powers, he has to hide them from the other kids at the orphanage, please kill me. Shazam is bad. Not quite Suicide Squad bad and not quite as insulting as Justice League but it's still an unenjoyable affair. Visually uninteresting, utterly predictable, full of ineffective humor, its main saving grace is being too forgettable to be actively infuriating. I know that no matter how much I bitch about DC I'll never get more Batman v Superman but, for fucks sake, at least give me more Aquaman. Or, you know, don't. Anyway, it wasn't good. Zachary Levy and Asher Angel never felt like they were playing the same character, nothing about the action was memorable, it looked incredibly dull and the only likeable side character were the foster parents. It wasn't offensively bad or anything but I still see no reason why anyone should ever watch it.

PsychedelicDiamond:
but, for fucks sake, at least give mehr more Aquaman.

https://dcextendeduniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Aquaman_2

Or, you know, don't.

Oh. :(

Spider-Man: Far From Home (8/10)

Well, Marvel's done it. Not only have they made their first truly "great" film in the MCU (as opposed to "good" or "average"), but they've made a live-action Spider-Man movie that's even surpassed Spider-Man 2. So, in essence, not only the #2 Spider-Man movie made, but the new #1 MCU movie made.

That's not to say it's perfect mind you, but the action and comedy are good enough that any flaws can easily be forgiven. It does have some pacing issues at the start, and Mysterio arguably suffers from flawed character development (he doesn't want to kill Peter, but ensures that if he dies, he gets justice from beyond the grave), but these are minor gripes. Our protagonists are great. Mysterio's a great villain, in that you know he's not on the level (he's Mysterio FFS), but he's so charming up to the reveal that you can't help but root for him and wish that he really was a good guy. And while it's an MCU film, it quickly and effectively deals with the aftermath of Endgame, and it does have an interesting look at the setting, as to the void characters like Iron Man and Captain America have left in their wake.

That said, there's some analysis with this movie that I don't agree with, namely the claim that the film is an inditement on "fake news." We see this with Mysterio who comments that "people will see what I want them to see," and there's the Daily Bugle segment at the end, which in this world, is basically a riff off Info Wars (something that didn't sit right with me, since the Bugle always struck me as being on the level, with Jameson being a good person despite his dislike of Spider-Man). That aside, I don't think this is some kind of cultural commentary, and even if it is, it's a superficial one. People see what Mysterio wants them to see because he's got state of the art technology and a support team, not because people are just that gullible. I mean, I wouldn't object to a Night Monkey movie for instance, but hey, take what you can get.

There's also the criticism about Peter being too tech orientated here, that his suit is made in a plane or provided rather than made by himself. While I agree with this criticism in the context of Homecoming, I don't feel it holds up here. Peter uses advanced tech for his suit, but he's the one doing the designing and building. Like, if I'm on a computer writing code, and a billionaire gives me a better computer that makes the job easier, it still doesn't diminish my own ability as a coder. That isn't a perfect analogy (FYI: I can't code), but it's the one that comes to mind.

So, yes. Far From Home is a great film - not from thematic resonance, but it's simply that enjoyable to watch. After Endgame, it's the kind of palette cleanser I needed. There's a billboard at the end that says "we can't wait to show you what's next" (gee, subtle), and while the confirmed Phase 4 movies are take 'em or leave 'em for me at this point for the most part, if they're at this level of quality, I'm in for a treat.

Just saw Spider-Man; Far From Home, and it was incredibly passable. It's like Homecoming, but with all the proper humor janked out of it and replaced with humor so forced I could see the cracks.

Also, well done MCU on having another totally throw-away villain with zero emotional investment. It didn't help that because he's fucking Mysterio and introduced as a hero that I just was waiting for the penny to drop, which it then did to no surprise at all. And then it turns out he's just a disgruntled ex-employee of Tony Stark. That's it, that's really all you're going to do with this guy? Fantastic. Nick Fury feels way too stupid to have fallen for any of this shit, too. What's worse is it took away the one element that actually got me somewhat exited for this movie; the multiverse.

Then there's the completely pointless reason of setting this in Europe, other than America (and probably also China) having a boner for quaint European cities, or what they think are quaint European cities. This came to a fucking head when Peter gets train slammed into the Netherlands (my lil' old country), and guess what? He runs into football supporters, cuz Europe and its soccor, am I right guys? He then walks onto a market where everyone wears overalls and dresses like early 20th century farmers, all while carfully avoiding farm animals running lose, and then crosses a field of tulips with windmills in the background. I.. I just can't. Seriously Hollywood, fucking SERIOUSLY?!

Anyway, the movie is lame and only slightly better than Endgame.

Finally saw Akira. This movie's a trip! Constantly going at full no-time-to-explain speed while pelting characters and subplots at each other, although really the movie is far less complicated than it appears to be at first. I think it's more about creating a sense of chaos and painting as big as scope in as little a time as possible. And all looks crisp and terrific. There's more animation in 2 hours than in all 30 hours of Evangelion combined.

Speaking of which, why must every Japanese property end with the protagonist transcending the fabric of time and space?

Oh and Spider-Man: Far From Coming is alright. Throw it on the pile I guess.

Hellboy 2019. What was this? It lacks the charm, humour, epicness and beauty of the del Toro versions. And it adds a R rating? Sometimes violence can be used effectively and thus requires an R rating. This was not one of those cases. David Horbour didn't do a good job and his outfit looks less realistic than Perlman's almost 20 years ago. 5/10.
Anyone explain to me when this was better than the old versions? Or how was this truer to the comics?

Detective Pikachu. I felt really said for Pikachu/ father reveal. That is one of the most f'd up things to do to a kid. Otherwise, it was fine, pretty average movie. I was expecting more. 6/10

Aladdin. I think this was way better than the Beauty and the Beast remake. They added a lot more. My kid was never scared by the cartoon version but was definitely scared by this. Smith isnt Williams but definitely does his own thing. It was good, not great. But the scenes are usually more impressive than s cartoon can do. 7/10

Yesterday (6/10)

There's a question at the heart of this film that it either ignores or isn't aware that it's being raised in the first place - if one took out a cornerstone piece of art/media, would that art form evolve in the same way?

You're probably familiar with the premise - our protagonist wakes up in a world where the Beetles no longer exist, and have never existed. Lots of other stuff no longer exists as well apparently, including Coke, cigarettes, and Harry Potter. Conspicuously, there doesn't appear to be anything new that's been added, like, our protagonist is never caught unawares of pop culture references, whereas asking for a Coke or a cigarette gives him looks of "say what?" So there's the unspoken assumption that if the Beetles really were removed from time and space, the evolution of pop music would have never been affected. And if we look at our protagonist, apparently his life turned out just the same way despite being a fan of the Beetles before the world changed.

Now, it isn't really fair to criticize this film for not delving into questions about art, because it's really not concerned with that. It's less a love letter to the Beetles and more using them as a catalyst for a love story/fraud story - like, if the Beetles never existed, but I'm the only person who remembers their songs, is it ethnical for me to claim them as my own (there's a plot twist beyond that, but I won't spoil that). On the other hand, it's a case where a piece of fiction touches on an interesting question in regards to the evolution of art, but doesn't do much with it. Still, at the end of the day, I enjoyed the film. It's a simple story that had potential for something more interesting, but the characters are good (mostly), as is the humour.

trunkage:
But the scenes are usually more impressive than s cartoon can do. 7/10

...such as?

Spider-Man: Far From Home

What can you do with a Spider-Man movie that hasn't already been done? Turn it into a High School comedy, seems to be the MCUs answer and it works out... hold up, haven't we just done this? Either way, most of what I wrote about Homecoming can be applied to Far From Home just as well. Actually, it leans into the whole High School comedy idea to an almost tiresome extent. Our premise this time is that Peter Parker is on a school trip through Europe with his class, trying to see the sights and confess his love to his crush when superhero life catches up to him. I'm not entirely sure how self aware Far From Home is about this stuff but until about it's last third it's slavish adherence to shitty high school movie clich?s was at points hard to sit through. Actually, I'd go as far as to say the actual plot takes an awful lot of time to actually pick up. It's not that I don't like Peter and his little friends but when I go to see an action movie I prefer it to be less than 70% sub John Hughes comedy. It does its best to be likeable, of course, Jacob Batalon as Peter's buddy Ned makes for a fine enough comedic foil and Far From Home's interpretation of love interest MJ (Zendaya Stoermer Coleman) is... interesting.

The movie tries to turn her into the ultimate "cool chick", a prickly tomboyish hipster with an interest in the morbid and some endearingly antisocial tendencies but just because it's effective doesn't mean it isn't also very blatantly pandering. Yes, she's a character the male audience of movies like this will very likely be attracted to and the female audience of movies like this will find it very easy to identify with but listen, Marvel Studios, don't think I don't see what you're doing here.

All that aside, once Far From Home gets going it's not half bad. Jake Gyllenhaal, who's already proven in Nightcrawler that he can convincingly portray a narcissistic sociopath does a pretty good job as the villain and having the villain be a professional illusionist makes for a lot of pretty creative scenes. Most people will probably agree that a sequence in Berlin about Peter having to navigate a trippy series of illusions is by far the highlight of the movie. It also stands out because otherwise the movie is mostly dissapointingly visually uninteresting. Especially so because that's a problem I had hoped the MCU had gotten over by now. Anyway, the actual action is for the most part not bad, though it could have made better use of its interesting locales. Also, whoever made this movie seemed to really hate the dutch. There most of the cultures portrayed in it were portrayed fairly respectfully, the section set in the Netherlands were little more than a series of pretty unflattering stereotypes. What was up with that? Also, way too much of the movie hinged on Peter making a very bad decision that he should not have made by trusting a person he hardly even knew. That seemed like a bit of a contrivance to me.

I digress, Far From Home was a perfectly watchable movie. It was not a bad time. It did hold off suicidal depression for about two hours. And isn't that, at the end of the day, what we watch movies for? No? Just me?

Dolor y Gloria

Good but I can't help feel Almodovar keeps making the same movie over and over again. Just about every scene feels like I've seen it before in another movie of his: an artist with writer's block, surrounded by a bourgeois posse of fans and yes men, gets a flash from the past (standard Almodovar self-insert: absent father, tough single mom, gay sexual awakening, religious seminar, etc) and that inspires his next work. This guy needs therapy, then again maybe making movies is his way of getting it.

After (3/10)

So, well done After. You've managed to become my new worst movie of the year. And let me tell you, this year's already had some doozies. Best thing I can say about you is that I now have an idea about how watching Twilight or Fifty Shades of Grey would be like.

Actually, screw that. Twilight at least has vampires and werewolves, so that's something. But this film...it's bad. The characters are bland. The directing is bland. I kid you not, if this film took out every scene where all that's happening is music, poor dialogue, and general kissing/erotica, I honestly think it would be half as long as it is. About the best thing I can say about the film is that there's a twist in the end about ten minutes before the film's end, but the fallout of said twist is rectified within said ten minutes. Considering our protagonist is doing uni courses such as Economics 101, literature, and for some reason, astronomy, I was at the point where I'd have preferred to have a lecture on economics or Jane Austen then watch this crap. I'm guessing this film is targeted towards teenage girls, but how anyone could like this film unless they're just there for the sex, I have no idea. I have a policy of seeing a many films as possible in the year, but films like this make me want to reconsider.

This film is bad. For the love of God, don't waste your time with it, and if you're a teenage girl, or have a teenage girl, please try and save yourself/her from this crap.

Spider Man - Far From Home: This now my second favorite Spider-Man movie. Spider-Verse is still the first, but Spider-Man 2 is no longer in 2nd place. The main problem I had with that movie was pacing and certain things not aging well. Far From Home has awesome pacing, does not feel rushed, develops Peter better than the Amazing Spider-Man films or the original trilogy, Mysterio has an accurate depiction to how he was in the comics and most of the cartoons, and this something I will definitely pick up first day on blu-ray. Stay around after the credits, you'll be in for a nice surprise.

PsychedelicDiamond:
Tony Revolori as Peter's buddy Ned makes for a fine enough comedic foil

Tony Revolori plays Flash, the bully. Peter's sidekick is played by Jacob Batalon.

PsychedelicDiamond:
Spider-Man: Far From Home

What can you do with a Spider-Man movie that hasn't already been done? Turn it into a High School comedy, seems to be the MCUs answer and it works out... hold up, haven't we just done this? Either way, most of what I wrote about Homecoming can be applied to Far From Home just as well. Actually, it leans into the whole High School comedy idea to an almost tiresome extent. Our premise this time is that Peter Parker is on a school trip through Europe with his class, trying to see the sights and confess his love to his crush when superhero life catches up to him. I'm not entirely sure how self aware Far From Home is about this stuff but until about it's last third it's slavish adherence to shitty high school movie clich?s was at points hard to sit through. Actually, I'd go as far as to say the actual plot takes an awful lot of time to actually pick up. It's not that I don't like Peter and his little friends but when I go to see an action movie I prefer it to be less than 70% sub John Hughes comedy. It does its best to be likeable, of course, Jacob Batalon as Peter's buddy Ned makes for a fine enough comedic foil and Far From Home's interpretation of love interest MJ (Zendaya Stoermer Coleman) is... interesting.

The movie tries to turn her into the ultimate "cool chick", a prickly tomboyish hipster with an interest in the morbid and some endearingly antisocial tendencies but just because it's effective doesn't mean it isn't also very blatantly pandering. Yes, she's a character the male audience of movies like this will very likely be attracted to and the female audience of movies like this will find it very easy to identify with but listen, Marvel Studios, don't think I don't see what you're doing here.

All that aside, once Far From Home gets going it's not half bad. Jake Gyllenhaal, who's already proven in Nightcrawler that he can convincingly portray a narcissistic sociopath does a pretty good job as the villain and having the villain be a professional illusionist makes for a lot of pretty creative scenes. Most people will probably agree that a sequence in Berlin about Peter having to navigate a trippy series of illusions is by far the highlight of the movie. It also stands out because otherwise the movie is mostly dissapointingly visually uninteresting. Especially so because that's a problem I had hoped the MCU had gotten over by now. Anyway, the actual action is for the most part not bad, though it could have made better use of its interesting locales. Also, whoever made this movie seemed to really hate the dutch. There most of the cultures portrayed in it were portrayed fairly respectfully, the section set in the Netherlands were little more than a series of pretty unflattering stereotypes. What was up with that? Also, way too much of the movie hinged on Peter making a very bad decision that he should not have made by trusting a person he hardly even knew. That seemed like a bit of a contrivance to me.

I digress, Far From Home was a perfectly watchable movie. It was not a bad time. It did hold off suicidal depression for about two hours. And isn't that, at the end of the day, what we watch movies for? No? Just me?

Went and saw this yesterday, and I walked out with a very "meh" feeling where I couldn't really articulate what I thought, then I read this; ^THIS verbatim.

Did I watch a Spider-Man superhero movie or a romantic comedy featuring the 2019 version of the Breakfast Club's ragtag group of awkward teenagers with occasional special effects?

Another thing that didn't really sit well with me was Mysterio's reveal as the villain, that scene right after Peter surrendered EDITH to Quentin. It felt REALLY contrived; the blatant exposition felt like something out of stage theater and out of place with what the MCU has offered thus far; I half expected Gyllenhaal to break out in a villainous song.

The whole tone of the film was very much off-tone from the established MCU, imho. Not necessarily a bad thing; "different" needn't mean "bad," and it was certainly different. As you concluded, while it was far from what I expected, it was watchable and I've watched worse.

Xprimentyl:

The whole tone of the film was very much off-tone from the established MCU, imho.

Spider-Man: Homecoming
Guardians of the Galaxy 1 & 2
Thor: Ragnarok
Ant-Man & the Wasp

The MCU's always had at least one foot in comedy, and the films I listed ran with it completely. FFH is hardly out of sync with that precedent.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

A bit of an odd complaint maybe, but I wish there had been more talking and less action. As it was, I didn't get the feel that the lead characters had much in the way of characters, and their wants and motivations were only explored at most in their introduction scene, afterwards it was non-stop action until the film went "Oh yeah, they had some sort of backstory to act on" briefly to motivate them taking certain actions. Then it was non-stop action again. This action overwhelmed me. In summary, I think the movie would've been better with some time to breath, i.e. some conversation scenes, and simultaneously actually showcase the leads' characters, i.e. some conversation scenes.

Boogie Nights

I haven't seen a lot of Paul Thomas Anderson movies or, indeed, any Paul Thomas Anderson movies outside of Inherent Vice, which only got my attention because it's based on a book I like. Anyway, Boogie Nights was his debut, a dramedy about the porn industry in the late 70s, early 80s.

Mark Wahlberg plays Eddie Adams, a simple dishwasher in California who's discovered by porn director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds), jumpstarting his career as "Dirk Diggler", adult film star.

It's a very fun movie for sure, somewhat reminiscent of Scorsese in plot and Tarantino in style, something that has just the right amount of drama and humanity to humanise it's sleazy characters with quirky names. It's a very typical "rise and fall of a star" story when you get down to it, with all the drug fueled parties, nasty hangovers, hot women and poor decisions you'd expect but it's directed in such a stylish, colourful way and written with such a sharp satirical edge that it's hard not to be engaged by it.

Despite the movie being, at face value, about the porn industry it seemed to me like what Anderson was really commenting on is show business, or rather Hollywood, in general. Its overly ambitious directors, sleazy producers, narcissistic actors and washed up stars exist by no means only in the porn industry.

It features a lot of, now very recognizable, character actors like Reynolds, John C. Reilly as Eddie's best friend, Phillip Seymour Hoffman as a gay production assistant, even most minor characters are very memorable by their performance alone. Mark Wahlberg is by no means an outstanding actor but I feel like he has successfully specialized in playing a specific type of childish dumbass with a violent edge that, when utilized succesfully, makes for a pretty compelling performance. The production design is incredibly lush, not only perfectly reproducing its period setting but also giving it a decadent, larger than life look that captures both the luxury and the sleaze of the subject matter.

Anyway, Boogie Nights is a really cool movie about... well, fame, money, porn, the change in attitude between the 70s and 80s, you know, that sort of thing. It does both humor and drama well and approaches its subject matter, as much as it would lend itself to a more cynical approach, with some genuine sympathy. It's a very good movie by all means.

trunkage:
Hellboy 2019. What was this? It lacks the charm, humour, epicness and beauty of the del Toro versions. And it adds a R rating? Sometimes violence can be used effectively and thus requires an R rating. This was not one of those cases. David Horbour didn't do a good job and his outfit looks less realistic than Perlman's almost 20 years ago. 5/10.
Anyone explain to me when this was better than the old versions? Or how was this truer to the comics?

Saw it yesterday, and yeah, not exactly a tour de force. Badly paced, too much dull exposition, nowhere near as funny as it thinks it is, nor any of the visual flair of the Del Toro movies. Utterly forgettable movie. Quite literally. It's been only a day and I can't recall what the plot was or any of the character's names, always a good sign. Wait no, I remember a Nazi officer wearing an oversized set of those old red and blue 3D glasses. Oh, and some monster designs in the finale. Some of those were pretty neat.

Bedinsis:
Snip

...it took you this long to see TFA?

Hurry up and move on. You need to be prepared for Episode IX and the Internet's repeated dissent into madness. :P

Hawki:

Bedinsis:
Snip

...it took you this long to see TFA?

Hurry up and move on. You need to be prepared for Episode IX and the Internet's repeated dissent into madness. :P

Honestly I don't care that much about Star Wars. I only saw that it was available at my local library and thought "might as well see what it was all about".

Bedinsis:
Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

A bit of an odd complaint maybe, but I wish there had been more talking and less action. As it was, I didn't get the feel that the lead characters had much in the way of characters, and their wants and motivations were only explored at most in their introduction scene, afterwards it was non-stop action until the film went "Oh yeah, they had some sort of backstory to act on" briefly to motivate them taking certain actions. Then it was non-stop action again. This action overwhelmed me. In summary, I think the movie would've been better with some time to breath, i.e. some conversation scenes, and simultaneously actually showcase the leads' characters, i.e. some conversation scenes.

Have you seen A New Hope? Luke's motivation is to get out of farming. Achievement unlocked at 20 mins

Hawki:

trunkage:
But the scenes are usually more impressive than s cartoon can do. 7/10

...such as?

Let's take an example image compared to this image. Just looking at the complexity and detail of what they were able to capture, the new movie wins. (I'm not talking about the lightning or how they are coloured or anything else, just how much detail.) There are quite a few scenes like this, like when looking over the city or Ali's entrance dance, that were similar upscaled in detail.

trunkage:

Bedinsis:
Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

A bit of an odd complaint maybe, but I wish there had been more talking and less action. As it was, I didn't get the feel that the lead characters had much in the way of characters, and their wants and motivations were only explored at most in their introduction scene, afterwards it was non-stop action until the film went "Oh yeah, they had some sort of backstory to act on" briefly to motivate them taking certain actions. Then it was non-stop action again. This action overwhelmed me. In summary, I think the movie would've been better with some time to breath, i.e. some conversation scenes, and simultaneously actually showcase the leads' characters, i.e. some conversation scenes.

Have you seen A New Hope? Luke's motivation is to get out of farming. Achievement unlocked at 20 mins

I have seen a new hope. It has been a couple years though. That did not have non-stop action so I actually was allowed to breathe and take in all the information. What's more, that movie had one(1) protagonist. That limited the scope and let the plot be manageable. The Force Awakens had at least two protagonists. That's double the perspectives, double the information to keep track of.

I dunno if my complaints stand up to scrutiny when compared to a new hope, but as I've said: I don't care that much about Star Wars. My complaints are aimed at The Force Awakens without putting much regards for any other film in the series.

The Lion King (5/10)

Fuck this movie.

That's harsh, no? I mean, it's only 5/10. And yes, I'll specify that this isn't a bad film. I've seen worse films this year. But by god if this film wasn't one of the most soulless, most cynical films I've seen in awhile. Because if you've seen the animated version, congratulations, you've seen this one. And if you see this one, you've seen the animated version, just...less good. Say what you want about remakes like Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, but they at least made changes, and whether you agreed with them or not, I could at least understand the rationale behind those changes. Lion King 2019? Not so much. What changes they make are so minimal as to be barely worth mentioning. But since you asked, I will mention them.

So, it arguably goes more in-depth with the hyena-lion conflict, as it's established that the hyenas over-consumed their land, so now they need to take prey from the Pridelands. Indeed, there's arguably a more ecological focus on the film, in that Scar mentions that, in regards to the hyenas being let in, that he's changed nothing, but simply perfected the hunt. So, veiled references to over-consumption there. That, and how Rafiki learns that Simba is alive ties into this. And, um, there's kind of a grudge thing between Nala and Shenzi which has a payoff of one minute, and Scar wants Sarabi as his queen, but, again, that barely amounts to anything. Similar to BatB and Aladdin, LK2019 seems to be going for a feminist angle in that it's trying to "empower" its female characters, but unlike these films, it doesn't really change anything. I mean, not that it really changed anything in BatB either (Belle is an inventor, and that plot point gets dropped as soon as it's introduced effectively), but Christ, there was all this talk of giving Sarabi a larger role, but that just amounts to her being Scar's punching bag for longer.

So apart from that, what's left? A soulless film. Can't Wait to Be King is lessser. Be Prepared is a travesty. Hakuna Mattatta? Okay, I guess. Lion Sleeps Tonight? Okay, I smirked (in fairness, Timon and Pumba are arguably 'improved' over their original versions). But these changes are so small, so tiny, so irrelevant, there's cases where dialogue is slightly changed from the original to the point where it doesn't even make sense. And the thing is, I thought to myself as I exited the cinema, there's actually a case to be made to remake Lion King. As in, you could incorporate Zira and the future Outlanders, so their presence in LK2 is less jarring ("why yes viewers, Scar did have a mate, and he did have loyal followers, you just didn't see them). But no. It doesn't do that. If anything, given Scar's fixation with Sarabi, it makes it pretty much impossible to do. But no. They didn't do that. They had to stick to the original. Live-action can't do the same things as animation, fair enough, but what are we given in return?

Without a doubt, LK 2019 is the worst Disney live-action remake of recent times I've seen. Jungle Book justified its existence. BatB and Aladdin didn't, but they at least tried to justify it with the changes they made. LK can't even muster that. It can't even pretend that it's being other than a shot for shot remake of the original with changes so minor that they barely worth a mention. I'll grant that the African scenery looks beautiful, but that's not enough to justify this.

Is LK 2019 a bad movie? No. Is it the worst movie I've seen this year? No. Is it the most cynical one I've seen? Given that the only justification for it seems to be the need for money, then, yes. FFS, it can't even cash in on nostalgia correctly. I will admit to getting chills at certain points, but that was down to being reminded of the original rather than anything the film itself did. So again, in conclusion...

Fuck. This. Movie.

Hawki:
The Lion King (5/10)

Fuck this movie.

How would you rate Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar? Because judging by the trailer he didn't quite seem to be living up to Jeremy Irons and I've already been disappointed with the new guy they got to be Jafar...

Palindromemordnilap:

How would you rate Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar? Because judging by the trailer he didn't quite seem to be living up to Jeremy Irons

The short answer is that I think Irons is better, but that's not down to Ejiofor. Scar in this film is portrayed as less of a schemer and more of a brute, and Ejiofor voices him accordingly. So, in this case, I think it's less a case of which VA is better, and more which take on the character is preferable.

Doomsday. 6/10. Why does everyone think punk fashion will come back in a post-apocalyptic scenario when resources are limited? I expect people would really be wearing rags or jeans and t-shirt or something, and I bet little metal studs, leather straps, and hair gel would be in quite short supply.

Hawki:

Palindromemordnilap:

How would you rate Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar? Because judging by the trailer he didn't quite seem to be living up to Jeremy Irons

The short answer is that I think Irons is better, but that's not down to Ejiofor. Scar in this film is portrayed as less of a schemer and more of a brute, and Ejiofor voices him accordingly. So, in this case, I think it's less a case of which VA is better, and more which take on the character is preferable.

So more or less exactly what they did to Jafar then. That'll be a pass from me

Riddick (5/10)

Riddick is to Pitch Black what Force Awakens is to A New Hope - a remake in all but name, and a lesser version of the original.

That's kind of all I need to say, but even then it falls a bit flat. Force Awakens, for all its similarities, did manage to be distinct in some ways, but Riddick is really just Pitch Black again in all but name. And considering that Pitch Black was already a riff on the formula of Alien/Aliens, we're well and truly in the realm of diminishing returns. The planet is less interesting. The mercs are less interesting than the passengers. The scorpions are less interesting and less threatening than the bio-raptors. I could go into details, but all I can say is that if you've seen Pitch Black, you've seen this film. And as for Chronicles of Riddick (which I haven't seen), the film disconnects itself from it within the first 10-20 minutes. So, this film is kind of a reset of the mythology, but does nothing new with it.

So, yes. I liked Pitch Black - I think it's a good film, though by no means a great film, and it's a derivative one at that. Riddick is more of the same, but lesser. And that's all that needs to be said.

Aquaman.

So on one hand, it looks really great, it moves fast and the generally a lot of fun to watch. On the other, it's one of those films where it feels like stuff exists and happens just because the writers/director wanted it to and not because it follows any kind of logical reasoning. And in this case, the writers/director being a 13 year old with a massive budget.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, but I suspect it's as fast moving and flashy as it is because they know how dumb it is and they want to keep you from actually noticing that fact. Which I guess is the best call considering but I do wish they'd tried to make some of this stuff make a bit more sense even within the context of "Atlantis/Sea Monsters/Underwater Lasers/Magic".

7 Moby Dicks/5 Sea Parks.

The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (Dario Argento, 1970)

Fun giallo movie bordering on exploitation while remaining tasteful. It's like the missing link between Hitchcock and De Palma.

Dalisclock:
Aquaman.

So on one hand, it looks really great, it moves fast and the generally a lot of fun to watch. On the other, it's one of those films where it feels like stuff exists and happens just because the writers/director wanted it to and not because it follows any kind of logical reasoning. And in this case, the writers/director being a 13 year old with a massive budget.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, but I suspect it's as fast moving and flashy as it is because they know how dumb it is and they want to keep you from actually noticing that fact. Which I guess is the best call considering but I do wish they'd tried to make some of this stuff make a bit more sense even within the context of "Atlantis/Sea Monsters/Underwater Lasers/Magic".

7 Moby Dicks/5 Sea Parks.

Honestly, after Batman V. Superman, Justice League ( both which I thought were just okay) and Suicide Squad (I have really mixed feelings about) I don't think anyone had much complaints about the logic in the movie. When I saw Aquaman, I gave it myself a high rating. It's up there with Wonder Woman and Man of Steel. The advantage Aquaman has over WW and MoS is color palette (justified in Wonder Woman's case) and pacing (more so in Man of Steel's case). That, and it is balls to the walls insane and stylish!
My parents loved the movie, though y dad felt it was a bit "too video gamey" in some parts. Whatever the hell that means. Not a major flaw for him, but a minor complaint. Which is odd, because he enjoyed Wrath of the Titans, and that is way more like watching someone play a pg-13 version of God of War than the Aquaman movie.

Baffle2:
Doomsday. 6/10. Why does everyone think punk fashion will come back in a post-apocalyptic scenario when resources are limited? I expect people would really be wearing rags or jeans and t-shirt or something, and I bet little metal studs, leather straps, and hair gel would be in quite short supply.

The Purge sequels are better throwback to Mad Max and Escape From NY. When Fury Road came out, it made Doomsday seem almost pointless. I know when I saw it, I did not feel the need to really see the movie again.

CoCage:

Dalisclock:
Aquaman.

So on one hand, it looks really great, it moves fast and the generally a lot of fun to watch. On the other, it's one of those films where it feels like stuff exists and happens just because the writers/director wanted it to and not because it follows any kind of logical reasoning. And in this case, the writers/director being a 13 year old with a massive budget.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, but I suspect it's as fast moving and flashy as it is because they know how dumb it is and they want to keep you from actually noticing that fact. Which I guess is the best call considering but I do wish they'd tried to make some of this stuff make a bit more sense even within the context of "Atlantis/Sea Monsters/Underwater Lasers/Magic".

7 Moby Dicks/5 Sea Parks.

Honestly, after Batman V. Superman, Justice League ( both which I thought were just okay) and Suicide Squad (I have really mixed feelings about) I don't think anyone had much complaints about the logic in the movie. When I saw Aquaman, I gave it myself a high rating. It's up there with Wonder Woman and Man of Steel. The advantage Aquaman has over WW and MoS is color palette (justified in Wonder Woman's case) and pacing (more so in Man of Steel's case). That, and it is balls to the walls insane and stylish!
My parents loved the movie, though y dad felt it was a bit "too video gamey" in some parts. Whatever the hell that means. Not a major flaw for him, but a minor complaint. Which is odd, because he enjoyed Wrath of the Titans, and that is way more like watching someone play a pg-13 version of God of War than the Aquaman movie.

Yeah, I mean I enjoyed it despite being dumb, mostly because it seemed to go "FUCK IT! WE'RE GOING NUTS WITH THIS STUFF", which is probably the best course when the entire premise is "Underwater sea man and Atlantis" because trying to do it remotely seriously probably wouldn't work.Kinda like how I liked Thor Ragnarok more then the other 2, because it just embraced how wierd and nuts the whole Space Viking Gods thing is and just had fun with it.

I'll admit, I never saw Man of Steel, Justice League, Batman vs. Superman, Just Wonder Woman(which was also dumb but entertaining and I enjoyed it).

Movie: Spider-Man: Far From Home

Rating: 6 / 10

Review: I was honestly a bit disappointed in this movie. Sure the comedy was pretty good, the action was nice, and the visuals / CGI was impressive (especially a certain scene but I won't spoil it).. however, the plot was kind of meh. It was more of a high school / field trip kind of movie with a superhero in it, trying to cope with what happened in the previous movie. If it wasn't for a certain character, this movie would of likely received a lower score.

At first, I thought maybe, I was being too harsh since nothing could live up to Infinity War or End Game, but thinking about it now? The movie was pretty bland. The jokes felt a tad forced, most landed but the ones that didn't kind of stuck around a little too long, and the characters (majority of them) I couldn't care less for. This movie was too simple, too basic that didn't really go anywhere. Heck, if you didn't see it, you wouldn't miss out on much despite the fact the ending is a bit important for future movies.

Hawki:

Xprimentyl:

The whole tone of the film was very much off-tone from the established MCU, imho.

Spider-Man: Homecoming
Guardians of the Galaxy 1 & 2
Thor: Ragnarok
Ant-Man & the Wasp

The MCU's always had at least one foot in comedy, and the films I listed ran with it completely. FFH is hardly out of sync with that precedent.

I'm fully aware of the comedy on offer in the MCU; I'm saying this film in particular was:

Caramel Frappe:
...more of a high school / field trip kind of movie with a superhero in it...

It didn't feel like a part of a larger (MCU) whole, and stand alone, was not itself very big. Spider-Man the character felt very much secondary to (if not outright in the way of) the plot. It was a coming of age romantic comedy, and somewhere along the line, they remembered that people were likely paying to see Spider-Man, so they threw him in where plot contrivances allowed.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

This movie I had already sen a whole bunch of spoilers for beforehand so I knew the big three-word-sentences spoilers. And once again I thought it was too many perspectives to keep track of, but once the plotlines started to overlap and intersect they lessened in complexity and I could enjoy it. And truth be told, I did enjoy it. It felt like there were more breathing scenes, in particular Rey's training with Luke, and even though the last act had non-stop action scenes again, at that point the action felt like it had more purpose within the story, and the heroes really felt in danger most of the time so it worked.

G.I. Jane

I guess everybody forgot about this movie when they were circle-jerking about Ms. Marvel. Imagine if Ms. Marvel were made by a director instead of a think tank, starred a believable action heroine and the movie was made in earnest regarding its subject matter. Doesn't pull low punches, doesn't take any shortcuts, doesn't pander to an audience with passive-aggressive Buffy sass and jaded virtue signalling. Other than the climax, which felt a bit autopilot, great movie. Up there with Thelma & Louise as Ridley's 90s finest.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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