Discuss and rate the last movie you watched

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

Dragon Blade 4/10

Jackie Chan and his stunt crew bring us a """historical""" action epic in which an ancient Silk Road guard chief Huo An has to go against a power hungry Roman leader wishing to expand eastward. You'd think it's just Adrien Brody collecting a paycheck, which is also true, but he's hamming it up hard as the total opposite of virtuous Huo An who just wants peace among the hilariously distinctive-looking peoples around the area. Also totally ripping off Gladiator with its final duel and shit. The action is alright, you can almost believe Brody and a rebel General Lucius (John Cusack) are sword-dancing as themselves instead of Jackie's stuntmen. Okay, not really. I also skipped most of the talking scenes.

Apollo 11 (7/10)

It's kind of weird to see this film so soon (relatively speaking) after First Man. Guess the 60th anniversary of the moon landing has that effect on people. Like, there's Ryan!Neil and Neil!Neil.

Anyway, to explain this film, the best point of comparison I can think of is They Shall Not Grow Old. As in, everything in the film is real-world footage, and it's presented entirely in chronological order. So, like, if you went through life without any knowledge of WWI or the Apollo 11 landing, you could watch these films and get a 'story' of sorts that explains it. It's not a documentary per se, but not acted. A few diagrams are used to explain lunar trajectories at the like, and there's some super-imposition over the footage (e.g. velocity, height, etc.), but other than that, it's all real.

And it's pretty decent, to be honest, though takes awhile to get going. Not nearly as impactful as TSNGO, but that's in part due to me having seen so much Apollo stuff by this point, while TSGNO had the colourization, plus new footage thing going for it. What's funny is that while we get Armstrong's "one small step" speech, it actually keeps going, and because we're using footage from the top down angle rather than the side angle, it's not nearly as impactful. TBH, I think that's kind of intentional. Like, everyone knows that speech, but does everyone know Nixon's call to the astronauts after the fact? I didn't, but it's a pretty good one. But on the other hand, they cut out Kennedy's "we choose to go to the moon, and do the other things" part of his speech, so...Republican bias?

Yeah, probably not. Anyway, if there's a genre of "Apollo films," Apollo 11 certainly isn't Apollo 13, or even First Man, but it's not trying to be. And for what it does, it does a reasonable job.

Hobbes and Shaw 8/10

This film is exactly what you'd expect an incredulously over-the-top, self-aware, beat-em-up action flick to be, and it does all of those things really well; this was the most mindless fun I've had in a theater in a very long time. Don't expect any surprises; you've seen dozens of movies like this before, but this one's worth watching. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham are essentially the same people in every role they play, but damned if it isn't entertaining watching these alphas collide. Idris Elba pulls off a very interesting villain; it's like watching Luther go rogue. Vanessa Kirby plays a wonderful femme fatale (those eyes, that accent, *swoon*. The cameo by Kevin Hart was a welcome and hilarious surprise. All in all, I was highly entertained for a couple of hours.

DISCLAIMER, my opinion was helped along by the fact we'd bought DBOX tickets which is a special row of chairs in the theater that move and vibrate with the action on screen; when Shaw peels out in his McLaren, you're literally thrown back in your seat; the seats shift you violently from side to side and vibrate with each punch or kick; it was so much fun. I refuse to see another action film in the theater unless it's in that seat.

The Spy Who Loved Me 7/10

The only Bond film I hadn't yet seen. The local tv network is showing all Bond films (like every year) and funny enough they are marketed as romance films in the short ad spots -- each showing a couple of scenes with Bond flirting with the girls. Anyway, now I've seen it and it's pretty good. The theme song is good too. You have Jaws, funny Russian accents, and a kind of a developing romance between Bond and his KGB counterpart. The Werner Herzog lookin-ass villain is kinda fun and ruthless not to mention mad.

Moreover, when people talk about Bond films they often remark how mean and chauvinistic 007 is towards women, but that doesn't apply after Connery. Sure, he sleeps around, but you would too if women fell for you with just a look towards them. In this film the main girl Major Amasova rejects Bond multiple times (even drugging him) before warming up.

Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - S RANK!

What more needs to be said? Combining awesome with another form with awesome. This is one of the best crossover films I have ever seen! On second thought, this is the best crossover film I have seen. Everyone fills their roles perfectly, the jokes are funny, and the interaction between the Turtles, Batfamily, and the villains are hilarious. I don't want to spoil much, but go see this movie now! Note that this movie is pg-13 and not exactly kids friendly. There is bloodshed, and some minor gore.

Caramel Frappe:
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.

It also doesn't help that Mysterio's plan makes absolutely NO sense.

McElroy:
The Spy Who Loved Me 7/10

The only Bond film I hadn't yet seen.

Damn, I've got some catching up to do.

:(

The local tv network is showing all Bond films (like every year) and funny enough they are marketed as romance films in the short ad spots -- each showing a couple of scenes with Bond flirting with the girls.

Da fuq?

Moreover, when people talk about Bond films they often remark how mean and chauvinistic 007 is towards women, but that doesn't apply after Connery. Sure, he sleeps around, but you would too if women fell for you with just a look towards them. In this film the main girl Major Amasova rejects Bond multiple times (even drugging him) before warming up.

Um, Roger Moore? That era wasn't exactly what you'd call "progressive."

Far as Bond girls go, I'd say that the franchise has treated them better as time has gone on (generally), but I can't really refute any and all criticism of the concept. TBH, with the whole female 007 thing, I wouldn't be surprised if the franchise buries the concept.

Hawki:
snip

Progressive or not, Moore's Bond treats women respectfully while the infamous scenes are all in Connery's films. The one with Lazenby is weirder: Bond hangs out with the oblivious girls and treats them like they're just in the way, but he also gets married later. Like, I think that the treatment of women got some criticism even in the 60s and prompted changes in the way Bond handles his women. In 1983's Octopussy the titular character and her crew are instrumental in helping Bond catch the bad guys, though he was already saved by a pair of punch-kick karate girls in Man With the Golden Gun.

Anyway...

Batman: Hush 7/10

Stuff that it has: chemistry between the characters, good pacing and even the talky scenes aren't boring, fetish material (oh boy), some funny lines, actually has something to say about Batman even if it's not very much, decent animation at times, very same-y action scenes. It's got something for everyone.

Xprimentyl:
Hobbes and Shaw 8/10

This film is exactly what you?d expect an incredulously over-the-top, self-aware, beat-em-up action flick to be, and it does all of those things really well; this was the most mindless fun I?ve had in a theater in a very long time. Don?t expect any surprises; you?ve seen dozens of movies like this before, but this one?s worth watching. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham are essentially the same people in every role they play, but damned if it isn?t entertaining watching these alphas collide. Idris Elba pulls off a very interesting villain; it?s like watching Luther go rogue. Vanessa Kirby plays a wonderful femme fatale (those eyes, that accent, *swoon*. The cameo by Kevin Hart was a welcome and hilarious surprise. All in all, I was highly entertained for a couple of hours.

DISCLAIMER, my opinion was helped along by the fact we?d bought DBOX tickets which is a special row of chairs in the theater that move and vibrate with the action on screen; when Shaw peels out in his McLaren, you?re literally thrown back in your seat; the seats shift you violently from side to side and vibrate with each punch or kick; it was so much fun. I refuse to see another action film in the theater unless it?s in that seat.

Glad to hear the movie was good, but I'd be fine seeing it sans Dbox. It's like 3D to me; after the first few minutes the novelty just sorta fades away. I can remember the only time I was really impressed by the feedback, and that was in the first Avengers when Iron Man sorta bobs in the air a bit before taking off...the seat really simulated that effect rather well.

Overall, it's often grown irritating since there is typically such a disconnect between the audience and suspension of disbelief because the studios are forced to program feedback into nearly every scene, even where it often makes little practical sense.

McElroy:
though he was already saved by a pair of punch-kick karate girls in Man With the Golden Gun.

The same film where Mary Goodnight walks around the third act in a bikini because...reasons. And activates a solar laser with her bum.

Like, I like Man with the Golden Gun, but looking back at some of the elements...yeesh.

Hawki:

McElroy:
though he was already saved by a pair of punch-kick karate girls in Man With the Golden Gun.

The same film where Mary Goodnight walks around the third act in a bikini because...reasons. And activates a solar laser with her bum.

Like, I like Man with the Golden Gun, but looking back at some of the elements...yeesh.

Why have beautiful women in your movie if you can't show them off? Even Amasova gets her share of that in The Spy Who Loved Me.

McElroy:
Why have beautiful women in your movie if you can't show them off? Even Amasova gets her share of that in The Spy Who Loved Me.

Most Bond girls are attractive (course that's going to be down to opinion), but ipso facto, the attractiveness comes through regardless of whatever they're wearing. Not to mention that the best Bond girls (least in my view) usually have solid character foundations.

Like, off the top of my head, Vesper from Casino Royale. She wears a beautiful dress for the poker game. The out of universe explanation can be boiled down to "eye candy," but the in-universe one is that Bond wants her distracting the other men at the table. Mary Goodnight on the other hand doesn't get the in-universe justification. It's conciet without the film trying to hide it.

Like I said, I'd say Bond girls got better over time, in the sense that as the films progressed, they went beyond eye candy to become characters in their own right. That's not to say it's a linear process, or that early girls were completely vapid, but if I compare the Bronsan-Craig era to the Connery-Moore era, then one's clearly doing its females better. Least as far as character depth goes.

Hawki:
snip

Yeah, I don't disagree. My point was more about how Bond treats women instead of their role in the movies in general. From that viewpoint there isn't a "Connery-Moore era" because the two Bonds act differently, even if the number of bikini shots was the same.

Once Upon A Time in Hollywood - 1/10

Long, boring, filled with pointless scenes because nobody dares to edit Tarintino. I was bored almost into a nap during this entire movie, kept awake by the sprinkling of jokes throughout the film.

Dicaprio and Pitt are fantastic, but it is a shame their stories mostly had no purpose or direction.

I don't know what this movie was trying to be, but whatever it was, it failed.

Anima. Just 15 minutes and probably the best thing Netflix has ever made. Leave it to Paul Thomas Anderson.

Brightburn - 2/10

Ok, so what if the ridiculously human superpowered alien baby Pa and Ma found by a Kansas road wasn't all about truth, justice and the American way, but more about conquest, murder and lots of scowling. Or put simply, young Clark Kent by way of Damien Thorn and Jason Vorhees instead of good 'ol Jeebus. But that's as far as the subversion of the Superman origin story goes. The rest of the movie is a by the numbers and kind of dull slasher movie that replaces any semblance of tension with gory death.

Teen Spirit
Well it's nothing to do with Nirvana. Instead it revolves around two subjects am not too fond of in the real world; singing talent shows and pop trance. Despite that and the familiar structure it commits to, it is quite endearing. Elle Fanning is Violet, of polish descent in all but accent, teams up with old drunk Vlad, Zlatko Buric (who is like a polish Bill Bailey harbouring a few more wobbles and murmurs than usual), so she can train for a youth singing talent show called, yup... 'Teen Spirit.' What makes this stand out from the usual is a glaring stylised juxtaposition between the glitz and glamour you'd expect from a pop talent show, and a consistent sense of contemplative depression aided by a muted colour palette alongside a distinct absence of any smiling or goes. Even the inevitable shows are presented with a noticable disconnect, without any of the incessant poppy editing, choosing instead to make it look like you're in the eerily motionless studio audience watching these twats prance about the stage for yourself. There are no surprises if you've seen this song and dance before, but there is a charm to the two leads and the overall contrasting mood that actually made what would usually be unbearable, quite alright.
Couple of weird things though; for some reason Vlad is never shown drinking or even holding any potential drink. We just have to take the film's word for it that he's really a drunk and not on heavy prescription medication or suffering ear imbalance. I wonder if that has anything to do with wanting to keep the age rating lower or something else perhaps.
Also, one can be too good at casting, where every character held exactly the personality you'd expect in a film from the way they look. When the tall, dark handsome lad appeared with an extremely punchable, untrustworthy face...it was merely a matter of counting down the time for when he turns out not to be the greatest person in Violet's life. Oh well, a pleasant stylish surprise, if a little too comfortable in its structure.

Ordet (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1955)

Speechless so just go read Ebert's review.

Just got back from Hobbs and Shaw.
It was good. Its just...well, its the Winter Soldier.

A genetically engineered cyborg super solider with a history of being friends with one of the main characters(who thought he was dead) is working for a secret shadow organization with global power and a new super weapon intended to kill millions of humans in a huge purge fighting a muscle bound beef cake and a gymnastic super spy with witty banter and trust issues who have been declared outlaws by the self same evil organization.
They even have a scene where the Rock has to hold a helicopter in place using only his huge bulging biceps. And there's a countdown to the super weapon being deployed that's stopped in the last second.
And they even have a new friendly black character who gets introduced and his thing is all about flying.

Its just Winter Soldier.

Silentpony:
Just got back from Hobbs and Shaw.
It was good. Its just...well, its the Winter Soldier.

Its just Winter Soldier.

Sounds like watching it left you out in the cold. Hopefully you've reached the winter of your discontent, and now have a spring in your step.

Lion King (7/10)

Is it better than the original? Mostly no. Since it's realistic, a bunch of things had to be changed becuase normal cartoons can get away with way more violence. For example, Scar could play with the mouse way more at the start of the oringal. It would look too scary for kids if this was copied into this more realistic portrayal. Lion King is one of my favourite animated movie but I'd only give it 8.5/10. There were too many assumptions about what happened, and everything they changed were plot hole from the oringal.... That being said, they didn't necessarily succeed in making it better. Lion and hyena conflict was better but you lost the comedy between 3 hyenas and are cut to 2. The Queen was a bit pointless but gave Nala a target. All the jokes from the oringal felt forced, but the new ones landed much better. What was really bad was when they did an old joke and someone said, 'nice.'. The Elephant Graveyard was more imposing but less distinctive. Two songs in particular were very lacklustre as the oringal had a lot of colour it couldn't add. The movie also focussed on how Simba never really found a place to call home when he ran... He was just accepted by Timon and Pumba but ostracised by others. Nala is still not distinctive from Sarabi. They tried to make the 'court' of who killed Mufasa more realistic. It's better than the oringal but still not great. End fight was way better too. (The whole third act of the original was pretty bad.) Scar, generally, was terribly voiced but I liked how he schemed more and gathered an army to fight by his side

Anyway, liked Aladdin more, but the only good thing about oringal Aladdin was Robin Wiliams, the rest being trash. It makes the remake far more distinctive, even if I actually think that the remake Lion King is technically better. For example, Will Smith was allowed to be Will Smith, not a mishmash of Rowan Atkinson and John Oliver (the latter can't do the formers comedy, let him do his own style of comedy.)

Match you story to fit your actors not the other way around, otherwise you do a disservice to both.

Hawki:

Silentpony:
Just got back from Hobbs and Shaw.
It was good. Its just...well, its the Winter Soldier.

Its just Winter Soldier.

Sounds like watching it left you out in the cold. Hopefully you've reached the winter of your discontent, and now have a spring in your step.

I was a little disheartened, its true.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood

When you go see a Tarantino movie, chances are it's gonna be one of the best things you'll watch all year. This is also true for Once Upon A Time, otherwise though there's a lot about it that's quite unusual compared to Tarantinos other work.

What it reminded me most of was the Coen's Hail Caesar, a relentlessly referential romp through one of Hollywood's most defining time periods. Once Upon does something very similar for the late 1960s, mostly through the lense of a not quite yet washed up actor played by Leonard's DiCaprio and his stuntman and best friend, played by Brad Pitt. I suppose one could call Once Upon a buddy comedy of sorts, following the two through a variety of different experiences as they live and work in Hollywood. It's all quite funny, Pitt gets in a fight with Bruce Lee, DiCaprio plays the villain in a western and there's also a sideplot about Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie, bringing her abundant It-Girl charisma to the role) who... well, didn't something happen to her around that time?

Once Upon was advertised as a movie about the Manson murders, it isn't though, not quite. It's a movie including the Manson family for sure, though what they did and how it went down gets treated with some artistic liberty. The murders are considered as marking the end of an era. Something Tarantino might feel wistful about, because if there's something he wants to tell us about 70s Hollywood, it's how much he wishes he had been there to experience it. Once Upon is a movie about things he loves. Such as old Westerns,70s music and Margot Robbies feet. There's a sadness to it, though. Only a few years later Hunter S. Thompson would pen his bitter farewell to the dreams of the hippie era with his novel Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Tarantino is pining for an age earlier than that. What could be more cathartic, spoiler, than seeing Brad Pitt, the definition of classic masculinity in sunglasses and a hawaiian shirt, siccing his dog on Tex Watson the night when the murder would have been?

Earlier this year I saw Avengers Endgame, two weeks after its opening, in a theater that was, if not quite packed, at least very well visited. Today I saw Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, on its opening weekend, all on my own. No one else went to see it. In many ways it seems like a relic from a bygone age and Tarantino might be part of a dying breed. These movies, of course, couldn't be more different from each other and it has gotten me thinking just how idiosyncratic a movie Once Upon is in the context of our time. For better and for worse, it's been a long time since I've seen an American movie that was so overwhelmingly white. However, there's also a relatibility and a groundedness to it that this new age of glossy "geek cinema" couldn't possibly convey. Like many film critics of my generation I hold the, perhaps slightly ignorant, belief that there is artistic merit to the escapist pop mythology of properties like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings or the sprawling comic book universe of Marvel Studio. However, what I hope makes me more than just a less popular MovieBob without all the classism is the fact I also think that the inherent artifice of these worlds will always be in the way of their emotional resonance. Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, of course, is quite artificial in a lot of ways itself but it's a movie unconcerned with hero's journeys and three act structures, with big battles and snappy one liners. It's a movie following specific people in a specific place at a specific time and... hell, do we really not want to see that anymore?

All musings on that matter aside, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a very good movie. You're probably not gonna see a better one anytime soon. There's a humanity to it, behind all the tongue in cheek references and homages, Quentin Tarantino is writing a love letter to an age that of film that seems farther away each day. And perhaps he's not so much keeping it alive as he's tending to its grave but once he's gone... who else will?

Well, I went ahead and did it. I watch Fant4stic.

It was fine. Some plot inconsistencies but every movie has them. There is a whole year jump in the middle. What? Is this a thing that happens in movies now? It was bad enough skipping how you get to genius Hulk.

The only thing that stand out is body horror. I didnt mind that they change it from Sci fantasy to SciFi. I don't think they pulled it off, but the attempt was there. Making the military in control was a different way to go too. It comes with its own set of issues. The third faction of investors could have been done more too

The reshoots were very clear. The troubled production was quite evident. I dont know why Storm or Grimm are there at all. The biggest crime was how uninteresting it is. It's not even bad enough to be good.

Quite a bore. 4/10

Late Night (7/10)

So, I didn't go into this expecting much. I know some people have been making a fuss about this film being an example of "SJWs" and all that, but while the trailer had elements of said SJWness, the crux of the matter was that the film didn't look that interesting. Having seen it however, got to say I was wrong. The film is actually quite funny. At times, it's really funny.

I actually pondered awhile how to review this film, because it's got an angle, but not a straight one, so to speak. As in, if the film has a thesis that can be boiled down to as few words as possible, it's that "diveristy (in the workplace) is good." However, it's perfectly willing to mock the very thesis it's giving. As in, it can be said to be pro-femenist, pro-diversity, pro-liberal and all that, while simultaniously mocking the very things it's preaching. You may think that's hypocritical or disjointed, but actually, it isn't. The film's pretty much an equal opportunity offender without being that offensive. Like, I'm sure there's someone, somewhere, regardless of gender or belief that will be insulted by some moment in the film, but me personally, I was laughing too much to worry about that. There's a constant barrage of dry wit with, again, some really funny moments.

Also, minor point, but the film does have a segment where the protagonist is introduced to the working on's in the TV network as to how the late night talk show in question goes from script to stage. I have no idea if what's shown in the movie is actually how things work, but if it is, it gets brownie points. As in, it's an interesting look behind the scenes that serves the character/plot (as in, the viewer is introduced to facts at the same rate as the protagonist). So, nice job there. However, if it has a flaw, it's its ending. It ends with a "one year later" segment that goes on for about...three minutes, I think? It's really awkward, and it's the point where the film makes its POV clear, but without any wit behind it. It's not nearly enough to ruin the rest of the film or anything, but it does mean that the film ends awkwardly.

Blinded By the Light 8/10

Not perfect, too long, could cut 30mins off and its a little melodramatic, and WORST OF ALL THE KID PUTS BORN TO RUN IN HIS TAPE PLAYER AND DANCING IN THE DARK PLAYS!! That song is on Born in the USA!

Aside from that, loved every second of it. A heartwarming coming of age story in Thatcher's skinhead Britain set to a Bruce Springsteen as central theme and soundtrack. Maybe its because I'm a Bruce fan, having seen him in concert 20+ since I was 7 years old, but yeah. This is a must watch for me and anyone who is a person.

Hobbs and Shaw
Wow, this was bad. I went in expecting a dumb summer action movie and I got something so much worse. Everything outside of the action scenes was god awful. The constant juvenile back and forth between the title characters was cringe-worthy. The dialogue is just awful, the movie has a theme of overcoming differences and working together which is fine until it becomes actual dialogue.

Mad Max Fury Road
Before this my only exposure to Mad Max was from the game and I gotta say, this movie is great. I love that the movie is just one giant deadly road-trip and how disgusting so many of the characters look.

Aladdin
It sure is Aladdin. It's basically worse than the cartoon in every sense except Jasmine's plot is about more than just choosing what man she wants to marry. After that everything is either the same or worse. Genie's romance and wanting to be human instead of free was disappointing. Jasmine's second song is also weird. It's the only song that freezes time so she can sing and it felt so off.

Ready Player One
I liked Gundam and The Iron Giant and that's about it. It was okay.

Pokemon Detective Pikachu
I loved it. Easily the best video game movie made to date. Pikachu Reynolds is absolutely adorable and I loved their interactions with Mr. Mime and Psyduck. My only complaint is that those interactions between humans and pokemon feel a little stiff and awkward, which I can understand.

Hellboy
The worst comic book movie I've ever seen. I actually fell asleep at the climax of the movie. I hate everything that this movie is and it's probably the worst movie I've seen this year.

London Has Fallen
God awful propaganda. Which is especially weird when the movie starts with the US killing the villains family, but I'm supposed to feel all patriotic and happy when the president lives? No.

Moana
I liked it. The music is fun and the animation is great. Not really much to say about it, it's just good.

Just marathoned Sewayaki Kitsune no Senko-san in under 24 hours. I now have diabetus.

This show is visual healing, it just makes you happy. From the unskippably-catchy oppening song to the tail fluffing antics of our overworked everyman protagonist to the nostalgic moments of domesticity, there's not a moment where the presence of the cute little fox deity is not appreciated.

I had my eyes on that show but I like to marathon my anime so I waited until it was over and I sure am glad I did. This is your classic slice of life show where there's not that much in the way of high stakes or complicated plots. It's more like visual ASMR, something you thoroughly enjoy and are smiling as you watch, throughout.

I give it 10 tails out of 10!

Suicide Squad: Some/All

I probably could have enjoyed this movie a lot more if I knew more about the characters, so meh, what do I know? I liked the premise, setting a bunch of villains loose to do good under the threat of death; I just didn't know who many of the villains were so didn't care enough to invest earnest interest. I just have one question: are large, abandoned expanses really that common under major cities? Hollywood has me believing that every major city has an abandoned subway system or otherwise open and habitable space just underfoot, and if that's the case, that seems like a lot of wasted opportunity and space.

What I did NOT like was Jared Leto's Joker. I'm of the popular opinion that Heath Ledger's Joker is the gold standard, so compared to that, Leto did not portray a deeply maniacal man with a chaotic plan; he was just a wide-eyed psycho with an uncharacteristic fixation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always been of impression that while not entirely one-sided, the relationship between Harley and the Joker was more about her fixation on him; she was simply a brainwashed, lovestruck tagalong the Joker tolerated and was amused enough by to keep around and use. Leto showed a soft side to a character who's defining characteristic has always been his textbook psychopathy, his inability (or unwillingness) to make sympathetic connections with others, deferring instead to his anarchical whimsy. I don't think the "real" Joker would devise a high-risk plan solely to rescue anyone, even Harley, and much less would he be capable of the feelings that would make such a plan make sense. I honestly think The Joker was only in this movie to give Harley Quinn context; without him, she's just a crazy chick with a baseball bat, and with the Joker being one of the most recognizable characters in the DC universe (and easily the most recognizable in this film,) consigning him to a no-name actor in a expositive flashback wouldn't have gone over well with audiences. Or am I completely wrong?

Xprimentyl:
Suicide Squad: Some/All

I probably could have enjoyed this movie a lot more if I knew more about the characters, so meh, what do I know? I liked the premise, setting a bunch of villains loose to do good under the threat of death; I just didn?t know who many of the villains were so didn?t care enough to invest earnest interest. I just have one question: are large, abandoned expanses really that common under major cities? Hollywood has me believing that every major city has an abandoned subway system or otherwise open and habitable space just underfoot, and if that?s the case, that seems like a lot of wasted opportunity and space.

What I did NOT like was Jared Leto?s Joker. I?m of the popular opinion that Heath Ledger?s Joker is the gold standard, so compared to that, Leto did not portray a deeply maniacal man with a chaotic plan; he was just a wide-eyed psycho with an uncharacteristic fixation. Correct me if I?m wrong, but I?ve always been of impression that while not entirely one-sided, the relationship between Harley and the Joker was more about her fixation on him; she was simply a brainwashed, lovestruck tagalong the Joker tolerated and was amused enough by to keep around and use. Leto showed a soft side to a character who?s defining characteristic has always been his textbook psychopathy, his inability (or unwillingness) to make sympathetic connections with others, deferring instead to his anarchical whimsy. I don?t think the ?real? Joker would devise a high-risk plan solely to rescue anyone, even Harley, and much less would he be capable of the feelings that would make such a plan make sense. I honestly think The Joker was only in this movie to give Harley Quinn context; without him, she?s just a crazy chick with a baseball bat, and with the Joker being one of the most recognizable characters in the DC universe (and easily the most recognizable in this film,) consigning him to a no-name actor in a expositive flashback wouldn?t have gone over well with audiences. Or am I completely wrong?

Here's the thing. There are three Jokers.

There is no more such thing as the real Joker. He could very well be... and probably will be... canon to one of the jokers.

ObsidianJones:

Xprimentyl:
Suicide Squad: Some/All

I probably could have enjoyed this movie a lot more if I knew more about the characters, so meh, what do I know? I liked the premise, setting a bunch of villains loose to do good under the threat of death; I just didn?t know who many of the villains were so didn?t care enough to invest earnest interest. I just have one question: are large, abandoned expanses really that common under major cities? Hollywood has me believing that every major city has an abandoned subway system or otherwise open and habitable space just underfoot, and if that?s the case, that seems like a lot of wasted opportunity and space.

What I did NOT like was Jared Leto?s Joker. I?m of the popular opinion that Heath Ledger?s Joker is the gold standard, so compared to that, Leto did not portray a deeply maniacal man with a chaotic plan; he was just a wide-eyed psycho with an uncharacteristic fixation. Correct me if I?m wrong, but I?ve always been of impression that while not entirely one-sided, the relationship between Harley and the Joker was more about her fixation on him; she was simply a brainwashed, lovestruck tagalong the Joker tolerated and was amused enough by to keep around and use. Leto showed a soft side to a character who?s defining characteristic has always been his textbook psychopathy, his inability (or unwillingness) to make sympathetic connections with others, deferring instead to his anarchical whimsy. I don?t think the ?real? Joker would devise a high-risk plan solely to rescue anyone, even Harley, and much less would he be capable of the feelings that would make such a plan make sense. I honestly think The Joker was only in this movie to give Harley Quinn context; without him, she?s just a crazy chick with a baseball bat, and with the Joker being one of the most recognizable characters in the DC universe (and easily the most recognizable in this film,) consigning him to a no-name actor in a expositive flashback wouldn?t have gone over well with audiences. Or am I completely wrong?

Here's the thing. There are three Jokers.

There is no more such thing as the real Joker. He could very well be... and probably will be... canon to one of the jokers.

Ah, gotcha. In that case, of the Jokers I've seen portrayed, Leto's is the least in line with the spirit of the character I expected as "The Joker."

Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief (6/10)

So, on one hand, this movie is really, REALLY stupid. On the other, it does succeed at being quite funny, so the two kind of balance each other out.

Newsflash, in that Percy Jackson series (and subsequent "Riordanverse," for lack of a better term) came after my time. I have read the first book, and it was actually good (least for a YA book), but I never felt the need to read beyond it, even if plot points were left dangling. I understand that the fanbase isn't fond of the films (to put it mildly - certainly Rick Riordan himself isn't), and looking at it, I sort of get why. Maybe. It certainly follows the general plot of the book, but arguably loses its spirit along the way. What I do know is that a lot of the plot depends on contrivance and certain characters holding the idiot ball. Plus, we get some really wonky dialogue at times, such as Annabeth saying to Percy "I have feelings for you, but I don't know if they're positive or negative yet." I...I don't...oh Zeus, someone just kill me now. And look, maybe these issues were present in the book and I missed them, but I found myself asking a lot of stuff. Like, there's a lot of kids at Camp Half-Blood, and they're all roughly the same age, so Jesus Christ, how many mortals are the gods fucking? Assuming they follow the same pregnancy cycle, how did Aprhoditie squeeze out all those daughters in so quick a time. And the Sons of Ares...um, I can't help but wonder if his progeny was concieved through consent or not. I mean, god of war...killing...raping...I mean, sorry, but I couldn't stop thinking about this. That's not even getting into how the Lotus Casino works - if everyone eats the flowers, and no-one leaves, wouldn't someone notice something eventually? And how the heck are Percy and Annabeth able to run up Mount Olympus in the two minutes to midhgnit and gah! Oh, and they fight a hydra which they kill through Medusa's head. Why the hell didn't they just pull it out from the start? Why does Luke say you need training to use the winged sandals, but Percy manages them immediately? Why does...ugh.

Oh, and Hades. I mean...look. I'm not a Greek mythology purist. But instead of Cerberus, we just have three "hellhounds." Tartarus is called "Hell," and there's no mention of the Elysian or Stygian Fields. And Hades in this film..he's Satan. He's basically Satan. In his "true form," he looks like Satan, talks like Satan, and stands in fire like Satan. Which isn't too bad except HADES ISN'T SATAN! GREEK MYTHOLOGY IS NOT ABRAHAMIC MYTHOLOGY YOU HACKS!

Okay, fair's fair, this film can be quite funny at times. at ;east when it's making fun of its own premise. But at the en of the day, I'm not fond of it. From an adaptational standpoint, it's not the worst adaptation in existence, but I can see why purists dislike it. And from judging the film as a whole, it's bog standard YA fare.

Hawki:
Oh, and Hades. I mean...look. I'm not a Greek mythology purist. But instead of Cerberus, we just have three "hellhounds." Tartarus is called "Hell," and there's no mention of the Elysian or Stygian Fields. And Hades in this film..he's Satan. He's basically Satan. In his "true form," he looks like Satan, talks like Satan, and stands in fire like Satan. Which isn't too bad except HADES ISN'T SATAN! GREEK MYTHOLOGY IS NOT ABRAHAMIC MYTHOLOGY YOU HACKS!

Bleh, I always hate it when media does that. Just because he's the dude in the underworld, doesn't mean he's the bad guy! There's so many actual dicks in the Greek pantheon, why would you pick on the only one who's even halfway decent!
And isn't that a change from the book? You've read it and I have not so you'll know better, so isn't Hades in the book way closer to how he is in the myths?

Palindromemordnilap:

Bleh, I always hate it when media does that. Just because he's the dude in the underworld, doesn't mean he's the bad guy! There's so many actual dicks in the Greek pantheon, why would you pick on the only one who's even halfway decent!
And isn't that a change from the book? You've read it and I have not so you'll know better, so isn't Hades in the book way closer to how he is in the myths?

Hades put me off in the book as well, albeit different reasons.

The book has the advantage of being a medium that allows for easier worldbuilding, so its take on the Underworld is more in-depth than just "Underworld = Hell." As for Hades himself, he's mixed. Physically, he's humanoid, not the Satan-esque creature he is in the film. However, while there's a good buildup for him once the protagonists meet him, it devolves into a gag as Hades goes on about taxes or something (like, so many people are dying, and Charon isn't being paid properly, or something like that). And, look, the book is quite self aware - it's written in first person and uses active narration (as in, Percy addresses the reader directly), and it's peppered with humour that shows that the book is aware of the absurdity of its premise. However, the Hades thing puts me off, because it's a moment where it does call for the narrative to take itself seriously, but it can't resist another joke at Hades's expense.

Overall, I'd say the book is better than the film, but as far as Hades himself goes, they're kind of equal offenders, albeit for different reasons.

Hawki:
Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief (6/10)

So, on one hand, this movie is really, REALLY stupid. On the other, it does succeed at being quite funny, so the two kind of balance each other out.

Newsflash, in that Percy Jackson series (and subsequent "Riordanverse," for lack of a better term) came after my time. I have read the first book, and it was actually good (least for a YA book), but I never felt the need to read beyond it, even if plot points were left dangling. I understand that the fanbase isn't fond of the films (to put it mildly - certainly Rick Riordan himself isn't), and looking at it, I sort of get why. Maybe. It certainly follows the general plot of the book, but arguably loses its spirit along the way. What I do know is that a lot of the plot depends on contrivance and certain characters holding the idiot ball. Plus, we get some really wonky dialogue at times, such as Annabeth saying to Percy "I have feelings for you, but I don't know if they're positive or negative yet." I...I don't...oh Zeus, someone just kill me now. And look, maybe these issues were present in the book and I missed them, but I found myself asking a lot of stuff. Like, there's a lot of kids at Camp Half-Blood, and they're all roughly the same age, so Jesus Christ, how many mortals are the gods fucking? Assuming they follow the same pregnancy cycle, how did Aprhoditie squeeze out all those daughters in so quick a time. And the Sons of Ares...um, I can't help but wonder if his progeny was concieved through consent or not. I mean, god of war...killing...raping...I mean, sorry, but I couldn't stop thinking about this. That's not even getting into how the Lotus Casino works - if everyone eats the flowers, and no-one leaves, wouldn't someone notice something eventually? And how the heck are Percy and Annabeth able to run up Mount Olympus in the two minutes to midhgnit and gah! Oh, and they fight a hydra which they kill through Medusa's head. Why the hell didn't they just pull it out from the start? Why does Luke say you need training to use the winged sandals, but Percy manages them immediately? Why does...ugh.

Oh, and Hades. I mean...look. I'm not a Greek mythology purist. But instead of Cerberus, we just have three "hellhounds." Tartarus is called "Hell," and there's no mention of the Elysian or Stygian Fields. And Hades in this film..he's Satan. He's basically Satan. In his "true form," he looks like Satan, talks like Satan, and stands in fire like Satan. Which isn't too bad except HADES ISN'T SATAN! GREEK MYTHOLOGY IS NOT ABRAHAMIC MYTHOLOGY YOU HACKS!

Okay, fair's fair, this film can be quite funny at times. at ;east when it's making fun of its own premise. But at the en of the day, I'm not fond of it. From an adaptational standpoint, it's not the worst adaptation in existence, but I can see why purists dislike it. And from judging the film as a whole, it's bog standard YA fare.

I always hated the Percy Jackson films. Reject films that while based off books, was obviously cashing in on the YA/Harry Potter craze. The black stereotype was not doing the films any favors at all.

It's funny how the God of War games are more accurate to Greek mythology than most movies, TV shows, or animations.

Acts of Vengeance - 7/10. Issac Florentine is an awesome action director and has made a name for himself. He nails it again great action scenes and a simple story. For those who don't know, this guy has directed episodes of WMAC masters and Power Rangers, Undisputed 2-4 (Micheal Jai White in 2, and Scott Adkins takes the lead role in the rest), Ninja & Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear (Scott Adkins as the lead role in both). This director is killing the straight to DVD market. I honestly hope, he does not go to Hollywood, because they might would restrict the movies he likes to make in fight choreography and action sequences. The movie is nothing special story wise. It's your typical guy loses wife and daughter, the dude is out to find out who killed them. Though the twist is that the character too a vow of silence until he finds his wife and daughter's killer. Where it lies is Antonio Banderas pulling off these fight moves at the age of 58 at the time. He's no Scott Adkins, but it's amazing what he was able to pull off at his age. The best part, all of the stunts and fights he did without a stunt double. I highly recommend this and Issac's other films if you're tired of Hollywood jitter cam and CG explosion fests. The straight to DVD market has been getting a lot of great shit since 2009, and it has been getting better. I look forward to seeing these films more than what comes at the theater.

 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