Discuss and rate the last movie you watched

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 . . . 36 NEXT
 

Spacewalk. Russian movie about the first manned rocket into space. Loved it. Very cool to finally see a space exploration movie from the other side. The Soviet hierarchy is never laid on too thick but it's portrayed more as this rusted, overly formal command structure that is still receptive to the kind of playfulness from the astronauts. Like, the lead astronaut Alexei Leonov doesn't take the rules too seriously with a test flight and high altitude parachute jump that raises some bureaucratic eyebrows but also establishes a certain kind of comradery. It's something particular about the Russian spirit I guess. I also loved the dualism between the military high command that wanted to sacrifice the astronauts for not wanting the shuttle to crash land in allied territory or China and the project leader portrayed as this stark bureaucrat at first but never the less willing to sacrifice his career and freedom to save his crew. It's something about the space program and venturing into the unknown that always brings out the best in people, and Spacewalk is no exception.

Movie has some gorgeous cinematography as well, there is this one scene where the astronaut floats on the tethering cable of the space pod facing the curved blue aura of the earth and it's like he's on the umbilical cord of the cosmos. Again it's just pure silence no swelling orchestra's or music for dramatic effect. The re-entry is similarly impressive with the pod being blowtorched by the atmosphere as it enters the gorgeous snowscape of the Russian Ural. Fantastic movie about an amazing accomplishment that is delivered with seriousness, playfulness and humor brought to life by exceptional, visual storytelling that captivates the imagination and the wonders of space. 9/10

Incase you're interested here's the wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Pioneers

Angel Has Fallen 7/10

US President's numero uno Secret Service agent Leonidas is framed for a high-tech attempt on the president's life and finds himself in a tangled web of intrigue as he seeks to clear his name and expose the true assassins (and if you don't peg who that is within the first 10 minutes, you should crawl back under your rock and watch every "framed special agent" popcorn flick made in the past 20 years until you involuntarily slap yourself in the forehead "I could have had a V8"-style.) Yes, you've seen this movie before. It did very little new or unique; so little in fact, I can barely distinguish much of it from the ocean of same-y movies it's now floating around with in my head. Was it entertaining? Sure. Was it a good movie-going experience, yup (thanks largely to DBOX.) Bonus points because Jada Pinkett is hot and Morgan Freeman.

Wonder Woman 7/11

It was pretty good. No real complaints. Better than the other live actions DC films they've been pushing out.

Anti-American Eagle:
Wonder Woman 7/11

It was pretty good. No real complaints. Better than the other live actions DC films they've been pushing out.

*Cough*Shazam*Cough*

Passage to Marseille. It's Bogart and Curtiz and a bunch of the "usual suspects" from Casablanca (Rains, Lorre, Greenstreet) in a story that's a flashback in a flashback in a flashback, if I counted correctly. While the movie's receding into flashback after flashback the pace is very sleepy and leisurely, but as soon as it bounces back and every flashback starts concluding it becomes one hell of a rush. Especially the scene where the Nazi bomber attacks the French ship. Top marks.

Apocalypse Now: Final Cut

I don't go out of my way to be contrarian. I really don't. But I've always had issues with Apocalypse Now. Yes, I know it's a beloved classic and probably the most significant movie ever made about the Vietnam War. Yes, I know what an absolute nightmare it was to get it made. Yes, the production values, even from a modern perspective, are positively breathtaking. But it's just so... decadent. I'm sorry, there's really no other way to put it. There are a lot of movies I could theoretically say this about but the fact that Apocalypse Now is set during a real war just makes its overwhelming opulence feel uncomfortable. The general story, about Captain Ben Willard (Martin Sheen) going on an odyssey through war torn Vietnam to track down and assassinate rogue Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) sure makes for a good hook but it's also exemplary for one of the movies main problems. A movie set during the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese peoples struggle for liberation, gives us the American perspective and, in one of its small digressions, even a French perspective, yet it completely neglects to give us the Vienamese perspective. "Charlie" hardly more than an obstacle in one Americans quest to kill another American.

And, you know, I wouldn't even mind that if the style wasn't so overly sensationalist. Actually, in terms of visuals you can draw a direct line from Apocalypse Now to most of Michael Bay's works from Transformers 1 onwards. Not in terms of actual writing, of course, god no, but when it comes to shots of explosions, pretty sunsets and military machinery Coppola shows the very same lack of restraint as Bay. And don't get me wrong, it does look pretty, it's just about one of the best looking movies I've ever seen but... man, it was a real war, one that wasn't too long ago, especially not, when the movie was made. Why does everything about this movie have to be so glossy and artificial? Now, don't get me wrong, there is a reason this movie is the classic it is. Sheen is giving the performance of a lifetime and Brando, as comparatively small as his part may be, is rightfully considered iconic. The dialogue is arguably as overwritten as the movie is overdirected but you know what? It is memorable and it works in the context of the movie.

I hugely admire Apocalypse Now as an accomplishment in film making. But watching it is exhausting, and not always in a good way. It turns the Vietnam War and all the tragedy associated with it into the backdrop for a story that's... good, sure, but also a lot pulpier than it seems willing to admit. James Cameron fictionalized Vietnam by making it about Space Marines and Aliens, George Lucas did so by making it about Ewoks and Stormtroopers. Coppola actually made a movie about Vietnam, yet a lot about Apocalypse Now feels just as fantastical as Aliens or Star Wars. It feels a bit exploitative to me.

So, basically, this is me complaining about a timeless piece of art. There is little I could say against the acting, against the camera work, against the sound design, all of those represent film making on a very high level. But as an actual work of historical fiction it's just... too much. Too fantastical, to grandiose, too much spectacle. I actually like that sort of thing when it comes to more inherently fantastical stories but when dealing with actual history, fairly recent history no less, I have trouble warming up to that approach.

PsychedelicDiamond:
Apocalypse Now: Final Cut

Good review. I haven't seen that movie in ages and this actually makes me interested to re-watch it. Though, to re-contextualize a movie with modern eyes is always a bit tricky I think. Movies(or any kind of art/entertainment) is always a product of it's time and very few contrast with the cultural Zeitgeist. Apocalypse Now was at the dawn of the eighties; the decade of action movie heroes like Rambo and Noris that could take on an entire military apparatus by their lonesome. So it's no surprise the contours of that were already visible in Apocalypse, though with Coppola adding more intellectual depth and cultural siginificance. But ignoring any nuance of the conflict probably makes it slightly pulpy as well.

PsychedelicDiamond:
Apocalypse Now: Final Cut

A movie set during the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese peoples struggle for liberation, gives us the American perspective and, in one of its small digressions, even a French perspective, yet it completely neglects to give us the Vienamese perspective. "Charlie" hardly more than an obstacle in one Americans quest to kill another American.

The French perspective is one that the film could do without. As the protagonist heads upriver, things get darker and darker, both literally and figuratively. But the plantation visit just breaks all of that.

That said, I don't bemoan the lack of a Vietnamese perspective here, because we see as soon as the 'Valkyrie scene' that the film seeks to dehumanize them, or rather, convey the cost of dehumanizing an enemy. We see it in the helicopter bombardment (and the "savages" line), we see it as the OSO show when they're behind the fence, and we see it in the boat inspection scene where they open fire on the civilians, and the protagonist callously executes one of them. It's dehumanization, but dehumanization with a point.

I hugely admire Apocalypse Now as an accomplishment in film making. But watching it is exhausting, and not always in a good way. It turns the Vietnam War and all the tragedy associated with it into the backdrop for a story that's... good, sure, but also a lot pulpier than it seems willing to admit. James Cameron fictionalized Vietnam by making it about Space Marines and Aliens, George Lucas did so by making it about Ewoks and Stormtroopers. Coppola actually made a movie about Vietnam, yet a lot about Apocalypse Now feels just as fantastical as Aliens or Star Wars. It feels a bit exploitative to me.

So, basically, this is me complaining about a timeless piece of art. There is little I could say against the acting, against the camera work, against the sound design, all of those represent film making on a very high level. But as an actual work of historical fiction it's just... too much. Too fantastical, to grandiose, too much spectacle. I actually like that sort of thing when it comes to more inherently fantastical stories but when dealing with actual history, fairly recent history no less, I have trouble warming up to that approach.

There's also the little thing that Apocalypse Now is adapting the story of Heart of Darkness, using the war as a backdrop. It's a Vietnam War film, sure, but only so far as it's using the war to make its points about dehumanization and the psychological cost of war. There's arguably little about AN that's inherently about the war itself. Part of why Heart of Darkness has been used as the template for works such as Spec Ops: The Line, and additionally, Ad Astra (from what I've read).

That said, I will admit that AN is pretty exhausting to watch. I'd certainly argue it's a great film, but it's not a film I can just pop in and watch at the drop of a hat.

​My Little Pony: Equestria Girls: Magical Movie Night (6/10)

Dear god, just writing that made me feel embarassed.

Well, anyway, does this count as a TV show entry or a movie entry? I've gone with the latter because even though it's technically three short films done back to back, because the third references plot points from the first two. Arguably, this could be seen as a three act structure. Just as arguably it might not be. But whatever, case is, how does it hold up?

...about as well as you can expect the IP to hold up I guess which is "fine, and only if you can get past the undeniable fact that this is a show meant for young girls. I mentioned in my 'review' of FiM Season 2 that it's where the show came into its own, and generally, the show went in one direction - i.e. better, with more character development, more worldbuilding, etc. Equestria Girls? Not so much. I've also stated in the past that if we look at the four original films, it's a case of where the first three form a trilogy, and the fourth exists solely to launch a franchise with the whole geode thing. This 'film,' if it can be called that, is more congruent with Legend of Everfree than the first three films, and while that isn't bad in of itself...well, it's telling that the film can't help but acknowledge its own conceit at the end. Juniper Montage is redeemed (because of course she is), never mind that the films prior to this had the patience to spread Sunset's arc over three films, and make her an emergent protagonist in the process (admittedly, that was unlikely to be the plan from the outset). This? Not so much.

So, it's decent, and in fairness, the writing is still of a quality that's above prebubescents. But I'm inclined to believe that the EQG sub-franchise reached its apex with Rainbow Rocks, its climax with Friendship Games, and everything after that has been riding the contrails.

Megamind (7/10)

So I picked this up for a dime at a DVD clearance sale (actually it was $5AUD, but whatever). What prompted me to actually watch it was, among other things, a video from a YouTuber who claimed it was an underrated masterpiece. Having seen said film...well, it isn't a masterpiece, but it's good. Not great, but good.

Y'know, I was actually going to compare this film to the Incredibles, but as it came out six years later, and deconstructs the genre in a different way, that's kind of a moot point. Basically, the film is based on "what happens if you're a supervillain, and you finally succeed in defating your nemesis?" Well, what you get is Dreamworks being Dreamworks. And I don't mean that in a bad way, because despite the genre and everything else, the film does have intelligence behind it, such as bringing up the question of nature vs. nurture and societal expectation. Also, it's really funny, and predicted the rise of incels before they became blackpilled. Yes, if you've seen this film, Hal is an incel, and when he tries to court Roxanne ala Superman courting Louis Llane...yikes. Turns out romantic flying isn't that romantic if the girl isn't into you.

Still, this isn't a great film, and towards the end, Dreamworks can't help but be too wacky for its own good. The whole film is based on Megamind discovering who he can be rather than society pinning him in as a villain from day 1. By the end of the film, he's become a hero...but only by cleaning up the mess he started by creating Titan. Y'know, a hero that kinda goes Brightburn on the city. And that's enough to make everyone love him, but for him to get a damn museum of his own as well. Yeah, no. This could be the start of a redemption arc, but even if we accept that the people don't know he created Titan, we, the viewers, do know. His heroics in the context of the film only go as far as cleaning up the mess that he created in the first place. If you smash a window, then fix a window, you've done the bare minimum of what's expected of you. And of course, a dance routine at the end. Because DreamWorks has to be DreamWorks. Which is a shame, because there's a few films in the DW pantheon that show that when they commit themselves to intelligent storytelling, they can pull it off (see How to Train Your Dragon and Prince of Egypt). But their more 'serious' films (e.g. Kung Fu Panda) can't escape the DreamWorks brand of being "wacky," and then there's films that go all-out on said wackiness. Megamind is more akin to KFP in that the humour is constant without ever really demeaning the audience, but it's committment to the brand that sinks the film's climax, if not the film itself. Because most of the time, it's actually reasonably heartfelt, and actually really funny. TBH, I'd put it on par with Incredibles 1, if not Incredibles 2. Certainly it's somewhere in the upper half of all DreamWorks movies I've seen.

So, yeah. Underrated masterpiece? Well, no. Good film? Definitely.

Batman (1989) (5/10)

Dear God, this movie hasn't aged well.

Granted, this is the first time I've seen it, so maybe it was always this dire, but considering that it was reasonably well received at the time, plus how it's fairly well regarded among fans as far as I can tell, some even claiming it's better than The Dark Knight, then, yeah. But as someone who isn't a Batman affectionado who's seeing this movie for the first time 30 years after it was released, then I'm going to come out and say that it really isn't that good.

Maybe it's because of TDK that that's the case? Because when you get down to it, this film shares a lot of similarities. There's a new DA (Harvey Dent), Joker's new on the scene who styalizes himself as an "agent of chaos" or "first homicidal artist," who kills numerous innocent people, holding the city to ransom. Bruce is having relationship issues in both films. There comes a moment where Gotham shows/attempts to show the rotten heart of Gotham, and the film concludes with a showdown between Bats and Joker atop a tall building. Now, there's differences sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if TDK took liberal inspiration from it. However, even if 1989 did it first, TDK did it better. Much better. So much so that this film feels amaturish in comparison. It's the difference between engaging with themes and referencing themes. I've said it before and I'll say it again - there is a difference, and referencing weighty ideas doesn't automatically elevate the work that's doing the referencing.

Fine. Let's avoid all mention of TDK from now on and actually look at this film in isolation. Even then, it still isn't good. The Joker is easily the best element of this movie, in that he's genuinely creepy, and you get a sense that he is indeed dedicated to spreading anarchy. However, what undercuts this is that prior to falling into the chemicals, he's pretty much normal. It's hard to buy that Jack Napier would overnight go from crook to anarchist, let alone that so many of Grissom's organization would follow him. Killing people doesn't make you money. Giving away $20 million before gassing people doesn't make you money (and why do the police do nothing to stop the parade that he tells them about?) However, as good as Joker is, Batman...isn't. He really isn't. I get what they were going for, and that's to show that Bruce Wayne is a couple of cans short of a six pack. It's telling that while wearing the suit he's calm and confident, while as Bruce Wayne, he's almost always walking around as if in a daze, to the point where some actions don't even make sense (seriously, what was his plan when Joker arrived in Viki's appartment?). And okay, fine, this isn't out of keeping with the character, but Keaton just looks dazed and confused, like he's sleepwalking through the role. And speaking of sleeping, Vikki interacts with Bruce at his mansion for a few minutes, then immediately dates him, then sleeps with him. I mean, what? Christ, even James Bond usually has to wait the bulk of a movie before getting to third base.

Oh, and Batman kills people. A lot of people. He kills goons in the chemical plant when he drives in, set bombs, and blows up the place. He kills people when he mows them down with the Batwing. And in the tower sequence, he kills more people, including Joker himself. This isn't inherently a flaw with the film per se, but it's baffling to me that people chew out Bruce in BvS for wantonly killing people left and right, but this film gets a free pass. Heck, I think Bruce kills more people in this film than in BvS. Oh, and people complaining about Batman Forever/Batman & Robin? Watch this film again and tell me it wasn't already goofy. Maybe not goofy to the same extent, but still, it's goofy.

Is there stuff I liked about this? Well, there is the design of Gotham, but a lot of that is attritutable to it being a set, with the models clearly visible. But aside from that, aside from Joker, there isn't much to reccomend about this film. It's not even that well directed, as a lot of the directing feels really basic. TBH, I might even hold Batman Forever as being the superior film, but it's been ages since I've seen that. But it's not on par with any of the Nolan films, not even Dark Knight Rises.

So, yeah. Joker might say to go out with a smile, but I'm gonna leave this review with a frown.

Jonah Hex 3/10. Should've just gone to bed.

Hawki:
Batman (1989) (5/10)

Dear God, this movie hasn't aged well.

Granted, this is the first time I've seen it, so maybe it was always this dire, but considering that it was reasonably well received at the time, plus how it's fairly well regarded among fans as far as I can tell, some even claiming it's better than The Dark Knight, then, yeah. But as someone who isn't a Batman affectionado who's seeing this movie for the first time 30 years after it was released, then I'm going to come out and say that it really isn't that good.

Maybe it's because of TDK that that's the case? Because when you get down to it, this film shares a lot of similarities. There's a new DA (Harvey Dent), Joker's new on the scene who styalizes himself as an "agent of chaos" or "first homicidal artist," who kills numerous innocent people, holding the city to ransom. Bruce is having relationship issues in both films. There comes a moment where Gotham shows/attempts to show the rotten heart of Gotham, and the film concludes with a showdown between Bats and Joker atop a tall building. Now, there's differences sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if TDK took liberal inspiration from it. However, even if 1989 did it first, TDK did it better. Much better. So much so that this film feels amaturish in comparison. It's the difference between engaging with themes and referencing themes. I've said it before and I'll say it again - there is a difference, and referencing weighty ideas doesn't automatically elevate the work that's doing the referencing.

Honestly I do kind of wonder if the similarities are deliberate given how Nolan's trilogy is one part deconstruction to one part critique of Batman. In the same film BatBale tells Catwoman he doesn't want her using guns he also hands her the keys to a motorbike armed to the teeth with machine guns and missile. Always wondered if that was a Take That towards BatKeaton's somewhat bloodthirsty tactics

The Steven Universe Movie...

I did not like it AT ALL. The villain was dumb, her animation was out of character with the show, they continue to not use Lapis or Peridot (can we just get a movie about those two please?) and ofcourse the plot hinges on intentionally not doing what it takes to solve the problem to justify it being longer than 10 minutes, even though the resolve the main problem pretty quick.

I also did not like the music at all, but it was a musical.

And ugh, I love Steven Universe, it makes me want to know more about the world, but sadly there is no actual effort to worldbuild. I constantly find myself asking questions I know have no answers, cause the creators dont care about the logistics, so you have aliens speaking english, but not knowing what random words mean just for a joke.

Unfortunately, among SU fans, I am likely of the unpopular opinion. Someone I watched it with was eager to suck up whatever bullshit they got thrown at them.

I recently saw Summer of 84. Just watch it, it's pretty good.

Hawki:
Granted, this is the first time I've seen it, so maybe it was always this dire, but considering that it was reasonably well received at the time, plus how it's fairly well regarded among fans as far as I can tell, some even claiming it's better than The Dark Knight, then, yeah. But as someone who isn't a Batman affectionado who's seeing this movie for the first time 30 years after it was released, then I'm going to come out and say that it really isn't that good.

I'll take Burton's first Batman over the Nolan trilogy any time of the week. If only because it starts off with Batman right out of the gate and doesn't waste your time with exposition and pointless scenes about shooting bullets into bricks. Batman doesn't sound like shit, the Batsuit looks better i.e. not like a hundred pieces of padding with a nylon cape, and the Joker is actually a funny prankster ontop of being a psychotic killer, not just a terrorist with face paint (no offense to Ledger) who retro-actively plans to get caught and then escape jail. Nolan is the worst fit for a comicbook movie, because the guy has zero flair. What little he had probably all went into Memento, the only good movie he's ever made.

Palindromemordnilap:

Honestly I do kind of wonder if the similarities are deliberate given how Nolan's trilogy is one part deconstruction to one part critique of Batman. In the same film BatBale tells Catwoman he doesn't want her using guns he also hands her the keys to a motorbike armed to the teeth with machine guns and missile. Always wondered if that was a Take That towards BatKeaton's somewhat bloodthirsty tactics

Wasn't that to get her the gear to clear the barricade?

I know she uses it on Bane, but I don't think Bruce intended for her to use it on people. And even if she does on Bane, I don't think the film plays it as a critique, as the actual moment of murder is kind of played for laughs.

Casual Shinji:
I'll take Burton's first Batman over the Nolan trilogy any time of the week. If only because it starts off with Batman right out of the gate and doesn't waste your time with exposition and pointless scenes about shooting bullets into bricks. Batman doesn't sound like shit, the Batsuit looks better i.e. not like a hundred pieces of padding with a nylon cape, and the Joker is actually a funny prankster ontop of being a psychotic killer, not just a terrorist with face paint (no offense to Ledger) who retro-actively plans to get caught and then escape jail. Nolan is the worst fit for a comicbook movie, because the guy has zero flair. What little he had probably all went into Memento, the only good movie he's ever made.

To those points:

-I actually agree that Batman sounds better in 89, but I think BvS had the right idea with the voice modulator. Adds to the intimidation, and makes sense in-universe.

-Not fond of the Batsuit - it looks like something someone would wear for cosplay. Nolan's Batsuit is arguably less styalized, but it actually looks functional, and as something that would offer protection. Burton's Batsuit soaks up bullets (which really cuts down on the intimidation factor - the first time we see Bats, he's shot almost instantly before getting back up), but looking at the damn suit, it's hard to see how it's strong enough to take such a pounding.

-Your points as to why you like 89 Joker more are more or less the same why I like him less. What hinders it for me is that he starts out as your average mobster, but then goes full homicidal after the acid bath. And, okay, sure, that's gotta be traumatizing, but it comes off as too big of a leap, and even afterwards, Joker is more creepy than intimidating. Ledger's Joker on the other hand is outright intimidating, and what adds to it is that we know nothing about his backstory. He has his philosophy, and he comes off as a force of nature, whereas Nicholson's Joker seems to be driven by the desire for shits and giggles. And as I pointed out, I don't buy that Grissom's mob would just go along with it. You become a mobster to get money, yet the guy you're following is throwing money away and just killing people. Where's the profit in that?

Hawki:
-I actually agree that Batman sounds better in 89, but I think BvS had the right idea with the voice modulator. Adds to the intimidation, and makes sense in-universe.

In theory the voice modulator is a neat idea, but when you hear it it's obviously a fake voice and it honestly makes him come across as less intimidating and more like he's playing pretend. Both Keaton and especially Conroy had a natural shadowy sounding voice, and so the intimidation felt more genuine. And Ben Afleck could've probably pulled this off as well without a voice mod.

-Not fond of the Batsuit - it looks like something someone would wear for cosplay. Nolan's Batsuit is arguably less styalized, but it actually looks functional, and as something that would offer protection. Burton's Batsuit soaks up bullets (which really cuts down on the intimidation factor - the first time we see Bats, he's shot almost instantly before getting back up), but looking at the damn suit, it's hard to see how it's strong enough to take such a pounding.

It has a more solid feel to it and gives the impression of strength. A superhero suit should typically try to make the person wearing it look strong, not just protected. You need to see some sort of muscle tone there, whether it's fake or not, and Nolan's Batsuit never felt like it emphasized Bale's physique. And also that cape. It'd have way less of a problem with the Nolan Batsuit if the cape didn't look like regular black cloth. And yes, practically it makes sense for what it's supposed to do, but visually it just looks really lame.

-Your points as to why you like 89 Joker more are more or less the same why I like him less. What hinders it for me is that he starts out as your average mobster, but then goes full homicidal after the acid bath. And, okay, sure, that's gotta be traumatizing, but it comes off as too big of a leap, and even afterwards, Joker is more creepy than intimidating. Ledger's Joker on the other hand is outright intimidating, and what adds to it is that we know nothing about his backstory. He has his philosophy, and he comes off as a force of nature, whereas Nicholson's Joker seems to be driven by the desire for shits and giggles. And as I pointed out, I don't buy that Grissom's mob would just go along with it. You become a mobster to get money, yet the guy you're following is throwing money away and just killing people. Where's the profit in that?

Not that the origin in Burton's Batman was great, but it shows that the Joker was already a bit of a crazy person with no qualms to killing from an early age. It's not so hard to believe that his brain getting effected by toxic chemicals (the comicbook variety, which means it's ten times worse than real life at least) would turn him into an unhinged, cackling killer.

And yes, he's in it for shits and giggles, which is what the essence of the Joker is. I have a big problem with what the Joker and also Batman have become in recent years. They went from vigilante and villain to superhuman masterminds. And mind you they're not masterminds because they're actually smart, they're masterminds because the story suddenly decides they were expecting the current conundrum and planned ahead. The Joker in The Dark Knight is a force of nature because the movie completely ignores the impossibility of him being able to plan all this and have it go flawlessly. It's the same problem Seven had. It also contradicts his later speech of him being a man without a plan.

I went back to the original animated series recently, and it was refreshing to see Batman actually smile, throw out a quip, be surprised, and even fumble. Same with the Joker: Where he's just driving in traffic and fucking with some random guy just for fun. The characters had that original ground-level charm.

Ad Astra (8/10)

It's a very promising and engaging three-quarters, followed by an underwhelming and rather abrupt/improbable ending. If the rest of the movie wasn't *that* good I probably would have minded less, but the ending just doesn't live up to expectation. I liked the S-A-S model of plot progression and it suits the movie's old-school adventure serial feel just fine. I also liked the protagonist: clever, capable, does what has to be done, is overqualified at everything without being overpowered, doesn't fall for cheap "badass" points. Pitt's great, Tommy Lee obviously as well. Just wish the movie had lived up to the mystery box.

Baffle2:
Jonah Hex 3/10. Should've just gone to bed.

Everyone involved with that probably tell themselves the same thing every day.

Urge. I'm getting really pissed off with Netflix telling me what the top ten films are right now. First Jonah Hex, now this.

Hawki:
*Multiple lucid, well thought out and cogent points*

Casual Shinji:
More lucid, well thought out and cogent points*

I'll qualify my sentiments and say I'm a very forgiving movie-goer, and even with intimate knowledge of a subject being translated to film from a more familiar/traditional medium, I don't hold that knowledge as much of a rigid standard if the very basics are covered. In these cases: Batman? Check. Joker? Check. Gotham City? Check. I thought both films were excellent showings of the director's intended vision if not point-for-point exactly what the comics have on offer.

Comparing Burton and Noland's Batman films is, IMHO, apples and oranges. Never mind the literal DECADES of cinematic evolution that exist between the films, I don't think either was going for a vision of Batman to sate the ardent adherers to the canon of the comic book hero; they had a couple hours a film to tell a story whereas comic writers have had years to develop the plots and characters that readers came to identify as the Batman universe.

Burton was going for a very much "Burton" vision of Batman: shoehorning the character of Batman into his signature dark, charmingly macabre and eerily quirky style that I feel was done even better in '92's Batman Returns. You have to realize, in the '80s, movie-goers were much more easy-going, particularly when it came to our fiction, e.g.: Back to the Future, The Goonies, Weird Science, Short Circuit; it didn't take much to capture an audience's imagination, and an iconic character like Batman making a big screen debut from the mind that brought us Beetlejuice?? Yes, please.

Nolan was going for a more grounded Batman; fantastic gadgets and unlikely situations aside, Nolan wanted a Batman that could exist in our world versus taking us into his from the comics. Like Hawki said, whether you liked his design or not, Nolan's Batman wore a functional suit of armor as opposed to a stylized hero's costume. Nolan's Joker wasn't meant to be the exact character from the comics; he was a mysterious and terrifying psychopathic terrorist capable of acts of terror for terror's sake and not personal gain or grander schemes; he wasn't going for the villainous suit-wearing, narcissist with a cartoonish grin that most Google searches will show you.

That said, I think both directors did excellent jobs doing what they set out to do; whether or not one likes either or both is up to the person just as it is to say who did it better.

*edit* Wrong place, I'm sorry.

Baffle2:
Urge. I'm getting really pissed off with Netflix telling me what the top ten films are right now. First Jonah Hex, now this.

Well come on, fess up, fluffling! What was it?... you're leaving us hanging here!

From own experience, it isn't a good idea to trust Netflix ratings as they seem to base on everything other than quality. Even the user rating are plain terrible, with Sandler films and a few other offenders given 5 stars and such. I guess it's not too dissimilar to visiting McDonald's and asking customers for local food critique.

Return of the Caped Crusaders.

Proper Adam West Batman, not angsty pretentious rubbish. He's a rich furry vigilante, he shouldn't try to be too serious.

Neurotic Void Melody:

Well come on, fess up, fluffling! What was it?... you're leaving us hanging here!

Urge. A pants film wearing pants made of rubbish.

Baffle2:
Urge. A pants film wearing pants made of rubbish.

Oh wow, first I've heard of it, but a quick webstalk has provided some valuable information, such as a 0% rating on rotten tomatoes, which is legitimately impressive. It is clear; the Netflix top 10 are filthy Tory lies! And the public have no taste. Hence why they're still in power.

Just got back from Ad Astra. I can't tell if I liked it or not. I'm left kinda' numb, and I can't tell if its in a 'mind-blowing sex with Lucy Liu, and her twin, another Lucy Liu' way or 'skinning a dolphin alive' way.

all I can tell you is its 2001 A space Odyssey with Brad Pitt, 'cause George and Matt got their space movie, so he demanded one too. Also way more monkeys that you'd think

The Warcraft movie was surprisingly good. Lot of waffle, and hard telling orcs apart, but held up quite well.

Good Boys (6/10)

After seeing the film, I looked up a trailer. I saw a comment that described the film as being akin to a live-action South Park. In light of having seen the film, that isn't too bad a description. Like, it's got kids in the sixth grade (or "tweens" as they insist on calling themselves) being in situations that range from sex, to drugs, to run-ins with the law, to this being a movie that is meant for adults, despite the ages of the protagonists. So, yeah. Live-action South Park. Question is, does it live up to South Park's pedigree?

Short answer is no. It's enjoyable overall, but this movie has problems. One is that we're dealing with child actors, and while they do a decent job, there are a few examples where the line and/or its delivery is quite cringy. Second problem is that 90% of the jokes are based on sex, or rather, the kids' ignorance of sex. For instance, finding sexual toys in their parents' rooms and not knowing that they're not actually toys, so to speak. Now, in fairness, these jokes do work for the most part (somehow), but it gets old. Luckilly, the remaining 10% does pick up the slack, said jokes including drug jokes, cop jokes, anti-bulleying jokes, PTSD jokes, Star Wars jokes, kissing jokes, and...okay, maybe 90% sex jokes is an over-exageration. Still dominant, but not as dominant. Certainyl I was laughing a lot, so in that sense, the film does its work with its humour, if not always its acting or dialogue.

That said, there's another thing that keeps this film down and that's its ending sequence. With the three titular boys, at the end, they recognise that they're going their separate ways, and that while they'll still be friends, they're developing different interests. We see this in the ending montage, which is effective...except the film can't help but shoot itself in the foot by still playing stuff for laughs towards the end. For instance, one of the characters, because of his actions in the film, is grounded, and his father says "I'll always love you, but I no longer like you." This cuts deep. However, we never get resolution to this. At the end of the sequence at the end, we learn it's been a month, and that he's no longer grounded. However, if there's him earning his father's trust again, it's never shown. This is an example of my problem with the ending, because it seems to want to commit to something emotionally engaging, but remains a slave to the fact that this is a comedy, so ergo, we end on a sex joke. Because of course we do.

So, enjoyable film. A "good" film though? Not necessarily. It's average. Enjoyable, but average.

Ad Astra: A film that very much wants you to know it is a clever film, and does this by trying to tell you at every opportunity it can. Think we'll miss the use of the isolation in space as a metaphor for being emotionally distant? Don't worry, Brad Pitt explains it, at length, in dull monotone. Worried we won't catch that Brad letting his dad float off is symbolic of him letting go of the physiological baggage he's got? Well lets have Tommy Lee Jones repeat "Let me go" as often as we can because we really want the audience to know we went to film school. Every time I think we might be about to get poignant moment, for the film is certainly well shot, in comes some narration to tell us what we're supposed to be thinking or what comparisons we're supposed to be drawing, making this film the perfect of example of why we say "show, don't tell"

John Wick 3. Spoilers for anyone who cares. I not putting it in a box, its not worth it

What was the point of this movie? Winston's storyline makes no sense. He could have gotten out of this mess a movie ago. The Table sets up an honour system but then maim/kills everyone who follows the system if they helped Wick. Also, why would anyone help Wick. I dont care what your honour is, Wick dun fuqed up and needs to pay. A whole mission to find big boss utterly wasted.

This was an utter wasteful time where the writers try to prove that they can catfish you. 4/10. John Wick needs to die. He has killed so many because he doesn't want to follow the rules. He's an asshole and likes making others pay for his mistakes

Colossal

One section of this movie looks expensive. One section of this movie looks so cheap, it's ridiculous. I knew about the story before hand but there were some twist I didn't predict and it was taken places I didn't expect. Still... the story feels cheap and expensive too. It's disjointed but the premise is a least new.

5/10

Doom: Annihilation - 0

Here's a touching story: this movie sucks. To no one's surprise. Discussion over. Watch Aliens again instead. Same movie. Except, you know, good. The end.

Hawki:
Batman (1989) (5/10)

Dear God, this movie hasn't aged well.

Granted, this is the first time I've seen it, so maybe it was always this dire, but considering that it was reasonably well received at the time, plus how it's fairly well regarded among fans as far as I can tell, some even claiming it's better than The Dark Knight, then, yeah. But as someone who isn't a Batman affectionado who's seeing this movie for the first time 30 years after it was released, then I'm going to come out and say that it really isn't that good.

Maybe it's because of TDK that that's the case? Because when you get down to it, this film shares a lot of similarities. There's a new DA (Harvey Dent), Joker's new on the scene who styalizes himself as an "agent of chaos" or "first homicidal artist," who kills numerous innocent people, holding the city to ransom. Bruce is having relationship issues in both films. There comes a moment where Gotham shows/attempts to show the rotten heart of Gotham, and the film concludes with a showdown between Bats and Joker atop a tall building. Now, there's differences sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if TDK took liberal inspiration from it. However, even if 1989 did it first, TDK did it better. Much better. So much so that this film feels amaturish in comparison. It's the difference between engaging with themes and referencing themes. I've said it before and I'll say it again - there is a difference, and referencing weighty ideas doesn't automatically elevate the work that's doing the referencing.

Fine. Let's avoid all mention of TDK from now on and actually look at this film in isolation. Even then, it still isn't good. The Joker is easily the best element of this movie, in that he's genuinely creepy, and you get a sense that he is indeed dedicated to spreading anarchy. However, what undercuts this is that prior to falling into the chemicals, he's pretty much normal. It's hard to buy that Jack Napier would overnight go from crook to anarchist, let alone that so many of Grissom's organization would follow him. Killing people doesn't make you money. Giving away $20 million before gassing people doesn't make you money (and why do the police do nothing to stop the parade that he tells them about?) However, as good as Joker is, Batman...isn't. He really isn't. I get what they were going for, and that's to show that Bruce Wayne is a couple of cans short of a six pack. It's telling that while wearing the suit he's calm and confident, while as Bruce Wayne, he's almost always walking around as if in a daze, to the point where some actions don't even make sense (seriously, what was his plan when Joker arrived in Viki's appartment?). And okay, fine, this isn't out of keeping with the character, but Keaton just looks dazed and confused, like he's sleepwalking through the role. And speaking of sleeping, Vikki interacts with Bruce at his mansion for a few minutes, then immediately dates him, then sleeps with him. I mean, what? Christ, even James Bond usually has to wait the bulk of a movie before getting to third base.

Oh, and Batman kills people. A lot of people. He kills goons in the chemical plant when he drives in, set bombs, and blows up the place. He kills people when he mows them down with the Batwing. And in the tower sequence, he kills more people, including Joker himself. This isn't inherently a flaw with the film per se, but it's baffling to me that people chew out Bruce in BvS for wantonly killing people left and right, but this film gets a free pass. Heck, I think Bruce kills more people in this film than in BvS. Oh, and people complaining about Batman Forever/Batman & Robin? Watch this film again and tell me it wasn't already goofy. Maybe not goofy to the same extent, but still, it's goofy.

Is there stuff I liked about this? Well, there is the design of Gotham, but a lot of that is attritutable to it being a set, with the models clearly visible. But aside from that, aside from Joker, there isn't much to reccomend about this film. It's not even that well directed, as a lot of the directing feels really basic. TBH, I might even hold Batman Forever as being the superior film, but it's been ages since I've seen that. But it's not on par with any of the Nolan films, not even Dark Knight Rises.

So, yeah. Joker might say to go out with a smile, but I'm gonna leave this review with a frown.

The only good thing I can say about this movie is that it inspired the development of Batman: The Animated Series. And kept the music as well.

Superman 1978 aged better then this and watch out, I find that movie unbelievably corny when it reaches the second half.

Casual Shinji:
I recently saw Summer of 84. Just watch it, it's pretty good.

Hawki:
Granted, this is the first time I've seen it, so maybe it was always this dire, but considering that it was reasonably well received at the time, plus how it's fairly well regarded among fans as far as I can tell, some even claiming it's better than The Dark Knight, then, yeah. But as someone who isn't a Batman affectionado who's seeing this movie for the first time 30 years after it was released, then I'm going to come out and say that it really isn't that good.

I'll take Burton's first Batman over the Nolan trilogy any time of the week. If only because it starts off with Batman right out of the gate and doesn't waste your time with exposition and pointless scenes about shooting bullets into bricks. Batman doesn't sound like shit, the Batsuit looks better i.e. not like a hundred pieces of padding with a nylon cape, and the Joker is actually a funny prankster ontop of being a psychotic killer, not just a terrorist with face paint (no offense to Ledger) who retro-actively plans to get caught and then escape jail. Nolan is the worst fit for a comicbook movie, because the guy has zero flair. What little he had probably all went into Memento, the only good movie he's ever made.

I haven't seen Memento, but I have defend The Prestige if you think Memento is his only good movie. Then again I don't know if that is Nolan or the Novel he was adapting.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 . . . 36 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