Discuss and rate the last movie you watched

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NEXT
 

Frozen 2.

Batou667:

Xprimentyl:
Joker Wow. 10/10

I liked it too. Perhaps not "10/10", but suffice it to say I was very, very impressed by the direction they took it and the acting.

In my opinion trying to decide whether Phoenix or Ledger was the "better" Joker is an absolute mug's game. They're two very different Jokers, with different plot roles, in different Gothams and at different times in Batman's life - but as a headlining character, I thought Phoenix gave an absolutely exceptional performance. His "straight (but troubled) man succumbing to a world gone mad" story was absolutely believable, with no forced Jared Leto edginess in sight.

The only part I didn't really like was the final scene. I'm not AGAINST the idea of Joker killing civilians if, say, he was sufficiently sickened by the world to consider anybody complicit with the system as an enemy - but if that's the case, the film didn't establish it.

Good film.

Ledger's Joker was how the world sees the Joker; Phoenix's Joker is how the Joker sees the world; both portrayals are masterful for their respective purposes; comparing them is indeed a mug's game.

My "10/10" is largely hyperbolic in that I walked away from the film more intellectually engaged by a piece of cinema than I've been in a very, very, VERY long time, and the fact that this happened 1.)in a movie theater 2.) in 2019 and 3.) that movie was about an iconic super villain makes it the figurative unicorn, something previously thought impossible and thusly "10/10" amazing. I know it has its myriad faults and at times is a blatant homage to its inspirations, but those niggling details did not affect my experience; it's thick, depressive atmosphere did, it's musical score did, Phoenix's acting did. I absolutely loved this film.

I really do not want this latest Joker sucked into a re-tooled DCEU or even linked to yet another iteration of the Batman universe ala The Dark Knight Trilogy. This film is something none of the recent hero films have been or could ever be: a genuinely deep and moving tragic drama; it makes no sense to try to connect it to the larger, familiar worlds of heroes and villains where stories rarely go beyond "bad guy plots to do a thing, good guys stop him using the power of CGI".

Halloween II
Having only ever watched the original 1978 movie and the 2017 reboot/sequel (I like the idea of calling these "cleanser sequels" or "wipeout sequels"), I went on a binge a couple of months ago and watched every other Halloween movie I could find (all three of them: Halloween 6, H20 and Resurrection). Halloween II is definitely the third best movie in the franchise, which is very faint praise but then that's good enough for some people (example: Terminator: Dak Fate).

So by my count Michael Myers is shot 6 times point blank in the first movie and falls down 10 feet or so. Here he's shot another 6 times at close range, then 2 more times in the eyes (one eye each, effectively blinding him), then he's blown up in a gas explosion, consumed in flames and - as far as the second movie's concerned - dies from his wounds. But of course he actually falls into a coma, from which he wakes up in Halloween IV (I think) and I'm sure he gets shot and blowed up real good for the next couple of movies. I know he gets shot some more in 6, as well as beat up - by fucking Paul Rudd of all people - and injected with science goo. He's also shot a whole bunch in H20 and suffers a nasty axe wound to the torso. In Resurrection they try electrocuting him.

This guy's a fucking Terminator. Hell, even Terminators die by the end of the movie. But even if you're assuming that every movie retcons his wounds into something less severe - like, canonically he's supposed to be blind from H2 forward - the sheer punishment he takes in any single movie should be good enough to off him. Of course there's some nonsense about Samhain (introduced here) that eventually develops to explain Michael's apparent immortality, but who could possibly give a shit by Halloween 6?

As to why I think Halloween II isn't awful, I guess it happened close enough to the original (the intro is all footage from the first movie) so the genius rubbed off a little. Carpenter was still writing, apparently directed some scenes, supposedly "saved" the movie in post and his trademark score gets a catchy treatment. Director Rick Rosenthal also does a halfway OK impression with lots of floaty first-person tracking shots. But then the screenplay also makes the idiot decision of tethering Laurie and Michael as siblings (something the audience learns but I don't think Laurie does, ominous flashback/dream aside), and apropos of nothing too. Laurie keeps asking "Why me?" as if Michael hadn't already killed 3 completely random people earlier that night.

I also got the impression that the movie was mimicking all the Halloween knock-offs that had sprung out like fungi since the original movie's success, what with so many hormone-fueled bimbos running around, the sex-must-be-punished slasher mentality and most notably the gore. The original movie was a thriller made in the framing, the movement and the editing. This one just wants to yuck you out, as well as exploiting some nudity and boiling everyone's brains into idiot teen mode.

Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht

What better reason to rewatch this classic than it's 40th anniversary. A real-estate agent travels to a retreat in Varna on an invite by Dracula to sign some papers. The emaciated corpse that opens the door leaves no pretense, it's immediately obvious the superstitions of the villagers are true. This is no womanizing, modern day pretty boy vampire but a sorrowful creature in suspended animation. Not really alive, but not dead either. It's features having evolved to that of vermin, a genuine creature of the night unable to grow old and living in perpetual isolation longing for what he cannot have. Only blood can satiate his curse, a curse that will outlast humanity itself.

The prolonged intro of the movie with the moody display of mummies is an obvious association that the vampire represent not life. However, the movie also raises the question of humanity's own existential dread that fears life's absence. When Dracula has visions of the real-estate agent's wife he travels to their hometown in a coffin on a ship where he kills the entire crew. The ship arrives in the quaint Dutch town with the captain tied to the steering wheel and rats carrying the plague.

It's not long before Dracula makes his entrance and the townspeople are wiped out by the disease. Dracula appears like an augur of death and pestilence but this is where the movie gets interesting by not necessarily appearing as a mere adversary but also releasing the townspeople from the desperation and pain inherent to life. They party and have fun as rats take over with coffins and a giant pig in the background scenery. No longer is the thought of death repressed it's inevitable arrival is celebrated. One brilliant scene in particular showcases a family having a final supper among thousands of rats before they too are devoured and nothing but rats remain.

When the movie draws to an end we see the real-estate agent's wife luring the vampire into a trap by giving him what he cannot have. The long, stilted interactions are beautifully framed and this obviously references the 1922 original of which this is a remake. It brings the silent movie era into the modern day(or atleast, that of 40 years ago) but this itself completes the movie's stellar ambiance and artistic vision.

By no means do I have any kind of technical knowledge how movies are made but I love how loosely created the scenes feel with their emphasis on mood and atmosphere without feeling workmanlike or overproduced like most current movies. The environments and the scenes get room to breathe making the entire narrative of Nosferatu feel like it flows in a dream. I guess it's a difference between artistic(that this movie obviously goes for) and the more overdramatized characterizations that more realistic renditions go for.

Having seen the movie quite a few times I still wonder on what premise the relationship of the people with the vampire is based. Obviously there is an existential dread which can be considered cultural considering how modern society pushed death to the fringes of public view. Still, there is an obvious desire in people as well to disengage and actively avoid life. Is the vampire the threat of pestilence and death or is he merely a manifestation of man's own anxious need to relinquish life to end the suffering?

Maybe both. Espescially considering people are their own worst enemy. Nosferatu remains a timeless classic. 10/10

Promare
Promare sets out to do one thing and one thing only; give fans of Hiroyuki Imaishi and Studio Trigger as much of the stuff they're known for in an hour and fifty minutes as possible. Fans of Trigger will be able to predict where the plot is going almost immediately, but the filmmakers knew this would happen so spend as little time as possible on it so there's more space for what they came to see, namely lashings ridiculous action and bromance. The movie has no ambitions other than pure unadulterated fanservice, and it completely achieves that. It looks amazing, the soundtrack is great, and I had an absolute blast. If you've ever loved an Imaishi series, see Promare. If you haven't, but like ridiculous self aware anime action, see Promare. 9/10

09philj:
Promare
Promare sets out to do one thing and one thing only; give fans of Hiroyuki Imaishi and Studio Trigger as much of the stuff they're known for in an hour and fifty minutes as possible. Fans of Trigger will be able to predict where the plot is going almost immediately, but the filmmakers knew this would happen so spend as little time as possible on it so there's more space for what they came to see, namely lashings ridiculous action and bromance. The movie has no ambitions other than pure unadulterated fanservice, and it completely achieves that. It looks amazing, the soundtrack is great, and I had an absolute blast. If you've ever loved an Imaishi series, see Promare. If you haven't, but like ridiculous self aware anime action, see Promare. 9/10

I've been meaning to see this; big fan of Trigger. I hope this comes out on DVD soon. Thanks for the review.

So, I saw Frozen 2. Don't know when I'll get to a review, because it's left me a lot to talk about, but since there's already stuff I can respond to:

Elsa continues her arc as the Inexplicably Chosen One, and she's starting to reach Harry Fucking Potter levels of angsty indestructible omnipotence.

Um, Harry certainly got angsty, but he was hardly indestructible or omnipotent (unless you're referring to a character within the franchise).

On a surface level this is a fairly undemanding film that will amuse adults and children alike - it's a bit bleak and depressing for the intended child audience at times; you can almost mentally count down to the next obligatory dose of comic relief from Olaf.

Oh God, why couldn't Olaf have stayed dead?

One of the biggest problems I had with the film is that it's got severe tonal whiplash, and Olaf is part of the problem.

Diving under the surface? This is a bit of a mess. The theme of sisterhood gets brought up, with the two sisters deciding they're stronger together despite the obvious disparity in their abilities - but pretty soon Elsa decides Anna is a liability and goes it alone. Ah, so the moral of the story is that the strong must stand alone? Nope, a hurried and unconvincing resolution tells us that teamwork makes the dream work, despite the gang only surviving and saving the day thanks to a series of incredibly fortunate and timely coincidences.

I never really got a sense of sisterhood being a theme there, but if you did, then I think that reflects more on how confused the film is. To me, the film has two themes - "sins of the father," and "wisdom and age." It botches the first, and aborts the second.

Six years have passed since the first Frozen, so I suppose it was almost inevitable there was going to be some "woke" commentary in this sequel. To that end there is a bigger emphasis on Frozen's indigenous people - quite how the ethnically diverse citizens of the Norwegian-inspired Arendelle fit in with this implied natural versus industrialised trope isn't made clear, but as usual Disney is content to portray its protagonists as being a microcosm of contemporary America.

I disagree there. The Northundrans are analagous to the Sami rather than Amerindians.

Elsa has to atone for her xenophobic grandfather's betrayal of the indigenous people, in a "white guilt" section that I was convinced meant that the conveniently evacuated Arendelle was going to be sacrificed - but yet again the writers were unable to fully commit to an idea, and another deus ex machina is invoked to ensure that everybody is happy by the closing credits without a single sacrifice or difficult decision being made.

Oh God, this.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the writers of Frozen 2 wanted to do a more complex story, but someone at Disney said "nope!" So what you've got is a film that's trying to be more complex than its predecessor, but can't, because it's a Disney movie. With Frozen 1, this worked, because while Frozen 1 is a more simple story, it's a simple story that's told very well. Frozen 2 is trying to be more morally grey and all that, but is constantly tripping over itself.

Oh, and the songs were lacklustre.

Not just lacklustre, their inclusion in the story doesn't work nearly as well as their predecessors did structually.

Actually, to be fair, Into the Unknown is decent, and Show Yourself, and its associated sequence, is absolutely beautiful. But Frozen 1 had more good songs, and used them better as well, for the most part. Tellingly, in both films, Olaf and Kristoff get the worst ones, though 'When I'm Older' is better than 'In Summer', 'Reindeer Are Better Than People' is just excruciating. Yes, even more so than Fixer Upper.

Booksmart

An actual comedy I laughed a lot at. That's pretty rare these days. It's like a female version of Superbad but even funnier. The characters outside of the two main ones were more developed than Superbad too. One of the teacher needs to go to jail. I liked how the normal, 'caught you being a jerk' was turned on its head and lead to the main characters motivation for the movie. Still, it's a stretch that this all happened in one day. And the utter ridiculousness of the parties they attend makes it feel like a fantasy

8/10

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) - Finally got a chance to see the original version. Got a copy on Blu Ray from local Best Buy from black Friday weekend. A good siege movie. You can tell Carpenter was working on a low budget, yet still pull off a suspenseful movie. It's nice contrast to the remake. The original is on a hot night in LA, while the 2005 version is on a cold night in Detroit (my home town). With that said, the remakes got nothing on the original movie's soundtrack.

For whoever is discussing Frozen, I thought the original was just okay, and overrated. Tangled and Princess and the Frog I found way better. Sounds like Frozen 2 is another Disney DTV sequel.

CoCage:
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) - Finally got a chance to see the original version. Got a copy on Blu Ray from local Best Buy from black Friday weekend. A good siege movie. You can tell Carpenter was working on a low budget, yet still pull off a suspenseful movie. It's nice contrast to the remake. The original is on a hot night in LA, while the 2005 version is on a cold night in Detroit (my home town). With that said, the remakes got nothing on the original movie's soundtrack.

For whoever is discussing Frozen, I thought the original was just okay, and overrated. Tangled and Princess and the Frog I found way better. Sounds like Frozen 2 is another Disney DTV sequel.

Tangled was a way better movie

Frozen 2 (5/10)

CoCage:
Sounds like Frozen 2 is another Disney DTV sequel.

I only partly agree.

If you're referring to how (almost?) every Disney DTV sequel has been inferior to the movie that preceeded it, then yes. However, if you're referring to how many of those sequels were cash ins, then I disagree. I mean, Frozen 2 exists because the box office demanded it, but for all its flaws, it isn't lacking in ambition.

I will admit that I haven't seen that many Disney sequels. Of the two I've seen, Return of Jaffar and Simba's Pride, I liked both of them. Neither of them were as good as their predecessor, but they were still enjoyable.

trunkage:
Booksmart
The characters outside of the two main ones were more developed than Superbad too.

So you mean that...

you're not Mclovin it?

trunkage:

CoCage:
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) - Finally got a chance to see the original version. Got a copy on Blu Ray from local Best Buy from black Friday weekend. A good siege movie. You can tell Carpenter was working on a low budget, yet still pull off a suspenseful movie. It's nice contrast to the remake. The original is on a hot night in LA, while the 2005 version is on a cold night in Detroit (my home town). With that said, the remakes got nothing on the original movie's soundtrack.

For whoever is discussing Frozen, I thought the original was just okay, and overrated. Tangled and Princess and the Frog I found way better. Sounds like Frozen 2 is another Disney DTV sequel.

Tangled was a way better movie

Both movies are about the same in my book. Both are great, but Tangled had slighty funnier gags. Not to say Princess and the Frog didn't.

Hawki:
Frozen 2 (5/10)

CoCage:
Sounds like Frozen 2 is another Disney DTV sequel.

I only partly agree.

If you're referring to how (almost?) every Disney DTV sequel has been inferior to the movie that preceeded it, then yes. However, if you're referring to how many of those sequels were cash ins, then I disagree. I mean, Frozen 2 exists because the box office demanded it, but for all its flaws, it isn't lacking in ambition.

Honestly, from what you reviewed, sounds like another cash-in to me. Frozen was one of those movies that really did not need a sequel. If it was because of box office demands, then clearly, most of those people don't know what they want. Or Disney are just being arrorgant, greedy, bastards again. In this case, both.

I will admit that I haven't seen that many Disney sequels. Of the two I've seen, Return of Jaffar and Simba's Pride, I liked both of them. Neither of them were as good as their predecessor, but they were still enjoyable.

The only good Disney DTV sequels were the Aladdin sequels, Simba's Pride, and An Extremely Goofy Movie.

When Suckerpunch came out some years ago, it polarised critics, some saying it was a progressive and empowering film, and others saying it was a weird creepy sexual fantasy of Zack Snyder pretending to be a progressive and empowering film.

Having finally got around to watching it, I can say that the latter is wrong, it's not really even pretending.

Now, obviously a lot of effort went into the "little girls fight monsters" bits. But, on the whole, no, and don't get stuck in an elevator with Zack Synder.

The Good Liar
Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren play widowed 70-somethings that meet in an online website and agree to dinner. That's the first scene, which already depicts both characters as more than willing to hide or bend the truth about themselves. The scene immediately after that reveals - like the trailer - that McKellen is a career con man with a plan to romance and fleece Mirren, actually a millionaire. Without giving away anything, for me this meant I spent the whole movie waiting for Mirren's own reveal. I won't spoil anything but the fact that you're basically waiting for the other shoe to drop the whole movie deprives it of tension (regardless of whethere there is a twist at the end or not). And there's such an unending splurge of information/revisionism in the final 15/20 minutes that it all ends up looking a little bit too ridiculous, which in turn is a disservice to a movie that starts as ridiculous but then wants to get serious about certain subject matter by the end.

All of this soudns incredibly vague but I don't wanna spoil anything.

McElroy:

trunkage:
Booksmart
The characters outside of the two main ones were more developed than Superbad too.

So you mean that...

you're not Mclovin it?

Hahaha!

Halloween III: Season of the Witch
"The one without Michael Myers". I don't think an anthology franchise is a bad idea but they handled this particular entry so awfully that you can't really guilt the fans for wanting Myers back. The previous Halloween movies are actually movies within this one. What's this one about? Here we go: a diabolical Irish businessman (played by the chairman from Robocop) steals a chunk of Stonehenge so he can harness its power to manufacture special Halloween masks that will cause all wearers to die vomiting snakes and bugs if they tune in to a certain channel on Halloween. He just laughs when somebody asks him why.

House of 1000 Corpses
Rob Zombie is every other metal musician (Dee Snider, Troy Duffy, Fred Durst) who one day goes hey, I want to make a movie too. So they gather around their wives and buddies and just fucking have at it. There's something alluring about a movie that goes all the way in, doesn't compromise, stays energetic and is so clearly a labor of passion. But here Zombie is also clearly just ripping off the movies HE likes and HE wants to make. He's copying the grungy, nasty, exploitative grindhouse style - and nothing else.

Johnny Novgorod:
He just laughs when somebody asks him why.

He's Irish. What other reason do you need? :P

(Apologies to anyone here who's actually Irish.)

As Above So below

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, I.m awake Im awake, oh the movie is over

Hawki:

Johnny Novgorod:
He just laughs when somebody asks him why.

He's Irish. What other reason do you need? :P

(Apologies to anyone here who's actually Irish.)

Ironically several reviewers at the time criticized the movie as "anti-Irish".
Speaking of which...

Leprechaun
A very, very dumb horror comedy that was originally going to be a straight up horror flick until they realized just how immensely stupid it was going to be, so they decided to play up the silliness. Warwick Davis hams it up as the title leprechaun and a pre-nose job Jennifer Aniston affects an irritable Valley Girl act in what I *think* is her feature film debut. In the end its own goofiness is the only thing it's got going for itself. It's certainly not scary, or gory, or tense (the leprechaun can do anything at any moment, is showcased front and center for most of the movie, and is more concerned with fucking with the leads than achieving his stated goal of reclaiming his gold). It's also a bit weird how the three house painters stick around for the whole movie like they're Aniston's friends or something, even though they supposedly just show up to paint the house for a few hours.

Johnny Novgorod:
Leprechaun
A very, very dumb horror comedy that was originally going to be a straight up horror flick until they realized just how immensely stupid it was going to be, so they decided to play up the silliness. Warwick Davis hams it up as the title leprechaun and a pre-nose job Jennifer Aniston affects an irritable Valley Girl act in what I *think* is her feature film debut. In the end its own goofiness is the only thing it's got going for itself. It's certainly not scary, or gory, or tense (the leprechaun can do anything at any moment, is showcased front and center for most of the movie, and is more concerned with fucking with the leads than achieving his stated goal of reclaiming his gold). It's also a bit weird how the three house painters stick around for the whole movie like they're Aniston's friends or something, even though they supposedly just show up to paint the house for a few hours.

I've only seen one of those films, the one where it's in space and there's a princess from a culture where women expose their breasts at you as a way of telling you they are going to kill you sometime in the future (so lots of self-defence killings involve topless women?). I think that was the 4th one, and there were 2 more, Leprechaun 5: In Da Hood and Leprechaun 6: Back in Da Hood.

Given the names, never bothered watching any more.

(If it isn't obvious, I'm using Prime Video to clear the backlog of all the shitty 80s/90s movies I'm kinda familiar with but have never actually seen, because who the fuck stops on any of them while you're channel surfing. Remember channel surfing?)

Timecop
You're supposed to describe it as a time travel movie, but let's be honest: it's a glorified Van Damme-kicks-goons-in-a-warehouse flick. The premise has timecops travelling back in time to stop (timethieves?) from getting rich by, say, stealing Civil War gold or buying stock in 1929. In practice this boils down to Van Damme travelling from the present (2004) to the past (1994, the year the film was made) to stop the wrong man from becoming president and also maybe saving the life of his wife. Aside from some cheap window-dressing (the CG is on par with N64 graphics) it looks and plays like your average mid-90s low budget action flick, rich with lame one-liners and a by-the-book climax where people point guns, make threats and explain things. The rules of time travel themselves are either inconsistent or nonsensical so the sci-fi angle is moot from the get-go anyway.

Johnny Novgorod:
(If it isn't obvious, I'm using Prime Video to clear the backlog of all the shitty 80s/90s movies I'm kinda familiar with but have never actually seen, because who the fuck stops on any of them while you're channel surfing. Remember channel surfing?)

Timecop
You're supposed to describe it as a time travel movie, but let's be honest: it's a glorified Van Damme-kicks-goons-in-a-warehouse flick. The premise has timecops travelling back in time to stop (timethieves?) from getting rich by, say, stealing Civil War gold or buying stock in 1929. In practice this boils down to Van Damme travelling from the present (2004) to the past (1994, the year the film was made) to stop the wrong man from becoming president and also maybe saving the life of his wife. Aside from some cheap window-dressing (the CG is on par with N64 graphics) it looks and plays like your average mid-90s low budget action flick, rich with lame one-liners and a by-the-book climax where people point guns, make threats and explain things. The rules of time travel themselves are either inconsistent or nonsensical so the sci-fi angle is moot from the get-go anyway.

I always saw Timecop as average. I would watch on TV when bored sometimes, but have still yet to buy it on DVD. Van Damme's best movies in the 90s were Universal Soldier, Double Impact, and Hard Target. Still, most of his movies were better than Seagal's. And I like most of Seagal's older works. Also, Van Damme is an actual cool guy and is not a jerk nor premadonna, egoistical, actor. And Seagal has some nasty secrets and dirty things he's been doing. It makes it harder to watch some of his older stuff.

Finally saw Shazam. Awesome movie. My God, I wish I had the time to see this in theaters. Shazam is an S rank. The humor, the well done scary scenes (boardroom), and action all flow together in this movie. DC has increasingly been improving. They may have faltered with BvS & Suicide Squad, but starting with Wonder Woman, they're rivaling Marvel by doing their own thang. Seeing this and Aquaman has me more excited for the Birds of Prey and WW 1984.

Johnny Novgorod:
Halloween III: Season of the Witch
"The one without Michael Myers". I don't think an anthology franchise is a bad idea but they handled this particular entry so awfully that you can't really guilt the fans for wanting Myers back. The previous Halloween movies are actually movies within this one. What's this one about? Here we go: a diabolical Irish businessman (played by the chairman from Robocop) steals a chunk of Stonehenge so he can harness its power to manufacture special Halloween masks that will cause all wearers to die vomiting snakes and bugs if they tune in to a certain channel on Halloween. He just laughs when somebody asks him why.

House of 1000 Corpses
Rob Zombie is every other metal musician (Dee Snider, Troy Duffy, Fred Durst) who one day goes hey, I want to make a movie too. So they gather around their wives and buddies and just fucking have at it. There's something alluring about a movie that goes all the way in, doesn't compromise, stays energetic and is so clearly a labor of passion. But here Zombie is also clearly just ripping off the movies HE likes and HE wants to make. He's copying the grungy, nasty, exploitative grindhouse style - and nothing else.

Halloween III, is flawed, but good. It at least tried something different. I'd sooner take III over all of the Halloween sequels that did not know what to do with Michael Meyers. Either treading the same ground over and over, ad nausea, or some stupid cult retconned in to the story. Even the writers admitted they had no idea what they were doing when making Halloween V. The ending with man in the trench coat and fedora. They wrote him in there for no reason. Luckily, the anthology idea lives on in the horror film Trick R Treat. The true successor to Carpenter's original vision.

CoCage:

Johnny Novgorod:
(If it isn't obvious, I'm using Prime Video to clear the backlog of all the shitty 80s/90s movies I'm kinda familiar with but have never actually seen, because who the fuck stops on any of them while you're channel surfing. Remember channel surfing?)

Timecop
You're supposed to describe it as a time travel movie, but let's be honest: it's a glorified Van Damme-kicks-goons-in-a-warehouse flick. The premise has timecops travelling back in time to stop (timethieves?) from getting rich by, say, stealing Civil War gold or buying stock in 1929. In practice this boils down to Van Damme travelling from the present (2004) to the past (1994, the year the film was made) to stop the wrong man from becoming president and also maybe saving the life of his wife. Aside from some cheap window-dressing (the CG is on par with N64 graphics) it looks and plays like your average mid-90s low budget action flick, rich with lame one-liners and a by-the-book climax where people point guns, make threats and explain things. The rules of time travel themselves are either inconsistent or nonsensical so the sci-fi angle is moot from the get-go anyway.

I always saw Timecop as average. I would watch on TV when bored sometimes, but have still yet to buy it on DVD. Van Damme's best movies in the 90s were Universal Soldier, Double Impact, and Hard Target. Still, most of his movies were better than Seagal's. And I like most of Seagal's older works. Also, Van Damme is an actual cool guy and is not a jerk nor premadonna, egoistical, actor. And Seagal has some nasty secrets and dirty things he's been doing. It makes it harder to watch some of his older stuff.

I like Van Damme, I think he's averaged way better movies than Seagal. Seagal's only good movie is Under Siege, and only because it's A) not a vehicle for him, B) he's actually very little in it, C) stars Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey, and D) it's directed by Andrew Davis, an actual director.

I've also always respected Van Damme a little more since I found out he's a fan of Alain Delon in Le Samourai. Explains quite a bit about his career and his persona. And unlike Seagal he knows how to play the underdog angle. Seagal's ego is too big to even let him be on on the losing end for a single scene.

Timecop is just fine, which is what Van Damme what can aspire to at best. Just fine action movies. Hard Target and Blood Sport are also "just fine" kung fu/action flicks. Universal Soldier I never liked much, it's too dreary and doesn't wear the Terminator riff as well as Timecop does. Given the cool sci-fi premise though I'm torn between being disappointed that it was wasted on a Van Damme movie, or being annoyed that it was all just a trick people into seeing it.

CoCage:

Johnny Novgorod:
Halloween III: Season of the Witch
"The one without Michael Myers". I don't think an anthology franchise is a bad idea but they handled this particular entry so awfully that you can't really guilt the fans for wanting Myers back. The previous Halloween movies are actually movies within this one. What's this one about? Here we go: a diabolical Irish businessman (played by the chairman from Robocop) steals a chunk of Stonehenge so he can harness its power to manufacture special Halloween masks that will cause all wearers to die vomiting snakes and bugs if they tune in to a certain channel on Halloween. He just laughs when somebody asks him why.

House of 1000 Corpses
Rob Zombie is every other metal musician (Dee Snider, Troy Duffy, Fred Durst) who one day goes hey, I want to make a movie too. So they gather around their wives and buddies and just fucking have at it. There's something alluring about a movie that goes all the way in, doesn't compromise, stays energetic and is so clearly a labor of passion. But here Zombie is also clearly just ripping off the movies HE likes and HE wants to make. He's copying the grungy, nasty, exploitative grindhouse style - and nothing else.

Halloween III, is flawed, but good. It at least tried something different. I'd sooner take III over all of the Halloween sequels that did not know what to do with Michael Meyers. Either treading the same ground over and over, ad nausea, or some stupid cult retconned in to the story. Even the writers admitted they had no idea what they were doing when making Halloween V. The ending with man in the trench coat and fedora. They wrote him in there for no reason. Luckily, the anthology idea lives on in the horror film Trick R Treat. The true successor to Carpenter's original vision.

For the record I think every Halloween movie after the 1978 one is at the very least pointless and not very good.
I'd rank them:

Tier 1: Classic
-Halloween (1978)

Tier 2: OK
-Halloween (2018)

Tier 3: Mediocre
-Halloween II
-Halloween III: Season of the Witch
-Halloween H20: 20 Years Later

Tier 4: Garbage
-Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers
-Halloween: Resurrection

I haven't seen 4, 5 or the Rob Zombie movies.

Hawki:
Frozen 2 (5/10)

CoCage:
Sounds like Frozen 2 is another Disney DTV sequel.

I only partly agree.

If you're referring to how (almost?) every Disney DTV sequel has been inferior to the movie that preceeded it, then yes. However, if you're referring to how many of those sequels were cash ins, then I disagree. I mean, Frozen 2 exists because the box office demanded it, but for all its flaws, it isn't lacking in ambition.

I will admit that I haven't seen that many Disney sequels. Of the two I've seen, Return of Jaffar and Simba's Pride, I liked both of them. Neither of them were as good as their predecessor, but they were still enjoyable.

If your looking for animation with heavy topics and themes, you've come to the wrong place with Disney.

Samtemdo8:

If your looking for animation with heavy topics and themes, you've come to the wrong place with Disney.

First of all, Zootopia (and I'm sure other stuff as well, but whatever)

Second of all, since Frozen 2 is attempting to tackle said topics and themes (and, IMO, fails at it), I think it's fair to evaluate it in the context of those things.

Hawki:

Samtemdo8:

If your looking for animation with heavy topics and themes, you've come to the wrong place with Disney.

First of all, Zootopia (and I'm sure other stuff as well, but whatever)

Second of all, since Frozen 2 is attempting to tackle said topics and themes (and, IMO, fails at it), I think it's fair to evaluate it in the context of those things.

Zootopia got nothing on Prince of Egypt and Hunchback of Notre Dame.

The Lone Ranger

Between their big franchise movies that sell on name alone, regardless of quality, Disney has a habit of producing somewhat more risky standalone movies. Among them was Brad Bird's Tomorrowland (which was great), Ava DuVernay's Wrinkle in Time (dreadful) and Andrew Stanton's John Carter (I haven't seen it). Lone Ranger is one of those, a tongue in cheek homage to to old Western serials and the dime novels that inspired them. Starring Armie Hammer as as the titular Lone Ranger, an East Coast yuppie coming out west and ending up on quest for revenge against a sinister bandit leader, and Johnny Depp as his partner, the eccentric Native American Tonto. Oh, an directed by Gore Verbinski, director of the first three Pirates of the Carribean movies and a few entertaining oddities like the animated feature Rango and the somewhat campy horror shocker Cure for Wellness. Verbinski, despite being far from an experimental director, has a style to his work that's just a bit too distinctive and too playful to ever direct something like a MCU or Star Wars movie and Lone Ranger, a commercial and critical failure, stands as pretty good example of that. Me, personally, I did get a kick out of it though I'd hesitate to call it a very good movie. It takes the story and the recognizable character archetypes of an old fashioned western movie, the noble ranger, the wise indian, the fearsome bandit, the underhanded railway baron and so on, and adds a layer of carnivalesque exaggeration that never quites crosses over into all out parody but certainly brushes up against it. Consequently, Lone Ranger's tone is a bit messy, constantly torn between, at points genuinely violent, western grit, swashbuckling adventure and goofy, often borderline vaudevillian, comic relief. It never quite comes together, despite the best efforts of everyone involved, but when it's fun it's definitely fun. It has a bit of Last Jedi syndrome when you're always in a state of uncomfortable uncertainty whether or not it's gonna ruin a good scene with a poorly placed joke but likewise there are more than enough occasions where it's action, it's humor and sometimes even its social commentary are genuinely well executed. I can't really call Lone Ranger a success, despite having a lot of good will towards it but I didn't regret watching it.

Ad Astra

Science Fiction movie, directed by James Gray, starring Brad Pitt as Astronaut Roy McBride going on a mission to through the solar system to find his missing father who was involved with a science project that now threatens the very existence of mankind. It's a pretty bad movie, though a fascinatingly bad one. It very much seems like a dumb person's idea of a smart movie, reminiscent of Christopher Nolan's Interstellar, already an overwrought and overproduced mess of a movie, if one had managed to remove the last few traces of genuine humanity from it. Ad Astra is certainly a beautiful looking movie, highly derivative of the aforementioned Interstellar and Kubrick's Space Odyssey as it may be, and it does have some interesting ideas when it comes to building its world but the writing is extremely weak. Brad Pitt, undeniably a gifted actor, tries desperately to bring some nuance to a protagonist who'd already feel like a clich? if he were the main character of a video game but one gets the impression he's trying to squeeze water from a rock. Roy McBride is a quiet, emotionally repressed manly man, which isn't an inherently bad character archetype, both Blade Runner movies did fine with that type of character, but he never really seems to grow beyond that archetype, nor did the writer seems to have a very good idea how to write a three dimensional protagonist. Roy, you see, provides the narration for the movie so what we get are pages of redundant exposition to spell out what a better movie would have conveyed through its subtext. It makes Joker look like an excersice in subtle storytelling. Ad Astra is very well made but there is only so much nice visuals can do to distract from a bad script. There are long, cerebral shots of of the endless void, a bunch of supporting characters that are all, more or less, walking cliches, at one point Brad Pitt is attacked by a space monkey... I dunno, if you want to get anything out of it, maybe turn off the sound, smoke some weed and put on Pink Floyd, but even then, I imagine there are better movies to do that to.
In the end, if I want a visually stunning but overly verbose 2019 Science-Fiction epic contemplating the nature of fatherhood and the importance of human connection in a vast, uncaring universe I'd just play Death Stranding again.

PsychedelicDiamond:

Ad Astra

Seen that movie recently as well and also found it really underwhelming. This is the type of story Hollywood has told a million times over and the space setting wasn't even necessary. It's just another sappy drama how an abandoned child suffers attachment issues in later life and now tries to confront absent dad to become enlightened about the importance of connections. Only now said person has to travel to the edge of Neptune for this life lesson to lay it on even thicker.

Very few movies are able to effectively communicate the wonder and mystery of space. We can observe but not even really comprehend that our existence is a needle prick of light in an ocean of darkness. The only movie that does it some justice is the Russian movie Age of Pioneers about the first spacewalk. It has these mesmerizing still shots of earth enveloped in the darkness that illustrate life is the impossible exception and with it the futility of every human foible. It has a transcendent quality.

Ad Astra meanwhile has moon carts chasing eachother while firing guns when not aiming for the sappy melodrama.

Samtemdo8:

Hawki:

Samtemdo8:

If your looking for animation with heavy topics and themes, you've come to the wrong place with Disney.

First of all, Zootopia (and I'm sure other stuff as well, but whatever)

Second of all, since Frozen 2 is attempting to tackle said topics and themes (and, IMO, fails at it), I think it's fair to evaluate it in the context of those things.

Zootopia got nothing on Prince of Egypt and Hunchback of Notre Dame.

I'd put Zootopia above both of those films, even if the former is still very solid.

Hawki:

Samtemdo8:

If your looking for animation with heavy topics and themes, you've come to the wrong place with Disney.

First of all, Zootopia (and I'm sure other stuff as well, but whatever)

The problem with Zootopia - a children's animated movie starring cartoon animals - is that it's trying to teach children about racial profiling by puppeting animal stereotypes that are, in real life, 100% accurate. Predators eat herbivores. It's very cute that the movie pretends they don't have to, because content of character and power of friendship, but that's just how it works in nature. The movie undermines its own message by turning to the worst possible fantastic metaphor they could come up with.

OP:

Climax
Another Gaspar No? movie where the camera swirls and drones in an unending spiralling fashion to strobe lighting while people get fucked, in every possible sense of that word. The paper-thin story is that a multicultural, European dance troupe is celebrating their final rehearsal before their American tour in a dinghy theater. Somebody has spiked the sangria with LSD so everyone starts tripping and the whole thing devolves into self-harm, assault, murder, rape, incest, child abuse and lots of screaming. I don't think there's a point to any of it, other than relishing the choreography of torture just as the camera relishes the blissful introductory dance number. No? is one of those fuck-you director like Von Trier who just want to make you despair and feel bad. If that's the sole purpose of Climax - which is otherwise technically masterful - then Irreversible is still a better movie, because I hated it more.

Johnny Novgorod:

The problem with Zootopia - a children's animated movie starring cartoon animals - is that it's trying to teach children about racial profiling by puppeting animal stereotypes that are, in real life, 100% accurate. Predators eat herbivores. It's very cute that the movie pretends they don't have to, because content of character and power of friendship, but that's just how it works in nature. The movie undermines its own message by turning to the worst possible fantastic metaphor they could come up with.

I disagree. Or at least I disagree in the sense that the implication from the comment here that the film is depicting a utopia. It isn't. It's rammed home throughout the film that prejudice is always going to be a thing, and that the best you can do is, well, the best you can do. That predators eat prey is in sync with this message, in that there's always going to be tension in the setting, just as there's always going to be tension in the real world. So in that sense, Zootopia not only succeeds in conveying its message, but also syncs up with the real world.

It: Chapter Two

Wow, that film was all over the place, A Horror-Comedy-Action-Monster movie. Can anyone tell me how much of this, if any, is actually in the book? Because the tonal shift from the first film to this was just... wow.

stroopwafel:

PsychedelicDiamond:

Ad Astra

Seen that movie recently as well and also found it really underwhelming.

And just how underwhelming? The girlfriend and I both actually forgot we went to see it in the theater. We saw an ad for it on demand the other night, and looked at each other confused and asked "Have we seen that?" I had to search my email for the receipt, and yup, September 21st at noon, we saw it, but can't tell you a damn thing about it except that it was a movie that allegedly happened in front of my face.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 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