Discuss and rate the last movie you watched

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NEXT
 

Hawki:

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.

Again, fighting stereotypes with actual, 100% accurate stereotypes is a fool's errand. You're asking the viewer to not be prejudiced by demonstrating with examples that, in real life, would completely justify the prejudice (bunnies are great at "multiplying", foxes are sly, sloths are slow, etc). The message is also that certain species are naturally predatory and others are naturally prey. I don't imagine a movie with actual human beings, neatly segregated by race or whatever as this one does, delivering the same message without coming across as horribly racist (if well-intentioned).

Johnny Novgorod:

Again, fighting stereotypes with actual, 100% accurate stereotypes is a fool's errand. You're asking the viewer to not be prejudiced by demonstrating with examples that, in real life, would completely justify the prejudice (bunnies are great at "multiplying", foxes are sly, sloths are slow, etc).

Except Zootopia isn't real life, and even a child understands that. But while Zootopia has stereotypes, it isn't out of sync with its message - prejudice exists, will always exist, but you can (and should) make the effort to transcend that.

The message is also that certain species are naturally predatory and others are naturally prey. I don't imagine a movie with actual human beings, neatly segregated by race or whatever as this one does, delivering the same message without coming across as horribly racist (if well-intentioned).

Again, not 1:1, but the message of Zootopia is just as applicable to the real world. It's arguably at least even more applicable because the animals of Zootopia have to contend with biological differences, while humans are all the one species.

Hawki:

Johnny Novgorod:

Again, fighting stereotypes with actual, 100% accurate stereotypes is a fool's errand. You're asking the viewer to not be prejudiced by demonstrating with examples that, in real life, would completely justify the prejudice (bunnies are great at "multiplying", foxes are sly, sloths are slow, etc).

Except Zootopia isn't real life, and even a child understands that. But while Zootopia has stereotypes, it isn't out of sync with its message - prejudice exists, will always exist, but you can (and should) make the effort to transcend that.

Not that they're capable of it, but "prejudice" is entirely justified in the animal kingdom and I think that weakens the metaphor. To paraphrase a critic I don't even particularly like, it's the kind of movie that's going to validate whatever worldview you have, because: 1) the stereotypes are all true and 2) you're supposed to see past them anyway.

Cute movie, naive and self-defeating analogy.

Johnny Novgorod:

Not that they're capable of it, but "prejudice" is entirely justified in the animal kingdom and I think that weakens the metaphor.

The "animal kingdom" in the real world is different from Zootopia. If the film was absent of its titular city and set entirely in the jungle or something, then overcoming prejudice and all that might shoot the message in the foot. But again, by the rules of the setting, we can accept that predators and prey can live in peace, and the former's existence isn't predicated on consuming the latter.

To paraphrase a critic I don't even particularly like, it's the kind of movie that's going to validate whatever worldview you have, because: 1) the stereotypes are all true and 2) you're supposed to see past them anyway.

Except the stereotypes aren't true. For predators, there's the stereotype of them being savage and all that, which is why people go with the whole "reverting back to their instincts" thing. Except it's a stereotype enforced only by illicit means.

Saw 6 Underground just earlier. Wow...Bay actually made a fun, good movie, that does not piss me off nor annoy me. I haven't felt this way since The Rock and Pain & Gain. I am so glad he is not making anymore Transformer movies. Now he can make what he actually wants. The whole cast is hilarious, and it's always good to see Ryan Reynolds. The action is surprisingly well done with wide action shots. There are still some of Bay's signature quick-cut shots and that whole filming at dutch angle thing, but either you love it or hate hit. Also, the final action scene with the cruise ship and magnet, freaking awesome. After seeing this, I really don't want to see Bad Boys 3, because it has nothing to offer compared to 6 Underground. Due note, that this Bay's goriest film. Henchmen and innocent bystanders get fucked up! Especially the henchmen.

Also 6 Underground

I always liked Bay quite a bit, I never thought of him as a hack and more of a talented director with a regrettable habit of working with fairly poor scripts. 6 Underground, at the very least, lets him work with an original IP, now that he's free of the Transformers series and it's definitely fun. Ryan Reynolds plays a billionaire who's basically Tony Stark except... well, no, actually, he's basically Tony Stark. Period. Anyway, he assembles a vigilante group of specialists, Ex-Military, Ex-Intelligence, Ex-Criminals and so on, played by the likes of Melanie Laurent, Ben Hardy, and Corey Hawkins, who are believed to be dead, to take revenge against high profile bad guys. In this case, the brutal dictator of the fictional nation of Turgistan, which I think is meant to be basically Turkmenistan. Either way, they're trying to assassinate him and replace him with his reformist brother. Basically, it's Michael Bay's Suicide Squad and if there's one thing to be said about it it's that it's a much more enjoyable watch than Suicide Squad. It's as straight forward as action movies get in terms of plot and characters, and lacks the distinction of having something to say that Bay actually cares about that Pain and Gain and 13 Hours had but as far as his love for snappy cuts, baroque action setpieces and glossy cinematography goes, he's at the top of his game. It lacks, for better and for worse, the eccentric experimentation with different aspect ratios that the last two Transformer movies had but I guess the worldn't wasn't ready for those. Anyway, Michael Bay has always had certain underappreciated talents, mostly that of being able to efficiently communicate information through very short sequences, no doubt a skill he developed doing commercials. His visual style, hyperactive as it is, always had a painterly quality to it, not in the sense something like Barry Lyndon has, not inspired by actual classical art, but by glossy, colourful pop art, all bright red sunsets, shiny sports cars and piercingly blue skies. It's issue to dismiss this style as juvenile and indulgent but there's nothing else that looks quite like it.

Now, Bay's movies had always been fast paced but aspects of 6 Underground feel a little bit hectic. Maybe it's some sort of strange misplaced humility on Bay's side to never linger on his gorgeous shots but I think some criticism is deserved when a movie as simple as this is hard to keep up with. I'm not gonna say the Transformers movies can justify their 3 hour runtimes by any means but maybe the two hour runtime of 6 Underground didn't leave Bay enough breathing room.

So what are we left with? A better version of Suicide Squad, which I'm fine with, because I've been wondering what that would look like. It had its share of memorable action sequences, standouts including one in a penthouse apartment and one on a yacht. 6 Undergound definitely has the makings of a franchise and I wouldn't mind seeing more of it.

P.C.U. (for the hundredth time)

Ok. This might be my first official transition in being old. But I think it's the perfect movie for our time now.

Because it's literally against exactly what it's stating.

The thrust of the plot of this 90's movie is that a Pre-Frosh named Tom attends an End of the Year Weekend visit to PortChester University (It shortens to P.C.U. because subtlety wouldn't be discovered again until the late 2000's). He is assigned the Pit as his place of stay, and the colorful characters of this non-frat guide him through the Trials and Tribulations of pre-dominance PC culture.

For those who don't want to movie Spoiled, stop reading once you're done with this paragraph. Suffice to say that this isn't going to be a favorable review. Not because the movie is bad. I still enjoy it. But probably because I saw it as a kid before my mind got all mature and crap.

Damn, that was a lot.

Ok. Now that is all out of the way, it boggles me the amount of people who view this movie as an Idiocracy-level Prophet of our doomed age we live in. Flat Out, we're supposed to like the Pit, but they are criminals. Literal Criminals. Who has a President and a Campus who treats them with kid gloves. And the Pit's response is "You don't like my mean spirited jokes? Hey, I don't care that you didn't call the cops on me, YOU ARE GOING TO GET YOURS!!!"

To all those people saying how badly this movie reflects on how SJWs really are, don't forget: Your celebrated Heroes actively sought out to 'Cancel' their President of the University because she was going to do what was in her legal rights to do.

She says multiple times she can't oust them because she just doesn't like them. She needs actionable things to kick them out. And the Pit Provides them to her often. And for doing the job by the law... she has to go because she's obviously the bad guy.

Breaking and Entering, Assault, Destruction of Property multiple times. And then Tom ruining all those theses and THEN Droz making money off of it by selling Term Papers to the Computer Lab.

If I was someone from that Computer Lab, I would find it very suspect that this kid who ruined my paper just so happened to be associated with the guy who 'solved that problem'.

The issue isn't that PC is a cancer that ruins everything, which a lot of people want to take the movie as saying. The movie shows a campus that engages in their rights to complain if they want to complain, and the group of teens who take offense to that and do everything in their power to disrupt them because they think it's funny to mess with people who believe in something.

Those in this Movie who are Against PC are literally the ones causing every issue in this Movie. For Themselves.

And again, I was completely fine with that.

Until I saw the mountains of comments of people who say how much this movie from the 1990's got it right. And how PC ruined everything. I'll never say PC made things easy, but I find the same amount of problems arising from the people who attempt to be anti-pc and anti-sjw. They are as political as the 'sensitive' people they complain about, because they never miss a chance to fight back against a culture they think is taking away their ability to speak freely.

Hmm... Sounds like the PC and Anti-PC crowds have a lot in common...

Still. The movie has a lot of nostalgia for me. Even though the sheer irony that people can't get how these aren't people to emulate and blame the peaceful protesters for all the wrong in the movie, I still have a fondness for it. 7/10 for the familiar feels.

0/10 for the fanbase who actually don't get it.

ObsidianJones:

Hmm... Sounds like the PC and Anti-PC crowds have a lot in common...

What, you're only just figuring that out?

SJWs and SQWs are horseshoe theory in action.

Hawki:

ObsidianJones:

Hmm... Sounds like the PC and Anti-PC crowds have a lot in common...

What, you're only just figuring that out?

SJWs and SQWs are horseshoe theory in action.

Stated as much in many posts I've made in the past. But as I said, this whole thought came from what people have been saying of late on youtube and the like.

People have no idea what they are watching and/or praising. That's the overarching point. most political camps are the same in action no matter the label they affix to themselves.

Johnny Novgorod:

Hawki:

Johnny Novgorod:

Again, fighting stereotypes with actual, 100% accurate stereotypes is a fool's errand. You're asking the viewer to not be prejudiced by demonstrating with examples that, in real life, would completely justify the prejudice (bunnies are great at "multiplying", foxes are sly, sloths are slow, etc).

Except Zootopia isn't real life, and even a child understands that. But while Zootopia has stereotypes, it isn't out of sync with its message - prejudice exists, will always exist, but you can (and should) make the effort to transcend that.

Not that they're capable of it, but "prejudice" is entirely justified in the animal kingdom and I think that weakens the metaphor. To paraphrase a critic I don't even particularly like, it's the kind of movie that's going to validate whatever worldview you have, because: 1) the stereotypes are all true and 2) you're supposed to see past them anyway.

Cute movie, naive and self-defeating analogy.

Sounds like you might like Beastars. Its a manga/anime that takes the premise of Zootopia and examines the herbivore/carnivore dynamic much more seriously. Prejudice is constantly present because both groups of animals constantly do fucked up things to each other and are constantly fighting with their instincts in order to maintain society. There is an interesting push and pull between the characters' instincts and their actual desires that makes it pretty engaging.

Jumanji: The Next Level 7/10

Quick synopsis: the kids from the 2017 film have since gone their separate collegiate ways, but have maintained the bonds of friendship formed during their experience in Jumanji. Each planning a trip home for the Christmas break, they make plans to meet up, but we learn that Spencer isn't having as great a time away as Fridge, Martha and Bethany; he feels himself slipping back into his "nerdy nobody" status, the way he felt before his experience as the polar opposite Bravestone. In his basement he finds stowed away the busted game console and Jumanji cartridge, and he decides to return to the game alone. His three friends discover what he's done, and despite their better judgement, they agree to also return to find and save him. However, the damaged console malfunctions, and returning to the game does not go as planned; instead of choosing their familiar avatars, the game sucks them in an arbitrarily assigns them characters; it also accidentally sucks in Spencer's grandfather (Danny DeVito) and his friend (Danny Glover.)

This was a really fun movie; I'd love to see more movies like it nowadays. It reminds me of '80s movies, when realism and science fiction grounded in science fact were tossed aside, and you just went with it and had a good time. The movie's pretty predictable, but it's self-awareness, levity, great acting and fairly impressive spectacle make up for what on paper would present a pretty hollow premise. One of the highlights of the first film was Jack Black's portrayal of the popular, pretty blonde girl, and this time around, we get to see most of the cast also try their hands at role play. You can tell each actor really enjoyed the mockery, portraying someone so unlike themselves; Dwayne Johnson's "curmudgeonly old man" and Kevin Hart's "mentally meandering old man" are hilarious, and Jack Black does a decent "black guy" (ironically) without stooping to stereotypes.

Win an Oscar it won't, but for pure, feel-good fun and entertainment, it deserves one.

Star Wars: Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker (5/10)

This review was originally much longer, but I realized that I didn't have the time or inclination to write it down. Remember my Frozen II review, how it was breaking down the movie plot point by plot point? I'm not doing that here. Frozen II, for all its flaws, was ambitious. Rise of Skywalker is, without a doubt, the safest Star Wars film I've ever seen. Yes, even safer than TFA, because even a film that was a stealth remake of A New Hope managed to introduce some new concepts and ideas. But faced with its two predecessors, Rise escapes being a beat-for-beat plot retread of Return of the Jedi, while also avoiding Last Jedi's more clunky moments. And yes, there were times when I smiled, times when I laughed, and times when I got the feels. But those were scattered moments in a film that's not only utterly predictable, but cements the sequel trilogy as having no justification for existing. The OT existed to tell a story. The PT existed to show what led to the OT. Anything meaningful that was said in Last Jedi is stripped away for comfort food. Even if the film wasn't selling itself as being an integral part of an overall mythos, I still wouldn't like it any more.

I could go into depth, but I really can't be bothered here. The film ranks near the bottom of my Star Wars list, and if I was ranking them solely on level of overall enjoyment, it might even be AT the bottom. But when I look at the Disney Star Wars legacy, I'm left to ask, what was actually accomplished? We got a stealth remake (TFA), followed by a poorly constructed film saved only by its third act (Rogue One), followed by the most intelligent Star Wars film in awhile, albeit weighed down by some issues (Last Jedi), followed by enjoyable popcorn fun (Solo), followed by Star Wars: The Movie: Fan Service. And look, I like fan service when it's used sparingly, but there's a difference between me smiling in joy when Lando shows up, versus an ending that exists because "Force lightning is kewl!" I've seen people say that the film jetisons Last Jedi's ideas, and while that's true in a sense, even TFA's own ideas are shoved to the wayside.

But what do I know? Maybe I'm not a "true fan." But when I look back at the OT, I'm left with a solid film trilogy. With the PT, I can look at three films that, for all their flaws, had unique ideas and a clear vision. With the ST, what do I have but a soft reboot, followed by an attempt at branching out, followed by a return to the comfort zone, that concludes in a way that makes me realize that ultimately, it all meant nothing.

Shame. :(

Hawki:
Star Wars: Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker (5/10)

This review was originally much longer, but I realized that I didn't have the time or inclination to write it down. Remember my Frozen II review, how it was breaking down the movie plot point by plot point? I'm not doing that here. Frozen II, for all its flaws, was ambitious. Rise of Skywalker is, without a doubt, the safest Star Wars film I've ever seen. Yes, even safer than TFA, because even a film that was a stealth remake of A New Hope managed to introduce some new concepts and ideas. But faced with its two predecessors, Rise escapes being a beat-for-beat plot retread of Return of the Jedi, while also avoiding Last Jedi's more clunky moments. And yes, there were times when I smiled, times when I laughed, and times when I got the feels. But those were scattered moments in a film that's not only utterly predictable, but cements the sequel trilogy as having no justification for existing. The OT existed to tell a story. The PT existed to show what led to the OT. Anything meaningful that was said in Last Jedi is stripped away for comfort food. Even if the film wasn't selling itself as being an integral part of an overall mythos, I still wouldn't like it any more.

I could go into depth, but I really can't be bothered here. The film ranks near the bottom of my Star Wars list, and if I was ranking them solely on level of overall enjoyment, it might even be AT the bottom. But when I look at the Disney Star Wars legacy, I'm left to ask, what was actually accomplished? We got a stealth remake (TFA), followed by a poorly constructed film saved only by its third act (Rogue One), followed by the most intelligent Star Wars film in awhile, albeit weighed down by some issues (Last Jedi), followed by enjoyable popcorn fun (Solo), followed by Star Wars: The Movie: Fan Service. And look, I like fan service when it's used sparingly, but there's a difference between me smiling in joy when Lando shows up, versus an ending that exists because "Force lightning is kewl!" I've seen people say that the film jetisons Last Jedi's ideas, and while that's true in a sense, even TFA's own ideas are shoved to the wayside.

But what do I know? Maybe I'm not a "true fan." But when I look back at the OT, I'm left with a solid film trilogy. With the PT, I can look at three films that, for all their flaws, had unique ideas and a clear vision. With the ST, what do I have but a soft reboot, followed by an attempt at branching out, followed by a return to the comfort zone, that concludes in a way that makes me realize that ultimately, it all meant nothing.

Shame. :(

I take it you disagree with Moviebob's review?

So some time ago, i have watched 3 comicbook properties in practically one day, and i think it would be neat to compare two of those. Both being comic book "capeshit" films, but at the same entirely different beasts.
(The third one being HBO's "Watchmen", but it's a different thread material).

Into the Spiderverse

So, good things first. ...I'm sorry, "good things"? Great things. Best things.
"Spiderverse" is the best Spider-man movie to date. Better than first two Raimi-men, or Disney-men. I'd even argue it's so good, it nullifies how crappy the Garfield ones were. Or any comic book crap Sony have churned out before. It was all for the Greater Good of this stellar film.

Promotional materials made me a bit worried the quality may suffer from fanservice, but thankfully that's been avoided.
Yes, there's plenty of fanservice, and i mean PLENTY, but it doesn't overshadow the emotional foundation of the movie. Miles Morales is a new, and very likeable addition to the Spidey roster, and his story of coming into terms with newly acquired great powers and responsibilities is a solid core around which all the funservice and ensemble cast of spiderverse characters branches out.
And technical is on par with emotional: the film looks gorgeous, the film moves gorgeous, the film sounds gorgeous. The vibrant and colorful animation style, blending seamlessly 3d and 2d looks, gives it energy that i haven't seen in mainstream feature-length animated movie in a looong time. The voice acting and soundtrack don't fall behind.
Negatives amount to a bare handful of nitpicks. The one i could think of freshly after watching was Doc Ock's character: that is, wishing for a bit more depth besides "crazy scientist" and "wants to kill Spider-man". But that's about all.

Okay, let's do this one last time: "Into the Spiderverse" is one of the best comic book movies and animations in these last few years, and even if you're a super casual Spider-man fan, it's a must-watch.[1]

Joker

And now for something completely different: Todd Phillips' grim, down-to-earth, (fan)movie about the "origin story" of one of DC's greatest villains - The Joker, baby.

So, let's get this outta way. Speaking as a guy with his own emotional baggage of frustration related to loneliness, being broke, and (mental and physical)health problems... "Joker" failed to click with this person.
It's not a bad movie, and you can clearly see what's it trying to do, BUT... While i knew what kind of emotional stimulus movie wanted to deliver to the audience, i haven't really felt it at the same time, making entire viewing feel kinda flat as a result. The difference between "getting" what the joke is about, and actually laughing.
Speaking of jokes, i wish movie had more of them. I'm not talking mcu humor here -


More bits like this could help bring some much needed contrast to the otherwise very serious and miserable film. And would provide nice foreshadowing for the arc words that Arthur delivers once his transformation is complete.
Other negatives? Music, especially at the beginning, tries a bit too hard. "DO YOU FEEL SAD YET? ISN'T THIS TRAGIC?" the notes try to tell me, when movie barely even started.
Positives? Cinematography is alright, and the 80's New YorkGotham feels as trashy as it should.
And of course Joaquin Phoenix. Who acts the shit out of his role, walking the line separating powerful act from a farce.
(On a side note: "Walk the line" might be the only film with Phoenix in main role, that worked as a whole for me. All the other movies with him in the lead, as far as i can remember left me rather cold.)

So, in conclusion: "Joker's" biggest tragedy is that it almost completely failed to surprise me. I went expecting great performance from Phoenix, and he delivered. I didn't expect that Phillips can make another "Dark Knight" or "Logan", and lo he didn't.
Walking freshly out of the cinema it was a 6-7/10 TOPS for me.
I can still recommend it though, if you
a) are a fan of Joaquin
b) are a fan of Joker
c) want to wash your palate after 10 years of MCU.

There ya go.
Animation and live action. Optimistic and pessimistic. Vivid and washed out. Ensemble cast and a one-man show.
Despite my problems listed above, i think both can be an apt closure for the decade of comic book adaptations(please...?).

[1] 9+/10

Samtemdo8:

I take it you disagree with Moviebob's review?

Least I agree with his ranking. Some points I agree with, some I don't. But for a movie being "fine," 8/10 is way too high.

Mortdecai 4/10

I dunno. Why does this guy get away with everything like that? I guess it's a part of the joke? Starring Johnny Depp as Comedic Depp. Also the MCU casting couch must have been next door.

Just got back from Star Wars, and yeah its bad. Its really bad. Its stupid bad. Its not the worst Star Wars movie, the Last Jedi still has the distinction of turning Luke motherfucking Skywalker, a name synonymous with courage and hope, into a sniveling sarcastic cowardly curmudgeon old man who tries to kill his nephew for having bad dreams and has given up on hope. But its certainly the second worst. I mean fuck me running, the prequels are practically Oscar worthy compared to this. I'd never thought I'd see a romance done worse that Anakin and what's her face, but they did it. Rey and Kylo have a romance, having only had like 5 scenes together in 3 movies and truly shared like maybe 50 words.

Silentpony:
Just got back from Star Wars, and yeah its bad. Its really bad. Its stupid bad. Its not the worst Star Wars movie, the Last Jedi still has the distinction of turning Luke motherfucking Skywalker, a name synonymous with courage and hope, into a sniveling sarcastic cowardly curmudgeon old man who tries to kill his nephew for having bad dreams and has given up on hope.

Okay. I can agree to (strongly) disagree on your take there, but Luke never tries to kill Ben. It flat out never happens. Luke's 'sin' is, for a moment, considering killing Ben, before backing off. Which happens to be the moment where Ben wakes up.

Rey and Kylo have a romance, having only had like 5 scenes together in 3 movies and truly shared like maybe 50 words.

I think it's more than that, but, yeah. I've never got "Reylo." And in the context of this movie specifically, Rey, Finn, and Poe are in a sort of love triangle (well, more like a love septagon when you get down to it), but she loves Ben? The one who's done unspeakable things when two decent men are already in love (or at least infatuated) with her? The whole "I never wanted you [Kylo], I wanted Ben" line...bleh.

Okay you know how Anakin was the chosen one, literally concieved by the Force? Yeah no, didn't mean anything.

To bring balance to the Force? I don't think this is invalidated. You can hear Anakin say to Rey at the end "bring balance to the Force, as I once did," so it doesn't completely negate his actions.

You know how in the Last Jedi the movie ends with a kid using the force to move a broom, implying the Jedi might not yet be gone? Yeah no, didn't mean anything.

I have problems here too, but not for the same reason.

That the broom goes into his hand by the Force is academic to the scene itself. It's the culmination of Last Jedi's themes, conveying the power of myth. That the children are simulating the Battle of Crait and have been inspired by the legend of Luke Skywalker says far more than the Force usage. The implication in Last Jedi is that now the whole galaxy will rally to the Resistance. Except that doesn't happen in Rise. Or, it does, but only because Lando rallies them. The themes of Last Jedi are thus ignored.

You know how Rose confessed she loved Fynn? Yeah no, didn't mean anything.

I wouldn't go that far, but Rose here is...problematic, for me.

Rose has a reduced presence in Rise, and I don't doubt that was at least in part due to the backlash to her character. Backlash that included harassment of Kelly Marie Tran that was absolutely disgusting (sadly, this isn't the first time the fanbase has done this to actors - see Jake Lloyd and Ahmed Best). So her lack of presence here feels in part like a catering to the people who ran Tran off social media and boasted about it.

On the other hand, the movie kind of touches on the relationship here. The sense I got from watching the movie is that Rose is still in love with Finn, but Finn is in love/infatuated with Rey (see "I have to tell you something," said plot point arbitrarily being dropped later on), and then he falls for Janna. Now, I like Janna, or at least, what she represents (Finn inspiring stormtroopers to rebel), but her role in the film feels like a role that Rose was originally meant to have in a lot of ways, such as the mount riding sequence. But in the final battle, you can see Rose's face when Finn stays with Janna to target the bridge. It's not stated out loud, but I got the sense just from Rose's look that she knows that Finn will never love her back.

I think it could have been explored more, but I'll give credit where credit is due.

And from what the movie showed up, Palpatine used Sith magic to corrupt the Kamino scientist, as cloning is now Sith magic, to create a clone army, to start a war that would end in the purge of the Jedi, freeing him to build the death star so that it could be destroyed, so that he could build a second death star over Endor, so that it too could be destroyed and Vadar would betray him, giving him time to build a real Empire army while everyone thinks he's dead, not by cloning but spending 30 years kidnapping tens of millions of human children, so that one day his granddaughter would use a special dagger shaped like the wreckage of the second death star to find a map to the Sith homeworld, where with Anakin's grandson, who needs to have fallen in love with the granddaughter, the girl will travel so that Palpatine could use their force bond to heal the wounds he suffered during is 'death' so that all the Jedi are dead and he's the last Sith so that he can rule the Galaxy as an immortal Emperor.

Um, okay...

I don't think Palpatine planned that all along. The sense I got was that the Final Order was a backup plan. There's actually precedent for this in the EU - I forget the details, but Palpatine did have contingency plans for his death if it ever occurred. Also, where did he kidnap children? The First Order does, but that was for the sake of the First Order, not him.

Oh and also Snoke was a clone. And yes they even cloned his facial scars. That's not from a battle, that's literally how he comes out.

Nice point about the scars.

Oh Oh, that scene in the trailers where C3P0 is saying goodbye? Yeah no, didn't mean anything. They erase his memory so he can read Sith, but turns out they didn't need to, and then R2 quick loads him back.

I agree there. It had the same problem with Chewie. Death fakeouts that it couldn't/wouldn't follow through on.

One scene a lightsaber is green, the next its blue.

Um, where?

Hawki:

One scene a lightsaber is green, the next its blue.

Um, where?

The flashback scene of Luke training Leia, she says her Jedi story ends with her son's death, but she has a green lightsaber. She offers it to Luke and tells him to give it to her son when the time is right. Ghost Luke does, but then it turns blue...because... Also Luke's saber was always green so they both should have been green in the first place.

MrCalavera:
Negatives amount to a bare handful of nitpicks. The one i could think of freshly after watching was Doc Ock's character: that is, wishing for a bit more depth besides "crazy scientist" and "wants to kill Spider-man". But that's about all.

I actually really liked her just being a mad scientist. It was a nice simply motivation; She just wants to see what happens. She's not pursuing knowledge for her own ego, she simply wants to see how crazy things will get, even if it means tearing apart reality. Out of all the Doc Ock's I've seen on screen or in games so far, she's my favourite.

MrCalavera:
So some time ago, i have watched 3 comicbook properties in practically one day, and i think it would be neat to compare two of those. Both being comic book "capeshit" films, but at the same entirely different beasts.
(The third one being HBO's "Watchmen", but it's a different thread material).

Into the Spiderverse

So, good things first. ...I'm sorry, "good things"? Great things. Best things.
"Spiderverse" is the best Spider-man movie to date. Better than first two Raimi-men, or Disney-men. I'd even argue it's so good, it nullifies how crappy the Garfield ones were. Or any comic book crap Sony have churned out before. It was all for the Greater Good of this stellar film.

Promotional materials made me a bit worried the quality may suffer from fanservice, but thankfully that's been avoided.
Yes, there's plenty of fanservice, and i mean PLENTY, but it doesn't overshadow the emotional foundation of the movie. Miles Morales is a new, and very likeable addition to the Spidey roster, and his story of coming into terms with newly acquired great powers and responsibilities is a solid core around which all the funservice and ensemble cast of spiderverse characters branches out.
And technical is on par with emotional: the film looks gorgeous, the film moves gorgeous, the film sounds gorgeous. The vibrant and colorful animation style, blending seamlessly 3d and 2d looks, gives it energy that i haven't seen in mainstream feature-length animated movie in a looong time. The voice acting and soundtrack don't fall behind.
Negatives amount to a bare handful of nitpicks. The one i could think of freshly after watching was Doc Ock's character: that is, wishing for a bit more depth besides "crazy scientist" and "wants to kill Spider-man". But that's about all.

Okay, let's do this one last time: "Into the Spiderverse" is one of the best comic book movies and animations in these last few years, and even if you're a super casual Spider-man fan, it's a must-watch.[1]

Joker

And now for something completely different: Todd Phillips' grim, down-to-earth, (fan)movie about the "origin story" of one of DC's greatest villains - The Joker, baby.

So, let's get this outta way. Speaking as a guy with his own emotional baggage of frustration related to loneliness, being broke, and (mental and physical)health problems... "Joker" failed to click with this person.
It's not a bad movie, and you can clearly see what's it trying to do, BUT... While i knew what kind of emotional stimulus movie wanted to deliver to the audience, i haven't really felt it at the same time, making entire viewing feel kinda flat as a result. The difference between "getting" what the joke is about, and actually laughing.
Speaking of jokes, i wish movie had more of them. I'm not talking mcu humor here -


More bits like this could help bring some much needed contrast to the otherwise very serious and miserable film. And would provide nice foreshadowing for the arc words that Arthur delivers once his transformation is complete.
Other negatives? Music, especially at the beginning, tries a bit too hard. "DO YOU FEEL SAD YET? ISN'T THIS TRAGIC?" the notes try to tell me, when movie barely even started.
Positives? Cinematography is alright, and the 80's New YorkGotham feels as trashy as it should.
And of course Joaquin Phoenix. Who acts the shit out of his role, walking the line separating powerful act from a farce.
(On a side note: "Walk the line" might be the only film with Phoenix in main role, that worked as a whole for me. All the other movies with him in the lead, as far as i can remember left me rather cold.)

So, in conclusion: "Joker's" biggest tragedy is that it almost completely failed to surprise me. I went expecting great performance from Phoenix, and he delivered. I didn't expect that Phillips can make another "Dark Knight" or "Logan", and lo he didn't.
Walking freshly out of the cinema it was a 6-7/10 TOPS for me.
I can still recommend it though, if you
a) are a fan of Joaquin
b) are a fan of Joker
c) want to wash your palate after 10 years of MCU.

There ya go.
Animation and live action. Optimistic and pessimistic. Vivid and washed out. Ensemble cast and a one-man show.
Despite my problems listed above, i think both can be an apt closure for the decade of comic book adaptations(please...?).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Spiderverse is the most comic book movie, a comic book movie can get. Other than a sequel to Spiderverse, it's going to be hard to top that. Joker I thought was just regular good, but at least it tried some experimentation and a little different. Hopefully, it will teach not just DC, but Marvel especially, to experiment with different things. I like most MCU movies, but some of the more recent films are blending together.

Casual Shinji:

MrCalavera:
Negatives amount to a bare handful of nitpicks. The one i could think of freshly after watching was Doc Ock's character: that is, wishing for a bit more depth besides "crazy scientist" and "wants to kill Spider-man". But that's about all.

I actually really liked her just being a mad scientist. It was a nice simply motivation; She just wants to see what happens. She's not pursuing knowledge for her own ego, she simply wants to see how crazy things will get, even if it means tearing apart reality. Out of all the Doc Ock's I've seen on screen or in games so far, she's my favourite.

Yeah, that was weird criticism that does not make sense about Doc Ock. I think she's fine.

[1] 9+/10

Silentpony:

The flashback scene of Luke training Leia, she says her Jedi story ends with her son's death, but she has a green lightsaber.

Um, looked blue to me in the flashback.

Also Luke's saber was always green so they both should have been green in the first place.

Under what logic? Presumably she got her own lightsaber crystal.

and the one spice lady, that Poe wants to kiss for some reason,

Heh, "some reason." :P

And I don't think its coincidence that Lando wants to know where the only black ex-Trooper is from.

If you think the film's hinting that Jadaa is Lando's daughter, then, yeah. I agree.

MrCalavera:
So some time ago, i have watched 3 comicbook properties in practically one day, and i think it would be neat to compare two of those. Both being comic book "capeshit" films, but at the same entirely different beasts.
(The third one being HBO's "Watchmen", but it's a different thread material).

Into the Spiderverse

So, good things first. ...I'm sorry, "good things"? Great things. Best things.
"Spiderverse" is the best Spider-man movie to date. Better than first two Raimi-men, or Disney-men. I'd even argue it's so good, it nullifies how crappy the Garfield ones were. Or any comic book crap Sony have churned out before. It was all for the Greater Good of this stellar film.

Promotional materials made me a bit worried the quality may suffer from fanservice, but thankfully that's been avoided.
Yes, there's plenty of fanservice, and i mean PLENTY, but it doesn't overshadow the emotional foundation of the movie. Miles Morales is a new, and very likeable addition to the Spidey roster, and his story of coming into terms with newly acquired great powers and responsibilities is a solid core around which all the funservice and ensemble cast of spiderverse characters branches out.
And technical is on par with emotional: the film looks gorgeous, the film moves gorgeous, the film sounds gorgeous. The vibrant and colorful animation style, blending seamlessly 3d and 2d looks, gives it energy that i haven't seen in mainstream feature-length animated movie in a looong time. The voice acting and soundtrack don't fall behind.
Negatives amount to a bare handful of nitpicks. The one i could think of freshly after watching was Doc Ock's character: that is, wishing for a bit more depth besides "crazy scientist" and "wants to kill Spider-man". But that's about all.

Okay, let's do this one last time: "Into the Spiderverse" is one of the best comic book movies and animations in these last few years, and even if you're a super casual Spider-man fan, it's a must-watch.

I'm so glad I get to talk about Spiderverse again. Like so happy.

One of my favorite parts when Miles meets Spiderman and their Spider Sense tells them they have the same powers. Spidey says you're like me, and Miles said one of the most amazing things I've ever heard.

"I don't want to be".

This is a teenaged boy. Just becoming Teenaged. Getting through Puberty is enough. But then having this responsibility, this thing that he can't control that is completely alienating him from the entire species, he just wants to get rid of it. He's a Spiderman-fan that is perfectly happy letting the original Spiderman keep him and everyone safe.

Spiderverse made me remember what it was to feel what I used to feel when I read comics. I felt Wonder. I felt scale. I felt worry for Miles. I went into the movie knowing that this is his vehicle and legitimately wondering if he could do this. Because for every time I watch it, I'm sucked into that world. I'm seeing a boy trying to become a superhero. And it's done perfectly.

Also, Doc Ock got the most development than any of the other Villains. The Moment shared with Aunt May made the movie an instant classic for me. There's a STORY there that couldn't be shared with all the other world building at this moment. And that made it so much better for me. Imagine in real life if every time someone came into your house, they constantly reminding you of times past and why you are acquainted. That feels so weird.

Sometimes, you have a friend bring over another friend and there's no backstory treatment. While they might have something, it's up to you to either build something with that person or regulate them as someone who shares your existence up until the point they go away. That's real and I can appreciate that.

Saw Rise of the Skywalker. I didn't hate it. I would watch it again while drunk.

Meanwhile, it keeps stating all non-Force Users are basically useless while Finn and Poe don't have much to do.

Disagree there. That Finn is heavily implied to be Force-sensitive aside, Poe's the one who ultimately leads the Resistance to victory, among other things.

I don't even mind the ending where Rey adopts the name Skywalker because I get the idea but it's mediocrely executed.

I likewise didn't mind the scene. But I'd have loved it much more if Rey being a "nobody" had been retained. If that was the case, then her calling herself "Rey Skywalker" would work better because it ties in with the themes of Rise that a hero can come from anywhere, that one's ability isn't denoted by linneage. But by making Rey Palpatine's granddaughter, not only is there the unspoken suggestion that she's only this powerful because of said linneage, but it's less a case of her 'earning' the name of Skywalker, and more "I don't want to be called Rey Palpatine, so I'm going to take a new surname."

The Disney Trilogy, the sequels or whatever you want to call them, feels like they didn't have a cohesive vision in mind (or they did but they didn't stick to it) so, despite being set in the same setting, The Last Jedi and Rise of the Skywalker feel so jarring compared to one another.

Honestly, the MCU (which is also owned by Disney) feels like there's more of a connection to one another than the new Star Wars films.

Burnouts3s3:
The Disney Trilogy, the sequels or whatever you want to call them, feels like they didn't have a cohesive vision in mind (or they did but they didn't stick to it) so, despite being set in the same setting, The Last Jedi and Rise of the Skywalker feel so jarring compared to one another.

Honestly, the MCU (which is also owned by Disney) feels like there's more of a connection to one another than the new Star Wars films.

I think the main issue is that the MCU has a driving force behind it, that being Kevin Feige. While the Russos had a lot of influence on the movies leading up to Endgame as well, Feige has ultimately been the one in the driver's seat.

I don't really think there is one person who is a driving force in the Disney Star Wars movies. We had J.J. Abrams for Force Awakens, then we switched over to Rian Johnson for The Last Jedi, and then we went back to Abrams for Rise of the Skywalker. The reason TLJ and Rise of the Skywalker feel so jarring is because there were two different minds working on them, with Abrams basically just discarding any parts of Johnson's work he felt clashed with his own vision.

thebobmaster:

Burnouts3s3:
The Disney Trilogy, the sequels or whatever you want to call them, feels like they didn't have a cohesive vision in mind (or they did but they didn't stick to it) so, despite being set in the same setting, The Last Jedi and Rise of the Skywalker feel so jarring compared to one another.

Honestly, the MCU (which is also owned by Disney) feels like there's more of a connection to one another than the new Star Wars films.

I think the main issue is that the MCU has a driving force behind it, that being Kevin Feige. While the Russos had a lot of influence on the movies leading up to Endgame as well, Feige has ultimately been the one in the driver's seat.

I don't really think there is one person who is a driving force in the Disney Star Wars movies. We had J.J. Abrams for Force Awakens, then we switched over to Rian Johnson for The Last Jedi, and then we went back to Abrams for Rise of the Skywalker. The reason TLJ and Rise of the Skywalker feel so jarring is because there were two different minds working on them, with Abrams basically just discarding any parts of Johnson's work he felt clashed with his own vision.

But Kathleen Kennedy has been the executive producer for the new trilogy. What is Kevin Feige doing that Kathleen Kennedy isn't?

Saw Rise of the Skywalker. Loved it. Is it better than Last Jedi? Yes, but I loved LJ. The only problem with LJ was that casino thing went on for way too long (and lead to almost nothing), and I hate Holdo with a passion. Otherwise, also a great movie, 8/10. RoS is a 9 and is a great end to the new trilogy.

My friends and fellow users, it's time I told you something important. This is my last ride for all things Star Wars. I'm more or less done with it. I might see Mandalorian, but I'm not exactly hyped for the show. I'll still discuss with you guys and gals if certain SW topics comes up.

Rise of Skywalker

I already talked a bit about it in the dedicated thread but I think it is a giant mess of a movie, and I sincerely regret paying to watch it.
In short:

Burnouts3s3:

thebobmaster:

Burnouts3s3:
The Disney Trilogy, the sequels or whatever you want to call them, feels like they didn't have a cohesive vision in mind (or they did but they didn't stick to it) so, despite being set in the same setting, The Last Jedi and Rise of the Skywalker feel so jarring compared to one another.

Honestly, the MCU (which is also owned by Disney) feels like there's more of a connection to one another than the new Star Wars films.

I think the main issue is that the MCU has a driving force behind it, that being Kevin Feige. While the Russos had a lot of influence on the movies leading up to Endgame as well, Feige has ultimately been the one in the driver's seat.

I don't really think there is one person who is a driving force in the Disney Star Wars movies. We had J.J. Abrams for Force Awakens, then we switched over to Rian Johnson for The Last Jedi, and then we went back to Abrams for Rise of the Skywalker. The reason TLJ and Rise of the Skywalker feel so jarring is because there were two different minds working on them, with Abrams basically just discarding any parts of Johnson's work he felt clashed with his own vision.

But Kathleen Kennedy has been the executive producer for the new trilogy. What is Kevin Feige doing that Kathleen Kennedy isn't?

It might just be my lack of knowledge, or just missing something, but I get the impression that while Kathleen Kennedy is indeed the executive producer, she gives a lot more free reign to the directors and writers than Feige does. She oversees the production of the movies, but doesn't really seem to step in to veto or influence the direction of the films. In other words, I get the impression that Feige is more hands-on, as indicated by Edgar Wright's frustrations when working on Ant-Man, and Feige stepping up to get Ike Perlmutter uninvolved in Marvel productions.

As I said, that's mostly conjecture on my part, especially where Kathleen Kennedy is involved. It's very possible that she is just as hands-on as Feige, and I'm just not giving her the due credit.

Saw Godzilla: KOTM (2019) again. Still a great monster movie with likeable human characters and delivers on the monster spectacle. Critics being petty and trashing movie out of spite, and comparing it to the God awful Bayformers. It once again proves they don't know shit and don't know what they want. Even one of the actors in the film trashed this movie. He don't know shit either. Godzilla (2014) was one of the most boring movies ever made, and almost made we wish for 98' Godzilla, because at least it wasn't as boring. The human characters all sucked except for two of them, and 1 of the 2 gets killed off 30 minutes in to the film. There were some people on this site that hated KOTM too. They're allowed to have their opinion, but they're dead wrong.

CoCage:

Casual Shinji:

MrCalavera:
Negatives amount to a bare handful of nitpicks. The one i could think of freshly after watching was Doc Ock's character: that is, wishing for a bit more depth besides "crazy scientist" and "wants to kill Spider-man". But that's about all.

I actually really liked her just being a mad scientist. It was a nice simply motivation; She just wants to see what happens. She's not pursuing knowledge for her own ego, she simply wants to see how crazy things will get, even if it means tearing apart reality. Out of all the Doc Ock's I've seen on screen or in games so far, she's my favourite.

Yeah, that was weird criticism that does not make sense about Doc Ock. I think she's fine.

Like i said, it's a nitpick. She just stands out compared to the roster.

ObsidianJones:

I'm so glad I get to talk about Spiderverse again. Like so happy.

One of my favorite parts when Miles meets Spiderman and their Spider Sense tells them they have the same powers. Spidey says you're like me, and Miles said one of the most amazing things I've ever heard.

"I don't want to be".

This is a teenaged boy. Just becoming Teenaged. Getting through Puberty is enough. But then having this responsibility, this thing that he can't control that is completely alienating him from the entire species, he just wants to get rid of it. He's a Spiderman-fan that is perfectly happy letting the original Spiderman keep him and everyone safe.

Spiderverse made me remember what it was to feel what I used to feel when I read comics. I felt Wonder. I felt scale. I felt worry for Miles. I went into the movie knowing that this is his vehicle and legitimately wondering if he could do this. Because for every time I watch it, I'm sucked into that world. I'm seeing a boy trying to become a superhero. And it's done perfectly.

Also, Doc Ock got the most development than any of the other Villains. The Moment shared with Aunt May made the movie an instant classic for me. There's a STORY there that couldn't be shared with all the other world building at this moment. And that made it so much better for me. Imagine in real life if every time someone came into your house, they constantly reminding you of times past and why you are acquainted. That feels so weird.

Sometimes, you have a friend bring over another friend and there's no backstory treatment. While they might have something, it's up to you to either build something with that person or regulate them as someone who shares your existence up until the point they go away. That's real and I can appreciate that.

Glad so many people also enjoyed this one so much.
Watching this i felt the kind of excitement that kid me felt when watching two first Raimi films.
Now, we wait for Spiderverse 2.

image

So I've just got off around 24 hours of total flying time, and in that time, I caught up on some MCU movies. Not out of any great desire, but because I can get closer to saying I've watched all of the damn things. So, on that note, I've now watched every MCU movie except Hulk. So let's go through these four, starting with:

Thor: The Dark World (5/10)

Look at any MCU ranking, and this film usually ends up near the bottom. Having watched it, I can see why. Y'know, usually there'd be some kind of "I think different" thread at this point, but of all the criticism levelled at this film, I can't really refute any of it. And having seen Thor: Ragnarok before this film, it arguably recontextualizies things. At the start, Thor's returning peace to the Nine Realms, but in light of what we know about Asgard's history, is he enforcing peace, or tyranny?

Well, whatever. The film's still boring. I like the design of the Dark Elves, but their culture is boring, and Malekeith may be the worst villain I've seen in the setting. It's not that Eccelston can't salvage the role, it's that he can't be arsed to even try. Thing is, there's actually a line that implies that the Dark Elves want to darken the universe for the sake of survival, which could add an element of moral ambiguity to the film, but if it was intentional, it's cast aside. The Dark Elves are bad people who do bad things, and exist to either be cannon fodder or unstoppable badasses depending on the needs of the plot. And speaking of needs of the plot, there's Jane. Poor Jane. She gets a McGuffin inside her, and spends 90% of the film being a McGuffin. Film even hints at the whole Thor-Jane-Sif love triangle, but it never really goes anywhere.

What about the film's humour? Well, in the past, I've said that MCU films have had a habit of not taking themselves seriously, but Dark World kind of has the opposite problem. It's so dour, but I can't invest in any of it. And what humour there is is either Selvig running around without pants (yay...) or Darcy being Darcy. Which is fun, but even she gets the life sucked out of her by the film's end.

All this said, I'm left to ask whether this film is better or worse than its predecessor. Ragnarok is easily the best Thor film so far, but for the first two, I dunno. I think Thor 1 is a more competent film overall, but it's a "fish out of water" story that's been done a thousand times. Dark World, for all its flaws, does have some engaging moments, such as Loki interacting with Frigga, Frigga's funeral, Darcy being Darcy (initially), and the escape sequence. Also, the music is pretty good, if forgettable. Like, I can remember liking the music, but can't actually remember the music, if that makes sense.

Honestly, there's little to recommend about this film. Ragnarok jettisons pretty much everything from this film and I really can't complain about it. This isn't the worst MCU film I've seen, but it's easily in the bottom tier.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 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