You are not logged in. Please login or register.
|
|
|
re: Arrival — I started drifting when things began to get less not-disappointing, so I can't remember specifics about what was annoying me right at the end, but yeah. Was having a blast for the first three quarters or so.
I've finally read enough classic Sci-Fi that when I watch a new movie I can be the guy who goes "Oh they're doing X"
Arrival - so if you learn to read circular alien logograms, you can suddenly see into the future? It's touted as "hard-SF" (and it exudes that vibe), but that makes as much sense as a genetic mutation giving you psychokinesis.
I don't think the marketing department had much choice. It's a magic bean movie where the most important part of the magic bean defines the ending. Revealing the prophetic aspect in the trailers would've spoiled too much.
The very presence of aliens already excludes the movie from the "hardest sci-fi" (e.g. The Martian) category. If you show how they look like, it opens a whole new can of worms and the movie becomes even softer (2001 didn't show them to avoid just that). Arrival went a step further, and, IMHO, pulled that off very nicely.
I don't think showing aliens softens the sci-fi. The laws of physics & chemistry that biology are based on are the same throughout the universe. The eye evolved on Earth independently several dozen times... convergent evolution. So I'm fine with depicting aliens, and the ones in Arrival were at the upper end of good sci-fi aliens. It's the "seeing into the future via reading a foreign language" aspect that "softens" the sci-fi. It's a BIG magic bean to swallow, for me anyway. If they had some fancy wormhole tech that enabled time travel or something, that'd be more plausible.
Arrival pushes Whorfianism way past breaking point - another language not just changing the way you think, but breaking the laws of physics in the process.
And there's the so-called "Liberal" Hollywood pushing the "abortion&trying again=bad" aspect. An alternative decision where Amy Adams decides to have another healthy child that leads a long happy life free of suffering is not considered. Princeton philosopher Peter Singer pushes this idea as ethically preferable, but I've never seen it taken up, even in Indie movies.
Arrival's strengths are not its plot, but instead its filmmaking. They made the fuck out of it. There are various aspects to the plot that make absolutely no sense at all, but the way the scenes are stitched together is top-level shit.
I am currently watching The Bourne Something...
uh... So I've got it in the player right now, and I can't actually think of the name of the movie.
Oh, "Jason Bourne"
It's fucking dogshit. I actually love the Bourne films. They're sorta guilty pleasure flicks, but they've got decent action and aren't stupid or anything so they're fun to watch.
I have to find out what the fuck happened here. The movie is intriguingly terrible. Like... some of the worst shit I've seen in a movie in a good while. I mean, a fight just started, and I have no fucking idea why. There was no reason for this dude to just jump Matt Damon, but he did for some reason.
And somehow this bitch hacked a cell phone and used that to magically delete the files on a laptop that it wasn't connected to?
There was an early scene where hacker woman was hacking things, and some other lady was trying to counter-hack her, and she typed "run tracking algorithm" or something and little blips with faces and bios started popping up on some other computer, and then some kind of facial recognition thing happened and that's how she discovered who was hacking them or something. None of it made any fucking sense at all.
They do the "enhance!" thing where a blurry low-res photo becomes a crisp HD image. There's some internet startup company that the government is bullying into giving them everyone's information, but the company hasn't even launched their product yet, but they're already huge and making these huge announcement things on a big stage telling people that they're information will be secure, and that's like the entire announcement? "Your information will be secure with us forever!" Like... is their service just a 'store all of your most important personal information in the cloud' service or something? What the fuck do they actually do, besides store personal information that they secretly give to the government?
The government has access and can track everyone with no problem in any country on the planet, but as soon as the action sequence ends because the cops show up, I guess they have to turn all of that shit off to be fair about it? They just let him go, even though they could easily just keep tracking him with all of the cameras and shit, including cel phones and shit as well, apparently.
The dialogue is the most fucking retarded shit I've heard in a while. The covert CIA guys have to fucking hold their arms up to talk into mics that are apparently wired into their sleeves? Bourne gets a thumb drive with some data on it, and the thumb drive is this giant black stick with the word "ENCRYPTED" written in big white letters on it.
The thing is, the previous films in the series made by Greengrass weren't terrible or anything. They were kinda shakey and had some questionable dialogue and plot stuff, but they weren't fucking retarded like this. They have an action scene during a fucking shit-on-fire-everywhere riot, and they're just casually driving vans and cars and motorcycles and shit through police lines and through crowded streets at like 60 MPH like it's no big deal.
Jesus, this movie has gotten even worse in the few minutes I've been writing this.
And the "Iron Hand" thing. They may as well start a new covert black ops project and call it the "Illegal Assassination" program.
"I installed some malware into her laptop and I can track her when she uses the files next!!"
God this movie is just the fucking worst. Like, I haven't felt the need to do a blow-by-blow write-up before the movie is even halfway through since that one movie about the black gangster dudes that decide to start a turf war with asians over land that they want to build a WalMart on. This movie is THAT BAD.
There is no fucking way in hell I would recommend this movie to anyone with half a fucking brain. It is upsettingly bad. I know this was sort of an incoherent rant, and the paragraphs are sorta jumbled with sentences sorta randomly strewn about with no rhyme or reason, but that's pretty much what watching this movie feels like. Random nonsense that is hard to understand.
+1
Yeah, the last Jason Bourne was obviously a naked cash grab. The story has long since run itself out. In the past, this shit would have been straight-to-video. There was even a declaration a few Bournes ago - "we won't do another one (except if there's a compelling story)". And this ain't it. The best acting of Matt Damon's career is trying to sell this on the PR circuit.
Exactly the same with Jack Reacher 2 - which has even more of a straight-to-video / TV movie about it.
These days if there's any goodwill left in a franchise that studio execs can quantify, then they'll run it into the ground.
+1
You know, I wasn't even aware of a Jack Reacher 2 until I saw it on a video shelf. Had it not been for Tom Cruise on the cover, I would have thought it was straight-to-video. Hell, lately it's not entirely out of the question, even with a big star. Travolta is going about 50/50 with his releases being wide releases or such small releases that it may as well be straight to video, and Bruce Willis' career is mostly straight-to-video now with the exception of Die Hard movies and being cast as 'old action guy' in movies like GI Joe and Red.
It just sucks that there's not more in the way of genuinely great action movies getting made anymore. I still don't think anything has come anywhere near the level of The Raid 2 in terms of action goodness since it came out. Dredd is really good, but subsequent viewings have diminished its impact on me, while I can still watch both Raid movies and be just as entertained by them the tenth time as I was the second time.
I haven't seen the new John Wick movie, but people I trust who are into great action flicks have assured me that it's a successful action flick. I'll have to check it out if it's still in the theaters by the time my car gets out of the shop.
God damned deer and their god damned need to cross roads in the middle of the night...
Last edited by Squiggly_P (2017-02-23 13:46:16)
Good grief, ya'll need to lighten up.
Though, Squiggly, sorry about your car. Deer suck. Did you at least get some meat?
Zootopia
Late to the party, and I don't care. This movie trades in Disney tropes, mocks them and fulfills them as well.
The protagonist is the likable Judy Hops, determined to be the first rabbit police officer. She meets resistance from pretty much everyone, and is desperate to prove herself. Along the way, she meets Nick, a fox who is the sarcastic cynic to Judy's optimism.
The film is a lot of fun, has a tone of inside jokes, and allusions to other movies, as well as some touching themes. It's on Netflix right now, so go watch it.
+1
Seems like most of those good Pixar writers work at Disney Animation Studios now. Zootopia is vastly superior to the Pixar movie that came out just a few months earlier (The Good Dinosaur).
likable Judy Hops
And very pretty. I don't wanna sound like a furry or nothin', but she's one hot bunny 
The film is a lot of fun, has a tone of inside jokes, and allusions to other movies, as well as some touching themes. It's on Netflix right now, so go watch it.
Ditto. I think Zootopia is my fave film of 2016. As for inside jokes - as a former longtime resident of Tujunga, CA, I loved the completely random reference to how nobody outside Tujunga seems to know how to pronounce Tujunga.
I don't wanna sound like a furry or nothin', but she's one hot bunny
Now I'm mad DIF never did Space Jam.
Last edited by MartyJ (2017-02-24 22:54:15)
Saw The Great Wall. Doesn't offer as many opportunities for such disturbing images, but I really enjoyed it nonetheless. I din't watch enough Chinese cinema to say that it definitely felt like a Chinese film vs. a Western one but it definitely had its moments. (I'm aware it's a Chinese production but I'm curious how much, if at all, it was Westernized in shooting.)
Probably not the right thread, but, introducing the Mrs to 'Trapped in the closet' is note-worthy. Then, explaining it wasn't a joke and seeing her face.
fireproof78 wrote:The film is a lot of fun, has a tone of inside jokes, and allusions to other movies, as well as some touching themes. It's on Netflix right now, so go watch it.
Ditto. I think Zootopia is my fave film of 2016. As for inside jokes - as a former longtime resident of Tujunga, CA, I loved the completely random reference to how nobody outside Tujunga seems to know how to pronounce Tujunga.
That was a fun pit. I also love that Alan Tudyk played a weasel, selling bootlegged films, and on and on.
Little catch-up post:
Ip Man 3:
Goofy as hell, but the fights are worth checking out. The plot is so ridiculous and there are so many threads going on that you spend all of the non-fighting parts just hoping that a fight starts really quick to get people to shut up about whatever's happening. There are a few really good ones in this flick.
The Good, The Bad & The Weird:
Very very good. I was totally satisfied with it. Wish I had seen it earlier than this. It's billed as an asian western, but it feels more like a Mad Max flick mixed with an Indiana Jones flick or something. The camerawork is very Spielberg. I was honestly very impressed throughout the film at how great a lot of the cinematography was.
The Magnificent Seven:
I thought I mentioned this already, cause I saw it about the same time I saw that Bourne movie. I was more or less happy with it, but I was underwhelmed in certain regards. I felt they really needed to have spent more time with the various characters after they got back to the town. Like the time period should have been longer and the mercs and the townsfolk should have bonded a little better. For my sake. The mercs and the folks all start dying, and they spend these moments where you're watching them get shot and seeing other people react like "Oh no! That one dude got shot! I can't believe it! Now I'm so upset!", and I was like "I don't give a fuck, I've known that dude for like five minutes and a half dozen lines". They don't really have many good character moments for any of them aside from Goodnight and Billy Rocks.
It was OK, tho. I wasn't bored or insulted or anything. It's a solid little flick that just feels a bit unsatisfying.
Doctor Strange:
Pretty good. I'm not gonna lie and say that I was much impressed or anything. It's not bad, but it also didn't really feel like it was going above and beyond, aside from the fun they were clearly having with the effects shit. There's some clever shit in there, tho.
But as usual, they didn't really give me a reason to be emotionally connected to anyone in the movie. They gave me a reason for Dr Strange to be sad about shit, and they gave other people reasons to be sad or attached to other people, but they didn't give ME a reason to give a shit or get attached to anyone. Stuff happens, and then people do things, and then crazy CGI shit happens, and then the movie's over.
I liked how they defeated the bad guys. It was a clever sort of comic-booky kind of ending, and it beat the hell out of just... well... beating the hell out of each other. The movie is kinda worth watching to get to the ending. For once, the ending of the movie is probably the best part of one of these movies. Usually they sorta drop the ball toward the climax. I would go so far as to say that I enjoyed this movie purely for the cleverness that it had going on, even though the characters are just sorta not there, really.
Worth checking out.
To honour Bill Paxton I'd thought I'd see a few of his movies that I missed the first time round.
I chose A Simple Plan, Near Dark, and Frailty (which he also directed)
Out of these, Raimi's A Simple Plan is probably the most solid. Paxton is the lead for a change and carries it well. There's a slight resemblance to Fargo - as what should have been a straightforward crime caper spirals out of control. It's all plausible up to the end, when the resolution requires the plot/characters to strain slightly too far into melodrama. Decent cinematography, and career-best acting from Paxton. 8/10
Near Dark - apparently it's a cult movie now, probably among people who grew up with it. Seeing it now after a decade of vampire movies, it feels a little cheap. Old vampires lead a precarious itinerant life.. drifting vagabonds. A bit implausible. You'd think you'd have a routine down pat after a few decades where you're not going to caught outside when the sun rises. And a nice compound interest bank account.
James Cameron's Aliens' buddies are also in it (Lance Henrikson and Jenette Goldstein) and the WIKI page says Cameron Himself (Praise Be Upon Him) makes a cameo but I couldn't find it. Cameron's 3rd wife directed it (Kathryn Bigelow) with lots of cliched '80s night lighting (unmotivated harsh blue backlighting, smoke, etc) and slushy synth score. The leads are bland, and it suffers from a small budget that limits the action. They blew the money on flame effects. After it was over, I had the reaction "is that it?" - a very slight story. Paxton's over-the-top over-acting is a highlight. 6/10
Frailty - a twisty murder-mystery starring Matthew Mcconaughey. it's got the same structure as Usual Suspects where one unreliable narrator tells a story. Paxton plays a religious lunatic on a demon-killing crusade that involves his sons in the ritual murders. Feels like a TV movie (a la Stephen King) at times. More 80s-esque unmotivated lighting in that rose garden. I can understand why he didn't pursue his directing career. Few actors successfully make the transition to directing. 6/10
All three are worth seeing if you're a Paxton fan, but if you need to pick just one, go with A SIMPLE PLAN.
Any other Paxton films worth seeing (other than the obvious Cameron collaborations)???
Nocturnal Animals:
I have no idea how to approach a review about this. I love-hated it.
It's shot wonderfully. The basic premise and plot of the film is solid and engaging: A woman receives the manuscript of the novel that her ex-husband wrote and dedicated to her after almost 20 years of their not having really spoken to each other. Reading the novel makes her reflect on her past and who she became. The book parts are incredibly engaging to watch. Her reactions to the book and to the thoughts that it ends up dredging up are equally engaging.
So with that out of the way, I can't really say I liked this film much. I have no idea what the metaphor was in the book because they withhold necessary information until the end of the film that prevents you from actually understanding what the ex-husband guy is supposed to be saying. When you do get that information, my interpretation of the book was not a very positive one with regard to Adams' character. So of course her first reaction was to apparently attempt to rekindle her relationship with him.
I mean, she read the book and had all of the information the whole time. She comes off as kinda dumb at the end. Which may be the point or something. I dunno. I'm really not sure how I'm supposed to be reading the last act of the film at all. Toss in the one really odd jump-scare the movie had for no reason, and the other mildly odd things in the film that it was possibly doing just to come off as more creepy or something...
I hate movies like this because the director is asking you to interpret shit. In this particular film, I'm not sure if the point of the film isn't also to point out the fact that you have to interpret the film, as a decent chunk of the film's running time is devoted to 'modern' art. It opens with it, and there are numerous examples of it throughout the segments with Adams' character. My own personal opinion of the vast majority of 'modern' art is that it is 99% garbage made by lazy, shallow hacks who are trying to shock people more than they're trying to say anything, and they're certainly not trying to be aesthetically pleasing. It's like the artistic equivalent of the Jackass movies or tabloid news. Except people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to consume it.
And I'm not sure if the film is agreeing with me or trying to be that.
And I'm not sure why they had to make a statement like that in a noir-ish revenge thriller / character study.
This movie was frustrating to me. Gyllenhaal was great, tho. Fucker can act. Amy Adams, on the other hand, was the subject of a Kuleshov experiment. Her facial expression never changed, and the film would just cut from something to her blank face and then cut to something else and then her blank face. I will say that some of the editing is fantastic, along with the cinematography. There are some great scene transitions that fuck with time and space and all that.
I dunno, tho. I guess I can recommend it, as it's definitely an interesting movie, but don't expect to get much out of it. I was frustrated as fuck by the end.
"What the fuck?"
Yes, strange premise. The trailer promises the weirdest film you've seen in a while: Paul Dano stranded on an island, finds a dead Daniel Radcliffe whom through bonding he can slowly bring back to life (and be multi-purpose: work as a fart-propelled speedboat, shoot stuff from his mouth, you name it).
Yes, it is that weird. But behind all this is a very deep film about embracing your weirdness and every part of you you're repressing in front of a judging society. It is a very intimate indie movie brilliantly acted, absurd, and dramatic. The directors said they wanted to make a movie where "the first fart makes you laugh and the last fart makes you cry." I think this nicely encapsulates what this movie is: much more than a 1h37 fart joke.
Yep, weirdest movie since The Lobster, and even weirder than Neon Demon
Teague is gonna have a fucking stroke.
I'm going to post further thoughts once I have the time to write a full length piece because this is the most aggressively useless movie maybe ever and I have feelings.
EDIT: Thoughts posted.
Last edited by DarthPraxus (2017-03-18 05:49:44)
Logan is very unusual for an X-Men movie, maybe even more so than Deadpool. It manages to weave elements of a western, a road movie and a character drama quite skillfully (to use a cliché, it transcends the comic book movie genre). Some even call it Marvel's Dark Knight.
Easily the most mature film of the series, a huge improvement over the fairly formulaic X-Men: Apocalypse. Definitely worth seeing.
+1
"The Jungle Book"
The more recent live action adaptation of a beloved Disney classic based upon a book, this film is quite well done. More so than just being a substitution of live action instead of animation, the film has its own narrative, that builds upon Mowgli's developing in to a greater awareness of the world. All the characters have their own unique feel, and even minor, bit parts, provide a great atmosphere of a lived in world.
While I enjoyed all of the casting, Idris Elba stood out as Shere Khan, and Christopher Walker as King Louie. It's also worth it to watch the credits as Walker delivers his rendition of "Want to be like You."
The film also does not dip in to musical territory. Instead, any songs that are sung come from the narrative, rather than being forced in over the story.
Finally, I really did not expect it to end the way it did, and it is certainly was a well done film. It's on Netflix in the US, so hopefully y'all get a chance to enjoy, if you haven't already and I'm just behind.
A
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
