1,151

Re: Last movie you watched

Wait, that's not what it's about? Wow. That's what the trailers sold me, too.

Boter, formerly of TF.N as Boter and DarthArjuna. I like making movies and playing games, in one order or another.

Re: Last movie you watched

Boter wrote:

Wait, that's not what it's about? Wow. That's what the trailers sold me, too.


Mmmmhmm. It was in the first couple mins as soon as they introduced the "Childhood hero" I knew something was very very wrong...

Also the fact that there is a needlessly long plot review of the first movie at the start of this one, who's only purpose so far as I can tell is to provide a framework to introduce the "Childhood Hero".

Basically if you know anything at all about movies and I tell you "Childhood hero is actually evil." Meatballs 2 is exactly the movie you think it would be, plus a little bit of stuff between the cracks.

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2014-05-22 12:06:43)

ZangrethorDigital.ca

1,153

Re: Last movie you watched

BigDamnArtist wrote:

Meatballs 2 is exactly the movie you think it would be, plus a little bit of stuff between the cracks.

Wait, that was a review of Meatballs 2? What did you expect, with no Bill Murray?

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

1,154

Re: Last movie you watched

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/Masters_of_the_universe.jpg
MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE

Bought the blu-ray. I hadn't seen it in years. I enjoyed the fuck out of it.

It's quintessentially 80s--Lundgren, James Tolkan, and a couple of other familiar faces, plus conspicuous Burger King product placement (as in MONSTER SQUAD). The character design for Skelator is badass. Langella's performance is remarkable given that he's emoting from behind a brick of makeup.

I love it despite how brazenly derivative it is. The opening titles sequence is just plain stolen from SUPERMAN. Conti's score sounds like STAR WARS mixed with SUPERMAN plus sprinkles of Jerry Goldsmith's STAR TREK music. Not to mention the fact that the music that plays when Gwildor uses the Cosmic Key is extremely BACK TO THE FUTURE-ish. Even the final battle is ganked right from JEDI.

Lundgren is ostensibly the star. He barely speaks! And when he does, it's one sentence, never two or three strung together. Jimmy pointed out to me that Gwildor--this little disposable character who was not in the toy line or cartoons and was created just so he could engineer the film's MacGuffin--has way more lines than Dolph, the star. So funny.

SPOILER Show
After all these years, I still need the ending explained to me. It seems to do the "and it was all a dream..." thing, but then the film immediately contradicts that implication when Kevin shows Julie that little artifact given to him by the Eternians. So it wasn't a dream? Are Julie's parent's alive or dead in the "real world" of the film's narrative? Aren't they mixing time travel with it-was-all-a-dream?--so Julie and Kevin went to the future, had their adventure with He-Man, saw that Julie's parents were dead, then were sent back in time by the Eternians so that they could stop Julie's parents from getting on the plane? Confusing.

Also, I discovered the post-credits stinger, which I had never seen, in which Skelator arises from the pit and promises a sequel, and we see the wolf he just battled is still breathing.

The making-of is interesting, too. Low-budget, lots of problems with money, didn't know whether they'd be able to finish the film.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

1,155

Re: Last movie you watched

BigDamnArtist wrote:

But then the movie goes and reminds you that it's still the same guys that made the first one, and is charming and smart and hilarious for 30 seconds before being rudely interupted by the CMCHTWHOBBTIOCATDLBIAATDAFRTTMSINGTBOV and being dragged back into the worst cliches. It really feels like there are two creative forces pulling this movie back and forth like some giant tug of war.

It's not actually the same guys that made the first one. Those guys went off and made The Lego Movie.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Last movie you watched

Phi wrote:
BigDamnArtist wrote:

But then the movie goes and reminds you that it's still the same guys that made the first one, and is charming and smart and hilarious for 30 seconds before being rudely interupted by the CMCHTWHOBBTIOCATDLBIAATDAFRTTMSINGTBOV and being dragged back into the worst cliches. It really feels like there are two creative forces pulling this movie back and forth like some giant tug of war.

It's not actually the same guys that made the first one. Those guys went off and made The Lego Movie.

Sorry got side tracked by the "story by" credit on their imdb page last night. Either way, it reminds you that this movie has it's root's in that movie then. Point being, you can see that some of the sensibility of the first movie is trying to seep through.

ZangrethorDigital.ca

Re: Last movie you watched

Been on a roll of movies lately.

Special Forces (2011)
http://garethrhodes.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/special-forces.jpg
A surprisingly entertaining French movie about a team of, wait for it, special forces operating in Pakistan. Worth a watch.

Red Dawn (2012) remake
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/97/Red_Dawn_FilmPoster.jpeg
Kinda pointless. I love the original and if you're going to do a remake, you better at least come to the table matching or exceeding the Swayze and Sheen combo. Instead, the younger brother is horribly miscast and the action muddy. Easy miss.

Argo (2012)
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTc3MjI0MjM0NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTYxMTQ1OA@@._V1_SY317_CR0,0,214,317_AL_.jpg
I really enjoyed this one and thought it was really well made. Seems deserving of the praise it received.

Non-stop (2014)
http://www.nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/image001.jpg
Very surprised with this one. I was entranced throughout, glued to the edge of my seat and utterly thrilled right to the credits. Liam Neeson is great as per usual.

Jack Reacher (2012)
http://www.jackreachermovie.com/imgs/splash_bg_m.jpg
Wasn't bad, wasn't great. It has some interesting moments, enough to make it memorable, though I think it suffers from having a weak villain (which is all the more important when you have a force of nature protagonist).

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

1,158

Re: Last movie you watched

Silent Hill (2006)
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTI4NzQ3NTgxNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTMwOTIzMQ@@._V1_SX214_AL_.jpg

An interesting one really, I have mixed feelings on it. I'm a fan of the games and I think that this is one of the better video game adaptations out there.

As a fan, the main issue that gets brought up is the lead character Harry Mason was turned into Rose Da Silva. The director essentially wanted an all female cast and felt that Harry Mason (upon playing the game) had traits that would traditionally be associated with a mother, aka being compassionate and comforting to other characters, and going through hell to save their daughter. Ignoring all the unfortunate implications that this change now implies, the studio didn't like such a female dominance in the film and demanded a male character be thrown in.

This gives us Sean Bean as the husband to the main character. His scenes in the film are interesting in their own right. He's going after Rose to try and bring her and their daughter back safely and he's will to do anything to accomplish that. However his scenes feel tacked on (as they were) and actively pulls you out of the tense atmosphere that Rose's scenes provide. Sean Bean is quite good in this film and it honestly makes me wonder, why bother with making Harry into Rose if you've got him in it? I feel like he could of made a great lead.

Enough on that subject, lets talk about something else. The set and costume design. Give these people a medal, good lord. The atmosphere that the sets provide is very much like the games. Special props to the "double dare you" bathroom scene and the nurse scene.  The sets are gorgeous to look at and not to mention the variation to the sets. Take for instance, the setting of the school. They had to keep track of four variants of it, the foggy abandoned variation, the hellish otherworld variation, 1970s still being used version and modern day abandoned version.

The monster design is also really impressive. All of the monsters bar CG bugs are skilled performers in costume and make up. They give unsettling, disturbing performances that are almost ruined by having additional CG applied and making them look fake. Special mention to that are the "grey children".

Its obvious that a lot of love was put into the film, occasionally doing shot for shot moments from the game.  However theres occasional moments of plot weirdness, lines and the odd hammy over the top acting at times that drags the movie down.

I'd definitely suggest at least checking it out. Hell, it could even make for an interesting podcast. In the end, I suppose it's YMMV. I looked past its flaws to see all the workmanship that was put into it with its sets, props and make up work but others might not be so forgiving.

I heard that the sequel was pretty bad but it had a different director and writing team on that one. I haven't seen it so I can't really say.

1,159

Re: Last movie you watched

There is a very good iRiff of Silent Hill, done by a man and woman who know the game. At the climax, a certain act happens which has them shouting "Oh, God! That's not from the game! Don't hold that against the game! The game isn't like that!"
http://www.rifftrax.com/iriffs/voidburg … ilent-hill

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Last movie you watched

Fun fact:

Silent Hill was filmed in the town of Brantford, Ontario. 20 mins from my house. Let's just say at the time they didn't have to do much artistically to make it look like a sad, depressed run down portal to hell.

Brantford's doing much better these days.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Last movie you watched

Aural Stimulation wrote:

Fun fact:

Silent Hill was filmed in the town of Brantford, Ontario. 20 mins from my house. Let's just say at the time they didn't have to do much artistically to make it look like a sad, depressed run down portal to hell.

Brantford's doing much better these days.

The city's new tourism slogan, right there.

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

1,162

Re: Last movie you watched

I've finally seen "her".

This one hit me on so many levels, I've not enjoyed a film as much in a long time. It lingered and held, Theodore's experience transmitted well.

SPOILER Show
That surrogates bit though, I understand why it was in the film but it didn't feel like there was the lead up to justify the inclusion. It's not as if the film was rushing to get to the next explosion.

The end worked for me; it felt rushed and disjointed but that's probably the point.

SPOILER Show
Part of me did want Theodore to be rebuilt as an AI - if they could do it for Alan Watts from a bunch of scratchy old audio lectures (that wasn't he in the film), there was more than enough material Samantha had for a digital version of Theodore to be able to go with her - he would and wouldn't have had his happy ending.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

1,163

Re: Last movie you watched

Basic (2003) - 6/10 (6.5)

http://i.imgur.com/793wP79.png

I realized I hadn't seen some John McTiernan films. This one was a fairly straight thriller, with quite a twisty plot involving John Travolta trying to figure out the events of a miltary incident. Well-acted, well-shot, but not really all too eye-catching either. If you like thrillers it probably couldn't hurt to see it.




The Thomas Crown Affair (1999) - 7/10 (6.8)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fA0UzO93I20/UEUZZgiQhkI/AAAAAAAAD2M/C7la1c2JK-8/s1600/600full-the-thomas-crown-affair-screenshot.jpg

This McTiernan film is slightly more light-hearted, a female police-of-sorts (Rene Russo) goes after a suspected gentleman art thief (Brosnan). Has some of the same city energy McTiernan used in Die Hard 3, a quite charming movie overall which isn't too heavy on plot. Feels a bit Soderberg "Out Of Sight" or "Oceans Eleven" in a way.




The Cave (2005) - 5/10 (5.0)

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/3074/vlcsnap2011063023h46m01.png

To describe it quickly; "The Descent" light. "The Cave" came out 2 years before the superior "companion" piece, and it isn't as focused as the tense, constricted Neil Marshall cave exploration flick. Some unnecessary and hokey-feeling subplots get in the way of what could be a pretty good 60 minute horror film.
A cave is discovered, bad stuff is in it, group dynamics come into play. You've seen it before, though it isn't completely ineffective, thankfully devoid of teenagers and quite inclusive of a gorgeous Lena Heady.




Non-Stop (2014) 5/10 (7.2)

http://www.movpins.com/big/MV5BNDU1MTMxMzQxMV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDY1MjgxMTE/still-of-liam-neeson-in-non-stop-(2014).jpg

Liam Neeson thriller set on a flight from New York to London. All elements within are familiar, some of it feels a bit too familiar at times. The element of mystery keeps it interesting until the end, though alot of tension is dissipated due to an implausibly omniscient villain.
Kind of an amalgamation of "Red Eye", "Flightplan", "Executive Decision" and probably some other airplane films. I suppose there is a limitate palette to work with in that environment.



Godzilla (2014) - 6/10 (7.3)

http://www.theeffect.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/godzilla_2014.png

I don't know. This rating will probably drop a bit if I see it again. It's pretty forgettable unfortunately, there is no strong throughline that you can be invested in, it moves from scene to scene but it mostly only has a semblance of any emotional core.
Effects are awesome though, and like Pacific Rim they get the scale of huge things just right. Watching it as a collection of very well-directed individual scenes can work. Trying to invest anything beyond that will probably leave you unsatisfied.

Last edited by TechNoir (2014-05-31 20:43:38)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Last movie you watched

Taken 2
http://thecrat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/taken2-bryan-mills.jpg

I'm a big fan of the 'Liam Neeson kills people/animals' genre and I'm also a fan of watching bad things happen to bad people, and this film does both very well. I had been warned that it wasn't as good as the first, so perhaps these lowered expectations and the wariness on my part helped, but I loved this.

Bryan Mills is also the closest that we've come to getting a proper Frank Castle on screen.

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

1,165

Re: Last movie you watched

redxavier wrote:

Taken 2
http://thecrat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/taken2-bryan-mills.jpg

I'm a big fan of the 'Liam Neeson kills people/animals' genre and I'm also a fan of watching bad things happen to bad people, and this film does both very well. I had been warned that it wasn't as good as the first, so perhaps these lowered expectations and the wariness on my part helped, but I loved this.

Bryan Mills is also the closest that we've come to getting a proper Frank Castle on screen.


Personally I can't stand that film. I love "Taken" (solid 8/10 for me, no nonsense, just bad-ass), but Taken 2 was one of my biggest disappointments of last year together with Die Hard 5.
Just the fact that they after the fact decided to go PG-13 rather than R meant that all action scenes are cut to shreds. It doesn't help that action scenes overall are some of the least competent in recent years. The first film has superb action scenes, a relaxed cutting tempo, and a good sense of geography.

"Taken" and "Taken 2" are for me similar to "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace" for me. One is a excellently choreographed and shot action movie, the other is a 3-cuts-a-second mess where there is no effort made to allow you to anticipate a move/situation/action. It's just a flurry of tight shots, and after watching a sequence you really couldn't draw a crude diagram of what happened to save your life.


Same with Die Hard 5, that opening 10 minute car chase is one of the worst put together action scenes I've ever seen.

EDIT: Aaaand they're filming "Taken 3" with Olivier Megaton back in the directors chair... Let's hope they learned from their mistakes.

Last edited by TechNoir (2014-06-08 11:25:57)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

1,166

Re: Last movie you watched

The Hidden Face (La Cara Oculta) (2011) - 7/10 (7.3)

http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i461/gokbiloz/ARNTMKV/e01da373.jpg

Very good Spanish film. The girlfriend of an orchestra conductor disappears and it goes from there. Not too much should be said about it. It does twist and turn a bit. Very well acted by most everyone involved. Very recommended if you like thrillers.




The Jacket (2005) - 6/10 (7.1)

http://static.yts.re/attachments/The_Jacket_2005/Screenshot_007_large.png

"Jacobs Ladder" meets "Donnie Darko". An injured soldier (Adrien Brody) is put in a mental hospital after an incident, and while there he is subjected to treatment that cause strange events.
Fairly derivative plot (you can tell what movies the writer watched and was inspired by), and despite being normal length, it's not as "rich" in tone and content as Jacobs Ladder or Donnie Darko. Still, good acting and emotionally the movie still connected with me very well. Worth seeing in most cases.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

1,167

Re: Last movie you watched

Also contains Tom Hiddleston

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: Last movie you watched

Saw Prisoners at last.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Prisoners2013Poster.jpg/220px-Prisoners2013Poster.jpg
What a harrowing viewing experience. These sorts of stories are really hard to watch, and although I have no children of my own I do have a lot of nieces and nephews and so I can understand the horror of having a child taken away. I get antsy just watching them near something vaguely dangerous. The film is really well directed with just the right tone and some absolutely superb performances from everyone. The characters all feel so real as well.

The ending had me surprised though, without wishing to give anything away. In any case, well worth watching if you can stomach the premise.

I should probably watch a comedy or something next.

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

1,169

Re: Last movie you watched

Prisoners was a movie that ultimately kinda pissed me off. It's well directed, well acted, the cinematography is amazing, but it also feels incredibly calculated, hollow, and shallow. I think there's HUGE leaps of logic throughout that they use to try to give you a surprising ending. It also feels pointless, like I don't really detect much of a central theme or opinion or anything. It's like it wants to pretend it's an epic David Fincher-style crime movie like Seven or Zodiac (especially given it's almost 3 hours long), but it's just going through the motions and doesn't actually have a point of view or solid story to tell.

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: Last movie you watched

https://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/99/MPW-49912

Doomsday (2008) (Alternatively titled: "Humans Be Cray-Cray Amirite?")

I watched this many many years ago... and as it turns out I remember'd almost nothing about it.

Short tidbit review for those looking for such things: A wonderfully, deliciously fucked up, little charming movie that is trying really really hard to say something.

I'll probably do a full review later on as there's a lot of thoughts going on in my head right now...but it's 3:30 in the morning, and I have a meeting in 7 hours. But just for now I'll say, when I first watched this, I remembered it as pretty enjoyable but overall very cheesy and kinda stupid, but on this rewatch it's actually got a lot going on, and the cheese factor wasn't nearly as bad as I remember. The concept is pretty cool, and taken as a whole executed very effectively all things considered, although there are some really remarkably gorgeous shots in sections of this, there are also a lot of sections where everything is shot very flat and dully, so the cinematography ultimately feels really out of balance.

Obviously this is going to be a love it or hate type of movie for most people; gore, urban savages, cannabalism, blood, virus outbreak and gore will tend to do that. But I had fun, take that for what you will.

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2014-06-14 09:25:03)

ZangrethorDigital.ca

Re: Last movie you watched

I really enjoyed Doomsday. I was expecting B-movie schlock and was pleasantly surprised as soon as I learned the director was Neil Marshall.

Marshall's so good at skirting the edge of B-movie exploitation, while at the same time managing to pull off some truly epic level shit. What's more impressive is he manages to do so while working with very tight budgets, generally speaking.

I don't think I've disliked any of his movies so far. There's a special place in my heart for Dog Soldiers.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Last movie you watched

Huh, I haven't actually seen anything else by Neil Marshall...

...except apparently the 2 episodes of Game of Thrones he did, that are both epic battle episodes and okay, yeah, that totally makes sense. I'm gonna have to check out more of his stuff, The Descent has been on my radar for a while, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2014-06-14 18:12:52)

ZangrethorDigital.ca

1,173

Re: Last movie you watched

BigDamnArtist wrote:

Huh, I haven't actually seen anything else by Neil Marshall...

...except apparently the 2 episodes of Game of Thrones he did, that are both epic battle episodes and okay, yeah, that totally makes sense. I'm gonna have to check out more of his stuff, The Descent has been on my radar for a while, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

The Descent is one of my favourite horror films of the past years. It hit the right spots for me, and, I guess, skirted the boundaries of generic horror, yet it always has some quality that keeps it interesting and very tense. Really recommend it as a well above-average horror film.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

1,174

Re: Last movie you watched

The Descent is bloody fantastic. One of the best horror films ever as far as I'm concerned.

Doomsday I think is a misfire. It wants really hard to be a John Carpenter action movie, but it just never gels together. Each 3rd of the movie is a completely different movie awkwardly crow-barred in, and the action is really sloppy and shaky so you can't really follow it.

If you like his Game of Thrones stuff, you should check out Centurion (it might be on netflix), as that's probably his closest stuff to his work on Game of Thrones.

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

1,175

Re: Last movie you watched

http://moviepostersale.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/the-untouchables-movie-poster-uk-e1334132342378.jpg

This was a weird one.

It's an odd mix of 20s period piece and pure 80s film. Ennio Morricone's score goes from bombastic strings and drumbeat to undated orchestral to 80s cheese again at a rather alarming rate, action sequences are shot with arch camera angles and gratuitous slow-motion, and so on and so forth. One of the advantages of shooting a period piece is that they tend to age better than other films of the same era, but The Untouchables is most definitely an 80s film.

In terms of structure, the film works pretty well until the third act, which is overlong and has, for all intents and purposes, two climaxes. On a script level, Mamet's dialogue has a glaze of artificiality, but in most cases the performances are good enough to pull it off. De Niro is clearly enjoying himself as Al Capone, and Connery is as solid as ever as Malone—as with many actors of his stature, it can be hard to tell whether Connery is phoning a performance in or genuinely trying, and I don't believe he deserved the Oscar for this particular performance, but he's fun to watch and has some great moments (the infamous "bring a knife to a gunfight" scene in particular). The glaring exception to the good performers is Kevin Costner. I've always found Costner wooden, and in this movie in particular he comes off as stiff and unnatural. Part of this is the character he's plying—Ness is intended to be uncomfortable at first—but the other part is Costner, I feel, not quite managing to nail the performance.

Tone is also a problem. Some scenes fall victim to heavy narm. The worst offender in this regard is Charles Martin Smith's awkward accountant character becoming an unstoppable shooting machine in the midst of a liquor bust—the scene is laughable in its over-the-top nature. Others are legitimately suspenseful—the POV one-shot in which a hitman enters Malone's apartment manages to be quite tense. And others ride the line between these two extremes. In one scene, the Untouchables are attempting to grab Capone's bookkeeper from a railway station, and a massive shootout ensues. Bullets fly, men fall in bloody heaps, all while an adorable baby is careening down a massive flight of stairs in her stroller. And it's entirely in slow motion. The scene is one of the worst offenders of 80s camera work, and gratuitously putting the baby in danger, in addition to coming dangerously close to narm, violates one of Roger Ebert's pet peeves (he considered it the height of cheating to grab the audience's attention by endangering an infant). And for all that, the scene still somehow manages to work as a tense action setpiece. It's slightly baffling, in all honesty.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes, if nothing else it's an engaging viewing experience. Do I think it deserves to be a classic? Not in particular. I will say a WAYDM on it would be quite interesting.

Last edited by Abbie (2014-06-16 00:37:27)

Thumbs up Thumbs down