|
Post by epicgordan on Jan 14, 2018 3:37:20 GMT -5
epicgordon Thanks for the correction re Abrams; I can't imagine how I made that mistake. Forgive me, but I must ask again. What do you mean by saying the makers of this film intended to corrupt Star Wars? What possible gain could they think they would make in destroying their prize franchise? If intentional, that would be the most insane, not to mention monumentally stupid, decision any film company ever made in movie history, one not likely to ever be surpassed. Because Star Wars is not inclusive enough to these people. Because they know full well that their film is gonna rake in the big bucks no matter what. Because Disney is so overwhelmingly huge by this point that they can stop caring about the quality of their films. Because nobody in Hollywood understands how destructive their utter lack of ideals happen to be, specifically for themselves long term. And because Hollywood does not care.
And what's worse is, they will never learn. Because they are insane, and monumentally stupid. Keep in mind that Sony especially has been making the same type of crappy movies over and over and over again, not at all caring that people have stopped caring about their products--at least until people got a good look at The Last Jedi and decided that a sequel to a mediocre fantasy movie from the mid 90's was a MUCH better alternative. Seriously, Jumanji is pretty much cashing in on disgruntled Star Wars fans and is already much more popular with audiences compared to Star Wars.
Remember that Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was a billion dollar movie. Once audiences realized how much the movie sucked, they didn't care to see the sequel, and it bombed.
Oh, yeah! Disney is so huge that even if they continue to release bomb, after bomb after bomb on the scale of Heaven's Gate, they still wouldn't be in any closer to financial ruin. Don't believe me? From 2010 to 2013, Disney had released a string of box office disasters of such epic proportions that they would have bankrupted any other studio, and yet they still had enough dough to purchase Marvel and LucasFilm (I am thinking of films like Prince of Persia, Mars Needs Moms, John Carter, and Lone Ranger).
So no, at this point in time, Disney doesn't care because in their own little bubble, they're all but invincible.
|
|
cmac
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by cmac on Jan 16, 2018 1:08:19 GMT -5
We watched Shin Godzilla tonight & I was completely surprised. They left me feeling as if I had watched a Godzilla Movie....still can't believe that. It was nice to see him as a toddler & even though there was a bit over-much political machinations displayed I thought they captured the original Godzilla stature & character perfectly. Highly recommended by me, this is a monster movie to enjoy. I wanted to take a ball-peen hammer & whack his toes to see him crack. It was so nice of TOHO to get this one right. It's a good watch & brings on a trip down memory lane. I could see myself sitting in the Fox Theatre watching the original & of course you want to hear the Godzilla Cheerleaders chant of GO! JIRA!
|
|
|
Post by epicgordan on Jan 22, 2018 0:51:47 GMT -5
I watched a couple movies recently, and you know what? I don't have much to say about them, so here they go. First up, Mary and the Witch's Flower.
Honestly, I kind of thought this was a Studio Ghibli film based on the animation style the film was sporting. What this was was the debut film from the upstart Studio Ponic, as shortly after Miyazaki retired from filmmaking, many filmmakers at Studio Ghibli decided to leave and form their own studio. The director and co-writer of this film was a longtime animator for Ghibli. So by default, expect gorgeous animation.
And...not much else, really. Studio Ghibli's films are, for the most part, pretty difficult to swallow for a variety of reasons, many of which carried forward here into Mary and the Witches Flower. One of these things is that many of these characters often do not react in the most realistic of ways to the presence of magic or the Supernatural unless their entire world is being thrust upside down. For example, in Kiki's Delivery Service, nobody ever really cares that Kiki is a witch and if anything, are merely happy whenever they see her flying around on a broomstick. And the ending of the film--as well as the film's overall themes--seem to have a ton of carry-over from films like Princess Mononoke or Howl's Moving Castle. Granted, it's nowhere near as idiotic as those films, but they feel anti-climatic.
Oh, yeah! Better talk about the characterization. Mary's last name is Smith, but for all I can tell, it might as well be Sue. Well, more or less. Her character arc is that she is all but completely useless as she cannot do anything right. Why? Well, because she's clumsy and hot-headed. She hates being a red-head, too. She is a little girl, so these things seem kind of petty. Then she stumbles upon the titular flower and gains the properties of a witch that is good for only 24 hours per bud.
Then she goes to Hogwarts--or rather, a Hogwarts knockoff, where it is shown that not only are red-headed witches naturally gifted, but that she is freakishly overpowered. The last part specifically is a product of the flower rather than the fact that she was magically imbued from birth. But then she has to rescue this boy she got in trouble with, and they decide to perform experiments on him because...reasons! Well, it's not anti-technology per se, but there is a similar sentiment to the technology vs. nature themes in which nature is always portrayed as good and pure; only this time, it's science and magic that is evil. And to not go about playing God.
Seriously, I have no idea why the villains would even want to fuse a human being with the flower with their chimera experiments into...a magic-devouring blob, especially since it's abundantly clear they have no control over it, and if anything, trying to create such a specimen simply turned out to be counter-intuitive to their own plans of harnessing limitless power...somehow.
Oh, and the film pretty much ends with a shrug like what Mary just gone through was just an ordinary Tuesday and she found out that she prefers skateboarding over gardening. That's pretty much the character development. And like Princess Mononoke, I was left scratching my head wondering just what the hell the point of it was.
I'm giving it a 3 out of 10. At least it was mildly entertaining little diversion, though it's otherwise not a good film. It's just weird in an incredibly clunky sort of way.
**************
Next up is Phantom Thread.
The acting is pretty good--Daniel Day-Lewis seems to have toned it down significantly from his typical hammy performance as he kind of looks tired and exhausted (which could explain why this is presumably going to be his final film performance before he retires). He still plays the character incredibly self-important, but to be fair, that's kind of what the character is supposed to be. Also, if you are a big fan of fashion, the costume design is absolutely first rate, as well as the piano and violin scores.
Where the film becomes a make-or-break film has to be in the plot. It takes way too long for the movie to pick up as the first half for the most part was kind of a chore to sit through. This is because, while the acting is fine, it's also not exactly what one would call lively. It's just moderately more entertaining than the acting in a Lars von Trier film since they actually speak with their in-door voices and are not whispering all their lines.
And then we get to the second half. After Daniel Day-Lewis' character gets upset after a female guest of his made Asparagus with a butter sauce instead of oil (because said female guest wanted him to love her), she decides to poison him with some mushrooms, and he is excruciatingly sick to the point that he feels like death. So basically, the second half involves her pulling off a reverse Florence Nightingale effect where she repeatedly poisons him with mushrooms every time he slights her in any way. And eventually, he seems to be fully aware of what she is doing and goes along with it. He marries her and has a baby with her.
Honestly, even though he was a bit of a dick, I also kind of relate to Day-Lewis in some way, shape or form. The reason why he is quite coarse with her is because his love and passion is in his art and craft as a dresser. He has a daily pattern and being thrown off just a little bit is enough to ruin his day. And I also kind of relate to the girl he takes under his wing to a certain extent. Just not to the point that I would poison my employer in order to make him--or in my case, her--fall in love with me. Then again, I'm asexual, so I don't really give a crap about relationships.
Of course, if I ever found out that somebody's been feeding me poisonous mushrooms, I would do everything I could to make sure that person never made it out of prison again, even if I was being fed just small enough doses of them to make me sick but not otherwise kill me.
Honestly, I kind of wished this was a bathetic soap opera where DDL was chewing the scenery to splinters. Even if it becomes shit as a result, at least bad method acting can become unintentionally funny. Because while in a film like There Will Be Blood where the people in it act in no way, shape or form like actual human beings as a byproduct of the acting; Phantom Thread has them behaving in ways that I cannot fathom a real life person behaving by virtue of the plot.
Honestly, immediately following Christmas of 2016, I was spending a good portion of a month in bedrest with compulsive vomiting and diarrhea; I couldn't keep anything down, and my ability to go to work was hampered considerably. It was probably the most torturous month of my life because I just felt like I wanted to die. And even though I recovered, I've always had this pestering stomach ache at around this time of night that simply won't go away.
In other words, I cannot possibly relate to a scenario where I would EVER knowingly digest food that I knew a specific person right before my eyes had spiked and poisoned. I would much sooner kill her, fire her, or straight up call the cops to report an attempt on my life.
So, where would I put it? Probably a 2 or 3 out of 10. Kind of felt like Mary and the Witch's Flower was more worthy a waste of time than Phantom Thread, but once the poisoned mushrooms came into the picture, I honestly found myself invested in what is going on.
PS: Honestly, if the only reason why this film is rated R is because of the occasional bouts of profanity (like 6 F-bombs in total), then why even keep them in the script? Just edit them out, and you have a PG movie.
|
|
|
Post by cavaradossi on Jan 31, 2018 16:12:49 GMT -5
I just finished watching the second season of the current series, Poldark. Relentlessly downbeat, it nevertheless makes for irresistible viewing. I found myself wondering occasionally "Does anything good ever happen to these people?" Answer: just about never. It's the sort of storytelling where if it's been two minutes since the last disaster, it's time for another. What's going to happen is even sort of predictable. Still, try turning it off. The first two discs of season three arrived today in the mail. Guess what I'll be viewing shortly!
|
|
|
Post by epicgordan on Feb 3, 2018 3:13:12 GMT -5
Better get this over with while I still have internet access.
I saw 12 Strong. A film that is a call-back to some of the great epics of old like The Dirty Dozen and Lawrence of Arabia. Based on a true story about the first American forces sent to do battle in Afghanistan. Specifically a dozen men led by Chris Hemsworth and Michael Shannon in a joint effort with one of the Warlords in order to cripple some ISIS forces following 9/11.
And in all things considered, it was a highly enjoyable 2 hours of a solid, old-fashioned war epic. Yes, it sounds like a movie; looks like a movie; acts like a movie; talks like a movie in times. I honestly do not mind dressing up true events in order to keep the audience engaged so long as they keep the core events intact. It honestly would not have stood out as well if the dialogue was plain and realistic. But it honestly felt like the filmmakers were intent on making a callback to a bygone era before war films became synonymous with anti-war, anti-American nihilism.
If there are any problems, then they are blown way out of proportion. I've already mentioned the window dressing. But similar to films like The Dirty Dozen or The Right Stuff, 12 Strong suffers from the fact that they struggled mightily to attempt to characterize at least half of these 12 American horsemen. The filmmakers pretty much worked around this by making Chris Hemsworth--who was the Captain of his squad--the main character, and he gets pretty much all the characterization. Michael Shannon has some characterization, but beyond being the old veteran who nearly dies from a suicide bomber near the end (spoiler alert: Not one of these 12 men died), he doesn't get a whole lot outside of his performance. Michael Pena is in it, and outside of a bit of backstory and a subplot given to him heading into the climax, he gets nothing.
However, the standout in terms of development would have to be the squad's token black guy. Throughout the entire film, he spends the entire time shadowed by a kid with a rifle who happens to be the warlord's grandson or nephew or something. And while the rest of the squad was hazing and embarrassing him for having a little friend, Chris Hemsworth spells out exactly why; in spite orders from higher ups as well as expectations that some of these 12 men might not make it back alive from what was essentially a suicide mission, this warlord made a number of his soldiers their number 1 goal to protect each American they are assigned to with their life. For if said American soldier were to die on their watch, then he would have them executed. It's basically a similar structure to a Samurai to his master in Japanese history, and we basically witness as Hemsworth's ward--another kid--ends up dying protecting him.
The fact that not one of these 12 soldiers died in this suicide mission is perhaps a testament to the great work these men accomplished. If there is one bothersome, some of the editing can get a little obnoxious. While there really isn't shaky-cam, it still suffers from the "I've got too many good shots and I want to use as many of them as possible" type of mentality in places. They try to streamline these shots to keep the action coherent, but honestly, I would just love to see the action play out on their own.
Honestly, I am quite fond of a film about great American heroes. I don't care; I enjoy watching these men kick ass and not completely fall apart because of emotional turmoil. And I'm not talking about Expendables-style of badassery; I mean the application of actual war and battle tactics and attempting to execute them in great detail; even while anticipating things not going entirely their way, it's great to watch these men adjust their tactics on the fly in order to try and make it work. So not only are they kicking ass, but it feels rewarding too.
The fact that this actually happened makes it an even bigger bonus. I would say the editing keeps this film from being a debatably great film (honestly, a film can be devoid of proper characterization and still be genuinely great--see 2001: A Space Odyssey or Fantasia), but it is still an enjoyable film that I highly recommend.
8 out of 10.
|
|
|
Post by epicgordan on Feb 16, 2018 13:35:24 GMT -5
15:17 to Paris
Oh, boy. Remember back on the Amazon forums? A few months into my stay in Amazon, I reviewed a movie called Act of Valor. And in spite of the universally scathing reviews that it got, I was absolutely convinced that it would remain on my list of the ten best movies of 2012. And to this day, it is my ninth best reviewed movie of 2012. I bring all of this up as a steady point of contrast between Act of Valor and 15:17 to Paris. Both films used real life people instead of professionally paid actors to play them. And in Act of Valor, it worked. Because Act of Valor wasn't meant to be a meaty action movie narrative, but a propaganda piece. The idea behind it was to serve as a recruitment piece to get people to sign up as Navy SEALs.
Honestly, even if I wanted to, I can't possibly sign up for military service due to my Asperger's. But regardless, it was a recruitment video and a propaganda piece. And a very first rate one at that.
15:17 to Paris does not work because it is not a propaganda piece. It is an actual narrative based on real life.
They got the real life people that were in involved in the near-tragic event by the hands of an ISIS operative to play themselves. Well, three out of the four people. The fourth person was written out because for whatever reason, he didn't want to be in the movie. Interestingly enough, even though it is supposed to involve these now-reduced-to three friends, it pretty much focuses entirely on Spencer Stone, who was involved in another event shortly after he thwarted the ISIS-sponsored mass shooting on the train. That event involved Spencer Stone surviving a stabbing spree from yet another ISIS operative and was streamlined into the incident on the train.
Now, with all that said, no, these three people cannot act. I'm not gonna lie, but they were pretty much about as convincing reenacting their lives as the cast of The Room were playing fictional characters. Right on down to the water bottle--or in this case, beer bottles.
I may be willing to give them some slack here since they weren't professionals, and it is so difficult to find non-professionals who can actually hold their own in a movie that only two such people ever won an Academy Award for their portrayals. Except they weren't the only people who gave really bad performances. Nearly every single one of these professional actors are played by comedians. Jaleel White is in this--who is most well known for playing a 90's geek; though personally, I remember him most as a blue anthropomorphic hedgehog educating young kids about how someone touching you is "no good!" And it's distracting because half the dialogue they are supposed to say sounds like it should be funny. Except not only is this supposed to be a serious film--Clint Eastwood isn't exactly well-known for his humor, in spite his friendly and folksy demeanor in real life--but even if what they were saying is supposed to be funny, the delivery is way off.
Then again, the dialogue is beyond unnatural. Especially in the first half. You can point towards three good men (should be four) not having any sort of acting talents for their troubles, but even the child actors and the professional actors have to say such dumbfoundedly stupid lines delivered in such a strange and alien sort of way that if not for the direction style, you never would have guessed that Clint Eastwood even directed this movie. And honestly, I don't know if the problem lies with the script, the acting, or even the book this was based on, because nobody in this movie talks like an actual human being.
Well, until they get back together for their European vacation that would ultimately lead them to the climatic event. Yes, once they actually get back together and actually start seeing the sights, the film suddenly feels completely different from before. It suddenly feels natural. Well, except when Spencer is talking about destiny and fate--which nobody in real life ever does, especially not Christians. But otherwise, the dialogue strangely enough starts sounding more natural and whatnot. The acting feels really stiff and nonexistent, but at least we have a glimpse of humanity coming from our three leads.
Well, two of our three leads; one of them is barely even in the film, and even when he comes onto the scene, he's never really acting. He's just saying his lines. And they aren't even memorable in any way, shape or form. Oddly enough, the black guy is probably the closest thing to a decent performance in the entire film, and it starts with a narration from him for no reason--since he doesn't narrate at any other point in the entire film, and he barely even features in the movie since it mostly follows Spencer, who ends up narrating at the end.
Of course, the best scenes in the movie is the climatic confrontation on the train, which was genuinely intense and even gritty. Lots of blood and gore and other harsh violence in this one scene alone--so much so that I'm quite surprised this film got away with a PG-13 rating, even with the lack of curse words (because, you know, Christian film). If there's one thing everybody praises this movie for, it's this scene. Unfortunately, it's very hard to make a movie based on an event that only lasted for a very short period of time. Eastwood apparently tried to stretch it to feature length by trying to focus on the lives and relationships of these friends--mostly Spencer--and who they were like and how they came to this situation. Which is fine and all, except for one small problem: They aren't very interesting people.
Sully got around this by focusing mostly around the bureaucracy that followed the main event of said film. Honestly, I think it would have been more interesting to follow these three leads AFTER the events of said event similar to what happened with Sully. Then again, given their performances, I guess this is a no-win situation.
Overall, is it a bad film? Yes. Good intentions? Yes. Is it really as comparatively bad as, say, the Fifty Shades films? Absolutely not. Yes, dialogue-wise, 15:17 to Paris is on a similar level of bad as Fifty Shades. But on the polar opposite end of the moral/intellectual scale. The only possible way the Fifty Shades films could have gotten a pass was if they were hard-core porn. 15:17 to Paris, even if they cleaned up the script and actually had actors playing these parts--good actors, in fact (Spencer Stone kind of looks like a big, hulking Josh Hutcherson, only blonde and with very little hair), you probably would have gotten a mostly forgettable, yet well-intentioned movie.
Based on the technicals and overall execution, this is probably Clint Eastwood's least competently made films by far. Still, what would you rather watch? 15:17 to Paris, or films like Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, or Bridges of Madison County? Heck, even compared to, say, Unforgiven (which is genuinely a very good film to say the least), 15:17 to Paris is vastly more appealing to watch compared to any of these other films. Heck, most of the problems from this film comes from the cringe-inducing dialogue that no human being would look or sound convincing saying in real life.
|
|
|
Post by epicgordan on Feb 16, 2018 14:50:26 GMT -5
And now for a personal little tirade concerning 15:17 to Paris and the overwhelmingly scathing reviews over on Rotten Tomatoes. And it's not just the dialogue or the acting that was the problem that made it so susceptible to such vile bashing. It was the subject matter at large.
15:17 to Paris is largely a Christian film. Not as dedicated as this weekend's Samson or any other film from Pureflix. But 15:17 to Paris comes from the same cloth. Christian and Conservative. By their very nature, critics are gonna find whatever reason they can to justify saying that said films are bad. And it becomes easy when they find issues that are present and are as plain as day. For example, the vast majority of these Christian/Conservative films don't really have REAL actors, filmmakers or writers. As such, it becomes real easy to pick apart said films for a variety of reasons.
Even if they come around and they don't have said problems ever present, they still actively look for ways to give it a mixed (at best) review. Such as what happened with 12 Strong or Risen. A pro-American and patriotic film about our military? We need to find something to trash this film for. Well, the editing in parts is disorienting and the vast majority of these soldiers aren't getting any characterization, so that must mean 12 Strong isn't that great a movie. Risen literally has the look, feel and structure of a TV movie, but it at least had a solid idea for a plot; the script is respectable, and the acting is rather solid. They even got people of the right ethnicity to appease the PC police out there. But nope; it has the look, feel and structure of a TV movie, so that must mean it wasn't THAT impressive. 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi was directed by Michael Bay. It's surprisingly a competently made movie all around and doesn't have much problems anywhere else other than, yep, lack of characterization. That means that, combined with the fact that Michael Bay directed this, that it must not be very good. Let's also strip it of its Oscar nomination in one of the Sound categories claiming that they were trying to push it for their consideration, like a bunch of true-blue hypocrites that they are! It happened to also be the same Oscar telecast where they publically humiliated the producers of La La Land making them think they won Best Picture.
But that's a tangent for another day. My point is, films that lean far more favorably towards the right are never going to get a fair shake from critics. It's almost kind of a miracle that Hacksaw Ridge even got nominated for Best Picture last year at all. Films that appeal towards the left, on the other hand, almost always get a pass even if they suffer the same problems, if not moreso. It usually requires an astonishingly inept effort just for critics to (reluctantly) trash said film. Look at how many derivative films with identical political structures really won big at the Oscars in their respective years? Dances with Wolves; Pocahontas (granted, only in the musical categories, but still); Avatar; District 9; etc. And then we get to the race film. And nearly every single one of them gets priority over everything else in Best Picture, unless it's far too controversial and touchy a subject to nominate, such as with Do the Right Thing or Straight Outta Compton (they still received Screenplay nods though). Crash is about as atypical a race film as you're gonna get. A film about a corrupt media magnate breaking the law to unveil classified information all in the name of destroying a sitting President all because he's a Republican was nominated for Best Picture. All while that same media are willing participants in the biggest cover-ups, scandals and corruption from their own side in the country's history.
And really, how many race allegories in fantasy do we even need? Nearly every single modern fantasy with fantasy races and whatnot has to have racial allegory. Land Before Time; Zootopia; Bright; Eragon; the film adaptation of Ella Enchanted (it wasn't present in the book); and now Star Wars, except in the feminist column instead of race. It's so bad that I'm putting it in the backdrop of my own series while my main characters largely do not care about the conflict at all because at face value, they see it as it really is. As dark and violent as my fantasy series can get, I definitely brighten things up a bit with some wry, subconsciously self-aware comic relief in parts.
I honestly wonder just how bad Suburbicon had to be for it to end up as universally reviled as it was given that it follows every single checklist that would appeal to the rabid left as possible. I suppose there are still some critics with enough dignity to point out a film's blatant flaws and not let it off the hook for it. But even so, we then have films like The Last Jedi, which is praised by critics as the best Star Wars film since The Empire Strikes Back, if not of all time. And yet the vast majority of the Star Wars fandom actually hates this movie so much that they are now starting to praise Phantom Menace by comparison. And really, the problems with Phantom Menace really begins and ends with Jar Jar Binks, and perhaps Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker (oh, and Sofia Coppola as Padme's doppleganger).
Seriously, if 15:17 to Paris is even remotely bad on a comparable level to Fifty Shades Freed (or any of the other Fifty Shades films), then it's only in the quality of the dialogue. Fifty Shades is abject filth. There really is nothing particularly filthy about films like 15:17 to Paris, or the vast majority of these other Christian films. It's just blatant intolerance for the subject matter. Yes, a lot of these films fall under the trappings of the Straw Man Fallacy (to the point that the films themselves tend to serve as their own Straw Men). God's Not Dead are not good films by any measure because similar to films from the fringe left, they don't ever provide any valid arguments from the opposing side so as to make what they are saying actually make sense. There's definitely nobility in the topic of these three films. They just need better actors and a better screenwriter to pull it off. Old Fashioned is literally compared as infinitely worse than Fifty Shades of Grey in spite being the Christian counter to said film. Honestly, even if Old Fashioned actually shown an acute enough awareness of the borderline creepy subtext of what he was proposing and didn't make the main guy in the film come across as borderline controlling and abusive, they would still rip the film apart not based on merit but because it represents something they do not like.
Honestly, reviewing Christian films for the most part seems more like a waste of time. It's always due to a lack of talent, a lack of awareness, or a lack of knowledge that dooms these films every single time. And even if the script and the acting was on par with Citizen Kane, critics would still find whatever reason they can to say, "Eh, it wasn't very good." And that's generally the best-case scenario.
I have an objective criteria. And overall, I see far more defective products from the Left than I do from the Right. And these defective products are mostly due to the fact that their ideologies tend to cause a great deal of narrative chaos in their own works (such as with The Last Jedi or Zootopia among others). Or because their ideologies preach misery and hate at every given turn. Or because they are all completely derivative from one another. Either way, they are further demonstrative of the corrupt and hypocritical nature of Hollywood as a whole.
The defective qualities from the Right usually comes from a lack of talent, or a lack of understanding of the subject that they are trying to explore. Or because Kirk Cameron was a former fringe liberal now turned conservative, but never really tempered his narcissistic characteristics back when he was a huge lib. Yeah! Even as a Conservative, I think the guy's a total cancer. But near everybody else is well-intentioned but lacking in talent.
I know we all have our biases and whatnot, but my conservative ideologies do not interfere with what I consider a good or bad movie. I do think 15:17 to Paris is a bad movie. I do think the vast majority of these Christian films are bad movies. Chances are, they aren't going to appear on my worst movies of the year list unless I end up with an exceptionally lucky streak of good movies to contrast them with. Most of them are probably going to get a 3 or a 4 out of 10, including 15:17 to Paris. An American Carol isn't a good movie because it's Conservative. It's bad because the vast majority of the jokes suck and are exceptionally lazy. What a great way to demonstrate the stark contrast between the Left and the Right than with fart jokes and lazy slapstick (the stuff at the beginning where Michael Moore is filming a documentary in Cuba was pretty funny though).
I like to judge films based on common sense. I appreciate creativity and world building. I like a bit of light-heartedness in my films as well. There has to be a moral compass present in the film. And I like a great deal of depth as well. I'm pretty sure there are some Christian groups that take great issue in the works of Quentin Tarantino, but I still consider Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, and The Hateful Eight to be genuinely great films. I doubt you can convince a Christian to totally get on board with films like Hot Fuzz or John Wick Chapter 2, but I consider them to be the best movies of 2017. And yet every once in a while, I'll settle down to enjoy something simple (yes, I am that kind of person that enjoys watching Dumb and Dumber or Beavis and Butthead on occasion).
My film library isn't very Christian, and my fantasy series isn't even pure of heart; it's about an anti-hero that kills dragons, and I'm writing a chapter where he essentially molests a few women before buying one of them, and I describe the scene as a man checking the quality of the produce at a market. It may be immoral what he's doing, but it's still fascinating to watch because it's pretty clear that he is completely unaware of the reader's world view of this and he pretty much is only doing this because that's the kind of world he lived and grew up in. In other words, what he is doing can be considered normal in his world and he otherwise has no emotional attachment to what he is doing.
I don't mind stories where the main character isn't exactly the most morally sound of people. It's rare, but a dirtbag of a main character can still be engaging to watch. Why else is the misanthrope a popular character trait? So much so that there was an entire cartoon series called Dan Vs. that revolved entirely around said character trait that became a cult following after its cancellation.
It ultimately depends on how much of the overall product works. The script, techniques, and possibly acting. It is rare for a film to have such atrocious acting that everything else around it comes crashing down because of it. If anybody can give me an example of a film that was so astonishingly bad just because of the acting and only because of the acting, I will appreciate it.
It's a long one, but I think I'm pretty much out of breath here. This part is merely a rant if anything. I'm honestly am hesitant to go watch Black Panther because somewhere deep down inside, I'm expecting political commentary. Then again, the film's trailers feature a ton of hip-hop music, which is kind of a turn off. Will I watch it? Probably. I'm just not in any real hurry to.
I'm done. Have a nice day.
|
|
|
Post by readsalot on Mar 24, 2018 18:44:51 GMT -5
Been gone from here for a long time. Looks almost like this whole forum is dying from lack of comments/people. I have had some physical problems and memory problems. Computer problems too and had to start over with what I could remember and I couldn't remember how to get to here until a few weeks ago when it suddenly appeared in my weary, nearly worn out brain.
I have watched several movies due to being almost immobile for a while--I guess the one I enjoyed the most was"Bad Mamas" which was a bit crude but quite funny. Mila Kunis is the lead lady. Episodic so not easy to describe but it is the story of a number of mothers who are pretty fed up with all the problems they face and decide to have a night out. Pretty simplistic but still funny.
I have watched other movies out of boredom but none were memorable enough to stick in my memory. Sorry that this forum seems to be dying shortly after I found it again. Seems only Hikari is posting and only on her Holmes thread. Mr. Smith has seemingly disappeared--perhaps the injuries he mentioned were much worse than he thought.
|
|
|
Post by epicgordan on Mar 24, 2018 23:02:09 GMT -5
I understand. Even though I've watched several movies since 15:17 to Paris, I haven't really bothered trying to post another review on here. It sort of loses its meaning reviewing movies when I don't have an audience to read said reviews, and none of even appear on any Search engines--not even on the recent posts.
Films I've seen? Off the top of my head, I have seen A Wrinkle in Time, Black Panther, Game Night, Hurricane Heist, and Tomb Raider.
|
|
|
Post by William Smith on Mar 25, 2018 13:11:26 GMT -5
I'm sorry that I've been away for so long. Gordo, I haven't seen 15:17, but I too was shocked by the overwhelmingly negative press--much of it condemning the film for not having more sympathy for the shooter! We are in an unprecedented political and cultural situation today, not least because so much of the media is trying to convince us that a genuine threat--radical Islam--is either just misunderstood, or harmless, or justified in their actions. One wonders how some of these same commentators would have reacted to Munich, 1938--like Chamberlain?
I look at the capsule reviews of films in our local paper every week on Friday, and I continue to be--well, gobsmacked probably isn't too strong a word. High ratings for a Russian film about a kid who runs away from home because his parents are in a loveless marriage? Or take A Wrinkle In Time (is Oprah still trying to get an Oscar for her trophy cabinet?). I've seen several reviews that said, in effect, that it's not very good, but we should all see it nevertheless because it's a first time an African-American woman has directed a film with so large a budget, and isn't that just the most wonderful thing? I read the book many, many years ago, and to make a film in which all of the philosophical speculation is drained out strikes me as a complete waste of time. Not my time, however.
In the usual condition of complete disgust after the Academy Awards ("diversity riders"? Really? Sounds like quotas to me) which I boycotted again, joining some 40% of the 2014 audience, I've been revisiting enjoyable films, like Dr. No, Goldfinger, The Women (the original), All About Eve, Sunset Boulevard, and Topaz--films with wit, good writing, and an intelligence that we do not see from Hollywood today.
|
|
|
Post by cavaradossi on Mar 29, 2018 19:58:57 GMT -5
William
As it happens, I rewatched me copy of The Women a few weeks ago for the first time in years. Man, is that still ever a great film! I had forgotten a lot, so this helped it be rather fresh for me. It struck me that Rosalind Russell seemed to be carving out her future screen image in her role in The Women, not a thought that had occurred to me before. (Or maybe I just haven't seen enough of her thirties films.) This may also be the only film in which I have found Norma Shearer to be interesting. She is quite appealing in this picture, but, for me, the main draw still is, and likely will always be, Joan Crawford. She's been very good in many films, but seldom better than here. If I were a drinking man, I'd raise my glass to her.
When it comes to the Oscars, I too skipped the show again this year, and am still trying to figure out what anyone saw in Moonlight, the emptiest film I've seen in years. Who did Hollywood think they were kidding when they gave that movie the Best Picture Oscar?
|
|
|
Post by epicgordan on Mar 30, 2018 4:08:48 GMT -5
I'm sorry that I've been away for so long. Gordo, I haven't seen 15:17, but I too was shocked by the overwhelmingly negative press--much of it condemning the film for not having more sympathy for the shooter! We are in an unprecedented political and cultural situation today, not least because so much of the media is trying to convince us that a genuine threat--radical Islam--is either just misunderstood, or harmless, or justified in their actions. One wonders how some of these same commentators would have reacted to Munich, 1938--like Chamberlain? I look at the capsule reviews of films in our local paper every week on Friday, and I continue to be--well, gobsmacked probably isn't too strong a word. High ratings for a Russian film about a kid who runs away from home because his parents are in a loveless marriage? Or take A Wrinkle In Time (is Oprah still trying to get an Oscar for her trophy cabinet?). I've seen several reviews that said, in effect, that it's not very good, but we should all see it nevertheless because it's a first time an African-American woman has directed a film with so large a budget, and isn't that just the most wonderful thing? I read the book many, many years ago, and to make a film in which all of the philosophical speculation is drained out strikes me as a complete waste of time. Not my time, however. In the usual condition of complete disgust after the Academy Awards ("diversity riders"? Really? Sounds like quotas to me) which I boycotted again, joining some 40% of the 2014 audience, I've been revisiting enjoyable films, like Dr. No, Goldfinger, The Women (the original), All About Eve, Sunset Boulevard, and Topaz--films with wit, good writing, and an intelligence that we do not see from Hollywood today. The real problem if anything with 15:17 to Paris was simply that the lead actors could not act, which given the fact that they weren't professionals in the first place, kind of makes sense. And in spite the comparisons to Act of Valor, 15:17 wasn't a propaganda movie but an actual narrative.
I have not read A Wrinkle in Time. From what I have heard, the book itself was intended to be a fantasy that bridged the gap between science and Christianity in order to show that the two sides can coexist. Scrap all but one line of dialogue mentioning God at the beginning of the film (which, now that I think about it, is a habit of Disney--occasionally taking direct quotes from their source material subconsciously even though it would either make no sense in their own interpretation or would subsequently be contradicted later), replace all the complex themes and imagery with environmentalist coding (yet no themes, so you get garishly pretty imagery for no real reason other than Disney), and the Lord and Savior Oprah Winfrey, who's clearly more than a suitable substitute for God in spite being almost completely useless in this movie (the boyfriend is even moreso...I honestly have no idea why he's even there to begin with).
I too skipped the Oscars. Perhaps the one good thing to come out of that ceremony from what I've heard was Gary Oldman winning Best Actor and giving an acceptance speech that will no doubt deny him any further statuettes for the rest of his life. Honestly, Shape of Water winning Best Picture was....yep. Give the award to a film about a mute 50-year-old woman who masturbates frequently in the bath tub and has sex with the Creature from the Black Lagoon. At least Edward and Jacob were human-ish. And Beauty and the Beast was platonic. And King Kong was mostly coding.
Sorry, del Toro. But I think the vast majority of the human race is better off watching the sequel to Pacific Rim. In that film, a returning cast member falls in love with a Kaiju's brain and is so completely insane by that point that he decides to destroy the entire world for reasons he cannot possibly articulate. Yeah, that film goes in such strange directions that if I were to spoil the end goal of that movie, you'd think it was stupid. At least it wasn't morally and intellectually inane.
|
|
|
Post by epicgordan on Mar 30, 2018 4:12:54 GMT -5
William As it happens, I rewatched me copy of The Women a few weeks ago for the first time in years. Man, is that still ever a great film! I had forgotten a lot, so this helped it be rather fresh for me. It struck me that Rosalind Russell seemed to be carving out her future screen image in her role in The Women, not a thought that had occurred to me before. (Or maybe I just haven't seen enough of her thirties films.) This may also be the only film in which I have found Norma Shearer to be interesting. She is quite appealing in this picture, but, for me, the main draw still is, and likely will always be, Joan Crawford. She's been very good in many films, but seldom better than here. If I were a drinking man, I'd raise my glass to her. When it comes to the Oscars, I too skipped the show again this year, and am still trying to figure out what anyone saw in Moonlight, the emptiest film I've seen in years. Who did Hollywood think they were kidding when they gave that movie the Best Picture Oscar? Clearly, the Academy was pulling a fast one on La La Land, which was by far the best film in contention that year, and they humiliated on stage.
Also, that occurred last year. This year, it was Shape of Water. It says a lot when the last Best Picture winner to be the best of its lot to win was The King's Speech nearly a decade ago. The last genuinely good film to win Best Picture? Argo.
|
|
|
Post by epicgordan on Mar 30, 2018 4:17:25 GMT -5
I have seen Pacific Rim Uprising and Tomb Raider and have enjoyed both. I'm not going to watch it, but I do have some choice words for Ready Player One. I'm predicting it's not going to be as appalling as The Post at the very least. At least Ready Player One isn't real, cannot be real, and never will be. Let's just say, as one of the world's smartest millennials (a moniker I do not in any way, shape or form say with pride), I pretty much know how this kind of thing works, and why I am not buying into it here (in spite buying into it elsewhere in, say, video games).
|
|
|
Post by cavaradossi on Mar 30, 2018 12:34:21 GMT -5
epicgordon
I surprised myself and actually enjoyed the original Pacific Rim, even as silly as it all was. Do you think I stand a chance of enjoying its sequel?
One of the odder developments recently in my movie watching is that I'm finding myself enjoying these comic book originating superhero films, especially those in the Marvel Dark Universe series. Even just a few years ago that wasn't the case. For instance, The Watchmen bored me silly the three times I tried it, and I have yet to ever finish that film. But I think it was something about the Captain America and Thor movies that got me interested. I had never read any of their comic books (actually, I don't think CA and T were around in the early 1950s, which was when I stopped reading comic books and switched to real books) so I was not an obvious candidate for one who might enjoy these films. The funny thing is, even when these movies are being weird and stupid I'm still liking them. Perhaps I need a kick in the head. The Avengers combination movies have entertained me too, so I'm looking forward to the new one, and I have the latest Thor film yet to be seen as well.
How could someone who loves silent films and films from the early sound era to the seventies* be taken in by these superhero movies? (Oh, and I'm a big Superman fan also, though the Henry Cavill movies took a time or two to win me over.)
*I think it was during the late '70s,'80s and '90s that movies started getting poorer, less focused, and frankly, often just downright dull, even with the technological advances. Obviously, there were major, even really major, exceptions during those times, as there always are, but generally I no longer expect to be entertained or convinced by the average movie from those years. Just my opinion, of course.
|
|