Die Hard 2 and 3 hold up pretty well too, 2 less than 3 mainly due to all the changes in aviation safety and inspections at the Terminal. And it’s plan never would have worked when it was made, never mind now. But McClane remains as human and vulnerable in those two as he does in the OG. So while they aren’t as good, they’re still worth watching.
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
The fact that him being able to shoot people again is presented as him finally regaining his status as a real cop... Yeeeeeah.
I always fucking hated that scene even as a kid, though at the time it was because of how unbelievably corny it was.
I actually took special note of that bit, since it seems staggeringly tone deaf especially now. While the music swells to a heroic finish, the expression on Al's face isn't one of relief or joy. He looks shocked and horrified. I'm definitely looking too much into it, but it does lend that brief bit of character development a degree of benefit of the doubt.
Saraband (2003, Bergman)
Made for TV sequel to Scenes from a Marriage (1973). Didn't need to be made, but was honestly as good as one could hope it to be, when you consider how most filmmakers decline with old age. What helped was that it didn't focus so much on Marriane and Johan, whose relationship was already exhaustively explored in the 1973 miniseries, but more on their children, mainly Johan's aged son and 19-year-old granddaughter. The widower despairs like his father (Johan) used to and doesn't want to let his daughter leave him for a life of her own.
Johan and Marriane ask each other early in the movie how old they are. He is 86, she is 63. I remember in Scenes from a Marriage, she was 33 (?) and he was in his late forties. The TV show was unclear about Marianne loving Johan. In one episode, she said that she had never loved anyone really and in a later episode she said she did. Here she says she has loved him. I don't know.
Not one of his best movies, but good enough. If nothing else, it's worth watching to see Bergman and these actors in the 21st century. Cinematography has a made for TV quality, which feels weird to say about a sequel to a TV miniseries. Also the only Bergman movie I've watched in surround sound. I almost watched it with headphones until I asked myself if he agreed to adopt the modern standards and noticed that my backup said Stereo.
It has taken more than three years, but I only have Faro Document 1979 in the boxset left now.
Made for TV sequel to Scenes from a Marriage (1973). Didn't need to be made, but was honestly as good as one could hope it to be, when you consider how most filmmakers decline with old age. What helped was that it didn't focus so much on Marriane and Johan, whose relationship was already exhaustively explored in the 1973 miniseries, but more on their children, mainly Johan's aged son and 19-year-old granddaughter. The widower despairs like his father (Johan) used to and doesn't want to let his daughter leave him for a life of her own.
Johan and Marriane ask each other early in the movie how old they are. He is 86, she is 63. I remember in Scenes from a Marriage, she was 33 (?) and he was in his late forties. The TV show was unclear about Marianne loving Johan. In one episode, she said that she had never loved anyone really and in a later episode she said she did. Here she says she has loved him. I don't know.
Not one of his best movies, but good enough. If nothing else, it's worth watching to see Bergman and these actors in the 21st century. Cinematography has a made for TV quality, which feels weird to say about a sequel to a TV miniseries. Also the only Bergman movie I've watched in surround sound. I almost watched it with headphones until I asked myself if he agreed to adopt the modern standards and noticed that my backup said Stereo.
It has taken more than three years, but I only have Faro Document 1979 in the boxset left now.
The weird thing is with the film so much story plays out in the short prequel film to it. They were put up on youtube to try and advertise the film sort of.
2049's problem is trying to be too artsy with this really cool shots that have such symbolism to them that it forgets to actually do the rest of the film it seems. Like people rag on Equilibrium for the whole "Symbolism" scene of them burning the Mona Lisa but at least the film also delivers on or relates far more to the symbolism rather than lingering shots of statues in a wasteland that look nice but don't tie back into the film really.
And right after it happens and Argyle comes riding out the parking garage Al immediately readies his gun to shoot again, and McClane has make him lower it. Dude just instantly has the bloodlust after processing his trauma through murder.
Tim Burton's Batman 1989.
I'll be honest.....this movie hasn't aged well. I am just too distracted by the stiff head of Batman's suit here
And holy shit the pacing in this movie is horrendously boring and slow.
The only thing we got out of this movie was Danny Elfman's score, the actor playing Alfred, and I kinda like the Batmobile design.
I'll be honest.....this movie hasn't aged well. I am just too distracted by the stiff head of Batman's suit here
And holy shit the pacing in this movie is horrendously boring and slow.
The only thing we got out of this movie was Danny Elfman's score, the actor playing Alfred, and I kinda like the Batmobile design.
Last edited:
I still say Batman Begins has a worse pacing than Batman '89 and takes too long to get going. The hand-to-hand fights are the worst in the entire franchise. Batman '89's hand-to-hand fights are not perfect with its action either, but I can at least see what's going and is well shot. They at least provide some energy. BB used too much shaky cam and quick cuts, because Nolan did not know how to do action and that time. He even admits that himself.
Don't forget about Prince....
I like Die Hard 2 much less than 3, which I think awesome except for the rushed ending. I am in the minority adoring 4 except for its rushed ending. 5 is an abomination.
My buddy just gave me his bluray copy of Batman 1989. He says after Dark Knight, he just can't watch it.
I love the intro of Nicholson's Joker. The, "I'm glad you're dead" scene. Batman in the art museum. Younguns just can't imagine the joy us old guys felt seeing him burst through that sky light. The fights in the Church. Weak by today's standards. Superman 2 with Chris Reeve is head and shoulders above it. But it did have its positive aspects.
Last edited:
After Batman the Animated Series I can't watch this.
Heck I rather watch the Batman parts of Batman vs Superman.
I can watch all of the above, though I won't tune in to BVS that often.
Actually, I found it weird that all Gotham only listens to one musician. Glad they did away with that shit in Batman Returns and only used one Siouxsie and the Banshees song, as much as I love Prince.
I didn't mind, and that is what makes the first movie special. We're big Prince fans; my parents especially. I am happy that WB/DC did not try to do the same thing again soundtrack wise for the rest of the films.
Ok, I watched it in its entirety.
James McAvoy plays a dirty cop vying for a promotion which, of course, entails hobbling the competition. Oh, and he has some implied mental issues driven by the senses of morality, decency and a traumatic past which he's tried desperately to bury under metric fuck-tons of cocaine and raunchy sex.
Awful movie. Lewdness for lewdness' sake. It was just gross and confusing. It tried to throw a twist in there to make it seem clever, but by the time that time came, the movie was so far gone with depravity, I really didn't care; I just wanted it to be over. Never has a movie had a more apropos title.
Dang.
1987 film RoboCop comes to 4K UHD Blu-ray in April
Amazon Commissions Earned The 1987 film “RoboCop” will be getting both a 4K UHD Blu-ray Limited Edition box set and a 4K UHD Blu-ray SteelBook release on April 12th, 2022 via Arrow Vide…
highdefdiscnews.com
Kill Bill, volumes 1 and 2. Don't try to convince me that these are supposed to be one film, because they're so fucking clearly not. I've never been big on Tarantino. My problem isn't as much with his movies that I've seen (except Death Proof which can go die in a ditch) than it is with the reception they get vs. what I actually see on screen. I see critics and movie buff audiences just cream themselves over his movies, but except for Django and maybe Reservoir Dogs I've never considered any of his films above a 7/10.
Kill Bill vol 1 is one of the most aggressive examples of this I can think of. It's an overlong, pretentious, tonally and stylistically inconsistent, self-indulgent and self-satisfied mess. I have no idea what film nerds see in this movie. As an experience it's like being locked in a room with a hardcore movie nerd on cocaine who just wants to show you clips of his favorite movies and play his favorite records at you. The movie jumps between styles, genres and tones like it's got severe ADD and ends up feeling more like a collage of scenes Tarantino wanted to do instead of any kind of coherent whole. There are scenes and characters that are played up hugely with long lingering shots and super dramatic music blaring in the background, but almost none of it feels earned. There is so little characterization, so little context, so little sense of stakes or personal investment that I just kept wondering "I guess the film is telling me to care, but why should I?" I also have no idea how seriously I'm supposed to be taking the story, or how stylized the world is supposed to be. Beatrix's reaction to waking from her coma could be right out of a horror movie and is played completely straight, but then there are also the deliberately fake looking special and gore effects looking goofy as all hell. O-Ren Ishii apparently dresses in bright red leather during her assassin career and Beatrix rides an equally conspicuous yellow motorcycle. Are these things people just do in this universe? The end result of throwing all this nerd shit on the screen is a boring, annoying indulgence. And don't try to feed me that "imitating movies of yesteryear" excuse. Shitty storytelling is shitty storytelling whether it happens in 1973 or 2003.
Vol 2 on the other hand is leaps and bounds above its predecessor. To the point where I'm wondering if it's actually as good as I think, or merely seeming good by comparison due to watching both in one night. The tone and style are consistent, I actually want to listen to the dialogue, there's characterization and backstory and motivation and all those other things Tarantino forgot are supposed to be at the start of a movie, not after the halfway point. There's no licensed music constantly blaring in your ears, no 30-second backstories trying to get you to care about completely ancilliary characters and so on. Occasionally it dips into the same nerd wankery and pointless dialogue the first one does, but not nearly to the same degree. Towards the end though it almost completely loses my sympathy, and I'm not sure how intentional it was. It's long to explain, but certain things come to light that show that we've been watching people that don't deserve any sympathy, and without whom the world would likely be a better place. It's a weird place to end over 4 hours of film on.
One aspect in both films that raised my eyebrow a bit is how Beatrix as a character doesn't seem to be defined by how she is as a person, but how much abuse, pain and suffering she can push herself through. Since this is from a time where female action heroes were still quite an exception, it feels kind of quaint in how it builds her up to be a strong character, despite the entire narrative revolving entirely around what a man has done to her, and we know literally nothing about her ouside of how she's defined herself in service to Bill. If this were released today I imagine it'd spark quite a conversation about pop feminism, female empowerment and all that jazz.
Well, I'm at least glad I revisited them.
Kill Bill vol 1 is one of the most aggressive examples of this I can think of. It's an overlong, pretentious, tonally and stylistically inconsistent, self-indulgent and self-satisfied mess. I have no idea what film nerds see in this movie. As an experience it's like being locked in a room with a hardcore movie nerd on cocaine who just wants to show you clips of his favorite movies and play his favorite records at you. The movie jumps between styles, genres and tones like it's got severe ADD and ends up feeling more like a collage of scenes Tarantino wanted to do instead of any kind of coherent whole. There are scenes and characters that are played up hugely with long lingering shots and super dramatic music blaring in the background, but almost none of it feels earned. There is so little characterization, so little context, so little sense of stakes or personal investment that I just kept wondering "I guess the film is telling me to care, but why should I?" I also have no idea how seriously I'm supposed to be taking the story, or how stylized the world is supposed to be. Beatrix's reaction to waking from her coma could be right out of a horror movie and is played completely straight, but then there are also the deliberately fake looking special and gore effects looking goofy as all hell. O-Ren Ishii apparently dresses in bright red leather during her assassin career and Beatrix rides an equally conspicuous yellow motorcycle. Are these things people just do in this universe? The end result of throwing all this nerd shit on the screen is a boring, annoying indulgence. And don't try to feed me that "imitating movies of yesteryear" excuse. Shitty storytelling is shitty storytelling whether it happens in 1973 or 2003.
Vol 2 on the other hand is leaps and bounds above its predecessor. To the point where I'm wondering if it's actually as good as I think, or merely seeming good by comparison due to watching both in one night. The tone and style are consistent, I actually want to listen to the dialogue, there's characterization and backstory and motivation and all those other things Tarantino forgot are supposed to be at the start of a movie, not after the halfway point. There's no licensed music constantly blaring in your ears, no 30-second backstories trying to get you to care about completely ancilliary characters and so on. Occasionally it dips into the same nerd wankery and pointless dialogue the first one does, but not nearly to the same degree. Towards the end though it almost completely loses my sympathy, and I'm not sure how intentional it was. It's long to explain, but certain things come to light that show that we've been watching people that don't deserve any sympathy, and without whom the world would likely be a better place. It's a weird place to end over 4 hours of film on.
One aspect in both films that raised my eyebrow a bit is how Beatrix as a character doesn't seem to be defined by how she is as a person, but how much abuse, pain and suffering she can push herself through. Since this is from a time where female action heroes were still quite an exception, it feels kind of quaint in how it builds her up to be a strong character, despite the entire narrative revolving entirely around what a man has done to her, and we know literally nothing about her ouside of how she's defined herself in service to Bill. If this were released today I imagine it'd spark quite a conversation about pop feminism, female empowerment and all that jazz.
Well, I'm at least glad I revisited them.
Last edited:
The Kill Bill movies are the types that I watched, only because my big brother has them. I still have yet to own a copy of either movie. I like them enough at the time, but I really never felt the need to go back. I do admit to favoring Part 1 a little over Part 2. I admit that Part 1 has this sense of style I really enjoy. Also, part one introduced me to the 5-6-7-8s. Those ladies are still awesome.
The movies do drag though, which is why I never felt the need to own them. And I admit, I couldn't really feel much sympathy for almost anyone. Though I did feel bad for O-Rinshi, when learning her backstory. And the daughter of the first kill we see on screen in Part 1. That sucked. That's the main problem with doing stories that involve black and gray morality, or where nearly everyone's a villain or an amoral bastard of some kind. It's why I hate and I cannot stand Black Lagoon so much. A lot of them fall into this pit trap, and that's assuming we're supposed to care. If we're not supposed to care, or see it as a character study, then I still might not be invested, regardless of intent.
Tarantino can be overrated. QT does not exactly help, when he claims to "discover something" from old films and use them as references. How can you discover something, when it was already there? If you want to make a reference or a shout out, that's fine, but don't go acting like you were the first to find out about it, or as if it's your original creation. He also had a habit of trying to make himself cool around black people, or figuring if I surround myself behind black celebrities or musicians, I'll be seen as cool, "with it", or I'm one with the black people. Yeah, that does not give you N-Word privileges you jackass. I have only owned three Quentin Tarantino movies: Reservoir Dogs (I sold a long while back), Pulp Fiction (which I don't even bother to watch anymore), Django Unchained (last time I watched that was in 2018). I can safely say that his movies do nothing for me. The last movie of his I saw was the Hateful Eight. It was another case of me watching in theaters, and never watching it again. Thank god, The Harder They Fall is so good then all of these, Tarantino had no involvement with it at all.
Last edited:
I agree that pt. 2 is better than pt. 1 - although I think at the time I was a minority amongst people that I know.
Kill Bill pt.1 is a sort of trashy 70s/80s B-movie except with a budget, a lot more style, and 20-30 years late. I accept the argument that trash beautifully done is still trash, and that on numerous levels it's therefore a bad movie. On the other hand, people liked those movies (like me) despite their shortcomings and there can be a lot of joy about them - in that sense, it's also a good movie that achieves very effectively what it sets out to do. One could perhaps also view it as a forerunner to the dubious Grindhouse project, which takes the same notion but more conspicuously attempts to look like a cheap, 30-year-old B-movie. And didn't do well because it was too much that type of film (which was never that popular, and still wasn't even with a top director).