There were people cheering and laughing in the theater, when the Shop Lady showed up! I thought it was hilarious!
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
More importantly to me it made Spider-Verse feel seperate from any of the MCU stuff or whatever Sony is trying to do with their "cinematic universe". Even if it was animated I still wouldn't want a Tobey Maguire or Tom Holland cameo. Even the Donald Glover bit likely had nerd brains explode into 'what if he would in future live-action movies, OooOOOoo', and Sony knows this. They know this will create hype, and exposure, and youtube videos covering it, and its potential. Them trying to bleed that into this movie (movies) feels like Sony attempting more of their failed MCU bullshit, and it made me want to grab a squirt gun and go 'No! No.... stop it!'
Spidermen 56 - Across the Electric Boogaloo
Straight up, going to complain about something that is probably not the movie's problem. Many reviewers called this a 'full movie'. it is not. It decides to roll up to just before the What's Up Danger moment and cut it off there. Please don't call this a full movie, you numbnuts. You're sending the wrong message. It's not LotR or Infinity War/ Endgame with each section having its own conclusion. It's like watching the final two Harry Potter. They just cut it at a random point. it honestly should have cut not long after the train to the moon scene. And I get this terrible feeling that the last movie is totally going to side quest everything to stretch out the content. (Which is a potential problem of the movie)
The other complaints I have is that this is very much a retread of the first movie. They even do the 'you have to write your own story' assignment from a teacher. And I really didn't feel Hobie matched the art style like everyone else... but that might be intentional. So I won't knock it for that
Otherwise, this was great. I cannot give this movie a rating because they haven't finished it yet. But go treat yourself
Straight up, going to complain about something that is probably not the movie's problem. Many reviewers called this a 'full movie'. it is not. It decides to roll up to just before the What's Up Danger moment and cut it off there. Please don't call this a full movie, you numbnuts. You're sending the wrong message. It's not LotR or Infinity War/ Endgame with each section having its own conclusion. It's like watching the final two Harry Potter. They just cut it at a random point. it honestly should have cut not long after the train to the moon scene. And I get this terrible feeling that the last movie is totally going to side quest everything to stretch out the content. (Which is a potential problem of the movie)
The other complaints I have is that this is very much a retread of the first movie. They even do the 'you have to write your own story' assignment from a teacher. And I really didn't feel Hobie matched the art style like everyone else... but that might be intentional. So I won't knock it for that
Otherwise, this was great. I cannot give this movie a rating because they haven't finished it yet. But go treat yourself
I wouldn't say it cuts at a random point, but it does feel more like the end to a season of television rather than the end of a movie. A more effective ending (movie wise) might've been Miles landing in an immediately unrecognizeable universe and than ending right there, maybe landing infront of the graffiti of his dead father - cut to black. But then I can't deny that final scene with Miles and you-know-who was done very well with a real tension in the air.
Casino
I know it's supposed to be the weaker encore to Goodfellas but what can I tell you, every time I find the movie on TV I end up watching the whole thing. This time I put it on to test the internet speed while having dinner and still end up watching all three hours. Riveting stuff.
I know it's supposed to be the weaker encore to Goodfellas but what can I tell you, every time I find the movie on TV I end up watching the whole thing. This time I put it on to test the internet speed while having dinner and still end up watching all three hours. Riveting stuff.
Honestly, I've always liked Casino more than Goodfellas. Something about the combination of the setting and feeling like Nicky is more terrifying than Tommy because of the fact that he has just a little bit of power to keep himself protected.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,134
- 3,997
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Moonrise Kingdom. Quite good, its Wes Anderson so that is kind of a given, even his worst films are still good to watch for their wonderful visuals and shot composition. The characters can be a bit grating at times, like when Suzy and Sam go off together and Sam is just babbling the whole time, but ultimately I still wanted to see how their plight worked out and the characters were still fun.
Honestly, I don't see it as that big of a negative deal. Sony gonna Sony, and the best you can do is ignore and move on, if it bothers you that much. The live-action bits surprised me, and many people in the theater I was in loved the segments. I get more of a Roger Rabbit feeling (mixing live-action and animation), than Sony trying to set up other universes. Also, Dr. Strange and MCU Parker got a name drop around the 25-30 minute mark. So there you go, celebration of all things Spider-Man.
As a reminder to everyone, the MCU and all franchises are NOT required viewing. If it doesn't look like it tickles your fancy, you owe no one anything. You don't have to see it. Movies are for enjoyment purposes only and forcing yourself to watch something to keep up to date is not good for anyone
And anyone who later says that you're not a real fan because you missed one movie can go fuck themselves
Hell or High Water.
Thought it'd not retain emotional and topical intimacy but it does just feel more relevant and poignant every watch.
Thought it'd not retain emotional and topical intimacy but it does just feel more relevant and poignant every watch.
I also watched Air. I think it was well written and acted but Affleck is not an awesome director. Not a bad director either. Adequate. But its a Based on a True Story (TM) movie so it doesnt need much more than adequate. It's also full of interesting characters, some of which are given very little screen time but really make an impact
And Quantumania. Probably the worst of the trilogy and does not have the same pizzaz as the first two. It's like the Thor trilogy but in reverse. Also, if you're going to introduce interesting characters, maybe.. do something with them other than being in the big fight set piece
And Quantumania. Probably the worst of the trilogy and does not have the same pizzaz as the first two. It's like the Thor trilogy but in reverse. Also, if you're going to introduce interesting characters, maybe.. do something with them other than being in the big fight set piece
Cade: The Tortured Crossing, 9/10
This is the latest film by the curret uncontested king of so bad it's good cinema, Neil Breen. I had the privilege of seeing it in a packed theatre full of Breen aficionados, and the experience was absolutely worth every penny I had to spend on the trip. It truly says something when I can confidently say that even by Breen's standards this is utterly incoherent and incomprehensible.
Merely trying to remember what happens in it is incredibly difficult, because there's so little structure, it's so repetitive, and what happens is given zero explanation save for tiny hints here and there, despite the dialogue stating multiple times out loud what the movie's about. It's nominally a sequel to his previous film, Twisted Pair from 2018, but given how utterly nonsensical these movies are it doesn't really matter. What I can glean of the plot is that Breen stars as some sort of mysterious messiah figure who's funding a mental hospital to help people with mental health issues. But there's some "gene editing" mad science going on under his nose, and two cops are presumably looking into it. And that's the best I got for the plot. The rest is a confusing, repetitive exercise in sledgehammer-subtle social commentary absolutely drenched in self-aggrandisement and egotism.
Despite having gained substantial popularity in the cult cinema scene, and therefore presumably more resources, Breen seems to have doubled down (heh) on his abysmal production values, and the result is easily the cheapest and worst-looking film he's made thus far. There is literally zero location shooting. The entire film is shot on the shittiest green screen you've seen since like the early days of MTV in the 1980s. What isn't green screen is stock footage that could be right out of gettyimages.
See that trailer? That's literally how the entire movie looks. It's an unending onslaught of things clipping into each other, limbs going missing, perspective making no sense, and the scale of things being completely off. The whole movie takes place across like 10 different greenscreen backgrounds, and the amount of recycled shots is funny at first, and will make you want to tear your eyeballs out by the end. I'm not even gonna touch on the acting, because I think the trailer speaks for itself on that department.
I genuinely mean it when I say that Neil Breen movies are the Dark Souls of cult cinema. Incredibly difficult to sit through and incredibly hard to follow and try to make sense of, but if it clicks for you then there is a truly transcendent experience to be had from these movies. I was initially worried that Breen might have been getting a bit more self-aware with this film, but it's the exact opposite. If you ever get the chance to see one of these in a theater, do it. It'll be a night you'll cherish for decades.
This is the latest film by the curret uncontested king of so bad it's good cinema, Neil Breen. I had the privilege of seeing it in a packed theatre full of Breen aficionados, and the experience was absolutely worth every penny I had to spend on the trip. It truly says something when I can confidently say that even by Breen's standards this is utterly incoherent and incomprehensible.
Merely trying to remember what happens in it is incredibly difficult, because there's so little structure, it's so repetitive, and what happens is given zero explanation save for tiny hints here and there, despite the dialogue stating multiple times out loud what the movie's about. It's nominally a sequel to his previous film, Twisted Pair from 2018, but given how utterly nonsensical these movies are it doesn't really matter. What I can glean of the plot is that Breen stars as some sort of mysterious messiah figure who's funding a mental hospital to help people with mental health issues. But there's some "gene editing" mad science going on under his nose, and two cops are presumably looking into it. And that's the best I got for the plot. The rest is a confusing, repetitive exercise in sledgehammer-subtle social commentary absolutely drenched in self-aggrandisement and egotism.
Despite having gained substantial popularity in the cult cinema scene, and therefore presumably more resources, Breen seems to have doubled down (heh) on his abysmal production values, and the result is easily the cheapest and worst-looking film he's made thus far. There is literally zero location shooting. The entire film is shot on the shittiest green screen you've seen since like the early days of MTV in the 1980s. What isn't green screen is stock footage that could be right out of gettyimages.
See that trailer? That's literally how the entire movie looks. It's an unending onslaught of things clipping into each other, limbs going missing, perspective making no sense, and the scale of things being completely off. The whole movie takes place across like 10 different greenscreen backgrounds, and the amount of recycled shots is funny at first, and will make you want to tear your eyeballs out by the end. I'm not even gonna touch on the acting, because I think the trailer speaks for itself on that department.
I genuinely mean it when I say that Neil Breen movies are the Dark Souls of cult cinema. Incredibly difficult to sit through and incredibly hard to follow and try to make sense of, but if it clicks for you then there is a truly transcendent experience to be had from these movies. I was initially worried that Breen might have been getting a bit more self-aware with this film, but it's the exact opposite. If you ever get the chance to see one of these in a theater, do it. It'll be a night you'll cherish for decades.
It had me at Neuschwanstein, but yeah.
It’s almost like combining live action with those CD-ROM era visual novel games on PC. Being film though it was probably done on a $5,000 or so budget. Actors probably ate up most of that even.
Anyways, interesting (ie hilarious) -
Last edited:
I want to believe that the production style was a side effect of the pandemic. But considering the film looks like it was filmed in at most a week, the dialogue feels like it's been written by someone with dementia, and the film feels like it was edited by an AI with dementia, I think the pandemic excuse doesn't really work.
I’m wondering if the 8.9/10 rating on IMDb is legit or just cranked up as a joke. It’s only a few hundred user ratings, but understandable being heavily niche.
Scream VI
Please let this be the last. Ok I’ll give it this: the ghost face villain is at its best here in terms of aggression. There is also more variance in methods and settings. Other than that it’s tropeville and the movie actually plays off that angle in itself. The hook of these movies has always been a bit of Scooby Doo subversion regarding who’s behind mask. If they ever make more (again god no) then they should at least rethink how these things end, because that was the weakest link here.
Please let this be the last. Ok I’ll give it this: the ghost face villain is at its best here in terms of aggression. There is also more variance in methods and settings. Other than that it’s tropeville and the movie actually plays off that angle in itself. The hook of these movies has always been a bit of Scooby Doo subversion regarding who’s behind mask. If they ever make more (again god no) then they should at least rethink how these things end, because that was the weakest link here.
It lies in a weird area of its own. Like obviously every Neil Breen movie by any "normal" metric is beyond abysmal in just about every conceivable way. But chances are that if you're watching a Neil Breen movie, you're not looking for those normal metrics to begin with, because you're already in on the joke. The entertainment value of every Breen movie is through the roof, but that entertainment value stems entirely from understanding what kind of movie you're watching. So are you supposed to rate Breen films by normal metrics for a general audience, even if you know that the majority of people who watch those films won't be evaluating them by those metrics? Or do you rate them as they IMO should be, ie. by their entertainment value as so bad they're good films, and in the process possibly mislead people who might stumble upon the film?
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,558
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
Gets fun when people rely on imdb ratings for "best 100 movies of all time" lists.