With you on that one 100%.
Agreed. A lot of those movies you cite in some way have originality, style and quality that sets them apart. Friday 13th is really nothing more than the most popular of the mass of second-rate, workmanlike, rip-offs.
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
Guy Ritchie's The Covenant - 9/10
A very solid low stakes military action thriller that I personally enjoyed, but I if I had to pinpoint why it maybe didn't do well at the cinema, I think it spends too much time on the wrong part of the story.
The story as explained in the blurb is about US Army Sergeant John Kinley (Jake Gyllenhaal) returning to Afghanistan just prior to the formal withdrawal by the US and Allied forces to rescue Ahmed (Dar Salim), his former interpreter because he rescued him during his time in Afghanistan.
However the movie as watched, takes almost an hour - out of only an hour and a half - to get to that point. Now its not bad by any measure, but you essentially have to go through a truncated version of the story of Lone Survivor (itself a true event) before you get to the rescue as repaying the debt. Part of that is spent establishing the relationship between Kinley and Ahmed - no bad thing - but I feel the film could start with them as friends and use the first act for pretty cool rescue of Kinley by Ahmed and then devote the rest of the movie to his efforts. Either that, or the movie should have been two hours long and not ninety minutes so both actions by both men could receive equal screen time.
But, its still a good movie. And its on Amazon Prime so if you have that, its a lean, no frills or bullshit movie. Give it a go.
A very solid low stakes military action thriller that I personally enjoyed, but I if I had to pinpoint why it maybe didn't do well at the cinema, I think it spends too much time on the wrong part of the story.
The story as explained in the blurb is about US Army Sergeant John Kinley (Jake Gyllenhaal) returning to Afghanistan just prior to the formal withdrawal by the US and Allied forces to rescue Ahmed (Dar Salim), his former interpreter because he rescued him during his time in Afghanistan.
However the movie as watched, takes almost an hour - out of only an hour and a half - to get to that point. Now its not bad by any measure, but you essentially have to go through a truncated version of the story of Lone Survivor (itself a true event) before you get to the rescue as repaying the debt. Part of that is spent establishing the relationship between Kinley and Ahmed - no bad thing - but I feel the film could start with them as friends and use the first act for pretty cool rescue of Kinley by Ahmed and then devote the rest of the movie to his efforts. Either that, or the movie should have been two hours long and not ninety minutes so both actions by both men could receive equal screen time.
But, its still a good movie. And its on Amazon Prime so if you have that, its a lean, no frills or bullshit movie. Give it a go.
I recently watched it too, and I agree with your assessment. It didn't really dawn on me, but you're right; too much of the runtime is spent building up to the main premise.
That doesn't do much to save Halloween II for me. It was just an immediate cash in, no different from F13-2.
I wouldn't go that far. The only good Texas Chainsaw movies are the original, 2, and the 2003 Remake. III is decent, but everything in that movie and afterward are literally the first movie, but worse. This franchise has been rebooted three different times now, and they all suck more than an Friday sequel. Once again, Halloween they had no clear direction between 4-6, H20, and Resurrection. For 5 & 6, the director for each respective movie were going by the seat of their pants, and put in a cult that had next do with nothing. Trick R' Treat is the true sequel to the Halloween franchise people and Carpenter wanted! Not to mention that are three different sequel continuities that either ignore or contradict each other badly, leading to so much confusion. With the much more recent films ignoring everything from II and onward. And of course they had to make things even more confusing by naming H2018, Halloween!
Most of the Nightmare films have better shots and filming, but they went down the crapper in a different direction. Dream Master and Dream Child are just Dream Warriors, but less interesting. I'll give DC credit for having some unique ideas with dreams and the dreams of a kids that hasn't been born yet, but is still in the womb. Both of those films have the problem of making Freddy too powerful and not meaning much by the next entry. Freddy Is Dead, while entertaining, looks remarkably cheaper than all of the films before it, and has almost a shot on TV quality. New Nightmare is so different and early meta, that it almost might as well be a spin-off.
Child' Play's quality has been mostly consistent, but I really don't care much for Seed of Chucky. The franchise has only recently gotten better during the late 2010s and early 2020s. Fright Night only has two movies and a remake and a sequel to the remake, but most are consistently good. No one likes the sequel to remake apparently.
You wanna know true pain? Try marathoning the Hellraiser sequels or Saw sequels! I can't even bother to touch anything after Saw II, because the torture porn is really depressing and the writers keep pulling shit of their asses! Take it away Civvie on the Hellraiser franchise!
Thank you.
Last edited:
Peter Pan & Wendy (7/10)
...okay, I'll be honest, I have no idea why this film got review bombed. I mean, I have some idea, namely that it's a combination of every right wing culture war talking point plus misunderstandings of what the original story is actually about, but even then, I'm sorry, I just don't get the hate.
Regardless, I watched it, and while it's not the highest bar to cross, I think this is the best Peter Pan movie I've seen, for whatever that's worth. I'm going to review it in a Five Elements of Story approach, as in this case, that's the best way to do so.
PLOT
STORYTELLING
CHARACTERS
THEMES
WORLDBUILDING
CONCLUSION
...okay, I'll be honest, I have no idea why this film got review bombed. I mean, I have some idea, namely that it's a combination of every right wing culture war talking point plus misunderstandings of what the original story is actually about, but even then, I'm sorry, I just don't get the hate.
Regardless, I watched it, and while it's not the highest bar to cross, I think this is the best Peter Pan movie I've seen, for whatever that's worth. I'm going to review it in a Five Elements of Story approach, as in this case, that's the best way to do so.
PLOT
Chances are you're already familiar with the plot of Peter Pan (and if you aren't, go read up on it, I ain't here to babysit you). I actually don't have much to talk about here because in terms of plot, the movie is pretty much the same overall story that it's always been, and where it isn't, that's best discussed in other sections.
STORYTELLING
Again, I don't have much to talk about here. The movie's full runtime is 110 minutes. In terms of pacing, things are solid for the first 30 minutes, then they slow down for a fair bit, then things pick up at the end. A slow pace isn't inherently bad or good (and this is a film that wants to take its time), but it doesn't change how some sections of the film are more engrossing than others. I will say that this is perhaps the darkest Peter Pan film I've seen, both in terms of lighting and in tone/subject matter, but that's very much intentional. It's not dark environs for the sake of it, it's dark environs with a rationale behind it. That being said, there's good doses of humour as well when appropriate, as well as song numbers (sometimes didactic, sometimes not), which also fit in.
Okay, this is where I can start talking about the meat of the film, and where a lot of controversy has come in some circles. I'm going to start by stating that, without doubt, Wendy is the protagonist of the story, not Peter. So much so that "Wendy and Peter Pan" would technically be a better title, at least in the sense that it would represent who gets more plot and character relevance. Now, there's an argument to be made that Wendy is indeed the true protagonist of the Peter Pan story (certainly she's always been more important than Michael and John, who like their other incarnations are without any real presence or plot relevance), but there's no grey area here - Wendy IS the protagonist. It's Wendy who has the character arc, it's Wendy from whom we see most of the film's events, it's Wendy for whom the themes are most clearly reflected.
And y'know what? I'm fine with that. We can debate how loyal this is to the original work, but Wendy here is a solid character (fun fact: she's played by the daughter of Paul Anderson and Mila Jovovich, and I first saw her in Resident Evil: The Final Chapter) with good acting chops behind her. I'm not going to go step by step, but basically, she carries the movie.
Concerning Peter, I've seen a lot of people complaining about him for various reasons, among them that Peter is a "villain" in this movie. And...look, I know a lot of media is subjective, people are free to draw their own conclusions provided they're supported by the text, but if you read Peter Pan and think Peter is a standup hero, no questions asked, then I'm sorry, I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion. If you've only watched stuff like the 1950s Disney movie or the 2010s Pan movie, then sure, but to claim that Peter's 'villany' is a betrayal of the character indicates to me that you don't understand the type of person Peter is, at least by my reading. It's not right to say that Peter is "evil," but my understanding of Peter is something akin to a fae trickster. Amoral, because as a perpetual child, his moral core isn't developed enough to weigh the impacts of his actions.
At the least, that's how this film goes with things. Peter here is capricious, arrogant, etc. It's revealed that James Hook (originally called "James") was a lost boy. The FIRST lost boy, but Peter forced him to leave Neverland when he (James) started asking about his mother. Peter's original accounting of events is that "I'm the good guy, he's the bad guy, we fight," and even Wendy points out that there has to be more to the story than that. Peter certainly has a character arc in this movie, but it's an arc that I'd say remains true to the character. He grows up enough to apologize to Hook, to let the Darlings and Lost Boys leave, but he himself stays in Neverland, as there's no going home for him. It turns out that Wendy's house used to be Peter's, but his mother is long gone, so for him, he's stuck as is.
Concerning Hook, well, I've already summarized a lot of his character here, but regardless, it's a sound one. Jude Law conveys both menace, humour, and sympathy. This is a man who's quite happy in executing his own men as well as children, but is clearly a wounded soul. A man who's the result of Peter's actions and his own. Again, none of that is groundbreaking in terms of character concepts, but it does give Hook more depth than, well, probably any Peter Pan story I've seen (sans possibly Pan, but that was doing its own thing). Anyway, Hook is great in this.
Who else is there? Well, John and Michael are non-entities, but what else is new? The Lost Boys (and girls, because reasons) are fine. Tinkerbell is...alright, I'll be honest, I've never really understood why Tinkerbell of all characters got so much attention over the years. In the 1950s film, she's a jealous twat that barely has any character. In Pan, she appears for a few minutes. In the original book, she barely does anything. Yet this fairy got her own sub-series because...reasons. Meh, whatever, Tinkerbell here is decent enough. She speaks by 'jingling' through the entire film and Wendy can't understand her. Peter claims that he can, and 'translates' for her, but it's revealed that this is B.S., and Peter's saying whatever he wants Tinkerbell to have said, so to speak, yet it's Wendy who, at the end, is able to understand her. As Tinkerbell whispers (paraphrased) "thank you for being able to listen to me/understand me." Again, nothing major, but it's decent enough.
And rounding things up, Tiger Lily. Weird thing about Tiger Lily is that she's been more, ugh, "empowered" as time goes on. I can't even remember what she does in the original book sans be kidnapped, the 1950s film isn't much better, Pan sets her up as a warrior with a Peter-Hook love triangle sort of hinted, this film kind of splits the difference. The Tiger Lily here does fight in the final battle, but her main contribution is saving Peter after he's fatally wounded by Hook earlier in the movie. There's a sense of disconnect between Tiger Lily and the Lost Boys - for instance, she can't go into the Lost Boys hideout, and it's implied (least from what I recall) is that there's a fundamental difference between her and the Lost Boys. The idea that she's native to Neverland, while they're fundamentally 'wrong,' in the sense that their growth has been retarted. Because clearly Tiger Lily and her tribe seem to age normally, while the Lost Boys don't. Of course, I may be reading too much into this, but I'd say that like most of the characters here, this is the best take on the character I've seen in an adaptation.
And y'know what? I'm fine with that. We can debate how loyal this is to the original work, but Wendy here is a solid character (fun fact: she's played by the daughter of Paul Anderson and Mila Jovovich, and I first saw her in Resident Evil: The Final Chapter) with good acting chops behind her. I'm not going to go step by step, but basically, she carries the movie.
Concerning Peter, I've seen a lot of people complaining about him for various reasons, among them that Peter is a "villain" in this movie. And...look, I know a lot of media is subjective, people are free to draw their own conclusions provided they're supported by the text, but if you read Peter Pan and think Peter is a standup hero, no questions asked, then I'm sorry, I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion. If you've only watched stuff like the 1950s Disney movie or the 2010s Pan movie, then sure, but to claim that Peter's 'villany' is a betrayal of the character indicates to me that you don't understand the type of person Peter is, at least by my reading. It's not right to say that Peter is "evil," but my understanding of Peter is something akin to a fae trickster. Amoral, because as a perpetual child, his moral core isn't developed enough to weigh the impacts of his actions.
At the least, that's how this film goes with things. Peter here is capricious, arrogant, etc. It's revealed that James Hook (originally called "James") was a lost boy. The FIRST lost boy, but Peter forced him to leave Neverland when he (James) started asking about his mother. Peter's original accounting of events is that "I'm the good guy, he's the bad guy, we fight," and even Wendy points out that there has to be more to the story than that. Peter certainly has a character arc in this movie, but it's an arc that I'd say remains true to the character. He grows up enough to apologize to Hook, to let the Darlings and Lost Boys leave, but he himself stays in Neverland, as there's no going home for him. It turns out that Wendy's house used to be Peter's, but his mother is long gone, so for him, he's stuck as is.
Concerning Hook, well, I've already summarized a lot of his character here, but regardless, it's a sound one. Jude Law conveys both menace, humour, and sympathy. This is a man who's quite happy in executing his own men as well as children, but is clearly a wounded soul. A man who's the result of Peter's actions and his own. Again, none of that is groundbreaking in terms of character concepts, but it does give Hook more depth than, well, probably any Peter Pan story I've seen (sans possibly Pan, but that was doing its own thing). Anyway, Hook is great in this.
Who else is there? Well, John and Michael are non-entities, but what else is new? The Lost Boys (and girls, because reasons) are fine. Tinkerbell is...alright, I'll be honest, I've never really understood why Tinkerbell of all characters got so much attention over the years. In the 1950s film, she's a jealous twat that barely has any character. In Pan, she appears for a few minutes. In the original book, she barely does anything. Yet this fairy got her own sub-series because...reasons. Meh, whatever, Tinkerbell here is decent enough. She speaks by 'jingling' through the entire film and Wendy can't understand her. Peter claims that he can, and 'translates' for her, but it's revealed that this is B.S., and Peter's saying whatever he wants Tinkerbell to have said, so to speak, yet it's Wendy who, at the end, is able to understand her. As Tinkerbell whispers (paraphrased) "thank you for being able to listen to me/understand me." Again, nothing major, but it's decent enough.
And rounding things up, Tiger Lily. Weird thing about Tiger Lily is that she's been more, ugh, "empowered" as time goes on. I can't even remember what she does in the original book sans be kidnapped, the 1950s film isn't much better, Pan sets her up as a warrior with a Peter-Hook love triangle sort of hinted, this film kind of splits the difference. The Tiger Lily here does fight in the final battle, but her main contribution is saving Peter after he's fatally wounded by Hook earlier in the movie. There's a sense of disconnect between Tiger Lily and the Lost Boys - for instance, she can't go into the Lost Boys hideout, and it's implied (least from what I recall) is that there's a fundamental difference between her and the Lost Boys. The idea that she's native to Neverland, while they're fundamentally 'wrong,' in the sense that their growth has been retarted. Because clearly Tiger Lily and her tribe seem to age normally, while the Lost Boys don't. Of course, I may be reading too much into this, but I'd say that like most of the characters here, this is the best take on the character I've seen in an adaptation.
Don't have too much to say here, because I shouldn't have to spell out the themes of Peter Pan to anyone (and if I do, well, do it on your own time). Basically, those themes are intact, and are conveyed well, the idea that everyone has to grow up eventually, that attempting to remain locked in childhood is self-defeating at best, dangerous at worst. That being said, the theme of "death" and "time" isn't really here in the same way - for instance, Hook isn't devoured by the crocodile, and while I think the watch plays a role, the crocodile barely features in the film. On the other hand, the "growing up" theme is conveyed well. We see how it's impacted Peter and Hook, we see how it affects Wendy. For instance, her "happy thoughts" at the start of the film are of her childhood, while at the end, they're her imagining her future life as an adult. Again, nothing groundbreaking, but conveyed well.
This is arguably the most redundant category to talk about in Peter Pan. After all, it's a fairy tale, and fairy tales don't tend to put much stock in worldbuilding. That being said, the film actually does have elements that make for interesting reading (well, interesting for me at least), so on that note, I'll start with Neverland itself. The version of Neverland we see here is either the most boring take on the land, or the best, depending on how you interpret the film.
On the one hand, Neverland in this film looks like an island that would be at home on Earth, as in, it's green, it's got trees, it's, well, an island (apparently the scenes were shot on the Faroe Islands, so there you go). There's very little that's fantastical about it. We see some mermaids, but apart from that, everything is mundane, or at the most, something mundane that's given magical properties (e.g. a ship that can fly). So if the be-all and end-all of this is simply how Neverland looks, then yes, the worldbuilding is arguably dire in this regard. On the other, and this may be reading too much into things (but then, what else is new?), this is arguably part of the point. There's an interaction between Peter and Wendy that basically has Peter say that "it's [Neverland] real. Just a different kind of real." By extension, what I took from this is that Neverland is a real place, ergo, its apparent mundanity can be explained, in spite of its fantastic elements. So when things 'get real" (e.g. when Hook nearly kills Peter), it's a reinforcement of the film's themes.
There's also the Cree tribe. Now, again, likely overanalyzing, but two things. One, there's ruins in Neverland. One set of ruins is the hideout of Peter and co. The other is that the Cree appear to be indigenous to Neverland. Not in the socio-political sense, as in, that the Cree here are native to Neverland in the way that humans are native to Earth. The original story had a fairytale element to the "Redskins," here, the Cree seem to operate under physical laws that we might recognize. As in, we see that the Cree clearly have different ages, and Tiger Lily references her grandmother, while the Lost Boys are stuck in perpetual childhood due to whatever metaphysical properties Neverland may or may not possess.
Now, of course, none of this is that relevant. Similarly, you have to take it on faith that Hook could sail away from Neverland, meet pirates, grow up, and sail back. But if my reading's correct, it does reinforce the themes that the film goes for. Of course, you could ask how Cree could apparently pop into existence if Neverland's a pocket dimension or whatever, but then, semantics.
On the one hand, Neverland in this film looks like an island that would be at home on Earth, as in, it's green, it's got trees, it's, well, an island (apparently the scenes were shot on the Faroe Islands, so there you go). There's very little that's fantastical about it. We see some mermaids, but apart from that, everything is mundane, or at the most, something mundane that's given magical properties (e.g. a ship that can fly). So if the be-all and end-all of this is simply how Neverland looks, then yes, the worldbuilding is arguably dire in this regard. On the other, and this may be reading too much into things (but then, what else is new?), this is arguably part of the point. There's an interaction between Peter and Wendy that basically has Peter say that "it's [Neverland] real. Just a different kind of real." By extension, what I took from this is that Neverland is a real place, ergo, its apparent mundanity can be explained, in spite of its fantastic elements. So when things 'get real" (e.g. when Hook nearly kills Peter), it's a reinforcement of the film's themes.
There's also the Cree tribe. Now, again, likely overanalyzing, but two things. One, there's ruins in Neverland. One set of ruins is the hideout of Peter and co. The other is that the Cree appear to be indigenous to Neverland. Not in the socio-political sense, as in, that the Cree here are native to Neverland in the way that humans are native to Earth. The original story had a fairytale element to the "Redskins," here, the Cree seem to operate under physical laws that we might recognize. As in, we see that the Cree clearly have different ages, and Tiger Lily references her grandmother, while the Lost Boys are stuck in perpetual childhood due to whatever metaphysical properties Neverland may or may not possess.
Now, of course, none of this is that relevant. Similarly, you have to take it on faith that Hook could sail away from Neverland, meet pirates, grow up, and sail back. But if my reading's correct, it does reinforce the themes that the film goes for. Of course, you could ask how Cree could apparently pop into existence if Neverland's a pocket dimension or whatever, but then, semantics.
So, yeah. Overall, film is good. It's hardly groundbreaking, but still, good. Nowhere near the abomination that so many people make it out to be.
Also, I've seen enough PP films to do a ranking, so here it is:
4) Peter Pan (1953)
3) Return to Neverland
2) Pan
1) Peter Pan and Wendy
Also, I've seen enough PP films to do a ranking, so here it is:
4) Peter Pan (1953)
3) Return to Neverland
2) Pan
1) Peter Pan and Wendy
To be precise, I was meaning the originals of those series as higher quality compared to Friday 13th the original.
All of them start heading off into diminishing returns as the sequels roll on.
Never appreciated torture porn. It is ugly, depressing, and in many ways lazy: not so much scary as just grotesque. Thankfully, I feel it's kind of had its day, and that's a good thing.
If comparing each original/first entry I can see where you're coming from. My list for each first entry would be:
- Nightmare on Elm Street
- Friday the 13th
- Texas Chainsaw Massacre
- Halloween
- Child's Play
Agreed. The genre itself pretty much died by the mid 2010s. Most signs point towards 2012-2013 though. I remember my older brother used make bend over backwards excuses for each Saw sequel. Whether it be plot or character details and retcons. To the point of "the studio has to make their money back somehow!" Even he can't watch the movies anymore around 2018. Now claiming their too depressing! I asked "What took you so long?". His response was him saying he didn't want to admit how bad the franchise had gotten around that point.
The ever-so-tedious drive to create sequels was wearisome. In a global sense, okay, evil never dies - but the films don't represent that, it's more just frustratingly unkillable stalkers as cliche. In Friday 13th, for instance, the killer dies: the shock of the murdered boy corpse emerging from the lake is more easily put down to a trauma-induced hallucination of the survivor. And then suddenly Jason turns from a dead pre-teen to a supernaturally indestructible huge adult for the sequels, and it's instantly jumped the shark into WTF hogwash.
I kind of preferred the idea that there's an evil being and a bunch of squishies, and maybe it doesn't really matter whether the protagonist kills Dracula or the ghost kills the protagonist at the end, but there's no sense of total futility about it all.
It's one of the high reasons why I don't bother with most horror movies any more. The slasher movies especially. The only slasher I love recent was Fear Street Trilogy back in 2021. It things differently, and good, while having fun or subverting old and beyond tired tropes. While actually ending on a self-contained story. There's is a minor in-between credit sequence where someone takes the evil book from the cave, but it's just a random person's hands, and it has nothing to do the characters present. I tend to ignore it, until whenever the sequels, which will focus on completely different protags, comes out.
Might be rose colored glasses but I took the family to see 2003 Peter Pan and really love that one. My wife couldn't stand his laugh but that is what a brash little boy is supposed to sound like.
Fleabag and the Dial of Destiny
So obviously the trilogy is off the table. But is it a better send off than Crystal Skull? Eh. Dial basically undoes every development from Indy's life introduced in that movie - wife, kid, retirement - only to make him jump through the same hoops and more or less reach the same ending. It's got the same unsatisfying "all for nothing" vibes from The Flash, rife with godawful CGI and complete with an annoying comedy double act. There's even REDACTED involved.
What you're in for with Dial is 150 minutes of Indy constantly being scolded, captured, outwitted and beaten the hell up by both Wolfenstein nazis and Fleabag. Now Indy is no stranger to getting his ass handed to him but he has his moments too, whether it's dumb luck, a moment of creativity or gauntlets like the convoy in Raiders and the tank in Last Crusade. And the worst I can say about this movie is he never gets his one moment to shine. He's doddering throughout, is constantly getting captured and rescued, is essentially a plus one in Fleabag's adventure (with dialogue to that effect). Even when confronted with choice in the movie's bizarro climax he isn't given the dignity to actually pick.
So obviously the trilogy is off the table. But is it a better send off than Crystal Skull? Eh. Dial basically undoes every development from Indy's life introduced in that movie - wife, kid, retirement - only to make him jump through the same hoops and more or less reach the same ending. It's got the same unsatisfying "all for nothing" vibes from The Flash, rife with godawful CGI and complete with an annoying comedy double act. There's even REDACTED involved.
What you're in for with Dial is 150 minutes of Indy constantly being scolded, captured, outwitted and beaten the hell up by both Wolfenstein nazis and Fleabag. Now Indy is no stranger to getting his ass handed to him but he has his moments too, whether it's dumb luck, a moment of creativity or gauntlets like the convoy in Raiders and the tank in Last Crusade. And the worst I can say about this movie is he never gets his one moment to shine. He's doddering throughout, is constantly getting captured and rescued, is essentially a plus one in Fleabag's adventure (with dialogue to that effect). Even when confronted with choice in the movie's bizarro climax he isn't given the dignity to actually pick.
Last edited:
I just rewatched the whole Indiana Jones trilogy as the new one is coming out and I haven't seen the trilogy in a long time and I had to actually take the shrink wrap off 2 of the blu-rays as I haven't watched them since buying them on blu-ray.
Raiders of the Lost Ark - 7/10
Temple of Doom - 7/10
The Last Crusade - 10/10
I had forgotten how sorta wacky and cartoony Indiana Jones is. It almost feels like old-school James Bond movies but made for kids. The "Marion in a basket" chase scene is literally something you'd see in a Scooby Doo bit. Some of the banter is just so cliche and dad-joke-y but the actors pull it off and it works because the lines are delivered so earnestly as well. These are, perhaps, the best father/son movies.
-Raiders is the least well made movie of the bunch; the set-pieces just aren't as well shot and edited, but still plenty of good fun. There's some very obvious parts of scenes that were sped up and it's super noticeable, I almost thought my TV switched on soap opera mode randomly. Marion is easily the best leading lady of the series. And when Indy decides to not save Marion so it's not tipped off that he's there was hilarious.
-Temple is better made than Raiders but just has a different vibe to it that doesn't quite feel the same as Raiders or Crusade. Short Round is obviously great and has a great dynamic with Indy. Kate Chapshaw is solid as the leading lady, though a bit too incompetent at times. I wish there was a really short scene at the end where Indy gets Lao Che back from the opening scenes.
-Crusade is Indy done literally as good as you can. Sean Connery is, of course, awesome. The movie just feels like you're getting pulled from one set-piece to the next at near breakneck speed but also just enough bits of downtime inbetween as well. The set-pieces and action scenes are also just plain better than the other movies from design and how they are shot and cut, just everything. The movie sorta feels like The Dark Knight in the sense that if you paused it halfway through and just go over in your head everything that happened already, you're in shock that it all happened in just an hour or so of runtime. The leading lady gets very little to do but you get Sean Connery instead basically so that's a solid trade. There's still plenty of cartoony bits like when Senior and Junior are tied to the chairs, get to the fireplace that has the wall that swings around into the Nazi command room and all the Nazis run into the burning room to get them and Indy traps them in there, then you see there's not a single Nazi that's in the command room anymore, it's just so cartoonish but totally works and brings smile to your face. The last bit where Indy has to get to the Holy Grail is still as magical when you were a kid. The ending is literally Indy and crew riding into the sunset as the credits roll and it's just the perfect ending to the series (as you know they NEVER made another one of these movies).
---
Raiders of the Lost Ark - 7/10
Temple of Doom - 7/10
The Last Crusade - 10/10
I had forgotten how sorta wacky and cartoony Indiana Jones is. It almost feels like old-school James Bond movies but made for kids. The "Marion in a basket" chase scene is literally something you'd see in a Scooby Doo bit. Some of the banter is just so cliche and dad-joke-y but the actors pull it off and it works because the lines are delivered so earnestly as well. These are, perhaps, the best father/son movies.
-Raiders is the least well made movie of the bunch; the set-pieces just aren't as well shot and edited, but still plenty of good fun. There's some very obvious parts of scenes that were sped up and it's super noticeable, I almost thought my TV switched on soap opera mode randomly. Marion is easily the best leading lady of the series. And when Indy decides to not save Marion so it's not tipped off that he's there was hilarious.
-Temple is better made than Raiders but just has a different vibe to it that doesn't quite feel the same as Raiders or Crusade. Short Round is obviously great and has a great dynamic with Indy. Kate Chapshaw is solid as the leading lady, though a bit too incompetent at times. I wish there was a really short scene at the end where Indy gets Lao Che back from the opening scenes.
-Crusade is Indy done literally as good as you can. Sean Connery is, of course, awesome. The movie just feels like you're getting pulled from one set-piece to the next at near breakneck speed but also just enough bits of downtime inbetween as well. The set-pieces and action scenes are also just plain better than the other movies from design and how they are shot and cut, just everything. The movie sorta feels like The Dark Knight in the sense that if you paused it halfway through and just go over in your head everything that happened already, you're in shock that it all happened in just an hour or so of runtime. The leading lady gets very little to do but you get Sean Connery instead basically so that's a solid trade. There's still plenty of cartoony bits like when Senior and Junior are tied to the chairs, get to the fireplace that has the wall that swings around into the Nazi command room and all the Nazis run into the burning room to get them and Indy traps them in there, then you see there's not a single Nazi that's in the command room anymore, it's just so cartoonish but totally works and brings smile to your face. The last bit where Indy has to get to the Holy Grail is still as magical when you were a kid. The ending is literally Indy and crew riding into the sunset as the credits roll and it's just the perfect ending to the series (as you know they NEVER made another one of these movies).
---
Sounds worse than I thought it would be. I'll check it out at some point out of morbid curiosity.
Dial in it's present time is set over 10 years after Crystal Skull (1957 vs 1969)
Well that's very unpleasant. I'm curious as to how they waved off his family.
Movie opens near the end of one of Indy's old adventures during WW2; rest of it takes place in 1969, long after Crystal Skull.
I'll spoil it if you want. Mutt enlisted at some point to spite Indy and died in Vietnam; Indy couldn't handle it and him and Marion separated some time after.
Just got back from watching the new horror-comedy The Blackening. Honestly? I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. It's far from the best horror-comedy I've seen, mind you. It's definitely no Tucker and Dale vs. Evil, or even Scary Movie. That said, the acting was pretty decent, even factoring that each character was intentionally a stereotype, and a lot of the comedy hit for me. The movie did play itself a bit more seriously than I expected, but going in blind with no expectations? Yeah, I enjoyed it, and there were a couple of twists that legitimately got me.
I'm a be honest, Mutt is in no way a loss because he was an annoying little fuck and Shia was awful in the part. I understand why he was asked, and I understand why he took the job. But he sucked and the movie was poorer for his presence. And honestly considering how tempestuous Indy and Marion's relationship was, if Mutt's enlistment was to spite Indy and he died, I can absolutely see them separating after that.
John Wick 4 - 5/10
Honestly, a slog to sit through. The stunt work, fight choreography and action cinematography is great, but the action scenes go on so long. Too long. Doesn't help that John Wick is not a versatile character, he does a lot of similar moves, and he's now pretty much a superhero now. There's only so many times I can see invulnerable John mow down slews of goons, hold his suit in front of his face, fall from crippling heights, and repeatedly run over by a car before it becomes repetitive tedium. Oh wait, here comes a mini boss. Ok, he's dead, back to killing goons. If it were me, I'd cut the action scene by like half. I liked the Hotline Miami scene tho.
Also that underground assassin society stuff has just gotten bloated and silly. I mean, it was always a silly, but it's just gotten comical and obnoxious. The ever more convoluted rules and traditions they keep pulling out their ass, the designed-by-commitee 'cool' look, the overly serieux of it all.
Honestly, a slog to sit through. The stunt work, fight choreography and action cinematography is great, but the action scenes go on so long. Too long. Doesn't help that John Wick is not a versatile character, he does a lot of similar moves, and he's now pretty much a superhero now. There's only so many times I can see invulnerable John mow down slews of goons, hold his suit in front of his face, fall from crippling heights, and repeatedly run over by a car before it becomes repetitive tedium. Oh wait, here comes a mini boss. Ok, he's dead, back to killing goons. If it were me, I'd cut the action scene by like half. I liked the Hotline Miami scene tho.
Also that underground assassin society stuff has just gotten bloated and silly. I mean, it was always a silly, but it's just gotten comical and obnoxious. The ever more convoluted rules and traditions they keep pulling out their ass, the designed-by-commitee 'cool' look, the overly serieux of it all.