Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
As much as I don't care for either movie, and think they're rather forgettable, there is a solid directors hand present in those movies. They don't feel like they're assembled by a commitee or that they need to fit into a roadmap for future movies and shows.
That's mainly from the kids who saw Bayformers are now in their 20s. They don't know shit.
Yet I still hate all of the live action Matrix sequels with Resurrections being the worst of the lot. Episode is a6/10 and Revenge of the Sith will always be 7/10 for me.
I would be inclined to agree that more everything is reduced to a formula, the less individuality is expressed. This also has the likely effect of decreasing novelty, leaving us served with an ever-greater diet of sameish mush.
LLM-style AIs will almost certainly only exacerbate this - they'll increasingly be used to cobble together work which will have the likely effect of winnowing output to reduce the alogrithmically unfavoured. And then as time ticks on they'll end up creating their content from AI content and become self-referential, winnowing away even more less favoured content. The end result will be a degeneration, not just of artistic standards but ultimately AI's ability to generate content that isn't gibberish.
Funnily enough, I know this is a bit of a tangent but probably relevant is what's been going on in the music business and Spotify as it will apply to all artistic output, eventually. I will send you to the source for the long explanation by Cory Doctorow:
This gives a basic insight into corporations here. They do not care about art and artists - although we already knew that. They are merely fighting copyright battles regarding to ensure that they get paid for AI content, even if it obliterates the income generation ability of artists - the source that currently supplies their content. They don't care about the artists, they care about the content, and like any business they want to minimise the costs of their product.
Also, we might note, the comments of the OpenAI chief operating officer: "Some creative jobs maybe will go away, but maybe they shouldn’t have been there in the first place". Because after all, why should artists get money when it could instead go to tech firms?
I’d go so far as to say this is one of Disney’s best IP’s because it teaches something that even adults struggle with sometimes to varying degrees.
Its hard for me to put into words how much I adore Inside Out as a thing. I think its an invaluable example of metaphor that adults and children can use to talk to each other about feelings that terrify and drive us. I also think its a simple and beautiful story about a kid who goes through some shit and manages to come through the other end wiser and better without invoking magic powers or other forms of fantasy by simply saying that yes, these feelings are natural and will have them. Like I'm the easiest lay for that fantasy shit because I love it; but I feel my array of film experiences would be poorer in a big way without these two adventures inside the head of Riley Anderson and occasionally her mum and dad.
You could say Hollywood has gone through periods likes this before. Pre the 1940's there was some really weird shit out there. Then up to the 1960's Hollywood tried to be as squeaky clean as possible, with the 70's going right back to raunchy. But since then we've slowly but surely had anything that might make audiences feel uncomfortable filtered out of blockbusters. I mean, Jaws had the onscreen death of a kid with blood and everything - can you imagine a crowd pleaser doing that today? Not that I'm asking for that, but some bite back in our blockbusters would be welcome. A 'Doc Ock awakening in the hospital' scene for the MCU or Star Wars.
I cannot imagine a blockbuster meant to be enjoyed BY children doing that, no. Neither then or now.
Whilst I understand a certain squeamishness about depicting the deaths of children, I'm also less than convinced we can deem it fit for children to watch blockbusters where adults are eradicated often or unpleasantly, but not children.
Although depending on what we mean by children. Under 12s, we might want to handle deaths sensitively; 12-15, some caution desirable; 15-17 mostly okay; and adults can enjoy "Saw: Schooldays - The Origin" all they like.
Oh please, blockbusters still have plenty of bite. We're just so desensitized at this point. There's so much variety of movies. That I really don't care anymore.
One more thing:
No, it's because bad habits or things that might make audiences feel uncomfortable have been filtered out of blockbusters to not scare off parents. It's similar to why only existing IPs get to be blockbusters anymore. Just as original ideas have been slowly abandoned so too has tension. Anything that might not get those extra butts in the seat.
I was going for the most extreme example since Jaws is considered the first summer blockbuster. And as a movie I don't think the consensus is that it's inapropriate for children. What we consider meant for children is very broad. The original Star Wars trilogy has limbs getting cut off, people getting choked, and even an animal getting disembowled. Very much seen as something kids would love though.
I personally do not care at this point. With all the crazy stuff that appears on streaming. I don't know why they be so afraid to make their audience uncomfortable at this point. Good news. I don't have to be in the theater to get something cool or uncomfortable. I'll still go when I can, When it's the problem with the system itself. I'm not gonna sit around and wait for something when I already have it available. The audience can handle uncomfortable stuff. Fine, but you're always gonna have your negative nancies and people with no lives.
Besides, A24 exists, and they've been making there audiences uncomfortable from the start and got all that money.
Last year, the top selling movie of the year was Barbie, and the third-highest grossing movie was Oppenheimer. Although if you are talking domestic box office, Oppenheimer does drop down to "only" fifth place. Meanwhile, the top 5 biggest flops were from established IPs, and the top 3 biggest flops were from blockbuster franchises: The MCU with The Marvels, DCEU with The Flash, and Indiana Jones 5.
Original movies are out there, and doing just fine.
ETA: And let's not forget that it was only two years ago that a movie about fighting an existential crisis across multiple timelines, with a scene featuring security guards unlocking abilities from alternate timelines by shoving a statue up their ass was the runaway success at the award ceremonies.
Well first off, Barbie and Oppenheimer aren't exactly original ideas. Secondly, the whole Barbenheimer craze did a lot to boost both movies, which as a movement was very rare. This wasn't the norm, and neither was established blockbuster franchises flopping as hard as they did. What we saw last year were the chickens coming home to roost, because of the decade and a half of blockbuster formula killing a lot of the enthusiam for going to the theater. Not that Covid getting people to prefer steaming, and streaming being a fucking cesspit poisoning the concept of movies didn't help neither.
And movies like Everything Everywhere All at Once aren't exactly the norm either. It succeeding and getting a lot of coverage was a special event, because movies like that never do, if they even get made at all. You could wonder how far that movie would've gotten if the Russo brothers weren't attached to it.
I don't necessarily care either, I have plenty of older movies to quench my thirst. Just giving a reason for why the Star Wars prequels and Matrix sequels are considered good now. I mean shit, in retrospect I find Alien: Resurrection a quality watch now, due to the pressense of physical sets and even a dang underwater sequence.
Hence why horror movies are the most satisfying for me to watch these days.
A ★★★½ review of Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)
“The only thing more tiring than growing that big was putting up with Hank’s bullshit.” For some casting trivia, one person considered for the role of Janet Van Dyne was Catherine Zeta-Jones, who is actually Michael Douglas's wife in reality, so maybe that casting was too obvious. In addition...
letterboxd.com
A ★★★ review of The Innkeepers (2011)
“What do they want?” “The same thing you do.” “What?” “To live.” This film follows two front desk agents at an inn a week from closing named Claire (Sara Paxton) and Luke (Pat Healy). One night, Claire notices some strange happenings and, given that Luke is an amateur ghost hunter, decides to...
letterboxd.com
Furiosa (2024)
George Miller's new spinoff of the Mad Max series, serving as a prequel to 2015's Fury Road. Which is an interesting decision, as the Mad Max series has always made a point of not having any continuity. Seeing a movie directly related to another certainly feels like a break with tradition so one wonders what Miller's motivation might have been.
Furiosa is odd, particularly in relation to Fury Road. While what we're seeing is clearly the same world and the same characters, it has a very different feel than its continuation. The all Miller no Filler pacing of Fury Road made it come off like almost a single, uninterrupted, two hour action sequence that barely ever slows down and never for long. Furiosa, on the other hand, takes a much more deliberate approach, dedicates much more time to world building and setting up a plot that is much less simple and spans a much longer time than Fury Road.
In some ways, Furiosa is almost perfect to wash out the bad taste that Dune 2 left in my mouth. Feeling like a similar kind of movie, but done so much more compellingly. Much like Dune, it works on a larger than life scale and concerns itself with not only telling a story but creating a world but much unlike Dune it feels lively and vibrant, rather than cold and clinical. The odd characters and odd slang and odd cultures come off as natural and fascinating, rather than boring and stilted.
The story, as is, concerns the titular Furiosa, portrayed in Fury Road by Charlize Theron, here by Alyla Browne and Anya Taylor-Joy. Growing up in a peaceful Oasis in the post apocalyptic wasteland, she is abducted by followers of warlord Dementus. Her mother being killed, she runs with Dementus' crew, before defecting to rival warlord Immortan Joe where her quest for revenge and self liberation begins. It's not a tremendously complex story, although one with a lot more meat to it than Fury Road's, which effectively amounted to a single long, and very awesome, chase sequemce. Furiosa emphasises its backdrop of tribal wars and territorial disputes next to its more personal, more classical heroes journey story.
All of which is to say, while the action is similarly intense to that of Fury Road, it's spaced out a lot more. And where it's visual language is every bit the crunchy, heavy metal aussie desert opera that Fury Road was, it gets to breathe and rest now a lot more than it did in FR. All of which serves to make it perhaps a more effective post-apocalyptic adventure movie, but also perhaps to some a less effective action movie. It's very difficult for me to talk about it, because it has certainly more going on then Fury Road, but it isn't quite as outwardly fun. That said though, it's still a lot more fun than anything else I've seen in a while.
Chris Hemsworth contributes a lot to that, playing a somewhat more humanized take on the apocalyptic gang leader than most other Mad Max villains. Next to Immortan Joe, he comes off as someone way out of his depth, struggling to keep his crew together and hiding his lack of confidence behind cheesy jokes and smug smiles. Almost like a parody of the dashing, one liner spouting action heroes of something like a Marvel movie, playing one, of course, being what made Hemsworth famous. Less of an evil overlord and more of a wannabe, working rather well for his role as the antagonist being based on more of a personal grudge.
Despite that, though, Furiosa's scale feels large and mythical. Back in the days I glibly described Fury Road as "El Topo with monster trucks", although now I will say that Furiosa fits this description even better. The Mad Max movies always somewhat treated its own stories as embellished legends of a post-civilization mythos and Furiosa embodies that as well as any of them. Specifically the villains death brought to mind something you'd see in a Jodorowsky movie. All of which is to say, there's a reason Hideo Kojima always refers to George Miller as "god". Compared to his contemporaries, be they Ridley Scott or John Carpenter or even James Cameron, none of them managed to maintain this spotless a track record at this high an age. Of course all bets are off once the whole 6 hour uncut version of Rebel Moon will be released in August, but as is, Furiosa stands as 2024's best action movie by a country mile.
George Miller's new spinoff of the Mad Max series, serving as a prequel to 2015's Fury Road. Which is an interesting decision, as the Mad Max series has always made a point of not having any continuity. Seeing a movie directly related to another certainly feels like a break with tradition so one wonders what Miller's motivation might have been.
Furiosa is odd, particularly in relation to Fury Road. While what we're seeing is clearly the same world and the same characters, it has a very different feel than its continuation. The all Miller no Filler pacing of Fury Road made it come off like almost a single, uninterrupted, two hour action sequence that barely ever slows down and never for long. Furiosa, on the other hand, takes a much more deliberate approach, dedicates much more time to world building and setting up a plot that is much less simple and spans a much longer time than Fury Road.
In some ways, Furiosa is almost perfect to wash out the bad taste that Dune 2 left in my mouth. Feeling like a similar kind of movie, but done so much more compellingly. Much like Dune, it works on a larger than life scale and concerns itself with not only telling a story but creating a world but much unlike Dune it feels lively and vibrant, rather than cold and clinical. The odd characters and odd slang and odd cultures come off as natural and fascinating, rather than boring and stilted.
The story, as is, concerns the titular Furiosa, portrayed in Fury Road by Charlize Theron, here by Alyla Browne and Anya Taylor-Joy. Growing up in a peaceful Oasis in the post apocalyptic wasteland, she is abducted by followers of warlord Dementus. Her mother being killed, she runs with Dementus' crew, before defecting to rival warlord Immortan Joe where her quest for revenge and self liberation begins. It's not a tremendously complex story, although one with a lot more meat to it than Fury Road's, which effectively amounted to a single long, and very awesome, chase sequemce. Furiosa emphasises its backdrop of tribal wars and territorial disputes next to its more personal, more classical heroes journey story.
All of which is to say, while the action is similarly intense to that of Fury Road, it's spaced out a lot more. And where it's visual language is every bit the crunchy, heavy metal aussie desert opera that Fury Road was, it gets to breathe and rest now a lot more than it did in FR. All of which serves to make it perhaps a more effective post-apocalyptic adventure movie, but also perhaps to some a less effective action movie. It's very difficult for me to talk about it, because it has certainly more going on then Fury Road, but it isn't quite as outwardly fun. That said though, it's still a lot more fun than anything else I've seen in a while.
Chris Hemsworth contributes a lot to that, playing a somewhat more humanized take on the apocalyptic gang leader than most other Mad Max villains. Next to Immortan Joe, he comes off as someone way out of his depth, struggling to keep his crew together and hiding his lack of confidence behind cheesy jokes and smug smiles. Almost like a parody of the dashing, one liner spouting action heroes of something like a Marvel movie, playing one, of course, being what made Hemsworth famous. Less of an evil overlord and more of a wannabe, working rather well for his role as the antagonist being based on more of a personal grudge.
Despite that, though, Furiosa's scale feels large and mythical. Back in the days I glibly described Fury Road as "El Topo with monster trucks", although now I will say that Furiosa fits this description even better. The Mad Max movies always somewhat treated its own stories as embellished legends of a post-civilization mythos and Furiosa embodies that as well as any of them. Specifically the villains death brought to mind something you'd see in a Jodorowsky movie. All of which is to say, there's a reason Hideo Kojima always refers to George Miller as "god". Compared to his contemporaries, be they Ridley Scott or John Carpenter or even James Cameron, none of them managed to maintain this spotless a track record at this high an age. Of course all bets are off once the whole 6 hour uncut version of Rebel Moon will be released in August, but as is, Furiosa stands as 2024's best action movie by a country mile.
A ★★★★★ review of Heat (1995)
“I do what I do best, I take scores. You do what you do best, try to stop guys like me.” This film follows two groups of people. On one side, you have a group of robbers led by Neil McCauley (Robert De Niro), consisting of Gilbert Trejo (Danny Trejo), Chris Sherhilis (Val Kilmer), Nate (Jon...
letterboxd.com
That Moby track at the end lives rent free in my head.A ★★★★★ review of Heat (1995)
“I do what I do best, I take scores. You do what you do best, try to stop guys like me.” This film follows two groups of people. On one side, you have a group of robbers led by Neil McCauley (Robert De Niro), consisting of Gilbert Trejo (Danny Trejo), Chris Sherhilis (Val Kilmer), Nate (Jon...