Movie, TV, Web Series, and Music Hot Take(s).

[BrawlMan]

Street Fighter: The Movie is a lot of fun. It's obviously not a masterpiece, but even besides Raul Julia's unforgettable performance as Bison, there's quite a few good actors clearly having fun with their parts (especially Byron Mann as Rayu), the changes to the story and characters make a surprising amount of sense in the context of America in 1994 (and also trying to write an actual plot instead of just two-sentence backstories for no-plot-needed fights), and it's endlessly quotable in any situation. Honestly, if you're at all interested in so-bad-it's-good as an aesthetic or just want a good time, you should watch it.

My problem with SF 1994, is aside from Julia's performance, and Zangief, I find the movie boring. Yeah, it's better than live-action Double Dragon and live-action Super Mario Bros., but that's a super low bar clear. Double Impact (1991) is a Double Dragon movie and video game movie than the official live-action SF and DD. Also, Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie pretty makes watching the live-action version, even more of a chore.

The original Mortal Kombat movie actually just sucks. It's over-reliant on repeatedly dropping the same three lines from the video game, most of the fights are mid, and the plot is kinda nonsensical even by Mortal Kombat standards. I seriously don't get why people say it's better than SF:TM.

No, I disagree on all of that. Mortal Kombat (1995) is better than Street Fighter (1994) in several ways and it's not hard to figure out why:

1. MK is way more straightforward and has a smaller focused cast. Street Fighter has a lot of characters, but Guile is the clear focus. The only problem, was that Van Damme was horribly miscast for this role. I have nothing against guy and love most of his films, but they were clearly chasing a trend back in the 90s. All of the leads in MK are way more memorable, have better written line of dialogue, and there are plenty of iconic moments and lines in the film. Especially from Raiden, Shang, Cage, and fucking Kano! Kano becoming Australian was from the films, and made it into the fucking game canon! That's still awesome!
2. SF may have fewer actions, but they're worse, and not as fun to look at. At least in MK, they use their actual moves from the games and they look great. The action scenes still hold up today. Yes, the CGI for Reptile sucks at modern eyes, but back in 1995, no one was complaining, and the tech was new at the time.
3. Goro looks awesome and his effects have aged well. Nothing further.
4. I care about our leads in MK. I care about Liu Kang, Sony, and Cage, because the writing and the actors performances made me care. They did their best and they all did a great job. The actors in SF tried and cared, but most of them end up uninteresting, or Julia is running circles around everyone! I find little reason to care. SF 1994 felt more like a GI Joe film, than a Street Fighter film. Even hardcore fans of this movie point this out.
5. The ending..... I actually tear up at that part. It gave me feels. I have an older brother, and we have a similar connection to Liu and Chan.

​

MK Annihilation is a piece of shit, not the original 1995 film. Don't get the original mixed up for that piece of shit.

 

[thebobmaster]

Street Fighter: The Movie is a lot of fun. It's obviously not a masterpiece, but even besides Raul Julia's unforgettable performance as Bison, there's quite a few good actors clearly having fun with their parts (especially Byron Mann as Rayu), the changes to the story and characters make a surprising amount of sense in the context of America in 1994 (and also trying to write an actual plot instead of just two-sentence backstories for no-plot-needed fights), and it's endlessly quotable in any situation. Honestly, if you're at all interested in so-bad-it's-good as an aesthetic or just want a good time, you should watch it.

The original Mortal Kombat movie actually just sucks. It's over-reliant on repeatedly dropping the same three lines from the video game, most of the fights are mid, and the plot is kinda nonsensical even by Mortal Kombat standards. I seriously don't get why people say it's better than SF:TM.

I disagree with your opinion on Mortal Kombat, because of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa absolutely owning the role of Shang Tsung, and I love Linden Ashby as Johnny Cage bringing in a lot of solid humor and lines, but I can still respect that.

As for Street Fighter, yep, total agreement here. Even outside of so-bad-it's-good factors, M. Bison's "Tuesday" speech has become a meme for a reason. It's legitimately a great "I did what now?" scenes where a villain just doesn't remember doing something that completely changed the hero's life. Hell, even Chun-Li's little-remembered response adds to that scene. "It was a Wednesday!"

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

black mirror was too hopeful

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Not mine but still always kinda wondered about that scene -

 

[Drathnoxis]

It's a shame that DBZ Abridged ended after the Cell Arc. The show was kind of funny during the Saiyan and Frieza arcs, but they really hit their stride in the Cell Arc and started knocking it out of the park. Would have been great to see what they could have done with the Buu arc.

 

[BrawlMan]

It's a shame that DBZ Abridged ended after the Cell Arc. The show was kind of funny during the Saiyan and Frieza arcs, but they really hit their stride in the Cell Arc and started knocking it out of the park. Would have been great to see what they could have done with the Buu arc.

That's really not a hot take. Most fans the feel the exact way you do. Team Four Star got burned out and wanted move on to better things. I don't blame them, and I know you don't either. At least we got these for something:

​

 

[Kyrian007]

DC has some great characters, perfect to test the waters to launch a multi-character cinematic universe... but they won't even try unless it starts with Superman or Batman. How do you not learn from Marvel and launch with a b-tier like Iron Man first. Now, Marvel did it out of necessity of course. At the time they didn't have the movie rights to their A-tier heroes like X-Men or Spider Man. But when you launch coming out of the gate with a big name shitbiscut like Man of Steel, you can't recover. And the proof was in the scoreboard. They've played second, 3rd or even 4th fiddle in the superhero movie world until now (behind at times Sony and/or Fox.)

Now, this reboot could turn things around. But I still maintain that they would have been better off launching with something lower budget and more modest. If it fails, can the whole thing and start over with another hero. Or if it tests well, then film a post credits scene to tack on introducing a bigger name hero. And even then I wouldn't have chosen Batman or Superman yet. Start really freaking small. I'm a Dr. Fate fan, start there. Start with Blue Beetle, don't drop it to modest success mid DCU and then forbid mention of it ever again after failing spectacularly with your bigger names. When you finally get that breakout hit, post-credit fire up Flash or GL. Don't go stampeding straight for Batman or Superman. Build some anticipation, find out who your good writers and directors are. Don't just pick them and then SAY they are the future for the DC movies... make them EARN it.

This Superman is much better suited to whatever they want to do with this incarnation of the movie universe for DC. And I really liked the movie. And they kind of started this smaller if I guess Peacemaker is canon. But I still think they pressed the Superman button WAYYYYY too early. I'm still not convinced they can get another success into this DCU, and if the next attempt is Superman 2 or a Batman reboot... and it fails. It will drag the whole thing down in flames again.

 

[BrawlMan]

behind at times Sony and/or Fox.)

That stopped being the case when Wonder Woman and Aquaman came out. Despite its problems, SS 2016 still did great and performed wonderful in theaters. During and after the 2016 year, it wasn't even looking really good for Fox especially. Let's not forget about their Fantastic Four reboot prior to those years. The only thing keeping Fox afloat was Deadpool, and nothing else.

Sony wasn't doing all that hot during the late 2010s, either. The only giving them major success are the Spider-Verse films, and the Venom movies. Otherwise, the 2020s have been miserable for Sony. With them trying to restart their own Spider villain cinematic universe (with no Spider Man appearing once), and all of them performing worst than almost any of the DCEU films. The only exception is the Flash possibly performing worse than all of those. It wouldn't surprise me either way.

 

[Gordon_4]

DC has some great characters, perfect to test the waters to launch a multi-character cinematic universe... but they won't even try unless it starts with Superman or Batman. How do you not learn from Marvel and launch with a b-tier like Iron Man first. Now, Marvel did it out of necessity of course. At the time they didn't have the movie rights to their A-tier heroes like X-Men or Spider Man. But when you launch coming out of the gate with a big name shitbiscut like Man of Steel, you can't recover. And the proof was in the scoreboard. They've played second, 3rd or even 4th fiddle in the superhero movie world until now (behind at times Sony and/or Fox.)

Now, this reboot could turn things around. But I still maintain that they would have been better off launching with something lower budget and more modest. If it fails, can the whole thing and start over with another hero. Or if it tests well, then film a post credits scene to tack on introducing a bigger name hero. And even then I wouldn't have chosen Batman or Superman yet. Start really freaking small. I'm a Dr. Fate fan, start there. Start with Blue Beetle, don't drop it to modest success mid DCU and then forbid mention of it ever again after failing spectacularly with your bigger names. When you finally get that breakout hit, post-credit fire up Flash or GL. Don't go stampeding straight for Batman or Superman. Build some anticipation, find out who your good writers and directors are. Don't just pick them and then SAY they are the future for the DC movies... make them EARN it.

This Superman is much better suited to whatever they want to do with this incarnation of the movie universe for DC. And I really liked the movie. And they kind of started this smaller if I guess Peacemaker is canon. But I still think they pressed the Superman button WAYYYYY too early. I'm still not convinced they can get another success into this DCU, and if the next attempt is Superman 2 or a Batman reboot... and it fails. It will drag the whole thing down in flames again.

Honestly, if I had to pick one property to keep from the old set, it would be Blue Beetle. I loved 2017's Wonder Woman and I'm even capable of saying nice things about WW1984 but Gal Gadot's reputation as an actress never went much beyond it and her reputation as a human being is in the toilet because of....well you know. And even if neither of those were true, she's turned 40 which basically ages her out of Hollywood films as a lead but that's an entirely different barrel of monkey shit to talk about.

 

[BrawlMan]

her reputation as a human being is in the toilet because of....well you know.

You mean these?

What's the Real Story Behind Gal Gadot's 'Snow White' Controversy? – Kveller

One of the most delightful press moments from Disney’s new live-action “Snow White” movie, in my opinion, took place last week, not on any red carpet but at an Equinox gym parking lot. As Israeli actress Gal Gadot made her way to her car, a paparazza approached the star, who plays the Evil Queen...

www.kveller.com

Weiterleitungshinweis

www.google.com

I didn't even know about this until now. Some people really need to know when to stop talking. Celebrities have their own political rights like everyone else, but there are certain things you shouldn't touch or nor get near if you care that much about you're acting reputation.

she's turned 40 which basically ages her out of Hollywood films as a lead but that's an entirely different barrel of monkey shit to talk about.

She don't even look forty and is more than capable of acting and still playing Diana/Wonder Woman. If they could get Linda Hamilton back as an old woman for another shitty Terminator movie, then they can do the same for Gal Gadot. Fuck Hollywood, and fuck their hypocritical system.

 

[Kyrian007]

That stopped being the case when Wonder Woman and Aquaman came out. Despite its problems, SS 2016 still did great and performed wonderful in theaters. During and after the 2016 year, it wasn't even looking really good for Fox especially. Let's not forget about there Fantastic Four reboot prior to those years. The only thing keeping Fox afloat was deadpool, and nothing else.

Sony wasn't doing all that hot during the late 2010s, either. The only giving them major success are the Spider-Verse films, and the Venom movies. Otherwise, the 2020s have been miserable for Sony. With them trying to restart their own Spider villain cinematic universe (with no spider man appearing once), and all of them performing worst than almost any of the DCEU films. The only exception is the Flash possibly performing worse than all of those. It wouldn't surprise me either way.

Yeah, DC was admittedly in the passenger seat for the most part. Honestly, I thought I had written "at times, 3rd or even 4th fiddle." That's what I intended to say.

Honestly, if I had to pick one property to keep from the old set, it would be Blue Beetle. I loved 2017's Wonder Woman and I'm even capable of saying nice things about WW1984 but Gal Gadot's reputation as an actress never went much beyond it and her reputation as a human being is in the toilet because of....well you know. And even if neither of those were true, she's turned 40 which basically ages her out of Hollywood films as a lead but that's an entirely different barrel of monkey shit to talk about.

Yes. And agree about Blue Beetle as well, thought it was pretty good. Of course, after having written my post I read an article about Kara's movie being next (and nearly wrapped filming already) as well as a series called "Lanterns." Which is making me a little curious about which Lanterns will be featured. I'd put a sizeable wager on Hal and John being included. Frankly I was surprised they went with Guy for this Superman movie. But I'm most interested in Alan Scott. Considering what DC has recently done with the character, what will they do? Leave him out? Just mention him in passing? Sulu it like Kelvin Star Trek (mentioned, but its no big deal?) Or put it all out there front and center? Or bring in Alan, but retcon-edly un-gay him?

 

[BrawlMan]

Yeah, DC was admittedly in the passenger seat for the most part.

Even then, that really only applies to Batman V. Superman and Justice League Theatrical Cut. They did bounce back fast, it's just the execs at WB are greedy, short sighted, and unsatisfied idiots whom all don't know what they want, or go out of their way to fuck everyone over no reason. The Flash and Joker 2 pretty much was them shooting themselves in the groin twice....with a rocket launcher! They hedge their bets and fucking lost over two films that weren't worth it at all, because of their fucking greed!

I do love the new Superman film, but I don't trust WB for a minute. What is to stop them from deleting their cinematic universe and trying again? Gunn I trust fine, but there's obviously going to be more directors taking on different projects.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Ranma 1/2 is hilarious. Anybody that says otherwise has no sense of humour!

 

[BrawlMan]

As hilarious and awesome as what South Park is doing right now, I am still not watching anything new from Matt and Trey. Part of the reasons is their transphobia, and them still never apologizing for it, nor admitting any wrong doing while falling under the "we offend everyone" excuse.

Though around 2017ish, I got sick and tired of them and certain characters they kept putting up in the forefront. Like Cartman, and especially Randy Marsh. That said, none of their transphobic views sit right with me. The only other thing I'll give them credit for is at least apologizing their fucked up views on global warming and calling out themselves on it harshly. Otherwise, I still have no interest in watching them again. Trump mocking, or not.

Me watching doesn't matter much anyway, because they got that $1.5 billion. So they already won ten times over to infinity and beyond.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As hilarious and awesome as what South Park is doing right now, I am still not watching anything new from Matt and Trey. Part of the reasons is their transphobia, and them still never apologizing for it, nor admitting any wrong doing while falling under the "we offend everyone" excuse.

Yeah, second that.

By comparison, the Qanon shaman is calling out Trump, and in the UK, the Daily Mail is calling out the UK government for not doing anything about Palestine, but I don't have to respect them either.

 

[BrawlMan]

Jared Leto Joker it is not my favorite joker, but I don't find him bad. He just wasn't given a lot to do in the movie due to studio interference. I actually, like or don't have any problems with. I do find the "HUNKA, HUNKA!" legit funny and not ironically funny. It's okay to laugh at the dark humor and not make excuses about it.

 

[BrawlMan]

Last year I discovered and know why I love isekai like El Hazard: The Magnificent World, ELH: The Wanderers, Monster Rancher, Digimon Adventure (even 02, Tamers [when they go to the digital world in the second half], and Frontiers) so much. They have something many modern isekai lack: a sense of actual wonder, discovery, and most importantly, the adventure itself. Many isekai today are just too corporate driven and copies of a copy, copying another copy that's ultra derivative. Nearly everything else feels flat, all glitter, no soul, or is just another lame and cardboard cut out harem with nothing else going on.

 

[Thaluikhain]

British public’s verdict is in: Die Hard is not a Christmas movie

Survey also reveals Britons’ favourite festive film, views on tear-jerkers and family cinema trips

www.theguardian.com

According to the British public, Die Hard is not a Christmas movie.

The British people also thought voting for Brexit was a good idea, mind.

 

[BrawlMan]

Die Hard is not a Christmas movie.

Yeah, they can fuck off and not unique for this dumb take at all. I'll continue to ignore them.

Havoc (2025) I consider a great Christmas film.

 

[Bedinsis]

According to the British public, Die Hard is not a Christmas movie.

I agree with them.