Interesting. Thanks for the link. I never doubted the film would have a positive effect on people, but much more needs to be done of course.
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
Coming 2 America
Ah, a sequel with a mere 25-30 or so years latency. On the bright side, they managed to grab a truly impressive supply of black talent to chip in - and I particularly always like to see the legendary James Earl Jones do his thing. It's a bit of an 80s nostalgia fest, which is fine for people old enough (like me). There are little nods - quite a lot - to Black Panther and other more modern output. And the movie is definitely not bad, but it's also quite unexceptional and decisively lacks the spark of Eddie Murphy's 80s heyday. In summary, it's pleasant, undemanding, enjoyable, nice: all in all, satisfactory.
Ah, a sequel with a mere 25-30 or so years latency. On the bright side, they managed to grab a truly impressive supply of black talent to chip in - and I particularly always like to see the legendary James Earl Jones do his thing. It's a bit of an 80s nostalgia fest, which is fine for people old enough (like me). There are little nods - quite a lot - to Black Panther and other more modern output. And the movie is definitely not bad, but it's also quite unexceptional and decisively lacks the spark of Eddie Murphy's 80s heyday. In summary, it's pleasant, undemanding, enjoyable, nice: all in all, satisfactory.
Frozen 2
I don't even know what to say, it's boring, with boring barbie doll-looking characters, and boring songs. And who fucking cares about Kristof and his stupid marriage proposal woes? This franchise continues to be blander than a rice cracker.
Soul
It's really fucking good despite being a very expensive public service anouncement. I can't even say its characters are that memorable, but its message and themes are very gripping. Just like Inside Out it's going against the current of most positive and feel good movies. It's a movie that tells you it's okay to not have a dream and to just live your life unexceptionally if you so wish. I do feel the movie would've totally knocked it out of the park had Joe actually died at the end. This would've really hit it home that Joe actually had lived a fullfilling life despite not making his dream come true, which is what that quiet moment at the piano eluded to. But then this is a Disney movie, and this ending would've ran into a bunch of unanswered questions as well, like Joe's mom and friends not even knowing he died. The movie is still pretty phenomenal though.
Oh, and special props go to the team put in charge of making sure almost every extra on the streets breathed character and individuality.
I don't even know what to say, it's boring, with boring barbie doll-looking characters, and boring songs. And who fucking cares about Kristof and his stupid marriage proposal woes? This franchise continues to be blander than a rice cracker.
Soul
It's really fucking good despite being a very expensive public service anouncement. I can't even say its characters are that memorable, but its message and themes are very gripping. Just like Inside Out it's going against the current of most positive and feel good movies. It's a movie that tells you it's okay to not have a dream and to just live your life unexceptionally if you so wish. I do feel the movie would've totally knocked it out of the park had Joe actually died at the end. This would've really hit it home that Joe actually had lived a fullfilling life despite not making his dream come true, which is what that quiet moment at the piano eluded to. But then this is a Disney movie, and this ending would've ran into a bunch of unanswered questions as well, like Joe's mom and friends not even knowing he died. The movie is still pretty phenomenal though.
Oh, and special props go to the team put in charge of making sure almost every extra on the streets breathed character and individuality.
Last edited:
Just saw Man of Steel in its entirety with my brother who still prefers ye olde Superman.
We made some compelling arguments that I agree with him about any modern adaptions of Superman. One that sticks out for us is this.
The problems that arises by having Superman exist in a essentially "The Current Year" with the current year being 2013 back when the movie came out.
In the movie the Kents found Superman in the Pod right? But some how they manage to haul that entire Pod into the basement of their farm shack. And don;t make this a fault of this movie, Superman The Animated Series did it also.
You think in "The Current Year" the Space Pod thing would have been spotted by satellites and telescopes and NASA and the Military would have converged on the crash site?
I feel like this is the consequences of a character that is now so far removed from the time period he was conceived in. There were no satellites or NASA when Action Comics #1 came out.
As for the movie itself, it has its flaws but I still have seen far worse from Superman and Superheroes stuff then this movie. I mean Superman At Earth's End exists.
But if you want the best possible "traditional" Superman film, make it a period piece. Like set it in the 1940s.
We made some compelling arguments that I agree with him about any modern adaptions of Superman. One that sticks out for us is this.
The problems that arises by having Superman exist in a essentially "The Current Year" with the current year being 2013 back when the movie came out.
In the movie the Kents found Superman in the Pod right? But some how they manage to haul that entire Pod into the basement of their farm shack. And don;t make this a fault of this movie, Superman The Animated Series did it also.
You think in "The Current Year" the Space Pod thing would have been spotted by satellites and telescopes and NASA and the Military would have converged on the crash site?
I feel like this is the consequences of a character that is now so far removed from the time period he was conceived in. There were no satellites or NASA when Action Comics #1 came out.
As for the movie itself, it has its flaws but I still have seen far worse from Superman and Superheroes stuff then this movie. I mean Superman At Earth's End exists.
But if you want the best possible "traditional" Superman film, make it a period piece. Like set it in the 1940s.
Last edited:
Coming 2 America
It was mildly entertaining and I got a kick from all the callbacks and the general nostalgia for the original movie, which I'm very fond of. But Eddie Murphy is in the same boring dad mode he's been in since Dr. Dolittle (Dolemite notwithstanding), and I have no love for any of the new characters (save Wesley Snipes, who's having a blast). I think it suffers from that belated sequel to a cult comedy problem Zoolander 2 had, where it wallows reverently in jokes and routines that have lost their sense of randomness or spontaneity, and everything feels too celebratory of itself. And the attempt at grrl power commentary (three girls stifle an armed military coup with sticks and karate) feels extremely outdated in a Nick Jr. kinda way.
Also not a fan of the movie's explanation for Akeem's out of wedlock son: he was drugged and raped.
It was mildly entertaining and I got a kick from all the callbacks and the general nostalgia for the original movie, which I'm very fond of. But Eddie Murphy is in the same boring dad mode he's been in since Dr. Dolittle (Dolemite notwithstanding), and I have no love for any of the new characters (save Wesley Snipes, who's having a blast). I think it suffers from that belated sequel to a cult comedy problem Zoolander 2 had, where it wallows reverently in jokes and routines that have lost their sense of randomness or spontaneity, and everything feels too celebratory of itself. And the attempt at grrl power commentary (three girls stifle an armed military coup with sticks and karate) feels extremely outdated in a Nick Jr. kinda way.
Also not a fan of the movie's explanation for Akeem's out of wedlock son: he was drugged and raped.
Which game was this? The one that wasn't picked up.
I find it bizarre that her take is that American Asians are underrepresented. Not just, you know, Asians... Her randomly bringing up statistics about refugees doesn't help. I'm not a migrant nor the child of migrants, so maybe this film was made for them. I could see someone who grew up in the US feeling represented by the movie purely because the characters somewhat look like them.
But I think even the article itself makes it clear how little Raya tries to represent SEA culture. Sure, there are a handful of references. Whoopee. But it's nothing at all what their advertising claimed it would be. And that's my main problem. Avatar also did the Asian-inspired nations/tribes thing, but they didn't sell the series based on that. It was just a neat little detail in addition to an excellent story and characters. And can I just say, it's fucking hilarious that in the movie, 2 of three "Southeast Asian inspired" tribes are a snow tribe and a desert tribe. Two climates that are never associated with Southeast Asia.
I do agree though that this is at least better than nothing, at least it could be a stepping stone. But considering that this movie will most definitely be a financial flop, I highly doubt the suits will be convinced that more Asian-inspired movies should be made.
Now I just got done watching Batman v Superman Ultimate Edition, and I gotta be honest, after Man of Steel this movie imo was a far bigger improvement just as a film alone.
BvS imo just flows and feels paced better compared to Man of Steel.
But that ain't gonna convince you guys otherwise because this overall take on DC is just wrong for most of you guys. I just think this movie gets way too much hate and has plenty merits to it. And again I've seen FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR worse.
For gripes I can say about this film though is the fucking cameos of celebrities. Hey guys, remember when Jon Stewart was around?
BvS imo just flows and feels paced better compared to Man of Steel.
But that ain't gonna convince you guys otherwise because this overall take on DC is just wrong for most of you guys. I just think this movie gets way too much hate and has plenty merits to it. And again I've seen FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR worse.
For gripes I can say about this film though is the fucking cameos of celebrities. Hey guys, remember when Jon Stewart was around?
American Graffiti (1973)
George Lucas's second film is a sedate wander through one night in Modesto in 1962, following four high school graduates as they encounter various mishaps while attempting to be cool, get laid, and perhaps work out what they want to do with their lives. It's light on action but high on immersion as it draws you into the lives of the characters and their various hang ups. It's got a killer soundtrack of period music that's mostly digetic, as every character is listening to the radio constantly. The production is a meticulous and loving representation of the time period that clearly intended to tap into the nostalgia of people in 1973 looking back at their youth, but also has a kind of timeless quality. If you want to just kind of inhabit the nightlife of Modesto in '62 for a couple of hours, American Graffiti is the film for you.
George Lucas's second film is a sedate wander through one night in Modesto in 1962, following four high school graduates as they encounter various mishaps while attempting to be cool, get laid, and perhaps work out what they want to do with their lives. It's light on action but high on immersion as it draws you into the lives of the characters and their various hang ups. It's got a killer soundtrack of period music that's mostly digetic, as every character is listening to the radio constantly. The production is a meticulous and loving representation of the time period that clearly intended to tap into the nostalgia of people in 1973 looking back at their youth, but also has a kind of timeless quality. If you want to just kind of inhabit the nightlife of Modesto in '62 for a couple of hours, American Graffiti is the film for you.
Was representing SEA culture ever part of Raya's mission statement though? Well before release, it was established that it took place in a fantasy setting. One that took inspiration from SEA, but wasn't trying to BE SEA (Avatar is in a similar position).
Really? It's received widespread critical acclaim.
Asia, or SEA?
Even if Raya flops, I don't doubt there'd be someone at Disney stupid enough to say "well obviously Asian movies don't sell," but that really doesn't hold water. I mean, China's a thing, and will continue to be a thing for at least the next few decades. If we're talking about SEA, maybe, but Moana came out awhile back. That did well critically, and as far as I'm aware, commercially as well.
Also, if we're looking at the Disney Animated Canon...well, I'm not really one for demanding "I want more of group x/location y," but if we're going by that route, Asia may not have done as well as, say, Europe, but as of Raya, it'll have had 5 films, whereas by Encanto, South America will have had 2, Oceania will have had 1, and Africa will have had...um, zero.
Make of that what you will.
Edit: Wait, Africa arguably has 1 through Lion King, and you could throw in Aladdin with Asia I suppose, and then there's Tarzan and gah!
Okay, screw it, I need to formualte a proper list, because damn it, I've dug this hole for myself.
That's definitely how it was marketed here. Just the other day I was recommended a video of the cast of Raya reacting to various Southeast Asian snacks (which is ironic, because the video was only possible due to most of the cast not being Southeast Asian). Moana wasn't trying to be Hawaii or Guam or Palau either, but at the very least, it looked like said locations.
I'm well aware, but any movie released this year is doomed to be a financial failure. I can't see this movie doing any better than Mulan, and that had actual hype and significantly more advertising than this film.
I'll go with "any country that doesn't reliably provide Disney with millions of dollars of profit". I don't doubt Disney will continue to shill for the Chinese audience over the next few decades. I mean they never stopped, that's exactly what the first Mulan was for. Good for them I guess, how about every other country in Asia? And I only use "Asia" because that's the only thing available to me. It only exists because Western cartographers couldn't be bothered to come up with more names for places that weren't their own.
What does Moana have to do with anything?
Let me know when you get that list done, genuinely confused as to how you came up with 5 Asian Disney movies.
Indivisible is the game. you should have seen it in the quote. No worries. The game did get picked up and published by 505 games. Same people that made this game made Skullgirls.
Mulan made 200 million off a 70 million budget, so it definitely didn't fail financially.
As for the idea that movie are doome to obscurity in 2021...maybe. But this is an era of streaming en-masse, so I don't know if that's inherently the case.
Okay, so, this is a list I made with very little time available, and a lot of it is subjective. But before I post it, I'm going to outline the criteria I used:
-It must be part of the Disney Animated Canon (so for instance, that includes Lion King 1, but not Lion King 2)
-I'm not going to include "hybrid films" (e.g. Atlantis takes a Greek myth, with an American protagonist, exploring a fictional setting)
-Fictional settings are linked by proxy (so Raya counts as Asian, Black Cauldron counts as European, despite both being fantasy setting)
-I used the Seven Continents Model (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania, Antarctica). Spoilers: There's no Antarctic entries
-The criteria is that it takes place in the continent itself.
So with that said:
AFRICA (2)
-The Lion King
-Tarzan
ASIA (4)
-The Jungle Book
-Aladdin
-Mulan
-Raya and the Last Dragon
EUROPE (23)
-Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
-Pinocchio
-Bambi
-Cinderella
-Alice in Wonderland
-Peter Pan
-Sleeping Beauty
-101 Dalmations
-The Sword in the Stone
-The Aristocats
-Robin Hood
-The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh
-The Fox and the Hound
-The Black Cauldron
-The Great Mouse Detective
-The Little Mermaid
-Beauty and the Beast
-The Hunchback of Notre Dame
-Hercules
-Tangled
-Winnie the Pooh
-Frozen
-Frozen II
NORTH AMERICA (14)
-Dumbo
-Lady and the Tramp
-Oliver and Company
-Pocohontas
-Lilo and Stitch
-Brother Bear
-Home on the Range
-Chicken Little
-Meet the Robinsons
-Bolt
-The Princess and the Frog
-Wreck-it Ralph
-Zootopia
-Ralph Breaks the Internet
OCEANIA (2)
-The Rescuers Downunder
-Moana
SOUTH AMERICA (4)
-The Three Caballeros
-Saludos Amigos
-The Emperor's New Groove
-Encanto
-The Lion King
-Tarzan
ASIA (4)
-The Jungle Book
-Aladdin
-Mulan
-Raya and the Last Dragon
EUROPE (23)
-Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
-Pinocchio
-Bambi
-Cinderella
-Alice in Wonderland
-Peter Pan
-Sleeping Beauty
-101 Dalmations
-The Sword in the Stone
-The Aristocats
-Robin Hood
-The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh
-The Fox and the Hound
-The Black Cauldron
-The Great Mouse Detective
-The Little Mermaid
-Beauty and the Beast
-The Hunchback of Notre Dame
-Hercules
-Tangled
-Winnie the Pooh
-Frozen
-Frozen II
NORTH AMERICA (14)
-Dumbo
-Lady and the Tramp
-Oliver and Company
-Pocohontas
-Lilo and Stitch
-Brother Bear
-Home on the Range
-Chicken Little
-Meet the Robinsons
-Bolt
-The Princess and the Frog
-Wreck-it Ralph
-Zootopia
-Ralph Breaks the Internet
OCEANIA (2)
-The Rescuers Downunder
-Moana
SOUTH AMERICA (4)
-The Three Caballeros
-Saludos Amigos
-The Emperor's New Groove
-Encanto
Since you specifically asked about how I got 5 Asian movies, I reduced it to 4, because looking stuff up, I figured that Moana is better categorized as Oceanian rather than Asian. So that leaves us with Aladdin, Mulan, Raya, and The Jungle Book.
We can certainly debate what counts there (e.g. Jungle Book takes place in India, but is based on a story by Kipling), but I'd say those count by the criteria I used.
Wait, we are talking about the live action Mulan right? Because that supposedly cost $200 million and most definitely did not make that back. If anything I think you might have switched the numbers on that one, because from Google the estimated gross was $60 to $90 million.
I think Lilo and Stitch belongs more in Oceania. Hawaii is a state sure but it doesn't seem fair to ignore how unique it is. And Moana is most definitely Oceania, it's kinda sad that this is common misconception.
But thanks for the list, it was quite fun to try and remember them all. I'm surprised you didn't chuck in the Pixar movies, would have added Coco to South America and Finding Nemo to Oceania.
I watched the "horror" movie Leprechaun. I put horror in quotes because it's not scary. I'd actually argue it's more of a dark comedy than a horror movie, maybe a B-movie at best. You might be able to tell from that that I didn't think the movie was that good...because it kind of wasn't. There was a certain charm about it, however, mostly the interactions between characters, and you could tell that Warwick Davis was having a blast as the titular character. If you want a dumb silly horror movie to celebrate the month of March with...well, there's much worse you could do.
They made 5 sequels and I think there's a reboot.
Only saw the 4th one myself, which includes a princess from a planet where the women threaten to kill people by exposing their breasts at them. Which, ok, it's tacky and gratuitous in a different way.
No, really like the guy. I've seen some reviews I disagree with but he usually seems to have the same response to movies that I do. So if he's saying this new cartoon is one of the best new release in years, I want to see it ASAP.
Shit, you're right, I got the numbers mixed up. According to Wikipedia, it made less than 70 million off a 200 million budget.
Hawaii's a weird case. I actually expected it to come under the Asian category, but the SCM I used listed it as being part of North America. However, I asked Google, and Google gave me different answers as to whether it should be considered part of Oceania or North America. Certainly I'd associate Hawaii with Oceania culturally, but on the other hand, Hawaii's been part of the United States for over a century, and that's made its cultural mark as well, and certainly by the time period of Lilo and Stitch. And in terms of geology, it's smack dab in the Pacific, rather than the Australian or North American continental plates.
So, subjectively, I'd sooner group Hawaii with Oceania, but trying to group things based solely on geography, it ended up in the North America category.
I actually considered that, but left it out for two reasons. One, I consider Pixar separate from Disney. I mean, yes, technically Pixar's under Disney's Umbrella, but I regard Pixar films and the DAC films as being somewhat distinct. Second reason is part of said distinctiveness, in that the Pixar films are a bit harder to pin down. Like, how do you categorize something like Inside Out by location, when (I assume, haven't actually seen it) most of it takes place inside a girl's mind?
Still, luckily Pixar's list is much shorter, so okay, let's see. I'm going to format things differently, but going through the list:
-Toy Story 1-4: I'm going to lump these in North America. It seems fair to assume that it takes place in the US.
-A Bug's Life: Can't really place it, it could really take place anywhere that has ants. So...most of Earth.
-Monsters Inc./Monsters University: Again, I'm not sure if these can be placed. Haven't seen University, but the former, while the Monsters world has similarities to ours, it explicitly isn't ours, and there isn't anything really specific about it.
-Finding Nemo/Finding Dory: I'll put the former in Oceania, the latter as a hybrid of Oceania/North America
-Incredibles 1/2: North America. Similar to Toy Story, it seems fair to assume these take place in the US
-Cars 1/2/3: I'm putting 1 and 3 in North America, and 2 as a hybrid of NA/Europe/Asia. Unlike MI, I think it's fair to group these by location because the Cars world more or less is our world, only with cars who've...I dunno, exterminated the human race or something. That, and the films take terms from the real world verbatim when it comes to locations.
-Ratatouille: Europe (explicitly in France)
-WALL-E: Like Monsters Inc., I'm not sure if this can really be classified. On one hand, it's critical of consumerism, and that's generally associated with the US (if by no means exclusive to it), so arguably WALL-E's operating in North America. However, much of the story doesn't take place on Earth, and I'd argue its themes are too universal to pin down to one location. So, like Monsters, goes in "other."
-Up: Hybrid of SA and NA.
-Brave: Europe (it's explicitly in Scotland)
-Inside Out: Haven't seen, so can't really say. Like, US is presumably a safe bet, if only because Pixar is an American company, but I've never seen anything to indicate anything specific
-Good Dinosaur: Haven't seen it, and it's explicitly an alternate timeline, so I don't know if it counts.
-Coco: So, by the SCM, this would actually be in NA. Culturally, yes, Mexico is part of Latin America, but geographically, it's part of North America, since the border between north and south is at Colombia.
-Onward: Haven't seen, and since it's a fantasy world, don't know if it can be counted. Depends on how much it mimics ours.
-Soul: NA (explicitly in the US)
-Luca: Europe (explicitly in Italy)
-Turning Red: No idea, too early to say
-Lightyear: Completely fictional setting.
So, yeah. Like I said, Pixar's harder to pin down than Disney. A lot of the Disney list were films I'd never seen, but they were easy enough to work out, but Pixar? Not so much. Part of why I'd argue there's distinct differences between DAC films and Pixar films.
I could have sworn this was explicitly in America, but apparently not. Takes place in a fictional city too.
A big part of the movie was the family moving from some snowy place (probably a state that starts with M) to San Francisco, so definitely NA.