Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Mister Mumbler]

Snip

Ok, I actually laughed. No, they are very much outnumbered for one, and two, please tell me where it establishes that they are technologically advanced against Rex, who is from the future (his spaceship is a time-machine, lol). And it isn't a 'non-violent suburbia' (also, as someone who lives in suburbia, it can be quite violent, but I digress), it's just the post-apocalyptic city scape from earlier, but with more trees and color (the Mad Max car lady is still running around in her spiked out murder-mobile).

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Ok, I actually laughed. No, they are very much outnumbered for one, and two, please tell me where it establishes that they are technologically advanced against Rex, who is from the future (his spaceship is a time-machine, lol). And it isn't a 'non-violent suburbia' (also, as someone who lives in suburbia, it can be quite violent, but I digress), it's just the post-apocalyptic city scape from earlier, but with more trees and color (the Mad Max car lady is still running around in her spiked out murder-mobile).

Well It's the Sistar System and previously it was shown the regular weapons of apocalypseburg did nothing vs them. Rex is literally in their system technically during the wedding stuff. The city is still the one from earlier but far more the more violent aspects being tempered.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

The Trip (Netflix)
A fun trashy (although perhaps not obvious for the first half hour or so) Norwegian dark comedy with Noomi Rapace and some other ppl with interesting faces...about a couple who plan a trip to a cabin in the arse end of nowhere, each with their own sinister motive to kill the other one. But of course other factors get involved and ruin such romantic endeavours. The film appears to want to keep the "both" part a secret with the murder plans, a desire unfortunately at odds with the Netflix summary you literally cannot avoid seeing when selecting the movie. So maybe that's....eh, nevermind, it's not trying to be a masterpiece. The film revels in its own idiocy, while growing more gory and fun as it goes on. Somehow the action remains tense and weighty enough despite the cartoonish elements and unsympathetic main characters who make up the foundations it builds upon. Not a waste of time, but also not going to inspire any profound thoughts.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

snip

Well yeah, obviously their weapons didn't do anything to the spaceship: they're deliberately modeled after a Mad Max-esque world. The most technologically advanced weapon they threw at it? Literally throwing columns from a building at it (courtesy of Batman). I'm not sure what you mean about Rex, if you mean that he is from there (sistar system, correct me if wrong), then no, because he first shows up in the 'stair-gate'/general space (EDIT: the basement, in other words), and for him to get there, he first has to travel back to the future (his first stop after stealing the actual flux capacitor from Doc Brown is the past to gather his crew of raptors). Also, I think you are massively over-hyping the 'violent' nature of the apoc-setting he is using. While it is indeed modeled after Mad Max (which I love, seeing all the vehicles and setting was amazing), it has an attitude more along the lines of the Salty Spittoon (from Spongebob). It basically amounts to everyone being all scowly or 'brooding' and scars. I mean, the coffee shop from the first movie is seen still being in business at the beginning here even after the apocalypse (and still serving massively overpriced wares).

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Well yeah, obviously their weapons didn't do anything to the spaceship: they're deliberately modeled after a Mad Max-esque world. The most technologically advanced weapon they threw at it? Literally throwing columns from a building at it (courtesy of Batman). I'm not sure what you mean about Rex, if you mean that he is from there (sistar system, correct me if wrong), then no, because he first shows up in the 'stair-gate'/general space (EDIT: the basement, in other words), and for him to get there, he first has to travel back to the future (his first stop after stealing the actual flux capacitor from Doc Brown is the past to gather his crew of raptors). Also, I think you are massively over-hyping the 'violent' nature of the apoc-setting he is using. While it is indeed modeled after Mad Max (which I love, seeing all the vehicles and setting was amazing), it has an attitude more along the lines of the Salty Spittoon (from Spongebob). It basically amounts to everyone being all scowly or 'brooding' and scars. I mean, the coffee shop from the first movie is seen still being in business at the beginning here even after the apocalypse (and still serving massively overpriced wares).

No I mean pointing out the "violent" nature of Rex and the claimed violent nature of the kinds of sets Rex is meant to represent that Lego have made.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Some more thoughts I've had about Dune. I've grown to like it more in hindsight. And I maintain this (after Dunkirk) is the most awesome thing I've seen on IMAX.

Villeneuve really is perfect for the material. I liked Arrival and his Blade Runner. He's great at balancing the spectacle, intrigue and humanity in sci-fi.

He's also good at boiling down a story to its bare essentials and then building on top and around without overcrowding it. Dune 2021 is more textured in politics, history and myth than the 1984 version yet somehow is infinitely clearer about them. The Lynch version couldn't even make sense of the locations of characters relative to each other, and of course rushes the third act like the test is ending. 2021 takes all the time in the world to tell half as many things, but doesn't feel slow or padded. Atmosphere builds. There's a great sense of foreboding. The Harkonnens, who were caricaturized to the point of comedy in the Lynch version, are way more intimidating. There's some great Mordor-like scenes in their planet where I'm not sure what the hell's going on with them but everything looks depraved and spellbinding.

I'm not the biggest fan of the story or how it's written but I get the feeling this is the best adaptation you can make out of it.

(Whatever Jodorowsky was trying to do aside. Dude would probably shoot a bunch of naked women slitting goat throats on a mountain and call it Tom Sawyer)

 

[Mister Mumbler]

snip

Sorry, had a long day and my brain is a little frazzled and having trouble reading this.

EDIT: Case in point, posting this before I was done. Bear with me here...

 

[Mister Mumbler]

(...Goddamn it...)

Okay, so...what do you mean? Because I thought we were talking about how Apoc-burg goes from apoc, to slightly less apoc, in which case Rex's style had no influence over it at any point during the story (you yourself noted earlier about the 3 distinct styles between Apoc-burg, Sistar, and Rex and his ship). If you mean in a general sense about Apoc-burg being the stand in, then refer above to my 'Salty Spittoon' comment above, with the added bit that by shear value of being a kid's version of a Mad Max world, it already had all 'violent' bits of it sanded down before we even see it (in a similar vein to those weird cartoon shows/toy lines featuring ultra violent material from the 80's, like Robocop). And as for the whole 'violence in lego' thing in general, well, just nope. Just, full, hard stop, nope. Because just because something is 'claimed' (by internet people no less) doesn't make it true. And before that video with the hilarious montage shows up again, I fail to see how a video that was made almost 10 years ago that was viewed less than 100k times, and is nothing but a rapid fire montage of the words 'bomb' and 'rocket' showing up in commercials set the world on fire (especially since lego still sells them too).

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

(...Goddamn it...)

Okay, so...what do you mean? Because I thought we were talking about how Apoc-burg goes from apoc, to slightly less apoc, in which case Rex's style had no influence over it at any point during the story (you yourself noted earlier about the 3 distinct styles between Apoc-burg, Sistar, and Rex and his ship). If you mean in a general sense about Apoc-burg being the stand in, then refer above to my 'Salty Spittoon' comment above, with the added bit that by shear value of being a kid's version of a Mad Max world, it already had all 'violent' bits of it sanded down before we even see it (in a similar vein to those weird cartoon shows/toy lines featuring ultra violent material from the 80's, like Robocop). And as for the whole 'violence in lego' thing in general, well, just nope. Just, full, hard stop, nope. Because just because something is 'claimed' (by internet people no less) doesn't make it true. And before that video with the hilarious montage shows up again, I fail to see how a video that was made almost 10 years ago that was viewed less than 100k times, and is nothing but a rapid fire montage of the words 'bomb' and 'rocket' showing up in commercials set the world on fire (especially since lego still sells them too).

It doesn't make it true. The thing being it's a criticism that's been repeated enough that recently Lego has had to come out to say it will work to make it's toys more gender neutral. The accusations of it going "Macho" clearly were being listened too somewhere and people wanted to at least shift some perception people were showing towards the company even if they don't actually change anything.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

snip

Ok, dropping the spoilers as, fun as it was to talk about the Lego Movies, we have arrived come to what you actually want to talk about (but thanks just the same). Granted, I always knew we would get here, and wanted to get more info about your perspective before hand (...and also cause I quite like the Lego Movies). Thus, the final question to you: what, exactly, do you think 'feminine' and 'masculine' even mean? Because, after this many posts talking to you, one thing has become rather clear: You are Rex. You have a child's understanding of them that pretty much boils down entirely to superficial garbage: girls are girly and like pastels, boys are cool and tough and like tough colors like red and blue, and that's pretty much where any thought into it ends. It's sharpie on a face to look manly. Because, what do you think when the Lego company says that it's toys are 'more gender neutral'? That they would make them all girly, and about girly things like shopping and boys? Because, and I can't believe I have to type this, no. This is what 'gender neutral' means, for fuck's sake*

And guess what? Same old sets as before, but with more expressly 'female' faces and hair to pad out the roster, the horror. Because that's what they meant, as well as having more girls and women featured in the promotional materials for the various sets. I mean, the set who's picture I posted even still has the stubbled, eye-patch wearing bad-ass, and even has him on that motorcycle there.

*See next post, ugh

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Spoiler: Here

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Green Lantern: Emerald Knights - 9/10

I loved this one, even though they released the different Green Lantern animation that looked exactly like this one but was from a different continuity. No idea which one came first.

The animation in this one really sold the sheer might of the Green Lanterns and the most powerful weapons in the galaxy. Even though Hal Jordan may be the greatest of them all, each and every Lantern has their own story and is greatly capable. It was because of this animation I decided to get into Green Lantern: TAS, even though I thought the 3D look was dumb. Really sucks that the show got cancelled right when it was ramping things up.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Ok, dropping the spoilers as, fun as it was to talk about the Lego Movies, we have arrived come to what you actually want to talk about (but thanks just the same). Granted, I always knew we would get here, and wanted to get more info about your perspective before hand (...and also cause I quite like the Lego Movies). Thus, the final question to you: what, exactly, do you think 'feminine' and 'masculine' even mean? Because, after this many posts talking to you, one thing has become rather clear: You are Rex. You have a child's understanding of them that pretty much boils down entirely to superficial garbage: girls are girly and like pastels, boys are cool and tough and like tough colors like red and blue, and that's pretty much where any thought into it ends. It's sharpie on a face to look manly. Because, what do you think when the Lego company says that it's toys are 'more gender neutral'? That they would make them all girly, and about girly things like shopping and boys? Because, and I can't believe I have to type this, no. This is what 'gender neutral' means, for fuck's sake*

And guess what? Same old sets as before, but with more expressly 'female' faces and hair to pad out the roster, the horror. Because that's what they meant, as well as having more girls and women featured in the promotional materials for the various sets. I mean, the set who's picture I posted even still has the stubbled, eye-patch wearing bad-ass, and even has him on that motorcycle there.

*See next post, ugh

It's not what I mean so much as how it's been framed by the critics of such stuff in terms of what counts as feminine or masculine. (See Feminist Frequency Lego and Gender). Those are the kind of critiques LEGO has been getting for a while hence The Lego Movie Part 2 was seemingly done for those kind of critics or to appease those kind of critics in part. Sorry to say it but this is how some (including corporate executives) see the world, it's why Nerf's Rebel series aimed more at girls was a more softer pastel colour scheme. Welcome to the horrors and stupidity of gender coding claims etc, if you want to go further down this rabbit hole of insanity you can look up claims about "The Pink Tax" too.

As far What do I think Lego means, I dunno maybe they plan to remove the stubbles from some of their figures in some line (again a point raised in the Feminist frequency video).

Here's the thing, you think I have a child's understanding of gender. Here's something that maybe you didn't consider. What if the film does?

 

[Mister Mumbler]

snip

Look, not to sound rude, but this is now moved wildly off-topic to a thread about what we previously watched (I already feel bad enough. As fun as it was, my side of the conversation alone is almost 20 posts in this thread). If you would like to continue this line of discussion, feel free to take me to any thread of your choice (just copy a 'reply' to me from this thread). And who knows? Maybe I do have a childish understanding of gender. Maybe you'll dazzle me with a great argument to that effect (I especially look forward to the part where you actually decide answer me instead of simply throwing my question back at me, because lol).

Anyway! Back on topic...uh...Recently re-watched The Incredibles and it still remains probably my favorite Pixar movie. It sits right on that line between the old 'good, but kind of weird and fake looking' style of the first Pixar movies (Toy Story and Bug's Life) and their modern position of 'king of CGI', but outside of some weird lighting in certain scenes (the hospital and office scenes in particular), it still looks amazing, and a lot of that is owed to Brad Bird's own style. From his careful eye to period equipment and general feel to even the look and shape of the people and characters, all has such a great touch to it (it's pretty much Iron Giant but 3D instead of 2D). A great movie, and Disney's best James Bond movie.

 

[thebobmaster]

Watched Halloween Kills a couple of nights ago. It was pretty good for the most part. It was neat seeing characters from the older movies return, including some real surprises like Lonnie (the bully from the original movie. He was mentioned in the 2018 version, but actually makes an appearance in this film) and Sheriff Leigh Brackett (still played by the same actor from the original), and the violence was surprisingly graphic in this one. If you intend to see it, be warned, Michael is PISSED in this one.

There ware also some plot elements I thought were done pretty well. The B-Plot of the movie is essentially survivors of the original movies like Lonnie and Tommy Doyle (played very well by Anthony Michael Hall) gathering up a mob upon hearing that Michael Myers has returned to take him down. It goes about as well as you'd expect, but what I really liked about the subplot is how it demonstrates the dangers of mob mentality. I won't spoil how it does so, but it's actually pretty sad what ends up happening due to the actions of a blindly angry mob.

Once again, the main trio have some great chemistry, as you'd expect from actors portraying a grandmother, mother, and daughter, all of whom have differences of opinions on how to handle the Myers situation. Laurie thinks that she needs to take him down, because she's convinced that she and Mikey are tied together by fate. Allyson, the granddaughter, feels like it's her job to step up and take down Myers, because Laurie's in a hospital, messed up after the events of Halloween, and Karen, the middle generation, wants the police to handle it, because

Spoiler

she just lost her husband, and doesn't want to see any more family members die

.

There are some other pretty neat little moments throughout the film. I particularly dug one quick little scene where the mother of one of the victims of the last movie sees his body in the morgue and freaks out. It gave me real vibes of the opening of Scream, when Casey Becker's parents return home and realize something's wrong. It really gives off the feeling that these are actually people, not just faceless victims for Myers to butcher.

Now...the biggest issue I have with the movie: the ending. I really dislike this ending, almost as much as the original Mass Effect 3 ending. To not go too much into spoiler territory, it basically establishes that Myers is, in fact, evil incarnate, and in the process (at least for me) makes him significantly less scary. The ending also managed to upset me by

Spoiler

killing off Sheriff Brackett, Tommy Doyle, and Karen in the last 10 minutes of film. It really felt like a slap in the face to bring back Tommy Doyle again just to kill him off, and killing off Karen just felt so abrupt that it left the movie on a sour note for me.

Will I still see Halloween Ends when it comes out? Definitely, need to finish this trilogy off. Will I see Halloween Kills again? That's a bit more questionable. If I do, I'll almost certainly turn it off before the real ending.

Overall, out of the Halloween films, this would be 4th or 5th best for me. Not as good as 2018, the original, or Season of the Witch (yes, shut it), and about on par with H20, but there are definitely worse Halloween films out there.

 

[Hawki]

Bright: Samurai Soul (3/10)

Holy shit, this movie is bad. I had my issues with the original Bright, but this makes its predecessor look like a masterpiece in comparison. It not only shares the same issues, but manages to be lacklustre in its own right.

So, anyway, the movie takes place in Japan during the start of the Meiji Restoration. I'll admit that if I was more familiar with Japanese history (I covered it in school, ages ago), I might have got more out of it, but I don't see it elevating the movie much in my eyes. If anything, it shares the same issues of the original film. This is a world where humans exist alongside fantasy races on Earth (including elves, dwarfs, centaurs, orcs, goblins, and fairies), and around 2000 years ago (from our current time), the races fought against "the Dark Lord," but otherwise, history and society remains the same, with the same history. So in this case, Japan's history seems to be identical to our world, except the presence of fantasy creatures. I can't help but think of Spirited Away and be reminded of its wealth of imagination of Japanese folklore/mythology), and instead see stock Euro-fantasy tropes. I know, I know, what's familiar will depend by culture, and being in the Bright universe, its hands were tied with its use of fantasy creatures, but still...

Animation is terrible. Really terrible. People move strangely, look strange, even talk strange. Again, dubbed, but I don't see this story being much better in the original Japanese. Former samurai and an orc mercenary escort elf girl across Japan because reasons, are pursued by mercenaries because McGuffin, bad things happen, more bad things happen, final fight, deus ex machina, the end. Where, having retrieved the McGuffin, the weapon that can bring back not!Satan, the protagonist just tosses it off a pier, rather than, y'know, giving it to the secret society that's dedicated to stopping the McGuffin from being used to bring back not!Satan.

...dumbass!

So, yeah. Can't reccomend this. It doesn't work on its own, nor does it add anything to the original film, and if anything, arguably opens a plothole, given that the Wand has to go from the sea off Japan to the United States. Bleh.

 

[Hawki]

Mission: Impossible III (7/10)

I think this is a good movie at the end of the day, but not a great one. That it manages to still be the #2 MI film I've seen now (having seen all of them bar Ghost Protocol), I'm kind of left wondering why I keep going back to this series. I mean, Rogue Nation is great, and I'm one of those weirdos that really likes MI2 (even if I can acknowledge its flaws, hence why it isn't ranked higher), but aside from that? Um...

Fine, whatever. MI3 is okay, but it's got weird pacing problems, and I'd argue it's kind of the inverse of MI2. MI2 takes awhile to get going, but then picks up the pace in its second half. MI3 peaks in its second act during the infiltration of the Vatican, and never reaches its heights. By the time they get to China, and have to retrieve a bio-weapon, the actual heist takes place off-screen (as in, we see Ethan land on the building, but don't see him enter the building), and then it cuts to him escaping the building, taking part in an escape sequence that, once it's over, the supporting cast buggers off, and Ethan deals with things by his lonesome, resulting in a climax that's...lacking.

I'll give the movie credit for its villain, with Phillip Hoffman able to convey a great deal of menace with very few words spoken. I'll also give credit for its twist villain, even though this is the third movie in a row that the IMF has had a traitor problem (maybe you should look into that, CIA), and his motivations are...okay...sort of...this film came out in 2006, after the invasion of Iraq, so it's a half-hearted attempt at commentary, without really making much sense in-universe.

Also, Ethan loves Julia now, and poor Nyah gets barely a mention. Bleh.

Anyway, yeah. The film is "functional," but that's really all it is. Functional. I don't know if this is due to Abrams being new to movies rather than TV, or if it's the script, or a desire to tone back things after MI2, but yeah. It "functions." Also, for what it's worth, I've seen some people complain about the Rabbit's Foot not being explained, and not being anything more than a McGuffin. I don't think this is a problem for the most part, as it's clear what the Rabbit's Foot is (a viral weapon), and therefore, the stakes are immediately understandable. What's more of an issue is that, arguably, too much emphasis is placed on the stakes (such as Benji's "anti-God" comments), and come to think of it, we just came off a viral threat in MI2 with Chimera.

Fine, whatever. Like I said, it "functions." But I'm looking at that 7/10, and thinking that maybe it deserves a 6.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Demonic

Horror movie set in... a sunny Canadian lakeside/wine country town perpetually bathed in golden hour? What? One of the laziest attempts at horror I've seen in a while. And I saw Malignant not that long ago, though I'm not convinced that wasn't trying to be a comedy. Even if it wasn't, at least the director seemed to be having fun with it. Blomkamp is very much a "heavy-handed social commentary" sci-fi guy and I can't see anything in this movie that would tell he had any interest or passion for it, other than he could make it quick and cheap in the midst of the global pandemic. The actors are flat and the lead actress looks like she's there because she won a contest.

 

[Ezekiel]

The Florida Project (2017) 4/5

So this is what Floridian trash live like. Felt authentic. Willem Dafoe is cool. While other aged actors who have been in big productions continue to do those movies even when they are mediocre or choose to rather disappear for long periods if they can't get anything major, this star is comfortable displaying his talent in the kinds of smaller movies that need three to four different intros.

Frankenstein (1931) 4/5

The Invisible Man (1933) 4/5

Dracula (1933) 3.5/5

Yeah, wasn't as impressed by the last one, but it still had qualities I admired. I cared for the characters' plights more in the first two. Impressive production values on all of them, inventive effects particularly in The Invisible Man. Did feel like they were milking the effects a bit, but it's fine.

Now I just wanna check out The Mummy and The Wolfman and I think that will be it for my Universal horror. Already watched Bride of Frankenstein last year. I know, weird to watch the sequel first, but I was curious about that hair. Misleading, though, the posters and stuff, and what I remember of RLM's video. She doesn't appear nearly as much as Frankenstein.

 

[laggyteabag]

Venom: Let There Be Carnage

Utter. Fucking. Trash.

And yet, I don't know if it was better or worse than the first movie? I feel like the first film was overall a better made movie (but still not good), but it was also so dull that it is ultimately unmemorable. The second film is just really bad, but it starts to cross into "so bad its good territory", as you start to laugh at the absurdity of it, and not necessarily at its jokes.