We are indeed entitled to our own opinions. But damn if that's what legitimacy looks like, I'll gladly be a bastard.
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
If you mean by in a self indulgent and overly redundant way, yes. But there are plenty of movies based off of comics that already achieved that years ago.
Aquaman... it was... meh...
Which, upon minimal thought, raises the question of... what the bloody hell is it with comic book writers and macguffin determined royalty/absolute monarchy in superheroes' society/culture?! 'Rightful king' is such a dumb-arse lame trope in story telling (and I say that as a monarchist, ironically enough). It's as though they're incapable of characterising the concept of elected officials.
Which, upon minimal thought, raises the question of... what the bloody hell is it with comic book writers and macguffin determined royalty/absolute monarchy in superheroes' society/culture?! 'Rightful king' is such a dumb-arse lame trope in story telling (and I say that as a monarchist, ironically enough). It's as though they're incapable of characterising the concept of elected officials.
Because political machinations make for far less interesting story-telling devices when you've centered your tale around a singular, "special" being with superpowers. I don't think people would have turned out in droves to see Aquaman battle a rigged election... well, as long as Jason Mamoa played him, the lonely housewives probably would.
It was. It came across to me as a kiddies' movie that dashed the viewer through lots of pretty stuff and action scenes to dazzle them and save any bother about making sense, developing character, or inducing any kind of intelligent thoughts. Not without being engaging, and in certain ways well done, but really just quite empty and so... dull.
Monarchy is to an extent culturally ingrained as grand, romantic and noble - even to societies which deliberately got rid of them. Legacy of centuries of stories, myths, and still going strong and infecting the minds of little'uns via Disney etc.. In reality, monarchs were as much a bunch of morons and scumbags as anyone else (if not more so), but if you wrote up those sorts of stories back in the day, you'd be up on treason charges. So they tend to the positive.
The alternative for anyone exercising political power is a regular politician, but we tend to think of them as slimy, double-dealing scumbags: not grand, romantic and noble at all. And to an extent they have to be tricksier, because they have no innate right to rule. A monarch can much more simply represent "good" (legitimate) and "bad" (illegitimate), and be above the fray of grubby compromises. Of course again this is not true to reality, but it's easier to make the idea stick.
The other slightly depressing possibility is the power fantasy. You want to imagine yourself as Aquaman? Yeah well, no worries about modest public sector salary and getting voted out spoiling that fantasy.
Because of centuries of monarchy being entangled in primogeniture, succesion laws etc.
Or in fantasy case, like many tropes, you can track it down to LotR.
I wouldn't exactly call that movie meh. It ain't perfect, but it is entertaining, knows what wants to be without constantly hanging a lampshade, and fun as all hell. It's just nice to see a superhero movie let loose. Yes there are familiar beats, and not everything has to be super 100% original, but it's how it's done. Both Arthur and Orm (Ocean Master) have relatable and understandable motives. And while you understand why Ocean Master does the things he does, you're not supposed to feel too sorry for him, nor root for him.
Black Manta is a good villain and I look forward to seeing him in the sequel. They were actually able to get that costume to work in live action. Now that is amazing. It's easy to get orange and green to look good in a movie, but a more elaborate costume such as Black Manta's is way harder to pull off.
Another thing in this movie favor is that the action scenes are just Godlike. Stylish, clear, and precise. No stupid quick cuts nor shaky cam. No brown and gray color palette from 7th generation gaming. Like I said before, this movie is basically a live-action Devil May Cry and Power Rangers movie. Try placing a style meter, any style meter, from the DMC games and imagine them right by all the hand the hand fight scenes. You'll see what I mean.
You can think whatever you want, but I am so looking forward to the sequel. I don't expect them the top what they did in the first movie nor should they, I just want a good sequel. Or at the very least, a decent one that's still entertaining and has the heart of the first movie.
Last edited:
I mostly agree. Aquaman wasn't perfect by any stretch, but it was fun.
I didn't like Black Manta, though. I think his costume looked pretty ridiculous with that huge bobble-head of a helmet.
I recently bought The Blob (the 80's remake) on blu-ray. An old favorite and all around monster fun. Some people really fucking buy it in this movie, even a kid - It's glorious!
Speak for yourself. If they try to "normalize it or make it realistic", it wouldn't have worked or came off worst for it. When doing comic adaptions, you got to make some type of compromise. I'm glad they were able to pull it off and make it look as good as it did. I'm sure it took them a lot of effort to get that to look right. Anything else and it will look like crap. Let me tell you something: if my dad is impressed by BM's costume, than you know they've done a great job. My dad's a cool guy, but even he can be a hard ass with certain movies at times.
Last edited:
I was speaking for myself. Black Manta looked like the villain in a '90s Power Rangers episode; he looked silly. Insofar as his motivations and whatnot, he was serviceable enough as an secondary antagonist; he just looked dumb.
Excellent!
Yes, silly. The good type of silly. The self acknowledging silly without being eye rolling. The type of silly that is still intimidating and has dignity.
Silly costumes in a superhero comic-based property? You must be new here? Would you like a guided tour?
It was dumb fun at points, but still... well, 'meh'... it wasn't bad by any stretch, to be sure.
My issue with Black Manta was his motivation though. Revenge for his dad was probably one of the silliest ways to pull it. A large part of his business is killing and yet he throws a hissy fit at someone killing his old man, indirectly and as a result of a fight both sides were going at with no little gusto. Perhaps it's because I haven't encountered this sort of interaction in fiction in a long while, but it nonetheless rubbed me up the wrong way.
Mmm... I suppose so, and what are such larger than life characters without romanticised idealism. That said, I would be quite amused by a superhero who comes by their powers via democratic election even if I wouldn't be able to take that remotely seriously, either. I guess that's the point...
That's usually Black Manta's motivation and is known to be petty. I don't know every version, but a lot of them are known for petty vengeance and retribution, so that's actually accurate to the character or most of them. In this case, it does make some sense as Arthur, justifiably, left them for dead. Manta's old man did try to kill Arthur, after saving them the first time. He clearly was not in a patient mood to do it again. I don't exactly blame him.
You're entitled to your opinion, but 1 billion I would not call "meh". Not with such an impact that big.
It's because the US regrets leaving the British Empire, and wants to be ruled by a monarch with divine right.
(I'm kidding, it's not just the US that wants to be ruled by a monarch with divine right)
Perhaps a difference in definition? To me, 'meh' is 'not bad, not good... not very memorable'. Even so, of course, I won't you begrudge your liking it.
OT: Shang Chi... it was... OK(?)(!) But nevermind nearly anything in the film, I don't care if it was not a particularly authentic portrayal of a hundun, but Morris is adorable!
Shang-Chi is a very generic MCU movie. The film's martial arts peak in the first half, and the third act is as CGI Marvel fight as they come (although it had least had some great visuals). I think the Ten Rings, both the organization and the actual rings, were pretty dumb. The story was just kinda dumb.
These were essentially my same complaints about Black Widow. However, I vastly enjoyed this movie more. In fact, I quite liked it. There's only two things I really watch MCU movies for: the action, and the characters. The action, while never really achieving the heights of some better examples of kung fu flicks, is still a lot better than most MCU installments. There are some hints of true greatness in there. Like I said when all the magic isn't introduced yet in the first half, the martial arts really shines. Shang-Chi hits fast and hard, and Simu Liu and other actors totally sell that their characters can kick ass. They also sell their characters as likeable people. Simu Liu honestly doesn't have much to do, but he's not wooden plank like Black Widow or Captain Marvel. I didn't hate Awkafina, which is an achievement. Shang-Chi's sister was also a standout, honestly it feels like the movie should have been more about both of them together. Tony Leung as the the Mandarin was great, but beyond his performance, what was done with the character was a little disappointing.
The movie was a textbook example as what I expect from the MCU. Generic, predictable, maybe a little too quippy at times, but still a fun watch with the family.
EDIT: I forgot to mention, another difference from Black Widow that I really appreciated. There's a lot of Chinese spoken in the movie, and as far as I know, spoken quite well. I'm glad they made the effort, because it really does help make the characters seems more real.
These were essentially my same complaints about Black Widow. However, I vastly enjoyed this movie more. In fact, I quite liked it. There's only two things I really watch MCU movies for: the action, and the characters. The action, while never really achieving the heights of some better examples of kung fu flicks, is still a lot better than most MCU installments. There are some hints of true greatness in there. Like I said when all the magic isn't introduced yet in the first half, the martial arts really shines. Shang-Chi hits fast and hard, and Simu Liu and other actors totally sell that their characters can kick ass. They also sell their characters as likeable people. Simu Liu honestly doesn't have much to do, but he's not wooden plank like Black Widow or Captain Marvel. I didn't hate Awkafina, which is an achievement. Shang-Chi's sister was also a standout, honestly it feels like the movie should have been more about both of them together. Tony Leung as the the Mandarin was great, but beyond his performance, what was done with the character was a little disappointing.
The movie was a textbook example as what I expect from the MCU. Generic, predictable, maybe a little too quippy at times, but still a fun watch with the family.
EDIT: I forgot to mention, another difference from Black Widow that I really appreciated. There's a lot of Chinese spoken in the movie, and as far as I know, spoken quite well. I'm glad they made the effort, because it really does help make the characters seems more real.
Last edited:
Dune (2021): I don't get it / Great
Feels like a movie that started 45 minutes into itself; I clearly missed something(s). A lot going on, and only offers a glance off the surface of every aspect of it before throwing you into the thick of shit. Much like Tenet, it's a movie I found very hard to follow to the point that by the end, I was so lost, I didn't care anymore. I feel like I drove by a sci-fi movie and caught a glimpse of the gist of it. I might try to watch it again, I just have to find the gumption to care enough to do so.
Feels like a movie that started 45 minutes into itself; I clearly missed something(s). A lot going on, and only offers a glance off the surface of every aspect of it before throwing you into the thick of shit. Much like Tenet, it's a movie I found very hard to follow to the point that by the end, I was so lost, I didn't care anymore. I feel like I drove by a sci-fi movie and caught a glimpse of the gist of it. I might try to watch it again, I just have to find the gumption to care enough to do so.
Last Night in Soho
I think I admired this movie more than I enjoyed it. The look, the style, the production value. Grungy, rain-swept neon Soho vs. the glitzy 60s equivalent. And of course Edgar Wright making the most out of every beat and every cut. The precision is as hypnotic as it is (sometimes) rather asphyxiating. But the script is kind of weak. Strong first act, but the middle meanders. While the 1960s storyline is engaging, the present day story not so much - it gets looped into the same repetitive scene over and over, involving the same characters, ending on the same note, and not really advancing the plot at all. The third act picks up again but didn't really wow me either. It ends on a satisfying note and all that, and made me wanna watch the movie again to appreciate the double meaning of several scenes, but it was all too silly by the end. This is probably Wright's most earnest movie so far and despite some humor in it would never pass for a comedy. I missed the versatility of his other movies here.
Some gripes about the reveal.
How is it that 20 to 30 men disappear one by one in the same location around the same time, all of them basically the same middle-to-upper class white dude with a family and a job and some sort of prominence in society, and the crimes are never connected (the media has made serial killers out of much, much less) or solved despite the killer openly picking them all up in public, stashing the bodies (nobody smells anything? They're not even buried) and remaining in the same place 50 to 60 years afterwards, running a bed and breakfast untroubled? I know Sandie gives different names each time but they're all variations of her real name, which she never bothered changing.
I think I admired this movie more than I enjoyed it. The look, the style, the production value. Grungy, rain-swept neon Soho vs. the glitzy 60s equivalent. And of course Edgar Wright making the most out of every beat and every cut. The precision is as hypnotic as it is (sometimes) rather asphyxiating. But the script is kind of weak. Strong first act, but the middle meanders. While the 1960s storyline is engaging, the present day story not so much - it gets looped into the same repetitive scene over and over, involving the same characters, ending on the same note, and not really advancing the plot at all. The third act picks up again but didn't really wow me either. It ends on a satisfying note and all that, and made me wanna watch the movie again to appreciate the double meaning of several scenes, but it was all too silly by the end. This is probably Wright's most earnest movie so far and despite some humor in it would never pass for a comedy. I missed the versatility of his other movies here.
Some gripes about the reveal.
How is it that 20 to 30 men disappear one by one in the same location around the same time, all of them basically the same middle-to-upper class white dude with a family and a job and some sort of prominence in society, and the crimes are never connected (the media has made serial killers out of much, much less) or solved despite the killer openly picking them all up in public, stashing the bodies (nobody smells anything? They're not even buried) and remaining in the same place 50 to 60 years afterwards, running a bed and breakfast untroubled? I know Sandie gives different names each time but they're all variations of her real name, which she never bothered changing.
Last edited:
Prince of Egypt for like the 4th or 5th time, I can't remember. 9/10
I consider this alongside Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame the very peak of 90s western hand drawn animation, and would put it right up there with the all time greats like Princess Mononoke and the Toy Story trilogy. It's simply a masterpiece, and only feels more astonishing as time goes on. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, I'd actually compare this to Lord of the Rings: it came out at the best possible time it could have. In terms of trends, technological capabilities of the time, and where animated movies had advanced, this movie feels like the best possible combination of all of its constituent parts.
The cinematography is breathtaking, the score is among Hans Zimmer's best (and most subtle), the animation (and especially the surprising amount of 3D) is fantastic, and the story is timeless. Much like Notre Dame, this feels like an animated film that's pushing the PG rating to its very limits, and one of the best aspects of it is how it doesn't talk down to its audience. There's nearly no comedic relief (unless you count the two priests), no cutesy animal sidekicks, the score is very withheld and restrained during pivotal dramatic moments, and the drama is allowed to breathe. One big surprise to me was how the last 15 or so minutes are almost completely dialogue free, allowing the visuals to really shine.
There are some small problems, like how sometimes the star studded cast doesn't really help the voice acting, or how the first act feels a bit rushed in parts, or how the finale makes absolutely zero fucking sense whatsoever in visual and time frame terms. But these are just minor issues. This movie deserves all the praise it gets.
There is, however, one very very very easy way to kind of ruin this movie for yourself, and that's actually reading the Bible. Once you know what Moses gets up to later (basically lots and lots mass slaughter, ruling with an iron fist, and bloody conquest) it's kind of hard to be on board with the heroic narrative presented in the film. Of course that's not how you're supposed to view the film, but I just couldn't not think of it as the most amazing and sympathetic supervillain origin story ever.
I consider this alongside Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame the very peak of 90s western hand drawn animation, and would put it right up there with the all time greats like Princess Mononoke and the Toy Story trilogy. It's simply a masterpiece, and only feels more astonishing as time goes on. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, I'd actually compare this to Lord of the Rings: it came out at the best possible time it could have. In terms of trends, technological capabilities of the time, and where animated movies had advanced, this movie feels like the best possible combination of all of its constituent parts.
The cinematography is breathtaking, the score is among Hans Zimmer's best (and most subtle), the animation (and especially the surprising amount of 3D) is fantastic, and the story is timeless. Much like Notre Dame, this feels like an animated film that's pushing the PG rating to its very limits, and one of the best aspects of it is how it doesn't talk down to its audience. There's nearly no comedic relief (unless you count the two priests), no cutesy animal sidekicks, the score is very withheld and restrained during pivotal dramatic moments, and the drama is allowed to breathe. One big surprise to me was how the last 15 or so minutes are almost completely dialogue free, allowing the visuals to really shine.
There are some small problems, like how sometimes the star studded cast doesn't really help the voice acting, or how the first act feels a bit rushed in parts, or how the finale makes absolutely zero fucking sense whatsoever in visual and time frame terms. But these are just minor issues. This movie deserves all the praise it gets.
There is, however, one very very very easy way to kind of ruin this movie for yourself, and that's actually reading the Bible. Once you know what Moses gets up to later (basically lots and lots mass slaughter, ruling with an iron fist, and bloody conquest) it's kind of hard to be on board with the heroic narrative presented in the film. Of course that's not how you're supposed to view the film, but I just couldn't not think of it as the most amazing and sympathetic supervillain origin story ever.
Last edited: