Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Xprimentyl]

The Harder They Fall: Very Good / Great

Not a huge Western fan, but a good one is a GOOD one. Fictionalized events surrounding actual black cowboys/bandits from American history. High-level, a couple dueling gangs butt heads with Idris Elba being the pivotal character affecting both sides. I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Great cast, great acting, great action. Lakeith Stanfield in particular is quite chilling at times, and of course Elba steals the screen just by being present, but does an amazing portrayal of "if ruthless was a person." Highly recommended, bring your popcorn.

 

[BrawlMan]

The Harder They Fall: Very Good / Great

Not a huge Western fan, but a good one is a GOOD one. Fictionalized events surrounding actual black cowboys/bandits from American history. High-level, a couple dueling gangs butt heads with Idris Elba being the pivotal character affecting both sides. I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Great cast, great acting, great action. Lakeith Stanfield in particular is quite chilling at times, and of course Elba steals the screen just by being present, but does an amazing portrayal of "if ruthless was a person." Highly recommended, bring your popcorn.

Can't wait for this movie to come out on Blu-ray. Love it. My parents are going to watch it tonight.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Jungle Cruise: Ok / Great

It's "Dwayne Johnson in the Jungle: Part 12." Or better yet, it's "Pirates of the Caribbean Lite." Not a terrible film; it's fairly entertaining, but it was so on rails, I kept asking myself if the producers were actually taking themselves seriously. Oh, and the CGI jaguar was done really poorly.

EDIT: Just found out it's based off of a theme park attraction at Disney World. Yes. Yes, you can very much tell it is.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Right, so IMDB has a free streaming service that's accessible through Amazon Prime (with ads like that TV we used to use, remember?) now available which I been testing recently, as they have an alright selection so far.

Maelstrom
Denis Villeneuve french/Canadian film again, this time about a woman accidentally causing a hit and run when totally wasted one night, and it all slowly catching up to her. This is a plot I've seen elsewhere, but at least it's done with a certain style and has an imaginary monster fish with a sexy deep french voice that gets repeatedly murdered. And some nice french music tracks along for the ride (lol) too.

Hellraiser
Finally! How has this avoided me for so long? It's alright. The gore looks silly usually, but the special effects during the regeneration scene were actually pretty impressive and gooey, something CGI often can't quite get the right texture for. I wouldn't mind a reboot of this, as long as they commit to practical special effects and make sure the actors can act. Could maybe even entwine some "me too" metaphors with the infidelity ones also. As it has aged in some ways, especially the cheap looking magic box, but at the same time, there isn't else much like it in horror these days. I've heard the sequels are terrible though, so probably won't be chasing them down.

Plus an utterly hilarious moment was when an ad for cheesy pizzas with oozing tomato sauce crusts came on literally right after this regeneration scene, I shit you not...

 

[Agema]

Hellraiser
Finally! How has this avoided me for so long? It's alright. The gore looks silly usually, but the special effects during the regeneration scene were actually pretty impressive and gooey, something CGI often can't quite get the right texture for. I wouldn't mind a reboot of this, as long as they commit to practical special effects and make sure the actors can act. Could maybe even entwine some "me too" metaphors with the infidelity ones also. As it has aged in some ways, especially the cheap looking magic box, but at the same time, there isn't else much like it in horror these days. I've heard the sequels are terrible though, so probably won't be chasing them down.

Hellraiser fits in well with that sort of special effect horror of the 1980s, but I although I liked the film in ways I also found it a bit... disappointing somehow. Generally I think Clive Barker has not done well from film adaptations, not least because of Barker occasionally directing them himself. (The bonus edition of Nightbreed has an amusing interview with him where he complains about the film's lack of success in terms of the film being too visionary, daring, ahead of its time etc. rather than the more prosaic reality of his shortcomings as a director, the poor acting, etc.) His work has something to it, elements of his stuff is quite interesting. But it's rarely had the time, resources, and talent paid to it to make good films.

Mind you, the same could be said of a lot of Stephen King's work, many adaptations of which were lazily pumped out with modest quality control. Note he also succumbed to overreach and directed one (Maximum Overdrive).

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Hellraiser fits in well with that sort of special effect horror of the 1980s, but I although I liked the film in ways I also found it a bit... disappointing somehow. Generally I think Clive Barker has not done well from film adaptations, not least because of Barker occasionally directing them himself. (The bonus edition of Nightbreed has an amusing interview with him where he complains about the film's lack of success in terms of the film being too visionary, daring, ahead of its time etc. rather than the more prosaic reality of his shortcomings as a director, the poor acting, etc.) His work has something to it, elements of his stuff is quite interesting. But it's rarely had the time, resources, and talent paid to it to make good films.

Mind you, the same could be said of a lot of Stephen King's work, many adaptations of which were lazily pumped out with modest quality control. Note he also succumbed to overreach and directed one (Maximum Overdrive).

Yeah, it does appear to be an issue with these successful horror writers. Though am not fond of Stephen King's work as much: not that it's bad, it's just...he has a template and that works for him to pump out so much content, but it feels a bit like cheating, and it's easier for me to respect creators who push their boundaries with more variety. And he has what seems like terrible taste in films, or at least film adaptations of his work.
With Barker, have recently been given the book Abarat which have started and he is certainly more prosaic for sure. Got his Weaveworld book coming soon too as that idea just sounds rather appealing, though can't imagine an adaptation would be a simple task for any of those particular styles.
Not seen Maximum Overdrive yet. It isn't a title that inspires confidence I must admit.

 

[Piscian]

No Time to Die

It was fine, I guess, but I think I'm a bad judge of these films. I'm always kind of "entertained" by the Daniel Craig Bond films, but outside of SkyFall none of them felt particularly compelling or memorable. I'd like to humbly blame my own ADHD, but idk for some reason with the somewhat exception of Skyfall I start the movies not really knowing whats going on and end the films having forgotten what it was even about. I swear its like my eyes glaze over halfway through and I just watch flashing images on screen until it ends. As much as I'd like to take complete blame I love highly technical slowburn films, I have Pi and Primer pretty much memorized. Theres something about the way information is given in these bond films that I find so...uninteresting..thats it like in one ear and out the other.

I'm also confused by the timeline. Theres no clear indication in any of these films as to how much time has passed. This film starts off with him being in love with this lady Madeline lady and I guess they've known each for like a long time like 5-10 years? but like I barely remember her in Spectre? Did that happen like a year ago or like 5 years or did he meet her in an earlier film and I just forgot?

Its also so murky as to how there can be multiple circles of the richest people and cabals in the world that aren't connected and dont know each other? Idk I feel like all these bonds films want you to think they're smart, but the writing just doesn't "feel" clever. Even the weapon in this film was just like "its magical and there's no cure, but its also not magical." um...ok. That said I don't even remember whats the villains goals or what the plots were for any of these films outside of Skyfall which felt much more straightforward. I just finished watching it and its still not abundantly clear what the bad guy wanted. Was it global domination? but hes already wealthy beyond imagination. He doesn't need to control people with some secret weapon? I mean amazon does that with $15/hr.

I think these movies are just over my head.

On a side note, yeah I was disappointed by the new 007. I felt like they spent the whole film making her look stupid and incompetent. Not a great way to build a gateway to the next franchise phase if that was the point of including her.

 

[Gordon_4]

No Time to Die

It was fine, I guess, but I think I'm a bad judge of these films. I'm always kind of "entertained" by the Daniel Craig Bond films, but outside of SkyFall none of them felt particularly compelling or memorable. I'd like to humbly blame my own ADHD, but idk for some reason with the somewhat exception of Skyfall I start the movies not really knowing whats going on and end the films having forgotten what it was even about. I swear its like my eyes glaze over halfway through and I just watch flashing images on screen until it ends. As much as I'd like to take complete blame I love highly technical slowburn films, I have Pi and Primer pretty much memorized. Theres something about the way information is given in these bond films that I find so...uninteresting..thats it like in one ear and out the other.

I'm also confused by the timeline. Theres no clear indication in any of these films as to how much time has passed. This film starts off with him being in love with this lady Madeline lady and I guess they've known each for like a long time like 5-10 years? but like I barely remember her in Spectre? Did that happen like a year ago or like 5 years or did he meet her in an earlier film and I just forgot?

Its also so murky as to how there can be multiple circles of the richest people and cabals in the world that aren't connected and dont know each other? Idk I feel like all these bonds films want you to think they're smart, but the writing just doesn't "feel" clever. Even the weapon in this film was just like "its magical and there's no cure, but its also not magical." um...ok. That said I don't even remember whats the villains goals or what the plots were for any of these films outside of Skyfall which felt much more straightforward. I just finished watching it and its still not abundantly clear what the bad guy wanted. Was it global domination? but hes already wealthy beyond imagination. He doesn't need to control people with some secret weapon? I mean amazon does that with $15/hr.

I think these movies are just over my head.

On a side note, yeah I was disappointed by the new 007. I felt like they spent the whole film making her look stupid and incompetent. Not a great way to build a gateway to the next franchise phase if that was the point of including her.

Thats the funny thing about Saffin. He’s a far more traditional Bond villain than all the others in Craig’s run. He’s got the flair, he’s got the base, and he isn’t out to personally screw Bond over. His connection is to Madeline and Bond is only involved because he’s involving himself (understandably) in Saffin’s business. As for the plan; he has an amazing bioweapon he wants to sell to the highest bidder. And that’s because his more personal plan is already like 98% complete.

 

[Piscian]

Thats the funny thing about Saffin. He’s a far more traditional Bond villain than all the others in Craig’s run. He’s got the flair, he’s got the base, and he isn’t out to personally screw Bond over. His connection is to Madeline and Bond is only involved because he’s involving himself (understandably) in Saffin’s business. As for the plan; he has an amazing bioweapon he wants to sell to the highest bidder. And that’s because his more personal plan is already like 98% complete.

So hes selling weapons, but also taking over the world or something..

and what did he want madeline for exactly? cause he said Bond could take the kid but not her.

 

[Gordon_4]

So hes selling weapons, but also taking over the world or something..

and what did he want madeline for exactly? cause he said Bond could take the kid but not her.

Madeline he wanted because she's the kid who put four rounds in him at the beginning and was his best shot at getting to Blofeld - and irony of ironies - turns out James did that job for him. As for keeping her and feeding her a tea that makes her compliant; I assume this is misguided affection and some kind of weird psycho-sexual thing.

I won't say the movie is perfect because Saffin's overall goal is kind of vague and the timeline shifts around really awkwardly. Plus the emotional crux of the film is riding on Bond's relationship with Madeline: one of the most criticised parts of Spectre as a film.

 

[Piscian]

Madeline he wanted because she's the kid who put four rounds in him at the beginning and was his best shot at getting to Blofeld - and irony of ironies - turns out James did that job for him. As for keeping her and feeding her a tea that makes her compliant; I assume this is misguided affection and some kind of weird psycho-sexual thing.

I won't say the movie is perfect because Saffin's overall goal is kind of vague and the timeline shifts around really awkwardly. Plus the emotional crux of the film is riding on Bond's relationship with Madeline: one of the most criticised parts of Spectre as a film.

On reflection this seems like a bad idea for Daniel Craig's bond. The big draw of his character has always been that he's a more coldhearted killer bond. I recall some quote of his superiors calling him an attack dog or some such. This gave him a slightly more mysterious enigmatic personality, but he also comes off as having zero chemistry with any of his on screen love interests. To be honest, his buddy cop moment with Paloma was the first time in the series I saw a bond girl that actually seemed compatible with him personality wise and her scenes were probably the high point of the movie for me. Madeline seemed more like his bothersome granddaughter if anything. I have nothing against Léa Seydoux as an actress, but I just kind of groaned everytime she appeared on screen. In my brain, when the movie starts I assumed they've known each other for like a month so the timeline confused the hell out of me.

 

[thebobmaster]

Hellraiser fits in well with that sort of special effect horror of the 1980s, but I although I liked the film in ways I also found it a bit... disappointing somehow. Generally I think Clive Barker has not done well from film adaptations, not least because of Barker occasionally directing them himself. (The bonus edition of Nightbreed has an amusing interview with him where he complains about the film's lack of success in terms of the film being too visionary, daring, ahead of its time etc. rather than the more prosaic reality of his shortcomings as a director, the poor acting, etc.) His work has something to it, elements of his stuff is quite interesting. But it's rarely had the time, resources, and talent paid to it to make good films.

Mind you, the same could be said of a lot of Stephen King's work, many adaptations of which were lazily pumped out with modest quality control. Note he also succumbed to overreach and directed one (Maximum Overdrive).

Stephen King has apologized for Maximum Overdrive, for the record. His excuse was that when you are on enough cocaine, you think you can do anything.

 

[Gordon_4]

On reflection this seems like a bad idea for Daniel Craig's bond. The big draw of his character has always been that he's a more coldhearted killer bond. I recall some quote of his superiors calling him an attack dog or some such. This gave him a slightly more mysterious enigmatic personality, but he also comes off as having zero chemistry with any of his on screen love interests. To be honest, his buddy cop moment with Paloma was the first time in the series I saw a bond girl that actually seemed compatible with him personality wise and her scenes were probably the high point of the movie for me. Madeline seemed more like his bothersome granddaughter if anything. I have nothing against Léa Seydoux as an actress, but I just kind of groaned everytime she appeared on screen. In my brain, when the movie starts I assumed they've known each other for like a month so the timeline confused the hell out of me.

Oh man, I want like five movies of Paloma and Bond and Felix just doing spy shit.

 

[Piscian]

Stephen King has apologized for Maximum Overdrive, for the record. His excuse was that when you are on enough cocaine, you think you can do anything.

He can apologize all he wants but it won't change the fact that it's an awesome movie!

 

[Agema]

With Barker, have recently been given the book Abarat which have started and he is certainly more prosaic for sure. Got his Weaveworld book coming soon too as that idea just sounds rather appealing, though can't imagine an adaptation would be a simple task for any of those particular styles.

I read Weaveworld 30 or more years ago - I don't remember it that well. But I can assure you that if anyone wants to adapt that, they'd be better off thinking about a TV series. However, to a large extent I don't think anyone will adapt it now: Barker's time has long since passed and his light faded. I know he still produces films, but they're pretty niche or small fry.

Not seen Maximum Overdrive yet. It isn't a title that inspires confidence I must admit.

It's... very missable.

Stephen King has apologized for Maximum Overdrive, for the record. His excuse was that when you are on enough cocaine, you think you can do anything.

I read a series of articles in a newspaper where the author James Smythe went through pretty much all of Stephen King's books, looking at the themes in them and how he thought they reflected his personal life. It notes how King's books reflect him going off the rails due to cocaine in the 80s, and then the torturous confrontation he makes with it in the late 80s. Fascinating stuff. Misery, The Tommyknockers, The Dark Half, Needful Things all can all be viewed as the author expressing his struggle with addiction.

 

[thebobmaster]

I read Weaveworld 30 or more years ago - I don't remember it that well. But I can assure you that if anyone wants to adapt that, they'd be better off thinking about a TV series. However, to a large extent I don't think anyone will adapt it now: Barker's time has long since passed and his light faded. I know he still produces films, but they're pretty niche or small fry.



It's... very missable.



I read a series of articles in a newspaper where the author James Smythe went through pretty much all of Stephen King's books, looking at the themes in them and how he thought they reflected his personal life. It notes how King's books reflect him going off the rails due to cocaine in the 80s, and then the torturous confrontation he makes with it in the late 80s. Fascinating stuff. Misery, The Tommyknockers, The Dark Half, Needful Things all can all be viewed as the author expressing his struggle with addiction.

Stephen King himself has said that Misery was basically his subconscious calling him out on his drug addiction. Dark Half was more about his feelings killing off his alter ego Richard Bachman, and he doesn't even remember writing The Tommyknockers. Needful Things...yeah, I can totally see that.

 

[BrawlMan]

When King wrote Cujo, all he had was coffee and cigarettes for 3 days straight. No cocaine that time.

 

[Piscian]

Red notice

Gal Gadot sucks.

6/10

 

[Xprimentyl]

Gal Gadot sucks.

Man, I'd love to be a lucky fella that knows that for a fact...

OT, Red Notice was fun.

 

[Piscian]

Eternals

hooo boy. It is a ...stinker. I went and saw this in theaters today, just to try and catch the spectacle. I mean a guy...with another guy WTF. kidding, no I wish its problems were so socially driven. It's not good, on any level, by any standard. According to rotten tomatoes it got an 50% critic 80% viewer. Over the last couple years I've noticed a real divide forming between critics and audiences. I like Bright, critics did not, I hated TLJ, critics loved it, I loved The Hunt, critics puked all over it. Same thing with Run.Hide.Fight which I loved. With that in mind I thought I'd give it a gamble since I love anything marvel, hell I enjoyed Black Widow overall. No bueno on this one.

The first hour+ of the film is an absolute slog. Its a weird constant back and forth jump from present to past tense, trying to balance getting you caught up on who these characters are while moving the plot forward, but it never gives any of the characters time to develop or grow on you and theres constant marvel quips but ..every..single..one falls flat like whomever wrote the dialog doesn't really understand timing or wit so often characters will make a joke that sounds like they don't even get it, they're just reading off cue cards. I swear I'm an easy sell, but this was bad like really bad. Often the film literally talks at you rather than engaging you. Using exposition rather than just showing you. In a rather strange scene disconnected from the plot a character goes insane and for the next five minutes they just stare in the camera to explain to you some nonsense about an Alzheimer's like disease with minimal payoff. Its doesn't really play into a pivotal moment at the end of the film, just interspersed throughout to make the character kinda useless.

The celestials talk in this which is already off-putting, but its also in the announcers voice from Honest Trailers and its just cringy. Like youd expect a being larger than a planet to have an otherworldy voice or maybe even just communicate in images, but no its just some dude in baritone.

Once the films starts to come together with a single linear, plot and pacing its fun, but thats nearly 2 hours in. I was squirming in my seat in the first hour. God I just wanted it to end.

As I was walking out I overheard two guys discussing it and one says "man I couldnt get attached to anybody" to which the other responds "yeah there were like nine main characters" and I think that root of the issue. Aside from the incredibly poor, forced Marvel jokes this needed to be two movies. One that introduces the characters and what they've been doing for 7000 years and then a modern one with the main macguffin. Even the sub-villains the deviants dont really get enough time on screen. I highly suspect Chloe zhao shot or planned like 4 hours of material and the producers stepped in and chopped it up as best they could into one film. Theres like 5 or 6 credited writers which is never a good sign. Even some of the jokes that fell flat might have worked better if the characters on screen comradery was given more oxygen. For context this is the first Marvel movie I've found pretty unwatchable. Like Id rather watch Thor: Darkworld twice than watch this again.