Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
- Aquaman
- Man of Steel
- Wonder Woman
- Suicide Squad 2
- Shazam!
- WW '84
- Suicide Squad
- Justice Leauge Theatrical
- Batman V. Superman
Midway (2019)
It's Roland Emmerich... not sure what else there is to say about it.
Production values are great, and with only a few exceptions, there isn't much suspense of disbelief in its historical recounting (complete absence of the F4F Wildcat is probably the only really egregious instance, but since the apparent MC is Dick Best, that the SBD should be the darling among the planes is reasonable). The main problem with the movie is its earnest effort in smunching damn near all the events from Dec 7th to the titular battle (including the Raid on the Marshalls, Battle of the Coral Sea etc.) into a 2hr+ piece and it doesn't quite work. I appreciate the effort, but many parts do come off as much too rushed. Even for the battle itself, the loss of Yorktown is glossed over much too blithely ("the Yorktown's been hit" with a brief panning shot of her flight deck in flames... is literally the only reference to it, which is a bit disrespectful even if the Enterprise takes centre stage throughout the run time) along with her DCP's efforts to keep her afloat and success in fooling the second Hiryu strike.
Also, Ed Skrein, I couldn't stand your accent, Luke Evans was a fair bit better.
That said, I enjoyed it, it's a dry film (admittedly) which takes a very even handed approach to recounting events and that's the sort of thing I like (more than the 197# film, can't remember exactly when it was made), along with giving prominence to Layton. Underplaying Spruance's part (as well as not explicitly stating he was recommended by Halsey) made it feel off, but I'm willing to forgive that considering the inclusion of a helluva lot else.
It's Roland Emmerich... not sure what else there is to say about it.
Production values are great, and with only a few exceptions, there isn't much suspense of disbelief in its historical recounting (complete absence of the F4F Wildcat is probably the only really egregious instance, but since the apparent MC is Dick Best, that the SBD should be the darling among the planes is reasonable). The main problem with the movie is its earnest effort in smunching damn near all the events from Dec 7th to the titular battle (including the Raid on the Marshalls, Battle of the Coral Sea etc.) into a 2hr+ piece and it doesn't quite work. I appreciate the effort, but many parts do come off as much too rushed. Even for the battle itself, the loss of Yorktown is glossed over much too blithely ("the Yorktown's been hit" with a brief panning shot of her flight deck in flames... is literally the only reference to it, which is a bit disrespectful even if the Enterprise takes centre stage throughout the run time) along with her DCP's efforts to keep her afloat and success in fooling the second Hiryu strike.
Also, Ed Skrein, I couldn't stand your accent, Luke Evans was a fair bit better.
That said, I enjoyed it, it's a dry film (admittedly) which takes a very even handed approach to recounting events and that's the sort of thing I like (more than the 197# film, can't remember exactly when it was made), along with giving prominence to Layton. Underplaying Spruance's part (as well as not explicitly stating he was recommended by Halsey) made it feel off, but I'm willing to forgive that considering the inclusion of a helluva lot else.
I watched Turning Red, the new Pixar movie that apparently has people pissed cuz teen girl.
It was alright. It feels like it's stuck in a strange place that kinda makes it feel like a very long episode of an animated series, or a movie version of an animated series. It did remind me in a couple of ways of A Goofy Movie.
I feel like giving it some well deserved praise, but at the same time prefacing it by saying 'it's about fucking time Disney'. Like how periods and maxi pads are a totally normal thing. Or how teen girls can like boys without any of said boys needing be the one true love or love interest. I kinda fell into a trap of my own expectations when the main character suddenly developed an interest in a male character that was introduced shortly before, and I immediately assumed this guy was going to be the love interest (whether succesfully pursued or not). But he wasn't. He was just some guy she was "teen girling over" because hormones, and as quickly as it came up it went away. And then it happens again later and AGAIN my mind instantly expected this new boy to play a larger part in the narrative than he ended up playing. It was very appreciated that this movie broke away from that. That a teen girl can just be boy crazy and have shallow crushes without it being judged or looked down on.
Oh yeah, the whole gimmick of the movie is that our protagonist turns into a giant red panda when she gets emotional, and while you can read a lot of different things into this it mainly feels like it's supposed to symbolize fighting against being forced into conformity. Mei (the protagonist) has spent her entire life trying to be the perfect daughter for her mother, and now with puberty hitting and growing up in a different culture from her mother this results in all this pent up rage unleashing in the form of a giant animal. And in true Pixar fashion this is subverted by implying the red panda is actually a good thing and that Mei needs to assert herself so as not to let her mother think she can decide everything for her. However, this kinda runs into an issue with the ending.
So yeah, there's kind of a conflict in themes going on there.
It was alright. It feels like it's stuck in a strange place that kinda makes it feel like a very long episode of an animated series, or a movie version of an animated series. It did remind me in a couple of ways of A Goofy Movie.
I feel like giving it some well deserved praise, but at the same time prefacing it by saying 'it's about fucking time Disney'. Like how periods and maxi pads are a totally normal thing. Or how teen girls can like boys without any of said boys needing be the one true love or love interest. I kinda fell into a trap of my own expectations when the main character suddenly developed an interest in a male character that was introduced shortly before, and I immediately assumed this guy was going to be the love interest (whether succesfully pursued or not). But he wasn't. He was just some guy she was "teen girling over" because hormones, and as quickly as it came up it went away. And then it happens again later and AGAIN my mind instantly expected this new boy to play a larger part in the narrative than he ended up playing. It was very appreciated that this movie broke away from that. That a teen girl can just be boy crazy and have shallow crushes without it being judged or looked down on.
Oh yeah, the whole gimmick of the movie is that our protagonist turns into a giant red panda when she gets emotional, and while you can read a lot of different things into this it mainly feels like it's supposed to symbolize fighting against being forced into conformity. Mei (the protagonist) has spent her entire life trying to be the perfect daughter for her mother, and now with puberty hitting and growing up in a different culture from her mother this results in all this pent up rage unleashing in the form of a giant animal. And in true Pixar fashion this is subverted by implying the red panda is actually a good thing and that Mei needs to assert herself so as not to let her mother think she can decide everything for her. However, this kinda runs into an issue with the ending.
It turns out all the women in Mei's family have this panda "curse" - including her mother - and have had it dealt with by way of a ritual early in their teenage years. This implies a culture of repression that has been passed on from generation to generation from mother to daughter, and considering how the movie frames Mei putting her foot down and wanting to keep her panda side suggests that this repression is obviously a bad thing and needs to be stopped. But then by the end all Mei's aunts, her grandma, and her mom go through the ritual again to seal away their panda side, and this then isn't shown to be bad? Like how they decided to give up the fight and conform to what the panda was initially awoken to fight against? We even get a scene where Mei meets a 13-year old version of her mom who's crying and distraught over how to be a perfect daughter for her mother, but then Mei leads her to get rid of that side of her that wanted to fight back against it.
So yeah, there's kind of a conflict in themes going on there.
Spencer, 6/10
This is a recent Oscar-nominated (for Kristen Stewart) drama about Princess Diana spending the Christmas at a manor with the royal family towards the end of her marriage to Prince Charles, presumably 1991. It's a very intimate and introspective look into her anxieties, fears and depression. There is no scene in the film where Stewart isn't present, so it's her show all the way.
It has to be mentioned that Stewart is magnetic in the role. She completely and utterly disappears into the performance, and conveys Diana's despair with stunning intensity without ever dipping into camp or melodrama. You really feel her alienation and loneliness within the trappings she's, well, trapped in. The movie is also shot beautifully with a lot of slow zoom-ins on long, mostly empty corridors, which combined with the dark jazzy score makes the film feel almost like a horror movie at times. It's very atmospheric which I really enjoyed.
However, the biggest problem with the film is it's just boring. There's not nearly enough narrative momentum in the setup to warrant the almost 2-hour running time, and I was very close to checking my watch. There were multiple times I thought the movie was about to end, and then it kept going. Making a movie out of a limited timeframe in a person's life is IMO the best way to do a biopic, but here there's little else for Diana to do besides be sad, be sad some more, and then some more for extra measure. Even with Stewart's powerhouse performance it just gets repetitive. I think a 40-minute short film would have fit this premise better.
The film also explains next to nothing about its subject matter, so unless you have an understanding of the general details of Diana's life and why she is remembered the way she is, you'll likely be confused. A good example is the pearl necklace: it's made a point of conflict and how Charles (apparently) bought his mistress an identical necklace. But the adultery part is never explicitly detailed, only vaguely alluded to, and if I hadn't known about Diana and Charles' marriage suffering from infidelity that point would likely have been lost on me. The film just throws you into the deep end with this stuff. For example, Diana almost never talks with any of the royal family in the film, only her children and the staff at the manor. On one hand this helps with creating the feeling of alienation and isolation she's trapped in, but it also means you never really get a full picture of Diana as a person and how she's seen by the royal family.
So in short, fantastic central performance and great cinematography, but you can't build a full lego set with just two blocks. Rather disappointing considering the hype about Stewart.
This is a recent Oscar-nominated (for Kristen Stewart) drama about Princess Diana spending the Christmas at a manor with the royal family towards the end of her marriage to Prince Charles, presumably 1991. It's a very intimate and introspective look into her anxieties, fears and depression. There is no scene in the film where Stewart isn't present, so it's her show all the way.
It has to be mentioned that Stewart is magnetic in the role. She completely and utterly disappears into the performance, and conveys Diana's despair with stunning intensity without ever dipping into camp or melodrama. You really feel her alienation and loneliness within the trappings she's, well, trapped in. The movie is also shot beautifully with a lot of slow zoom-ins on long, mostly empty corridors, which combined with the dark jazzy score makes the film feel almost like a horror movie at times. It's very atmospheric which I really enjoyed.
However, the biggest problem with the film is it's just boring. There's not nearly enough narrative momentum in the setup to warrant the almost 2-hour running time, and I was very close to checking my watch. There were multiple times I thought the movie was about to end, and then it kept going. Making a movie out of a limited timeframe in a person's life is IMO the best way to do a biopic, but here there's little else for Diana to do besides be sad, be sad some more, and then some more for extra measure. Even with Stewart's powerhouse performance it just gets repetitive. I think a 40-minute short film would have fit this premise better.
The film also explains next to nothing about its subject matter, so unless you have an understanding of the general details of Diana's life and why she is remembered the way she is, you'll likely be confused. A good example is the pearl necklace: it's made a point of conflict and how Charles (apparently) bought his mistress an identical necklace. But the adultery part is never explicitly detailed, only vaguely alluded to, and if I hadn't known about Diana and Charles' marriage suffering from infidelity that point would likely have been lost on me. The film just throws you into the deep end with this stuff. For example, Diana almost never talks with any of the royal family in the film, only her children and the staff at the manor. On one hand this helps with creating the feeling of alienation and isolation she's trapped in, but it also means you never really get a full picture of Diana as a person and how she's seen by the royal family.
So in short, fantastic central performance and great cinematography, but you can't build a full lego set with just two blocks. Rather disappointing considering the hype about Stewart.
Exposed (2016)
Sort of cop film with apparent supernatural elements starring Keanu Reeves and Ana de Armas. The plot runs as two separate strands that gradually come together, with Reeve's cop trying to solve a crime involving the murder of his partner, and de Armas's character having weird stuff happen to her after a tube journey on a night out.
Let's cut to the chase, this film is terrible. Tediously awful. I think there was a good idea in there at some point, but something went incredibly badly wrong along the way. I'd note that clearly an inspiration for this movie was Gaspar Noe's toxically unpleasant Irreversible, and that's not a great start point.The two strands take far too much time to link, plus, they're both individually quite dull. It requires stamina to stick through to the ending, and the payoff is... not bad. But it's also not worth suffering through the preceding mess. Mira Sorvino is also criminally wasted in this film, in bits of Reeve's half of the plot, with some deeply unconvincing scenes. I'd like to think that this is possibly the fault of studio interference, because I can't really see why an otherwise impressive cast would have signed on to a stinker of this magnitude.
Sort of cop film with apparent supernatural elements starring Keanu Reeves and Ana de Armas. The plot runs as two separate strands that gradually come together, with Reeve's cop trying to solve a crime involving the murder of his partner, and de Armas's character having weird stuff happen to her after a tube journey on a night out.
Let's cut to the chase, this film is terrible. Tediously awful. I think there was a good idea in there at some point, but something went incredibly badly wrong along the way. I'd note that clearly an inspiration for this movie was Gaspar Noe's toxically unpleasant Irreversible, and that's not a great start point.The two strands take far too much time to link, plus, they're both individually quite dull. It requires stamina to stick through to the ending, and the payoff is... not bad. But it's also not worth suffering through the preceding mess. Mira Sorvino is also criminally wasted in this film, in bits of Reeve's half of the plot, with some deeply unconvincing scenes. I'd like to think that this is possibly the fault of studio interference, because I can't really see why an otherwise impressive cast would have signed on to a stinker of this magnitude.
Deep Water
Act I
Holy shit, Adrian Lyne finally made another movie 20 years after Unfaithful. Same guy who made erotic thrillers like 9 1/2 Weeks, Fatal Attraction and Indecent Proposal is back with an erotic thriller starring Ben Affleck and Ana de Armas? Sign me up.
Act II
So the movie is intriguing enough. Affleck is a cuck whose wife openly parades boy toy type lovers at parties and even makes out with them without breaking eye contact with him. Then Affleck tells one of the lovers that he murdered her previous one. Is it a joke, is it real, did he just get the idea, is he going to catch flak for it if and when the dude ends up dead? Otherwise Affleck doesn't even confront his obviously cheating wife. Is he getting something out of it or what? Like a means of playing out murderous fantasies? And for that matter what does the wife get out of it - is it about escaping her husband or about making him jealous? It's hard to believe Affleck in such a passive role so I have to assume something else is going on.
Act III
The movie doesn't really have an intelligent or creative answer for the central enigma that is this weird ass relationship. You spend the whole movie sort of waiting for the other shoe to drop because you're never sure what's going on with either of these two people. It's bad but in a fascinating kind of way - you always want to know what they'll do next because they continue to raise the ante while maintaining deniability. It's like an over extended poker game between two people who never show their cards. But by the time they do you've called their bluff too many times to be surprised.
The final act also sucks, frankly, and looks like a victim of reshoots and lazy ADR to get to the ending you otherwise don't know how to arrive naturally.
Act I
Holy shit, Adrian Lyne finally made another movie 20 years after Unfaithful. Same guy who made erotic thrillers like 9 1/2 Weeks, Fatal Attraction and Indecent Proposal is back with an erotic thriller starring Ben Affleck and Ana de Armas? Sign me up.
Act II
So the movie is intriguing enough. Affleck is a cuck whose wife openly parades boy toy type lovers at parties and even makes out with them without breaking eye contact with him. Then Affleck tells one of the lovers that he murdered her previous one. Is it a joke, is it real, did he just get the idea, is he going to catch flak for it if and when the dude ends up dead? Otherwise Affleck doesn't even confront his obviously cheating wife. Is he getting something out of it or what? Like a means of playing out murderous fantasies? And for that matter what does the wife get out of it - is it about escaping her husband or about making him jealous? It's hard to believe Affleck in such a passive role so I have to assume something else is going on.
Act III
The movie doesn't really have an intelligent or creative answer for the central enigma that is this weird ass relationship. You spend the whole movie sort of waiting for the other shoe to drop because you're never sure what's going on with either of these two people. It's bad but in a fascinating kind of way - you always want to know what they'll do next because they continue to raise the ante while maintaining deniability. It's like an over extended poker game between two people who never show their cards. But by the time they do you've called their bluff too many times to be surprised.
The final act also sucks, frankly, and looks like a victim of reshoots and lazy ADR to get to the ending you otherwise don't know how to arrive naturally.
Team America: World Police, 10/10
One of my all time favorite movies. It's definitely one of those movies that either works for you or doesn't: repeat watches of it likely won't change your opinion of it. It's one of those movies where I'm not so much laughing than I'm gasping for air because it's so funny. For me it is peak Parker and Stone: incredibly puerile and gross, yet utterly charming and bursting with the joy of creation. Just about everything in it nails what it's going for: the script is precisely the kind of ultra-patriotic wankery you'd see in movies at the time, the soundtrack goes incredibly hard, and all the ways it parodies action movies are absolutely hilarious. The sets and locations are gorgeous and there's tons of details to pick up on repeat viewings, like how the movie starts in New York but Gary is driven to Mt Rushmore which is in South Dakota. There are loads of memorable and hilarious lines, some of which you'd definitely not want to say out in public these days. If you start to dissect its politics you can definitely get into some iffy territory, but as pure entertainment it succeeds at everything it sets out to do. I'd previously considered it a 9/10, but if I consider Borat a 10/10 then there's really no reason for Team America to be as well.
One of my all time favorite movies. It's definitely one of those movies that either works for you or doesn't: repeat watches of it likely won't change your opinion of it. It's one of those movies where I'm not so much laughing than I'm gasping for air because it's so funny. For me it is peak Parker and Stone: incredibly puerile and gross, yet utterly charming and bursting with the joy of creation. Just about everything in it nails what it's going for: the script is precisely the kind of ultra-patriotic wankery you'd see in movies at the time, the soundtrack goes incredibly hard, and all the ways it parodies action movies are absolutely hilarious. The sets and locations are gorgeous and there's tons of details to pick up on repeat viewings, like how the movie starts in New York but Gary is driven to Mt Rushmore which is in South Dakota. There are loads of memorable and hilarious lines, some of which you'd definitely not want to say out in public these days. If you start to dissect its politics you can definitely get into some iffy territory, but as pure entertainment it succeeds at everything it sets out to do. I'd previously considered it a 9/10, but if I consider Borat a 10/10 then there's really no reason for Team America to be as well.
Just bought this on Amazon. Watching again now. Hope to have a party to rewatch it soon. Very enjoyable movie.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,525
- 3,470
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Watched Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Finished the BBC mini series before so watched the movie after to see how it compares. The movie is a really weird combination of dry British whit and American action/comedy. It doesn't really work, especially when you have dialog straight from the book, it just really stands out since its not delivered with dry humor, its delivered in the American style, which is more emotive and antic based. Plus they had to do that weird love interest thing that American movies love to do and also wrap things up with a traditional happy ending where everything is restored to status quo. The aliens and robot though, they look and move fantastic, I had no idea how they managed that since they all looked so good in the scene and moved with weight that CG is almost always missing, then in the credits I saw that Jim Henson's creature shop was involved and that makes sense, even more modern CG can't stand up to them.
Old
What the hell does Shyamalan tell his actors that everyone always looks and sounds so soulless in his movies? Maybe it's in the writing too. Old has some truly awkward turns of phrase. There's no way anybody would deliver them convincingly. And I don't know what's M Night's obsession with having characters constantly refer to what they do for a living. So the risk assessment dude is always talking about statistics, and the psychologist keeps talking about everyone's behavior (Somebody's just been murdered = "I don't like this dynamic"), and the doctor keeps talking about his job... It's The Happening all over again.
Come think of it there's a lot of M Night pet peeves coming in hot from The Happening. Again with making fun of the vanity of attractive people by reminding them time is not their friend (kid at the beginning of The Happening, calcium chick in Old), and the same plot point about a wife having grown distant from her husband for vague reasons, deciding to leave him (and then repenting and staying) which I guess also goes for Unbreakable.
The plot about a bunch of people aging rapidly and uncontrollably in a secluded mystery beach is intriguing enough, and the movie makes... maybe not the most of it, but it does take some pretty bizarre scenarios and run with them. Thing is many of the rules seem contradictory. Apparently the human body ages a year every 30 minutes (so 12-13 days every minute?), meaning scars heal almost instantly and diseases spiral out of control in just a few hours. If you need water at least every 3 days wouldn't that mean you can't go more than 15 seconds without hydrating? What about the sun? An hour in that beach would equal 2 years of uninterrupted exposure if skin cancer didn't kill you first. What about the fact nobody ever sleeps? Etc.
But whatever, the movie obviously is going to take the rules that make for flashy set pieces (performing surgery on a rapidly scarring body, for example) and ignore everything else.
What the hell does Shyamalan tell his actors that everyone always looks and sounds so soulless in his movies? Maybe it's in the writing too. Old has some truly awkward turns of phrase. There's no way anybody would deliver them convincingly. And I don't know what's M Night's obsession with having characters constantly refer to what they do for a living. So the risk assessment dude is always talking about statistics, and the psychologist keeps talking about everyone's behavior (Somebody's just been murdered = "I don't like this dynamic"), and the doctor keeps talking about his job... It's The Happening all over again.
Come think of it there's a lot of M Night pet peeves coming in hot from The Happening. Again with making fun of the vanity of attractive people by reminding them time is not their friend (kid at the beginning of The Happening, calcium chick in Old), and the same plot point about a wife having grown distant from her husband for vague reasons, deciding to leave him (and then repenting and staying) which I guess also goes for Unbreakable.
The plot about a bunch of people aging rapidly and uncontrollably in a secluded mystery beach is intriguing enough, and the movie makes... maybe not the most of it, but it does take some pretty bizarre scenarios and run with them. Thing is many of the rules seem contradictory. Apparently the human body ages a year every 30 minutes (so 12-13 days every minute?), meaning scars heal almost instantly and diseases spiral out of control in just a few hours. If you need water at least every 3 days wouldn't that mean you can't go more than 15 seconds without hydrating? What about the sun? An hour in that beach would equal 2 years of uninterrupted exposure if skin cancer didn't kill you first. What about the fact nobody ever sleeps? Etc.
But whatever, the movie obviously is going to take the rules that make for flashy set pieces (performing surgery on a rapidly scarring body, for example) and ignore everything else.
Bigger Than Life (1956, Nicholas Ray)
Attractive, aside from some very obvious matte paintings for exteriors in a hospital that could have easily been shot for real. Family man and teacher played by James Mason loses his mind over an addiction to cortisone. It's not one of those introspective psychological movies where you can't quite tell what's real, if that's how my description makes it sound. The perspective is more external, as we watch the man deteriorate and see the affect his delusions have on his family and job. Got the sense that his mind was acting on things he already felt, like you can tell there is some lack of trust or closeness with his wife before he starts taking the drug. Role was fitting for the actor. Always found his mannerisms and way he talks a little peculiar anyway.
Entertaining. Already said too much, honestly, even without the spoiler-tagged bit, which doesn't go into specifics. But I couldn't just say it's pretty good on a forum. I like watching movies blind, knowing practically nothing about them, and this here's a good example why.
Attractive, aside from some very obvious matte paintings for exteriors in a hospital that could have easily been shot for real. Family man and teacher played by James Mason loses his mind over an addiction to cortisone. It's not one of those introspective psychological movies where you can't quite tell what's real, if that's how my description makes it sound. The perspective is more external, as we watch the man deteriorate and see the affect his delusions have on his family and job. Got the sense that his mind was acting on things he already felt, like you can tell there is some lack of trust or closeness with his wife before he starts taking the drug. Role was fitting for the actor. Always found his mannerisms and way he talks a little peculiar anyway.
I do kind of wish the ending had committed to the progression of the movie more. But it's not a bad ending.
Entertaining. Already said too much, honestly, even without the spoiler-tagged bit, which doesn't go into specifics. But I couldn't just say it's pretty good on a forum. I like watching movies blind, knowing practically nothing about them, and this here's a good example why.
X Japan's 1989 Blue Blood Tour.
Didn't even know of the band until I asked for some classic Japanese concert films a few days ago. Metal, punk, pop, city pop or any other type of concert considered important. But this is the only one I've been able to find so far. Found no concerts for the Japanese artists in my collection. Either they barely taped/filmed any or the video releases were in very limited numbers.
Didn't even know of the band until I asked for some classic Japanese concert films a few days ago. Metal, punk, pop, city pop or any other type of concert considered important. But this is the only one I've been able to find so far. Found no concerts for the Japanese artists in my collection. Either they barely taped/filmed any or the video releases were in very limited numbers.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,525
- 3,470
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Nothing in the games about any kinda cross over to the 'real world'. Generally the game plots tend to be, so and so elder dragon is waking up causing other monsters to start becoming more aggressive, kill em, make armor/weapons so you can get strong enough to kill the elder dragon and calm everything back down. No reason that modern military hardware would be involved or not effective against the monsters. We do see the usage of cannon against elder dragons in the games, they aren't the best but if old style cannon can be effective then a modern tank round would do catastrophic damage to one.
THE BATMAN
Watched it last week, didn't really have time to write about it. Long movie, so i'll just do a pros/cons list instead
THE GOOD
The Bat - This is a younger, hot-headed Batman. And it feels that way(compared to BB - still a very good movie otherwise); Remember
about the no-killing rule? The fear of not being able to stop, once he crosses The Line? Well, here it does feel like he's this close to snapping, most of the runtime.
Plus there's the whole actually-doing-detective-work thing this time.
The Man - I really like reclusive weirdo Bruce. I can believe this guy would cope with trauma by going out at night, dressed as a bat, and getting into a fist fights with thugs. Chapeau bas to Pattinson for what he brought to the table. Also going back to the costumed part: Really good acting under the cowl as well(EYES!).
The Catwoman - Zoe Kravitz might not be in the same league as Pattinson or Wright yet, but she pulls off this(comic book accurate, i've been told) Catwoman well. Doesn't beat Michelle Pfeifer in Returns, but what does? Much better than Hattaway in Rises, on the other hand. Plus, she's pretty as hell, i'll admit this was a factor too.
Da Penguin - I'm gonna parrot what's been said a lot already: Very entertaining side villain role, played by completely unrecognizable, both in voice and visuals, Colin Pharell. Hope he comes back in the sequel.
Gotham - Live action Gotham finally reclaims its "goth-" character. The city is a constantly overcast, dark, urbanist's nightmare. Seemingly cursed to be stuck in whatever post Depression-era crime wave period, with tech marching on. As it should be. Major improvement after Nolan's bog standard modernist corporate-town looks(past Begins at least).
Humor - While maintaining somber and grungy atmosphere, the movie knows when and how frequently drop winks to the audience. Without drawing attention to themselves and breaking the overall tone of the story.
Technicalties - That is cinematography, sounds design, set design, costumes, production etc.: All sit on generally the same, that is good to very good, level.
Acting - See above, with certain exceptions below.
THE NOT SO GOOD
The Riddler - Unfortunately main baddie didn't click with me as much i hoped. And i was on board with the Zodiac shtick. Paul Dano hamming it up comes off as genuinely unhinged at times, but not really as menacing as he should be. Shame, cause there's some interesting stuff there.
Music - It's getting a lot of praise, and i don't yet know why. There are some nice tunes there. It made good use of the Nirvana track that was in the trailer, but otherwise it's just decent ambient. I don't think it's better than what Zimmer and Elfman did, and it borrows from both of these soundtracks.
Alfred - Not really dissapointed, more underwhelmed. I can't really say if i like Andy Serkis as Alfred or not, because, aside one lenghty scene discussing between those two, there's little of him in the movie. And that brings another minor problem.
Pacing - could be better. The movie has a lot going on. So much that, despite almost 3 hour runtime, some threads still feel like they could use more screentime.
Other stuff varies from okay(story), to good(Gordon, Falcone), but not really stuff to write more about besides that.
Despite some problems i was very pleased with this, another, Batman iteration, and actually wouldn't mind a sequel. Box office seems to be in favor.
Watched it last week, didn't really have time to write about it. Long movie, so i'll just do a pros/cons list instead
THE GOOD
The Bat - This is a younger, hot-headed Batman. And it feels that way(compared to BB - still a very good movie otherwise); Remember
about the no-killing rule? The fear of not being able to stop, once he crosses The Line? Well, here it does feel like he's this close to snapping, most of the runtime.
Plus there's the whole actually-doing-detective-work thing this time.
The Man - I really like reclusive weirdo Bruce. I can believe this guy would cope with trauma by going out at night, dressed as a bat, and getting into a fist fights with thugs. Chapeau bas to Pattinson for what he brought to the table. Also going back to the costumed part: Really good acting under the cowl as well(EYES!).
The Catwoman - Zoe Kravitz might not be in the same league as Pattinson or Wright yet, but she pulls off this(comic book accurate, i've been told) Catwoman well. Doesn't beat Michelle Pfeifer in Returns, but what does? Much better than Hattaway in Rises, on the other hand. Plus, she's pretty as hell, i'll admit this was a factor too.
Da Penguin - I'm gonna parrot what's been said a lot already: Very entertaining side villain role, played by completely unrecognizable, both in voice and visuals, Colin Pharell. Hope he comes back in the sequel.
Gotham - Live action Gotham finally reclaims its "goth-" character. The city is a constantly overcast, dark, urbanist's nightmare. Seemingly cursed to be stuck in whatever post Depression-era crime wave period, with tech marching on. As it should be. Major improvement after Nolan's bog standard modernist corporate-town looks(past Begins at least).
Humor - While maintaining somber and grungy atmosphere, the movie knows when and how frequently drop winks to the audience. Without drawing attention to themselves and breaking the overall tone of the story.
Technicalties - That is cinematography, sounds design, set design, costumes, production etc.: All sit on generally the same, that is good to very good, level.
Acting - See above, with certain exceptions below.
THE NOT SO GOOD
The Riddler - Unfortunately main baddie didn't click with me as much i hoped. And i was on board with the Zodiac shtick. Paul Dano hamming it up comes off as genuinely unhinged at times, but not really as menacing as he should be. Shame, cause there's some interesting stuff there.
Music - It's getting a lot of praise, and i don't yet know why. There are some nice tunes there. It made good use of the Nirvana track that was in the trailer, but otherwise it's just decent ambient. I don't think it's better than what Zimmer and Elfman did, and it borrows from both of these soundtracks.
Alfred - Not really dissapointed, more underwhelmed. I can't really say if i like Andy Serkis as Alfred or not, because, aside one lenghty scene discussing between those two, there's little of him in the movie. And that brings another minor problem.
Pacing - could be better. The movie has a lot going on. So much that, despite almost 3 hour runtime, some threads still feel like they could use more screentime.
Other stuff varies from okay(story), to good(Gordon, Falcone), but not really stuff to write more about besides that.
Despite some problems i was very pleased with this, another, Batman iteration, and actually wouldn't mind a sequel. Box office seems to be in favor.
Event Horizon (7/10)
Much to my surprise, Event Horizon turned out to be a good movie. Not a great movie by any means, and it's got nothing on Alien (which serves as a clear inspiration), but as its own sci-fi horror thing? Yeah, it's a good romp.
I'm not going to give you a plot summary, since Wikipedia is a thing and this film is over 20yrs old at this point, but rather, just a collection of thoughts.
-The intro states that we colonized the moon in the 2010s? Um...
-We get one shot of the Earth in the film, and is it just me, or does it look kind of...barren?
-Fun fact, Dr. Weir's shoulder patch is an amalgam of the Australian flag with the Aboriginal flag replacing the Union Jack. Fun fact, this is a mite controversial among some indigenous people in Oz, though that's the Internet for you.
-Similarly, did the US flag get a bunch more stars? And is that an EU flag on someone's shoulder with a hell of a lot more stars?
-The group works for the USAC (United States Aerospace Command). I...wait a minute...USAC...UAC...oh my God, this IS a Doom prequel!
-General comment, but this film is pretty well paced. There's a few exceptions, but most of the time, it never feels that the film lags, nor does it feel that it's rushed.
-So, why does Weir need to use such basic terminology to explain how the Event Horizon's drive folds space? I get that it's for the audience's benefit, but these are all veteran space operators, they should probably understand a fair bit about quantum mechanics.
-So a fair bit has been made about the design of the Event Horizon itself, how it's in the shape of a crucifix, and its interior resembles that of a church, at least in some cases. I think this is fair, but it got me thinking. I doubt that in-universe the EV was conciously designed like that, but its interior is...weird, in a number of cases. Makes me wonder though, is this how the EV is actually designed, or was its interior altered by its foray into Hell? That what the crew is seeing now isn't how the EV originally looked? There's nothing that really suggests this is the case, but I dunno, I think that would explain things better than the alternate explanation of engineers saying "why yes, we DID design the most advanced spaceship ever to resemble Gothic architecture, why do you ask?"
-Speaking more on the ship, and in general, I know that a big deal is made of how the ship visited Hell, and that therefore this movie is a Doom/W40K prequel, but frankly, this is really underselling it. I'll deal more with the Hell aspect later, but the horror here is quite constrained. I like the idea of the EV being a 'living ship,' how the ship itself causes bio-readings, and the hallucinations the crew experiences is likened to an immune system dealing with pathogens. Similarly, there's an air of plausible deniability with said hallucinations. This is established through the buildup of CO2, but even that aside, it's left vague as to whether a lot of these apparitions are literal creations, or hallucinations. For isntance, Weir gets sucked into space, but appears later for the final showdown, saying (paraphrased) "the ship won't let me leave." However, it got me asking, did the ship literally bring Weir back, or is this just a hallucination that Miller has to deal with?
-Towards the end, there are a few gaffs though. The scene where Cooper uses his oxygen to get back to the ship is so tonally discordant, I had to blink, especially considering how the movie earlier handled decompression. Similarly, how quickly must Weir have worked to crucify Jason Isaacs's character? Apparently he carved his flesh and strung him up in med-bay within just a few minutes. That, or Miller is a really slow runner.
-Dealing with Hell...this is a weird case of the movie being quite subtle, yet also, arguably, too subtle. As in, this is still a pschological horror piece. There's no demons, no zombies, nothing that actually comes out of Doom, for instance. For the majority of the film, Hell is simply talked about, and pretty much established to be beyond human understanding. Yet we see a few glimpses of Hell through Miller's eyes, and it's...um...the crew being tortured? Inside the ship, seemingly? I...what? I feel the film would have been better if we never saw Hell at all, or alternatively, if we did, go full bore with it. Show a place that really is a nightmarish reality where nothing makes sense.
-The ending is weird. It has a fakeout of the lifepod being activated, and Weir seemingly having a presence still, but then gives us the real ending with the crew being rescued. This honestly feels like a cop-out to me. I've seen it suggested that the fakeout is meant to explain that the lifepod of the EV is 'infected,' that while the crew is genuinely saved, the lifepod has brought Hell's influence with it. Still, I think that more likely, it just didn't want a downer ending.
So, yeah. Like I said, a good film.
Much to my surprise, Event Horizon turned out to be a good movie. Not a great movie by any means, and it's got nothing on Alien (which serves as a clear inspiration), but as its own sci-fi horror thing? Yeah, it's a good romp.
I'm not going to give you a plot summary, since Wikipedia is a thing and this film is over 20yrs old at this point, but rather, just a collection of thoughts.
-The intro states that we colonized the moon in the 2010s? Um...
-We get one shot of the Earth in the film, and is it just me, or does it look kind of...barren?
-Fun fact, Dr. Weir's shoulder patch is an amalgam of the Australian flag with the Aboriginal flag replacing the Union Jack. Fun fact, this is a mite controversial among some indigenous people in Oz, though that's the Internet for you.
-Similarly, did the US flag get a bunch more stars? And is that an EU flag on someone's shoulder with a hell of a lot more stars?
-The group works for the USAC (United States Aerospace Command). I...wait a minute...USAC...UAC...oh my God, this IS a Doom prequel!
-General comment, but this film is pretty well paced. There's a few exceptions, but most of the time, it never feels that the film lags, nor does it feel that it's rushed.
-So, why does Weir need to use such basic terminology to explain how the Event Horizon's drive folds space? I get that it's for the audience's benefit, but these are all veteran space operators, they should probably understand a fair bit about quantum mechanics.
-So a fair bit has been made about the design of the Event Horizon itself, how it's in the shape of a crucifix, and its interior resembles that of a church, at least in some cases. I think this is fair, but it got me thinking. I doubt that in-universe the EV was conciously designed like that, but its interior is...weird, in a number of cases. Makes me wonder though, is this how the EV is actually designed, or was its interior altered by its foray into Hell? That what the crew is seeing now isn't how the EV originally looked? There's nothing that really suggests this is the case, but I dunno, I think that would explain things better than the alternate explanation of engineers saying "why yes, we DID design the most advanced spaceship ever to resemble Gothic architecture, why do you ask?"
-Speaking more on the ship, and in general, I know that a big deal is made of how the ship visited Hell, and that therefore this movie is a Doom/W40K prequel, but frankly, this is really underselling it. I'll deal more with the Hell aspect later, but the horror here is quite constrained. I like the idea of the EV being a 'living ship,' how the ship itself causes bio-readings, and the hallucinations the crew experiences is likened to an immune system dealing with pathogens. Similarly, there's an air of plausible deniability with said hallucinations. This is established through the buildup of CO2, but even that aside, it's left vague as to whether a lot of these apparitions are literal creations, or hallucinations. For isntance, Weir gets sucked into space, but appears later for the final showdown, saying (paraphrased) "the ship won't let me leave." However, it got me asking, did the ship literally bring Weir back, or is this just a hallucination that Miller has to deal with?
-Towards the end, there are a few gaffs though. The scene where Cooper uses his oxygen to get back to the ship is so tonally discordant, I had to blink, especially considering how the movie earlier handled decompression. Similarly, how quickly must Weir have worked to crucify Jason Isaacs's character? Apparently he carved his flesh and strung him up in med-bay within just a few minutes. That, or Miller is a really slow runner.
-Dealing with Hell...this is a weird case of the movie being quite subtle, yet also, arguably, too subtle. As in, this is still a pschological horror piece. There's no demons, no zombies, nothing that actually comes out of Doom, for instance. For the majority of the film, Hell is simply talked about, and pretty much established to be beyond human understanding. Yet we see a few glimpses of Hell through Miller's eyes, and it's...um...the crew being tortured? Inside the ship, seemingly? I...what? I feel the film would have been better if we never saw Hell at all, or alternatively, if we did, go full bore with it. Show a place that really is a nightmarish reality where nothing makes sense.
-The ending is weird. It has a fakeout of the lifepod being activated, and Weir seemingly having a presence still, but then gives us the real ending with the crew being rescued. This honestly feels like a cop-out to me. I've seen it suggested that the fakeout is meant to explain that the lifepod of the EV is 'infected,' that while the crew is genuinely saved, the lifepod has brought Hell's influence with it. Still, I think that more likely, it just didn't want a downer ending.
So, yeah. Like I said, a good film.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,525
- 3,470
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Yeah, its pretty great, at least the first half, kinda falls off the rails in the second, still decent but the first half is great.
I have a feeling that what Weir is explaining is cutting edge, theoretical quantum mechanics and physics but Miller and his crew are more skilled operators. Kind of like how Alien characterises the Nostromo crew as blue collar truckers or oil platform roughnecks. Smart people, but not scientists. Given the lack of regular pressure suits in the Lewis and Clark it’s pretty clear that Event Horizon is working on space flight being a sort of common thing.