My personal favorites are The Twins, The Apprentice, and that one with the fuzzy rabbit looking creature as the main protag. The rest are hit or miss. I hate the band episode. Can't stand it and either Japanese or English.
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
Some observations about a movie in particular I recently watched, unnamed, but really about the state of blockbusters in general.
We're at the point where "cameos" are really just glorified deepfakes. The actors don't even show up: dead or alive their estate just signs off their likeness. It used to be impressive when a movie could swing an unexpected cameo (oh my god, is that Sinatra?) and moreso if they became an actual part of the story but at this point what's so impressive about 10 seconds of a legally vetted, Youtuber-grade deepfake from a big corporation in a 200 mil tentpole product? Is anybody wowed by a cardboard cutout of Jamie Lee Curtis hocking Activia?
And yet people rate the movie based on how many cameos it featured like they went on a safari and lucked out on the animal bingo.
And Jesus, the effects. Years in the making and then some asshole on YouTube improves them within a week from release.
We're at the point where "cameos" are really just glorified deepfakes. The actors don't even show up: dead or alive their estate just signs off their likeness. It used to be impressive when a movie could swing an unexpected cameo (oh my god, is that Sinatra?) and moreso if they became an actual part of the story but at this point what's so impressive about 10 seconds of a legally vetted, Youtuber-grade deepfake from a big corporation in a 200 mil tentpole product? Is anybody wowed by a cardboard cutout of Jamie Lee Curtis hocking Activia?
And yet people rate the movie based on how many cameos it featured like they went on a safari and lucked out on the animal bingo.
And Jesus, the effects. Years in the making and then some asshole on YouTube improves them within a week from release.
Those are usually the types that want to feel special for doing little to absolutely nothing, and acting like they're geniuses because they know a certain (obscure or semi obscure) celebrities. I sure as hell don't rate a move based on how many cameos. Even teenage me knew that was stupid.
Just a nod to the complete disconnect between Hollywood execs and the audience, or more accurately, the audience's willful ignorance of Hollywood's intentions. It used to be movies were about escapism, spectacle, emotions, the realizations of a vision, etc. Now, it's just "what can we sell?"
The bottom line is the only focus out of mainstream Hollywood anymore, and they think the masses are dumb enough to make such shallow ventures feasible... and they're right. The simple fact that "trilogies," sequels no one asked for, reboots, and remakes are what the cinematic world has coasted on for decades is a testament to the fact that our expectations have [been] lowered, and Hollywood is more than willing to "humbly" acquiesce. It's easier to reach into a bag of nostalgia than it is risking reaching into a bag of innovation, and we're collectively dumb enough to consume whatever they pull out of the former before momentarily acknowledging we've not been substantially fed from the latter in ages. That's when they announce Fast And Furious #39!!!, and we're all like "Oh, yeah, car stunts and EXPLO$ION$!"
As Joel Schumacher said before every take when filming Batman & Robin: "Remember, we're shooting a toy commercial."
And it was the best Batman movie until "Return of the Caped Crusaders".
Not saying commercial rubbish is new, just that its prevalence has greatly increased to the point that it's nearly taken over the industry. The 4th Matrix was "great" only because of its self-awareness of its complete unnecessariness. It basically looked at the audience and asked "why are you watching this?" It encapsulated where we've arrived as an industry.
That movie sucked hard. Glad I didn't watch it or waste money on it. I'm surprised Max and the crew were so leaning on it, when it had all the problems of past derivative movies, and copying freaking shaky cam style movies. None of those belong in a Matrix movie. The fourth one is so bad, it makes Reloaded and Revolutions look like high art by comparison. There's a reason why only the first movie and the Animatrix exist for me.
They're still unique or new stuff out there, or worse they are not as derivative, but he was going to take extra effort to find it or start checking streaming channels. And from what I heard, Fast X isn't doing too hot. Fine by me, as I stopped watching a long time ago Vin Diesel and everyone else, get off your asses and move on to other things. You've all been coaching on the same crap over and over since the fifth movie.
Even certain people who are stuck on nostalgia are getting tired nostalgia within their own circles of certain properties. It's why I don't bother with a lot of mega franchises much anymore, unless they're doing something good or unique with them.
Yes, but my point is with deepfakes everything looks especially cheap and lazy now. The norm for commercial rubbish not that long ago was to flaunt your production value. Like the more recent (and crappy) Around the World in 80 Days, for example - Arnold is there, he's in that set, he has lines, he's part of a whole episode with Coogan and Jackie Chan. If WB were making that movie today twenty years later they would've deepfaked Arnold on some stand-in, with AI-generated speech (if he even has lines), and Coogan and Jackie wouldn't even be in the same room with him. In fact they probably wouldn't even have met each other until the premiere, because they'd shoot all their scenes separately in singles and composite shots.
Hmmm...true, but then I wasn't a fan of that either. The characters stopping and looking at awe at the impressive set that was popular a little while ago got grating.
But yeah, there's some really cheap CGI (haven't noticed deepfakes particularly, myself) that's annoying.
Alright, embargo's over.
So about The Flash:
- Apply everything I've mentioned about glorified deepfake cameos and lousy CGI. There's nothing here quite as extravagant as the evil space clown shenanigans from It 2 and still the movie looks cheap and fake.
- Ezra Miller has great chemistry with himself (most of the movie is essentially a double act) but not so much with others. This despite obviously having nobody to bounce off. Then again I'm not convinced he was ever in the same room with Affleck, Keaton, etc.
- I don't know if it's Flash or Ezra but he does not carry the movie. He needs another Ezra, and two Batmen, and also a zoomer placeholder, and still the movie doesn't quite cut it for its protagonist.
- The acting is generally pretty bad. You have a ton of overacting extras at the beginning, while every actor (other than Ezra) seems unsure of the context of whatever scene they're playing.
- I love Keaton but he's barely in the movie. Not just because his character shows up halfway through the thing, but basically any wide shot with Batman is just some double. Keaton shows up for super closeups and ADR. He's there for nostalgia bait and to provide the movie with the illusion of depth. He also spouts a couple of his most meme'd one liners but without the context that made them memorable, which makes them all the more cringey because the movie has such reverence for him.
- If Keaton is there to buttress the movie with past glory, Sasha Calle is there to get a running start for future movies (like Tom Holland in Civil War). Unfortunately her character is a zero, her performance is (I guess consequentially) a zero, and is given nothing to do in her limited screentime starting around the second act twist. She's a device more than anything. She's given maybe 10 lines, almost no interaction with anyone, and then just fucking dies, stupidly and repeatedly, having accomplished nothing.
- Lots of sloppy writing when it comes to characters suddenly changing their minds and discovering things that they already know. You could drive a semi through some of these plot holes. And the whole subplot involving the murder of Nora Allen feels half-baked and super lazy.
- I don't believe for a second that Ezra Miller is the son of Maribel Verdú. I have to assume Andy or his sister are just big fans of Y tu mamá también.
So about The Flash:
- Apply everything I've mentioned about glorified deepfake cameos and lousy CGI. There's nothing here quite as extravagant as the evil space clown shenanigans from It 2 and still the movie looks cheap and fake.
- Ezra Miller has great chemistry with himself (most of the movie is essentially a double act) but not so much with others. This despite obviously having nobody to bounce off. Then again I'm not convinced he was ever in the same room with Affleck, Keaton, etc.
- I don't know if it's Flash or Ezra but he does not carry the movie. He needs another Ezra, and two Batmen, and also a zoomer placeholder, and still the movie doesn't quite cut it for its protagonist.
- The acting is generally pretty bad. You have a ton of overacting extras at the beginning, while every actor (other than Ezra) seems unsure of the context of whatever scene they're playing.
- I love Keaton but he's barely in the movie. Not just because his character shows up halfway through the thing, but basically any wide shot with Batman is just some double. Keaton shows up for super closeups and ADR. He's there for nostalgia bait and to provide the movie with the illusion of depth. He also spouts a couple of his most meme'd one liners but without the context that made them memorable, which makes them all the more cringey because the movie has such reverence for him.
- If Keaton is there to buttress the movie with past glory, Sasha Calle is there to get a running start for future movies (like Tom Holland in Civil War). Unfortunately her character is a zero, her performance is (I guess consequentially) a zero, and is given nothing to do in her limited screentime starting around the second act twist. She's a device more than anything. She's given maybe 10 lines, almost no interaction with anyone, and then just fucking dies, stupidly and repeatedly, having accomplished nothing.
- Lots of sloppy writing when it comes to characters suddenly changing their minds and discovering things that they already know. You could drive a semi through some of these plot holes. And the whole subplot involving the murder of Nora Allen feels half-baked and super lazy.
- I don't believe for a second that Ezra Miller is the son of Maribel Verdú. I have to assume Andy or his sister are just big fans of Y tu mamá también.
Last edited:
Welp, that’s my single sliver of interest in this farce well and truly euthanised. Saved me $15, I thank you for that.
@Trunkage really nails what bothered me about this movie. Your cut off point is better.
It gives us more of a complete movie. You've had a story arc. Instead, 1940s serial style, they cut in the middle of an intense action scene. More recently I recall Back to the Future 2 & 3. 2&3 were filmed at the same time and they just released them about 6 months apart. When will we get part 3 of this!?!? 6 years from now?!?!? Even BttF 2 was a complete film. Like your version of Mile's seeing tribute to his "dead" dad, Marty, after having been in a complete film, is made aware there is another adventure to be had. This felt a little like Pirates of the Caribbean 2: like they padded it out so they could do part 3. This could have been a complete film.
What we did get was pretty dark. Our Spider Men are somewhat morally conflicted here. But isn't what Miles wants, after a fashion, what King Pin wanted in the 1st one? I think so.
But they got so much correct. Mile's "mom" comments on his change of hair style. We wait to see who knocked Miles out and I'm thinking it is Peter Parker. I had thought, "shouldn't Miles be alive in this universe somewhere and, yup.
What we did get was pretty dark. Our Spider Men are somewhat morally conflicted here. But isn't what Miles wants, after a fashion, what King Pin wanted in the 1st one? I think so.
But they got so much correct. Mile's "mom" comments on his change of hair style. We wait to see who knocked Miles out and I'm thinking it is Peter Parker. I had thought, "shouldn't Miles be alive in this universe somewhere and, yup.
EDIT: A problem with the Miles story line is that he really needs his own top villains and yet he keeps re-using OG Spidey's. Maybe that changes some with the way this feature ended.
In theory we get the next one in 2024 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16360004/?ref_=nm_flmg_unrel_1_act
Last edited:
I'm sorry for anybody who goes to see this for Supergirl.
It's not even a case of "wish they did more with the character" like so many in Spider-Verse. But rather that she's more Macguffin than character.
Spider-man: Across The Spider-verse
The gods shined down on me and I managed to see this in XD today in an almost completely empty theater. I think there was maybe 5 people in the whole theater.
Firstly I can say the animation is nothing short of revolutionary. This animation really took me back to stuff like Robot Carnival Akira and the Animatrix. Contextaully speaking, what's different here than the previous movie is that in addition to adding a complete multiverse of spider-man, you literally seeing hundreds on screen, they now have intertwined each spider-man's physics into the animation. Scenes often become a balllista of colors and shapes and pallets and they put a lot of effort into making it's rules work. At one point Gwen Stacy spider-man is using a interdimensional bracelet made in Spider-punks universe so the tunnel is presented as a anarchistic graffiti design rather than a conventional portal. I'll concede that the frenetic animation might be overwhelming to some, but as a artist I was captivated.
The film itself is great, acting, writing all that is wonderful. It adds some additional flavor to Miles character that is... something. In way they are saying that Miles is unique and it's clearly for all the wrong reasons, but I've never been a fan of propping up characters as neo. It lessons the value of all the other spider-men, but for what it's worth I don't think thats what their intention was. Again though they now saying Miles is unique, it's not a positive thing in the context of the film. Miles Uniqueness is the hinge of the story and man is it massive in scale and scope. Some of the things we see in the film are positively overwhelming.
The films one major weakness unfortunately that it ends on a cliffhanger and not really an Empire strikes Back cliffhanger where we are somewhat at stopping point. You're literally sitting in the theater thinking the movie has maybe another half-hour because it's literally at the climax of the film, the big battle. It's difficult to picture what they could fill another two and a half hours with in Spider-man: Beyond The Spider-verse, but you're forced to just put your faith in the studio knowing what the next steps are because this is a hard cut, not a fade out.
That said, I enjoyed what I saw and I have faith they'll deliver, but it's definitely an 8/10 and just not perfect because of what I consider a misstep. I do feel like this is somewhat cinematic hubris seen all too commonly in modern cinema and prey this isn't some Hunger Games Part 3 part 1, The Hobbit 3 studio interference. There's a part of me that wouldn't blame somebody less invested skipping this and waiting until they inevitably re-release all three in theaters.
Still.. had I a copy in my hands right now I'd probably rewatch it right now and a couple more times by the weekend. It's that good.
The gods shined down on me and I managed to see this in XD today in an almost completely empty theater. I think there was maybe 5 people in the whole theater.
Firstly I can say the animation is nothing short of revolutionary. This animation really took me back to stuff like Robot Carnival Akira and the Animatrix. Contextaully speaking, what's different here than the previous movie is that in addition to adding a complete multiverse of spider-man, you literally seeing hundreds on screen, they now have intertwined each spider-man's physics into the animation. Scenes often become a balllista of colors and shapes and pallets and they put a lot of effort into making it's rules work. At one point Gwen Stacy spider-man is using a interdimensional bracelet made in Spider-punks universe so the tunnel is presented as a anarchistic graffiti design rather than a conventional portal. I'll concede that the frenetic animation might be overwhelming to some, but as a artist I was captivated.
The film itself is great, acting, writing all that is wonderful. It adds some additional flavor to Miles character that is... something. In way they are saying that Miles is unique and it's clearly for all the wrong reasons, but I've never been a fan of propping up characters as neo. It lessons the value of all the other spider-men, but for what it's worth I don't think thats what their intention was. Again though they now saying Miles is unique, it's not a positive thing in the context of the film. Miles Uniqueness is the hinge of the story and man is it massive in scale and scope. Some of the things we see in the film are positively overwhelming.
The films one major weakness unfortunately that it ends on a cliffhanger and not really an Empire strikes Back cliffhanger where we are somewhat at stopping point. You're literally sitting in the theater thinking the movie has maybe another half-hour because it's literally at the climax of the film, the big battle. It's difficult to picture what they could fill another two and a half hours with in Spider-man: Beyond The Spider-verse, but you're forced to just put your faith in the studio knowing what the next steps are because this is a hard cut, not a fade out.
That said, I enjoyed what I saw and I have faith they'll deliver, but it's definitely an 8/10 and just not perfect because of what I consider a misstep. I do feel like this is somewhat cinematic hubris seen all too commonly in modern cinema and prey this isn't some Hunger Games Part 3 part 1, The Hobbit 3 studio interference. There's a part of me that wouldn't blame somebody less invested skipping this and waiting until they inevitably re-release all three in theaters.
Still.. had I a copy in my hands right now I'd probably rewatch it right now and a couple more times by the weekend. It's that good.
Last edited:
The Hobbit was a movie that didn't even need to be split in three parts, because the story from the original novels not even that long. Hunger Games is fell into a similar trap, because all they really did was take parts in the book that you could have cut out in this nothing, and added as filler for the sake of runtime. A majority of these scenes have meaning in Across The Spider Verse, or add some nice little touches. I already know there are going to be some people that will be "disappointed" when the third movie comes out, but I don't care. I know the team has got this.
I think that's a fair argument. There's definitely no padding here. When the film snapped closed on me it was like I'd woken up from a trance. I think it was 2 and half hours or something like that, but it moved so fast I didn't feel it. I barely felt an hour go by. Where as the Hobbit films pacing was pure torture.
A ★★ review of Octopussy (1983)
This review may contain spoilers. Visit the page to bypass this warning and read the review.
letterboxd.com