I saw Trolls World Tour a few weeks back. It's basically the epitome of a 5/10, it works, but has pretty much no substance. The original is better by a long shot in my opinion.
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
Mank
Citizen Kane is the film school equivalent of movie boot camp. It doesn't like you and you don't like it, and by the end people have either wrung the bell and dropped out or graduated with a degree in parroting about depth of field and "the impossibility of reconstructing reality". I hated Semiology 101 as much as it was obsessed with Kane and Antonioni's Blowup (another movie about piecing impossibility). But I'm actually one of four people confirmed to genuinely like Citizen Kane. So Mank, about Kane's unsung writer, shot in black and white and posturing the affectations of 1941, should be up my alley.
And it's a very pretty looking movie, with good acting and some good isolated scenes, but for the most part I was bored or distracted and generally not interested in what was going on. I'm not sure what it's really about, or the single point that it's trying to make. It reminded me a bit of latter-day Paul Thomas Anderson, who makes these things of unquestionable worth and talent (The Master, Inherent Vice) but don't really endear themselves on a basic human level, because you don't understand what the hell they're trying to accomplish in the first place
Citizen Kane is the film school equivalent of movie boot camp. It doesn't like you and you don't like it, and by the end people have either wrung the bell and dropped out or graduated with a degree in parroting about depth of field and "the impossibility of reconstructing reality". I hated Semiology 101 as much as it was obsessed with Kane and Antonioni's Blowup (another movie about piecing impossibility). But I'm actually one of four people confirmed to genuinely like Citizen Kane. So Mank, about Kane's unsung writer, shot in black and white and posturing the affectations of 1941, should be up my alley.
And it's a very pretty looking movie, with good acting and some good isolated scenes, but for the most part I was bored or distracted and generally not interested in what was going on. I'm not sure what it's really about, or the single point that it's trying to make. It reminded me a bit of latter-day Paul Thomas Anderson, who makes these things of unquestionable worth and talent (The Master, Inherent Vice) but don't really endear themselves on a basic human level, because you don't understand what the hell they're trying to accomplish in the first place
I watched Reality by Quentin Dupeiux (or Mr. Oizo), and I liked it. It seems its centered on a filmmaker who's being tasked with finding the world's greatest moan, but there's more going on: a VCR tape from inside a wild hog, an itchy TV show host, a film about fatal radio waves, a dream about cross-dressing. All of these plots overlap in a twisty filmic reality. One plot is revealed to be a film, then it interacts as a dream with the person who made it, who's also someone who isn't them and so on. Dupeiux's manner of shooting (he does his own cinematography too), is so pale and matter of fact, it isn't disturbing no matter what's on screen. He really captures that uncanny, plain feeling that dreams have, and like a dream nothing feels egregious or out of place or wrong as your watching it.
It's difficult to say if it's of any real thematic worth at all, but its swirling motifs and stories nonchalantly collapsing on one another serves as a pretty accurate representation of the sensation of dreaming and the 'and then' way we have of recalling them to ourselves and others.
It's difficult to say if it's of any real thematic worth at all, but its swirling motifs and stories nonchalantly collapsing on one another serves as a pretty accurate representation of the sensation of dreaming and the 'and then' way we have of recalling them to ourselves and others.
Rambo. The 2008 one I'm calling Rambo 4.
Sylvester Stallone is 62 in this.
The blood and guts and cruelty is very excessive in this. People's heads explode when they are shot, or they fly backwards 3 metres...yeah, nah. Rambo is going to win, there's no attempt to put this in any doubt. He gets slightly injured once towards the end, but otherwise he's mowing down dozens of people who aren't any threat to him because he's Rambo. There's no emotional investment in this, beyond making the bad guys unusually bad for this sort of film.
Also, they've got blue training explosives (a claymore mine and some grenades) and they've not even bothered to put green paint on them.
OTOH, it definitely felt like there was more effort in the action scenes than the last 2 films, he's not just shooting big guns...that is, he's not always just shooting big guns, they gave it a proper go. Visually, it looks better. The mercenaries he's with are worth having around and do stuff. But there's almost no characters. There's people in it, they just aren't developed. Little enough plot, no stakes (due to god moding), some vague stuff about Rambo realising that he's a soldier...yeah, sorta guessed that already.
Eh, it's not awful, but it's a very forgetable movie, especially compared to First Blood, or, if we are talking about straight pointless action, stuff like Cliffhanger.
Sylvester Stallone is 62 in this.
Anyhoo, some Christian do-gooders want to hire Rambo to go to Burma where they can all die stupidly. Despite being the sort of people who'd take away the hero's guns and get angry with people for not hugging the zombie's problems away in other films he doesn't want them to die stupidly, so he refuses until White Female Character persuades him. She has a name, but I don't care, and she doesn't do anything at all in the film except be more deserving of rescue than people who aren't white or female.
The place the Christians are do-gooding in is attacked by excessively evil people who kill everyone except White Female Character. They even shell the village and attack houses with flamethrowers while their soldiers are murdering people in them, because evil, but somehow don't get any friendly fire issues. Despite everyone seemingly getting killed, a bunch of people were instead captured.
The Christians's boss is all "pacifism is the way to solve all our problems...only just this once we'll hire some mercenaries with guns to rescue our people". Which, ok. And, of course, Rambo to drive the boat. The leader of the mercenaries is all "I'm totally hardcore, unlike you, random boatman I don't know but I'll assume is not cause the audience knows you're the hero". Though, he is legit pretty hardcore, just not playing on god mode like Rambo. There's a rescue, and some shooting, and then some explosions and some more shooting. The end.
The place the Christians are do-gooding in is attacked by excessively evil people who kill everyone except White Female Character. They even shell the village and attack houses with flamethrowers while their soldiers are murdering people in them, because evil, but somehow don't get any friendly fire issues. Despite everyone seemingly getting killed, a bunch of people were instead captured.
The Christians's boss is all "pacifism is the way to solve all our problems...only just this once we'll hire some mercenaries with guns to rescue our people". Which, ok. And, of course, Rambo to drive the boat. The leader of the mercenaries is all "I'm totally hardcore, unlike you, random boatman I don't know but I'll assume is not cause the audience knows you're the hero". Though, he is legit pretty hardcore, just not playing on god mode like Rambo. There's a rescue, and some shooting, and then some explosions and some more shooting. The end.
The blood and guts and cruelty is very excessive in this. People's heads explode when they are shot, or they fly backwards 3 metres...yeah, nah. Rambo is going to win, there's no attempt to put this in any doubt. He gets slightly injured once towards the end, but otherwise he's mowing down dozens of people who aren't any threat to him because he's Rambo. There's no emotional investment in this, beyond making the bad guys unusually bad for this sort of film.
Also, they've got blue training explosives (a claymore mine and some grenades) and they've not even bothered to put green paint on them.
OTOH, it definitely felt like there was more effort in the action scenes than the last 2 films, he's not just shooting big guns...that is, he's not always just shooting big guns, they gave it a proper go. Visually, it looks better. The mercenaries he's with are worth having around and do stuff. But there's almost no characters. There's people in it, they just aren't developed. Little enough plot, no stakes (due to god moding), some vague stuff about Rambo realising that he's a soldier...yeah, sorta guessed that already.
Eh, it's not awful, but it's a very forgetable movie, especially compared to First Blood, or, if we are talking about straight pointless action, stuff like Cliffhanger.
The live-action Mulan film just became "free" on Disney+ (RIP to anyone who spent £30 to watch this garbage).
It was just so devoid of life. No music, no comedy. Nothing. It was just bleh. Honestly, films like this should go one of two ways - either go full on fun, like the original animated film, or go the complete opposite way of being completely serious. This just had any personality sandblasted off of it.
Also, why is "live-action movie" seemingly the pinnacle of media? The animated films that these are being adapted from, have so far been 3-for-3 in favour of the classics. Who is asking for these?
It was just so devoid of life. No music, no comedy. Nothing. It was just bleh. Honestly, films like this should go one of two ways - either go full on fun, like the original animated film, or go the complete opposite way of being completely serious. This just had any personality sandblasted off of it.
Also, why is "live-action movie" seemingly the pinnacle of media? The animated films that these are being adapted from, have so far been 3-for-3 in favour of the classics. Who is asking for these?
In Mulan's case, China. Yet even they don't like this version of Mulan either and some of them hate it more than the animated version. That's what you get for trying to cozy up to an asshole, racist, government. As for the previous others, you have Maleficent and Jungle Book to thank for that. The only good ones of the live-action craze. Keep in mind, I have seen neither. This isn't even the first time Disney did a live remake of Jungle Book. They did that back in the mid 90s, with the difference being Mogely is an adult 40 minutes in to the film with a time skip. Also, the only other ones asking were those at the top themselves thinking no matter the quality, we'll make a shit ton of money.
Maleficent wasn't so much a live action remake as a live action reinterpretation, where they've really gone away from the original (and got a sequel even further away).
I happened to like both Maleficent films, myself.
I'm still making it count, because it led to a big influence on Disney's decisions on making all the good stuff live action.
Disney is asking for them, after all they rake in the cash. The only one I've seen iirc is the Jungle Book one, which did change up the story a bit, so it existing is ok I guess. The rest of the trash heap of "live action" Disney movies can go jump off a cliff 'though. The Lion King "live action" movie was just really realistic cgi for crying out loud!
You say excessive, but apparently it’s a pretty good portrayal of what a .50 cal machine gun does to a person.
Dang it. I was hoping Mank would be great. I'm the other person on the planet that loves Citizen Kane. I haven't seen Blowup.... it's on my radar now.
It's not a bad movie, just a bit frustrating. Mostly because it cuts constantly between past and present but it's not super clear what the past is building towards, nor what exactly is at stake at present. I do appreciate that it sidesteps the usual biopic clichés and comes up more or less with something Mankiewicz himself would've scripted. Abel Ferrara did something similar with his Pasolini biopic.
No movie ever gets Hades right. He's always "Greek Devil" and they stop there, despite it being entirely inaccurate to the source material. And while I wouldn't call myself an expert on greek mythology, not by a long shot, I've heard from people more versed that in contrast, he's probably the LEAST douchey of the pantheon, like, by a significant amount.But as for the gods being true to the source material...yeah. One word. "Hades."
I’ve always had Hades explained to me, in layman’s terms, as less the lord of the dead and more administrator of the dead. A harried and competent middle manager who does all the important leg work while Zeus and Poseidon are the CEO and CFO who spend their time fucking hookers, snorting coke and defrauding their customers.
Yeah that's how I've had him described too, which, as I understand it, means that the game Hades, probably has the most historically accurate depiction of Hades in recent pop culture.
Well, and Jim Butcher's Dresden Files does a good attempt at it too.
I was thinking more the sniper rifle (also .50 cal), the shot sends people flying, the recoil doesn't bother the shooter much, Yeah, I know there's a muzzle brake, but still.
The .50 cal, IIRC, cut a person or two in half. In that, there's the bottom half, and the top half, and some blood in between. Don't buy that.
Likewise, when someone gets shot in the head and their head is cleanly taken off. Everything above a certain part of the neck instantly turns into red jelly. K.
I’ve watched that scene a few times. I don’t remember anyone going flying that wasn’t near a mortar impact (but it’s been a while) and with .50BMG uh, yeah, it pretty much does turn your head into chunky salsa. It’s a huge ass round.
When they were sneaking into the camp, the sniper has a suppressor on it and quietly sends a few sentries flying (quietly is another issue, of course).
Oh sure, but my problem was with it being doing so cleanly. From what I remember, you could just about draw a horizontal line on the persons neck, everything above that line turns into goo, everything below that line is undamaged. Destroying the head, fine, removing it, fine, but neatly removing and homogenizing it seems odd.
EDIT: Only seen it once, and that bit happened quickly, so may be remembering it wrong.
I was ranting about this earlier myself.
Hades gets hated on a lot, when he basically just does his job. And yeah, dying sucks and nobody wants to die, but Hades's job is to keep run the land of the dead and KEEP them there and do you really want all the dead hanging about the world of the living? Because we've all seen those movies and it's not pretty.