Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

Is this the first poll?


  • Total voters
    45

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,059
2,472
118
Corner of No and Where
I think if you're an 800+ year old female demiGod whose entire publication history is being a female empowerment and feminist icon and you openly say they only time you were ever happy was the 2 weeks you spent having sex with the first guy you ever met, 80 years ago, yeah that's kind of a fucked up story, especially if it starts and ends with Diana just wishing her dead boyfriend was still alive. The implication is that Wonder Woman needs a man in her life, specifically the first one she had sex with, in order to function as a human/hero.
Its a pretty grim and regressive story.
 

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,734
5,043
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
I think if you're an 800+ year old female demiGod whose entire publication history is being a female empowerment and feminist icon and you openly say they only time you were ever happy was the 2 weeks you spent having sex with the first guy you ever met, 80 years ago, yeah that's kind of a fucked up story, especially if it starts and ends with Diana just wishing her dead boyfriend was still alive. The implication is that Wonder Woman needs a man in her life, specifically the first one she had sex with, in order to function as a human/hero.
Its a pretty grim and regressive story.
If you dislike the movie, that’s fine; as with any, there are myriad reasons to feel such a way. If you honestly dislike the movie for reasons as you’ve cited, that’s fine, too. But I must say, to me, it rings hollow as faux-gressive virtue signaling. What you see as a neutering (sorry, SPADING) of female empowerment because a powerful woman has a male love interest (however unlikely you feel how strongly those feeling would still be after an arbitrary amount of time,) I’d offer in response that it’s basically just another, same-y, love story/interest shoehorned into an action film where a hero has “love” as a weakness. One could even argue that it’s actually bolstering the female empowerment message as it’s eventually revealed that Trevor serves as the reason for her weakness, and she ultimately chooses to eschew him in light of her own innate capability. But you think it would have made sense had she played wing-woman to a gullible female co-star and a chauvinistic douchebag man by offering her cute shoes to get laid? IMHO, that feels leagues more “regressive” than a powerful woman loving a man.
 
Last edited:

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,668
3,243
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Tenet

A movie that thinks it's about 90% more clever than it actually is.

The ending is also basically just a rip-off of the Doctor Who River Song storyline.

The action and visuals are interesting and creative though, which is something that Christopher Nolan has always been good at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,059
2,472
118
Corner of No and Where
If you dislike the movie, that’s fine; as with any, there are myriad reasons to feel such a way. If you honestly dislike the movie for reasons as you’ve cited, that’s fine, too. But I must say, to me, it rings hollow as faux-gressive virtue signaling. What you see as a neutering (sorry, SPADING) of female empowerment because a powerful woman has a male love interest (however unlikely you feel how strongly those feeling would still be after an arbitrary amount of time,) I’d offer in response that it’s basically just another, same-y, love story/interest shoehorned into an action film where a hero has “love” as a weakness. One could even argue that it’s actually bolstering the female empowerment message as it’s eventually revealed that Trevor serves as the reason for her weakness, and she ultimately chooses to eschew him in light of her own innate capability. But you think it would have made sense had she played wing-woman to a gullible female co-star and a chauvinistic douchebag man by offering her cute shoes to get laid? IMHO, that feels leagues more “regressive” than a powerful woman loving a man.
Its not about a powerful woman loving a man, its about a powerful woman whose character is not needing a man to be a superhero, needing a man to be a superhero, and in fact its the same man as the last story, despite the fact he's been dead for some 75 years.
I dunno, it feels like if anyone should be able to come to terms with human mortality it should be the immortal 800 year old Greek DemiGod. And to reiterate its the same guy; Wonder Woman's entire emotional arc, for two stories and 70 years, has been the same guy. Even if he hadn't died in WW1, Steve being from the 1910s had an average lifespan of 49 years, and he was already in his 30s during the movie. He would have been dead before WW2 of natural causes. And would Diana still have been in mourning in the 80s? Does that seem like something a super hero is supposed to do, completely shut down when the first and only man she's ever slept with dies? Doesn't sound like a super pro-female independence to me. Again it sounds regressive, that a woman is only as strong as the man she's dating, and men-less women are worthless.
 

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,734
5,043
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Its not about a powerful woman loving a man, its about a powerful woman whose character is not needing a man to be a superhero, needing a man to be a superhero, and in fact its the same man as the last story, despite the fact he's been dead for some 75 years.
Did you watch the film? It happens so early, I don't feel the need to "spoiler" it: the open sequence (in the mall) is literally her being a superhero despite Trevor being dead for nigh 80 years. She's unhappy and lonely as we come to find, but she's still doing what she's capable of to protect humanity. It's a cheesy love story, not a proclamation that "she needs a man to be heroic."

I dunno, it feels like if anyone should be able to come to terms with human mortality it should be the immortal 800 year old Greek DemiGod. And to reiterate its the same guy; Wonder Woman's entire emotional arc, for two stories and 70 years, has been the same guy. Even if he hadn't died in WW1, Steve being from the 1910s had an average lifespan of 49 years, and he was already in his 30s during the movie. He would have been dead before WW2 of natural causes. And would Diana still have been in mourning in the 80s? Does that seem like something a super hero is supposed to do, completely shut down when the first and only man she's ever slept with dies? Doesn't sound like a super pro-female independence to me. Again it sounds regressive, that a woman is only as strong as the man she's dating, and men-less women are worthless.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Every work of fiction "could" be subjectively improved if it was done "the way "I" think it would made more sense." Love arcs are nothing new (they're quite tired, if anything) in films such as this; just because WW is a powerful woman shouldn't make her immune to feelings... which is the entire point of the arc. The moral isn't that she needs a man, it's that love is powerful, and that she sacrificed hers (again) for the greater good... like a hero. As touchy-feely as that may sound, it's more on the nose than digging well beyond what was presented to find traces of implied slights towards female empowerment.

Again, if you found the movie wanting, that's completely understandable; there are more than enough reasons to dislike it, but you need not invent reasons to dislike it on top of everything else; that's just gonna make you more miserable!
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,866
836
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Death to 2020 (I guess it's a film)

Pretty bad. Just basically memes about how bad 2020 is that aren't even on par with stuff you've seen on Facebook. I got tired of the whole "2020 is the worst year ever" like in March already.
 

Samtemdo8

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 25, 2020
1,516
616
118
Country
Private
Has anyone ever seen this film?


Because I did, it was amazing. Sam Neill and Christopher Lee were in this film and their French sounded very fluent.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,236
3,953
118
Mortal Engines

Which I am going to confuse with Mortal Instruments, despite having every little in common, beyond the names and redhaired young female protagonists.

EDIT: Oh, and Robert Sheehan plays the dorky guy that hangs around with the redhaired girl in both.

EDIT EDIT: And the big bad is a once respected leader gone extremist, dabbling in the forbidden named Valentine who also turns out to be the redhaired girl's father. Which actually is a bit in common, know I think of it.

After WW3, there's no resources, so everyone puts their towns or cities on giant tracks so they can drive around, like Mad Max only with bigger cars.. I play 40k and I think this is too OtT.

Everyone in the film has the intelligence of a cabbage, and the writers seem to think the audience does as well, subtlety isn't really a thing.

Meh...the DVD was cheap, so there's that.
 
Last edited:

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,176
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Mortal Engines

Which I am going to confuse with Mortal Instruments, despite having every little in common, beyond the names and redhaired young female protagonists.
You're not the only one. :(
 

XsjadoBlayde

~ just another dread messenger ~
Apr 29, 2020
3,512
3,631
118
Whiplash.
Just brilliant. That drum solo closer to the end was pure heart racing with multiple angles of emotion. I wasn't too sure on the main actor at first, but he really nailed what the role demanded. J.K Simmons of course on top form as always, with extra gravitas from the direction. This should be a modern classic, it needs light and love.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Samtemdo8

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 25, 2020
1,516
616
118
Country
Private
Like the movie, one of my favorite remakes, but my God it goes on for way too long. There should've been a lot more editing.
I've seen the Extended Cut. I feel like some of the longness is a lot of scenes that just hangs on character's faces for too long. Case in point Naomi Watts. Like I don't know why the camara crew and cinematographers really loves having long drawn out shots on Naomi Watt's face because she has a wide-eyed pretty and innocent face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,286
7,083
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Like the movie, one of my favorite remakes, but my God it goes on for way too long. There should've been a lot more editing.
I honestly would love for them to cut out that "Kong and Naomi go ice skating" scene, especially since it happens in the middle of two chase scenes where the NYPD and the Army are trying to kill the giant ape in the middle of NYC.

You know, the perfect time to share an ice skating moment in Central Park :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,668
3,243
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Like the movie, one of my favorite remakes, but my God it goes on for way too long. There should've been a lot more editing.
This could have almost been two movies. One set on the island, ending with the capture of King Kong, and then the sequel in New York.

King Kong: Island Adventures and King Kong 2: Kong Takes Manhattan.

Seriously though, by the time they get Kong to New York I just want the movie to be over. I don't know if the pacing is bad, if the island section is too long, if the New York section just isn't good, but that's where the movie tends to lose me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,305
5,112
118
Peter Jackson's King Kong feels like a movie that should've been a lot smaller than it is, and maybe would've been had Jackson not come off of LotR and felt the need to wow the audience with epic scope.

Even then though it would feel like the movie already showed all its cards, because King Kong is such well known story by now, and Peter Jackson doesn't do much to change that. You can say he added a real bond between Kong and Ann that no other movie really has, but I'd argue that Kong and Ann not having a bond was kind of the point of the original; Kong is a lonely monster who finds purpose in protecting this little screaming creature who he is probably unaware of just wants to get away from him. And when he's scared and alone in the city he goes for her again to gain some comfort, and is ultimately shot down, never really having had a bond with this little woman that he cherished so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,176
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
It's weird, I never found King Kong to drag on too long. But anyway:

I honestly would love for them to cut out that "Kong and Naomi go ice skating" scene, especially since it happens in the middle of two chase scenes where the NYPD and the Army are trying to kill the giant ape in the middle of NYC.

You know, the perfect time to share an ice skating moment in Central Park :rolleyes:
I disagree. I mean, you could have the end part of the film be one giant chase scene, but the scene works well.

A theme of the film is the idea of humans disturbing Kong's natural habitat and whatnot, so the scene works in this context. Kong isn't a threat at this point in time, he and Anne are having fun, but people start shooting, because of course that's what they do. The scene itself is beautiful, the themes it conveys match the rest of the film.

This could have almost been two movies. One set on the island, ending with the capture of King Kong, and then the sequel in New York.

King Kong: Island Adventures and King Kong 2: Kong Takes Manhattan.

Seriously though, by the time they get Kong to New York I just want the movie to be over. I don't know if the pacing is bad, if the island section is too long, if the New York section just isn't good, but that's where the movie tends to lose me.
You'd hardly get a whole movie out of the New York sections. You can argue that the film stretches on too long, but Skull Island is an interesting environment. New York isn't. Least not in the same way.

The first half is the story about a bunch of humans using human ingenuity to overcome the challenges of Terra Incognita and the monsters who reside there. The second half is a story about an intelligent monster ape who falls in love with a human woman and ends up rampaging through New York because humans are violent and evil. The two are not consistent with one another in neither narrative nor theme or mood.
I really disagree.

The idea of human hubris, of messing with the natural order of things, runs through the film. Carl Denham exemplifies this more than anything, but the idea of humans 'trespassing' on the natural world runs throughout the piece. Visiting Skull Island in of itself is a disaster. The natives are dwelling in the ruins of their civilization, and (least by my reading) are in a state of mental anguish by the constant terror of Kong and the other beasties that, presumably at one point, they were able to keep at bay. Bringing Kong back to New York is, again, a disaster. Kong isn't all that violent at the end of the day, but as Denham says, "beauty killed the beast." He's enamored with Ann, and he goes out of his way to protect her in both Skull Island and New York.

Even if we boil it down to "humans are violent and evil," it's a theme that more or less runs through the entire film.

Peter Jackson's King Kong feels like a movie that should've been a lot smaller than it is, and maybe would've been had Jackson not come off of LotR and felt the need to wow the audience with epic scope.
That's possible, but King Kong is epic in scope by definition. Also, Jackson's stated that the original movie is his favourite of all time. So even if he never made LotR, I could see King Kong being made, and be made in a similar manner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deleted20220709

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,324
6,598
118
The Midnight Sky (2020)

You can watch this free on Netflix. I wouldn't feel the need to bother. Apparently, it cost about $100 million to make, and that was kind of a waste.

It's adapted from a book called Good Morning, Midnight by one Lily Brooks-Dalton. It's a science fiction movie about a scientist on an Earth that is dying, who dedicates himself to warning an incoming spaceship of the catastrophe, and that they should turn back to the new habitable moon that they have recently investigated. Both the scientist and the ship have to go through several perils with disrupted communications to get their essential message across. The scientist, Augustus Lofthouse, has to get across the arctic to a better communications array, and the ship has to contend with space debris (mm) crashing into their ship. Key member of the ship is a pregnant woman called Sully.

This review is going to be spoilertastic, and I'd like to explain some massive plot holes that switched me right off it.

I remember reading an essay by the science fiction author Iain Banks, who said that writing science fiction is not for amateurs. On the assumption that the movie is reasonably faithful to the book, Lily Brooks-Dalton is an amateur and it shows in painful ways. We could start with the notion that a new moon of Jupiter has been found, which through some truly astonishing reasoning apparently we haven't discovered yet, which apparenty has an Earth-compatible atmosphere and be warm enough to live on. No, I don't buy that either: if we have any moons of Jupiter left to discover, they'll be tiny, barren, rocks and extremely cold. I'm not sure what these bands of space rocks are bombarding the ship, either. They're apparently quite close to Earth, and, er... what are they? Next, the disaster that is wiping out the Earth. It's something involving radiation, but what's gone wrong (other than an experiment) is completely unexplained in a really annoying way. How the movie handles it is awful. It's switching between Augustus and the crew on the spaceship where the signal is bad, and it flicks from a shot where Augustus is about to explain what's happened to a shot on the ship, where the explanation is nothing but static and fractured bits of word. At some point, our scientist hero "finds" a little girl who he has to take with him in his expedition through the Arctic. It is painfully obvious that she is a figment of his imagination within about 10 seconds, render this formal disclosure at the end very underwhelming. The big heartwarming message at the end reveals that "Sully" is Augustus's long abandoned daughter. Except that was also so painfully obvious it's another failed reveal..

So then, at the end, one of the crew having died on the way, the captain of the ship goes back to the irradiated Earth on a lander to see if he can find his family (already sick and probably dead), with one of the other crew members despondent about the death of the other crew member, leaving Sully and the other crew member (her baby's father) to go back to the moon and raise their child and give humanity another shot. Now, I think, maybe, there's a hint from the film that other ships went out there and so there are other humans on this moon. If not, the human race is boned anyway, because the lack of genetic diversity with just one set of parents will probably doom the human race through inbreeding anyway. I would also strongly dispute the decision of the other crew to go back to Earth. It's billed as the "be with your family" approach, but if it's dangerous to get back to the Jupiter moon (as the trip from the moon to Earth suggests), then they are vastly increasing the chance Sully and partner will be killed, so I cannot respect that as the right thing to do. Plus, you know, the tiny fragment of the human race left could really do with that extra genetic material.

So, this movie is quite dull, fails to work on numerous emotional levels, and the science fiction setting detracts very badly from it because as a science fiction film it's a minor disaster.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,416
1,996
118
Country
USA
Great timing, you posted this literally as I was typing up my thoughts.

I was pretty damn bored throughout. I am feeling tired, been off the whole day (let's hope it ain't Corona), so maybe its that, but I really didn't enjoy this.

Good stuff first. Chris Pine is charisma personified. Love that guy. Pedro Pascal was absolutely great in this, and I think for the most part, his Maxwell Lord was handled wonderfully. Easily the best villain in the DCEU, definitely among the best superhero movie villains of all time. Gal Gadot is great, her acting has greatly improved.

Bad stuff. The biggest problem with this movie for me was Kristen Wiig's Cheetah. Fuck, she was such a pain to watch. As Barbara Minerva, she's cringe inducing. As Cheetah, she looks absolutely TERRIBLE, to the point its funny in a bad way, and her motivations are ridiculous.

The action in this movie was pretty mediocre, which for me was very disappointing. The CGI is shockingly bad at times, only made worse by Patty Jenkin's weird obsession with slow motion. She doesn't seem to understand how to make a character with Wonder Woman's power level work, when we know it can. We have Captain America, Thor, Aquaman, etc. Jesus Christ, between Wonder Woman and the Flash, DC can't seem to figure out how to make people run fast without them looking ridiculous.

Then there's the issue of continuity, or the lack thereof. I know it's not Jenkins fault, but hoooo boy did BvS completely fuck up Wonder Woman for all her solo movies. We have yet to see what exactly makes Diana give up on the world of man, because she seems completely fine at the end of this movie. She always shows off VERY significant, game changing new powers that I guess she just didn't feel like using in BvS or Justice League. One of these new powers at least was done well, the other was done soooo fucking stupidly I checked out of the movie for a bit. Just... so dumb. Inexcusably dumb.

The story in general has a great setup, I thought they did Maxwell Lord's powers and storyline really well right up until the end where they just fucked it. He already carried this movie on his back, so I don't understand why they felt the need to Spider-man 3 it and bring in Cheetah. This movie would have EASILY worked without her, and shaved off maybe 40 minutes of runtime. This movie is LONG. But then I guess Wonder Woman wouldn't be able to punch anyone for a finale (which was so weak).

So all in all, yet another casualty of the DCEU's shit decisions. A shame really, I liked most of the characters but pretty much everything else was not up to snuff. Frankly, its just the movie you would expect to end this shit heap of a year.

EDIT: Two things to add. First, I started watching this movie with 5 people, by the end only two of us were left. Everyone else got bored. Second, I wonder if Patty Jenkins' Star Wars career is in trouble now.
I greatly enjoyed it, thought it the best DC movie since Dark Knight Rises. But for some reason, I worked hard to suspend disbelief.
As they went to hijack an F16 to go to the other side of the world, I said, "those things need to be refueled if they're going to fly so far" and my wife said shut up and enjoy it, so I did. But how does a guy that knows how to fly a WW1 plane know how to fly an F16? And... why was there not a word of concern for the guy Steve was occupying?
and a lot more.

Next I saw "Tenet". I had a bunch of buddies over and they were well, they enjoyed this more:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Agema