Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

Is this the first poll?


  • Total voters
    37

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
379
255
68
Country
United States
I recall liking it. Guess I'll have to watch again. This 2003 version too as I recall liking it as well:

Jason Isaacs is still one of my favorite Hooks. The movie itself is solid, albeit with one kind of cringey scene that goes on way too long, but Isaacs was a FANTASTIC choice for Captain Hook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,897
741
118
I have no clue what level of knowledge the average idiot in the world has about classical greek mythology, and the modern day re-imaginings of them in pop culture. Half the US think trump won and that jew controlled space lasers are a real thing, along with a metric ton of other idiotic things, so I don't assume they ever bothered to learn about the greek gods. Given how many of them consider anything not christian to be of satan, the probably don't. But, that's offset by shit like disney films, so who fucking knows.

My point is that nobody mocks Poseidon and declares he just talks to fish. But Aquaman is very clearly just modern day Posiedon, for all intents and porpoises. And yet people think "oh yeah, dude controls the 7 seas, master of the beasts of the oceans, and controls water...he's a total badass." but that is exactly what Aquaman does too, since he IS Posiedon, and yet he's a joke for 40 years. It's just seems to be a case of cognitive dissonance on their part, to refuse to see anything other than a single depiction of him, from a shitty cartoon, that equally made everyone else look stupid and idiotic, but when new writers gave the other characters a serious tone, people are like "ok yeah, that's legit, Lex Luthor is a smooth criminal" and totally seem to ignore the purple wearing, frilly collared nincompoop from the very same cartoon that they cite to mock Aquaman.
So, it's ok to mock Aquaman as long as people mock Poseidon as well? Um...why did he think Athens would appreciate a saltwater spring? Not wonder they went with Athena, an olive tree is much better.

More seriously, can't say that I'm that invested in DC characters, they tend to all be jokes, but Batman is at least sometimes funny.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,911
382
88
Peter Pan (6/10)

This is the 1950s Disney film, in case you're wondering. And it...

Well, can't say I'm that fond of it. I read the original Peter Pan novel awhile ago, and while I'm not overly fond of it, I did appreciate it for its darker subtext/themes. These are themes that are largely absent from the Disney film. Not entirely absent, and with 'analysis mode' on, to borrow a phrase, I did see if there was anything that I could kind of dive into thematically. Alas, that wasn't the case. Peter Pan takes the framework of Barrie's story, and, well, Disneyfies it. Which is to be expected, I guess, but still...

Actually, that's not entirely fair. There's some stuff here, but rather, I'm just going to go through this point by point. So on that note:

-"All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again." Holy bum nuggets, this beat Battlestar Galactica to that line by half a century. 0_0

-How does Wendy already know who Peter Pan is before Peter even shows up? It's implied by the opening and closing lines that Peter does this rigamarole with children constantly, likely including Wendy's own father, but still...

-Something I'll give the film credit for, in keeping to the themes of the book, is that there's a recurring motif of actions without consequences, as in, being a child, you don't consider them. Tinkerbell orders the Lost Boys to shoot Wendy, and Peter only cares enough to 'banish' her for a week. Similarly, the mermaids try to drown Wendy, and Peter's "nah, you're good." While it's not part of this motif, Hook casually shoots a member of his own crew (I kind of had to blink, wondering how that was allowed in a children's film, even if the actual shot takes place off-screen), but, well...

-Speaking of the pirates, I know none of this is meant to make sense, but through fairly awkward exposition (we're a few steps away from "as you know,"), it's established that they sailed into Never Land, and Hook's keeping them there because he wants to kill Peter. So, um, do these pirates come from the real world? Smee makes reference to sailing the Spanish main, so are they from are world, and if so, how long have they been here? Clearly time seems to pass slower in Never Land than the real world (the entire film corresponds to about 3 hours in the real world, but they spend much longer in Never Land and oh Christ, I'm trying to analyze Peter Pan's in-universe consistency.

-On the subject of the Indians (or "Injuns"). I'm not going to tell you if the portrayal is racist or not - on one hand, I kind of raised an eyebrow when John says "let's go hunt some Injuns" (yay, genocide!), but on the other, I can't deny that 'What Makes the Red Man Red' is a catchy song. Also, poor Tiger Lily doesn't get a single line in the film.

Actually, again, the whole 'hunting Injuns' thing does potentially tie into the theme of childhood innocence/lack of consequences, in that it's established that the Lost Boys and Indians kind of hunt each other, tie the other up, and begin the game again (similarly, the boys are unfazed by being taken captive by pirates, or walking the plank), but I'm kind of wondering if it's giving the film too much credit. Basically, is it whimsy that's meant to establish a theme, or is it whimsy in the knowledge that children will view this on surface level?

-There's more I could say, but it would either be questioning the logic of the film (which defeats the purpose), or on the question of theme. Basically, I'm left in this limbo where I'm not sure how much credit I can give the writers when it comes to their portrayal of events. As far as adaptations go, it's certainly truer than Pan (which is a film I actually quite like, flawed as it is), but it's got a kind of 'plausible deniability' thing going on. I'm sure children will enjoy it, but it's basically Peter Pan-lite, when compared to the original story.
Ok you want to go into thematic elements.

Normally in stage productions of Peter Pan, Hook is played by the same actor as Wendy's father.

As for Hook being in Neverland I've never dug too deeply into the themes round it but I've heard various stuff.

  • Hook may be a former lost boy who grew up and returned
  • On a metaphorical level Hook represents the idea of a grown up vs Peter Pan being the eternal child and the idea of neither really being the best state of being as fully adult Hook seems to hate everything / be scared or angry all the time while Peter Pan takes nothing seriously really.
  • There's a claim Hook and all his crew are Lost Boys who tried to go back to the real world having been lost boys so long everyone they ever knew was gone

 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,911
382
88
No, the disinterested and the ignorant think of him of as a joke because of Superfriends. Most of the comic readers I’ve met acknowledge his capacity as both a fighter and a king, even if they don’t like the character. Anecdotal I admit but there you go.
Was this before or after the comic where he developed a allergy to water for a while?
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,607
1,643
118
Australia
Was this before or after the comic where he developed a allergy to water for a while?
I would imagine before and after: during that comic or run I think they’d mostly be annoyed. And you say that like he’s the first hero to ever be given a stupid weakness or temporary issue.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,911
382
88
I would imagine before and after: during that comic or run I think they’d mostly be annoyed. And you say that like he’s the first hero to ever be given a stupid weakness or temporary issue.
yeh but the story arc was he was meant to be doing a sponsored swim............ yes really.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,498
904
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Ok you want to go into thematic elements.

Normally in stage productions of Peter Pan, Hook is played by the same actor as Wendy's father.

As for Hook being in Neverland I've never dug too deeply into the themes round it but I've heard various stuff.

  • Hook may be a former lost boy who grew up and returned
  • On a metaphorical level Hook represents the idea of a grown up vs Peter Pan being the eternal child and the idea of neither really being the best state of being as fully adult Hook seems to hate everything / be scared or angry all the time while Peter Pan takes nothing seriously really.
  • There's a claim Hook and all his crew are Lost Boys who tried to go back to the real world having been lost boys so long everyone they ever knew was gone
I'm aware of all that, it's just that it's missing from the Disney version. Like a lot of Disney stuff, it tones down the original story (another example being Ariel surviving The Little Mermaid).

As for Hook and his crew being Lost Boys, I actually like that idea. Still, I'm not sure it could apply to the Disney version. Again, it's more or less established that the crew were pirates in our world (see the Spanish Main reference), so taking things as writ, apparently the pirates sailed to Never Land, Hook lost his hand (come to think of it, was he called "Hook" before losing it?), and stayed there indefinitely. So they can't really be Lost Boys in this version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,911
382
88
Iron Sky: The Coming Race

Continuing the tradition started by the first film of being a sort of high quality B movie style thing Iron Sky The Coming Race follows on from the finale of the first film (thought don't worry you don't have to actually have seen it) to tell the story of the next generation and their struggles as the last of humanity lives inside the crumbling Nazi moonbase, some of them the children of the base residents or staff who weren't soldiers and were indoctrinated into thinking the Nazis were united the world to help heal it and the rest the refugees from earth who fled there on the last working space ship on earth due to the nuclear war.

Obi is the daughter of the two of the main characters from the first movie and works as the bases maintenance person trying to keep the crumbling systems working most of which have been patched over the years with the cannibalised remains of the last working earth space ship while frustrated by the worshipers of jobs who believe the holy Steve will some day return to help create the perfect closed system they see as some ideal state of being while those who stray from the closed system are killed by ex communication.

When a Nazi flying saucer suddenly shows up with more survivors from earth Obi ends up watching a cloaked figure go into a secret area of the base. Following him she finds it's the Nazi base commander from the first film who reveals he's a reptilian shapeshifter who can regenerate by consuming a special substance which he gives Obi some of the save her seriously ill dying mother. Going back to he commander Obi learns that the Earth is hollow and the rest of the shapeshifting lizard aliens live down there with more of the special substance contained inside a chalice that humanity has come to know as the Holy Grail. Humanity being an accidental result of one of the shapesifters going against the rest of his fellows to cause accelerated evolution in two monkeys by giving them a apple injected with the special substance. A the Lizard race doesn't have my member and while in hiding from the damage of a meteor impact they find humanity has started taking over the planet so try to infiltrate humanity to take positions of power to get humanity to destroy itself. Obi must got to Earth and enter the hollow earth to get the Holy Grail to use as a try and repair the last human space ship to try and look for a new home for humanity before the moonbase becomes unliveable or something critical breaks and can no longer be repaired.Her Quest complicated by members of the Jobs cult learning about the hollow earth and insisting they also come along for the ride.

I won't say more other than the climax of the film has Adolf Hitler riding a T-rex through the moonbase

Fun madness that's quite tongue in cheek and self aware.

Effects aren't Blockbuster level but they're far above B-movie or any of the junk The Asylum craps out. Think maybe some of the rougher Marvel movie effects level.

Overall worth watching even if not quite meeting the level of the first film as the novelty of the madness of it all isn't quite there still as it's a sequel to the film about Nazis from the moon so the bonkers stuff is more expected.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
17,011
1,077
118
Country
Argentina
Monster

A prostitute kills a rapist in self-defense, proceeds to rob and kill more men in order to fund a motel life for herself and her girlfriend. What's fucked up is that following the rapist, none of the "johns" ever really threaten her or do her any harm - she's just slaughtering them in cold blood for the cash, usually working up the rage with some bullshit rationalization ("You want me to call you daddy? You must be a child molester!"). The last guy she murders is just some poor old gramps who offers her a ride. I dunno. There's a sob story about her being abused as a child that's supposed to make you sympathise with her, but so what? All her victims had sob stories.
 

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,201
1,006
118
Country
Sweden
Monster

A prostitute kills a rapist in self-defense, proceeds to rob and kill more men in order to fund a motel life for herself and her girlfriend. What's fucked up is that following the rapist, none of the "johns" ever really threaten her or do her any harm - she's just slaughtering them in cold blood for the cash, usually working up the rage with some bullshit rationalization ("You want me to call you daddy? You must be a child molester!"). The last guy she murders is just some poor old gramps who offers her a ride. I dunno. There's a sob story about her being abused as a child that's supposed to make you sympathise with her, but so what? All her victims had sob stories.
Based on a true story too. Aileen Wuornos certainly had the kind of childhood that will mess someone up totally. It doesn't excuse or justify any of her murders but she's the poster child for how trauma begets trauma and how traumatized people often become the perpetrators in traumatizing others. I've met quite a few patients over the years who have been convicted violent felons, but who also have a childhood that is so bleak that you just want to cry at the thought of the misery some children gets put through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Kyrian007

Officially no longer the Enemy of the People
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
2,128
158
68
Kansas
Country
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
I recently watched the remake of Flatliners.

Flatliners (2017) 4/10

I was just enough of a fan of the original that seeing the remake was soon to no longer be on... Tubi?... Crackle? Wherever, it was coming off of some service I was browsing. I decided to give it a shot. Four out of ten is probably harsher than it deserves, because it does something amazing... but that thing is something no one should care about. It is actually as faithful to the original as it needs to be... while actually making changes here and there that improve the story as a whole. Its actually incredible. They found the fabled remake "sweet spot." A true homage to the original, while acknowledging and correcting some of the original's weak spots. The problem is, they used the exact same formula to make the remake... and wound up getting almost exactly the same result. Which was a resounding "nah" from critics and "meh" from general audiences. And that is exactly what it deserves, which is terrible. If other remakes managed to do what Flatliners did, they could be AMAZING movies in their own right.

But that's the problem with remaking movies. If its a great movie, it doesn't need a remake... just watch the classic. And if its just a "meh" movie... why are you bothering to remake it in the first place? Maybe the original Flatliners was right in that spot where it was just between those levels. It didn't reach the level of a movie that "doesn't need" a remake, but was just slightly better than a movie that "didn't deserve" a remake. Seriously, movies in that mid-range might be the best remakes Hollywood could possibly crank out... but I think that means they will be at best mediocre.

Specifics, well... like the first one it has a surprisingly capable cast. The Kevin Bacon part went to Diego Luna, who did a great job with the material. The Keifer Sutherland part went to Elliot Paige, who was good as well. All in all between actors who were better than their predecessors and those who were worse... it kind of evened out. Meaning overall it had a very capable cast. Good nods to the original, while correcting the fact that defibrillation isn't actually just an on off switch for the heart. They effectively ramp up the stakes (someone even dies... and stays dead which I always maintain is something the original SHOULD have done) but somehow that doesn't try to backhandedly diminish what the story was in the original. All in all, I didn't have many problems with it, other than the realization that I wasn't ever going to be any more enthusiastic than "that wasn't awful."

In the end, "awful" may have been more entertaining. Still, I'm waiting for the Hudson Hawk remake with... what Tobey Mcguire and Harry Connick Jr.?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
8,577
2,898
118
I recently watched the remake of Flatliners.

Flatliners (2017) 4/10

I was just enough of a fan of the original that seeing the remake was soon to no longer be on... Tubi?... Crackle? Wherever, it was coming off of some service I was browsing. I decided to give it a shot. Four out of ten is probably harsher than it deserves, because it does something amazing... but that thing is something no one should care about. It is actually as faithful to the original as it needs to be... while actually making changes here and there that improve the story as a whole. Its actually incredible. They found the fabled remake "sweet spot." A true homage to the original, while acknowledging and correcting some of the original's weak spots. The problem is, they used the exact same formula to make the remake... and wound up getting almost exactly the same result. Which was a resounding "nah" from critics and "meh" from general audiences. And that is exactly what it deserves, which is terrible. If other remakes managed to do what Flatliners did, they could be AMAZING movies in their own right.

But that's the problem with remaking movies. If its a great movie, it doesn't need a remake... just watch the classic. And if its just a "meh" movie... why are you bothering to remake it in the first place? Maybe the original Flatliners was right in that spot where it was just between those levels. It didn't reach the level of a movie that "doesn't need" a remake, but was just slightly better than a movie that "didn't deserve" a remake. Seriously, movies in that mid-range might be the best remakes Hollywood could possibly crank out... but I think that means they will be at best mediocre.

Specifics, well... like the first one it has a surprisingly capable cast. The Kevin Bacon part went to Diego Luna, who did a great job with the material. The Keifer Sutherland part went to Elliot Paige, who was good as well. All in all between actors who were better than their predecessors and those who were worse... it kind of evened out. Meaning overall it had a very capable cast. Good nods to the original, while correcting the fact that defibrillation isn't actually just an on off switch for the heart. They effectively ramp up the stakes (someone even dies... and stays dead which I always maintain is something the original SHOULD have done) but somehow that doesn't try to backhandedly diminish what the story was in the original. All in all, I didn't have many problems with it, other than the realization that I wasn't ever going to be any more enthusiastic than "that wasn't awful."

In the end, "awful" may have been more entertaining. Still, I'm waiting for the Hudson Hawk remake with... what Tobey Mcguire and Harry Connick Jr.?
Interestingly enough, a podcast I listen to "God Awful Movies" where a group of atheists review and mock religious based films, will be doing the original Flatliners on next weeks episode. I'm looking forward to that.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
17,011
1,077
118
Country
Argentina
Based on a true story too. Aileen Wuornos certainly had the kind of childhood that will mess someone up totally. It doesn't excuse or justify any of her murders but she's the poster child for how trauma begets trauma and how traumatized people often become the perpetrators in traumatizing others. I've met quite a few patients over the years who have been convicted violent felons, but who also have a childhood that is so bleak that you just want to cry at the thought of the misery some children gets put through.
She had my sympathy up until the second murder, when she starts killing just for the money. After that she can go fuck herself. Hell of a performance and "character study" but man, enough good people die unsung that I need to give a shit about murderous fucks.

In real life it was never even in self defense.

During her trial, Wuornos took the stand and said she "robbed" the men and killed them "as cold as ice."

"And I'd do it again, too, I know I'd kill another person, 'cause I've hated humans for a long time," said Wuornos. She then continued to claim the men were innocent while in prison, after she said she found God.

"I want to come clean. There is no self-defense," said Wuornos. "And so I need to come clean, I need to tell the world that there is no self-defense in my cases."
 

Kyrian007

Officially no longer the Enemy of the People
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
2,128
158
68
Kansas
Country
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Not seem the film myself, but that seems a little bit of a strange casting choice.
Its not really a 1-1 comparison in parts. Paige's character is the one obsessed with death and the architect of the experiment, but has at least one scene where the parallel is with Julia Roberts' character in the first one. Robert's character really doesn't have a good 1-1 comparison with any 1 character in the 2017 version, seemingly having that part kind of split with one character and the other added to a character that's also about half of the Oliver Platt character. As far as character traits and personalities from the original movie go, its all there... just mixed up between the new characters. And that's not to the new one's detriment... for the most part the characters work just fine. Some dumb decisions from a couple of them... but without dumb decisions, we wouldn't have any movies.

Interestingly enough, a podcast I listen to "God Awful Movies" where a group of atheists review and mock religious based films, will be doing the original Flatliners on next weeks episode. I'm looking forward to that.
Was there a religious element to the first one? I never really categorized that movie as particularly religious. Wasn't any religious connection more implied than stated? Oh well, no harm done mocking Flatliners either way. Plenty of material to work with.
 
Last edited:

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
8,577
2,898
118
Its not really a 1-1 comparison in parts. Paige's character is the one obsessed with death and the architect of the experiment, but has at least one scene where the parallel is with Julia Roberts' character in the first one. Robert's character really doesn't have a good 1-1 comparison with any 1 character in the 2017 version, seemingly having that part kind of split with one character and the other added to a character that's also about half of the Oliver Platt character. As far as character traits and personalities from the original movie go, its all there... just mixed up between the new characters. And that's not to the new one's detriment... for the most part the characters work just fine. Some dumb decisions from a couple of them... but without dumb decisions, we wouldn't have any movies.


Was there a religious element to the first one? I never really categorized that movie as particularly religious. Wasn't any religious connection more implied than stated? Oh well, no harm done mocking Flatliners either way. Plenty of material to work with.
One of the things I liked about the original film, was the story of Julia Roberts' character, and what the reality was about her visitation. It was an interesting reversal. That the spirit that was visiting her, wasn't a sin from her past that she had to atone for, but a spirit that felt THEY needed to atone TO HER. She wasn't being tortured, she was seeing her father torturing himself with his guilt on how he failed as a father (at least in his ghost's mind). So SHE brought HIM absolution, by basically pulling him out from his own hell, visualized by the lighting changing from the reddish hellscape, to a bright white when they hug and he says he's sorry. It felt similar to What Dreams May Come, when Robin brings his wife out of her own hell pocket with love. So that was an interesting little twist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
3,031
354
88
Stowaway. Three people aboard a space ship heading to mars discover there is a fourth passenger but they only have oxygen for 3. What follows is the unavoidable 'difficult decision' and some genuinely nerve wrecking scenes.

I really enjoyed this movie. The movie proves space is scary enough you don't need monsters or large spectacle. Just people drifting through the eternal void of outer space with shit going wrong in their little tin can. Some reviews I read called this movie slow paced and boring but I got the opposite from it. The lack of stimulation is what makes space..well space. Monsters or lots of stimulation makes space not scary anymore because it makes it 'human'. Unless it's done really well like in Alien but even here it's more about the atmosphere and build up. Not that I don't enjoy movies with aliens or eldritch horrors but it doesn't bring out the deep existential dread that is the cold indifference of space. You know, the actual reality of the situation.

But anyways, beautiful space cinematogrophy is key in a movie like this and it certainly delivered. The characters also felt like the kind of people you'd find aboard the ISS or something. I was totally sold on the premise. It's a slow burn for sure but a thoroughly enjoyable one.
 

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,201
1,006
118
Country
Sweden
She had my sympathy up until the second murder, when she starts killing just for the money. After that she can go fuck herself. Hell of a performance and "character study" but man, enough good people die unsung that I need to give a shit about murderous fucks.

In real life it was never even in self defense.
I never really saw Monster as a defense or sympathy piece. It is a character study of a violent, deeply traumatized woman who most likely suffered from severe mental illness on top of all that. Her life sucked but she was also a remorseless killer.
 

Kyrian007

Officially no longer the Enemy of the People
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
2,128
158
68
Kansas
Country
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
One of the things I liked about the original film, was the story of Julia Roberts' character, and what the reality was about her visitation. It was an interesting reversal. That the spirit that was visiting her, wasn't a sin from her past that she had to atone for, but a spirit that felt THEY needed to atone TO HER. She wasn't being tortured, she was seeing her father torturing himself with his guilt on how he failed as a father (at least in his ghost's mind). So SHE brought HIM absolution, by basically pulling him out from his own hell, visualized by the lighting changing from the reddish hellscape, to a bright white when they hug and he says he's sorry. It felt similar to What Dreams May Come, when Robin brings his wife out of her own hell pocket with love. So that was an interesting little twist.
Well, the new one does miss out on Julia's character's backstory. They do an updated version of the Baldwin sex one, and Bacon's character bullying one. But there isn't anything like Julia's one and (to my mind just as much a mistake) none of the ghosts were flat out murder victims like Billy Mahoney. Which was a failing, they raised the stakes of the original in a lot of ways, including consequences... but none of the new med students were trying to atone for murder like Sutherland's character was. Kiefer Sutherland was the only actor returning for the reboot. He was not credited as his original character, but apparently a deleted scene reveals he was the same character after having changed his name.