Yeah, it feels like you're just hanging out with them as the dialog is very natural (plenty of normal pauses and Brad Pitt snacking in like every scene) and not overly joke-y even though it's obviously scripted.
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
Don't Look Up: Alright / Great
Film about humanity's failings at collective agreement over global issues. An earthbound comet is discovered and the politicizing and social media fanaticizing take front stage as we're all about to die.
Shameless with its message. And we're all about to die. Watch it if you want to.
Film about humanity's failings at collective agreement over global issues. An earthbound comet is discovered and the politicizing and social media fanaticizing take front stage as we're all about to die.
Shameless with its message. And we're all about to die. Watch it if you want to.
Open Your Eyes (1997, France)
Haven't seen the remake, Vanilla Sky, since the '00s, but this seemed to follow the same story exactly. Found it pretty good, but a bit soap operish. The actor was okay.
Jane B. by Agnes V. (1988, France)
About actress and mother of three at the time, Jane Birkin. I started the Varda boxset with Kung-Fu Master! (simply because of one of the actresses), aware of Charlotte and Serge Gainsburg, having listened to some of their music and having watched her movies, and never putting together that her co-star Jane Birkin was her real mother and his muse (one of the female singers I listened to), until I watched Jane B. by Agnes V.. Having all that revealed to me on film (and what led to them making KFM) amused me. I had only watched Birkin in three minor roles before KFM and couldn't even tell you who she played in them, so I went into this movie without any interest in her. Impressive then that Varda was able to document her creative process and present life in a way that captured my attention so. Those expressionist fantasy segments amused me too. Self-referential, also revealing a little about Varda's process.
Haven't seen the remake, Vanilla Sky, since the '00s, but this seemed to follow the same story exactly. Found it pretty good, but a bit soap operish. The actor was okay.
Jane B. by Agnes V. (1988, France)
About actress and mother of three at the time, Jane Birkin. I started the Varda boxset with Kung-Fu Master! (simply because of one of the actresses), aware of Charlotte and Serge Gainsburg, having listened to some of their music and having watched her movies, and never putting together that her co-star Jane Birkin was her real mother and his muse (one of the female singers I listened to), until I watched Jane B. by Agnes V.. Having all that revealed to me on film (and what led to them making KFM) amused me. I had only watched Birkin in three minor roles before KFM and couldn't even tell you who she played in them, so I went into this movie without any interest in her. Impressive then that Varda was able to document her creative process and present life in a way that captured my attention so. Those expressionist fantasy segments amused me too. Self-referential, also revealing a little about Varda's process.
Last edited:
Shang-Chi - Even better the second time! My opinions have not changed at the movie did as advertised! Seriously, some make a brawler out of this property! I will buy it! Have Platinum or Capcom make it.
Free Guy: A'ight / Great
Ryan Reynolds plays "Guy," an NPC in a multiplayer videogame who gains sentience and bucks the system by behaving like a decent person... unlike every actual person playing the game.
It was cute enough. Probably lands better if you're familiar with games like GTA and such. All in all, it had a very '80s feel to it in that it doesn't go out of its way to explain the "how" and only expects you to enjoy the ride. Fun enough.
Ryan Reynolds plays "Guy," an NPC in a multiplayer videogame who gains sentience and bucks the system by behaving like a decent person... unlike every actual person playing the game.
It was cute enough. Probably lands better if you're familiar with games like GTA and such. All in all, it had a very '80s feel to it in that it doesn't go out of its way to explain the "how" and only expects you to enjoy the ride. Fun enough.
Watched another 80's slasher last night, Blood Rage. I knew I was in for something special when the title card in the opening credits showed a different movie title, and it was confirmed by...the rest of the movie. For one thing, it's one of the only, if not the only, slasher movie that takes place around Thanksgiving. It also features a killer who, on multiple occasions, refers to blood as being "not cranberry sauce". It's not really well made, but it is certainly not forgettable or standard by any means. If you want an out-there slasher movie from the 80's, this one is definitely one to watch. Keep in mind, however, that like most 80's slasher movies of this quality, it makes up for a lack of...well, plot or characterization with gore. It's a pretty nasty movie at points.
Ninja Assassin - I've gushed about the action scenes in this movie enough times, so I'll talk about something else. I never noticed before, but the beginning and 1/4 way in to the movie has this Neo-noir/mystery angle. The movie surprisingly pulls this off well when needed. The flashback sequences I criticized in the past, but they are not as tedious as I remember. They do enough to keep you invested about Raizo's past, and the inner workings of the Nine Clans. Both of them tie in to that pseudo Neo-noir angle I mentioned earlier.
Speaking of Raizo, he is a good character. What I like about him is that the actor, Rain, gives the character this silent snarker and dry sardonic wit to him. Yes, he is a serious, stoic badass, but the movie makes sure to give him a personality and show is more vulnerable moments of humanity. We see this develop in the flashbacks, and in the present. Contrasted by Ozuno, the main villain. Who is has this serious, threatening, cold ham, and speaks in an almost constant haiku and purple prose combination. Sho Kosugi just kills it. There is a reason why he is the king of ninja movies in the 80s. Takeshi, Ozuno's right hand man, is basically the ninja equivalent of twirly mustache villain. He works and its uncomplicated, but there is not much else to him. Still fun and hammy. This is something Ninja Assassin has over the two Ninja films from Scott Adkins. Though his films have the advantage of going nearly all in on practical effects. Awesome fight scenes, but not as much ninja action by comparison. Especially in Shadow of a Tear.
The ninja fodder come off as deadly and threatening. There is a creepy, somewhat other worldly atmosphere to the ninja when they show up. They have these supernatural, flash step movements that makes them almost ghost like. When we are first introduced them gathering as a group, they give off these creepy whispers; making them come off as demons. The film does this at least two more times, and it does not stop them from being creepy and threatening.
I'll still defend the use of CG Blood, because the movie actually stylizes the effects. Practical blood effects are used, but it's clear the CG blood is supposed to mimic the gore seen in ultra violent anime from the 90s. Mainly Ninja Scroll.
If you have not watched this movie at all, give it a watch. You won't be disappointed and Ninja Assassin delivers as advertised. Get the Blu ray version. In addition to better visual quality, you get all of these bonus features. I highly suggest you watch the behind the scenes vids, because of all the effort that had to go in to the choreography. It's fun seeing the cast talk too.
Speaking of Raizo, he is a good character. What I like about him is that the actor, Rain, gives the character this silent snarker and dry sardonic wit to him. Yes, he is a serious, stoic badass, but the movie makes sure to give him a personality and show is more vulnerable moments of humanity. We see this develop in the flashbacks, and in the present. Contrasted by Ozuno, the main villain. Who is has this serious, threatening, cold ham, and speaks in an almost constant haiku and purple prose combination. Sho Kosugi just kills it. There is a reason why he is the king of ninja movies in the 80s. Takeshi, Ozuno's right hand man, is basically the ninja equivalent of twirly mustache villain. He works and its uncomplicated, but there is not much else to him. Still fun and hammy. This is something Ninja Assassin has over the two Ninja films from Scott Adkins. Though his films have the advantage of going nearly all in on practical effects. Awesome fight scenes, but not as much ninja action by comparison. Especially in Shadow of a Tear.
The ninja fodder come off as deadly and threatening. There is a creepy, somewhat other worldly atmosphere to the ninja when they show up. They have these supernatural, flash step movements that makes them almost ghost like. When we are first introduced them gathering as a group, they give off these creepy whispers; making them come off as demons. The film does this at least two more times, and it does not stop them from being creepy and threatening.
I'll still defend the use of CG Blood, because the movie actually stylizes the effects. Practical blood effects are used, but it's clear the CG blood is supposed to mimic the gore seen in ultra violent anime from the 90s. Mainly Ninja Scroll.
If you have not watched this movie at all, give it a watch. You won't be disappointed and Ninja Assassin delivers as advertised. Get the Blu ray version. In addition to better visual quality, you get all of these bonus features. I highly suggest you watch the behind the scenes vids, because of all the effort that had to go in to the choreography. It's fun seeing the cast talk too.
Last edited:
Force of Nature (2020): Dumb / Great
A cop in Puerto Rico is tasked with evacuating the last few people in an apartment building as a hurricane is rapidly approaching, and finds himself tangled up with criminals using the opportunity to rob one of the building tenants of valuable art.
Just a junk food movie; most of it contrived and incredible. I really wonder how they managed to pull down a name like Mel Gibson to be in it; probably still reeling from blowback from his controversies, I'd wager. Fittingly, he's only in it long enough to merit a billing within the top five names of casting during the credits (I'd say that's a spoiler, but you can't really "spoil" garbage.) Wasn't the worst movie, but certainly not a good one. Somehow manages to be both rushed and too slow all at the same time. The "satisfactory" ending can be seen from a mile away, but still subsequently manages to be unbelievable when reached. Feels like a film written by committee over a lunch hour. Thankfully it clocks in at just over an hour and a half which to me is a textbook sign they wanted to get it over and done with as much as I wanted to be over and done watching it.
A cop in Puerto Rico is tasked with evacuating the last few people in an apartment building as a hurricane is rapidly approaching, and finds himself tangled up with criminals using the opportunity to rob one of the building tenants of valuable art.
Just a junk food movie; most of it contrived and incredible. I really wonder how they managed to pull down a name like Mel Gibson to be in it; probably still reeling from blowback from his controversies, I'd wager. Fittingly, he's only in it long enough to merit a billing within the top five names of casting during the credits (I'd say that's a spoiler, but you can't really "spoil" garbage.) Wasn't the worst movie, but certainly not a good one. Somehow manages to be both rushed and too slow all at the same time. The "satisfactory" ending can be seen from a mile away, but still subsequently manages to be unbelievable when reached. Feels like a film written by committee over a lunch hour. Thankfully it clocks in at just over an hour and a half which to me is a textbook sign they wanted to get it over and done with as much as I wanted to be over and done watching it.
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
Is there an actual rule that if you have lots of CGI you have to have rubbish writing and acting? Terrible cliche story, unsympathetic characters (why do people supposedly think that being horribly incompetent is charming?), lots of padding. Also, Cara Delevingne has boob armour on her space suit thingy, only lots of padding there as well because she's didn't need that boob armour being on the small side.
Is there an actual rule that if you have lots of CGI you have to have rubbish writing and acting? Terrible cliche story, unsympathetic characters (why do people supposedly think that being horribly incompetent is charming?), lots of padding. Also, Cara Delevingne has boob armour on her space suit thingy, only lots of padding there as well because she's didn't need that boob armour being on the small side.
Outrage Trilogy
So for no reason in particular I decided to sit down and watch the "Outrage" Trilogy. Theres not really a direct link to a summary of the films, youd just have to google it, but its consists of Outage, Beyond Outrage, and Outrage Code. All three are currently free on amazon, however Outage Coda has Ads or you can pay $.99 to rent it so low entry fee.
For those unfamiliar these are kind of the Japanese equivalent of the Godfather Trilogy. Written, directed and staring "Beat Takeshi" they follow a head of a small Yakuza family "Otomo" navigating a plot by the Chairman of the organization to remove his parent family because they are diving into drug trafficking. It ends up being pretty complicated and hard to follow because this becomes a catalyst for a game of murder musical chairs with several leaders betraying each other to joust for control of the organization. The two sequels continue the story as it escalates due to a supposed corrupt cop thats actually playing all sides against each other for reasons that become clearer as the story moves along. It was strangely rewarding that by the third film theres a scene where another conspirator tries to ply Otomo with leadership of a family and I yelled at the TV "HES DOESNT WANT THAT SHIT!" right before Beat respond laughingly "I don't want that."
Its a very procedural dry hardboiled story with lots of violence and murder, but the big reward comes for viewers who closely follow the dialog and manage to get track of its Game Of Thrones sized cast of Yazuka characters.
Id recommend it to any fans of the Yakuza games, but mainly to anyone who likes watching Shakespearean tragedy type stuff. The only warning I'd give is that its not for ADHD types. Its really dry and focuses on the minutia. Its mostly Yakuza chatting, plotting and shooting. Its really dense, I found myself constantly rewinding it to understand what was happening and whos who because they do not stop for the viewer..ever and recaps are at most a throw away line over coffee or saki.
So for no reason in particular I decided to sit down and watch the "Outrage" Trilogy. Theres not really a direct link to a summary of the films, youd just have to google it, but its consists of Outage, Beyond Outrage, and Outrage Code. All three are currently free on amazon, however Outage Coda has Ads or you can pay $.99 to rent it so low entry fee.
For those unfamiliar these are kind of the Japanese equivalent of the Godfather Trilogy. Written, directed and staring "Beat Takeshi" they follow a head of a small Yakuza family "Otomo" navigating a plot by the Chairman of the organization to remove his parent family because they are diving into drug trafficking. It ends up being pretty complicated and hard to follow because this becomes a catalyst for a game of murder musical chairs with several leaders betraying each other to joust for control of the organization. The two sequels continue the story as it escalates due to a supposed corrupt cop thats actually playing all sides against each other for reasons that become clearer as the story moves along. It was strangely rewarding that by the third film theres a scene where another conspirator tries to ply Otomo with leadership of a family and I yelled at the TV "HES DOESNT WANT THAT SHIT!" right before Beat respond laughingly "I don't want that."
Its a very procedural dry hardboiled story with lots of violence and murder, but the big reward comes for viewers who closely follow the dialog and manage to get track of its Game Of Thrones sized cast of Yazuka characters.
Id recommend it to any fans of the Yakuza games, but mainly to anyone who likes watching Shakespearean tragedy type stuff. The only warning I'd give is that its not for ADHD types. Its really dry and focuses on the minutia. Its mostly Yakuza chatting, plotting and shooting. Its really dense, I found myself constantly rewinding it to understand what was happening and whos who because they do not stop for the viewer..ever and recaps are at most a throw away line over coffee or saki.
Useless piece of information that was the first major acting role for Cara Delevingne who played Laureline, her previous experience was as Enchantress / June Moon in the first Suicide Squad film. So yeh considering she was basically super new to acting really as most of her other stuff was bit parts it's impressive how bad Dane DeHaan (Valerian) is in that film.
Just watched a 2016 slasher by the name of Terrifier. I would not recommend anyone else to do the same. On the plus side, the killer is well acted, and the gore is impressive. That's all the positives, though. This isn't the fun kind of bad, though. It's a flat-out unpleasant movie to watch, with the kills often feeling too mean-spirited to enjoy even in the slasher sense, and most of the acting is painful even by slasher standards. Just...don't watch this. It's not a long watch, but it feels like time stands still when you watch it.
Don't Look Up.
I hated it. Not because it's a bad movie, just really hard to watch. Cringe at times, depressing at others. The whole time you're just thinking "this is fucking preposterous", but at the back of your mind, you just know that in the real world, our leaders and dipshit billionaires probably do think and act like this.
I wil say tho, they did a great job at making Leo and JLaw, two fairly attractive human beings, look fucking horrible. Those haircuts and outfits should win Oscars.
I hated it. Not because it's a bad movie, just really hard to watch. Cringe at times, depressing at others. The whole time you're just thinking "this is fucking preposterous", but at the back of your mind, you just know that in the real world, our leaders and dipshit billionaires probably do think and act like this.
I wil say tho, they did a great job at making Leo and JLaw, two fairly attractive human beings, look fucking horrible. Those haircuts and outfits should win Oscars.
The Princess Bride (6/10)
This is going to turn some heads, but I can't say I'm that impressed with this film. As quotable as it is in individual moments, as a whole? Eh...
Anyway, random thoughts going through it:
-Buttercup is terrible, and Wesley can do a lot better. Her relationship begins with her treating him like dirt, but hey, 'true wuv.' And I might buy that if Buttercup actually had anything approaching a character arc, but no, she does nothing in the movie but be rescued, or when she's given up hope of being rescued, decides to commit suicide. Supposedly, this film (and the book) is a spoof on romance/princess tropes, but I'm not sure what it's spoofing, because it plays it all straight. TL, DR, Buttercup is terrible, and Wesley is wasting his time on her. Also, I get that Westley is hiding his persona from Buttercup to see if she truly loves him still, but she never actually gives a straight answer before the reveal.
-I know this is beside the point, but can I comment how the setting of the, um, setting, makes no sense? We have the town of "Florin" (which I assume is a spoof on Florence), and therefore in Italy, yet nothing we see in or around Florin shows any sense of Italian geography, language, or culture. Furthermore, Australia is mentioned as being a country of criminals, so this must take place sometime after 1788, but the level of technology on display is Medieval. I know, it's not trying to be realistic, but come on, seriously?
-I'll give credit to the duel between Westley and Inigo as being simultaniously badass, hilarious, and well-choreographed all at once. That said, I'm left to ask two things. One, Inigo has been practicing fencing for 20 years, while Westley has, at best, practiced for 5, yet Westley bests him. Second, Westley adopted the persona of Dread Pirate Roberts for at least some of that time, so...how many people has he killed since then? It's stated clearly that Dread Pirate Roberts leaves no survivours, and that Westley is the one exception for the original DPR.
Also, DPR's been scouring the seas for over 50 years, so did anyone wonder about how he could keep it up so long? Then again, there does seem to be a supernatural element to the myth as seen at the end, so I guess that doesn't matter too much.
-I'll give credit to Humperdinck as a villain that's slowly revealed to be a villain and all that. Makes Buttercup look all the more stupid (why yes, I WILL trust this git to send out boats to find my 'true wuv,' despite the fact that I'm being married against my will), but he's okay.
-Moving on from that, there's contrivances galore. Inigo just happens to be in the right forest at the right time, and Fezzik just happens to turn up at the right time for him, and they just happen to be at the right tree that will lead them to Wesley, and there just happens to be someone who can bring him back to life, and they just happen to have a magic cloak that will get them entry into the castle. I know, parody, but still, two words. Chekov's. Gun.
-So Inigo duels the man who killed his father through magical means. I say magical because he gets a knife to his stomach and multiple stab wounds, but then plougs through it and kills the count with a stomach wound, which does kill him, whereas he wasn't killed earlier. Um, sure.
-I'll give credit to the "to the pain" speech.
-So they all live happily ever after (except Vizzini...I kept expecting him to show up, before realizing that he was, indeed, dead), and Inigo may go on to be Dread Pirate Roberts (ergo, a murderer who leaves no survivours), and Westley and Buttercup have 'true wuv's kiss', because Buttercup is still terrible, and Westley still doesn't realize it). And...yay. Story's over.
-Overall, there's individual moments in the movie that had me grinning, but as a whole? It's an average fantasy-adventure-comedy flick. Decent, but I've no idea why it's as beloved as it is.
This is going to turn some heads, but I can't say I'm that impressed with this film. As quotable as it is in individual moments, as a whole? Eh...
Anyway, random thoughts going through it:
-Buttercup is terrible, and Wesley can do a lot better. Her relationship begins with her treating him like dirt, but hey, 'true wuv.' And I might buy that if Buttercup actually had anything approaching a character arc, but no, she does nothing in the movie but be rescued, or when she's given up hope of being rescued, decides to commit suicide. Supposedly, this film (and the book) is a spoof on romance/princess tropes, but I'm not sure what it's spoofing, because it plays it all straight. TL, DR, Buttercup is terrible, and Wesley is wasting his time on her. Also, I get that Westley is hiding his persona from Buttercup to see if she truly loves him still, but she never actually gives a straight answer before the reveal.
-I know this is beside the point, but can I comment how the setting of the, um, setting, makes no sense? We have the town of "Florin" (which I assume is a spoof on Florence), and therefore in Italy, yet nothing we see in or around Florin shows any sense of Italian geography, language, or culture. Furthermore, Australia is mentioned as being a country of criminals, so this must take place sometime after 1788, but the level of technology on display is Medieval. I know, it's not trying to be realistic, but come on, seriously?
-I'll give credit to the duel between Westley and Inigo as being simultaniously badass, hilarious, and well-choreographed all at once. That said, I'm left to ask two things. One, Inigo has been practicing fencing for 20 years, while Westley has, at best, practiced for 5, yet Westley bests him. Second, Westley adopted the persona of Dread Pirate Roberts for at least some of that time, so...how many people has he killed since then? It's stated clearly that Dread Pirate Roberts leaves no survivours, and that Westley is the one exception for the original DPR.
Also, DPR's been scouring the seas for over 50 years, so did anyone wonder about how he could keep it up so long? Then again, there does seem to be a supernatural element to the myth as seen at the end, so I guess that doesn't matter too much.
-I'll give credit to Humperdinck as a villain that's slowly revealed to be a villain and all that. Makes Buttercup look all the more stupid (why yes, I WILL trust this git to send out boats to find my 'true wuv,' despite the fact that I'm being married against my will), but he's okay.
-Moving on from that, there's contrivances galore. Inigo just happens to be in the right forest at the right time, and Fezzik just happens to turn up at the right time for him, and they just happen to be at the right tree that will lead them to Wesley, and there just happens to be someone who can bring him back to life, and they just happen to have a magic cloak that will get them entry into the castle. I know, parody, but still, two words. Chekov's. Gun.
-So Inigo duels the man who killed his father through magical means. I say magical because he gets a knife to his stomach and multiple stab wounds, but then plougs through it and kills the count with a stomach wound, which does kill him, whereas he wasn't killed earlier. Um, sure.
-I'll give credit to the "to the pain" speech.
-So they all live happily ever after (except Vizzini...I kept expecting him to show up, before realizing that he was, indeed, dead), and Inigo may go on to be Dread Pirate Roberts (ergo, a murderer who leaves no survivours), and Westley and Buttercup have 'true wuv's kiss', because Buttercup is still terrible, and Westley still doesn't realize it). And...yay. Story's over.
-Overall, there's individual moments in the movie that had me grinning, but as a whole? It's an average fantasy-adventure-comedy flick. Decent, but I've no idea why it's as beloved as it is.
Simply put, Inigo's out of practice. He's been fencing/training to take down his father's killer, yes, but how often do you see him actually sword-fight? There's also the question of how strong any opponents he fought were. I don't recall if the movie made this clear, but the reason he was with Vizzini is because...well, being a swordsman is all Inigo had in terms of marketable skills, and there wasn't much market for him, so Vizzini hired him cheap as basically a drunk bodyguard.
Also, the ending of the book is...a lot less optimistic than the movie, I'll leave it at that. For example, the book makes sure to remind you that Inigo is pretty damn injured, and it's unlikely Humperdink is just going to roll over and give up.
OT: Just watched a 1980's slasher film, Terror Train. It has Jamie Lee Curtis in it, along with David Copperfield, and a neat concept with a killer that takes costumes from his victims (you see, this is taking place at what seems to be a masquerade on a train) to disguise himself, and the train setting gives a very valid reason for why they don't just GTFO.
The problem is, the movie is boring. I don't remember the last time I was this bored by a slasher movie. The kills were eh for the most part, and while there was no mystery as to who the killer was, the reveal of their main disguise wasn't all that well done, either. Overall, I can't say this movie was bad...but sometimes, being mediocre is far worse than being bad.
Honestly between the two, I think Stardust did a better job at the whole parody of fantasy genre than Princess Bride. Not that it has any less “Wait up” moments but the internal logic is much more consistent.
I have to agree, I saw it for the first time in the past 2 years and for all the talk of the film and people seeing it as some legendary film it just didn't hold up for me. I found Stardust (and admittedly more recent film) to be far better than it and in part seemingly mad as an almost snarky answer to the The Princess Bride
I am loving how mixed the reception to this movie is.
My wife and I tend to agree on stuff we choose to watch together. Yet this was a rare case where we didn't: I loved it, she certainly did not.
The most common criticism I see from critics is that it's "overbearing" or "not subtle." But... yeah, that's the whole point. Extinction level disaster that our institutions are not willing or able to handle is not something that is subtle.
To me the movie is more like a cathartic explosion of frustration, and yeah, I'm down for it. Ok did it need BOTH lead characters going on the same fictional TV show to yell at everybody? No. Did the Pentagon guy charging for snacks thing run itself into the ground? Sure. It's a wacky movie whose point is 100% accurate.
I'm pretty indifferent when it comes to this movie. Maybe knowing going in that it's a blatant allegory about climate change helps its message fall flat? Like, why not just make an "end of days" movie about climate change? 100% of adults aren't children by definition, and would probably appreciate a fictional in-your-face depiction of what you're actually talking about versus a one-in-a-billion chance of an extinction-level event that can be easily dismissed if viewers might not get the actual message. As someone who lives by analogies, even I understand that sometimes, you just have to say what you mean in the literal sense to communicate the idea.