Author Topic: In Which I Review Movies  (Read 10853 times)

Description: Steve Jobs

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #300 on: October 04, 2017, 12:21:13 PM »


Cloverfield (2008), directed by Matt Reeves

I have been told for nine years that I needed to watch this movie, but in typical fashion I never bothered to do it. I wish I could explain why I never bothered to do so with so many of these films, but I just can't. It's inexplicable and there's really no excuse for ignoring what other people are telling me I should do. It makes me kind of an asshole now that I really think about it. Anyway, I wasn't expecting some aspects of this. While people do recommend things to me, they are kind enough to not spoil anything. I did not expect a found footage film. I am not automatically against watching something that features a different cinematic technique, but I am very cautious. Nothing I've reviewed in this thread would apply to this degree, though. So, as soon as I noticed that, I was interested in seeing what the big deal about this movie was.

Immediately it is shown that this video had been acquired by the Department of Defense. Such a thing piqued my interest immediately. I did not pay attention to all of the words on screen, which turned out to be for the best. The first segment is filmed by Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who is sleeping with Beth (Odette Yustman). He wants to take her to Coney Island. After that, the tape cuts to the preparation of a party. It turns out that they were taping over Rob and Beth's video. Jason (Mike Vogel) is Rob's brother, and his girlfriend Lily (Jessica Lucas) wants him to tape video of a surprise party for Rob, who got promoted to a workplace in Japan. Jason just doesn't want to do this job, he wants to enjoy the part. So, the job gets passed on to Hud (TJ Miller), one of Rob's best friends. Hud has his own intentions in filming this video, as it appears he has a crush on Marlena (Lizzy Caplan). Doesn't everyone have a crush on Lizzy Caplan? This aspect makes Hud an endearing narrator. Many minutes into the party, an earthquake hits, and shortly after that we are introduced to...THE MONSTER.

The events of the party are meaningful to get the audience to care about the characters. In fact this is one of the best examples of a monster movie that jumps from this to the next sequences. There is no exposition regarding the monster and it's for the best. I don't want to hear it. I want everyone involved to not know what this shit is about. Doing that leads to the suspense actually meaning something as the viewer has no concept of what the monster is going to do. The story is fortunately concise, and I appreciated not knowing where the monster came from. I expect it will be detailed in God Particle, the next entry in this series. Maybe it won't be. I'm sure people are really anxious to know ten years later. I am not, because it hasn't been ten years for me.

Due to that, and due to knowing there are other films planned, my view on the matter is skewed compared to those who watched Cloverfield upon its release. My view on a lot of things is different. I am not as interested in where the monster came from as I am knowing how they used the special effects on a $25 million budget. I am also interested in how they pulled off doing this via hand-held camera. It's great, actually. I'm sure a lot of people had a major problem with it or couldn't handle it. That was not a problem for me. I found the shaky camera more interesting than if this film had been shot traditionally. Doing so allowed them to present a story that felt like the viewer was there. Good stuff. The design of the creatures, as well as the way they were shown, was quite a great decision.

Oddly, this film is unbelievably short. I counted this out at being 73 minutes. I'm glad this wasn't padded out, but that's quite short. The monster portion ran for 53 minutes, so that was like watching an episode of television. I'm sure a lot of people were mad about what happened in that. The obvious thing that comes to mind as being triggering for some would be the destruction of Manhattan. People were still all up in their feelings seven years after 9/11, and they still are to some extent, so such a reaction isn't surprising on any level. There are some things in this film that were silly, namely Hud's obsession with documenting the event. It's also strange to watch a movie with no music, but that's not a complaint. The only thing I found offensively dumb was the idea that someone could run after having rebar pulled out of their chest. Considering the amount of things in this film, that speaks pretty well for the production and what it brought to the table.

8/10

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #301 on: October 05, 2017, 06:11:04 PM »


The Sting (1973), directed by George Roy Hill

I had intended to watch a bad movie after the last two, but my internet messed up last night and I couldn't watch anything. So instead, on Thursday night I watched The Sting. I didn't know what to make of this before I turned it on other than that I knew this was considered a classic by some and had extremely positive reviews. After watching two great movies, I prefer to be let down rather than continue the run. Instead I think I will have to let myself down tomorrow. This definitely didn't do it, or come anywhere near doing so in fact. I expected that, though.

It's 1936 in Illinois, and the film starts with a guy making some kind of illegal delivery to Chicago. He leaves the shop, and outside there's a black man on the ground after being stabbed. The robber has a suitcase thrown at him and loses the man's wallet, so the money is subsequently given back to the man. The man says he was also making an illegal delivery, and the initial guy offers to do it himself. He does that, steals the money and winds up in a cab, but it turns out the black man and his partner made the switch and have made off with all the money. Sounds complicated, right? This movie is massively complicated and you can't miss a single scene or word in it.

It turns out that our thieves are named Luther (Robert Earl Jones) and Hooker (Robert Redford), and they've stolen a lot of money from a man named Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw). Lonnegan is a crook, and he's a violent one. The idea that someone would steal from him grinds his gears. So, Lonnegan decides to put it a hit out on Luther and Hooker. Hooker is confronted by a cop named Snyder (Charles Durning), and Snyder wants his cut, but Hooker's already lost almost all of his money gambling. Snyder also tells Hooker that Lonnegan knows what happened. So, Hooker being the grifter and all, he pays Snyder in counterfeit bills. Hooker then goes to Luther's house to tell him what they've done, and Luther has been pushed off a balcony. Obviously, Hooker needs to leave town, and he's in search of somebody Luther told him about. Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman) is someone who knows how to do the big con, and with what's been done to Luther, it's time to pull the big con on Mr. Lonnegan.

I said this movie was complicated, but I meant that like a compliment. There's no downtime at all, so I had to power straight through this without pausing or doing anything else. As more and more of the con is revealed to the viewer, the more entertaining this movie gets. This is an excellent case of building up to something better and better. I thought the card game was going to be the peak, but in fact that was nowhere near it. The hits kept on coming. Considering how young we are relative to how old this movie is, I would be surprised if most people here have seen this. It's impossible for me to reveal more of the plot because it's so complicated, but I have no desire to spoil this for anyone else either. So this will be fairly brief. If you're interested in a good con man story, there may not be a better one than this.

There are a lot of good side characters, but the standout is Kid Twist (Harold Gould), the guy who appeared to be in charge of setting a large portion of this up. I would say this was a case of better story than performances. I mean, a story like this is not often seen. Not to take anything away from the actors as they were all good, but that's not what I'll remember from this. It's the directing in combination with the way this story was pieced together. It is hard to maintain intrigue the way it happened here. It is also borderline impossible to keep this plot on the rails. That's what happened, though. I probably should have watched this the first time it was recommended to me. 44 years later, this hasn't diminished in quality at all, and holds up very well.

9/10

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • CWM
  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,150
  • CWM
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #302 on: October 05, 2017, 10:44:35 PM »
Love that movie and all newman/Redford movies

Offline Kahran Ramsus

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9,349
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #303 on: October 06, 2017, 01:28:05 PM »
Yes, I love The Sting too.

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #304 on: October 06, 2017, 06:11:51 PM »


Warcraft (2016), directed by Duncan Jones

I didn't realize that I was going to go this crazy and type this much over the course of 40 minutes. Wow. That was never my intention. This more than anything else is my Jingus-like opus.

When I said that I was trying to watch something to level the playing field a little bit, this was the movie I was talking about. I think this is an impossible film to make for a host of reasons, the most obvious one being that fanboys would get upset regardless of how the film turned out. I used to play World of Warcraft fairly seriously. When I look back on those days, I think it was a gigantic waste of my time. I can't believe how many hours I've wasted playing a stupid game like this one. Naturally I do have my own biases in favor of this movie, because I know the story and all that stuff. Or at least, I know what the story is supposed to be. With this being a film it is inevitable that there would be tons of changes to the story, so I decided I didn't care if there were. There were a ton of other problems with this film, though.

I will do my best in order to describe the events in a way that anyone who knows nothing about this game series should be able to understand them. Gul'dan (Daniel Wu) is an orc warlock from a world that is said to be dying. He wields magic that is referred to as fel magic, which seems to be pretty effective at killing anyone. Gul'dan wants to open a portal to Azeroth, where humans live. He has enslaved some blue people in order to do so, and their deaths are required in order for the orcs to travel. A half-orc named Garona (Paula Patton) has been tasked with translating languages for the duration of this adventuring. Durotan (Toby Kebbell) is a chieftain of the Frostwolves, and he is determined to bring his newborn and wife with him. He does, and his newborn nearly dies during birth once the orcs reach Azeroth. Gul'dan saves the newborn with fel magic, and then we see the title screen.

Sorry for spoiling the first five minutes or so, but this is not exactly how I would have introduced a new film series to the world. Upon the orcs arrival, naturally humans have a problem with this as the orcs are killing people, capturing them, and taking their land. A mage named Khadgar (Ben Schnetzer) is investigating some of the victims the orcs have killed, and is busted doing so by Anduin (Travis Fimmel), a military commander in charge of keeping Stormwind Kingdom safe. There is also a king, his name is Llane (Dominic Cooper), and he does kingly things. Last and certainly not least, there's Medivh (Ben Foster), a mysterious guardian of the world who seems to be quite the sorcerer.

In reading these last two paragraphs, the problem with this film is plainly obvious to me. There are too many characters who do too many things that need to be explained in short order. The entry barrier for this series is massively high. If it was necessary to make this movie, I think I would have chopped a few of the characters out. At the very least, that's one of the things they could have done. I wouldn't have made this film at all, though. Anyone can see that there is far too much exposition required for a genre that needs to be more simple than this. Peter Jackson expertly executed his attempts at doing so. Why didn't that happen here? Well, for one, people don't have the patience to sit through a three hour Warcraft movie. I sure as hell wouldn't. Secondly, people are inherently against the subject material because of its reputation. Despite the problems, the movie is watchable.

I am not capable of describing how it was watchable without writing about more of the problems with it, so unless you want to read a very long paragraph or two of negatives you can skip straight past this part. Due to the incredible amount of special effects in this film, there are a lot of set pieces that really get the shit end of the stick. All of the tangible props and settings look extremely cheap, there's no other way to phrase it. It is often given as a compliment by people when a movie is able to blend the fake with reality. In this case there is no compliment to be given. I found it completely absurd. I could genuinely not tell if the entire movie was shot with a green screen. There may not have been anything tangible in the background of any scene for all I know. There are a ton of things about what I'm describing that are very bad, because there were necessities for practical settings that I'm not sure even existed. Enough of the scenes in this movie took place outside that I should have felt some sort of reality. I didn't, though. Unfortunately, there are also a few special effects scenes that get the shaft and could not possibly look worse. The background in Ironforge at the beginning is an obvious candidate.

There are also good actors in this movie, all of whom are completely diminished through an annoying lack of focus on their characters. There are no main characters in this film, which is another way of saying that almost everyone in this film is a lead character. Other than Fimmel, who is really good in Vikings, none of the other human characters are terribly engaging. Ben Foster's character wasn't really human, if you're wondering. He's good in basically anything, but he's given no time to work with and his portrayal is backwards. The film did not address his or Gul'dan's motivations. The comparison between this and Hell or High Water, both released in the same year, is quite mindblowing. It's also apparent that due to the massive special effects budget, this cast (just like tangible backgrounds) was put together on the cheap. Warcraft was filmed in 2014, and nobody here had the clout to demand a big paycheck. This is a typical studio franchise attempt that failed.

It's not all bad, though. I mean, I've said a lot, but there were things about this film that I found endearing. For starters, the right characters were given just slightly more time than the others. Durotan is the obvious one. The motion capture and effects for the orcs is the real standout here. To make those characters look lifelike is very difficult, but they were the most intereresting part of the movie by some distance. It's not all that surprising that's the case when orcs and humans are given equal time in a movie. After all, humans are what's on my screen and what I have to look at all the time. The battle scenes are also always interesting, even though all of the visual problems I listed remained in the back of my mind throughout. Upon review, this is such a small amount of positives that I probably shouldn't have even posted this section.

Ultimately, I am convinced that this film was impossible to make. The budget required to do these scenes properly would make this an unbelievably expensive film. Due to the nature of the world established in the games, in order to have a realistic looking movie, the locations required would be completely off the charts. It doesn't make fiscal sense. I also don't understand how Duncan Jones went from making good movies like Moon and Source Code to something like this. Warcraft reeks of massive studio interference, as this could have been a much better story presented in a different way. For example, I think chopping most of the human scenes out would have made for a more intriguing and focused film. I don't make those decisions, though. Telling a story with a ridiculous premise is very hard to do, so while I didn't like this, I couldn't outright hate it. That's probably because of prior attachment to the subject material. By all objective standards this was a bad movie, but I do appreciate the effort of taking on a project like this regardless of the results. The problem is, the characters are all wrong and none of them are fun. I also think there is a possibility that I have turned into a grouch and detest modern, enormous cast and gaudy special effects Hollywood blockbusters. With the current state of Hollywood being what it is, it is not even worth making a CGI-fest unless they put $250 million into the movie. The standard for special effects is ridiculously high now. 

If they make another one of these I'll watch it, but I really don't want them to. The costume for Paula Patton's character was so bad I wanted to save those comments for last. I find it incredible to believe that in 2017 when they used special effects to create a host of other characters, that they would do such a bad job creating that one. Her character looked like something out of a 1960's Star Trek episode, and the piece used for her mouth made it almost impossible to understand anything she said. Fix the voice up in post-production or something, don't do that. That was brutal.

4/10

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • CWM
  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,150
  • CWM
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #305 on: October 07, 2017, 09:19:08 AM »
Man that's a fucking review. We can give it it's own article!

I thought the orcs were kinda cool but i agree with pretty much everything said. I think I gave it a slightly better rating than you did because I'm a fantasy fanboy so I'll go incredibly easy.

I've never watched read or played anything WOW related so I was totally fresh eyed on this and had to rely on my high-fantasy instincts. Luckily WOW is just a mishmash of every fantasy trope in existence so it wasn't that hard to follow for me but it was still a total mess.

They should have kept the focus on the orc army and not tried to introduce all the other elements. A movie where you spend the whole time on the "bad guys" would have been much more interesting.

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #306 on: October 09, 2017, 04:24:08 AM »


The Bank Job (2008), directed by Roger Donaldson

Jason Statham in a serious movie that I don't have to watch a whole series of films to catch? I'm there. This is or was a rarity, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that I enjoy bank robbery films of any kind. I mean, I've reviewed a fair few of them here and seen some others that I will eventually revisit, but that'll all happen in due time. This particular one was also interesting because it has been alleged that this story is true. Certainly some of it is as a few of those characters portrayed certainly exist. There is no way to be sure how much of it is real, though. So I'll throw that completely to the side when writing about this.

This film is supposed to be focused on the Baker Street Robbery, which was a very big deal in 1971. Some people rented a store next door to the bank, and they tunneled into a vault to steal some goods from the vault. The story presented here is as such. A man named Michael X (Peter de Jersey) has pictures of Princess Margaret in compromising positions. Michael X is a black militant who the British authorities are trying to get rid of and have put in prison. Martine (Saffron Burrows) is a woman who has been busted smuggling drugs. In the aftermath of that, she has made a deal with an agent named Tim (Richard Lintern), who wants her to steal these photographs from a safety deposit box. Martine knows some criminals, because of course she does. She approaches Terry (Jason Statham), who has some struggles with money and could use the proceeds of this. Terry puts together a team, all of whom have an equal part in the story, but not the robbery. Some of them are not criminals. Dave (Daniel Mays) is a porn actor who made films for Lew Vogel (David Suchet), a man who keeps things in the bank. Eddie (Michael Jibson) is the lookout, Bambas (Alki David) is the tunneling expert, Kevin (Stephen Campbell Moore) is attached to the aforementioned Martine in some way, and Guy (James Faulkner) is a front man for the store who has a posh accent.

That's quite the mouthful to explain, but this film is quite complicated and I only really got into half of it. See, Tim has hedged his bets and has made sure that nobody except Martine is aware of his involvement. It is not made clear that Martine knows exactly what's in the deposit box she has been tasked to retrieve. On top of that, Tim has used an agent to infiltrate Michael X's group to see if he has copies of the pictures, or worse. Then there's Vogel, who keeps thing in the bank that he can't get out. There's also a madam, who does the same thing as leverage in case she ever gets busted. See, that's how these things really work. If you're doing shit with powerful people, it's in your best interest to do things this way. Such a film requires a gigantic cast, which presents issues that impact on how good a film can actually be.

I really did like this, and I could talk about it for a long time, but the movie is limited by the fact it is so plot driven. It is not possible for any of the actors to really tear into their scenes, and given the cast it is clear to see why that would be the case. I am quite confused that a director with very little quality in their resume would be able to juggle this plot as well as it was done. I'm not saying it was perfect, that definitely isn't the case. The film has some issues with pace and cliched characters. I mean, if you've watched this...it's easy to point out which ones feel like cliches. There is nothing to differentiate them from the general cliche.

With all that being said, it is surprising that I would like a movie with these limitations, but the plot is so good. I don't know which parts of this are true or not and don't really care, but the story made for a very entertaining movie. The specifics of how the crew broke into the vault were great to watch, and I actually felt tense over it, which is hard to get me to do. Not only that, but the aftermath engendered the same feelings. That's difficult for any movie to pull off. While to movie initially gives off the feeling that the movie revolves around Michael X, that's not what it is, but his involvement in the movie is also pretty good. Ultimately, I just liked this movie regardless of whatever flaws it had. More people should watch it.

7.5/10

Offline Kahran Ramsus

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9,349
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #307 on: October 09, 2017, 06:56:28 AM »
Saw The Bank Job in theaters back in 2008, and really enjoyed.

With Warcraft, I think the mistake was going too big in scale.  If they were going to make a film, they should have focused on a smaller story within the larger Warcraft universe.  Something like the fall of Arthas might have worked as it is pretty straightforward and features a reasonable number of characters.

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #308 on: October 09, 2017, 06:13:59 PM »


Rampart (2011), directed by Oren Moverman

Did you ever want to see Woody Harrelson play a corrupt cop? If so, this is for you. Rampart was a little bit controversial upon release, and I have some small explanations regarding that. There was an incident on Reddit where Harrelson was supposed to answer questions from members of the forum. He or whomever answered the questions did not understand the concept of the format, and everything asked to him was either not answered or answered in a way that promoted the film. Obviously, Reddit being Reddit, people were quite upset about this incident and brigaded the IMDB page or anywhere else there were ratings for this film and destroyed them. There was also the matter of some posters being circulated that showed Woody's character committing police brutality. Nobody went to go see the film either, but given the subject matter that's an inevitability. This and many other films put a company out of business because of that lack of financial viability.

The Rampart scandal was a big deal in Los Angeles, but I don't know if the rest of the country cared or was made aware of what happened. The Rampart Division covered a lot of gang infested areas in Los Angeles, and this movie is set in the late 90's when this scandal happened. It was found that the gang division was incredibly corrupt. There were many instances of this, and they were spread across the spectrum of ways in which you could imagine that cops can be corrupt. There is an article below that you can read if you'd like to know more. It is very long.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/05/21/bad-cops

Back to the movie. So, this is a fictionalized version of one cop's problems as they would relate to the Rampart Division. Dave Brown (Woody Harrelson) is a total asshole. When you think pig, this guy would be exactly the one. While training a new officer, he fucks some guy up by putting him through a window. He just doesn't give a shit about anything related to constitutional rights. Oddly, he has daughters who two women who are sisters, played by Anne Heche and Cynthia Nixon. They are similar characters to the point of not needing to differentiate them. His daughter Helen (Brie Larson) doesn't seem to have the best handle on this situation, seeing as her sister is also...her cousin. It's pretty weird. Anyway, Brown gets in a car accident and roughs a suspect up, which is a problem seeing as the LAPD is already destroyed with scandals. The assistant DA (Steve Buscemi) is out to have his badge, and with good reason obviously. Brown has a mentor of sorts in Hart (Ned Beatty), a man who seems to know exactly what Brown should do. His captain Joan (Sigourney Weaver) is basically held captive with regards to having his badge, and on top of all this he's having an affair with a lawyer named Linda (Robin Wright). I left the worst part out.

Maybe it's wrong to say I left the worst part out, because the worst part is Dave Brown. Dave Brown is an irredeemable asshole. This is a strange movie in that sense. You shouldn't really feel sorry for him at all, and Harrelson's performance is great in ensuring that's the case. We all know Woody can play an asshole, he's done that so many times before. He's perfect for this role. That's the problem with this movie, actually. While I would call this a good film, it is absolutely without joy. It is actually a little difficult to watch because of that. There's really not anything that could make me feel sorry for him, but it's not like there's anything wrong with structuring a film that way. It's just a weird thing to watch sometimes.

It's funny that I'd watch this so shortly after viewing The Bank Job, because I couldn't possibly think of two more different films. The previous film is completely driven by its plot, the characters are not entirely meaningful, except for a scene with Jason Statham and Keeley Hawes, the woman who plays his wife. In this case the film is exclusively about the characters. Some of the interpersonal relationships are more important than others. Obviously, there's Dave Brown's relationship with his two former wives. How does that work exactly? You should watch it if you want to know. His relationship with his two daughters, specifically Helen, is what takes precedence here. Helen is the older daughter, who seems to understand what it is that her father has gotten himself into.

Some of the lines in this film are cliched, with the usual cop "I'm not a racist, I hate everyone" spiel, but for whatever reason I didn't seem to mind that in this case. There are some scenes in this movie that are totally bizarre and impossible to describe. There's one when Brown is on drugs that made no sense to me whatsoever. I couldn't understand it, and it grossed me out a little, but it was also a good piece of filmmaking. I would have liked to see a few of the characters involved a little more than they were, but this is a solid film with a great performance. I am glad that this wasn't a docudrama as I could have really done without that. Instead we got to see why police officers would be driven to do the things that some corrupt officers do. At least that's what I saw. It appears that many people did not. Certainly everyone can see that this is a character case of somebody spiraling into madness, with no way out of it.

7/10

Offline The Thread Killer

  • Thread's Dead, Baby. Thread's Dead.
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 117
  • Snausages
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #309 on: October 10, 2017, 05:35:19 AM »
Wasn't the TV series "The Shield' basically based on the Rampart scandal?  That's why I never bothered with this movie.  I already watched The Shield, and it ruled. I didn't see the need to re-visit the story but with Woody replacing Michael Chiklis.

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #310 on: October 10, 2017, 05:35:56 AM »
I think so, but I have no idea as I haven't watched it. I need to get Hulu.

Also, this movie is only tangentially about the scandal, and is more focused on his relationships with other people that have been affected by his misdeeds.

Offline The Thread Killer

  • Thread's Dead, Baby. Thread's Dead.
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 117
  • Snausages
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #311 on: October 10, 2017, 05:45:11 AM »
Dude, you should definitely watch The Shield.

I really enjoy your movie reviews, by the way.  Keep up the good work.

Offline Zetterberg is Go

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4,268
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #312 on: October 10, 2017, 06:53:41 AM »
The Shield was originally going to be called Rampart I believe.

And yes, watch the Shield. Gets overlooked often in the golden era of TV rankings but still the best and most satisfying finale I've seen.

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #313 on: October 12, 2017, 04:06:41 AM »
I spoiled quite a bit, so if you care, don't read.



Independence Day: Resurgence (2016), directed by Roland Emmerich

Once you've seen one Emmerich movie, it feels like you've seen them all, and that's certainly the case at it applies to this film. Independence Day was the only film of his that I've liked, so I was hoping that a sequel would bring something interesting to the table. It turns out there's no reason to hope for anything when it comes to some filmmakers. I understand that some people were clamoring for a sequel to this movie, but I don't really know why. The material is very dated in comparison to sci-fi that has been released in the last ten years. Considering the hands this film would be in, I see no reason to be excited about it whatsoever. I also find it incredible that it took five people to write this screenplay. One of them decided to write themselves into a scene where they shoot up a bunch of aliens. Sounds great!

It's nearly impossible to describe this movie, because there are too many characters and too many twists that lead to action pieces taking ages to conclude. The world here has alien technology as a result of the victory twenty years prior to the events of this film. They have used the technology to advance society and fend off any other potential invasion. The problem is that the aliens are COMING BACK and BIGGER THAN EVER. Nothing I would have written down here could be remotely surprising. I would like to move on.

When I say that there are too many characters, I genuinely can't believe how many of them there were. Nobody really stands out bar two of them, those of Bill Pullman and Jeff Goldblum. Those weren't the only holdovers from the first film, but pretty damn close. This film is a major disaster as a result of that. There are lots of new characters introduced, but none of the actors portraying them had any charisma whatsoever. I would prefer to talk about two of them. Liam Hemsworth and Jessie Usher play hotshot fighter pilots, and they're both terrible in every single way. It takes a lot for me to outright say somebody sucks. These two sucked. Their job was to try to carry an aspect of this film the way Will Smith did, and they completely failed. It was an impossible ask of them anyway. One problem with Hollywood at the moment is that their system has been engineered to prevent younger actors from being as big a star as Will Smith. Of course, these two don't have the talent Will Smith had. I'm sure there are a lot of other aspiring actors who aren't given the avenue to enter this field unconventionally. It definitely shows. As in nearly all things, star power is abnormal and doesn't make sense, and it isn't something that can be manufactured.

There were a lot of other new characters, but very few of them are worth mentioning. Sela Ward does a good turn as a Hillary Clinton ripoff, but that's about it. The script is horrendous, and there are good actors like Brent Spiner and Judd Hirsch given lines that were almost impossible to believe. The thing about this film that bothered me the absolute most was the blatant sequel baiting. I couldn't believe it. I think the vast majority of the last 40 minutes were sequel bait. There was so much talk about a certain plot device and what would happen after this was done. I think part of the problem is that I just don't like movies with big casts, even though this was even bigger than any cast I can recall.

That's not to say everything here was bad, even though most of the things that were good didn't make sense. The alien queen turning into Godzilla is one of those things. It was a good idea executed well, regardless of the things surrounding it that weren't. It was also interesting the way the alien ship tore apart Asia and wound up in London three seconds later. Good special effects in that scene for sure, but the logic of that is inexplicable. Most of the special effects were very good, specifically those on the moon.

The thing is, the logic in every Emmerich movie is inexplicable, and the viewer is tasked with enjoying his movies regardless of that. To some extent they are enjoyable, but that's because of good casting. In this case, his project wasn't very enjoyable at all. There are a lot of things in this movie that were really stupid and I didn't have time to mention them all, so I apologize for that. The world has largely moved on from brainless popcorn fare and is looking for different things in sci-fi movies. Interstellar is a good example of that and so is Inception. Personally, I am very glad this is the case.

4.5/10

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • CWM
  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,150
  • CWM
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #314 on: October 12, 2017, 05:31:51 AM »
Brent spinner was so fucking hilarious just hamming it up in that piece of shit

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #315 on: October 12, 2017, 01:43:45 PM »


Twelve Monkeys (1995), directed by Terry Gilliam

For whatever reason, I have not watched anything Gilliam has done, bar about 20 minutes of Time Bandits. That 20 minutes was enough to know exactly what I was getting into when I turned on this movie. This was quite bizarre, and it's impossible to talk about the movie without spoiling it to some extent, so after this paragraph you shouldn't read if you don't want the whole thing blown for you. The cinematography in this movie was really disorienting at first, but I mean that in a good way. As with all other strange cinematography, it's something I inevitably get used to. A lot of people feel differently about films like that, which I understand, but that's not me. Weird is good. This won't be the only Gilliam film I watch this month either.

In 1996 there was a virus released that nearly completely wiped out the human population. A group called the Army of the Twelve Monkeys was alleged to be responsible. James Cole (Bruce Willis) is a violent prisoner who is tasked with going back in time. Why go back in time? The scientists who seem to run humanity in 2035 need him to locate the virus in order for them to send a scientist to study it. Unfortunately, Cole winds up in 1990 instead of the intended 1996, and seeing as he's unprepared to deal with the world of either of those times, he winds up in a mental institution. In that mental institution, he encounters some interesting people. The most important appears to be Jeffrey (Brad Pitt), a full blown lunatic who claims to have a father (Christopher Plummer) who can do all kinds of things to control the world. There's also a doctor named Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) who is nice to him, although disbelieving of his story. Willis and Stowe both put in good, scrambled performances.

I was suckered into thinking that the entire film was going to be set in the mental institution, but it wasn't. It wasn't anything that I could possibly have conceived. There are a few consistencies throughout the film that were surprisingly upheld. The talk that they couldn't change the past was true. They couldn't change it. The dream Cole had throughout the movie could not be changed either. The overacting presented in the film is spectacular. There's a ton of it, and that's the point of the whole thing, reality has been warped.  Is the dream altered each time he has the dream? I honestly don't know, but I think that it was. Maybe I'm wrong. There's constant references to time travel and monkeys though, that's for certain. Why? You'd have to ask the filmmaker.

This movie definitely isn't for everyone, and the overacting is probably one of the reasons why. Brad Pitt's role in doing so is something I'll probably always remember. His goofy eye in combination with his mannerisms is just a step above what Pitt usually does in roles like these. Unfortunately, this is a very hard film to describe and talk about because of how strange it was. The constant time travel was good at keeping me off balance, but I'm sure some people think it was stupid. Fuck some people, how about that? The film is not easy to understand, but people need to get over that shit.

The set design is something that I have mixed feelings about. I enjoyed the portions set in the future, but I feel like there was something more to the setting that we needed to know. The production design reminded me of Star Trek in some ways. Special effects being what they were in the 90's renders a lot of these movies borderline unwatchable. The imaginations weren't in tune with the capabilities of the time. In this case, it wasn't so bad as the sets were practical although very bulky. I am shocked that this film remained on budget and was completed in three months. That seems like it was an impossible task, so it's an achievement to have pulled it off.

With the exception of Pitt's scenes, unfortunately this is largely a joyless film. I think this is my only criticism, and obviously the ending of Twelve Monkeys is extremely dark. I was not expecting this to end with everything happening the same as it did in the first place. Unfortunately, I think this is a terrible review if I'm being honest. Sometimes when a film does a good mindfucking on me, it's impossible to unpack. This is one of those movies. After watching a shitty sci-fi movie last night, it was good that I flipped the script and watched a good one.

8/10

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #316 on: October 12, 2017, 05:37:25 PM »


Bernie (2011), directed by Richard Linklater

Unbeknownst to myself until the film's conclusion, Bernie is based on a true story. This doesn't have much of an impact on my feelings regarding the film, and it shouldn't on anyone else's. Nobody should know of the events portrayed here, so this is my favorite kind of true story. To say that this film was an accurate portrayal of Southern life would be a ridiculous understatement. The format of this movie is bizarre to great extent. I cannot recall many other stories that are told in this style. Throughout the movie, the film is interspersed with documentary style interludes wherein townspeople would tell the camera about the gossip they'd heard. Some of the townspeople were actors, others were not. This gives the picture an authentic feeling that other films wish that they had.

Bernie Tiede (Jack Black) is a mortician who has come to Carthage, Texas. By the standards of California, it is fair to say that Bernie would be considered a weird motherfucker. In the South, that makes him a nice guy. Especially in 1996. Us coastal people are the weird motherfuckers. Bernie has assimilated seamlessly into the Carthage community, because after all, he's doing funerals for everyone that people know. Along comes Marjorie Nugent (Shirley MacLaine), who Bernie meets when her husband dies. Bernie knows the town very well, so naturally he knows that Marjorie has a LOT of money. Despite how nice of a man Bernie seems to be, he foists himself on Marjorie and eventually they become friends. Or companions? Or sexual partners? There's no way to know for sure, but the portrayal in this film indicated that they were not. Bernie seems to be a closeted homosexual, which is referred to throughout the movie in strange ways. At some point in the telling of this story, inserted into the town chatter is one curious inclusion, that of District Attorney Danny Buck (Matthew McConaughey). Want to know why? NAH.

This movie is a very dark comedy, and it takes talent to make something like this as amusing as it was. I laughed a lot, because what I was seeing on my screen was too ridiculous to believe. That it actually happened is some crazy shit for me to comprehend. This movie could not possibly be more different than Dazed and Confused, which is something I like to see from a filmmaker. Telling a variation of stories is something many are incapable of doing. This could have been told another way, but it would be boring. There are no cheap laughs here, anything that people laugh at has to be earned. It is never explicitly stated that this is a comedy movie and there are no jokes told in the whole thing. The balancing act here is something.

The performances of all three listed cast members were great, but the clear standout is Jack Black. In modeling himself after Paul Bearer, he pulled something off which I didn't think he could do. I've never seen him as anything other than Jack Black, regardless of which character he played. That wasn't the case here, I saw his character. I still don't think I like him, but maybe I'm wrong about this guy. Over time I'll surely find out. I was also shocked that Shirley MacLaine was in this movie, and I didn't know what to make of it at first. Any concern was clearly unfounded.

Spoiler: show

If there are any criticisms about the movie, it is that obviously the film whitewashes what Bernie did. He shot a woman in the back four times. I felt a little bit guilty laughing at some of the stuff I laughed at once I found out that this actually happened. He shot a defenseless old woman, and I do not like the idea that this film made people think that the case needed to be revisited. The things that came up in resentencing seemed to be irrelevant to the case. If you want to read about it, go right ahead. The fact is that Bernie made a confession that he killed Marjorie and nothing should change that.


Other than the things above, I have no problems with the film. The subject material is such that it's going to be impossible for me to really love a movie like this one, because after all, it's a comedy about what I posted in the spoiler tags. I also think that the film could have used one of the other characters a bit more than it did. Instead, at the film's culmination, they were a big nothing. Don't know who should have been cast in that spot, though. Didn't happen anyway. This was a good watch, very funny, and even though I'm not giving this a mega score, I recommend it.

7.5

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #317 on: October 13, 2017, 05:40:25 PM »


2 Fast 2 Furious (2003), directed by John Singleton

2 Fast 2 Furious is unquestionably a terrible movie. So, why would I watch it again? That's a really good question that I can't answer. I figure that if I'm going to review a series that seems to mean something (sorry Harry Potter), I'm going to start from the beginning and won't skip anything. This could not possibly be more different than the movies I've watched the rest of this week. I cannot think of a worse big budget movie that I could have chosen to watch. Nothing here makes sense at all, even though there are a few good scenes. You know what's really bad? I know this movie is terrible and I still like it.

Brian (Paul Walker) has relocated to Miami, and he gets busted after a street race. He has warrants, so the FBI and US Customs are going to put him to use doing what he does best. His job is to take down Carter Verone (Cole Hauser), a drug dealer from Argentina who has no character development whatsoever. He may take the cake as most meaningless villain I have seen in a movie. Brian finds that the agent the government wants him to partner up with doesn't know anything about cars, so he needs to get his buddy from Barstow, Roman Pearce (Tyrese Gibson). Roman has problems with Brian, but that isn't too much of a problem in the end. What is a problem is that Brian wants an undercover agent named Monica (Eva Mendes), who Verone has decided to make his girlfriend. Plus, Roman decides to shoot at following aggents.

This movie could not possibly be more goofy, and the plot really sucks. There are countless problems with this movie, which couldn't scream early 00's more if it tried to. This material is super dated. Everything is out of fashion, including the cars, which are for the most part totally ridiculous. We all know that though, or we should. Everyone should have watched this by now. This is material that could not have been good regardless of who was hired to give their oversight. Singleton could not have done anything to make this better, but he did things to make it worse. The actors talking to themselves while street racing is something that should not have happened. It was totally ridiculous, but this was one of the things I liked about the movie. It's so dumb that it's hard to believe somebody filmed it.

That's not even close to the worst of the bad things. As mentioned, Carter Verone is a nothing villain. The part is not well acted and he doesn't have good material anyway. If the best a villain can bring to the table is the guy using a rat, a bucket, and a blowtorch to torture somebody...that's just weak. His henchmen aren't any good either. They're caricatures of bumbling henchmen. The worst ones are two guys that Brian and Roman win cars from. I'm glad they didn't get more speaking time.

The thing is, anything with James Remar in it winds up being so bad it's good. There are minimal exceptions to this. If a production needs a good actor to be in their shit, JAMES FUCKIN REMAR is their guy. I feel a little bad for him. I don't know who decided to make this movie without Vin Diesel, but it's insane. Tyrese did a reasonable job replacing him even though he showed no acting ability, but it was a big miss for the production. There was no saving this anyway.

I'm pretty sure everyone can figure out which scenes were good, so there's no reason to continue blathering on. The plot still doesn't make sense, so besides those scenes and Tyrese and Paul Walker acting goofy, this wasn't good. I still liked it. I used to hate this movie, too. Maybe it's good that I watched it again, but probably not. It'll probably be a while before I continue with the series. I could go get them all from the library and pound through them one after the other, but I'd probably get bored and that isn't very fun. For the next few weeks I probably won't be watching many movies this bad. I think this was the last one on my list for this month.

4/10

Offline Čœrêÿ Łåżárüß

  • Live Tax Free or Die
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13,172
  • everyone gets laid
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #318 on: October 14, 2017, 02:05:35 AM »
My pockets ain't empty, cuz!
occasionally streaming sexy things, click below for details

It gets insane, and really speaks to how dumded down we are

Online Old school tough guy

  • PosterFest Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22,112
  • Your POV
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #319 on: October 14, 2017, 02:24:08 AM »
It also doesn't hurt that it was still the New Hollywood era, which remains the best period of mainstream cinema.

I'm curious to hear you expand on this.

still waiting bro

Offline Čœrêÿ Łåżárüß

  • Live Tax Free or Die
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13,172
  • everyone gets laid
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #320 on: October 14, 2017, 02:53:53 AM »
It also doesn't hurt that it was still the New Hollywood era, which remains the best period of mainstream cinema.

I'm curious to hear you expand on this.

still waiting bro
Do I really need to, though? Box offices were down so studios took a risk and gave directors greater authority over their films, allowing them to take greater risks with material and style, resulting in a wave of classics like The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Star Wars, Alien, and Blazing Saddles (among MANY others). It's the Attitude Era of Hollywood, bro.
occasionally streaming sexy things, click below for details

It gets insane, and really speaks to how dumded down we are

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #321 on: October 15, 2017, 06:14:45 PM »


I Am Legend (2007), directed by Francis Lawrence

I have no idea why I'm telling you guys this, but 2007 was a really shitty year for me. That's around the time I stopped paying attention to movie releases, and I withdrew from the world for the most part for around two years. The whole thing is not something I look back on fondly in any way. I have long snapped the fuck out of this and do not have any of these problems anymore. So, it's fitting that I tell this story after watching a movie where society no longer exists. This is a strange film that will be difficult for me to sum up my feelings upon. Unfortunately, the special effects were dated by the time I finally decided to give this a view.

In 2009, there's supposed to be a cure for cancer. The problem is that it did not work, and there is a virus that only 1% of the human population is immune to. After three years, the story follows Robert Neville (Will Smith), a man who lives in New York City and is fixated upon finding a cure. Neville has a dog, and that dog is his only company. During the day, Neville hunts for meat, experiments on rats, and forages for supplies. A boring life to be sure. At night, he hunkers down in his house, which has been fortified to extreme extents. He also watches recorded television and DVD's in order to supplement any entertainment needs. The infected people remaining are really no longer people at all. They don't talk, but they can communicate, it appears. They are also very violent and looking for food. Neville believes that he is the only living person remaining, and his attempt to develop a cure appears to be to forcibly trap infected individuals and cure them himself. I don't know what his plan really is.

This film is entirely different than the novel which it is based upon, which has been a problem for some, but not for me. I do not care. The novel is a bit dated, and it's about vampires. The problem for some people is that the ending is not remotely faithful to the source material. I can see why that is a problem, given that the third act is mostly a pile of crap. For as good as the first and second are, and they really were, I am not sure how it could all go down this way. The ending is hackneyed trash that I cannot even remotely accept. A filmmaker's natural instinct to wrap up a film like this with a positive mention is not the best thing in the world. I would rather encounter something thought provoking. I would also like to know how a cure for cancer could turn into this in the first place.

There are plenty of positives in I Am Legend, though. The biggest one is Neville's relationship with his dog. That made for very enjoyable viewing in the first two acts. I am a dog person, and we've had a few close calls over the years. I thought that, at least in terms of what a person in this situation would do with their dog, that it was very accurate. The relationship was also necessary in order to prevent dead air. Will Smith's performance was good too. Due to the aforementioned dead air, there are a few moments early in the film that border on frightening. These things were compelling enough to carry the film to a point, and I was perfectly ready to give out a high rating until the events of the last thirty minutes.

The last thirty minutes are the spectre that hangs over this film, I cannot get over it. The things that happen are really stupid. The religious fundamentalism is really stupid and unnecessary. It just is. I was also a bit struck at how Neville's entire life didn't fall apart after his wife and child died, but the dog going made him depressed enough to start attempting to get himself killed. I just, I don't know. The effects for the infected weren't that good either, but this was also ten years ago. Now it would be far different. Still, as a movie about a man and his dog, this is alright.

6.5/10

Offline Čœrêÿ Łåżárüß

  • Live Tax Free or Die
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13,172
  • everyone gets laid
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #322 on: October 15, 2017, 11:05:10 PM »
The switch from having the creatures be maddened versions of Neville's neighbors and that bullshit ending ruin Smith's performance, which is one of his best. The other changes weren't faithful (the dog in the novella is a stray that Neville tries to bond with, and there's a great part where Neville theorizes that religious symbols only affect those of their followers to build off vampire lore), but the movie kept much of the spirit intact except for those two things.
occasionally streaming sexy things, click below for details

It gets insane, and really speaks to how dumded down we are

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #323 on: October 16, 2017, 10:56:47 AM »


Capote (2005), directed by Bennett Miller

Capote is a film that I admittedly didn't have any interest in prior to watching it, which presented a problem when it took a very long time for this movie to hook me in any way. The subject matter is admittedly not what I expected. I was expecting this to be a murder mystery of some sort. That was not the case. There are not many movies that were further way from my expectations than this one. So, it's an interesting movie to see in that respect. In another respect, it's strange to see a movie about writing a book where the main character is so thoroughly dislikable. This makes for an interesting contrast.

Truman Capote (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is an extremely famous novelist, and the year is 1959. He has heard about a crime in Kansas, where four people were murdered at their farm. Nobody knows why. Capote intends to write an article about the effects of the murder, and invites Harper Lee (Catherine Keener) along with him to help out. Through Capote's own fame and the help of Harper Lee, he's able to access facts of the case nobody else is privy to. Once the murder suspects are arrested, Capote becomes obsessed with interviewing one of them, Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.). Capote's relationship with Smith is strange, and it sets the tone for the rest of the film.

I don't think anyone cares if I spoil or not, but this film follows the events of Capote writing In Cold Blood. Capote's job is effectively to humanize the murderers in some way, or else nobody's going to buy the book. People need to know about them, after all. The thing is, in the process of humanizing them, the film paints a picture of Capote that is less flattering than that of the murderers. I haven't read the book, so I don't know if that's what actually happens in the book. I would rather watch this movie than read the whole thing about it. My unsubstantiated belief is that Capote sacrificed his morals to write a book, then he betrayed people after making promises to them.

This film isn't that good, and I hate to say that about any film where somebody puts on as good a performance as a lead character as Philip Seymour Hoffman had here. It's just not, though. Like I said, it took quite some time for the film to maintain my interest. It was probably around the time when Alvin (Chris Cooper) showed Capote the photographs related to the crime. That was some distance in, and in addition to that, I just couldn't be hooked by the subject matter. Maybe I'm just a rube, but I don't think that's it. Spotlight hooked me easily. So did The Ghost Writer. The latter was specifically about writing a book. I suppose they're entirely different, though. This wasn't a thriller in any way, Capote was just spiraling in hopes that this would end.

I can't lie, I was also hoping this would end. For at least the last thirty minutes. This is one of the first times I've outright shit on a movie that critics seemed to enjoy, but I did not. At all. Still, I can recognize the performance and rate the movie accordingly. I couldn't believe that Philip Seymour Hoffman could adapt himself like that. Knew he was a great actor, and everyone should know that, but this was a massive contrast to his other performances.

6/10

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #324 on: October 18, 2017, 10:27:15 AM »


Minority Report (2002), directed by Steven Spielberg

It has been a long time since I brought up a film being ambitious. This film was incredibly such. I watched around twenty minutes of this a few years ago, and I found it interesting, but if I remember right, I had to go to bed. The concepts here are very interesting, but I found myself more interested in the style of the movie than the concepts. Of course, with this being a Spielberg movie, there is one particular recurring theme that rears its head in a strange way. I'm talking about broken families. Of course, you should know that. Spielberg is obsessed with maintaining this thematic concept. In this case, it isn't as corny as in others, so I found it much more acceptable.

The plot here is so ridiculously ambitious it is impossible to describe properly, but I will try my best. It's the future, and in Washington DC they have a police unit that uses people who can see the future in order to arrest people for murder prior to the act is committed. The prisoners are then placed in a virtual reality where they can't hurt anyone. The federal government is considering using this program, which was conceived by Lamar Burgess (Max von Sydow). His top cop is John Anderton (Tom Cruise), a man whose son was kidnapped prior to the invent of this program. Because the federal government wants to use this program, they've brought in Danny Witwer (Colin Farrell), an agent who needs to give the whole thing a good look over. How could this go federal with such short time frames between the vision and action? Who knows. How would only three people be able to see the future of the entire nation? I haven't figured that out either. This system is also intended to be infallible.

That and one more thing are the only real flaws I had with this picture, which given such a complicated plot speaks well for it. It also didn't make sense that Anderton was able to use his eyes to access facilities when he was a fugitive. I am surprised this thing in particular was never addressed. Those are not the most minor things, which will be reflected in my overall score, but that's not so bad. These things are overwritten by the story being as interesting as it was. Due to how long this film was, I am surprised that it made any money at all. I know, it's Spielberg and all that, but again, the plot is complicated and difficult for some people to understand. Some of the special effects haven't aged that well, but others were predictive of our current time period.

There are lots of good conversations in Minority Report, the best being one between Witwer and Anderton regarding the practicality of this system. Is it right to arrest people before they do something wrong? The obvious answer is that it is not. This manifests itself throughout the film. There are plenty of good scenes here as well, which is no surprise given the format. A few others fall flat, particularly a scene where Anderton jumps from car to car. On the other hand, Anderton and Agatha dodging officers at the mall was really well executed. My favorite is the scene where Anderton has his eyes replaced, coupled with the fallout of officers deciding to search the building. The cinematography for that scene was incredible and felt like some kind of trick, but it was actually a set. Had to be expensive.

This was surprisingly good science-fiction, because throughout the whole film I was left thinking about the concepts placed on screen. Still thinking about them even though I watched this last night. I really need to watch Blade Runner, though. I have seen stills from Blade Runner that present its vision of the future as much darker than this one. The shots here were bleached to present a lightened image, which was bizarre. I believe this is the first time I have encountered playing with the image in this fashion since starting these reviews.

There were a few things I hadn't yet mentioned, so it appears that I need to continue. The opening scene establishing what the movie is actually about is one of Spielberg's best. There was the potential for overload in presenting these concepts, but the scene was balanced in a way that did not do so. It is also interesting that filmmakers are consistently correct in assuming people will accept the erosion of their rights in exchange for reductions in crime. I mean, we've done it so much in our history, but I am surprised that films predict these things before they happen to that extent. The pre-cognitives were basically enslaved. Do you think our society would accept enslaving people in order to eliminate murder? Prior to the last eight years, I think so. Not so sure anymore. Regardless, this film presents some interesting questions, but with my review coming 15 years after the fact, I'm not sure anyone cares.

8/10

Offline CENA ❤️ ORTON

  • I WILL NEVER "PIMP"
  • CXF Writer
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,822
  • Gary
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #325 on: October 18, 2017, 02:37:42 PM »
The switch from having the creatures be maddened versions of Neville's neighbors and that bullshit ending ruin Smith's performance, which is one of his best. The other changes weren't faithful (the dog in the novella is a stray that Neville tries to bond with, and there's a great part where Neville theorizes that religious symbols only affect those of their followers to build off vampire lore), but the movie kept much of the spirit intact except for those two things.

Also, no Ben Courtman.

I AM THE CHEESE! I AM THE BEST CHARACTER ON THE SHOW!! I AM BETTER THAN BOTH THE SALAMI AND THE BOLOGNA COMBINED!!

"This Whole Thing Smacks Of Gender," i holler as i overturn my uncle's barbeque grill and turn the 4th of July into the 4th of Shit

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #326 on: October 19, 2017, 10:14:56 AM »


In the Heart of the Sea (2015), directed by Ron Howard

I am not sure why anyone would make a $100 million movie about whaling, but I am appreciative that somebody did as I seem to really enjoy films that take place on the water. This was by no means a perfect movie, and it was very flawed. I still liked seeing a movie about this subject matter. I had originally intended to read a book about this incident, but me being me I'd been lazy in getting around to doing so. It's probably for the best, I'd rather see a movie about it. While I can say that now, this was clearly a misfire to some extent.

This film starts with Herman Melville (Ben Whishaw) visiting a man who is supposedly the last survivor of the Essex, a ship that was sunk by an angry whale. Thomas Nickerson (Brendan Gleeson) doesn't want to tell his story, but his wife makes it clear that they need the money, so like it or not, he's going to tell his story. Initially the film is framed as a power struggle between two men. Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth) is hired as first mate on the Essex, which is a problem as he was told he would be a captain the next time he set out on a whaling adventure. His captain is George Pollard (Benjamin Walker), a man from a moneyed family, but clearly inexperienced and unskilled. The two men have problems, but they set them aside and kill a whale. It is then established that Nickerson (Tom Holland) was sent inside the whale to fetch remaining oil. After that, the boat was forced to leave the Atlantic, heading to the Pacific. In Ecuador, they meet a captain who tells them there's a huge whaling ground, but it's extremely far from land and he lost his boat there because of an extremely aggressive giant whale. So, of course, the crew goes out there in search of riches.

I did say that I liked seeing a movie about this subject, but it called a lot of things into question. A good example is that it's hard to be sympathetic for the crew. Granted, whale oil was a necessity of life. I would not suggest otherwise. It's still difficult to have positive feelings for those that are murdering innocent creatures, not even to eat their meat. Maybe I'm just way wrong on this, but anyway, another matter is that the characters aren't entirely sympathetic to begin with. The captain was a piece of shit. His first mate was better, but it was hard to look at him entirely nicely. Many of the other crew members are pieces of garbage. The second mate is played by Cillian Murphy, who is a great actor as we know, but there is no character development given to him whatsoever. To see somebody talented reduced to that kind of background work is really strange. I was also surprised that this film was rated PG-13 given the scene with whale butchering and lowering a kid into the whale's head in order to get more oil. Wasn't expecting that.

I realize I have just taken a big dump on my initial comments about the subject matter, but I have also had nearly a whole day to reflect on this movie before writing about it. I never give myself that kind of benefit. Visually, this movie is excellent. I know much of it was visual effects, but I don't even care. It looked right. The scene with Tom Holland's character fetching whale oil, I know I've mentioned it three times, but it was a great scene. I don't know how they pulled that off or what kind of receptacle they put him in. Crazy stuff there. The scene where the whale destroys the boat is another worth mentioning. Of course, there's a lot to unpack there, as well as some major plotholes regarding that. Like for example, the boat being able to hold 2,000 barrels of oil despite not looking anywhere near big enough to do so. Or the thing about there not being more than 45 barrels in the hold to begin with. Where were all the physical barrels?

The movie is best when the men are floating on the water, and that's the only point at which there's real drama. It is established early on that the boat sunk, so there's nothing to worry about there, but once the guys are starving to death, it's a pretty big deal. Two of the scenes are haunting. I am pretty sure that was intended to be the case throughout the film, but it didn't really come into play until the seamen started talking about eating each other. Yeah, eating each other. The scenes with Gleeson are probably more interesting than they should be in terms of moving the story along, as well. The interludes also feel somewhat out of place.

So, all in all this was an attempt at making an epic, award winning movie. Problem is that the characterizations were nowhere near strong enough and I didn't know enough about the crew to care about their fate. The movie is too quick to reveal what happened. Because of that, it was hard to love this movie in any way. The special effects shots with the whale were enjoyable and this wasn't bad, but I don't want to be too effusive in praise. I really can't believe that a filmmaker like Ron Howard would make a movie with so many plot holes, either. I wrote far more about this than I wanted to, so enjoy reading if you want.

6/10

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #327 on: October 19, 2017, 06:08:06 PM »


Don Jon (2013), directed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt

This isn't the first film I've reviewed by that was directed by its starring actor, but it's the one with the most provocative subject matter. Obviously. The marketing at the time of this film's release very blatantly played up the pornography aspect. Is that what Don Jon was really about? No. Well, kind of. This was an interesting film regardless of what it was actually about. Worth watching? Read below.

Jon (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a player. He also loves to masturbate, which is a common theme interlaced throughout the film at strange times. It goes without saying, don't watch this with people who it would make you uncomfortable to see you watching this. He has some friends that seem like losers, who effectively cheer him on as he plows through the club scene. One night, Jon encounters Barbara (Scarlett Johansson), and he has to have her. She declines. He follows her, but she won't have sex with him anytime soon. So, Jon changes himself and goes looking for the long-term. He can't change everything about himself, though. That presents problems.

The film is really funny, particularly when showcasing Jon's family. You have the overbearing mother (Glenne Headly), a typical angry father who reminds me of myself when watching a football game (Tony Danza), and a sister (Brie Larson) who buries herself in her phone, never speaking during dinner. This film does not work without Tony Danza. I just can't see any other realistic casting carrying those scenes with the family. The scenes with the family were completely necessary in order to establish Jon's character. I mean, otherwise, why would we care about him or what he does? There's not a lot of humanity in this film otherwise, until a certain point.

The change in tone of the film after that point is just a little too weird for me. It's not that I had any problem with the story, but I would have liked it to continue being funny. That's a harsh criticism, but the movie was very short to begin with. I probably need to read more about this film anyway. The way I saw it is that I thought it was a satire on romantic comedies. There's so much here to indicate that. I assume that there are a lot of takes out there that do not see it that way. I also assume that a lot of people thought this movie was gross. They are well within their rights to think this was gross, because this kind of was. I was glad that I wasn't watching this with other people. All of those scenes drag down my rating.

Pornography is gross, so it's natural that people are entirely avoidant of a mainstream film addressing the subject (but not avoidant of watching it), but our society does have a problem with porn addiction and objectifying women. When I am saying our society has a problem with porn addiction I am not exempting myself from that. I had to log into my router and block a ton of porn sites so that I no longer went to them. Obviously this is unhealthy behavior, but society is different than it used to be and everything digital is at your fingertips. Besides Tony Danza, the film's take on religion is probably the most amusing part. If you really believe, I don't know why people think that prayer absolves them of their wrongdoing. That is a con that people like to put on you in order to get you to keep going to their church.

This isn't the best movie ever or anything like that, but it's thought provoking enough to be worthwhile. Plus, it has Julianne Moore in it. I'd watch anything she's in, corny as it may be. The movie also benefits from this man playing the priest. I'll leave it to you to guess which one of these great men took on that part.



7/10

Offline Čœrêÿ Łåżárüß

  • Live Tax Free or Die
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13,172
  • everyone gets laid
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #328 on: October 19, 2017, 11:45:38 PM »
Find a movie
The switch from having the creatures be maddened versions of Neville's neighbors and that bullshit ending ruin Smith's performance, which is one of his best. The other changes weren't faithful (the dog in the novella is a stray that Neville tries to bond with, and there's a great part where Neville theorizes that religious symbols only affect those of their followers to build off vampire lore), but the movie kept much of the spirit intact except for those two things.

Also, no Ben Courtman.
I don't think there's any way they could've done Cortman justice with the way they did the vampires. Maybe that could've been the tip off of their intelligence, Neville hearing his old friend calling to him.
occasionally streaming sexy things, click below for details

It gets insane, and really speaks to how dumded down we are

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #329 on: October 22, 2017, 08:39:49 AM »


Wonder Woman (2017), directed by Patty Jenkins

I had a lot of fun trolling CWM about this movie when it was released, but I never had the time to see it, nor do I go to the theater anyway. Admittedly I am more partial to what DC is trying to do than what Marvel has done. I believe that Marvel's films fit into a neat little formula, and I often can't stand it. I would rather see the other side take risks, even if some of them turn out to be trash, like BvS. Wonder Woman on the other hand shows the positivity of risk taking. Nothing about this film was an obvious decision. The film is quite long. None of the Marvel origin stories are near this length. Granted, I haven't caught up completely on Marvel, but this seems to be at the top end of superhero movies.

It is made clear that Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) is contemplating her past after receiving a photograph from Bruce Wayne. So, we get to plunge into her thoughts. Everyone knows the Wonder Woman origin, Themyscira, and all that stuff. Right? Well, anyway, if you watch this you'll know it within 10-15 minutes. Both Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen are great in their roles, but they aren't around for long. Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) crashes into the sea, and a German cruiser follows him, finding Themyscira. Why had no other men found Themyscria before? That's one of the only plot holes in this movie I don't understand. Why Germans? Well, it's World War I. Anyway, after a big battle, Trevor is interrogated by the Amazons. He tells them about the war, and tells them that he's an Allied spy. We're shown what he did and how he got there, and Diana believes that this is the work of Ares. Who's Ares? Watch the movie like I just told you. Diana decides that she needs to leave the island in order to find Ares and kill him, and decides that a man named Ludendorff (Danny Huston) is most likely to be him.

There are many reasons why this movie was so popular, and I will try to cover all of them as I go along. How about this movie actually being funny? A lot of superhero films try their best to do this and fail. Not the case here by any stretch. It's not like there were any jokes told the way as in Marvel movies, it was the scenarios the characters were put in that were amusing. Or the characters themselves. This was in major contrast to the way other characters tell jokes while hitting people. I cannot state enough how glad I was to not see that. On top of that, it was much more clear in this film that the people who were being saved mattered. In Avengers 2, the only shot I remember of a civilian was when they kept showing some chick's big tits. That's probably the only one anyone remembers. Here, the shots of civilians are much more memorable. Their town had been taken over and people's legs were getting blown off. There's just a big difference in the tone of this movie compared to some of the others in the genre. The direction here was outstanding.

Setting this film during World War I was not an obvious decision, but it's one that worked out for the best. The setting allowed Wonder Woman to be easily humanized as well as illustrate the differences between where she came from and the outside world. Plus, the diverse group of people who went with her to Belgium was pretty cool. I thought Sameer (Saïd Taghmaoui) was the best minor character here, and to continue the theme, very funny. I am glad that the Steve Trevor story will not permeate through the rest of these films. That was something I could do without overall, but the portrayals here were really good. People could not have been more wrong about Gal Gadot's casting. I was one of those people. If anyone still has their doubts, they're pretty stupid. Similarly good casting in hindsight is Chris Pine as Steve Trevor. Even though this film was funny, it was also pretty serious and quite dark. It takes a delicate balancing act to pull that off, but it was done well here. Again, that goes back to direction.

There's also no shortage of great scenes. Probably too many to count. The film is very tricky in making the viewer believe it will go down the route of bows and arrows. Even though there's all that cool shit at the start, there's none of that in the rest of the film. I mean, there's plenty of cool shit. Just not that. The scene with Wonder Woman rushing across No Man's Land obviously received the plaudits, and full credit because it was a great concept and shot very well. The scene shopping for clothes wasn't too far off from that, nor was the scene where Diana meets Steve Trevor's colleagues. Lastly and most importantly is the scene where Wonder Woman finally encounters Ares. For some reason, I didn't see that coming. The battle was a standard comic book battle with better effects. There were aspects of this that were very comic booky.

I still think there was a plot hole in terms of explaining how Trevor and the Germans could get to Themyscira, hopefully it will be addressed in the sequel. It is one of my only problems with the film. I am also tired of origin stories, but in this case it was probably necessary. It dragged a little bit for me just because I'm tired of them, but there was nothing wrong with it. I should also mention that Danny Huston strongly reminded me of Rep. Peter King. The resemblance was uncanny, as well as unintentional, but once I saw it I couldn't unsee it. Am I trying to say that Peter King is an authoritarian evil fuck? Yes, I am. I almost forgot to mention Doctor Poison (Elena Anaya). That's another role where it is very difficult to find any balance. Still happened. So, obviously the key to making a good superhero movie is to balance things out and do fresh things. Who knew?

8.5/10

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • CWM
  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,150
  • CWM
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #330 on: October 22, 2017, 05:47:32 PM »
One of the worst was you shitting on my bias against DC and saying you gave it 8.5 and I'm like "that's the exact rating I gave it". SMH

Really fun movie but I like Spiderman Homecoming just a tiny bit more and Logan more than both. I didn't find the villian compelling in WW. He's a great actor but I didn't think he was a threat or feel any menace. I bought Michael Keaton as a real villain in Spidey even though I don't really think of him as one usually.

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #331 on: October 23, 2017, 04:25:23 AM »
YOU'RE VERY BIASED SIR

The villain in Wonder Woman was more comic book like than usual for these movies.

Offline Hawk 34

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2,655
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #332 on: October 23, 2017, 04:27:42 AM »
I don’t even remember the villain in this movie and I was quite as enthused about this movie as you were.

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #333 on: October 23, 2017, 04:46:56 AM »
This is my shortest review for a long time, but I saw no reason to go through this in detail.



Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates (2016), directed by Jake Szymanski

I was putting off watching this until I was in a really bad mood and in need of some laughs. This movie was pretty bad, but I got what I needed out of it. I made some jokes in the chat room about jerking off to this, but obviously I didn't. Of course by saying that, everyone thinks I did, so I'll have to hear about this for a while. This was very difficult material to make into a good movie. After all, we've seen similar stuff before. It's bad almost every single time. edit: the New York Times did a hellacious takedown of this film. It is not inaccurate.

Mike (Adam DeVine) and Dave (Zac Efron) are brothers. Their sister Jeanie (Sugar Lyn Beard) is getting married, and their parents have told the brothers that they need to get their shit together. No ruining the family event this time. Mike and Dave then encounter Tatiana (Aubrey Plaza) and Alice (Anna Kendrick), two people who this material is ridiculously beneath. In any case, Tatiana runs in front of a car, and over the course of the next few minutes, Mike and Dave invite Tatiana and Alice to the wedding as their respective dates. As the viewer is made aware of, Tatiana and Alice are only in this for the free trip to Hawaii. They are just like Mike and Dave in most ways.

Did I say that this movie sucks yet? Well, it really does. There are some very funny scenes, I must admit. Kumail Nanjiani has a good cameo. He might be the cameo master when it comes to shit movies like this and Central Intelligence. Obviously his appearance here was more outlandish, but that fits because this movie was ridiculously stupid. I probably shouldn't even call it good. Embarrassing and funny are better words. I hope he got paid. I didn't think it was all bad as I already said, but the dialogue was atrocious for the most part. It also doesn't help that the ATV scene is a direct ripoff of the volleyball scene in Meet the Parents. It was too long and far too predictable. That wasn't the only similarity between the two movies, but all of them make Meet the Parents look like a far superior movie.

I do need to post more positives in order to justify my subsequent rating, and the most obvious one is Aubrey Plaza. This material was total shit and she was good at turning that shit into something decent based on her delivery. All of the characters are unlikable to various degrees, but I wound up liking her character anyway. Go figure. Cousin Terry (Alice Wetterlund) wasn't bad either, but I've seen better similar characters in the past. Regardless, unless you want to see Aubrey Plaza and Anna Kendrick in bikinis, don't watch this.

4.5/10

Offline Hawk 34

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2,655
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #334 on: October 23, 2017, 04:58:15 AM »
If you love Plaza and why wouldn’t you,  go watch Ingrid Goes West. It’s way better suited to her talent and knowing you, you will connect with that movie and for my money, one of the best pieces of work to put a light on social media obsession and mental illness you will find and also O’Shea Jackson who I know you enjoyed previously was good in this too along with the GOAT Olsen sister.

Online Old school tough guy

  • PosterFest Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22,112
  • Your POV
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #335 on: October 23, 2017, 05:59:55 AM »
I made some jokes in the chat room about jerking off to this, but obviously I didn't.

unless you want to see Aubrey Plaza and Anna Kendrick in bikinis, don't watch this.

since you watched it

everyone thinks I did

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #336 on: October 23, 2017, 06:13:28 AM »
I made some jokes in the chat room about jerking off to this, but obviously I didn't.

unless you want to see Aubrey Plaza and Anna Kendrick in bikinis, don't watch this.

since you watched it

everyone thinks I did

Spoiler: show


Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • CWM
  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,150
  • CWM
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #337 on: October 23, 2017, 06:49:18 AM »
That movie was a guilty pleasure for me. Really dumb but I found it amusing. BZ should be happy I liked something with one of his bros from that show he loves in it.

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #338 on: October 23, 2017, 06:52:43 AM »
That guy was the worst part of it tbh. If Kumail hadn't been humping the bride to be there would have been so few redeeming parts in it.

If you love Plaza and why wouldn’t you,  go watch Ingrid Goes West. It’s way better suited to her talent and knowing you, you will connect with that movie and for my money, one of the best pieces of work to put a light on social media obsession and mental illness you will find and also O’Shea Jackson who I know you enjoyed previously was good in this too along with the GOAT Olsen sister.

Not streaming yet, but yeah, I'm gonna watch it.

Offline Kotzenjunge

  • looptid
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6,910
  • Kotzenjunge
    • View Profile
    • A site I wrote.
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #339 on: October 23, 2017, 10:02:35 AM »
That movie was a guilty pleasure for me. Really dumb but I found it amusing. BZ should be happy I liked something with one of his bros from that show he loves in it.
That was entirely why a friend of mine and I went to see it in the theater when it came out.

Same as you, we went in the same way, expecting some laughs and that's what we got. I was even able to mildly temper my fiery hatred for contemporary, only semi-written comedies!

Offline HSJ

  • misogynist at heart
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5,726
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #340 on: October 23, 2017, 12:00:37 PM »
Anna Kendrick is a bikini is an automatic 10/10.


DTF

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #341 on: October 23, 2017, 01:04:34 PM »
Hard Candy (2005), directed by David Slade

There is no reason I watched this other than that it was expiring. I regretted doing so at first. This movie is as skeevy as it gets. I did not search for images because of that problem. Not worth trying to find any. In the first twenty minutes the seediness of this film could not possibly be more clear. I was made to feel very uncomfortable. This was clearly a very difficult script to adapt. I mean, after all, there are only two characters in the movie. They talk a lot. The subject matter is intense. There is very little action. The subject matter also sounds as if it could have been even more intense given the initial development concept. The idea came about as the result of a 20/20 story about Japanese girls who would lure men into a location and assault them. This has probably been done by now, I'm simply unaware of it.

Hayley (Ellen Page) is a 14 year old that has spotted a pervert, a photographer named Jeff (Patrick Wilson). She sets up a meeting with this guy, who is fully aware of how old she is, yet he wants to get to know her. They meet at a coffee house and he buys her things, then Jeff takes her back to his pad and mixes her some alcohol. Hayley tells him they teach in school that nobody should drink something that they didn't make themselves. So, with Jeff not being a kid and all, he doesn't listen and drinks the one that Hayley mixed for her. It was drugged. Why would she drug his drink? Because she knows what he is, man. After Hayley ties up Jeff, this film goes down a ridiculous road. Both dark and goofy I suppose. Some of the things here don't make any realistic sense. Others do and make for good viewing.

Most of the scenes that make for good viewing are in relation to psychological manipulation. After all, Hayley wants to prove that Jeff is a pervert. What she's told him over the internet and during their meeting isn't enough for her. I'm caught between a point of spoiling and not spoiling what happens, so I'll go into spoiling. Ellen Page is pretty good at making her character work. When she goes to cut Jeff's nuts off, I believed it completely regardless of the surprise at the end of it. When a character says something in this movie, you need to pay attention to whatever it is. It winds up mattering. That's something much appreciated. Everything is revealed as the film continues. We learn that she suspects Jeff of killing somebody. We are led to believe that he has a stash of child pornography because he lives alone and doesn't have any porn in his house. To be fair, in 2017, nobody has porn in their house. Or they shouldn't have. This wasn't 2017, though.

Of course, I did say there were uncomfortable scenes, and the worst one is when Hayley strips in front of Jeff while he was being drugged. I pride myself on not skipping any scenes but I couldn't watch that. I thought it was gross. There is also an unnecessary scene where Hayley is nearly busted torturing Jeff. It's unnecessary because it didn't amount to anything and felt like a complete cliche. On top of that, Hayley had a big mark on her forehead that was not even addressed. That was strange. The castration is also extremely tough viewing. The whole movie is, really.

I believe this film was made during the To Catch a Predator craze, so it was especially pertinent to the times people were living in. It's an interesting twist on the subject to have the predator become the captive, and it was one that I wasn't expecting. I try very hard to not look into anything I watch beforehand, so I only knew this film was related to pedophilia in some way. That sentence isn't phrased very well, so I apologize. Lastly, the film was wrapped up in a nice and compelling way. There's a nice reveal put in there too. Good performances make up for a plot that goes a little bit off the rails, to put it mildly.

7/10

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #342 on: October 23, 2017, 06:19:41 PM »


Notorious (2009), directed by George Tillman Jr.

When I was in fourth grade, I had a friend that was a Biggie Smalls fanatic. My friend had this idea that we should perform at the talent show. One of us was going to be Puff and one was going to be Biggie. I don't remember who was supposed to be which, and it wasn't a good idea anyway, but this is what I think of whenever one of Biggie's songs comes on the radio. I looked up my friend and I couldn't find him, otherwise I would be writing him about this right now rather than posting this review. Notorious is a film that I should have watched prior to viewing Straight Outta Compton. The latter makes the former feel completely underdone. Biggie was just as brash as anyone. Hasn't everyone seen the video for Hypnotize? This movie was nothing like that in any way.

Chris Wallace (Jamal Woolard) was a young man who was raised by a single parent, Voletta (Angela Bassett). His mother was very busy, and Chris spent his days selling crack. The older he got, the more he sold, the more his mom started to notice that something might be off. Eventually, Chris got busted dealing crack in North Carolina. While in jail, his girlfriend gave birth, so Chris had a family to support both when he went in and when he came out. Once he got out, he recorded a demo, which eventually led to him being noticed by Puff (Derek Luke). This portrayal is pretty much dead ass accurate. Anyway, Puff wanted Biggie off the streets, that didn't happen. What got him off the street was that he got arrested on a gun charge, along with his friend D-Roc (Dennis L.A. White). D-Roc said that the gun was his, knowing that Biggie could make it big. So he did and all that stuff, which we all know.

There are some other good portrayals here, which is necessary. These kinds of films are reliant on supporting roles because they're effectively trading on their appearances in order to make the film believable. One bad turn and the whole thing falls apart. Anthony Mackie made a great Tupac. He was also in The Hurt Locker that year, and I cannot think of many more dissimilar films than these two. Faith Evans (Antonique Smith) was another great performance. On the negative side, Lil' Kim (Naturi Naughton) complained that this portrayal was completely inaccurate, in terms of the way she met Biggie and everything else. She's not the only one who says so, so that goes down as a negative point. Non-fiction should not present fiction.

The film is flawed beyond my initial complaints about it not being flashy enough, but I need to come back to that. His lifestyle was not really portrayed here. His relationships with the four women in his life were, but that's only one piece of the puzzle. I understand why this is, because the budget for this wasn't exactly gigantic, but I would have liked to see more. This film is also generic in its presentation of rags to riches. It just...is. The dialogue is not great. The film also goes too far down the road of West Coast/East Coast rivalry. This is another thing that I understand why it was done, but it's a little annoying to me. Similarly annoying is that Puff is pretty much presented as somebody who should be canonized. That's one of the reasons I said the portrayal was pretty accurate, it's exactly what the guy seems like, but we all know he's really a piece of shit. He did bad things that have been proven in court.

On the subject of somebody being a piece of shit, I don't like to take shits on dead people, but Biggie Smalls was a piece of shit too. The film is kind enough to present just enough to make that clear, and if you're stupid enough to think a few phone calls he made before dying made up for his behavior and actions, then you're a total idiot. I don't know why those phone calls were inserted into this film, but I have my suspicions. I know this doesn't cover all of somebody's wrongdoing, but it's just enough to a greater extent than Straight Outta Compton did. While Straight Outta Compton is the superior film, the major complaint everyone has is the exclusion of the way Dr. Dre would treat women. At least it's not entirely excluded here, and I appreciate that.

The thing I often can't stand about biographical pictures is that they are made with the intent of canonizing people who do not deserve it. There are very few exceptions to this, and with many of those exceptions the wrong message is gleaned from them, so it doesn't matter what the filmmaker intended to do in the first place. The consumer is not often able to accept that the person whose music they liked did bad things. After all, what the person did in this case, even though that wasn't the intention put on the screen here, was to make music that made people happy. That's what most people are doing with their entertainment products whether intending to or not. At least in this case, they did not completely canonize a bad person. I enjoy his music, but I am clearly hung up on this and cannot stop talking about it, so I will cut myself short. Jamal Woolard's ability to resemble that person is remarkable. Unfortunately, as with so many other actors of color, he served his purpose to Hollywood and I have not seen him in anything else. This was a good movie though.

7/10

Online Old school tough guy

  • PosterFest Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22,112
  • Your POV
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #343 on: October 23, 2017, 11:37:39 PM »
Why do you think Biggie was a bad person? People always look up to him.

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #344 on: October 24, 2017, 04:16:34 AM »
Why do you think Biggie was a bad person? People always look up to him.

Selling crack to pregnant women, threatening to kill people, beating up people constantly,  the movie portrays him pushing his wife and throwing shit at her, and lastly shows him ignoring his kid. Considering his mom was one of the movie producers the negative stuff in it has to be true.

I like his music but people should pick better role models. It's like Tupac being a rapist. I don't know why people ignore that stuff. Their music is great, but to make that dude your hero, nah.

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #345 on: October 24, 2017, 12:17:55 PM »


Appaloosa (2008), directed by Ed Harris

Even though I love Westerns, after watching The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, it was time to take a bit of a break from them. Its been about a month, so it was time to go back to one that was expiring on HBO. Not to use a cliche, but this is not like most Westerns. There are many reasons for that which I'll discuss as I go along, but it was weird to see this bust some of the genre rules. This was quite interesting, as well as being slower than most Westerns. It was also not what I expected. Early in the movie, I thought some of the music in it was goofy and unfitting of this film. I was wrong to judge so quickly.

The film begins with Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons) shooting a town marshal after the marshal comes to his ranch to arrest two of his men. The town of Appaloosa obviously needs help in the absence of their lawman. So, the town hires Virgil (Ed Harris) and Everett (Viggo Mortensen), two friends who serve as sheriff and deputy from town to town as their services are required.  There's some guys pissing in a saloon, peckers out and all. They refuse to listen. So, Virgil and Everett shoot them dead. Turns out they were Bragg's men. Bragg claims that he knows Chester Arthur, so there's nothing Virgil and Everett can do to him. Obviously, Virgil and Everett don't believe him. In the meantime, there's a widow named Allie (Renee Zellwegger) who arrives in Appaloosa. She seems to be interested in both Virgil and Everett. Naturally this presents a problem. Inevitably, the superior wins, and Virgil falls in love with her. Allie seems to be infatuated with Everett, though. The story goes on from there.

I said that this was interesting, and I meant that, because Allie is one of the strangest characters I can remember in these kinds of movies. She is promiscuous to put it nicely. In addition to that, the lawmen show far more emotion than usual in these movies. I mean, usually these guys are hard. They don't take any shit. Instead, in the case of Virgil, he isn't all that intelligent. He doesn't know big words and needs Everett's help constantly. Virgil has also never fallen for a real woman before, in his words. He says for him it's just whores and squaws. Whatever that means. 

Due to the juxtapositions of these characters, to large extent I found myself feeling sorry for Everett, who deserved better than the hand he was dealt. He isn't a paragon of virtue or anything like that, but he isn't a cuckold for starters. He knows how to read. He is constantly cleaning up Virgil's messes. That presents itself in interesting ways as the film continues. Obviously, everyone likes Viggo Mortensen, so I don't think that's a big problem for the viewer. It certainly isn't one for me. He isn't given many lines, but he's a good actor, and his actions speak for themselves.

This isn't really a Western in the traditional sense, even though there's a shootout, a hostage taking, and all that usual Western shit. There's a scene with a train on a bridge that is very good and Western-like, I enjoyed it. It is somewhat of an exception to the way the rest of this film pans out. This is worth watching if you care about the genre simply because of how different it is. We already know that Jeremy Irons makes a good villain, but I was surprised he was able to pull off the accent. There were a few other side characters that I didn't mention as to do so would have ruined the story. There were also a few things that felt like someone directing themselves to do cool shit, but that was redeemed towards the end.

7.5/10

Online 209

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,140
  • 909
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #346 on: October 25, 2017, 04:47:44 AM »


Good Morning, Vietnam (1987), directed by Barry Levinson

I have an admission that I did not realize until I listed this film. I wanted to put this off for as long as possible before mentioning it, but I'm afraid this is not going to be possible. I have NEVER watched a movie about the Vietnam War. Doesn't matter which way it relates to the war. Obviously, this movie is different and doesn't address the fighting, but rather the impact that somebody can have on the morale of troops. We know that's the case as it pertains to Vietnam, but this film addresses it in a more abstract way than we are aware of. Unrelated to that, I didn't know how I would react to watching a movie starring Robin Williams. I considered putting this off until a later date, but I didn't have anything to do tonight and figured I might as well complete the monthly list. I don't deal with death very well, and what happened to him was really sad.

Prior to more major escalation of US involvement in Vietnam, Adrian Cronauer (Robin Williams) has been sent from Crete to Saigon to work as a DJ for Armed Forces Radio. Cronauer has a very different style from his colleagues in Saigon. Bombastic is a pretty good way of putting it. He has the support of General Taylor (Noble Willingham), as well as the other DJ's, namely an aspirant, Private Garlick (Forest Whitaker). On the other hand, some officers and enlisted men above him do not care for him. Lieutenant Hauk (Bruno Kirby) thinks that he's really funny, and that Cronauer is offensively stupid. Sgt. Major Dickerson (JT Walsh) is a hard ass, so I don't know why he's in radio to begin with. Anyway, Hauk and Dickerson are completely against Cronauer. After a broadcast, Cronauer meets a Vietnamese girl, and tracks her down at an English class another soldier is teaching. Cronauer manuevers his way into teaching that class, but once it's over, he's prevented from talking to the girl by her brother, Tuan (Tung Thanh Tran). Cronauer befriends Tuan and takes him to a GI bar, but two of the other soldiers don't like Tuan being there and decide to throw down with Cronauer, setting the stage for future problems.

The funny thing about this movie is that we don't know anything about Cronauer prior to his arrival in Vietnam, but it's not like that matters anyway. This is obviously in massive contrast to the movies that are produced now. I was not expecting this film to turn out as serious as it did. Obviously I'm referring to Cronauer's friend turning out to be a terrorist. I should have seen that coming, but for whatever reason I was completely blinded to it. In hindsight it was ridiculously obvious. The director didn't even attempt to hide it.

This film was also supposed to be based on a true story. Cronauer is a real person, but he's also a piece of garbage and has been disbarred for home loan scams. He says that the film is only 45% accurate, but I can't imagine which parts of it would be. Obviously Robin Williams' rantings on the radio were inaccurate and improvised. That's good though. I imagine that if this film was accurate it would have been pretty boring. After all, there are lots of things in this that were pulled out of time. Specifically the music, the vast majority of which was released after 1965. Military decorum is another thing that people get angry about. Wearing hats inside is a definite no-no. I know this from ROTC class.

I don't like phrasing things as I'm about to phrase them, but what really matters in this film is Robin Williams performance. People didn't think he was a serious actor because after all, he was a standup comic. I've never listened to his comedy, so maybe I need to do so. Anyway, this film launched his career and led to the movie roles that we all know Robin Williams for. Not all of his movies were perfect, but everyone is better for having watched him tell jokes on camera. It is very funny to me to see the way Forest Whitaker's career progressed, though. To go from this film to Bloodsport is something. So much something that I don't even know how to describe what I think about it.

8/10

Offline AA484

  • CXF Writer
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,707
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #347 on: October 25, 2017, 04:51:03 AM »
You should watch Apocalypse Now, I'd like to hear your thoughts.  A tour de force if there ever was one.  Highly recommend watching the original version first, instead of the Director's Cut, which can be tedious at times despite filling some (minor) plot holes.

Online

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27,577
  • KOAB
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #348 on: October 26, 2017, 08:33:10 AM »
Watch Platoon, please.

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • CWM
  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,150
  • CWM
    • View Profile
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #349 on: October 26, 2017, 08:36:14 AM »
Full metal Jacket dawg. The movie that gave us R Lee Emery AND the birth of fat Vincent D'Onfrio.