Author Topic: In Which I Review Movies 2015 - 2018  (Read 49442 times)

Description: The Dark Tower

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cool, Bad, & Handsome

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,678
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #50 on: April 11, 2017, 09:37:46 AM »
Better than any stupid capeshit anyone here tells you to watch.

Offline Harley Quinn

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,464
    • Culture Crossfire
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #51 on: April 12, 2017, 01:49:29 AM »
Gonna throw out this one as a rec down the road for 909, from 1996, that has a pretty great cast and is available on Amazon Prime. Actually won an Oscar for Best Sound Effects Editing

The Ghost and the Darkness about a bridge engineer and hunter who pursue 2 lions killing off local construction workers in 1896 Africa.

Stars Michael Douglas, Val Kilmer, Tom Wilkinson, John Kani, and Bernard Hill.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #52 on: April 12, 2017, 10:31:40 AM »
Gonna throw out this one as a rec down the road for 909, from 1996, that has a pretty great cast and is available on Amazon Prime. Actually won an Oscar for Best Sound Effects Editing

The Ghost and the Darkness about a bridge engineer and hunter who pursue 2 lions killing off local construction workers in 1896 Africa.

Stars Michael Douglas, Val Kilmer, Tom Wilkinson, John Kani, and Bernard Hill.

I listed that, Rocky, Bone Tomahawk, Ex Machina, and Nightcrawler.


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #53 on: April 12, 2017, 10:34:33 AM »


Dr. Strangelove

With our current political situation being what it is, it may not have been the best time to watch this film. While AFI ranked it 3rd on their list of funniest movies, it wasn't particularly funny to me at all. I didn't dislike it, but it's hard for jokes like the ones in this movie to be funny at this time. The character of Dr. Strangelove I found grating. Unfortunately, the character seemed very dated.

That being said, many of the main characters were quite intriguing. George C. Scott's role as General Turgidson was the best of them. I found everything he said to be very interesting and in a movie where I had to pause it a few times to deal with a few things, I was sure to finish his monologues before doing so. Peter Sellers as Captain Mandrake was one of them. I didn't realize that he also played the President, and finding out that he did so was quite a surprise. His attempts to persuade the also amusing Jack D. Ripper were enjoyable. Ripper was one of the things that bothered me the most about the movie, in fact. I tried to put my political views to the side, but you could substitute a few words in place of just two or three things he said and find those views well represented in our current government. Lastly, Slim Pickens playing the chucklefuck peckerwood flying the B-52 was both enjoyable and disturbing given how many people would sign right up to do such a duty.

That's the overall point of the movie of course, and it certainly wasn't lost on me. Perhaps I'd have liked the film more had these satirical aspects exposed any truths to me rather than reinforce things that I already believe. It was a very good movie, of course. At 94 minutes, it was sure to be finished before any of the gags had gone too far south. Some movies should take the message. I thought the cinematography was great and I believe I've read before that the movie helped popularize some of the more familiar camera shots and set pieces that were in it.

8/10


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #54 on: April 12, 2017, 05:46:18 PM »


Rocky

That it took so long for me to finally watch Rocky is quite frankly embarrassing, but now that I've done it all I can think about is one aspect of the movie. It's Rocky's fight to feel better about himself. That he fought the world champion is obviously a major part of the story, but I don't think that's what the movie was about at all.

The part when he picks a kid off the corner and walks them to their house, only to get called a creep stuck with me throughout the movie. It wasn't so much that he was called a creep as his reaction to it. The movie is very emotionally involving if you don't know what's going to happen, and even though this sounds like complete head in the sand stuff, I truly didn't. What's great about it is that nothing really comes out of nowhere, and there isn't a stupid introduction into the movie that shakes up things. No bad plot devices here. There's no Rocky winning the fight on five weeks notice, because that just wouldn't happen and was especially unfathomable so long ago. If this movie was made now, there's no doubt Adrian would break up with him and we'd be left to wonder if they'd inevitably get back together, but not in this one. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened in one of the sequels, but it's irrelevant as I don't really want to know. It doesn't even matter, really. People have distilled the American Dream into owning material possessions, but what it's really about to me is empowerment to feel better about yourself. This country is supposed to give people opportunity, and maybe it doesn't now, but that's what it's supposed to be about.

Every supporting cast character played their part excellently. Burt Young was particularly great as Paulie, but if there's any flaw in the story it lies with his relationship with Rocky. I don't know anyone who would act as Rocky's character did, then allow Paulie to treat their girlfriend like that and still remain Paulie's friend. Sure, a lot of scumbags would let their girlfriend be treated like that by their brother, but Rocky Balboa wasn't portrayed as that kind of person. It is a big flaw in the story, but it's not the worst thing I've ever seen. Other than that, it really is a flawless story. I probably won't watch the sequels immediately, I'll spread them out over time to avoid getting burned out on the characters.

9/10


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline The Art of Rasslin'

  • PosterFest 2014 Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,361
  • wipeoff
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #55 on: April 12, 2017, 11:15:00 PM »
Rocky lets Paulie do that because he's got low self esteem. He's a tough guy but a bit dumb and insecure. Good review though, I agree the movie is more about Rocky trying to be the best he can be so he can be satisfied with himself. He was an underachiever who took the wrong path and this is his shot at redemption.

Kind of but not really a spoiler, but the tone of this movie is far different from the rest. Don't go into the others expecting the same depth, you have to accept them for what they are. They still have their moments but they were churned out to make money after the first one unexpectedly became the biggest worldwide hit of the year.


I can't believe a guy can be that big, and jump around like he does what a great athlete!

Offline Kotzenjunge

  • looptid
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7,743
  • Kotzenjunge
    • A site I wrote.
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #56 on: April 13, 2017, 09:30:16 AM »
What's your animated, domestic or foreign, film knowledge like?

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #57 on: April 13, 2017, 09:33:44 AM »
What's your animated, domestic or foreign, film knowledge like?

I don't really watch animated movies. Rest of my film knowledge could be classified as shit.

I don't know if you have time or care to go down this list, but these are all the movies I've seen. Went back a while to try and remember all the movies I saw when I was a kid. The ratings there don't really mean anything.

http://www.imdb.com/user/ur18263803/ratings?start=1&view=detail&sort=title:asc&defaults=1&my_ratings=restrict&scb=0.7082016999785161


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Kotzenjunge

  • looptid
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7,743
  • Kotzenjunge
    • A site I wrote.
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #58 on: April 13, 2017, 01:32:52 PM »
Okay then, go check out Akira then. 1988 Anime film which is so well done it's frightening. Visually alone it's mindblowing, but the story is good too *if you're able to keep track of it.* It's also a long animated movie at two hours, but the story of the comic upon which it's based is something crazy like 2-3 times longer. Make sure you can watch the Japanese version with subtitles. It will help immensely in understanding what's going on as a whole. It's at 8.1 on IMDB and had a very large hand in popularizing Anime that went way beyond Voltron and Speed Racer and campy stuff that Americans were used to seeing from Japan.

Offline Cool, Bad, & Handsome

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,678
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #59 on: April 13, 2017, 02:05:33 PM »
he's not gonna watch any annie may

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • Poster of the Year
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17,659
  • CWM
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #60 on: April 13, 2017, 04:02:02 PM »
I've been trying for like a decade to get him to watch something anything. Doesn't matter how beloved/acclaimed it is he don't bite. :(

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #61 on: April 13, 2017, 05:03:14 PM »
It's just not my thing. The likelihood is that I would dump all over it or not finish watching.


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #62 on: April 13, 2017, 05:39:32 PM »


Nightcrawler

This is a perfect image to use, as for the most part that's the feeling I had while watching this. While Nightcrawler is to some extent a one man show on the part of Jake Gyllenhaal, calling it that would be a disservice to the other actors in the movie. Rene Russo in particular plays a major part as a news director, one which wants to present the news in a way that people are used to. Graphic images, a large focus on crimes against middle and upper class families, usually committed by minorities or people who look like they belong to the fringe class. These are all things people in Los Angeles are familiar with. As somebody who spent nearly all of my formative and adult years in Los Angeles, such presentations are as common as eating a bowl of cereal.

Nearly all of the characters in this movie are part of this game, but none understand it as much as those played by Gyllenhaal and Russo. Of course, with Gyllenhall being the producer of the footage, he holds some leverage in the game. Russo needs the footage in order to keep her job, so she's more than willing to go along. His character does do highly unprofessional things that probably wouldn't happen, but do you really know that? This is a country where our reporters stand outside during the middle of hurricanes and order people to stay indoors. This is a country where people chase tornadoes in order to make a buck. At least to a point, are the things in this movie really that hard to believe? I'd say no. Riz Ahmed is excellent as the intern in this movie. He is deliberately kept in the dark, and the impression given is that he has no idea what the game being played actually is.

There is certainly a point where things start to go overboard, but this is a movie and the primary function is to entertain. Everything listed below would certainly qualify as overboard. There's a difference between dragging a body into a more prominent position for your shot (if you think this has never happened, you're stupid) and getting people killed. Bill Paxton was great in another bit part. He was Gyllenhaal's competition, and to some extent his inspiration. Once he's about to take back his place as the primary provider of shock footage, Gyllenhaal cuts his brakes. The major set piece of the movie is both excellent and ridiculous at the same time. I didn't enjoy the explanation that was provided to the intern as to why he needed to do what was asked of him, as I thought it was something that would have been better left unsaid. The car chase was an excellent scene. With something like that and the cost of shooting in Los Angeles, it's actually incredible that the budget was $8.5m. It seems impossible. I was hoping at some point that somebody would catch onto Louis Bloom's game, and while somebody did, there was quite obviously no proof of anything that he did wrong. I'm not sure the closing scene was needed, as it felt like being beaten over the head.

Ultimately Gyllenhaal's performance was so good, and so much unlike the perception I've gotten when watching other movies that he's in, that most of the negative points don't really matter to me. I also liked that the movie wasn't funny in any way whatsoever, unless you consider "oh fuck" type moments to be funny. I'm trying not to rewatch any movies until I see at least a few hundred more, but it will be difficult not to show this to somebody else.

8/10


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • Poster of the Year
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17,659
  • CWM
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #63 on: April 13, 2017, 07:21:07 PM »
It's just not my thing. The likelihood is that I would dump all over it or not finish watching.

I know but i'd like to see you take the plunge someday. You might just surprise yourself. If not then it just confirms things and nothing is lost. I actually used to be extremely anti-anime too! now look at me!

Offline Harley Quinn

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,464
    • Culture Crossfire
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #64 on: April 13, 2017, 10:01:52 PM »
It's just not my thing. The likelihood is that I would dump all over it or not finish watching.

I know but i'd like to see you take the plunge someday. You might just surprise yourself. If not then it just confirms things and nothing is lost. I actually used to be extremely anti-anime too! now look at me!

I find that very, very hard to believe...

Offline Kotzenjunge

  • looptid
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7,743
  • Kotzenjunge
    • A site I wrote.
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #65 on: April 13, 2017, 10:37:18 PM »
I feel ya, 909. I'm not a huge anime mark at all, but Akira feels way more like an animated action movie than some weird Japanese shit. If the first ten minutes don't have you wanting to watch more I'd be surprised.

Offline Byron The Bulp

  • Byron the bulb
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18,097
  • Byron the bulb
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #66 on: April 13, 2017, 11:09:30 PM »
I feel ya, 909. I'm not a huge anime mark at all, but Akira feels way more like an animated action movie than some weird Japanese shit.


Offline Kotzenjunge

  • looptid
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7,743
  • Kotzenjunge
    • A site I wrote.
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #67 on: April 14, 2017, 03:25:56 AM »
I meant more as a percentage of the movie, of course it gets fucking crazy eventually. It's only 90-10 straightforward/weird. Could be worse.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #68 on: April 14, 2017, 03:35:31 AM »
If I do it, I will do it the Monday Nitro way with it being a complete surprise. TUNE IN NEXT WEEK TO FIND OUT


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Harley Quinn

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,464
    • Culture Crossfire
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #69 on: April 14, 2017, 03:40:28 AM »
I'm waiting for the inevatible breakup of a review at the halfway mark with a pic of Schiavone going, "We're out of time, folks! This is absolute mayhem! Tune in next week for more Nitro reviewed action!"

Offline The Art of Rasslin'

  • PosterFest 2014 Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,361
  • wipeoff
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #70 on: April 14, 2017, 05:12:30 AM »
Review the Royal Tenenbaums.

Also, review 48 Hours.


I can't believe a guy can be that big, and jump around like he does what a great athlete!

Offline Brooklyn Zoo

  • BZ
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16,219
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #71 on: April 14, 2017, 05:13:24 AM »
And Prisoners

Offline Cool, Bad, & Handsome

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,678
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #72 on: April 14, 2017, 06:58:58 AM »
oh wait I think I've only suggested one movie and just talked shit the rest of the time... hmm

Watch Moon if you haven't seen it

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #73 on: April 14, 2017, 07:29:05 AM »
Haven't seen anything mentioned in the last few posts.


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Harley Quinn

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,464
    • Culture Crossfire
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #74 on: April 14, 2017, 08:15:48 AM »
Actually re-watched Royal Tenenbaums recently and found that to be even better as a black comedy than the first time I watched it. Also a lot of great performances throughout.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #75 on: April 14, 2017, 05:51:30 PM »
There are spoilers below, so if you don't want to know, turn around and exit the thread.



Ex Machina

Receiving recommendations and deliberately attempting to not spoil the plot of a movie for myself really paid of with this rather interesting film. I don't have an extensive knowledge of independent movies, but films with a cast of four people are generally right up my alley. Having to keep track of less people can be a massive bonus, and in this instance allows the viewer to become heavily interested in characters. While the film did have four characters (and a helicopter pilot), there were really only three who would appear to play a major part as the movie went on.

The movie opens with a programmer named Caleb (Domnhall Gleeson). Caleb works for a company called Bluebook, and he wins a trip to the home of his company's CEO, Nathan (Oscar Isaac). Unbeknownst to Caleb, he was flown to Nathan's home in order to administer a test to an AI that Nathan was developing, called Ava (Alicia Vikander). The test is more in terms of being able to believe that the AI is capable of independent thought rather than its ability to function. There are aspects that are revealed to clearly be lacking. Emotion is obviously one of them, probably the greatest example being a lack of empathy. While Ava is a lifelike robot, she lacks skin in all places other than the face, hands, and feet. Regardless of that, Caleb clearly becomes attracted to her, and the test proceeds down an interesting path. There are conversations between the AI and Caleb that Caleb is unwilling to relay to Nathan, but there's also something that Nathan is clearly not telling him. Vikander's performance as an AI was excellent. That's not an easy role to be playing. The visual effects in this movie were outstanding. While an independent film, it had a decent sized budget given the small cast and setting, and it's clear to see how that was put to use. I cannot say enough how good the visual effects were. They won an Academy Award, which speaks for itself.

While I did enjoy the movie, I thought that aspects of the finish unraveled far too quickly. I was left with some questions that I shouldn't have had, and completely fail to understand why the helicopter pilot left Nathan's home without Caleb. Could he have done anything? Not really. It's just strange. The closing scenes with the four characters were a shock that I wasn't expecting, and I found them to be a little rushed. When Caleb was left locked underground with a dead Nathan, that didn't surprise me nearly as much as it should have. There was no reason whatsoever for Ava to be empathetic towards Caleb, when you think about it. When it was her turn to question him, he repeatedly lied to her. He did not tell her there were other AI before her, which she found out when Kyoko showed up. The last thing that made the 'surprise' not entirely surprising was that Ava knew their conversations were being monitored by a battery powered camera, and chose to keep that information from Caleb.

One of the things I liked about the movie was that everything in it up to a certain point can be gleaned simply from paying attention. The dance scene was probably the only one where you could turn your brain off. It was clear based on the videos of the other AI that inevitably, an AI would be like anyone else. Nobody wants to be trapped, and everyone would look for means for an escape in such a situation. Ava was able to process and deduce the most logical way to get out of there, that's all it was. The statements about data collection were rather vapid, so I didn't pay much attention to them nor think about them afterward. This wasn't a great movie, but it was good with one great performance. I bet a lot of people who've seen this reacted with glee to Ava escaping, which shows a complete lack of ignorance much like Caleb in the movie. Now that I think about it, such a thought makes me like the movie even more.

8/10


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #76 on: April 15, 2017, 06:09:35 PM »


The Ghost and the Darkness

This is something I immediately assumed I'd like once the movie started. It was based on a true story, which in theory should be no problem. A colonel named John Patterson (Val Kilmer) is sent to British East Africa (Kenya) in order to get a railroad bridge built on schedule. The project had become sidetracked, and as the movie goes on it's clear to see why. Workers are fairly routinely dragged off and killed by two lions, both of which repeat this cycle until Patterson's boss arrives. Once his boss arrives, it is made clear that help is needed. One of the work foremen named Samuel (John Kani) was of very little help other than moral support. Along comes a hunter named Remington (Michael Douglas), who has the know-how to take care of this problem and get things back on track. Except he doesn't, and the warriors he brings with him do not want to participate in the hunt once Patterson's gun misfires. Around this point, the movie starts to fall apart.

For an extremely skilled and reputable hunter to make one mistake is one thing, but as the story goes on, Remington makes one mistake after another. He has the working crew build a second hospital and set traps in the first one in order to lure the lions there, but instead they go to the second hospital and kill everyone including the doctor (Bernard Hill). Obviously this presents a major problem, as this shouldn't happen with a skilled hunter onboard, but Remington is highly incompetent. After a series of goofy events in which Patterson sits on top of a structure, falls down, and still kills one of the lions, Patterson then has a dream about his wife arriving at the site and being attacked by the lion. This was a horrible plot device because for some reason I thought it was actually happening, and the reaction I gave was not good. After Patterson wakes up from the dream, he finds that Remington has been dragged off and killed in the nearby savanna. I was actually glad when this happened as Douglas was completely wasted in this role. Remington's death also happened off screen, which defies description. Patterson then lights the field on fire, gets chased up a tree by the remaining lion, jumps down after failing to catch a gun thrown by the aforementioned helpless Samuel, and shoots the lion to kill it. After his wife arrives, that's the end of the whole deal.

I used this many words to describe this movie in order for people to understand the entire plot before they watch it, because there's certainly a possibility somebody would regret watching this. Remington didn't exist in actuality, which stretches based on a true story to another level. There were characters that were killed off far too soon. Angus Starling (Brian McCardie), was one that was trying to convert a largely Hindu and Muslim crew. The few lines he got were pretty amusing. The doctor should not have been killed at all, and the fake death of Patterson's wife and son still annoys me as I'm writing this out. Of course, there were things about the movie that I liked. I thought Val Kilmer gave a good performance even though it defies description that he never grew a beard or longer hair after weeks upon weeks of his workers being slaughtered by lions. The lions themselves were clever, which is a relief in movies like this one. There was also a shit-stirrer named Abdullah (Om Puri) who constantly riled up the workers by making attacks on Patterson's character. The line about Patterson being able to solve the problem because he's white that made me laugh pretty hard. In fact, Abdullah was a major reason I didn't outright hate the movie. I also liked that the ending was rushed, because the hunt for the lions probably dragged on too long. The death of the second lion was quick and to the point. This still wasn't the worst way to spend two hours.

Ultimately, it turns out that Michael Douglas had a major impact on the production of this film, and in effect ruined it. The overarching story about the lions is decent considering how long it was drawn out, but his character is just beyond the pale in terms of its stupidity. That somebody would make their character look this stupid is the funniest part.

5/10


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Harley Quinn

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,464
    • Culture Crossfire
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #77 on: April 15, 2017, 11:56:02 PM »
Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you said. I probably liked it more than you did but that's because I enjoy Val Kilmer's work and I loved a lot of the cinematography and nature shots. I also enjoyed Angus' character and wish he had stuck around in the story longer than he did, same for the character of Abdullah.

The movie does fall apart when Remington shows up and Douglas annoyingly suddenly takes center stage from Val's character after his arrival. I figured Remington's involvement was a major stretching of the 'Based on a True Story' aspect.

Offline The Art of Rasslin'

  • PosterFest 2014 Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,361
  • wipeoff
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #78 on: April 16, 2017, 08:13:26 AM »
fuck you actually watched that movie eh, I knew it was failed big budget art when I saw the commercials back in the day and saw what it did to The Big Valbowski's career. Sorry, shoulda warned ya.


I can't believe a guy can be that big, and jump around like he does what a great athlete!

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #79 on: April 16, 2017, 10:28:47 AM »
fuck you actually watched that movie eh, I knew it was failed big budget art when I saw the commercials back in the day and saw what it did to The Big Valbowski's career. Sorry, shoulda warned ya.

Doesn't matter man, I still would have watched it. Have to judge for myself.


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline AA484

  • CXF Writer
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,250
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #80 on: April 16, 2017, 10:31:26 AM »
I enjoyed reading your Sopranos rewatches.  Maybe Goodfellas or Casino at some point?

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #81 on: April 16, 2017, 10:50:12 AM »
I enjoyed reading your Sopranos rewatches.  Maybe Goodfellas or Casino at some point?

I'll review those eventually, but I just watched large parts of them again not that long ago.


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline The Art of Rasslin'

  • PosterFest 2014 Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,361
  • wipeoff
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #82 on: April 16, 2017, 10:55:41 AM »
fuck you actually watched that movie eh, I knew it was failed big budget art when I saw the commercials back in the day and saw what it did to The Big Valbowski's career. Sorry, shoulda warned ya.

Doesn't matter man, I still would have watched it. Have to judge for myself.

yeah I didn't do that because I didn't watch it, and now will never watch it thanks to you


I can't believe a guy can be that big, and jump around like he does what a great athlete!

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #83 on: April 16, 2017, 11:09:18 AM »


Thor: The Dark World

Everyone should certainly be familiar with the Marvel formula by the time you've watched 9 MCU movies, and after seeing so many of them it's time for them to bring something else to the table. The box office numbers would indicate that everyone has seen this, so there's no reason to explain the plot of the movie. Let's just go over what was good and what was bad.

As for what was good, I very much liked seeing Heimdall (Idris Elba) finally get to do something in this series. What he did was irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but it feels like a waste to have such a good actor in a minor part. Unlike in the first Thor, Odin (Anthony Hopkins) was on screen a lot, and played his part pretty well. It's also always nice to see Natalie Portman on screen for obvious reasons. Not to sound like a pervert, but she's just nice to look at and that's the fact of it. I also liked Thor and Loki's plan to destroy the Aether, even though it didn't work. Tom Hiddleston has been good as Loki each time, this was obviously no exception. The mid-credits scene somewhat redeemed the ending, and it left me with questions of the good kind.

Regardless of that, there were actually a lot of things I didn't care for. The ending was absolutely befuddling. I don't know what happens with Odin and I don't want to know, but I found that very confusing. I also think there were far too many characters in the movie, and I know I can't be the only one who thinks so. Too many scenes with Frigga (Rene Russo) were left on the cutting room floor while making both movies, so seeing Thor's mother get killed had absolutely no impact on me. The Convergence was extremely poorly explained and that's a problem, but the action scenes at the climax of the film did do a job of explaining it to some degree. Most of all, it's the lack of ability to use the gigantic cast that I found to be a problem. At some point they need to give freedom to a good director and allow them to do whatever they want within certain boundaries, but they probably never will do that if they haven't done it already and I'm unaware of it.

I didn't outright hate this movie, but I didn't love it either. I preferred the first Thor movie, and I'm pretty sure this is the worst of the MCU up to Guardians of the Galaxy, which I'll be watching next weekend. What the Marvel formula requires is for the bit part characters to shine when given any opportunity to speak or do anything, and that didn't quite happen here. Malekith wasn't a great villain as the part required pretty much no acting. Overall, the movie is the same. They broke shit, and the three characters that mattered most (Thor, Foster, Loki) were all pretty good.

6/10


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #84 on: April 17, 2017, 06:32:29 PM »


Bone Tomahawk

I'm a fan of the western genre, so it was inevitable that I'd give this a look. If someone tells me Kurt Russell is in a western, I'm going to watch it. It's just that simple. The trick is that the closing stretch of the movie goes much more in line of that of a horror movie, and it's a damn good one. Were this a more popular movie, I can see people getting a little upset about the portrayal of the Troglodytes. To put it bluntly, they are savages. They will capture people and eat them. It is made clear in an earlier scene that Native Americans don't consider them anything other than troglodytes, so there's nothing necessarily wrong with the portrayal here.

Things start off with Purvis (David Arquette) and Buddy (Sid Haig) killing travelers. They hear horses approaching while in the middle of their robbery, and wind up trampling on a burial ground. That leads to Buddy being killed, and Purvis making the long journey to Bright Hope. To make a long story short, the Troglodytes tracked him there. When Purvis is treated by a doctor named Samantha (Lili Simmons), the Troglodytes capture both of them along with a deputy sheriff, and make their escape to a cave quite far away. In typical western fashion, it's then time to round up a posse. Samantha's husband Arthur O'Dwyer (Patrick Wilson), deputy Chicory (Richard Jenkins), the Sheriff (Kurt Russell), and John Brooder (Matthew Fox) are the foursome that intends to make the rescue. The problem is that Arthur has a broken leg, and there are incidents along the way that force him to be left behind as the other three attempt to rescue Samantha. At least in the eyes of two of them, anyway.

I was surprised by how easily it was to like the cast. Fox was the loose cannon (a role everyone's accustomed to from his time on Lost), Russell was the steady leader, Wilson is the good guy, and Jenkins is the rambler. Jenkins was particularly excellent. For a large portion of the first 75 minutes, the movie was very heavy on dialogue and on showing Wilson struggle to keep up with his traveling partners. Jenkins' character kept things from becoming monotonous, and I was surprised by how well the foursome came together on screen. Seeing David Arquette in a movie like this sounds like a joke, but it really wasn't. Lili Simmons as Samantha O'Dwyer seemed very out of place, though. Far too good looking for a western role, and her delivery was too modern. The movie was also very low budget considering the genre, so as far as cinematography goes, you take what you can get. There was also no score, so good dialogue was required or the entire thing would have fallen apart. I was careful not to spoil anything, because I think other people should watch this. I said things became a horror movie, and that's true. I was on the edge of my seat, but there was only one part so gory I had to turn away. By so gory I had to turn away, take into account what I said about Green Room. You'll know it when you're about to see it, so it's up to you if you want to see something like that.

The story was very good, so as far as that goes there isn't much to say about the way it played out on film. It's more because of the cast than anything else, as this movie really could have used just a bit more inspiration and ingenuity from the director for everything to come off right.

7.5/10


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Avid Warehouse Enthusiast

  • Laz
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14,511
  • 0101100101
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #85 on: April 18, 2017, 02:54:11 AM »
Kind of but not really a spoiler, but the tone of this movie is far different from the rest. Don't go into the others expecting the same depth, you have to accept them for what they are. They still have their moments but they were churned out to make money after the first one unexpectedly became the biggest worldwide hit of the year.
III and IV, yeah, but II, V, and Balboa are more along the lines of the original.

Offline The Art of Rasslin'

  • PosterFest 2014 Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,361
  • wipeoff
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #86 on: April 18, 2017, 02:24:24 PM »
Encino Man.


I can't believe a guy can be that big, and jump around like he does what a great athlete!

Offline Cool, Bad, & Handsome

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,678
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #87 on: April 18, 2017, 04:08:46 PM »
Action Jackson

Offline Avid Warehouse Enthusiast

  • Laz
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14,511
  • 0101100101
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #88 on: April 18, 2017, 10:31:23 PM »
Hellgate

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #89 on: April 19, 2017, 06:03:39 PM »


The Royal Tenenbaums

I'm dropping the plot summary because in truth I don't think anyone gives a shit, plus you can find that on Wikipedia. I didn't know what to expect when I turned this on, specifically because I've never seen anything by the director, Wes Anderson. I think his films look strange, and because of that I've simply avoided them. The thing is, now that I've seen this one, I feel an obligation to watch everything the director's done before.

As soon as I saw Ben Stiller when I went to watch this, I was automatically put in a mood where I believed I wouldn't like anything about this. It takes a lot for me to enjoy a movie that he's in, but in a supporting role that wasn't any problem at all. I have the same feeling about Luke and Owen Wilson, but in this instance I didn't give a shit. Why didn't I give a shit? The story in this movie was excellent. All the Tenenbaums are so obviously lonely, and to some degree I think everyone's had those feelings before. If you haven't, then you're not human and your assumption would be that this is merely a quirky, goofy movie. Gene Hackman as Royal Tenenbaum was my favorite character. The movie is to some degree engineered for that to be the case. Royal is so obviously a phony, yet once he worms his way back into the family picture, that aspect slowly slides away as he begins to enjoy himself. His ploy to bring the family together was intriguing, but this movie did things right in having that exposed around the halfway point rather than in the third act. Fortunately, doing that so soon gave the opportunity for the third act to be fleshed out properly. Hackman's kitchen scene with Danny Glover was particularly enjoyable, and I was glad to see the back and forth spur Glover's character to action. There's no weakness in the cast and no character that seems to drag things down when they're on the screen. Bill Murray didn't say much, but when his character found out they were being cheated on, the delivery of his lines was perfect. I'm glad to see a movie where a performance like Gwyneth Paltrow's Margot isn't beaten over your head. Clearly she's troubled, but the reasons why are better left a mystery. While part of it was feeling like she wasn't part of the family, it seems obvious that there's something more.

The movie contains too much content to cover, so there's no way I can possibly address everything. It doesn't surprise me that there are people who don't care for this movie, and the movie being complicated is part of that. There are lots of goobers who think physical humor is a requirement in a comedy, and it seems like the general public needs to have their hands held and told when to laugh. You will get none of those things if you watch this. I didn't care for Anjelica Huston's character all that much, as it felt like some of her scenes were left on the cutting room floor. That's probably not true, as she continued to work with Anderson afterward. The direction in this film is also strange. I'm not accustomed to seeing wide shots like these, and the quick zooming messed with my eyes, but most people know I have a bit of a problem with my eyes. The narrative style in the first third of the movie was odd, but I enjoyed it. I can certainly see why people would detest it. The costumes were absolutely bizarre, but that's part of the charm. Given the style, it surprises me this film made money. All in all, this movie isn't for some people, but I'm not one of those people. I could watch it a few times over. If you don't like this, you're probably stupid.

9/10


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #90 on: April 19, 2017, 06:04:56 PM »
I watched this while buzzed too, so. The scene where Luke Wilson slit his wrists was surprising, but given the family dynamic I should have expected one of them to do it.


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Lord of The Curry

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10,336
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #91 on: April 20, 2017, 02:00:22 AM »
"I've had a rough year, dad" still gets to me and I've probably watched that movie ten times or more.

Offline Harley Quinn

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,464
    • Culture Crossfire
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #92 on: April 20, 2017, 03:11:19 AM »
If you want to see another Wes Anderson flick, I'd recommend Rushmore with Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray. Anderson directed that one just before he did The Royal Tenenbaums.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #93 on: April 20, 2017, 04:59:48 AM »
If you want to see another Wes Anderson flick, I'd recommend Rushmore with Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray. Anderson directed that one just before he did The Royal Tenenbaums.

I'm gonna watch all of them, not immediately though.


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Brooklyn Zoo

  • BZ
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16,219
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #94 on: April 20, 2017, 05:12:22 AM »
You still doing prisoners?

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #95 on: April 20, 2017, 05:37:47 AM »
Yeah this weekend.


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline tekcop

  • CXF Writer
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,700
  • TSM's Finest
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #96 on: April 20, 2017, 05:59:19 AM »
You absolutely should watch all of Wes Anderson's movies someday.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #97 on: April 21, 2017, 06:05:17 PM »


Moon

Moon is probably a movie that I should have known more about given the performance of Sam Rockwell, but going into it I had no idea what I was going to see. I picked this up from the library so I probably should have read the back of the box, but after doing so just now, it revealed far more information than I would have wanted to know. If you like the concept of cloning, or are interested in it in any way, this movie is for you.

I was extremely surprised to find out that's what the movie was about. The hallucinations made me think the plot was headed along the lines of the supernatural, but that's not at all what happened. The film is set in 2035 and the particulars are something I'd expect to happen should humans ever acquire the capability to do these things. A corporation has decided to mine the Moon for Helium-3, which is in reality believed to exist in a large capacity there. Rather than put humans through the extreme emotional toll (as well as the cost) of spending three years all alone but for a robot, the company decided to use clones. That's an unethical kettle of fish, but you don't find this out until later in the movie. By the time someone would near the end of their three years, the body of the worker will begin to break down, and be killed under the guise of being sent home.

The incident that leads to some of these discoveries is delightfully confusing. It takes the better part of 40 minutes after the incident to discover what's going on, but there's nothing wrong with that at all. Over the course of those forty minutes, we get to see Sam Rockwell fight himself, and some pretty sad surprises. I thought New Sam was going to kill Old Sam during their fight, but in hindsight that would have ruined the entire movie. The movie was great in explaining these things as I don't really have any questions about what happened at Sarang Station. You can certainly tell this movie was done at low cost, but it's still surprising given how many visual effects were needed for the thing to come together. I particularly enjoyed the use of the moon rover. This was by no means a flawed movie, but I feel like there could have been some tweak to the story to turn this into a classic. It's a very good movie with a very good story, but it does feel like it's missing something. I can't put my finger on what. There's not enough to say about Rockwell's performance, though. He was very effective in playing two distinctly different characters, regardless of their appearance. Old Sam was more scatterbrained and plain weird, but New Sam was focused to a degree bordering on sociopathic. The ending was great, but I can't help but think a company like that would have tracked the coordinates of the landing and had Sam executed.

It's a fairly similar movie to Ex Machina, but I did slightly prefer Ex Machina. I liked them both a lot.

7.5/10


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest

Offline Hawk 34

  • Death Pool Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,289
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #98 on: April 22, 2017, 02:28:05 PM »
Throw these in the suggestion pile (all available on Netflix)

Spotlight
Dope
Fruitvale Station
Adventureland
Burn After Reading

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 33,220
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #99 on: April 22, 2017, 02:34:40 PM »
Seen Burn After Reading, but the rest will go in.


koab [8:27 PM]
damn i thought you guys were good little cucks who would shit themselfs so a POC could peacefully protest