Author Topic: In Which I Review Movies  (Read 38153 times)

Description: Landline

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • Poster of the Year
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 16,893
  • CWM
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #100 on: April 22, 2017, 03:39:07 PM »
here's the big list, most of it is important movies but theres some personal ones as well like stargate and faceoff

The General   1926   
The Great Dictator   1940   
Modern Times   1936   
Rio Bravo   1959   
A Fistful of Dollars, For A Few Dollars More, and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (the man with no name trilogy)   
Seven Samurai   1954   
Spartacus   1960   
Life of Brian   1979   
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid   1969   
North by Northwest   1959   
The Battle of Algiers   1966   
Ong-bak   2003   
The Bridge on the River Kwai   1957   
The Hustler   1961   
Slap Shot   1977   
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre   1948   
All Quiet on the Western Front   1930   
Drunken Master   1978   
Mad Max: Fury Road   2015   
The Wolf of Wall Street   2013   
The Princess Bride   1987   
The Martian   2015
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest   1975   
The Usual Suspects   1995   
Unforgiven   1992   
Braveheart   1995   
Lincoln   2012   
Edge of Tomorrow   2014
The Magnificent Seven      
A History of Violence   2005   
Face/Off   1997   
Stargate   1994   
Citizen Kane   1941   
The Sting   1973   
Beasts of No Nation   2015   
Network   1976   
Cool Hand Luke    1967   
The Manchurian Candidate   1962   

Offline Fan of Sports with Integrity

  • PosterFest 2014 Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,080
  • Your POV
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #101 on: April 22, 2017, 09:43:56 PM »
don't watch any of those, who recommends 30 movies at once?

Watch ANY GIVEN SUNDAY BRO HOW HAVE YOU NEVER SEEN THIS MOVIE

Offline Lord of The Curry

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10,230
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #102 on: April 24, 2017, 12:00:47 AM »
THAT'S GONNA MAKE THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WINNING AND LOSING

BETWEEN LIVIN' AND DYIN'

Offline Harley Quinn

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,015
    • Culture Crossfire
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #103 on: April 24, 2017, 01:12:43 AM »
Willy Beamen is tailor made for 909, gotta watch that ASAP.

Offline Brooklyn Zoo

  • BZ
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16,093
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #104 on: April 24, 2017, 05:11:29 AM »


Waiting on Prisoners

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #105 on: April 24, 2017, 05:13:20 AM »
Today man. I rented it so I have to watch it today, but the basketball was too good yesterday to not watch.


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: 16,093
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #106 on: April 24, 2017, 05:15:57 AM »
Hope you saw the Barca game, too

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #107 on: April 24, 2017, 05:54:01 PM »
Hope you saw the Barca game, too

Nah, too busy watching Houston/OKC, but I did see the highlights and laughed hard at the final goal.


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

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #108 on: April 24, 2017, 06:34:35 PM »


Prisoners

Prisoners is a film I should have known more about considering it inhabits one of my favorite genre spaces and features two actors whose work I generally enjoy, but in typical fashion I didn't know shit about it or even that it existed. When you do a few bullshit popcorn movies like Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal have done, you get the creative freedom and money to do whatever you want. This movie is a pretty good example of that. It always surprises me when movies with such heavy subject matter and a lack of blockbuster style action scenes make money, but maybe it shouldn't surprise me at all. Once again, it's a Denis Villeneuve movie that I enjoy a lot. I'll have to check out Enemy one of these times.

The short version of the plot is that Hugh Jackman's daughter and her friend both get kidnapped. Gyllenhaal's character is a police officer given the name of Detective Loki, and he's investigating the case. Unbeknownst to him, so is Jackman, who tortures a mentally handicapped character named Alex Jones (Paul Dano) in order to get to the truth of what happened. It was really funny when everyone was treating Alex Jones like shit, just because it's Alex Jones, you know. I know they have to give characters names, but sometimes it's hard to care about them whatsoever, considering I see Wolverine beating somebody up without taking his claws out. It just is what it is. Jones looked like a total pervert, which helped make the movie feel a little more realistic. The movie is over 150 minutes long, so it's inevitable that I'll gloss over characters. Jackman's character enlists the father of his daughter's kidnapped friend (Terrence Howard), and ultimately he's not strong enough to keep the torture going without telling somebody. Once that happens, you don't see much of him or his wife (Viola Davis) for the rest of the movie.

In the end, the film is very much like True Detective, and that's probably why I liked it so much. Detective Loki has quirks of his own, just as Rust Cohle has. I don't know how anyone could pull this one off, but Gyllenhaal somehow did a very consistent facial tic throughout the entire movie. It gave the appearance that he was on edge and processing a lot of information. The realization that Jackman was torturing another kidnap victim hit me hard at the end. Throughout the movie, all I could think was that he was playing a fake tough guy. It doesn't take a lot of balls to attack a retarded guy or kidnap him, does it? He was picking on somebody who was totally unable to defend himself or verbalize his thoughts, while his wife (Maria Bello) sat home drugged up all day. Alex Jones was never going to reveal anything to him because he wasn't able to. That his 'aunt' was the actual kidnapper was a good reveal. While people would say "he should have known they were doing something wrong," that's not how it works with people like that. I know because I've been around two of them. Anyway, I thought Jackman was also great at exhibiting genuine rage. It's not often actors are able to pull that off

The movie was very intense, and obviously any of the descriptions I've just given would reflect that. I think there may have been a few too many side plots thrown in, but I don't have any complaints about them. I think a bigger deal was that the way Detective Loki figured out the case was just too typical for any Hollywood movie. I've rarely seen anything different, though. Obviously for some, the run time would be a huge deal and obstacle. It wasn't too long, but a lot of other people seem to think so. I've only seen two of Villeneuve's movies to this point, but I think there are some similarities between this and Sicario. Obviously, he's pretty good at keeping things a mystery. Blade Runner 2049 is supposed to be about finding Deckard (I haven't seen the first one), so that's going to continue. Torture is another similarity. If we can be honest, the things he comes up with are fucking weird.

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 Fan of Sports with Integrity

  • PosterFest 2014 Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,080
  • Your POV
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #109 on: April 24, 2017, 10:50:57 PM »

In the end, the film is very much like True Detective


Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #110 on: April 25, 2017, 04:13:09 AM »


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

Offline Former Faithless Fool

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,410
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #111 on: April 25, 2017, 05:58:53 AM »
I always forget they made Alex Jones a retard  >:(

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #112 on: April 26, 2017, 06:58:11 PM »


The Revenant, directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu

I searched for this film to see what the board said, and I couldn't find anything. That's either a sad statement about what this board's become, or a bad reflection on people's taste. The Revenant is quite possibly the most beautiful movie I've seen. The scenery was amazing. Shot in Canada, Montana, and Argentina, the beauty of those locations during winter was on full display. Shooting the movie was reportedly hell, and it's clear to see how that would be the case. At 156 minutes, just like Prisoners, this movie is certainly not for everyone. There is very little dialogue for long durations of the film and a hell of a lot of grunting. This wouldn't be one of those films where I'd call you stupid if you didn't like it.

Based on a true story (or a tall tale), Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) traversed the frontier after being mauled by a grizzly bear. His goal? To find Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), the man who killed his son. The movie opens with an incredible scene where Arikara warriors attack a group of fur trappers/hunters, which both Fitzgerald and Glass were part of. It was one of the best ways I've seen a movie hook a viewer in, but if someone thinks the whole movie is going to be like that, they're mistaken. After the escape, Glass is attacked by a grizzly bear in a scene only made possible by the advancement of visual effects, and thanks to that the viewer is privileged to see his flesh torn to shreds. Throughout the rest of the film, the Arikara are hunting down white men in search of a kidnapped girl named Powaqa (Melaw Nakehk'o). With the movie being a revenge story, I'll leave the rest to your imagination. You should watch it.

In actuality or at least according to the tale, Glass had his possessions stolen and wanted them back. He did not have a son, so the tale was stretched to an even taller degree. I don't care about this because the tale is probably not true to begin with. Despite loving the film, I thought there were some things people may find strange. If you're expecting a focused revenge story, where all the scenes feature the wronged party, that's simply not what you're going to get. There are flashbacks; as well as asides with Fitzgerald, the captain of the party (Domnhall Gleeson), French traders, and the aforementioned Arikara. As already mentioned, the movie is very long and at times there is little dialogue, which presents some issues. You have to follow the story yourself and maintain an investment level, so pausing the movie or watching it in two sittings isn't an option. My initial reaction is that the presentation of the Arikara may have been a problem, but the Arikara War was a real thing. I read Undaunted Courage a few months ago, and many of the tribes presented in the book had a problem with Americans, the Arikara being one of them. Some of them sent leaders to Washington DC during and after the explanation, and if the tribe felt their leader was disrespected, or if the leader got sick or died, there was a major problem. The attack presented at the start of the film was a real thing. I can also see some people having been very offended by the portrayal of the French traders, but I don't give a shit about people's feelings. The idea that frontier traders were honorable and deserve respect is absolutely ludicrous.

On the other hand, the performances in this film are incredible. The standout would have to be Tom Hardy as Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is a true, low-bottom piece of shit. The first few times you hear Hardy on screen, it's almost impossible to understand what he's actually saying. The accent he used is beyond description. After a few scenes, the viewer should get the hang of it, but it's a real mindfuck. I haven't seen every movie from 2015, but I feel like Hardy's performance deserved accolades that he did not recieve. DiCaprio's grunting is a big thing too. There's a few scenes later in the movie involving a horse that are a big change from that, but I felt like I could feel his pain. Of course, he won awards for that. There's not enough superlatives for his performance. This is as much a movie about fighting the elements as it is revenge. It looked so cold, and the scenes were so grand that it felt nobody had ever walked the territory before. Knowing that the ground is real makes it more impressive. The climax of the movie was great and I'll leave it at that.

Most of all, it's the vision of the director that shines through. I'll have to add some of his movies to the bunch I've been given to watch. The screenplay wasn't fantastic, but the locations chosen, the shots, and the big scenes made this movie shine. The film is more about emotion than talking. Is the movie philosophical and shit? Probably not. Is it too violent? Yes. I loved it though.

10/10


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

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #113 on: April 27, 2017, 07:08:09 AM »
After sleeping on it, I feel like giving this a 10 because I want to watch the movie again, a day after watching it.


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

Online Next Big Comedy Star

  • brock lock
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5,689
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #114 on: April 27, 2017, 07:21:38 AM »
People were kind of shitting on it after it came out and calling it boring, but I love The Revenant. It has great rewatch value and Hardy/Leo are incredible. I'm glad you enjoyed it that much.

Offline Hawk 34

  • Death Pool Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,177
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #115 on: April 27, 2017, 07:39:54 AM »
Those people have short attention spans and probably aren't equipped to enjoy a movie like this.  That sounds pretentious as fuck but it's absolutely true. 

909 brought up awards with regards to DiCaprio and yes, it was a big part of the award season leading up to it about how Leo was "owed" the Oscar but make no mistake about it and virtually anyone who saw this performance will attest that Leo wasn't given an lifetime achievement victory here, it was earned in every degree.   Leo has done brilliant work since he was a goddamn teenager but this film is his crown jewel.


Offline Brooklyn Zoo

  • BZ
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16,093
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #116 on: April 27, 2017, 07:42:56 AM »
I thought it looked like it sucked but I think I'll check it out now

Also thought Leo should've been nominated for The Departed

Also, just wanted to mention cause don't know where else to but Ryan Gosling has been in three of my favorite movies (Drive, The Place Beyond the Pines, and The Nice Guys)

909, you should review The Place Beyond the Pines

Offline strummer

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5,526
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #117 on: April 27, 2017, 08:16:14 AM »
it was on cable this past weekend and I caught it. Absolutely fantastic.  Leo was obviously great and Tom Hardy may be my favorite actor working today

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #118 on: April 27, 2017, 09:17:02 AM »
Those people have short attention spans and probably aren't equipped to enjoy a movie like this.  That sounds pretentious as fuck but it's absolutely true.

Well the movie is a little pretentious, so there's nothing wrong with that. The movie thrives on being visually stunning and has long stretches where people don't say anything. That triggers the fuck out of people. I'm sure people also believe the remote locations the movie was chosen to be filmed at were masturbatory. Maybe they were, but that makes the film a work of art in my mind.


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: 16,893
  • CWM
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #119 on: April 27, 2017, 09:36:17 AM »
I tried to talk about it chat but people hadn't seen it and you didn't want me to spoil it. It's a great movie. Good depictions of the French.

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #120 on: April 27, 2017, 09:45:01 AM »
Quote
Some disgruntled crew members say that all of this could have been avoided if Iñárritu had been willing to compromise and use CGI for some scenes, an argument Iñárritu completely rejects. “If we ended up in green screen with coffee and everybody having a good time, everybody will be happy, but most likely the film would be a piece of shit,” he says.

Sounds like my kind of guy.

I tried to talk about it chat but people hadn't seen it and you didn't want me to spoil it. It's a great movie. Good depictions of the French.

They were, and I googled it to see people's reactions and apparently some were upset over it. What's crazy is when a movie portrays one group of people as being like that, and the assumption is "SO YOU THINK ALL FRENCH PEOPLE WERE LIKE THIS, HUH? FUCK YOU BUDDY."


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: 10,230
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #121 on: April 28, 2017, 06:22:29 AM »
The bear attack scene was probably one of the most terrifying things I've seen on screen in recent memory. Just horrific.

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #122 on: April 29, 2017, 05:41:11 PM »


Seven Psychopaths, directed by Martin McDonagh

Seven Psychopaths is McDonagh's second feature film effort, and I didn't think it lived up to the expectations I had after In Bruges. In Bruges is a spectacular movie with a very tight script. I don't think this is. While there are very good performances, the back half of the story was annoying.

Marty (Colin Farrell) is a screenwriter, writing a movie about seven psychopaths. You see where this is going? Well, throw that vision out of the window because that's not what happens. One of the psychopaths is a Vietnamese priest who does not interact with any of the other characters. Another one is played by Tom Waits, who has one good scene in the movie describing his crimes. My favorite of the bunch is a mafia boss named Charlie, played by Woody Harrelson. Everyone knows what they're getting from a Woody Harrelson performance, so there's not much reason to describe his character. They're always great performances. It turns out that Marty's friend, Billy (Sam Rockwell) has a dog kidnapping ring going with Hans (Christopher Walken). What Billy and Hans do is ingenious as well as incredibly scummy. They kidnap dogs, wait for the reward page to come up, and profit by turning the dog in for the reward. This all sounds great to me as I type it out, and I enjoyed the first half of the movie very much. Was funny, had a good story, and all of that.

The second half of the movie, sans an excellent campfire scene where things get very meta, seemed quite overly indulgent. These reviews are also overly indulgent, but it shouldn't take anyone two hours to read them. While the performances in the movie were great, I thought the story completely collapsed by the end. The four main characters (Harrelson, Farrell, Rockwell, and Walken) had to carry the movie, but it was hard to stay invested. Harrelson's portrayal of a crime boss was particularly amusing and fun. It's hard to describe a movie like this, because I feel like I should have liked it more. Farrell's straight man was great, and as I'm typing this all out, it's getting difficult to get my point through. I really did not like the last half of the movie! The scene during the credits was completely unnecessary, and I nearly turned the movie off before watching it. I'm probably not good enough at explaining why I didn't like the second half, but the performances and first half of the movie go a long way towards redeeming it. The movie could have used a more subtle touch rather than beating the viewer over the head with what the movie was actually about.

The director does have a very interesting sounding movie called Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri coming out later this year. Looking forward to it.

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

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #123 on: April 30, 2017, 06:25:07 PM »


Captain Fantastic, directed by Matt Ross

Captain Fantastic appears to be a movie that some loved and some detested. I find myself in the middle of that, but learning more towards the former. I don't often watch the kinds of movies that are a big hit at Sundance, so if there are any tropes related to such films, I am completely unaware of them. Obviously I am going to do something about that, but I want to be straight forward and transparent.

The movie is as much a statement on Western society as it is one that shows what happens when people who are sheltered from society find themselves wrapped up in it. Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is a father of six children. Ben raises these kids off the grid in Washington, so anyone can imagine what that's like. It's not so much counter culture as it is instilling the values and education that some people believe their children should be able to have. In this case, Ben's ideals are certainly left wing, mixed in with some survivalism and clean eating. He's also training them, whatever that means. You figure that shit out later. Not too far into the movie, we find out that Ben's wife, Leslie, has committed suicide.

As everyone here should know, nobody's able to raise their kids perfectly. Everyone has received their education or gone through their childhood at the expense of something else. In the case of sheltered children who do not have any interactions with their peers, obviously seclusion will come at the cost of children learning social skills. This plays out as the movie goes, as it also becomes clear that in some ways Ben isn't what people would consider normal. What the fuck is normal? The more appropriate way of phrasing it would be that Ben is different. He doesn't treat his children like idiots, and this also has its problems. I don't want to outright spoil the movie, which is getting difficult.

Mortensen's performance in this movie was great. The ending of the film was a little flat as that was the inevitability of the story being told, but until that point everything on the screen felt like it mattered a lot. Viggo is another one of those actors who has the ability to choose their part as a result of making a lot of money. This one felt like it was made for him. I didn't care much for him hanging dong, but I'm only mentioning that just to get a cheap laugh. His character required a lot of emotion. My interpretation of the character was that it wasn't only because of his kids that he withdrew from the world, it was out of his own fears and misgivings about society. The character was grieving, too. I thought the portrayal was spot on. His wasn't the only good performance. All of the kids were good, and I'm sure they'll be seen on screen for quite a while going forward. Another negative unmentioned as of yet was that I thought Frank Langella's character was a plain asshole, but he wasn't entirely wrong and things got a little strange in terms of how the movie manipulated my thinking.

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 Zetterberg is Go

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4,653
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #124 on: May 01, 2017, 01:54:09 AM »
Very much enjoyed it myself, and as mentioned Viggo was terrific.

Offline OldSchoolWrestling

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 405
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #125 on: May 01, 2017, 03:17:31 AM »


Captain Fantastic, directed by Matt Ross

Captain Fantastic appears to be a movie that some loved and some detested. I find myself in the middle of that, but learning more towards the former. I don't often watch the kinds of movies that are a big hit at Sundance, so if there are any tropes related to such films, I am completely unaware of them. Obviously I am going to do something about that, but I want to be straight forward and transparent.

The movie is as much a statement on Western society as it is one that shows what happens when people who are sheltered from society find themselves wrapped up in it. Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is a father of six children. Ben raises these kids off the grid in Washington, so anyone can imagine what that's like. It's not so much counter culture as it is instilling the values and education that some people believe their children should be able to have. In this case, Ben's ideals are certainly left wing, mixed in with some survivalism and clean eating. He's also training them, whatever that means. You figure that shit out later. Not too far into the movie, we find out that Ben's wife, Leslie, has committed suicide.

As everyone here should know, nobody's able to raise their kids perfectly. Everyone has received their education or gone through their childhood at the expense of something else. In the case of sheltered children who do not have any interactions with their peers, obviously seclusion will come at the cost of children learning social skills. This plays out as the movie goes, as it also becomes clear that in some ways Ben isn't what people would consider normal. What the fuck is normal? The more appropriate way of phrasing it would be that Ben is different. He doesn't treat his children like idiots, and this also has its problems. I don't want to outright spoil the movie, which is getting difficult.

Mortensen's performance in this movie was great. The ending of the film was a little flat as that was the inevitability of the story being told, but until that point everything on the screen felt like it mattered a lot. Viggo is another one of those actors who has the ability to choose their part as a result of making a lot of money. This one felt like it was made for him. I didn't care much for him hanging dong, but I'm only mentioning that just to get a cheap laugh. His character required a lot of emotion. My interpretation of the character was that it wasn't only because of his kids that he withdrew from the world, it was out of his own fears and misgivings about society. The character was grieving, too. I thought the portrayal was spot on. His wasn't the only good performance. All of the kids were good, and I'm sure they'll be seen on screen for quite a while going forward. Another negative unmentioned as of yet was that I thought Frank Langella's character was a plain asshole, but he wasn't entirely wrong and things got a little strange in terms of how the movie manipulated my thinking.

8/10
I thought the cover of Sweet Child O Mine was pretty cool. I really liked the movie and thought all the characters were well-played.

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #126 on: May 03, 2017, 12:21:09 PM »


There Will Be Blood, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

There Will Be Blood is the second movie of Anderson's I've seen, but I intend to watch The Master again because there were parts where I didn't pay attention. As with The Master, I enjoyed this film a lot. The movie is largely about greed, which is entwined with capitalism. As is the story of human civilization, progress is driven by the ability for people to make money. Unfortunately that's just the fact of the matter. Ruthlessness is one of my favorite themes, but it's rare that a movie accurately portrays it. This is a difficult film to describe because it is so long and full of events.

The story encompasses a number of years, so you get a large scope of what the main character's life is like. Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) is the aforementioned ruthless capitalist. Daniel is completely driven by the potential to make money and refuses to let anything get in his path. A great example of this is the way he uses a boy named HW (Dillon Freasier) and passes HW off as his son. The reason for doing that? Because people will be more willing to sell their land when Plainview comes along claiming that he has a family business. Despite this, Plainview does have some paternal feelings for HW. After being told about oil potential at Paul Sunday's (Paul Dano) family home, Daniel makes the venture to the Sunday Ranch with the intention of seeing whether or not this is true. Along the way, he encounters some interesting characters. First, a preacher who happens to be Paul Sunday's twin brother, named Eli (Paul Dano). Second, a man named Henry (Kevin J. O'Connor) who says that he's Plainview's half-brother.

At the risk of getting too much into things, I'm going to stop right there. One of the things I didn't like about the movie was that at 158 minutes, I'm actually struggling to put together my thoughts. The ending packs quite the heavy punch, but it comes after some lengthy setup years on into the future that nearly took me out of the movie. There are a lot of classic scenes, I'd say. The oil derrick fire pictured above was possibly the best of them. There were only a few deaths in the movie, but I think that made each of them have more impact than they otherwise would have. The third one was probably the biggest deal. The score was great too, I'm actually listening to it as I write this out. Never done that before. It certainly carried the first 20 minutes of the movie when nobody spoke a word. I felt like DDL's portrayal of the ruthless capitalist may have been the best one of those I've seen, and the story as a whole was just spectacular.

All in all, I really don't know why it took me so long to watch this movie. It's nice to see an epic with this kind of story that decides they aren't going to beat you over the head with everything. There are many subtleties and ambiguities that you have to pay attention to in order to catch on. The house fire is probably the most notable example, as well as the concept of how an oil field actually works. It is never actually explained until the very end of the movie, at which point it's actually explained extremely poorly. Oil fields are a giant pool under the ground, the oil migrates to where people are sucking it out. Unlike the explanation, it's like if you have a big drink, stick one straw in all the way at the far end of it, and that person decides they're going to take it all before anyone else can put their straw in to take their share. The explanation is one of my only problems with the film.

9.5/10


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

Offline Former Faithless Fool

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,410
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #127 on: May 03, 2017, 03:51:43 PM »
YOU'RE JUST A BASTARD FROM A BASKET

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #128 on: May 05, 2017, 05:55:14 PM »


Rocky II, directed by Sylvester Stallone

Rocky told a fantastic story of somebody trying to feel better about themselves. Rocky II was something completely different, and while I liked many aspects of it, I also felt the exact opposite about others.

What ypov said about appreciating the other Rocky movies for what they are is true, and I think that's the way I'm going to look at it. Rocky II is a decent movie, but I don't think the best parts of it are related to sports in any way. Other than Apollo Creed's appearances, I actually didn't care very much about them. In some ways, it was like a remake of the first movie, but they couldn't exactly replicate the whole thing. I enjoyed that it picked right up where the first movie left off, and the natural question I had afterwards was how Rocky would enhance his life with his purse winnings. I wasn't expecting things to go so badly, because it's typical Hollywood for all that shit to work out. When they did go badly, that's probably where I liked the movie the most. It was fascinating to see how things would work out for somebody thrown into a world of success, and what exactly Stallone was going to make his character do.

I thought the movie was also carried by Carl Weathers performance as Apollo Creed. Weathers was given a few more scenes to make the character work, and I thought all of them were great. At least in the first two movies, I think Apollo Creed is a great character. You completely understand his motivations, and all of the scenes with him are well acted. Rocky's other peripheral characters were alright, but I don't think any of them stood out near as much. They had their roles, they repeated them, and there's not a whole lot to say about it. The slow motion use during the fight was pretty weird, but I liked that too. It gave things a good touch, but I bet if I looked around people dumped all over it.

The problems with this movie are numerous, but there's only a few that I really want to talk about. I already mentioned that the movie fell into a pattern of repetition, but I thought Adrian delivering a premature baby to take Rocky out of training just didn't feel right. I can't put my finger on it, but I almost felt offended by that. That's a stupid feeling to have about a movie, but it felt cheap and goofy. The way Mick approached the situation is probably what made me mad, but consider the attitude towards women at the time and you probably have it. The series also seemed to be in desperate need of a scenery and character change after the first two movies, regardless of whether or not people enjoyed the movie. There seems to be no way to have continued these things down the same line and had them be entertaining. Roger Ebert watched the movie with Muhammad Ali and interviewed him, and at the end of reading it, Ali made a comment about America needing white heroes. That's still the case and I'll argue with anyone who disagrees with it. Then I thought about how in some ways Creed resembles Ali, and how the movie was fantasy booked in order to have the white guy finally beat Ali. I look at all the money this movie made, and it's probably the truth of the matter. I've deliberately avoided thinking about the sporting aspects of the movie, and the approach to training for the fight. I know that if I do think about it, the whole thing will fall apart in my eyes.

Despite the negative comments above, I am going to finish the series in due time. I have a feeling that once I finish, this will probably be my least favorite of the bunch. The movie prior to Rocky's training was a good hour or so, and there were a few good scenes after that while I enjoyed almost everything before it.

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 Fan of Sports with Integrity

  • PosterFest 2014 Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,080
  • Your POV
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #129 on: May 06, 2017, 06:40:13 AM »
how the movie was fantasy booked in order to have the white guy finally beat Ali. I look at all the money this movie made, and it's probably the truth of the matter.

oh man, if you think this movie has some things to say about race, just wait till you watch Rocky III.

Spoiler: show


that's an actual spoiler related to what I said, click on it after the movie.

Offline Former Faithless Fool

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,410
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #130 on: May 06, 2017, 06:53:20 AM »
Nothing better than to track this country's ways thru this movie series tbh.

Offline Fan of Sports with Integrity

  • PosterFest 2014 Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,080
  • Your POV
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #131 on: May 06, 2017, 06:57:37 AM »
agreed

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #132 on: May 07, 2017, 01:21:08 PM »


Guardians of the Galaxy, directed by James Gunn

In typical fashion, I procrastinated as long as possible before finally watching this. My criticisms of Thor 2 don't really apply to this movie as this did bring something unique to the table. In fact, I think this would have to be considered the best of the MCU origin movies. That isn't to say this one is free from criticism, but the positives massively outweigh the negatives.

GOTG is particularly overstuffed with information and jokes, but anyone whose read my reviews knows that I have some kind of demand for that. I need it like an addict needs their fix. That applies to long movies as well. I thought the movie was pretty well written and the lines well delivered. Batista as Drax was probably my favorite of the Guardians. I wasn't entirely expecting that, but I didn't know he was going to approach the role that way or that his character would be presented like that. It was really good. There were also a lot more classic scenes in this than the other origin movies. I can't think of many scenes from the other origin movies that approach these on any level. In particular I'm thinking of Groot putting his branch through the goons and bashing them from wall to wall, or Groot spreading glowing spores through the air. Star-Lord throwing up the bird was good too. Speaking of him, I found it interesting the way Chris Pratt was able to portray his character here, but completely failed to do so in Jurassic World. I wanted both movies to succeed, so it isn't out of perception that I thought one was good and one wasn't. Villains are generally a weakness in these movies, and while I believe that was the case here, I thought Michael Rooker as Yondu was one of Marvel's best. Was he really a villain? Only kind of, but enough to qualify. I also think a lot of credit should be given to Zoe Saldana for putting all that makeup on and doing her part. That's hard shit. Of course, with five major characters, there's still a bit of mystery about some of them and in this case I think that's just fine. I don't think it was necessary to explain everything about them.

The story of the hero characters was really good, even with such numerous changes in setting. Of course, as already mentioned, there's a villain problem with the MCU. Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace) should have been a much more impactful villain. He really sucked and they didn't give him anything great to do. Felt like a lot of his scenes were left on the cutting room floor. Nebula (Karen Gillan) was a whole lot better. I also have a major problem with the way the studio uses some of the cast members, but I know this is my problem. Everyone else seems to like it just fine. It's hard to handle Glenn Close, John C. Reilly, and motherfuckin Benicio Del Toro stand there and get a few lines. I know why they're in the movie, but it still bothers me. While they do give those more minor characters credibility, it feels like that's the right place to cast a less famous actor and have them shine. Michael Rooker's part as Yondu is a great example of this.

All in all, this is the best of the Marvel movies. I gave this the same score as Captain America 2, but that's simply because I may have scored Captain America 2 too highly. It's funny that a movie featuring a raccoon and a moving tree would turn out that way, but the director and studio were able to make me care about these characters more than characters I've seen numerous times. I wouldn't have expected the soundtrack to fit this film so well, but it really did. I almost forgot to mention this, but I was glad that the post-credit scenes were so goofy. I don't think it's all that cool to make people sit through the credits in order to learn information that has a bearing on the future story. I didn't mention Thanos in any way, but I was  surprised to see how unimportant that character's involvement turned out to be.

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

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #133 on: May 07, 2017, 01:27:14 PM »
I was also really happy to see that someone could leave WWE and make something of themselves without any support from the machine, and no support with movie promotion whatsoever. That was an uplifting thought and I'm pretty happy for Batista, he deserves 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 cobainwasmurdered

  • Poster of the Year
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 16,893
  • CWM
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #134 on: May 07, 2017, 03:13:27 PM »
Ronan not being that great of a villian was my one real issue with the movie tbh.

Offline Harley Quinn

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,015
    • Culture Crossfire
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #135 on: May 07, 2017, 11:14:50 PM »
Yeah, that's largely my only issue with the movie as well. As you said, I'm one of those who is fine with well known/name actors taking on small roles because that's usually on the actor/actresses' discretion. Not every role can be a big one, scripts can't change, and while "lesser name" actors may work at the same time I think it's part of the fun & charm to see these names in such roles.

I also think a lot of these older, name actors & actresses are seeing the success of those movies and simply want to be part of them in some form and/or attach their names so their kids can see them in a movie that they'll be able to see.

The flipside are those movies that have All-Star casts where notable names are in almost every single role (think Boogie Nights or Mars Attacks).

Offline Brooklyn Zoo

  • BZ
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16,093
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #136 on: May 08, 2017, 04:31:15 AM »
I still liked the promo Ronan cut on Thanos "YOU CALL ME BOY?!"

Offline tekcop

  • CXF Writer
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,640
  • TSM's Finest
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #137 on: May 08, 2017, 04:48:34 AM »
Outside of Loki, the villains have always sucked in Marvel movies. I liked that with GOG, Gunn just said "fuck it" and didn't even try to create an engaging villain. Ronan gets less screen-time than anyone and it works because the movie is really at its best when the heroes are just interacting with each other.

Offline Fan of Sports with Integrity

  • PosterFest 2014 Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,080
  • Your POV
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #138 on: May 08, 2017, 05:45:19 AM »
that's why you're top 5 brother

I still liked the promo Ronan cut on Thanos "YOU CALL ME BOY?!"

I misread that and thought that the WWE Superstar of the year, every year, was in the movie.

Offline Avid Warehouse Enthusiast

  • Laz
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14,161
  • 0101100101
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #139 on: May 08, 2017, 06:00:53 AM »
Ronan works better on a rewatch, or at least he did in my case. I saw this opening weekend and the opening scene hit way too close to home at the time, leaving me hating everything that came after, but when I finally gave it a second viewing (and skipping the open) I enjoyed it all that much more.

Offline Former Faithless Fool

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,410
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #140 on: May 08, 2017, 06:31:07 AM »
Outside of Loki, the villains have always sucked in Marvel movies.

Correct

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • Poster of the Year
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 16,893
  • CWM
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #141 on: May 08, 2017, 06:42:25 AM »
Red Skull in the first Cap, Robert Redford in Winter Soldier and at least to me Ultron were all good. None as good as Loki obviously but they all held their own and didn't feel like they were just filler. Ultron on the rewatch had a lot of great lines.

Offline Former Faithless Fool

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,410
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #142 on: May 08, 2017, 03:33:51 PM »


can you review this classic scene for me

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #143 on: May 09, 2017, 12:53:35 PM »
This thread and all the suggestions given might be going on hiatus for a while.


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: 16,093
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #144 on: May 09, 2017, 12:56:35 PM »
Do place beyond pines first, ray liotta is in it then hiatus

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #145 on: May 09, 2017, 01:02:52 PM »
Can't. My dog is dying. I don't think I will be in the mood for any of this shit for a few weeks at least.


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: 16,093
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #146 on: May 09, 2017, 01:06:01 PM »
Sorry, man

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #147 on: May 11, 2017, 12:58:28 PM »
I'm gonna keep it going regardless of what happens to my dog. I decided that I need to keep doing the same things that helped me out in the first place. Life has to go on.



Akira, directed by Katsuhiro Otomo

I lost a bet, so for the first time I watched an anime movie. I really didn't want to do it, but I didn't want to have anime board clothes either. So, this was my choice and there's no way around it. Many people have given this high ratings, so I wanted to approach the movie with a level head. I think I did my best at doing so regardless of finding out my problems with the genre are legitimate. I watched the English dubbing as I had to make sure I could understand the words when glancing over at my dog.

With this specific anime, the story is absolutely PACKED into the two hours the movie runs for. There are very literally no down scenes, which in this case is great. If I have to spend two hours watching this thing, I need to be entertained. As a result there's no way to sum up the story. To some degree I didn't care much for the first thirty minutes. The story was a little hard to understand at that point, and I didn't understand at all what Takashi was supposed to be. Eventually I got it, but damn if it wasn't confusing. The story does a great job of making you think Tetsuo is the hero for the first half of the movie, but that's not the case at all. If people got that feeling while watching the movie, I have no idea why anyone would think that. Look at all the people he killed. I usually detest exposition scenes like the one with Kei and Kaneda in prison, but I thought it was completely necessary by that point. Some of the scenes, particularly the one where Tetsuo mutates into the disgusting mass, were very well animated. I also thought the colonel's character was interesting and at some point I thought he became one of the heroes of the movie. That's strange but I was okay with it. The soundtrack was also really good and I'll be having a few of the songs going through my head for a little bit.

The problem I've always had with the genre, and animated films in general, was something that popped up here as well. The voice acting was pretty terrible, but that's not it. The story being so good made up for that to a large degree. What I don't like is that I don't get to watch the actors act. There's absolutely nothing that can be done about this, either. That's going to lead to me not watching more anime movies, but that isn't why I'm going to give the following rating. I did not understand the ending at all. I looked the movie up on Wikipedia afterward, and that's not what I got from the ending at all. So I'm pretty confused about that. I just do not see how that was the interpretation of the ending. I did say that the movie started off slow, and it only did in the sense that it was difficult for me to understand. That is a big deal, but I'm trying not to shit on the movie.

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 Kotzenjunge

  • looptid
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7,544
  • Kotzenjunge
    • A site I wrote.
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #148 on: May 11, 2017, 01:32:11 PM »
Cool, I knew it was too loaded and technically well-executed to give less than a 5. Interestingly, my favorite part is the first 20-30 minutes because I love the bike chase and how the movie immediately establishes its vivid, harsh, and brutal universe. They show dogs getting shot within the first ten minutes! It's a touch confusing if you're really focused on the plot early on though, since, as you said, exposition is rare and welcomed when it actually happens. At the time of its release I think it was the most expensive animated movie ever produced at that point.

In the comics Akira himself becomes an actual character. The Colonel is also even better (don't worry, he was a face the whole time so no guilt!), along with an American SF guy that's inserted into the city to see what the hell happened after Akira was awakened. It's great if you dig post-apocalyptic stories because the majority takes place in the destroyed Neo Tokyo where Tetsuo has a cult/kingdom ruling the city. The movie came out in 1988, but the comic didn't end until 1993. Its feel is the same as the movie, and just as exquisitely executed but in black and white only.

Online Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,189
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #149 on: May 11, 2017, 01:57:52 PM »
Oh I forgot to mention one thing. I see that Warner Bros acquired the rights for a live-action remake, but I don't see how somebody could adapt this with it being any less than two and a half hours. I also don't see how to retain the authenticity and make the money back. It would cost a lot.


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