Author Topic: In Which I Review Movies 2015 - 2018  (Read 45655 times)

Description: The Dark Tower

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #150 on: May 12, 2017, 06:03:58 PM »


Bloodsport, directed by Newt Arnold

Bloodsport is a cult classic, and one that's been recommended to me to watch for years. Of course, anyone who knows me knows this is right up my alley. I love combat sports, something about them appeals to me on a strong level. I know when I watch fighting, that there isn't going to be any legitimate excuses at the end of the day. The fight is fought between two guys. While they do have coaches, those are almost always coaches the fighters have been with for a long time. At the root of it, the coach won't be the reason they win or lose. Neither will their teammates. At the end of the day, it will be decided in a pure form of sport.

Bloodsport doesn't quite follow those tenets, but it is highly entertaining. Frank Dux (Jean-Claude Van Damme) has been trained from his teenage years by his master, Tanaka (Roy Chiao). There is a tournament called Kumite in Hong Kong, and Dux is intent on deserting the military to take part in it. The rules are simple. The fights end by knockout, submission, or when the opponent is knocked off the platform. The film is supposed to be based on a true story, but in reality it's total bullshit, made up by a bullshitter. There are many other fighters in the tournament. Dux befriends somebody named Jackson (Donald Gibb), another American looking to fight. There are two cops whose names I honestly didn't know, but one of them was played by a young Forest Whitaker. Their intention is to bring Dux back to his post. Why so fast? I have no idea. There's also a reporter named Janice (Leah Ayres) who wants to know more about Kumite. However, the most important secondary character is the reigning Kumite champion, CHONG LI (Bolo Yeung). Chung Li is tough as shit.

The script was horrible and I'd never suggest otherwise, but that's part of the charm of this film. It's a B movie, but that's what's good about it. For any martial arts film, I don't think I want a good script or good performances. I want to see more fights. The fights in this movie were all good. Chong Li wasn't the only good opponent, there were some characters that were genuinely interesting. A muay Thai guy named Paco was one of them. There's also the big guy who fought like a sumo wrestler, I can't remember his name. This is certainly no classic of cinema, but in terms of choices made like cinematography, sound, actors...there's one thing that really stands out. It's the soundtrack. That's the least you need, right? The soundtrack and the fights completely carry the movie. It's hard to forget the numerous bad lines in the film, but that's what gives it its balance. Can't be all fights all the time, and if you're going to get performances that are less than quality, I think it's better for them to be horrible. I didn't care much for Chong Li having to cheat, but this was a very entertaining film. The reason I am not rating it higher is because the casting of the non-fighters felt completely bizarre. I'll probably wind up watching it again in a few years. 

6.5/10


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: 16,248
    • Culture Crossfire
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #151 on: May 12, 2017, 09:56:53 PM »
If you enjoyed Bloodsport (one of my favorite JCVD films) then I'd also recommend his 1996's The Quest. It's basically a somewhat modernized variant of the plot behind Bloodsport with better cinematography/directing and acting (to the extent such a thing can be called in that kind of film). The villain isn't as memorable but the fight scenes are similarly solid and fun to watch & the side characters are more fleshed out/memorable.

Offline Bladelock

  • brock lock
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5,931
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #152 on: May 13, 2017, 01:45:06 AM »
I love Bloodsport, but I agree on the side characters. Whenever I watch it, I'm very tempted to skip over the scenes with the cops or the reporter love interest.

Offline tekcop

  • CXF Writer
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,666
  • TSM's Finest
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #153 on: May 13, 2017, 03:47:20 AM »
The Quest is basically the dumbest fucking movie ever made. It's great.

Offline Cool, Bad, & Handsome

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,546
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #154 on: May 13, 2017, 08:31:25 AM »


THE GOAT

Offline Kotzenjunge

  • looptid
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7,658
  • Kotzenjunge
    • A site I wrote.
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #155 on: May 14, 2017, 12:50:36 PM »
I'd put him up there with any mountain of a manbeast in all of film. Seriously, stick that dude in a ring with the (almost) contemporary Ivan Drago and take all of my money.

Offline Cool, Bad, & Handsome

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,546
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #156 on: May 14, 2017, 03:53:44 PM »
Shame I only remembered this now because Powers Boothe passed but watch Extreme Prejudice please... I feel like it's a movie that gets overlooked too much from the later end of the 80s decade.

Offline Avid Warehouse Enthusiast

  • Laz
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14,328
  • 0101100101
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #157 on: May 15, 2017, 04:48:13 AM »
On the Bloodsport tick, Lionheart is also pretty damn solid. It has some of my favorite JCVD fights that don't involve gunplay (otherwise Hard Target's "motorcycle surf" scene would take the cake).

Offline Bladelock

  • brock lock
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5,931
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #158 on: May 15, 2017, 05:28:57 AM »
Kickboxer has to get some mention since it's the same movie as Bloodsport with Tong Po replacing Chong Li and US SPECIAL FORCES Winston Taylor replacing Ray Jackson. It's a great time though.

Offline Saints_Fan_H

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4,695
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #159 on: May 15, 2017, 02:01:49 PM »
Kickboxer has to get some mention since it's the same movie as Bloodsport with Tong Po replacing Chong Li and US SPECIAL FORCES Winston Taylor replacing Ray Jackson. It's a great time though.
Yeah but at least with Bloodsport there isn't some dumb ass twist in a sequel where they all were murdered IMMEDIATELY at the conclusion of the first installment.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #160 on: May 16, 2017, 06:10:24 PM »


The Prestige, directed by Christopher Nolan

Somehow, I knew absolutely nothing about The Prestige before I watched it. That sounds like complete bullshit, but I swear it's the truth. The movie needs a lot of digesting, so I did that before I sat down to write this. Nolan has quite the reputation after filming his Batman trilogy, and it's with good reason. This is a highly engaging movie and one that immediately catches the eye. Period pieces are usually enjoyable for me. I am not generally a fan of movies presented in anachronic order. It is actually very difficult for me to digest such movies as I admittedly don't watch very many of them to begin with. I think that may have made this an even better viewing experience, though.

The movie immediately starts with something eyecatching. Angier (Hugh Jackman) is a magician with a trick that is supposed to be the best ever seen. Angier walks into the machine pictured above, at which point he performs his trick. While doing so, we see a man named Borden (Christian Bale) walk backstage to see how the trick works. Angier falls into a water tank and it locks, and Borden is completely unable to do anything about it. So, Angier dies, and Borden is put on trial for murder. At the trial, Angier's engineer Cutter (Michael Caine), testifies that Borden pushed the tank underneath the trap door in order to kill Angier. From that point, it is revealed that the movie is going to take you back to see what happened and how things got to this point. The short version and the one I'm going to post, was that Angier and Borden both worked for Cutter as plants for another magician act. From that point, there is an accident and both Borden and Angier go their separate ways, each working on their career. In short, the two became rivals.

I'm definitely not going to spoil anything past that point. To do so would completely ruin the movie for anyone who was to watch it. The jumping narrative presented throughout is fantastic. All of the reveals given to further the story carry weight, and to reveal any of them kills the story. There is certainly rewatch value for this movie although I have no intention of doing so. The lengths both Angier and Borden go to are frankly psychotic, but that's what makes the movie so good. Both men have completely legitimate reasons for carrying on their rivalry, and with no intervention from the authorities, who could stop them? I had no idea the movie was based on a book, but I shouldn't be entirely surprised by that. Their are other actors who put in good performances even though I don't want to mention their characters. For example, I had no idea that was David Bowie until I looked it up. Scarlett Johansson also plays...an interesting part, shall we say. Her character is entirely integral to the story, even though her accent wasn't great. The script was excellent too. I see there were some elements dropped from the book, and that was 100% for the best. The way it sounds would have been entirely ridiculous on screen. A story like this doesn't need ghosts and seances.

The movie is also a little odd. While it is a period movie, there's nothing in it to show that off. It's entirely about the characters and that's a nice change of pace, it's just strange. One thing I found absolutely bizarre was the choice of song when the credits were rolling. Like, what? There's a few things that I'm not sure I'm equipped to explain, but ultimately the movie was very fun. More below.

Spoiler: show

I also enjoyed the way Nolan was able to misdirect people. I'm sure I'm not the only one who got bamboozled by the end of the movie. That being said, I probably should have seen it coming. I thought it was difficult the way the genre of the movie suddenly changed come the end and I don't know what to make of that,
but I also don't care. If the ending was any kind of attempt to redeem Borden in my eyes, it didn't work that well. He killed Angier's wife, broke his leg, then he killed Angier to boot. They were both immensely entertaining pieces of shit.


8.5/10


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: 16,248
    • Culture Crossfire
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #161 on: May 16, 2017, 09:55:52 PM »
A really fantastic movie and I immediately re-watched it upon some of the reveals that happened. Upon re-watch, you could see some subtleness in acting methods that kind of clued the viewer into what was going on which made it all the more entertaining for me.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #162 on: May 17, 2017, 05:56:53 PM »


Dope, directed by Rick Famuyiwa

Dope is a bit of a mess, but it's quite the charming movie regardless of that. It's a strange film, and I wasn't expecting much of anything that happened in it. The film covers so much ground that it felt like the director had a ton of things they wanted to get off their chest. That definitely made things more fun, but the highs of the first half of the story were on too high a pedestal for the back half to reach. As I write about it, I'm still smiling.

Malcolm (Shameik Moore) is a nerd. There's no other way to put it. His friends Diggy (Kiersey Clemons) and Jib (Tony Revolori) are nerds too. They live in Inglewood and Malcolm thinks there's a chance that he can get into Harvard. So, that's what he's focused on. Famuyiwa clearly draws from some of his own experiences in order to put this thing together. As with any other high school student, Malcolm has distractions. A girl with a fat ass named Nakia (Zoe Kravitz) is one of them. See, Malcolm has a crush on her. Who doesn't have a crush on girls with fat asses? Easy to relate to this kid, right? Malcolm has an encounter with Dom (A$AP Rocky), a drug dealer in the neighborhood. Dom wants Nakia to come to his birthday party. Malcolm comes too, and the story unfolds from there. The story covers an absolute TON of ground. There's commentary on Bitcoins, gay conversion, drone strikes, blackness, drug use, the dark web, the expectations of high school, and on top of that you get a Rick Fox cameo. The coming of age genre desperately needed a movie like this. As with any good coming of age movie, there is a copious amount of nudity. Fine with me. Chanel Iman is a beautiful woman.

A lot of these things sound like they wouldn't lead to a good movie, but somehow they do. With Malcolm being interested in 80's and 90's hip hop, that's what you get from the soundtrack. It's fantastic. I did say the story had problems, but that's because the first half of the movie set massive standards. In fact, there was just no way to hold up to them. As such the movie drifts from a thriller into somewhat of a comedy, but that's fine. Will (Blake Anderson) was a particular bright spot late in the story. Many of the minor characters in this film were great in the limited time they had on screen. On the other hand, I thought Roger Guenveur Smith's character was totally bizarre and something straight out of a B movie. I have absolutely no idea how this movie could have been filmed on just $7 million, but the editing tricks used probably had a lot to do with that.

All in all, I enjoyed the movie very much. I thought the plot at the end required a little too much exposition, and that's one of the downsides of Dope. If you don't know anything about how the dark web works, you may get a little confused. I got more laughs from this than any movie I've watched all month. Maybe even combined.

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 Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #163 on: May 18, 2017, 06:27:11 PM »


Spotlight, directed by Tom McCarthy

I was actually dreading watching this. I'm not up for depressing films very often. Of course I can handle it, but this subject matter in particular is very deep, engrossing, and quite frankly it's sick too. The reality that people could do this to children is disgusting. I'm not the biggest fan of biographical films, especially about rough subject matter. Also, I remembered that some people called this movie "Oscar bait." I think the term in general is a gigantic load of shit. While it is a valid point that the subject matter can be covered in a documentary, how many people are going to watch a documentary? Stories like this need to be told and unfortunately they need to be told by filmmakers in order for them to reach their maximum audience. I don't think this was the best movie from 2015, or at least the best that I've seen, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of describing how good this was.

The best way to describe the plot is as such. The Boston Globe had a new editor named Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber). Baron read a column about a lawyer named Mitch Garabedian (Stanley Tucci), who claimed that the Catholic Church had been covering up sexual abuse. Garabedian had a reputation for being a crackpot, but Baron wanted his investigative team to look into this. The Spotlight team is as follows. Mike Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo) is the bulldog reporter on the team. Sacha (Rachel McAdams) is tasked with finding out information about the victims, who tell their stories to her. Matt Carroll (Brian d'Arcy James) is another one of the reporters, but his role in the story is very minor. The editor is Robby Robinson (Michael Keaton), who is the most even-keeled member of the team. I haven't seen Keaton in anything for ages, so that was nice.

Programs about journalism are boring to the majority of the population, it's fair to say. The reaction to The Wire's season five is a great example of that. The Newsroom didn't have any long-term staying power. I think that's for two reasons. One is that a film is probably a better format for such programs. Asking me to sign up to watch ten episodes (effectively ten hours) of journalism related programming is a major ask. The second reason is because journalism is dead. It's particularly amusing that Tom McCarthy participated in The Wire, which became a show about journalism in its last season. I believe he learned some lessons from that experience when putting this movie together. It is not remotely boring. There's one scene in the movie that I thought was goofy, but it was based on real events. Rezendes has a full meltdown that is very well portrayed by Mark Ruffalo, and while that's an extremely well acted scene it felt out of place. On the subject of well acted scenes, all of them really are. Schreiber's performance was crazy. I do my best not to look at a cast before I watch a movie, and somehow I didn't recognize him for a few minutes even though I was staring right at him. Schreiber and Ruffalo went against type, and I thought it was great.

I also liked that this movie didn't fall into any tropes in order to spice things up. Even though it's a true story, is it beyond filmmakers to sex things up in order to keep people interested? No, it's absolutely not. Regardless, Rachel McAdams' character kept credibility because there was no sexing it up whatsoever. Thankfully somebody decided to treat a woman like a woman and not have them sleep around to get their story. I said that I wasn't up for depressing subject matter, but in the end this wasn't a depressing movie at all. It was a movie about justice, about what it takes for something rotten in our society to be exposed. The most jarring part was at the end when they revealed the Cardinal was reassigned to Rome like nothing happened. Totally sickening. If you're looking for good cinematic tricks this movie isn't for you. What you get instead is a great story that's acted out expertly.

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 rollie

  • ulfistgut
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #164 on: May 18, 2017, 10:13:03 PM »
There's a couple of minor tricks they did that I did like (I feel it didn't get quite enough credit on that point, many reviews major criticism was that the direction was completely utilitarian). The main one was the way they'd shoot so many scenes with churches looming over the characters in the background. Reminded you of both what they were up against and also how ingrained religion was in the community...

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #165 on: May 21, 2017, 10:23:39 AM »


Avengers: Age of Ultron, directed by Joss Whedon

I knew that the Ultron aspects of this movie would be a problem for me going in. In fact, I expected to dislike the movie. Yet, it wasn't the Ultron aspects that I had a problem with. Unlike in the first movie, the gigantic cast is not used very well. To make it worse, the cast exploded and added more characters to the mix than I care to count.

There's no reason for me to run down the plot, because everyone watches this stuff. I thought there were a lot of cool scenes in the movie, so I'm just going to go in order. The scenes where Scarlet Witch manipulates minds are always interesting. Did they amount to shit? Probably not, but I think they'll pay off in some way later in the series. Ultron was a weak villain, but he got a better treatment than almost all the rest in this series. His scenes were interesting at least, which is more than I can say for some. The mid-credits scene was, you know, it's a mid-credits scene. What is there to say about that? The special effects during Quicksilver's scenes were great too, as was the fight between Hulk and the HULKBUSTER.

But ultimately, even though the movie was fun, I thought it was full of problems. These movies are inherently difficult to make, but these things really bothered me. The jokes became absolutely tiresome. I lost count of how many times they'd needlessly pan to one character so they could tell their bad joke. I don't particularly see the need for it after the first one or two movies that the character is in. Doing that made the movie feel entirely overbloated. I also thought the Ultron concept in general was a little confusing and didn't exactly translate well to film. As already mentioned, the cast is the biggest problem. It is just too fucking big and they keep making it bigger. At least they killed off somebody at the end and had somebody else disappear, but like...it's too big.

I didn't hate the movie, but I'm not sure I liked it very much. If not for the dream sequences and the Hulkbuster, I probably could have missed this movie entirely and not felt like I missed anything by reading it instead. That's a pretty big problem, especially when it's such a huge movie. The thing is, there are so many characters in the movie that I like, and I thought it was really smart to give Hawkeye a family and make him the normal man of the group.

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: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #166 on: May 26, 2017, 05:52:12 PM »


Adventureland, directed by Greg Mottola

I assumed given this was billed as a comedy from the director of Superbad and I was watching it eight years later, that the movie would feel extremely dated in some way. Fortunately this was not the case. The odds that I'll like a film with Jesse Eisenberg in it aren't very good either. The person who recommended the movie to me probably knew this beforehand. This was not at all what I expected.

Adventureland was surprisingly more of a romantic drama. James (Jesse Eisenberg) starts the story off with a first world problem. He has gotten what I would call a bullshit degree, and the summer afterward he wants to travel Europe. The problem is that his parents can't possibly fund his excursion any longer. So, James needs to get a summer job at home in Pittsburgh. Enter Adventureland. James is set to work at the amusement park's game section, because he needs the money. Seeing as it's a summer job, it's irrelevant that his degree is bullshit. There's quite an interesting cast of characters at the park. You have Connell (Ryan Reynolds), the maintenance man who's too cool to be hanging out with these kids. There's Lisa P. (Margarita Levieva), a beautiful ride attendant who all the guys want to have sex with. There's also Emily (Kristen Stewart), who saves James from getting stabbed.

I don't care for Jesse Eisenberg in any way, and because I don't like him, it was hard for me to buy into the story. At least that was the case at first. However, as things went on, I did buy into it, and the movie was pretty good. The thing is, even though the movie was set in 1987, the expectations of young people have changed so much that I was left with a strange feeling while watching this. Does anyone still get summer jobs working at a carnival? I really don't think so. Times have changed too much, or at least I thought they have. I thought everyone was well cast, and the selections for their characters was good. The relationships between the characters felt realistic, and most of us should have known people like these. So, it's the kind of movie that brings back some old memories. I was really expecting the film to be about sex jokes, which is what I was ready for when I sat down to watch it. That wasn't the case, but it was still very good. It's largely Kristen Stewart's performance that drives this thing, and that's great. It's the exact opposite of the numerous testosterone filled movies I've watched of late.

Ultimately, at least in 2017, everyone knows that life is full of shit. If you've ever thought with your dick instead of your brain and want to relive something like that, this is for you.

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 Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #167 on: May 27, 2017, 05:42:59 PM »


Fruitvale Station, directed by Ryan Coogler

Fruitvale Station is a movie best watched. It's only 80 minutes, so I'm not asking a lot of people. As such there is no reason to go over the plot. Michael B. Jordan plays Oscar Grant, a man who was shot by police on a BART platform on New Year's Day. The movie fortunately does not go to great lengths to turn Grant into a hero. Like any human, he did bad things. Even though you know that Grant will be shot and killed at the end of the movie, the journey to that point is interesting if you don't know anything about the character. Obviously this movie touched me, as the comments to follow will show.

There are a few things in the movie that seem dramatized, as there's no way anyone could possibly know that these things happened. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, as the events in it serve to humanize somebody who is a shooting victim. All accounts are that Grant wasn't some violent animal. The performances in this movie are really good and serve to illustrate that, and I have no idea how anyone could shoot this movie on less than a million dollars. A cast this good should cost more. I am not saying more because I reiterate that people here should watch this movie.

The unfortunate fact of movies like these is that the people who need to see them the most do not see them. Would it even matter if they did?  The image of police shooting victims, and in some cases people murdered by the police, is burned into their head. They feel that these people are thugs who deserved it and are never going to change their mind. I can see the defenses somebody would come up with for the police action here even if they saw the videos, and the movie was to tell Grant's last day completely faithfully. 

"Shouldn't have been on the train at 2 AM."

"The officer did it on accident."

"Kid shouldn't have been fighting on the train."

"When you wind up in jail this is what happens to you."

"Should do everything the cops say," even though there is plenty of proof they kill people who do.

On and on we go, it'll probably never end.

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 Hawk 34

  • Death Pool Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,243
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #168 on: May 27, 2017, 08:01:08 PM »
Glad you have enjoyed those movies.    Here's more suggestions (all on Netflix)

-Boyhood
-Blue is the Warmest Color
-Beginners
-The Music Never Stopped
-Begin Again

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #169 on: May 28, 2017, 06:33:21 PM »
The following review will not contain untagged spoilers past the 30 minute point of the movie. It's safe to read.



Interstellar, directed by Christopher Nolan

I should come straight out with it and say I have no idea what I just watched. I figured I should watch Interstellar before coming across any spoilers, and I knew I was tempting fate by letting things go this long. As with all Nolan films, this one is also highly engaging. The story is incredibly sprawling, this one the most of any Nolan movie I've seen. As such, once the movie is over it felt like I needed a guide to go over everything. Rather than do that, I'll unpack the story myself, in my own head.

Coop (Matty M) is a pilot, living in a world that has radically changed from the one we know now. There are allusions to global warming, but the gist of things is that people are running out of food sources. For those who don't know, we are running out of topsoil to grow food. It's a very real problem, so the possibility that everyone has to eat corn or have our food choices limited isn't entirely unrealistic in our future. Coop has brought children into this world, who are both played by various actors throughout the movie. His daughter Murph is a childhood prodigy of sorts. His son Tom has obviously not been taken under the same wing as Murph, and he likes to farm. Without getting into spoiling shit, everyone knows this movie is about space. You can assume that we have a problem on Earth to which the resolution can only be found in space. Coop has a great team with him, and there are places that need to be gotten to. Professor Brand (Michael Caine) is in charge of planning the mission and building the rocket. His daughter Amelia Brand (Anne Hathaway) is one of the people who will be joining the mission, as are Dr. Doyle (Wes Bentley), and Dr. Romilly (David Gyasi). There are also two robots. Bill Irwin does a great job voicing TARS, and Josh Stewart voices CASE.

The story presents a host of issues, some of which I did not entirely care for, but it's a great ride nevertheless. The ending is bullshit, but I don't think it had any impact on my enjoyment of the movie. If you like seeing great visual effects, make sure you watch this in HD on a big TV. Some of them are absolutely MINDBLOWING.

Spoiler: show
The big fucking tidal wave is one of the best I've seen on screen. The dead planet is another one, as are the space effects.


The visual effects are such that you have to see them, especially if you're a space nerd. If you're not, the story is probably going to present a host of problems for you. If you had to guess what a Nolan movie in space would be about, you can get the generals of it in about two or three tries. Even though the story is heavily flawed as already mentioned many times, the performances of the actors in combination with the visual effects make it impossible to look away. The characters here are great.

Spoiler: show
Matt Damon's surprise appearance was excellent, as was his character. I know it wasn't the point, but I couldn't stop laughing at his motivations. The delivery of his lines was awesome too. I probably won't ever be able to see him as anyone other than this character. Jessica Chastain's performance is also particularly worth mentioning. I've only seen her in parts of other movies before, but the story would have been a hell of a lot more confusing and convoluted without her ability to sell it. Casey Affleck playing Casey Affleck is also good for a laugh.


Am I going to overrate this movie? Unquestionably I am, and I am able to know that I'm overrating it while I'm doing it. Is it possible for a movie to be good or great without a good story? Probably not. But I love this space shit. This film was massively overambitious and the science was total bullshit. Does that even matter at all to me? No. I can't help myself. If someone asked me to watch this movie again in a year, I probably would. The nearly three hour run time is no object for me. It's also tough for me to look at the movie objectively because Matty M is the main character. Just going to be honest about that. Ultimately, Interstellar did pull on my heart strings, and in combination with the other things I liked, I can't help myself.

8.5/10


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #170 on: June 04, 2017, 06:17:06 PM »


Alien, directed by Ridley Scott

I tried not to watch space movies for a while after Interstellar, but this was next up on my list and it was unavoidable. It's inevitable that I'm not going to do the movie any justice, because its been nearly 40 years since it was made and people have really said all there is to say about it. So I will not attempt to do it any justice, and there's no reason for me to go over the plot. Ridley Scott's movies are a bit of hit or miss these days, but that's just how it goes once a director gets older. It's all hit going on here.

Clearly the best thing about Alien is that it takes a very long time for this movie to get to any sort of payoff. You're waiting for it the whole time, but that's just fine. It's the getting there that counts. Everyone knows the story, and everyone has seen this before. Except for apparently me. Because of that, there's a lot of things in this movie that really surprised me. Ash (Ian Holm) being a robot was something I didn't see coming until about five minutes beforehand. That's also with many years of foresight, knowing that there is a robot in the newer films. Still surprised me.

It's also great that the monster has no distinct shape, because it gives the director and everyone involved with the story the ability to run wild with it. Obviously that worked out to the tune of a massive franchise. I'm sure a lot of people think that the start of the movie is very slow and boring, but that's necessary in order to get people sucked into the story. If a movie is to show all their cards to the viewer, there's not a whole lot left to see. In this case, you don't see the full body of the alien until the very end of the movie. That's refreshing. Most impressive is the size of the ship. The Nostromo was absolutely enormous, as was the ship on the unknown planet. Why were they sent there? Other than the explanation given, I still have some question about it. Hopefully that is answered in the other movies, which I will watch in due time.

For me, there were a few good scares in the movie, with the most notable being when the alien burst out of Kane's (John Hurt) chest. Sigourney Weaver was also really good at portraying her character's fear as the movie went on.

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: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #171 on: June 05, 2017, 06:29:27 PM »


The Wolf of Wall Street, directed by Martin Scorsese

Once again, we have a film that I didn't know anything about beforehand. How could I not know anything about this? I just didn't. As with most Scorsese movies, you can pretty much figure out the direction this film is headed in before turning it on. You know there's going to be a lot of some specific things. Profanity, of course. This is not remotely surprising, but there's 569 uses of the word "fuck." Of course, you expect that. You know that Scorsese is going to set the man up for his fall. There's a lot of sex too, I'd say far more than in any of Scorsese's movies. But that's part of the territory, and as is made clear throughout the movie...that's Wall Street.

The cast in this movie is enormous, so inevitably I'm going to skip over a lot of people. Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a stockbroker. Belfort comes to his first job on Wall Street as a young man, with certain illusions of the kind of lifestyle people on Wall Street take part in. Mark Hanna (Matty M) is his boss, and in a 6 minute scene, he's there to tell Belfort all about the job. Unfortunately, he's in the movie for only a few more minutes than that. Belfort loses his job on Black Monday, sending him into a bit of a spiral. Eventually he gets out of it, and it's time to start his own company with Donnie (Jonah Hill), someone he meets at a restaurant.

To keep from spoiling the movie, I will stop it right there. Although, I don't really know how I'd be spoiling a true story. Regardless of that, some performances and moments are worth mentioning. At 3 hours, the movie is a little overbloated. I'd be a fool to deny that. In any case, it's still a very good film. There are constant laughs throughout, and if you haven't seen this, you're probably thinking "wow, a three hour comedy." Well, yeah. That's what this is. Even though it's overbloated, a few things carry it. Belfort's numerous speeches to his charged up employees take the cake. I can't really describe my reaction to any of them. It was along the lines of dumbfounded. That's a reaction I had a lot in this movie. Any of the numerous quaaluude scenes, and there really are a lot of them, gave me some genuine laughs as well as that feeling. It's impossible not to have these feelings about this movie. While I wouldn't say I was conflicted, many of the scenes here were more than amusing.

I also don't really understand the mindset that this movie glorified the behavior of these people. I mean, it really didn't. If you think doing lots of drugs in front of your children, cheating on your wife, beating your wife, and stealing money from innocent people is something that you want to do as a result of watching this movie, there's absolutely something wrong with you. I left some shit out on purpose. Sure, a lot of people would want to have a hot wife like Margot Robbie, but that's really as far as it goes for me. Some people just have a warped mind. Speaking of Robbie, I would be remiss not to mention her performance in her final scene. Was some crazy stuff. Other characters that deserve mention have to be Belfort's dad, played by Rob Reiner. Was so strange seeing him in this role. Jean Dujardin was good in his limited role, as was Jon Bernthal as a shady drug dealer. Laughed each time he was on screen. The New York accents were on point in this film.

Ultimately, I think this was a little too long. A few of the characters didn't do anything for me either. There were a few scenes that could have been trimmed, but it's a Scorsese movie and I'm sure as shit glad they weren't trimmed. Do I really need to know the history of quaaludes? While I was watching this movie, I think I did. One weakness is that there needed to be a detailed explanation of what kind of wrong doing was committed. The heavy hitter was money laundering, which was obvious. Still, there were a few other things I wanted to know. What makes the whole thing were the numerous memorable scenes. Genuinely too many to count, even if the yacht scene (you know the one) looked extremely goofy. I was also surprised to see Jonah Hill hold his own in this, and that's going to be what I take away from the film.

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 Avid Warehouse Enthusiast

  • Laz
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14,328
  • 0101100101
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #172 on: June 06, 2017, 01:13:20 AM »
Ash (Ian Holm) being a robot was something I didn't see coming until about five minutes beforehand. That's also with many years of foresight, knowing that there is a robot in the newer films. Still surprised me.
If you give it another watch, study Ash from the moment the crew exits cryo until the first time you "knew." There's a lot of subtle foreshadowing in how he moves and reacts to the rest of the cast, which is further credit to Ian Holm's abilities and to this being Scott's absolute peak.
Quote
I'm sure a lot of people think that the start of the movie is very slow and boring, but that's necessary in order to get people sucked into the story.

I'm actually surprised at how rare this opinion is for newer viewers. I made it a point when my girlfriend and I started dating to watch the first four films (she'd never seen more than a few scenes from any of them, a problem I had to resolve immediately), and she's the type to check her phone constantly during slower parts of a movie/TV show. She didn't touch her phone until we got to Alien 3.

That's when I knew I had a keeper.
Quote
Why were they sent there? Other than the explanation given, I still have some question about it. Hopefully that is answered in the other movies, which I will watch in due time.
3 sequels, 2 official prequels, and 2 "non-canon" pseudo-prequels later? Still no idea why they were sent there. There's hints that it'll be revealed in the Covenant sequel(s), but with how disappointing its box office has been that's now up in the air.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #173 on: June 06, 2017, 01:41:54 PM »
Ash (Ian Holm) being a robot was something I didn't see coming until about five minutes beforehand. That's also with many years of foresight, knowing that there is a robot in the newer films. Still surprised me.
If you give it another watch, study Ash from the moment the crew exits cryo until the first time you "knew." There's a lot of subtle foreshadowing in how he moves and reacts to the rest of the cast, which is further credit to Ian Holm's abilities and to this being Scott's absolute peak.

In hindsight, I definitely remember seeing signs that should have indicated it. His calm demeanor, not really caring about whether or not anyone else gets contaminated, and not being concerned with having the facehugger so close to him were all very strange.


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: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #174 on: June 06, 2017, 05:52:47 PM »


A Fistful of Dollars, directed by Sergio Leone

I've tried to start watching this film before, but I only made it about 20 minutes before having to do something else. Since that point, I resolved never to sit down and watch a movie unless I could finish it. Eight years later, I think I've done exactly that when watching any movie. Maybe even any TV show. Of course, what I'm thinking to myself at this moment, is "how the fuck can I even be a fan of this genre without ever having seen this movie?" It's a good point. I have every intention of resolving such issues going forward.

A Fistful of Dollars is set in a Mexican town called San Miguel. There's a stranger named Joe (Clint Eastwood), who is getting water at the start of the film. He's told that there's a feud between the Rojos and the Baxters. There seems to be minimal difference between the two. The Baxters are led by the town sheriff, but it's pretty clear that he's a shady character himself. The Rojos on the other hand, are just plain dirty. Joe decides that he's going to play the two against each other to make money, but it turns out there are other things at play. The Rojos kill a company of American soldiers, and use their uniforms when shooting up a company of Mexican army regulars. This spurs Joe into action.

Over the course of the movie, you find that Joe is a great shot. Actually, not even over the course of the movie. Almost immediately. Despite that being the case, that isn't the skill he puts to best use. It's his resourcefulness and ability to manipulate. The Rojos and Baxters are just really stupid people, hellbent on destroying each other. The Baxters don't present much of a threat, but the Rojos are comprised of three brothers and two henchmen, all five of which are a bit bumbling to some extent. Esteban (Sieghardt Rupp) and Ramon (Gian Maria Volontè) were my favorites. Esteban was the laugher of the bunch, constantly finding something funny about their situation. Ramon was the more menacing of the two, but he was a massive idiot himself.

While the cast of this movie is big, it pretty much revolves around the exploits of Joe. As you find, Joe isn't entirely an asshole. There's so many good scenes in this film. The cinematography is excellent, with the picture above being a great example of it. The shots were framed really well, and quite close. They were necessary to convey the intensity of the picture. So was a good score, this one being supplied by the excellent Ennio Morricone. If I do have any complaints about the movie, it's that the end comes far too soon after a certain incident towards the end of the film. I could have used a little bit more. I also found the dubbing a bit dated, but that's part of the charm. They told a great story here, and I'm interested to see what's ahead in the other two movies. I know they aren't direct sequels, but it's still interesting to see how somebody builds on their work presented here.

It's also interesting to see the reactions of the time as it relates to this film. The New York Times HATED this movie. Why? They called it cliche, and I guess to some extent it was, but I really don't give a shit.

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: 7,658
  • Kotzenjunge
    • A site I wrote.
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #175 on: June 07, 2017, 11:59:24 AM »
You know, the more I think about it, people should've been suggesting bad movies for you. Or really divisive/controversial ones.

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • Poster of the Year
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17,322
  • CWM
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #176 on: June 07, 2017, 12:11:22 PM »
He's already planning on watching Transformers 2 dawg. Don't get much worse.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #177 on: June 07, 2017, 12:13:03 PM »
Yeah, I'm watching some bad ones. Such as remakes of all the old movies CWM suggested, rather than watching the originals. Don't worry.


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: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #178 on: June 07, 2017, 06:26:21 PM »


The Hustler, directed by Robert Rossen

The Hustler was not quite what I was expecting, let's just put it that way. The film starts with Fast Eddie (Paul Newman) in a bar, getting worked over while shooting pool. The thing is, as the title would indicate, this is one big hustle. He wins his small stake, then it's time to challenge a legend, Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason). See, Fats has a reputation, and they say he hadn't lost in 15 years. Eddie comes close, but he's a drunk and has many other problems were aren't quite aware of at that point. While ahead, he loses all his money except 200 dollars.

The movie isn't as much about the pool playing as you'd expect. It's about something entirely different. Eddie is in love with Sarah (Piper Laurie), but his life choices are completely self destructive. They're both drunks, so there's that. Being a hustler is a totally unsustainable lifestyle to begin with, as it made clear when he has his thumbs broken. The Hustler isn't about sporting aspects. It's actually a bit hard to describe what the movie is about. I may not be skilled enough with words to pull it off. Do I really sympathize with someone who's willing to ruin their life in order to make money? No, I've never understood it. But Eddie is completely addicted to winning. His addictions are shown in other ways. Alcohol, cigarettes, hustling, beating other people. It's not so much making money. It's destroying other people.

Even when not intending to do so, Eddie does exactly that. At his lowest (in some ways, not in others), Eddie takes a stake from a rich gambler named Bert (George C. Scott), even though the split is a mere 75/25. He has to get back at Fats, it consumes him. Eddie is not capable of seeing what he has in front of him. The movie culminates in bizarre and unexpected fashion, such that I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it. The events are actually quite depressing. This is a really dark film, and while Eddie achieved his goal, ultimately he lost.

As for the technical aspects, this is full of good performances. I didn't care that much for the last few minutes of the film, it actually kind of pissed me off. I should have expected it considering the route things went, but damn. It was a good choice not to color this film, as black and white gave it a better feel. I can't explain that either. It just feels more real. Newman is so young in comparison to the rest of the cast that to color it probably would have made him look like much more of an asshole. I also thought the presentation of the pool games was very good. Lots of rapid cuts, and you don't really need to see the whole thing in any case. That was a great decision. It should also be mentioned that Robert Rossen was investigated for communist activity, and he decided that he needed to rat out everyone who was in those meetings with him. The screenplay was written by him, and you can see some elements of that previous decision in this story.

8.5/10


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: 16,248
    • Culture Crossfire
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #179 on: June 08, 2017, 08:36:35 AM »
I think The Color of Money (basically a sequel set 25 years later) with Newman and Cruise is very solid too.

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • Poster of the Year
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17,322
  • CWM
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #180 on: June 08, 2017, 03:36:59 PM »
Good to see you liking my recommendations and I agree hustler is best in black and white. Paul Newman is one of the all time greatest to me.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #181 on: June 09, 2017, 06:46:46 PM »


The Usual Suspects, directed by Bryan Singer

The Usual Suspects is another film that it's going to be very difficult for me to give justice to. I have discussed this before with other people, but I find there to be a massive need for original screenplays in Hollywood. This is one of the best of them. I love a good mystery. If you know the twist beforehand, I can see there being very little rewatch value for this movie. After all, the entire film is built around a small selection of things. The best part is that I thought I knew the twist (via having it spoiled), started to believe I didn't know it at all, then believed it again the closer it got to the end. That's a sign of a really good film.

We start off with a flash forward of sorts, or rather given that the narrative jumps all over the place, it's hard to tell exactly where this fits in at first. We see a man named Keaton (Gabriel Byrne) being shot to death by somebody called Keyser, who then lights a boat on fire. That's all we know. There are supposedly a few survivors. We have a Hungarian sailor (?), and a cripple named Verbal Kint (Kevin Spacey). Verbal has been given immunity by the district attorney, but a customs agent named Dave (Chazz Palminteri) still wants to know the story. He means the entire story. So, Verbal gives it to him straight. He, Keaton, McManus (Stephen Baldwin), Fenster (Benicio Del Toro), and Hockney (Kevin Pollak) meet in a jail cell. Some of them know each other, it seems. They have a plan to pull off a heist. The problem is that doing it spirals things rapidly out of control.

It's extremely difficult to go any further without spoiling. So, what I'll do is talk about the performances here. Del Toro does an accent that doesn't make any sense at all, but it helps make his character memorable. It adds something to the story. Pollak is funny as Hockney, but I'm not sure if it was intentional or not. The same can be said for Baldwin as McManus. All these years later, it's funny to see a super nutty evangelical do the things he did in this film. It's also a surprise of sorts that he was capable of performing this role. Kevin Spacey is Kevin Spacey. You know exactly what you're going to get there. Byrne is somewhat of a different story as Keaton. I don't recall seeing him in anything other than End of Days, which sticks out for all the wrong reasons. There's also a small appearance from Giancarlo Esposito, who plays a cigar smoking FBI agent. Very funny considering what he's done since. Pete Postlethwaite has a small part, and he's a great actor who died far too soon. Last but certainly not least, Palminteri makes a REALLY GOOD interrogating detective.

It says a lot about this film that I can't imagine any of these characters being played by a different actor. For a movie shot on $6,000,000, it's hard to believe. They also used some great locations, and of course the boat scene appeared like something that would cost a fair bit of money. But it didn't, and we're all better off for this moving existing. There's people who think this is a shit movie, but they're wrong. Maybe it's dated, but I don't care about that too much. The story was completely on point, and the structure of the narrative was perfect. If there's any negatives, it's that the plot was apparently too confusing for people like Roger Ebert, and with that being the case it's probably confusing for a lot of people. That's too bad. If I wasn't intelligent enough to follow the plot of this movie, I would hate myself. Of all the people to be KEYSER SOZE, they picked the right one. I'm a bit surprised that when the movie wrapped up, I didn't have any questions at all. That's always nice.

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 Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #182 on: June 11, 2017, 11:57:22 AM »


The Martian, directed by Ridley Scott

Unlike Interstellar, this is a far more straightforward space epic, one which should leave nobody with any questions other than if the science contained within is legitimate. Fortunately, while many major things were not scientifically accurate, I don't give that much of a shit. If you're hoping for scientific accuracy in a movie in order to enjoy it, you'll be waiting for a very long time. I tried not to go through space movies in such quick succession like this, but I felt the need to watch it. Interstellar was expiring, so when it came to that one I didn't have any choice.

Just like Gravity, this film cuts straight to the chase and does not bother to bloat the first act with unnecessary exposition. All you need to know is that NASA has sent a crew to Mars and they are halfway through their mission. Commander Lewis (Jessica Chastain), Mark Watney (Matt Damon), Dr. Vogel (Aksel Hennie), Beth Johanssen (Kate Mara), Chris Beck (Sebastian Stan), and Major Martinez (Michael Pena) make up the crew. There is a massive storm coming, one which will knock their ascent vehicle over and leave them stranded on Mars. So, unfortunately, their mission must be aborted. While evacuating, Watney disappears and cannot join them on the vehicle, so they must depart. After the storm is over, we find that Watney is still alive. His personal mission then becomes finding out how to survive for four more years.

The movie is full of good performances although the characters are very thin. For a movie of such length (2:20), that's a bit odd, until you sit down to watch it and realize the movie is packed with things that cannot be removed or expanded on. Watney uses a video log to explain to NASA how he does these things, and presumably the video log will be recovered in four years. So, you get all your exposition there. NASA's frantic attempts to establish communication are interesting, even though this feels like the general outline of a plot I've seen before. I just can't put my finger on it. Jeff Daniels plays the NASA director, Chiwetel Ejiofor plays the director of their Mars missions and general communicator with Watney, Sean Bean plays this specific mission director, and Kristen Wiig is very well cast as the PR director tasked with handling this catastrophe. This is quite the big cast, but I'm not done yet. You also have Benedict Wong as the director of JPL, and Donald Glover as one of his employees.

Now that I'm done with all that, I can talk about the most important thing in the movie. It is by far the cinematography and overall presentation. This movie could have been extremely dull in somebody else's hands. I'm not sure who to credit for all the things here, and perhaps in an HD era this movie would have looked excellent no matter what. I don't know. Choosing Wadi Rum for the location of "Mars" was quite smart. Its been done before, and everyone can see why just by googling it. There's some that haven't used the location as Mars, which I just don't understand at all. The overall look of the film is extremely important, and while this and the story lead me to give this a good rating, I did find quite a bit of flaws with this movie.

Ridiculous enough to mention first off, is the idea that the entire world is consumed with the idea of bringing Watney home from Mars. Maybe this is part of some kind of future where people get along and care about each other like that, but it doesn't resemble any realistic vision of the future I can see, nor is there a reason given for why the future is like this. The ending of the movie made me laugh rather than getting the emotion out of me they were attempting to accomplish. Also, I thought Wiig should have been some kind of bigger part of the movie, because her sporadic lines were quite good. The characters are also quite thin and it's not possible to understand all their motivations, but I did say that the way the film started was good. The film starting that way renders that an inevitability, so I shouldn't complain. Also, as mentioned already, the science is pretty bad. Some things like not accurately portraying the effects of radiation can be forgiven, as otherwise there would be no movie. Same for the big storm. Beck waving the probe in is not so forgivable. It didn't make any sense and I don't like the idea of treating spacecraft like a diesel truck. Repairing the airlock that way is goofy shit too. The other stuff, it's just a movie and a good one.

In closing, I did like seeing a movie where Sean Bean didn't die, and Michael Pena is always a good performer. I know why he doesn't have a bigger place in Hollywood, but that sucks. I also enjoyed that the production was mindful of the lack of skin care someone on a deserted planet would have, as well as their tooth decay. I'm also glad that the space epics of late don't seem to be dealing with unrealistic scenarios where people are shooting each other, or crews that are entirely uncooperative with each other, or have futuristic weaponry they use to do weird shit, as well as numerous other things I could mention. The visual effects were amazing, and specifically I'm thinking of chunks of dirt that were flying up the ascent vehicle during the storm. Also, the set designs were so nice as to be a little offputting in some cases. JPL doesn't waste money like that, their buildings look nowhere near that nice.

Overall, all these things taken in tandem make a good movie. It's not as good as Gravity or Interstellar, but I like that Hollywood is doing things with this genre. The first 30 minutes of the movie actually made it difficult for me to understand how anyone would expect to make money off something like this, but I suppose people have changed and are ready for something different. While some of the characters were padding and while the celebrations for his return were overboard, ultimately what's important was that by the end of the movie I cared about what happened to Watney.

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 Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #183 on: June 16, 2017, 06:59:35 PM »


Unforgiven, directed by Clint Eastwood

I delayed watching Unforgiven because I was expecting a re-telling of a preexisting story. Perhaps that's unfair, but considering the time period and some of the other Westerns that came out around the time of that film, I wasn't entirely sure of what I'd be getting. The answer to that question was...something special. There are far too many characters taking part in the story, but I didn't mind. 

Unforgiven starts out with a scene the entire film revolves around. Two cowboys want to get them some whores. The problem is that Delilah (Anna Levine) laughs at one of them because he has a small dick. So, the small dicked cowboy decides that he and his buddy are going to cut her face. You'd think those guys will be hanged or beaten for what they've done, right? Wrong. Instead, a sheriff named Little Bill (Gene Hackman) says that the cowboys are going to give the proprietor of the establishment, Skinny (Anthony James), some ponies instead. The prostitutes are not okay with this. So, they're giving out a $1,000 reward and telling everyone who comes through the town of Big Whiskey.

The story then takes us to Kansas, where a loudmouth calling himself the Schofield Kid (Jaimz Woolvett) is meeting with William Munny (Clint Eastwood), somebody with quite the reputation as a killer. In typical Eastwood fashion, there is a lack of information given to you as to how Munny earned that reputation. It's certainly for the best, as you get attached to the character before finding out. In any case, Munny does not immediately take the kid's offer for collecting on that bounty together. We see that Munny has two kids, is a pretty shit farmer, and no longer partakes in any of the behavior he was previously known for. The thing is, because he's a shit farmer, eventually he accepts and is accompanied on his path by his former partner Ned (Morgan Freeman).

There are a few other characters in the film, some of them quite great. English Bob (Richard Harris) isn't in the movie for long, but he steals a couple scenes. WW Beauchamp (Saul Rubinek) is on the other hand somewhat of a drag on the film, perhaps the only one. He's in the film quite a bit, too. The story here plays out so well. The best aspect of it is that other than the prostitutes, there really aren't any hero characters here. Everyone is bad to varying degrees, and in the end everyone is probably rooting for the worst of them all to win. There really isn't any redeeming aspect of Munny as an individual. Sure, he has kids, but he also left them to go hunt this bounty. He clearly has no morals. Joining him straight in that muck is Little Bill, one of the worst son of a bitch sheriff characters I can remember in one of these movies. It's great. Hackman knows exactly what to bring to the role, and even though he's hardly on the screen with Eastwood, he is very heavily featured.

Ultimately, the scene that sticks with me the most is the reveal of Munny's past, as well as the reactions by Eastwood to various instances throughout the movie where it's hinted at. This is a hell of a movie, right up my alley. You know exactly what you're going to get when you turn on a movie directed by Eastwood, and it's doubly the case for a Western where he takes part. With all that in mind, I feel like I haven't done this film any justice at all. The movie is extremely quotable, and no doubt I'll be using a few of them going forward.

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: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #184 on: June 29, 2017, 12:33:38 PM »


Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, directed by David Lynch

I've been watching Twin Peaks for the last two weeks, hence the lack of activity in this thread. I finished the original series yesterday, then it was time to watch the movie today. To talk about the movie at all would spoil a ton of things, so I'm just not going to do that. What I will say is that the movie is far more fucked up than the television show and I wasn't entirely prepared to watch what I watched.

7.5/10


I'll start back up with this thread once I completely catch up with the new parts of the series.


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

Online Brooklyn Zoo

  • BZ
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16,172
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #185 on: June 29, 2017, 02:18:08 PM »
Dude place beyond the pines, jeezus

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #186 on: June 29, 2017, 02:31:02 PM »
Dude place beyond the pines, jeezus

Not yet bro gotta catch up on Twin Peaks. I'll watch that right after I'm done though.


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

Online Brooklyn Zoo

  • BZ
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16,172
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #187 on: June 29, 2017, 02:48:05 PM »
Aightz

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #188 on: July 21, 2017, 05:02:39 PM »
I have actually seen many people call the following film:

boring
uneventful
painful
not containing any story

Have we found the fabled silent Trump voters?



The Place Beyond the Pines, directed by Derek Cianfrance

I said I was going to watch this, but I took far longer than I intended to. I'm getting back in the swing of this and going to ramp up my film watching. This was a particularly interesting film, but not remotely what I expected. Anyone who has checked this out can see by taking a look at the poster that it is somewhat misleading. In this case, it was a great thing that I don't read descriptions of the subject matter prior to watching.

We begin with Luke (Ryan Gosling) showcasing his ability as a motorcycle driver as a carnival. The first thing that immediately came to mind was white trash. Why wouldn't it? Once he's done, it turns out that he needs to give a woman a ride home. The woman is Romina (Eva Mendes), who unbeknownst to Luke, Luke has fathered a child with. Luke does not want his son to grow up without him, so he leaves the carnival and hangs around Schenectady. Schenectady isn't exactly a great place to get a job, so even though Luke wants to support his child, it isn't exactly easy. As far as the plot goes, I'll stop with that.

There is no reason to go into such an ambitious plot as only seeing it can describe things properly. One issue with movies that have three distinct acts like this one is that some characters are left short of time on the screen. Ray Liotta was a prominent part of the advertising and he was in three scenes. His role was interesting and I wanted to see more, but it wasn't to be. His wasn't the only one. Eva Mendes puts in a pretty good performance and is effectively shoved to the side. Mahershala Ali was another one. It bothers me a little bit when I know what somebody's about, what kind of performance they can have, and they get no opportunity. Effectively he is reduced to being hit in the eye.

Ambition does bring some positives to the table. The entire first act feels like part of one of the best films I've ever seen. To some extent Gosling plays The Driver all over again, but that's something I feel like I need to see. Gosling isn't typecast by any means, but sometimes people don't see the positive effects of an actor playing type. This particular role is one that carries a great deal of depth, one that can be explored many times over. Nobody else is as good at playing a violent drifter. Another plus point was the way the film opened. It takes balls to open a film with a long tracking shot that one, a Scorsese special. The effect wears off throughout the movie as this happens a few more times, but it's the opening shot that sticks with me. While I did criticize the usage of time in the three chapters of this story, I appreciate that someone attempted to pull this off. Consequences are a hell of a thing, although in the last act this felt a bit tenuous to some extent. The actors in the third act did well at retaining the viewer, but they were given a near impossible job to attempt to measure up to what came before them. I want to point out that those two had massively disparate personality types and would not be friends even for a day.

There were a few other actors I liked seeing in the film, but I would rather not say anything about who they were or what they did. Ben Mendelsohn is one that I'll be sure to see more of. Ultimately, it's worth your time to view this for yourself. Some people talk about movies being too long, and this one does sit at 140 minutes. My counter to that is that if you will probably spend 140 minutes of your day doing far worse things. Don't jerk off instead. Spend less time on the internet. Don't turn on the video games. At the very least, you'll get to see a director try to make one of the most audacious crime films of the last decade. I would say it was merely good, possibly could have been even more. Could also have been a lot worse without great casting.

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 Brooklyn Zoo

  • BZ
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16,172
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #189 on: July 22, 2017, 05:07:07 AM »
Yesss! Solid review. I agree that the director took risks. People could have tuned out after the first act but he had a strong theme developing throughout and great performances from the lead actors. I also love the score, still remember it. I can watch this movie over and over again.

Offline Saints_Fan_H

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4,695
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #190 on: July 23, 2017, 02:11:09 AM »
Reader request: Nothing But Trouble (1991).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102558/


Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #191 on: July 23, 2017, 01:41:54 PM »


Hail, Caesar!, directed by the Coen brothers

This was definitely a Coen brothers movie. That can mean quite a few things, but the first that comes to mind is their typical farce comedy. The second is Roger Deakins cinematography. Deakins brilliance is really only shown in a few scenes, one in particular being on the ocean. The outcome of that scene was quite unexpected, but that's the way these people work. Deakins is somebody I've mentioned before, and I just can't help but do it. The way he sets the scene in combination with color palette is always difficult to resist commenting on. This film had mixed reviews, and it's clear to see why. Many viewers found the film self-indulgent, which to some extent it was. Others found it quite amusing and interesting. I'm somewhere in the middle. Considering this was not a classic film of any sort, I will be spoiling with impunity below this point.

This film is set in the 1950's, with Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) as a fixer for Capitol Studios. This being the 1950's, the studio business was booming. Filmmaking was a factory business, where studios would churn out films with incredible regularity, shooting them on the lot. Of course, because it's the Coen brothers, this is overblown to large extent. We find that Mannix is considering a job offer from Lockheed, and that his job with the studio is quite stressful. He has to deal with Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), an actor in a film called Hail, Caesar, which is very close to finishing shooting. Mannix also must deal with Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich), a Western star who was placed in a drama film directed by Laurence Laurentz (in an excellent performance from Ralph Fiennes). Laurentz is quite demanding, which leads to a great scene where he attempts to change the diction of the woefully miscast and rangeless Doyle. The film inevitably revolved around Mannix by this point, because the problems never stop. DeeAnna (Scarlett Johansson) is in a film where she's a mermaid, but she's become pregnant while filming and people didn't exactly have a progressive attitude about unmarried mothers in those days. In the midst of all that, Whitlock is kidnapped by communists and held for ransom.

It isn't only movie stars giving Mannix these problems. Tilda Swinton plays twin gossip columnists, and they really want to get up in everyone's business. They have dirt on Whitlock that they want to spread around. Mannix also must deal with the job offer at hand, his wife (Alison Pill), his children, and the aforementioned communists. In typical Coen fashion, there are extra scenes thrown in. The most notable of them features Channing Tatum doing a Gene Kelly like dance routine. There's also Frances McDormand as a film editor, showing the process of editing the way it used to be. You also have Jonah Hill playing a different kind of fixer, one who steps in whenever the studio needs him to assume a role. Not an acting role. Just, you know, a role for one of their stars. You'll have to watch the movie to get an explanation. Michael Gambon narrates the movie, but his involvement doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You never know when his narration is coming, neither does it come at a time you'd think merits it.

The plot is as broad as it gets, but that's also what you expect. However, unlike Burn After Reading, there has to be some level of interest in the subject matter as it's a period piece. It took some time for the main story to develop, that being Whitlock being kidnapped by communists. From that point it goes down a farcical path, but I found it amusing. I felt differently about the movie when it ended than I did after thinking about it for 20 more minutes. Hindsight left me more appreciative in this instance. There was so much here packed into a short span of time. It may not have been for the best. There was no opportunity to develop characters. When it was revealed who masterminded the communist plot, I didn't have any feelings of attachment to the story. I felt nothing, but once they showed him leaving Hollywood, that was the only time in the film where it felt like the story hit high gear. There's also a scene with Doyle going on a date that features strong acting and a good gag, but it's ultimately pointless and doesn't pay off to any extent.

For what's bad about this, and there are some things as mentioned above, there's still a great basis for a story in this film. The ideas weren't developed, but the movie is funny regardless. The actors also put on some good performances, I didn't think Brolin was capable of carrying a film that played out like this one, and for the first ten minutes or so I felt like my suspicions would be correct. In the end that wasn't the case. The film was full of bright characters, and ultimately that saved it. In a movie full of them, Fiennes' portrayal of the betrayed director stands out the largest. I don't think anyone in Hail, Caesar performed as anything less than what you'd expect given the material they had, but it feels like they should have been given an opportunity to do more.

7/10


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: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #192 on: July 26, 2017, 05:21:04 PM »


The Man from U.N.C.L.E, directed by Guy Ritchie

I don't have any long list of reasons to watch this, so the usually overblown opening paragraph is going to be brief. I hadn't heard anything about this film at all, the main reason I checked it out was that it was expiring and I'd heard it was set in the 1950's. I'd heard wrong, it was set in the 1960's. 1963, in fact. I don't particularly understand why this picture was made either. I imagine that a studio head got a hair up their ass because they liked the old TV show and was demanding this film be made. That appears to be similar to the reality, although instead of a studio head, it was a producer who'd wanted the film made for 20 years.

Initially at least, The Man from U.N.C.L.E screams retro at the viewer. We immediately begin with Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) needing to escort a mechanic over the Berlin Wall to reunite with her father. Gabby (Alicia Vikander) and Solo are able to do so, but they're trailed by KGB agent Ilya (Armie Hammer) throughout the duration of the escape. The events then take us to Rome, where Gabby's father is being held. Why is that? He's a nuclear physicist, and former Nazis want to get the bomb, which is being produced by her father, her uncle (Sylvester Groth), Alexander Vinciguerra (Luca Calvani), and his wife Victoria (Elizabeth Debicki) From this point on, the film is very much standard action fare. There are a few good twists, one of them very much catching me by surprise. There's also an appearance from Hugh Grant, who looked just a bit older than he actually is. I didn't recognize him.

King Arthur aside (which I will eventually review here), it appears that Ritchie is good at taking a standard studio movie, putting a little spin on it, and expecting that to carry the viewing. To large extent it does. The setting is excellent. The fashion choices are particularly overboard, as is the dialogue surrounding them. His characters don't have much depth, but in this context it's acceptable. Other things were more important, and it's a fucking action movie. In what you'd expect to be the most tense scenes of the movie, there are amusing diversions that put good moments of the film in the background. That was different, at least in terms of what I've seen before. Perhaps this occurs more often, but I don't know. I'm watching another Ritchie movie in the next few days, so I'll be able to judge.

As for negatives, there are certainly a fair few. The most noticeable was that there was a car chase taking place with something that wasn't produced yet. The sand rail was also not even remotely period correct. Usually I don't care about something like that, but I noticed and I had a hard time getting over it. I also didn't care for seeing somebody do a stunt that was disproven on Mythbusters. It simply isn't something that can be done. There's also the matter of the last sequence of the film being so much more banal than the rest. I thought the first 70 minutes were far better than the rest, and the last 20 felt like something that didn't belong. Unfortunately, one of the villains was completely empty (Alexander) and the other (Victoria) completely overshadowed them. They are also on the screen for an equal amount of time, although rarely together.

What's good about this film is everything prior to that, when boats aren't being blown up. The actors are particularly adept in these roles, with Hammer standing out more than the others. This didn't quite come together the way I would have liked, but I'm a huge fan of this setting so it's difficult for me to judge movies like these appropriately. The comedy scenes contained within saved 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 Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #193 on: July 27, 2017, 02:14:38 PM »
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, directed by David Yates

Once again, I was somewhat forced to watch a movie from this series. Unlike the last time, I was okay with this. I think I'm going to finish the series over time, but it had been nearly two years since I saw the last one. Who knows how long it will take to finish? There's no need to go over the plot here, so this will be a lot shorter than usual.

The Order of the Phoenix is quite a bit shorter than the previous entry to this series, and I understand that this book was the longest one. So, I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do and I bet people were angry about it. I didn't and usually don't pay attention to that kind of thing, so it's irrelevant to me. The act of condensing a book is extremely difficult. I think to some extent it was well done, to some extent it wasn't. When actors like Helena Bonham Carter and Brendan Gleeson hardly appear, it doesn't leave me with good feelings. It felt like their parts should have led to more appearances than they actually had.
At least Gary Oldman got proper time, but in the end there was clearly a reason for that. The cast for this was just too large to be covered properly over the couse of the movie. These were my complaints the previous time, so there's really nothing different as far as that goes. The direction of this also merits no comment. It's crazy that somebody went from directing television movies to directing the entire rest of this series, as well as the new universe they're trying to get going.

Shortening the film has its bonuses, though. Looking at things from the perspective of an adult, it removes many of the more awkward scenes between the kids. I just don't care about some of the stories going on there. What I did care about were the dream sequences and adult characters, largely the teachers. The movie didn't quite revolve around them, but they played a huge part in it. That's for the best in this situation, especially considering that fans of this series had gotten older by the time the fifth movie was made. It's rough because so many actors I like are in this movie, so it feels essential to watch it even though it isn't my favorite subject matter. Particularly of note and as of yet unmentioned by me in any of these reviews would have to be the set design. For me, that's the real achievement there. Every entry in this series has a huge budget, but still. The set designs are unique and are worth a mention on their own. I haven't seen all of the films nominated for awards during the years this series was nominated in, but I find it hard to believe there were many films with better production than this one.

With such a massive cast, it's very difficult for anyone to stand out. Alan Rickman and Imelda Staunton did their best, and in Rickman's case he was also hardly in the film. Ultimately this edition was more reliant on the plot to advance the story than any of the usual main characters. The climax was quite good, but I had a hard time handling the way the story limped to its conclusion.

7/10


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: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #194 on: July 30, 2017, 05:30:04 PM »


RocknRolla, directed by Guy Ritchie

I said I was watching another Ritchie project this week, but I didn't realize this one was never released in theaters here before I turned it on. I'm also surprised that I found this as enjoyable as I did. This contained a few things similar to his later work, particularly the telling of action scenes through flashbacks. In this case it was a lot better than The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

Gerard Butler has rarely ever been interesting, or at least I thought that was the case until I checked out RocknRolla. Butler plays a Scottish criminal named One-Two, and he has his own little crew with some great characters. The Wild Bunch is made up of One-Two, Mumbles (Idris Elba), and Handsome Bob (Tom Hardy playing a closeted homosexual). The Wild Bunch has a problem with a real estate mobster named Lemmy Cole (Tom Wilkinson), who stole some money from them in one of his schemes. His hired muscle Archy (Mark Strong) plays his part, but you don't see much from him for quite some time. After Cole steals from the Wild Bunch, he has his sights set on Uri (Karel Roden), who plays a caricature of Roman Abramovich. If you know who Abramovich is, this film may sound quite interesting to you at this point. If you don't, you're probably confused as shit. After all, I didn't mention the RocknRolla yet. Johnny Quid's (Toby Kebbell) portion of the story takes place miles away from the rest, so there was no need to mention him. He is pictured above.

This film was as British as it gets, and if you have no prior understanding of their lingo as well as a tough time dealing with varying British accents, there is no point whatsoever in you watching this. After all, it wouldn't be enjoyable. If you haven't gone overboard into this seedy-junkie comedy-crime genre, then this will feel fresh to you, as it did to me. There were some bits that really had me going. The robberies are probably the best example. The last one is really good. The "victims" of it had an interesting conversation prior to it that let you know something interesting was on its way. It was surprisingly well done. By contrast the dialogue in The Man from U.N.C.L.E feels trite. Even though there were some similarities in the presentation of the films, perhaps it was best to watch these in such short succession. It shows that a screenwriter (Ritchie) has lost his punch.

Not everything in this film is so great though. When Jeremy Piven and Ludacris were on screen, I was expecting the worst. I'd only ever seen Piven in Entourage and Smokin' Aces, but this felt so lazy. It felt like he was playing Ari Gold, it was something I couldn't look past. Ludacris wasn't as bad, but he didn't talk much. As mentioned, the presentation is goofy. The flashbacks with narration work sometimes (the aforementioned last robbery), others it doesn't. There was also a lot of narration from Mark Strong, notably in the first 15 minutes of the film. The viewer is inundated with information, but it was entirely necessary information. The Abramovich character is hit and miss, with the biggest hit being one that you'll have to watch the film if you want to see because it spoils the entire thing.

Ultimately, the film is carried by good performances. This had mixed reviews, which doesn't exactly surprise me due to the nature of the story and presentation. The RocknRolla is a hell of a junkie, and I guess this poor bastard played Dr. Doom in the Fantastic Four reboot, so no wonder I've never seen him in anything else. His friend's Scouse accent is nearly unintelligible. I hardly even recognized Wilkinson. While typing this out, I realized I'm only mentioning men, and that's simply the nature of the film. Other than Thandie Newton, that's what you get here. This film is generic in some senses, but I liked it. It could have been even better without the narrator and with more care given to telling the story (as well as 20 more minutes to do so).

7/10


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: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #195 on: August 02, 2017, 05:53:40 PM »


The Magnificent Seven, directed by Antoine Fuqua

This was the first edition of watching remakes of classics rather than the classic, with the intention of making CWM angry because he recommended the classic to me in the first place. It's quite fun to do that, after all. From what I understand this film is quite dissimilar to the 1960 version, which itself is dissimilar to Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. When I saw that Nic Pizzolatto co-wrote the screenplay for this, I groaned. He's only ever done one thing worthwhile, and the best parts of that were plagiarized from philosophy books. Surprisingly, the script was okay.

Seemingly set in California, this movie kicks off with Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard) claiming the mining town of Rose Creek for his own, demanding that people give up their land or be dealt with. Some of these villagers stand up to him, only to be shot down. As a result of that, Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett) leaves town in search of help. Enter Chisolm (Denzel Washington), a US Marshal who we see dealing with problems. Chisolm knows that he will also need help in taking this town back for its people, so he needs to put together a team. His team is subsequently made up of...Faraday (Chris Pratt), a roguish individual who is accused of cheating at cards. Effectively, at least to some degree anyway, he is playing Star-Lord. Continuing that, he recruits Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke), a Confederate sniper with quite the reputation. Robicheaux is accompanied by Billy (Byung-hun Lee), who seems to be quite the knife thrower. There's also my favorite, Jack Horne (Vincent d'Onofrio), a wild man who quotes scripture while killing folks. It is hard to type that out without laughing. But that's d'Onofrio for you. Rounding out the team are Vasquez (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo), and Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeier). Everyone can see that those guys are Mexican and native respectively, yes?

That's quite the diverse team, which seems like one of the main reasons this film was made. That's a big positive for me. There were other people out in the West. All the Asians didn't work on railroads, the natives all didn't go up to live in the mountains, Mexicans didn't only just appear in the United States after World War II, and there were black cowboys. People should wise up about this stuff. The film does have its merits. Some of the characters are paper thin, but others are not. The main three are clearly Chisolm, Faraday, and Robicheaux. Those are the ones with motivation to actually be there (as does Billy because he follows Robicheaux everywhere), as does Vasquez. The other two really do not. But that's okay, because Red Harvest and Horne do cool shit. The shootouts are great even though you can't tell where everyone's coming from. I was pleasantly surprised that Chisholm's motivation to be there was solid, although I did not remotely care for the manner in which it was revealed. Seemed like something the viewer should know far earlier.

This was effectively a superhero film, which presents its fair share of problems given the genre space in which it inhabits. Because it is a superhero film, there's a lot more action, blowing up shit, and character tropes than I generally care for in my Westerns. The story as a whole was not great, and there are characters who ultimately amounted to nothing. Why was Red Harvest there? Who knows. The most positive aspect was the act of team building, and the rest of the film was simply incapable of matching it. Vasquez's reason for being in this story is to call people guero. That, you know, I don't know. That feels so lazy. The film is plenty long enough for there to be more to this. I am also not sure that this needed to be called a remake, or that the filmmakers needed seven characters for the team (they actually had eight). It was simply a vehicle for the film to be made. Regardless of that, it does feel like Fuqua cared about this project, even though it definitely could have been more. There was talent here, there was the budget to make something great out of it, and it just didn't happen. The ending was also not very positive and once it was over I was left with a sour taste. I also didn't like that the "outlaws" Chisolm rounded up didn't seem remotely like bad guys in any way.

If Vinny D wasn't doing his thing here, I know that I would have hated this. But he was in the film a lot and made me laugh a lot. As mentioned, the shootouts were also a major plus point. Denzel also slid into this role the way he does every role, but that's Denzel Washington, man. This was definitely a movie, but you could go your whole life without seeing a moment of it and be just fine.

6.5/10


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #196 on: August 02, 2017, 05:54:35 PM »
Also no, I will not watch the original. Not for a bigly long time.


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: 17,322
  • CWM
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #197 on: August 02, 2017, 06:46:39 PM »
Smh just shake my head son

Offline Harley Quinn

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,248
    • Culture Crossfire
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #198 on: August 03, 2017, 04:26:11 AM »
CWM's reaction after the first 3 lines of that review


Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,797
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #199 on: August 03, 2017, 05:40:33 PM »


Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, directed by Michael Bay

As somebody who watched one of the Transformers cartoons as a kid, it's probably sad that I forgot everyone except for Optimus Prime and Megatron. But I really did, and anyone mad about that just has to get over it. I should mention beforehand that I forgot everything about the first film, which doesn't mean anything as nothing in the first film actually mattered in this one. I really mean that nothing mattered, and worst of all everything was treated like it did, so in some instances I don't recall hearing the names of any of the robots. In theory, it seems like it would be easy to make a decent Transformers film. Perhaps it isn't, but it seems like it. However, I cannot think of any blockbuster with such detestable characters.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is really a massive pile of shit, and I didn't need to watch this to know that it was probably true. As soon as it was stated that I needed to watch more bad movies, I immediately added this one to the list. I knew I couldn't pick anything better to go on about. There's no point to going over the plot, as the film lasts for 150 minutes and nothing in the first two hours actually matters in any way whatsoever. The action scenes are the only redeemable thing in the movie, as I am amazed at the visual effects used here. Nothing is impossible, but it's still hard to believe that there is the capacity for visual effects people to actually do these things with film. I know somebody who is getting into the engineering aspect of this industry, and I'm left to wonder what else they'll be able to do in 20 years. Visual effects have obviously taken massive leaps forward in the prior 20 years.

Again, I do not know any other series with such annoying characters, and it wasn't only the humans in this instance. I think this film is genuinely deeply offensive. For a series that markets their product straight to children, I do not understand why a studio would allow the filmmaker to put some of these things in the picture. I don't think I would want my child watching this until they're 12 or 13 even though it's largely marketed towards eight year olds. It actually took me 36 minutes to laugh at anything in this film. I didn't find any of the jokes funny, and other than a few things I was laughing for the wrong reasons. The two minstrel robots with accents, big ears, inability to read, and gold teeth are something I find hard to believe exists. Yet it does, and I don't like it. The parents may be the worst characters in the history of blockbuster cinema. That they teleported to Egypt at the end of the film was amusing to a degree that I can't describe. Why were they there?

There are endless negative points to this movie. The big bad "The Fallen" meets his end after a one or two minute fight. What? John Turturro deserved far better than this as well, but at least he tried. I hope he got paid. The plot doesn't make any sense whatsoever and is riddled with more useless, annoying characters. It wouldn't bother me as much if the screenplay disposed of them once their use was over, but that's not what happened and they all come together at the end of the film anyway. There's also dogs humping legs and fucking each other, and again I have to mention the parents, because holy shit. Who cast these people? Who writes this shit? It's also nearly impossible to enjoy the action scenes because Bay can't resist throwing garbage into them. It's too bad, it really is. Like I said, it is possible to make a good Transformers movie, I just wouldn't count on it. The people who participated in this film literally do not deserve mention. I don't care to add them in. I could keep going for ages, but I really don't want to because it already took me about 2:45 (with a piss break or two) to watch this. Anything in this you thought was bad, I also thought was bad. That sums it up.

Oh yeah, another positive before I forget. The nuts. That's enough to make me watch the whole series, which I will do in due time.

3/10


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