Author Topic: In Which I Review Movies  (Read 34123 times)

Description: Darkest Hour

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline muzzington

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2,526
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #750 on: July 03, 2018, 10:12:50 PM »
I don't comment on these but I do read them, continue the great work (and consider watching Snatch too).

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #751 on: July 04, 2018, 05:23:55 AM »
I don't comment on these but I do read them, continue the great work (and consider watching Snatch too).

It's definitely on the list, but I'm trying hard not to completely blow through that entire genre. Will probably take a while.


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #752 on: July 04, 2018, 06:21:34 PM »


Sexy Beast (2000), directed by Jonathan Glazer

I'm trying to think of a way to tackle this review, because I did just state that I do my best to never watch two genre films in short succession. Particularly I was referring to British crime dramas, which are about tough cunts and what tough cunts do. The problem is, this was expiring on Starz in two days, so I had to watch it as soon as possible. I also had company today, So, with that in mind, I needed to watch something short and today was the day. I need to address this film in my own way, and there's only one way in which I can do so. Some of the things here are totally surreal, others are entirely suspected given who's in the film, but I never would have expected some of the parts in this to exist at all. Yet, much like in other films, they exist, and I shouldn't be surprised by these kinds of things anymore. If Part 8 of the third season of Twin Peaks exists, and if I've watched it, why the hell am I surprised? I really don't know anymore. Speaking of that show, I need to finish it ASAP. The thing I am talking about is nowhere near as interesting as The Woodsman, though.

Here's how Sexy Beast works. It is neither sexy nor beastly, it is a reference to Gal (Ray Winstone), a retired gangster of some sort. Gal has moved to Spain with his wife DeeDee (Amanda Redman), and he has two friends there, Aitch (Cavan Kendall) and Jackie (Julianne White), who are also married. In Spain, it's a nice life, even though it's absolutely boiling hot. I've always wanted to go to Andalusia, but as presented in this film it seems like the kind of place that would certainly give someone skin cancer. I'm not one to talk as I live in one of those locations myself. Anyway, one of our first scenes features a boulder falling from a hill, going over Gal's head, and landing in the pool. Afterwards, we meet Gal's friends, and he subsequently goes on a rabbit hunt with a boy who works around the house, Enrique (Alvaro Monje). After the hunt, Gal returns and has a dream of a demonic, man-sized rabbit pointing a gun at him. This is not the only dream scene, and while I usually love surrealist dream scenes, I find these to be the weakest part of the film by some distance. They are completely unnecessary.

After the hunt and dream, Aitch and Jackie receive a phone call from Don Logan (Ben Kingsley), and in a genre full of tough cunts, this might be the toughest and craziest cunt of them all. Logan is bad news, particularly for a retiree like Gal, who knows bad stuff comes along with Logan. There's only a few reasons Logan could possibly call, and even fewer that Logan would fly to Spain to meet with him. Logan wants Gal to come out of retirement, and his intention is to rob a bank in London. Teddy Bass (Ian McShane) is a huge crime boss of some kind, but in any case, he's learned that there's a vault that presents minimal risk to rob. It's also extremely secure. Of course, in any kind of movie, that means someone has to rob it, it's a huge target that anyone would like to claim, and there has to be real quality stuff inside of there. Bass decides to enter the vault and make his own deposit, but unbeknownst to the manager, it's simply a pack of cigarettes. Now, as for Logan, it's difficult for me to decide what I want to talk about here, but I think I've zeroed in on two things. First, this guy banged Jackie, and it goes without saying that when your best friend Aitch is a weak old man, it's best he doesn't find out. Secondly, and related to why Gal wouldn't want Aitch to know, this guy Don Logan, is fucking extremely dangerous and volatile. Didn't I already say that though?

Ben Kingsley's performance here is something I simply didn't think he was capable of, when I think of him, I think of him playing so many roles where he is passive and not even remotely aggressive. I'm not only thinking of Ghandi, there's definitely far more than just that. His role playing himself and having to deal with Christopher Moltisanti might take the cake for awkward performances. Here, he's a whirlwind, something capable of fucking up anything simply by coming into contact with it. Don Logan is a man who talks to himself constantly, who spits out profanity like it's going out of style, who's always a threat to beat someone up or kill them, and he'll say anything horrible about someone else in order to rile them up. Just give Don Logan a reason and he'll put you out, get rid of you for good. I had no idea Kingsley was remotely capable of this, it's a role that is seemingly beyond him, so there's no surprise at all that he got nominated for an Oscar. As far as One Last Job films go, well this isn't one of the best, but it does feature a fantastic performance.

As far as everything else goes, the film is on the very high end of solid, even good, but I can't make the leap to this being a great film. It's not really a heist film either, that portion of the film is quite short in comparison to the rest. That's quite alright though, I actually prefer to see something different, something that's largely about getting someone to take part in the heist rather than their part IN the heist. Some of the small details of the plot are excellent. We know that Gal isn't flush with money even though he lives in a Spanish villa, he simply doesn't want to do the job. We know that his wife was a porn star before he married her, yet he seems to not care about this part. We also know that Teddy got ass fucked by the bank manager in order to get the details of the bank vault. Or was it the other way around? It didn't look like it. Anyway, the details are important, they create a good film. However, there's one thing I simply can't shake. It's the fact that if Logan acted like that all the time, he would have been murdered a long time before reaching that age. When Johnny Depp portrayed Whitey Bulger, the material did not allow for him to act like Bulger was a crazed maniac, it's hard for someone to live very long acting like that. Perhaps this is a case where fiction creates something more entertaining than reality. Because, for the most part, it really is.

I've already run through my complete list of positives and negatives, but after I watch Snatch, which will definitely be some time in the next few months, I have no idea where else this genre goes. I may have basically seen the lot, which would be a bit shit, but I bet that if I went down Ray Winstone's list of performances, there has to be something else worth watching. But, what if there isn't? What will I be left to do? There would be a big gap in my life, one I do not want at all, one that would remain unfilled for ages. Will I be left to watch more Jason Statham movies? More foreign films? Explore different genres? The answer to all those questions is yes, but maybe I'm just really wrong, maybe there's a lot more of these to put in my life, and there's one really simple fact, that nobody will stop making these. This genre will become one for nostalgia, one someone will decide has to live on, and subsequently more of these films will be made even if taking place in different time periods. Or at least I hope so. Still, I'm glad that I saw these in such relatively short succession. I should also note that Sexy Beast is largely similar although doesn't feature the super intense, quick pacing that any of the other British crime dramas I've reviewed feature.

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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #753 on: July 05, 2018, 06:31:58 PM »


Unbreakable (2000), directed by M. Night Shyamalan

I have to watch this and Split with basically no space between them, but I'm able to shove at least a week in. Anyway, this is yet another movie that was on my December list, another that I couldn't watch, but I'm finally able to do so now. I have no particular affinity or preference to watch those movies, they just come back up as they expire on other streaming sites. Anyway, I know this had good reviews, but this is a superhero movie made 18 years ago. I had no idea what was going to be in it, nor what it was going to be about. I'm sure I've been told before, I simply didn't remember, it wasn't important enough for me to retain the information. Anyway, nothing about this seemed like a superhero film, I couldn't imagine Bruce Willis or Samuel L. Jackson playing someone with superpowers, it's just too weird to me. I'm also surprised by how big the budget for this was, but I suppose it was time for everyone to get paid in those days. The content of the film does not seem like something that required a massive budget. In any case, this is a more practical and realistsic superhero film. It is a good effort at making something in an era before CGI became so common.

The film starts in 1961, with a woman having given birth in Philadelphia. Unfortunately, the child is born with osteogensis imperfecta, which means that his bones are fragile and prone to breaking. His name is Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), and he is born with broken legs and arms, which sounds terrible for a mother to learn about her newborn. Over the course of the film, we learn that Elijah has suffered more bone breaks than sounds humanly possible, yet he is still able to manuever with a cane, at least for a while. After the birth flashback, we move forward to the present, with David Dunn (Bruce Willis) riding a train. David is a guy with problems, specifically marital problems. He and his wife Audrey (Robin Wright) don't really speak to each other, they also live in separate rooms. Their son Joseph (Spencer Treat Clark) doesn't really comment on this, which is something I'll address later. Anyway, David is riding back from a job interview in New York, but the viewer doesn't realize until the conclusion of his opening scene why he's done so, or the circumstances of his life. While riding home, there's a huge accident, a train derailment. Somehow, David is unharmed. He is the only survivor, he is uninjured, 131 people are dead.

Afterwards, David undergoes a period of self-examination. You could call it survivor's guilt, I suppose, but it isn't really presented in such fashion. After a memorial for the dead passengers, someone has left a card on his truck, which presents a very simple question. Have you ever been sick? David finds out where the card came from, but not before more self-examination. He asks Audrey if he's been sick, she doesn't think so. He can't remember being sick, and he seems to have a lot of repressed memories, which is also something I'm going to address later. David continues with his journey upon not finding answers, and goes to the store the card came from. He learns that it was Elijah who sent him the card, and Elijah presents him with a theory. If there's someone like him with his problems, there has to be a person out there with the inverse of those problems. He's read a lot of comic books and has been convinced of this, nothing is going to change his mind. He is curious as to whether or not David fits his criteria, and poses questions to him. Meanwhile, with David having brought his son to this interview of sorts, Joseph starts believing that his dad possesses the traits of a superhero.

I need to address the negatives of this story before I forget, because they are eating away at me the longer I think about them. The way that David and his family can't remember details of his life sounds completely ridiculous to me, I can't imagine having my head that far in the sand about people I live with and love. It's actually completely nonsensical and a massive negative point in an otherwise good movie. Similar to that, Joseph's lack of commenting or behavior related to his mom and dad's distance is a bit odd as well. I'm super confused by both things and have a hard time believing this portrayal of a family unit. Bruce Willis has a very strong performance here, so I'm not talking about that aspect, but the screenplay pertaining to this aspect sounds foreign. I can't believe that Shyamalan doesn't see this either. Now, in all honesty, those are really the only negative points I have. Big as they are, and there's another scene that plays out via reflection off a television, which I thought was simply bad direction. I had a hard time paying attention to it even though it was clearly very important.

Now, the positive, of course, is the aspects related to its comic book story. This is an origin story that is up there with the best, even though the film makes serious errors with David's family life. Regardless of that, his own discovery of his gift and eventual usage of it is excellent viewing. It is no surprise at all that tons of superhero movies would come out after this one, it's simply what people wanted to see. The viewer decides what's worth making, after all. I thought the ending was also very good. Without spoiling, anyway. That's really all I can say about it. Unbreakable is largely about David realizing he has gifts, but he wouldn't know this without Elijah prodding and provoking him into doing something about it. It's a good story, and there's been plenty since, so I'm not sure exactly where it ranks. I don't try to do that, it's not my thing to throw out rankings for everything. But, compare it to what scores I've given other origin stories, and there you go. That's really all you can do I guess, I'm not going to do it.

I would be making a huge mistake to review a M. Night Shyamalan movie and not talk about the twist in it, so I'm going to spoiler tag the rest of this paragraph and therefore the rest of the review.

Spoiler: show

I cannot believe that he actually had the balls to go with this ending, with Elijah being revealed as the single greatest terrorist in the history of mankind. I'm going to admit, I didn't really see it coming, but there's so much leading to it in hindsight that is giving away the reality of the situation. Over and over again Elijah says that they are on opposite ends of the curve, that they are completely different, but to run with that the entire way was an inspired decision. I'm sure people have mixed feelings about it, I know that a lot of people here probably think the twist was awful, but I don't. I think it's ingenious to make people think they did something wrong by enjoying Elijah's character, at least if you care that much about a movie anyway. Unfortunately, this twist led Shyamalan to think he could do anything with a movie, and therefore he did exactly that. It stands to reason that Elijah wouldn't get caught, but it's totally ridiculous. I liked it. I thought there was one aspect of the ending that falls far short though, it was the text overlay after Elijah's reveal. Like, seriously. Are you fucking serious to not play things out to their conclusion?


As stated, those negatives are really big, and I rated the film as such.

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 Avid Warehouse Enthusiast

  • Laz
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14,031
  • 001101001101101100
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #754 on: July 06, 2018, 01:16:51 AM »
Granted I haven't watched it in over a decade, but I don't remember the family dynamic being all that awkward. I'll have to check it out again, but your brief analysis seems a little off to me (maybe because most of my teens saw my parents have a similar sense of detachment?).
Maybe the real deep state was the friends we made along the way.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #755 on: July 06, 2018, 04:17:11 AM »
Granted I haven't watched it in over a decade, but I don't remember the family dynamic being all that awkward. I'll have to check it out again, but your brief analysis seems a little off to me (maybe because most of my teens saw my parents have a similar sense of detachment?).

It's more that we don't learn anything about their problems. It's 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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #756 on: July 08, 2018, 08:49:35 AM »


Virunga (2014), directed by Orlando von Einsiedel

No reason to beat around the bush, I'm going to get straight to the facts as I try to do with every documentary. Shot in cinema-verite fashion, Virunga is the second film related to the Congo that I've watched in the span of a month. The first, of course, was related to the exploitation of the Congo. So is the second! Virunga tells the story of four people, although it does so to various extents and requires you to take the entire picture as a whole. I will address the four people one by one, but it's ultimately not just those people that this is really about, it's about the entire region. There are also two overarching plot points affecting the entire region. It is difficult for me to decide what I should talk about first, the people or the plot points, but then again, they all go together. The events of this film took place in 2012, during a very turbulent time for North Kivu, which is in East Congo. Virunga, on the other hand, is the name for the national park in that province. I felt obligated to clarify that early on and get it out of the way.

Anyway, now that I've gotten those pre-details out of the way, let's talk about the film. The director and his crew traveled to Virunga National Park to make a positive documentary film about the situation there after the Congo Wars, to promote tourism, and all that. Basically a propaganda film. Instead, upon arrival, the situation had changed entirely. The M23 Rebellion began soon after arrival, and all the events I will mention here are intertwined with each other. I may not be capable of illustrating how exactly things worked out. The United Nations subsequently learned that Rwanda created this rebel group and supplied it, tiny as Rwanda is. Anyway, the M23 rebels wanted to take their country back, and had taken control of Goma, a city with a population of one million. The Congo is just a place that is always going to have these kinds of problems, because of the amount of natural resources in the country. Speaking of those, there is a possibility for oil in the aforementioned Virunga National Park. The Congolese government had given SOCO International, a British oil company, the rights to explore for oil and potentially draw it out of the park. This is a violation of international law as stated in the film, because Virunga is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Fucking with conservational parks is a serious no-no.

Now, to tie things back to the four people, and I realize I'm doing a poor job, here's the situation at the park. The film focuses on gorilla caretaker Andre Bauma, who is tasked with ensuring that four sickly gorillas without parents progress through their life until it is time for them to go back into the forest. Rodrigue Katembo is a central warden who decides to go undercover to prove that there is some serious corruption going on, and his videos are key to tying the story together. He knows people affiliated with SOCO, which leads to quite a few crazy revelations. There's also Melanie Gouby, an investigative journalist who meets with numerous SOCO employees and rebels, because she's putting together a story on the region. Some of these people are so dumb that they just tell her everything they think, including their beliefs that European countries should recolonize the region. Simply doing it via private corporations, they believe, is not quite enough. What we learn from these meetings is that the rebellion and SOCO may be tied together, and they have one common enemy, our last subject, Emmanuel de Merode. de Merode is a member of the Belgian royal family, and he has the job of protecting Virunga as its chief warden. His job is not an easy one, he is tasked with many issues, including keeping the park secure from poachers who will kill the parents of young gorillas and try to sell the babies. The thing is, the rebels and employees of SOCO seem to want him dead. After this was filmed and two days prior to its release, some men actually tried to kill de Merode and shot him numerous times. He survived.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure I did a shit job summarizing some of the events here, but this film is intertwined to a crazy extent, the kind which only an expert director could pull off. This was the director's first documentary feature, but he did a hell of a job ensuring the story was cohesive with all this information he had compiled. A hell of a job is what it was, I cannot describe how confusing the events could possibly have been. Just look at my account of it. Only a great Hollywood screenplay comes close to the levels of corporate malfeasance, stories of violence, overall corruption, and noble behavior in its heroes that is shown in this film. It's incredible. Just because Europe stopped government colonization of Africa doesn't mean that companies have stopped trying to do so, and they will do whatever it takes in order to pull things off. Some time after this film was released, SOCO aannounced that they pulled out of the region. But did they really? Only another documentary could answer that.

If you haven't read about the region yourself, you could never foresee the ending of this documentary. It is unbelievably shocking. The events of real life conspired to take a very good documentary and turn it into an amazing one, but the editing of the events in the film prior to that is nothing but perfection. SOCO had denied their role in this conflict, and denied that they attempted to pay bribes to park rangers, or that their employees believe these things about the Congo, but the damage has been done. This region of the world is intriguing, but it's also haunting to see the damage that humans can do to one another. In the aftermath of the events near the end, a refugee camp that housed 60,000 was destroyed, with no knowledge of where the refugees wound up scattering to. This film is certainly not for the faint of heart. There is a scene where de Merode and his team of rangers come across a gigantic elephant carcass. I happened to watch this scene when I was eating and I could barely finish my food. What we see is that there are things affected beyond the military forces that engage in these conflicts, that they happen for more reasons than simple territorial or ethnic conflicts, there is always something extra to them, usually something that lies under the ground.

I will never claim that I'm going to quit using oil, install solar power and all that stuff, I simply can't afford it. However, the natural resources in the Congo have effectively irreparably destroyed their country, and we are not blameless by sheer inability to stop using these things.

https://www.wired.com/2008/07/the-playstation-2/

This stuff is real, it is in all our electronics, these resources allow us to use them while the countries that house them are pillaged in the name of profit. It is to some extent our fault, it is worse that we have not demanded the manufacturing and creation of synthetic resources to replace them. It is a failure of the human race that we do not prioritize these development. Our inability to do so has led to  rapes, children without parents, a massive refugee crisis, starvation, instability, and worst of all millions of deaths. This film does not examine our role in these events beyond a complaint from a Congolese that their land is being ruined so that people can play Playstation or use a computer, yet most of what I take away from the documentary is that we are the ones who have done this. But, if you don't see that we all share a part in this stuff, you're very naive and willfully stupid. It is a horrible feeling to know that my use of these things leads to such problems. Our complicity leads to companies like SOCO International doing whatever it takes to mine the resources that they want to make money off of. If that means funding a few rebels and killing a whole species of monkeys, they really don't care. They believe that far worse things should be done, recolonization and destruction of the native population is their ultimate end game.

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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #757 on: July 08, 2018, 06:22:43 PM »
enough spoilers to ruin a viewing. movie should be watched blind.



The Lobster (2015), directed by Yorgos Lanthimos

There is really no way to describe this as anything other than the strangest film I have seen in a month. I would go further back, but Get Out was something I saw in June, I can't really say that it wasn't in the same category of mindfuck that The Lobster was. I haven't seen any of Lanthimos other work, and the stuff that came before this was someething I didn't have time to space out properly prior to checking this out. I think it'll be expiring from Amazon Prime soon, I recommend watching this before it does. This is a film that can be described as very fitting for our time. I will need the whole review to describe why that is, and I like that this is an absurdist film that takes the time to explain why things are the way they are. This is also a solid social critique of the way in which we create dating matches with each other, as well as completely deadpan in the way it plays out. There is nothing I can say that isn't better described by someone else, but it seems that people like my descriptions. I think you guys really need to watch this before you have to pay extra to do so, and even if you do, it's worth the rental.

Immediately after his wife leaves him for another man, David (Colin Farrell) is escorted to a hotel. The viewer, should they not read this review nor the description of the movie prior to watching it, will have no idea what's coming next. Here's the concept, and if you don't want to know, turn around and just watch the fucking film. David checks into the hotel and is unsure how to actually check in, as a heterosexual or homosexual, all based upon one experience while in college. There is no option to check in as bisexual, and this scene lets you know that what you're going to be watching is out there on some other planet. The society is void of emotion and doesn't give a fuck about your feelings. The hotel manager (Olivia Colman) tells David and the viewer exactly what's up. David has 45 days to find a partner before being transformed into an animal, like David's brother, who is now a dog that David has brought with him to the hotel. David decides that he would prefer to be turned into a lobster if things don't go well, and he also decides that he's heterosexual. Upon arrival, David makes some friends, Lisping Man (John C. Reilly) and Limping Man (Ben Whishaw). You learn their names later, but who cares about that.

As the film progresses, we learn that the slate of potential partners in this hotel is super bleak. There's Nosebleed Woman (Jessica Barden), who seems normal besides all that. There's Biscuit Woman (Ashley Jensen), who says a few lines that seemed beyond all the things I could have imagined she would ever say. That's how it goes though, and her character shows you exactly how this society is. If she can't find a partner she's going to kill herself instead of becoming an animal. There's Heartless Woman (Angeliki Papoulia), who seems like a quirky bitch, until you see a scene that is completely stomach turning and horrible. It's also a necessary scene, one that can't be removed, because the viewer needs to know that this person is truly a heartless bitch. So, it's pretty bleak for our guy David. In addition to that, the hotel has rules. There is no masturbating, someone comes around every morning to sexually stimulate the guest by doing a hilarious lap dance, and there's propaganda that talks about how virtuous and great partnership is. Lastly, residents are taken out to the forest to hunt and tranquilize people who live out in the forest. These people are called "loners."

I have only set up the situation without revealing any of the events, that is all I could do. This really should be watched blind, because there is no amount of summarization that can really describe this situation or the presentation of this story. Everything here is completely deadpan, it is one of the most ridiculous movies I have watched. I also neglected to mention a few ground rules, but I do have to mention one of them, there's supposed to be no way to fake your way into a relationship in this movie. Any bad matches are cast aside and things start all over. This is a film that should have been up for numerous Oscars, instead it was merely nominated for Best Original Screenplay. Merely nominated is a travesty in the sense that it should have won, there is no way that Manchester by the Sea had a better screenplay. It is simply impossible due to its content matter being incomparable to the world created in this film. There are countless absurd scenes, some of which are brutal in their callous presentation of the events. The camera also lingers on these things and serves to feature how fucked up this kind of world actually would be. There are also numerous funny scenes, one of which features a little girl getting kicked in the leg. It's definitely one of my favorites.

This is a film that may have leaped over many others into being one of my actual favorites, something which is extremely difficult to do. Recently it was only Heat which made the jump into this category. I would classify my favorites as anything rated 9.5 or 10, but there certainly are exceptions, those being films I wouldn't call my favorites because they were so haunting. But, you know, this isn't really one of those. There are three amazing performances which I have deliberately not named, but this is a film where every single actor plays their part and carries their weight in order to create something special. To deliver some of these lines deadpan is a heroic achievement. There are also random scenes where animals show up, those are fantastic as well. It's a Wes Anderson movie where everything he usually does as a quirky trademark gets blown out by something horrific, something terrifying, and it is impossible not to laugh at the vast majority of these things. A certain sense of humor is required, for example I don't think my mom could handle this at all. Your mileage may vary as well. This is also a movie of two distinct halves, the second of which I haven't said a single word about. It is also fantastic, and I'm not sure if I'm in the minority in believing that's the case. The Lobster's critiques of matchmaking, perceptions that outside people have of your love, and expectations on humans to find a partner I thought were all quite bang on.

What this film did was tell me that I needed to get back to the movie theater, so sometime in August I'm going to subscribe to that AMC thing where you can see 12 movies a month. I probably won't see all 12 every month, but I should subscribe. So, once I do that, I'll make another thread or a website containing reviews of movies that are...IN THEATERS. I just shouldn't wait to see movies like these and hear about how good they are, I need to create the experience for myself and learn about whether or not they're worth my time all on my own, without any other input. In watching this, I really did learn why people actually bother to head into the theater and check things out. Obviously that's a gigantic plus point in favor of this film, not a single other one I've viewed has done this to me. I have tried not to spoil too much about The Lobster, but it's really hard to do that. The last things I wanted to say were related to the cinematography in this film. The location and cinematography simultaneously allows for both bleak and beautiful shots, this was filmed in Ireland and naturally there's lots of green. There's also lots of clouds dependent upon the day, and it is quite gray at times. The combination of these things works two-fold. There is one particular scene I'm thinking of where it is gray and bleak until a character walks into a different location. It is symbolic of something else in this film, but over the course of the shot, what they're walking on becomes green, the background does as well, and while you notice these things, for a while you're uncertain as to how they came to be.

I have now written an amazing amount of material related to this film, far more than I usually do. The overall point I'm trying to make is that Lanthimos is clearly a very thought provoking director, his entire intention is to be provocative and make you think. Simply, if you can't turn on your brain for this film, yours may not work. It is clear that the standards of this society, and perhaps even of our own, are totally ludicrous. If there are any weaknesses in this film, I found the ending shot a bit lacking, and the director isn't keen do anything particularly rebellious with his concept. The world is what it is, and that is that. The premise sounds as if it's something that could get tiresome inside of twenty minutes, except it really isn't. The hits keep on coming, and so do the laughs. For the record, if asked to choose an animal to turn into, I don't think I could. I would do what another guest did, and painfully take my own life. After all, that's the only way to do so that I can think of as presented in this film anyway. That isn't a spoiler either, once she says she's going to do it, you know damn well that's what's going to happen. So again, your mileage may vary with this one.

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 Brooklyn Zoo

  • BZ
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16,035
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #758 on: July 09, 2018, 03:01:57 AM »
agree with a lot, especially the awards part, but we all know those are bullshit (most recent example is the lack of nominations for “beasts of no nation”). This movie also proves how good Colin Farrell is. I think a lot of people here would enjoy this type of humor.

If you liked this movie, I recommend “Killing of the Sacred Deer.” Same director, not as humorous but also absurd and the deadpan deliveries. Farrell also stars in that.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #759 on: July 09, 2018, 07:40:00 AM »
agree with a lot, especially the awards part, but we all know those are bullshit (most recent example is the lack of nominations for “beasts of no nation”). This movie also proves how good Colin Farrell is. I think a lot of people here would enjoy this type of humor.

If you liked this movie, I recommend “Killing of the Sacred Deer.” Same director, not as humorous but also absurd and the deadpan deliveries. Farrell also stars in that.

I was surprised by how much weight Farrell gained for the role. But yeah, awards are bullshit. I am going to watch the other film sometime in the future too.


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

Offline Former Faithless Fool

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,303
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #760 on: July 09, 2018, 07:54:28 AM »
Killing of the Sacred Deer left me feeling weirder about things for a week afterwards and still sticks with me and breaking into my thoughts more often than The Lobster did even though I liked the latter movie a little bit more.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #761 on: July 09, 2018, 06:21:53 PM »


Split (2017), directed by M. Night Shyamalan

I didn't want to watch this so soon after Unbreakable and would have preferred to wait a few days, but I was having a hell of a time deciding what kind of movie should follow my last one. This is a movie best not left spoiled for you, it is also perhaps the one in which Shyamalan shows the most restraint in pulling off his twist. I am also surprised by the ability of Shyamalan to bring this in on a low budget considering the way I thought Unbreakable was quite wasteful with its budget, and it shows that big name actors are not needed to pull off a cohesive story. It is too bad that I saw the twist beforehand, which is yet another reason I intend to start going to see these films for myself before they can be ruined for me, but I also thought the twist was so good that in some way it didn't matter that I knew about it. As I have said about other films, such as Cloverfield, that is a hell of a long time to wait for a sequel to its original story. It's a surprisingly simple film to describe as well, which is quite stunning.

Casey Cooke (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a troubled young woman, who is out at dinner with her classmates. It is seemingly a birthday party. Her ride has broken down and and won't be there on time, so she hitches a ride with the father of Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), the girl in her class who was having a birthday party. Along comes Marcia (Jessica Sula) as well, she's Claire's friend. Casey is a complete outcast and is only there because people felt too bad not to invite her. Unfortunately for her, it's not great that she came to the party. While in the parking lot, Claire's father is attacked by a man (James McAvoy), and the three girls are taken to a secluded location, seemingly to be locked in a bunker. Obviously, the girls are freaking out, and they don't know what to do, then the man comes back in there and tries to rape one of them. Casey tells Marcia to pee on herself, which she does, and subsequently the rape attempt ends with Marcia being thrown back into their collective cell. Over the course of the rest of the movie, we learn that Casey's uncle has been molesting her, which sounds like quite strong material for something rated PG-13.

What we learn after the rape attempt is something major, and contrary to many people I didn't find any of this stuff funny. See, the man has dissociative identity disorder. His real name is Kevin, and he has 23 dominant personalities. They're all weird in their own way, some of them are featured in the film and others aren't. His doctor, Dr. Fletcher (Betty Buckley) attempts to help Kevin with his disorder, and she's an expert on this whole thing. The way she sees it, and the way that Kevin has described this, is that one of Kevin's dominant personalities, Barry, is able to control which ones inhabit Kevin's body at any particular point. Some of these are really bad. Barry has made the decision that two of them are not allowed to take their turns anymore. Dennis, the personality who attempted to rape Marcia, is obviously very controlling and is a rapist. This could get Kevin/Barry locked away and he can't have that, obviously. Another, Patricia, is mega strange. The problem is that Dennis and Patricia have taken control and talked another personality, Hedwig, into becoming the new dominant personality and letting them have their way. Hedwig is the personality of a nine year old boy. Dennis and Patricia have done this because they worship a personality that has not yet manifested itself, it is called...THE BEAST.

So, with Unbreakable and Split, Shyamalan has done two things essential to creating a comic book universe of his own. First was the superhero origin, with him having a villain he immediately put away over the course of carrying out his first action. Second, in Split, we have the origin of a supervillain! I thought the latter was better than the former, but they're both two incredibly different kinds of films. The first was someone's discovery of themselves, this is basically a horror-thriller. Can't call it a full horror movie because it simply isn't, there's not enough blood and only one series of parts is truly scary, although the attempted rape is too. So, one series and one part. I am, as already stated, incredibly surprised by Shyamalan's restraint in not going overboard with twists and surprises. Everything is pretty well laid out early on in the film as a potential possiblity, things play out in a manner where one of those possibilities has been reached. It is, as stated, an incredibly simple film. It is also fantastic that Shyamalan decided to inhabit the world with other superhumans, just as Mr. Glass prediced would happen. I don't think this will ever advance beyond the state of there being a third film, but if so I'd be very interested in seeing how far this concept can go. The special effects of them are also such that this could be brought to premium television and not need a big effects budget.

Considering Claire and Marcia wind up locked away, this is effectively a movie with three strong performances. Obviously, McAvoy's takes the cake, I had no idea he was even remotely capable of this sort of performance. It's always nice to see something like that. He practically played eight or nine characters, that isn't something I see very often. I did think that the rationale for...one of the characters in this film not dying was actually quite weak, and that's pretty much where all my marks in the negative side are going to go to. Another negative is the character of Dr. Fletcher, who seemingly refuses to take action even though her patient is obviously manifesting a personality that is capable of violence and very sick behavior. The logic gap there is not entirely small This is still a strong film with a well thought out concept, and the tie-in feels like a throw away scene until you realize that it actually isn't, that it made complete and total sense in the context of Unbreakable. Bruce Willis has done very few things of value since that film, and probably won't try in Glass, but I still want to see it. It's the best chance for his career to ever take off again and have a resurgence.

Ultimately, this film is an achievement of sorts considering its small budget, tight storyline that doesn't waver from its objectives, and a superhuman performance from McAvoy. It is too bad that genre fare as this never receives the recognition it deserves, but this is a film much better than it should have been entirely based upon McAvoy's performance. There are plenty of actors who try to do these things and fail, and that's part of why I never review those movies, they never receive a similar spotlight for me to even know about them. This month I'm not reviewing very many weak movies, but that's more a factor of there being a lot of critically acclaimed films expiring at the end of July. So, I don't really have a choice here. It's also funny that of all the series I blow through in short order, it's really M. Night Shyamalan's series. Like, really? Not some Clint Eastwood shit, or even Pirates? Or the Conjuring series, or like, practically anything else? It's funny and all, but that's just how things work out sometime.

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 RedJed

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4,609
  • Rasslin' Rambler
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #762 on: July 10, 2018, 02:26:51 AM »
I loved the post-credits scene, as I saw Split the first day it came out in theaters and had no clue or even tease that this was going to tie into Unbreakable (which I actually really enjoyed back in the day) so that was a huge mark out moment in a sense.

When is Glass supposed to be out? I think they are still filming it right now.

And I agree about this being Bruce's last big stand in a sense. We will see if he can pull it off.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #763 on: July 10, 2018, 04:45:21 AM »
I loved the post-credits scene, as I saw Split the first day it came out in theaters and had no clue or even tease that this was going to tie into Unbreakable (which I actually really enjoyed back in the day) so that was a huge mark out moment in a sense.

When is Glass supposed to be out? I think they are still filming it right now.

And I agree about this being Bruce's last big stand in a sense. We will see if he can pull it off.

January 2019.


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

Offline Former Faithless Fool

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,303
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #764 on: July 10, 2018, 08:51:22 AM »
Reading your reviews on Unbreakable and Split are reminding me of that period when I thought Shyamalan could develop into a top 10 Director for his era. I've just wanted to see this guy reigned in a bit and get a good script he has no say in crafting because I still love the way he approaches film making and the atmosphere he's able to create.

Offline Baby Shoes

  • CXF Writer
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,515
  • Baby Shoes
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #765 on: July 10, 2018, 11:32:12 AM »
Reading your reviews on Unbreakable and Split are reminding me of that period when I thought Shyamalan could develop into a top 10 Director for his era. I've just wanted to see this guy reigned in a bit and get a good script he has no say in crafting because I still love the way he approaches film making and the atmosphere he's able to create.

I remember how hyped everyone was for The Village and it being somewhat dull.  Then he just died off with Lady in the Water and The Happening.  The latter is one I am sometimes curious to go back and re-watch but then I think of the movies from that period that I was okay with that I don't like at all now and assume outside the lawnmower laughs, it would be truly painful.
[img width=800

Quote
Fan: WHY CAN REY BEAT BIG GUYS BUT NOT KIDMAN
Kevin Nash: Kidman wears a wife beater

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #766 on: July 10, 2018, 06:36:59 PM »


Dawn of the Dead (2004), directed by Zack Snyder

If people don't know this already, I, much like everyone else, can't really handle Zack Snyder. This was Snyder's debut feature film, and I don't know how he got this job, but this came before he formed a lot of his really bad habits. That makes the film better than you might think based upon the name of the director who put this together, but I don't think this was absolutely amazing or anything like that. The funny part is, I did things in the reverse order that I'm sure most other people have done. What I mean by that is, basically everyone here has played Dead Rising, right? We know that Dead Rising and Dawn of the Dead are really similar, and that Dead Rising rips off most of the things in this film and the original version of it. I have not seen the original film and have no idea what it's actually like, but I'm sure I'll get around to it at some point. It isn't going to be any time soon, though. But, in watching this, I was constantly reminded of Dead Rising, although that game is more ridiculous than this, because after all it's a fucking stupid video game.

A woman named Ana (Sarah Polley) finishes a long shift as a nurse, working overtime. When she comes home, she and her husband had a date night, so they don't watch the news. The next morning, a little girl Ana spoke to the previous night enters their bedroom. The girl kills her husband, and Ana is obviously freaked the fuck out. Ana tries to save him, but nothing she could do seemed to work. A very short time afterward, her husband reanimates as a zombie and attacks Ana. Ana tries to flee, she eventually crashes, and passes out. When he comes to, she encounters a group of people. Kenneth (Ving Rhames) is a police officer, but that shit is kind of irrelevant at this stage of society. Andre (Mekhi Phifer) and his wife Luda (Inna Korobkina) are expecting a child, and there's Michael (Jake Weber), who has literally no backstory until near the end of the film. This is our troupe, they want to go to a fort that the government has stated people should go to, but unbeknownst to them until later, the fort went to shit and everyone there is dead. Seeing as they can't cut through Milwaukee, their immediate plan is to head into the mall right next to where they currently are.

Upon arriving at the mall, they are attaacked by a security guard, at which point they realize the threat they're under. This security guard was dead, but he was also a zombie, and dead doesn't matter anymore. After going upstairs on an elevator, they are met by three other security guards, these ones living, with their guns pointed right in the faces of our party. CJ (Michael Kelly) is their leader, and fuck yeah, my dude Doug Stamper is up in this motherfucker. The other two geeks are Terry (Kevin Zegers) and Bart (Michael Barry), and this film is really good about ensuring you don't know who, if anyone, will make it to its conclusion. On the roof, they see that there's another survivor, Andy, who is trapped in his gun store. Some time after that, a moving truck crashes into the fucking mall, and we are met with many newcomers. Some of those newcomers make us aware of the state of the world. If you've been bitten and die you turn into a zombie, it's pretty much as simple as that. There are hard decisions to be made, and there's some cool shit that happens as this film plays out.

The dad from Modern Family being in this movie was a hell of a surprise, I didn't know anything about that or anything else that happened here prior to watching it. I also did not know that these zombies were going to be of the running kind, and overall I think that's good. I'm sure that was one of many controversial changes from the original, but I liked this one. On the other hand, this is barely a horror movie by the standards of what I'd call one. Are there any good scares? No. Does any scene rely on suspense to get a reaction from the viewer? Also no. Does Zack Snyder do some of the bullshit he always does? Well, yes. He certainly does and it isn't my favorite thing at all. I'm not a big horror guy to begin with as everyone knows, but I would have preferred this be a horror movie. It's better in terms of creating a story that makes sense, characters that people care about, and a conclusion that is creatively satisfying. This film does not exactly do those things, but there are good scenes. Andy sniping Jay Leno and Burt Reynolds lookalikes is good for a laugh. The bloated zombie is too. But, nothing here is really scary and my tolerance is so fucking high. 

To add to some of the things I've alluded to above, there is a major problem with something I'd like to call "care factor." Other than Ving Rhames' character, I didn't give a shit about any of these people. It's simply not possible to do so because the characters are wafer thin or non-existent at all in some cases. I don't really know anything about them. In the case of Ana, even though we know her husband died, her grief remains entirely unexplored and forgotten, it just isn't a big deal in any way at all. It's actually quite surreal to see a character given that kind of treatment. This is one of many numerous mistakes, and there are lots of characters I haven't talked about, all of whom are practically irrelevant. The story also does not make that much sense and I'm confused what their motivations are to leave the mall in the first place. There's nothing out there for them, they know that, and they leave anyway. The lack of suspense is a major issue as well as I don't feel any dread whatsoever while watching this. On the other hand, it's not that kind of movie at all, and I really shouldn't care.

That this is a remake which certainly pissed other people off makes me appreciate the attempt a little bit, I've always been a big believer that no film is entirely sacred material. There are also a few good subplots that I have deliberately not mentioned in case anyone has their head in the sand to the same extent as me. Despite the massive gaps in logic that exist in this film, I actually liked a fair amount of it regardless of my criticisms. This is a mindless and nonsensical film, but it's a mindless film with many good scenes and two of my favorite actors. The first and third act are also superior to an otherwise moribund second act, the second act being the one where all the weaknesses of the film make themselves brutally obvious. However, there is quite a lot of gore to go with these good scenes, some zombies getting chopped in half with chainsaws or lit on fire, and that's some pretty good shit. I can't hate too much on a film with such glaring weaknesses, but neither should I feel a need to defend it to the hilt. Dawn of the Dead has a lot of weaknesses, but its biggest is that the genre has exploded since the release of this film, and therefore there are many other efforts to compare this to.

5.5/10


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

Offline RedJed

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4,609
  • Rasslin' Rambler
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #767 on: July 11, 2018, 06:57:48 AM »
Reading your reviews on Unbreakable and Split are reminding me of that period when I thought Shyamalan could develop into a top 10 Director for his era. I've just wanted to see this guy reigned in a bit and get a good script he has no say in crafting because I still love the way he approaches film making and the atmosphere he's able to create.

I remember how hyped everyone was for The Village and it being somewhat dull.  Then he just died off with Lady in the Water and The Happening.  The latter is one I am sometimes curious to go back and re-watch but then I think of the movies from that period that I was okay with that I don't like at all now and assume outside the lawnmower laughs, it would be truly painful.

Lady in the Water was fucking terrible, and even worse? The Last Airbender .....an atrocious piece of shit, probably his worst one.

Offline Dramatic Pizza

  • brock lock
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5,588
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #768 on: July 11, 2018, 07:12:47 AM »
The Happening is so weird, bizarre, and awful that I recommend watching it at least once. Just to experience the hot dog man and the utterly terrible Wahlberg/Zooey performances.


Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #769 on: July 11, 2018, 06:01:04 PM »


Changeling (2008), directed by Clint Eastwood

I am often left with the same feeling after watching very long movies that don't quite meet the quality of being classic. I have no idea what to say about them, it is actually extremely difficult. I also think that the subject matter is quite strange for Clint Eastwood to take on. It's not so much that it doesn't fit his style, but there's no vigilantism here at all. That's what I've always associated with Eastwood and I can't shake it, that just is what it is. The screenplay also doesn't seem to pose those moral questions that Eastwood's films often pose to their viewers. On the other hand, this does fit a recent theme of Eastwood's, that he keeps making films based on true stories. This is something that for the most part I would consider to not be a good thing. While Eastwood should be lauded for some adherance to reality, he definitely took some creative liberties in making this film. The first, and most obvious one, is that Eastwood decides to leave out the murder suspect's mother. Who knows why, perhaps because the mother's inclusion is too ridiculous to be real, but stories like that are enhanced by the truth, there is no reason to leave it out. Besides that, this film is very careful to stick with reality.

Due to the length of this film, it is difficult to summarize in a way that doesn't completely give away the plot, but I have already done a fair bit of giving away the plot with my opening paragraph. Anyway, I'm going to do my best. Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) is a single mother in 1928 Los Angeles, a time period I never tire of seeing on film. Collins has a job, and her son Walter has to stay home one day while she's called into work. Unfortunately, while she's at work, Walter disappears and is clearly kidnapped. Many months later, LAPD tells Christine that they have found their son. The problem is that this child is clearly not Walter, and therefore not her son or her responsibility. LAPD has also decided to hold a public reunion, and Christine does not know this boy is unrelated to her until she arrives. Immediately Christine points out that this isn't her son, they simply won't listen. Captain Jones (Jeffrey Donovan) is head of the Juvenile Division, and he insists the boy is Walter. For him, this is a settled matter regardless of Christine's evidence.

Christine's evidence is also quite solid, she has dental records for Walter that prove this child doesn't have similar dental problems that Walter had. Can't fake those. "Walter" has been circumsized, but the police believe that could have happened when Walter was gone for six months. After all, "Walter" was abandoned by a transient who used him as collateral at a diner when they had no money to pay. The transient bailed the hell out of there, the owner called the police, and the police picked up "Walter." "Walter" is also three inches shorter than Walter, but unbelievably the doctor that Jones sends to examine him thinks this could have been natural. Like, for real? That's absolutely ludicrous and one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Lastly, Walter's teacher states that "Walter" is not Walter, and performs a test in front of the class to prove that's the case. Of course, Jones and LAPD Chief Davis (Colm Feore) want this shit to go away, and they found the kid, so they don't care about anything Christine says. Christine feels otherwise, and decides to enlist a popular reverend, Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich) to state her case on the radio. After Christine tells her story, LAPD picks her up, and has her sent to...THE LA COUNTY PSYCHOPATHIC WARD.

Some of the shit in this movie is so unreal that I can't believe it's real, but it was and that's insane. I can't believe it. Apparently it was common practice for LAPD to send people to the psychiatric ward once they became a problem for police officers, whether or not their complaints were legitimate. You know, it still is common practice to do wack shit like that, so I shouldn't say it was common anything. That stuff still happens and there was just a story today where the Trump Administration admitted that they may be holding US citizens in those immigration concentration camps they've put up around the country. Naturally a large portion of the population doesn't care about that, but in these days, police corruption was a big deal worth protesting over. At least that's the way Eastwood presents things here. We all know that cops do shady shit in 2018, but the world was more sheltered in 2008, and people refused to believe that these things happen. There are still holdouts, but those people are idiots, and I don't feel sorry for you if you're one of them. You're just an IDIOT. Now that I'm done with that tangent, there's another thing in this film that is related to Tom Mix, which is absolutely beyond ludicrous. I don't want to say. If you don't know, Mix was the first star of Western films. Mix also got John Wayne into Hollywood.

Because of how long this film is, it's very difficult to figure out how to tackle this, but there were some good unnamed performances in here. Michael Kelly and Jason Butler Harner have the best supporting turns of the bunch, but if you haven't seen this I see no reason to spoil what characters they play. It's just a coincidence that I watched two films in a row with Doug Stamper in them. I swear. I thought the story of the film was very good even though the details tying everything together are not presented in my favorite fashion. It's hard to not have a good story when a film with this size of a budget gets made at over two hours long. Of course, there are exceptions, but $55 million and 142 minutes usually leads to studio interference that ensures the thing doesn't go to shit. Also, it's Clint Eastwood. That leads to expectations. That some of those expectations aren't met is also no surprise. I can't describe how, but something about the setting is just too sanitized and it doesn't really feel right. I also don't love what Jolie was made to do in this film. Good performance, absolutely. Well rounded character, absolutely not. Repeating the same line over and over again strikes me as a huge mistake.

That this is a very good story can only take the film so far. Due to the lack of variety in lines for Jolie's character, Michael Kelly and Jason Butler Harner are given the job of carrying the second act of the film on their backs. They do a hell of a job and I don't have a single negative thing to say about their performances. I have never seen Harner in anything before and am wondering how that is. He was extremely convincing. There is a scene with him in it that Eastwood has talked about, so if you pay attention to that kind of thing or have seen this you know what I'm talking about, but Eastwood said that he made this scene deliberately difficult to watch. There are numerous scenes of this kind, my mom actually had to tap out at the first one of them and left me to finish this movie off for myself. Contrary to popular belief, I think that when someone decides they can't watch a movie anymore due to how realistic it is, that the filmmaker and actor(s) involved in the scene causing them to do that have done an amazing job. This film does have amazing scenes, there is no denying that, but the threads tying the third act together fell apart massively for me. Any sins prior to that could be forgiven, but I found the official proceedings utterly boring on all levels, and for me they destroy an otherwise fantastic film.

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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #770 on: July 12, 2018, 01:20:43 PM »
SPOILED EVERYTHING



Win It All (2017), directed by Joe Swanberg

No big introduction here, as I have no idea about the filmmaker whatsoever. It would be foolish to say anything on that subject at all. Let's get straight to the story. Eddie (Jake Johnson) appears to be a guy who parks cars outside of Wrigley Field and does odd jobs and lazy shit to get through life. Except, I'm not sure how he actually gets through life. See, Eddie is a gambling addict. He took his money from parking cars and immediately lost it. After returning home, there's a man in his house, we'll call him Michael (Jose A. Garcia). Michael wants Eddie to store a bag while he's in prison, it is never stated why he's in prison. He just was going for six to nine months. If Eddie stores the bag for Michael, Michael will give him $10,000. Sweet deal, right? Thing is, as stated, Eddie is a gambling addict.

In being a gambling addict, Eddie is simply unable to resist looking in the bag, even when he's not supposed to. Why would you look in the bag of someone who seems like they could murder someone? This guy does. Eddie has a sponsor, Gene (Keegan-Michael Key), and Gene tells him that he really shouldn't look inside the bag. You know what's in the bag? Murder tools. Money. Lots of money. Guess what Eddie does with it? I don't even need to tell you. In the meantime, Eddie has met a woman, Eva (Aislinn Derbez), and they become very interested in each other even though Eddie never says a word to her about his gambling problem. His brother, Ron (Joe Lo Truglio), has also offered him a job with a landscaping company that Ron owns, because Eddie needs to get his life together and shit. So, with that in mind, what do you think happens? I'll just point out the obvious because you can see it coming from miles away, Michael is getting out of prison early.

What I hope to see in Netflix movies is for a filmmaker to eschew the conventional ending and just go full bore into the story, but that was never likely to happen. I think it should have turned out that Eddie couldn't win the money back and had to leave Chicago, but a movie never turns out like that. I know there are exceptions, but I don't think people can handle bad endings. Due to this ending being so conventional, I went from wanting to love this movie to overall being slightly disappointed by it. I cannot reiterate enough that I feel like Netflix films should eschew convention as much as possible, because after all, there's no box office in play here. The problem with that is that some of these are not produced by Netflix, and this film falls into that category. It's not like they knew. So, it's a bit of a harsh criticism, but it's also a fair and valid one in the sense that the movie still exists with that weakness.

I think that this is a solid story, but the ending is just so weak that I can't get over it at all. I'm also left with one other thing to take away from this, that Keegan-Michael Key is now doing Netflix films, but that's actually pretty sad and I don't want to think about it too much. Also, in being unfamiliar with this director and subsequently looking him up, I'm very stunned by how much content this man has put out there. And yet, I've never heard of any of it at all. How is that possible? Who knows, but it's funny to see the paths people take to create their fame and get their name out there. I'm sure there are many people who like this film more, because it does tell a good story, but I can't go overboard with praise. I am simply incapable of doing so. There are some good production gimmicks like showing how much money Eddie has lost, the final poker scene, and there's also some funny jokes throughout the film, but it isn't one of my favorites. It's still good, but it's too short to say a whole lot about it.

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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #771 on: July 13, 2018, 06:38:33 PM »


Cafe Society (2016), directed by Woody Allen

No matter how shocking this may be, this is the first Woody Allen film I've bothered to take a look at. I have stated that the indiscretions or crimes of filmmakers/actors/wrestlers do not impact my ability to watch their work, so that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Instead, it's more related to the genre his films are usually classified in. This isn't my genre, it almost doesn't matter what Woody Allen has to say about love, the overall point is that I don't like watching movies about love. Perhaps it is specifically that I don't like watching movies like this one. I have a fair bit to say about the events here, but I laughed when I turned this on and immediately learned that Bruce Willis was fired from this film for not learning his lines. I mean, I don't know how that's possible considering the role he would have played only has a couple scenes that required a decent amount of talking, however one of them is a long shot that didn't allow for messing up. So, that's probably it. Anyway, let's get on with it.

Cafe Society is a genuinely horrendous title, the kind someone would think up when they have no idea what to call their film. Bobby (Jesse Eisenberg) is the youngest son of a Jewish family from New York City in the 1930's. His brother Ben (Corey Stoll) is a gangster, his sister Evelyn (Sari Lennick) is a teacher married to a communist, and his parents Rose (Jeannie Berlin) and Marty (Ken Stott) fight and bicker like old people always do. Bobby wants to make his way to Hollywood, he can't handle living in New York and making his way the hard way like his father. He has an out as well, he's a lucky guy. His uncle Phil (Steve Carell) is a big shot agent with lots of famous clients, and Phil is willing to break Bobby in as an agent. He just needs someone, and Bobby's job is going to be to run errands for him. That's a shit job, but hey, it's a start and the guy can get out of a motel and do something for himself.

After this initial meeting, Phil introduces Bobby to his secretary, Vonnie (Kristen Stewart). So, that's again with Eisenberg and Stewart, too many times now. Can they please stop? Naturally, as you may have guessed from my comments, while Vonnie is supposed to show Bobby around town so he can learn about the city, they wind up spending a lot of time together and Bobby develops a major crush on her. He thinks she's different, and I guess she is, but she has a boyfriend named Doug. Bobby consistently and creepily pressures her to get with him instead, but there's a little twist coming that isn't entirely shocking at all. See, her boyfriend isn't named Doug, it's Phil, Bobby's uncle. Anyone could have guessed that. Phil tells her he's going to divorce his wife, but he changes his mind and can't do it. So, Vonnie goes over to Bobby's house the same night and over the course of a few weeks, their friendship turns into a blossoming love. Eventually...I'm gonna stop there.

This movie suffers from many fatal errors, all of which are like individual arrows that eventually shoot this kite out of the sky and into a lake. By far the most egregious is the concept being written in a way that inevitably leads to the movie becoming stuck in first gear. These are numerous errors all on their own because of how they played out. It took well past the halfway point for me to care about these events at all, but it was a false hope, things went straight back into first gear like this was an entirely new film. That is an enormous mistake, we are talking about effectively ten minutes of this film that aren't spent developing the story to what I'd call its two endings. I really wish I hadn't watched this considering that was the case. Talk about a waste of time, this was a bad screenplay and I'm surprised anyone gave him money to film it. Another huge weakness of the film is that Bobby's parents and his brother Ben are simply far more interesting than Bobby and Vonnie. I think Woody Allen subconsciously knew this too, that's why the events on the screen kept coming back to them in one way or another. I would love to see a movie about those three, which I guess this is, but that's not enough.

The errors above weren't all of them either, I actually have quite a few more. There are a few superfluous characters that are unneeded in the film. I'd rather not spoil in case someone wants to watch this, but any scenes with them were effectively neutralized by the manner of storytelling. Surprisingly, Woody Allen's role as the narrator was not one of these weaknesses, but I don't care for Jesse Eisenberg acting as an avatar of Woody Allen. I used to hate Eisenberg, but I don't anymore and I've explained this. The End of the Tour blew those feelings straight out of me, I thought that was an excellent performance in a quite difficult role to play. I always feel that way about films where a performer completely steals the show, to be excellent alongside of that person is quite an achievement. Back to the film, the error I must mention because it perpetrates a horrible worldview, is the way that people in the film talk about motherhood. I don't know if these lines were supposed to be funny, but I didn't find them funny at all, I found them abhorrent. Both male leads (Carell and Eisenberg) showcased horrid traits, the kind that make it hard for me to finish a film unless I know beforehand it's a kind of crime film where the point of watching it is to see how horrible the character actually is. The thing is, I didn't want that, I watched this because I wanted to see a good love story. It had been a while. This just wasn't that, I thought it was complete bullshit. Worst of all is that we know that Woody Allen really does think these kinds of awful things about women, yet nobody who collaborates with him seems to care.

There are some positives, I have already mentioned a few (Bobby's family), there are some others that require praise. This is an absolutely beautiful film, it is probably shameful that I haven't seen anything filmed by Vittorio Storaro before. I believe I am missing something major here, and for that I am totally bummed the fuck out. It takes a special kind of talent to make films look above the rest of their class when great filming equipment is so easy to find these days. The framing of scenes here is exquisite. One inside a courtroom managed to make me feel as if I was actually there, but it was almost better than being there on some level. Another series of scenes, filmed during the Hollywood tour I mentioned in my second paragraph, was so excellently filmed I could hardly believe it was real. If Eisenberg hadn't bashed into a plant, I wouldn't have believed it. It was that well framed. To go back to something mentioned earlier, Woody Allen was a good narrator and kept things moving, without a narrator this film is a massive mess. Eisenberg also put in another good performance despite my problems with the character he portrayed, and the dialogue was quite realistic for the 1930's. It is also very easy to forget this is supposed to be the 1930's because of how this film looks. While this isn't a mess, I just don't think it's a particularly good film. The problem is, it is so visually impressive that I can't give it the truly horrendous grade it really deserves.

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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #772 on: July 14, 2018, 05:57:45 PM »


Edge of Darkness (2010), directed by Martin Campbell

How many directors make a TV show 25 years prior, which leads to them eventually making a feature film about the series that condenses it into two hours? Well, Martin Campbell did just that, then he directed Green Lantern and washed out of Hollywood. That can tell you a lot about the way this film went, but there's more to it than that. As pictured above, this a Mel Gibson starring vehicle and this was after he made all those crazy anti-semitic comments. This film also came out after he'd done a bunch of awful things to Oksana Grigorieva, however the general public didn't know about any of those things yet. I can only imagine what kind of bomb this would have been if those things had been made public before the film's release. Frankly, they should have. I wonder if people felt badly for having gone to this movie once they learned those things. Perhaps, but you know, hopefully not. It's not like anyone could know he was a piece of shit to that complete extent. Only an anti-semitic piece of shit! This film originally had Robert De Niro cast in a role, and I'll point out which one when I can get to it, but I can imagine this would have been a lot better and everyone involved with the project would have felt more motivated to push forward.

Thomas Craven (Mel Gibson) is a homicide detective in Boston, who picks up his daughter Emma (Bojana Novakovic) on her visit home. While getting into the car, she vomits, so the viewer instantly knows this won't go well. While her dad is making dinner, she starts bleeding from the nose and vomits again, so they need to go to the hospital. After they open the door, some guy shouts "CRAVEN" and shoots Emma in the guts with a shotgun, killing her. This film is not great with disguise, however. For some insane reason, Craven is allowed to investigate his daughter's death and this doesn't even slightly factor into the story. The Boston Police Department seems to not even care at all. Craven continues his investigation, eventually visiting her boyfriend David (Shawn Roberts), Emma's own apartment, calling a friend of hers, and visiting her employeer, Northmoor. This is a long chase down and takes up quite a bit of time, and somehow I've managed to not describe what this film is actually about in the time that I've been writing this. You know how hard that is to do? Below are some details.

In this Death Wish type story, those movies being something I need to watch I should add, Craven's job is to investigate his daughter's murder by any means necessary. Initially he assumes the murderer was trying to kill him, this is not true. Craven decides that he is not going to tell his department about his own personal investigation, which he gets away with because why does any of that shit matter? In the process of his investigation there are a few good action scenes and all that stuff, but eventually he decides to circle a name on his list, Jack Bennett (Danny Huston), the CEO of Northmoor. Why Northmoor? See, Craven has found out that his daughter's hair was radioactive based on some things he found over the course of the parts I discussed earlier. Northmoor was developing nuclear weapons, Emma worked in the research department, and there you have it. In addition to that, a sneaky man who appears at various points of the film has hired a security consultant, Darius Jedbergh (Ray Winstone). This was De Niro's role, he quit on the spot after not liking something related to the story. Jedbergh and Craven meet, and I'll leave everything at that.

I feel like this is a completely standard conspiracy thriller, so it's difficult to play this review out like some of the others. In some respects it is difficult to buy Gibson's performance and in others it isn't. We know Gibson has a propensity to say crazy things, I think my problem with this film is that they aren't convincing enough as the things he says are not crazy enough. That's really bad, honestly, that you've heard the guy say worse and can't buy his performance because of that. This is also filmed like an 80's film, which is really weird with modern equipment. I also believe the film suffers from how streamlined it is, although the introduction of more characters towards the end does enhance the events. The murder of Emma also happens within ten minutes of turning this on, so I didn't spoil anything as it relates to that. You know her death is coming the entire way, the moment the film starts with flashback home videos of Emma as a young girl. There's nothing left to the imagination here either, the murder is extremely bloody and took me by surprise. But hey, that's Mel Gibson and a film with him in it is going to have that.

I think the film is also reasonably intriguing, which wasn't something I expected from those first ten minutes and the following ten as well. I thought I was in for something horribly boring, but this wasn't like that. I don't think this was a good film due to the amount of plotholes contained within, but it definitely was interesting. We don't know why Jedbergh is in this film or what his motivations are, but we do learn that he's also sick and dying. There's another thing in this film that comes by surprise even though the filmmaker decides to make it obvious the whole time, but I didn't realize until the last thirty minutes or so. The ending of Craven's story does come a bit abruptly for my liking, and the attempt to craft a touching ending just doesn't fit at all. Ultimately, this film is really violent, and if you're here for Death Wish shit, this is for you. There's one good chase scene in particular that belonged in a better film, but I learned that Martin Campbell wasn't what made Casino Royale so spectacular, it was the standards of the producers. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense at all. This is a standard 5/10 even though I just gave one of those out, and I hate doing that two times in a row, but I can't separate the films from one another. It takes some elevation to bring a standard "father avenges daughter" story beyond such a rating, seeing as it has been done so many times before.

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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #773 on: July 16, 2018, 06:11:10 PM »


Paterson (2016), directed by Jim Jarmusch

I am unfamiliar with Jim Jarmusch's work, but this film paints quite a picture of what the rest of his work may look like. This is a film completely stripped of anything requiring special effects or nonsense, something that brings reality to the screen. This is a fresh outlook on things because as you guys may be aware, I watch a lot of films that feature nonsense. Practically everyone does, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's neat to get snapped back to reality. This is a story that centers around someone all of us could realistically know, it's actually quite strange in that regard. When I was in school, I knew lots of people like this, who had differing interests from everyone else, but the atmosphere in that situation is entirely different. Most people are dissuaded from doing the things they like to do in those years, but when you're an adult you can do whatever you want. Poetry would fit into that scope of things on both ends of that scenario, and poetry in combination with other things make for an excellently moving portrayal of how people get through life.

This film is told in odd narrative style, in the sense that it takes us through seven days in the life of Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver who works in Paterson, New Jersey. His daily life is quite similar from one day to the next. His wife Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) stays at home, Paterson goes to work to drive his bus Monday through Friday. Paterson wakes up very early, gets to work, his boss speaks to him in the same fashion every day. He drives the bus, listens to passengers speak, and wonders what his wife is doing at home. In the time between this, he writes poetry in his notebook and thinks about it constantly. After he gets home, he takes his wife's dog out for a walk every night. On the way back home, he stops at a bar and has a beer, having different conversations with Doc (Barry Shabaka Henley) and other patrons. Before the walk, he and his wife talk about what they did with their days. This is very literally the entire film and all I can say without spoiling each day at a time, which I think would be quite foolish of me.

I am making a strong effort not to spoil things because I feel that people should watch this film. It's on Amazon Prime Video, so if you have it, check it out. This film presents a portrait of an artist that we don't often see. He's not struggling through life and has no intention of making his big break through poetry, Paterson just wants to sit and watch things that happen in daily life. He also has no real intention of sharing his poems with everyone else, they seem to be for him and his own thoughts. There are some other characters and artists who appear, one in particular being famous, but I don't want to spoil whom. The person is doing their laundry and isn't guarded when they see Paterson watching them, they're friendly when they see Paterson and his dog standing there. It is the kind of film that shows it is healthy to focus on your art and that it doesn't have to consume everyone who makes things, or make them into an asshole, or what have you. Those things are just something naturally in a person and have nothing to do with their art.

Spoiler: show
As a contrast to Paterson, his wife Laura is consumed by her art. She is dead set on using it to make something of herself, and I find this pairing a bit odd in fact. The two people are quite different from one another and there are aspects of their relationship that make me wonder if this film is supposed to be about how mundane Paterson's life is. As stated above, he does the same thing every day, but so does everyone else, this doesn't feel some kind of statement about how mundane everyone's lives really are. It's just the simple fact that all our lives do resemble this in some fashion, and the film allows people who are paying attention to draw comparisons between Paterson and themselves. This film is also not depressing and I think it would be foolish to say that even though there's no doubt one could draw that from the events of the movie. I also think the way Jarmusch takes events and builds them up to being a big nothing is quite amusing. It plays tricks with my expectations from movies, where everything's supposed to be something, but instead it isn't. The only case of an event that builds up to something is Paterson's notebook being eaten by Marvin. Then again, the events afterward are not a conventional resolution in films.


There are many different ways to look at the things in this film, but overall I think that this is a rare case of a quality feel good movie. There are very few good cases of those in this decade. To take a different look at this, I think a lot of people who feel their lives are very mundane would be the kind to find this film very boring. I believe this film is more about Paterson's approach to his art more than the rest, but who's to say I'm write. There's so much here that's open to interpretation, to the extent that the film seems deliberately provocative in that regard. I am also interested in what to make of the numerous books on Paterson's shelf, because they definitely seemed to be placed there for a reason by somebody, but again that's probably something entirely open to interpretation. I did find it odd to observe Paterson though. A person who doesn't offer strong emotions is something I'm simply not used to, and it's the kind of person that I've rarely been around. He is mega stoic, this is a foreign concept for me. The ending, by the way, feels like a classic case of a filmmaker sending a message through a character, that people should accept who they are. That's the simplest way to look at the film, and perhaps that's all it's really supposed to mean.

That one is able to look at a film this way is always owed to the performances on the screen, and Adam Driver had a really good one here. I was quite surprised that he was actually driving the bus in the film as that seemed really unusual for this sort of project, but he is clearly quite dedicated to his craft. So, in that way, this film can also be extended to being about himself and his own approach to art, just as Paterson's or Laura's. Some of the supporting characters are really good as well, but it's actually impossible to talk about them without spoiling. I have been very careful to not do so (outside of the spoiler tags), I thought that was the least I could do. Those supporting characters break the monotony of Paterson's life, just as odd people do in our own, those are the events that keep us going and keep us from turning into robots. Our human interaction with them is essential to personal growth, and for Paterson, it's entirely essential to his artistic growth. The vast majority of his poetry is related to his interactions with those characters, or with other objects, or the tangentially related things that come about as a result of those interactions.

8/10


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #774 on: July 17, 2018, 03:35:14 PM »
I would like to encourage other people to post some.

I just got AMC Stubs A-List, and I don't want anything to be in the other thread that could possibly be spoiled for people in some way. The only way to do so is to post reviews in an entirely different thread. I'm going to see Sicario 2 tomorrow, and will see three movies a week as allowed to do, but everything in here should be full of spoilers. If you go into this minefield you have to know everything will be spoiled. I will also catalog each review in the first post for easier access.

If wanting to know my score for a movie, just scroll down. Everything else in the review will be spoiler tagged. At some point I intend to start a site or partner up with my brother on one, but for now, this thread will contain my reviews of movies...SEEN IN THEATERS.

Yes, I will be maintaining both threads and will now be watching at least 30 movies a month. Probably more.

Alpha
A Simple Favor
A Star Is Born
Assassination Nation
Bad Times at the El Royale
BlacKkKlansman
Blindspotting
Eighth Grade
First Man
Hell Fest
Hold the Dark
Jurassic World 2: Fallen Kingdom
Kin
Mile 22
Mission: Impossible - Fallout
Monsters and Men
Night School
On My Skin
Operation Finale
Papillon
Peppermint
Private Life
Searching
Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado
Skyscraper
Slender Man
Sorry to Bother You
The Angel
The Commuter
The Equalizer 2
The First Purge
The Happytime Murders
The House with a Clock in Its Walls
The Land of Steady Habits
The Little Stranger
The Meg
The Predator
The Nun
The Spy Who Dumped Me
Venom
White Boy Rick


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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #775 on: July 17, 2018, 06:40:14 PM »


Gleason (2016), directed by Clay Tweel

There is really only one line needed to describe this film even though I'm going to say much more. If you don't want to be made to cry, do not watch this film. I should have known this before watching it and I also should have known that any film with a supposedly uplifting message would have that kind of problem. The thing is, while Steve Gleason has immense courage, I'm not sure that this film is actually uplifting. I feel stunned that I was able to make it through this film without having a breakdown. There was only one part which brought a tear to my eye, and I think it's impossible not to react like that at some point. Ultimately I am stunned that someone would even agree to make a film like this about their problem, and am floored by the way in which the people involved carry themselves. I do not know if I would be up for this struggle.

Steve Gleason is a former player for the New Orleans Saints, the man who blocked a punt when the Saints returned to the Superdome one year after Hurricane Katrina. He is and was a hero figure in New Orleans to this day, and now for more reasons than for what he did on the field. See, Gleason has ALS, Lou Gehrig's Disease, which is completely uncurable and horrible. I am stunned that he's still going on at the time of this writing. ALS is a horrendous disease, it robs you of your ability to move, speak, and breathe on your own, which leads to the sufferer becoming entirely dependent upon someone else. In this case, Gleason becomes dependent on his wife, Michel. The thing is, Michel is pregnant at the time of learning this. She pushes on, and Gleason is still able to at least speak and move at the time of his son's birth. After that, Michel is left with a double caretaker task, of caring and nurturing a newborn, as well as her husband who is rapidly losing control of his motor functions.

I would be foolish if I did not point out something this documentary decides not to discuss, which is Bountygate. As all football fans know, the filming of this documentary led to huge changes in the Saints organization and massive suspensions. The film's original director accidentally stumbled on a Saints locker room speech that featured Gregg Williams going off and saying all kinds of crazy shit about killing players brains, and the original director decided that he should release this audio. Unsurprisingly from the things we learn in this movie, Steve Gleason did not want to be involved with that for a lot of reasons and was very critical of Sean Pamphilon for doing so. By doing so, Pamphilon torpedoed his career by doing something noble, but it was something the documentary's subject absolutely did not want. So, that's a weird situation. The rest of this documentary is an uncensored version of Gleason's life. From ass wiping, to enemas, to arguments with his wife, to his and his wife's feelings, to dealing with his son, his overbearing father, this documentary has everything.

Of course, this documentary having everything makes this extremely depressing and hard watching. It is impossible not to feel extremely badly for Steve and Michel, their life is so hard, I do not think I could do the things either of them did. I don't want to say I'm the kind of person who would walk away or kill myself in this situation, but I honestly don't know. The documentarian did an excellent job piecing all of these things together in order to create a coherent story, but I'm more stunned by the lack of veto its subjects gave to what was in it. There is a line where Michel's father says something about how long this is going to go on for her. When do you ever hear that kind of brutal reality in a documentary? Such reality is the reason I'm going to give this a high score even though I don't believe the way Gleason approached Bountygate. On the other hand, he didn't have a choice. His foundation and life is entirely dependent upon the Saints, burning those bridges simply isn't realistic. Sometimes it is hard for me to say a lot about a documentary and this is one of those cases.

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 RedJed

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4,609
  • Rasslin' Rambler
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #776 on: July 18, 2018, 01:16:06 AM »
I threw down on the A-List as well and have been using it to its max, 3 times a week and in some cases, I'm seeing more than that if I'm sneaking into others after the initial film I used as an A-list pick. Certainly taking advantage of this program and its really user-friendly, compared to what I heard about MoviePass. I also signed up for the Cinemark Movie Club which isn't as great but it still is ok. One film a month on the account, but a bunch of extra goodies with that one like discounts, extra points for this and that (which can be used for movie swag like t-shirts, etc), waived fees, and whatnot.

I always and forever will prefer to see a film in a theater versus at home whatever the case.

This week's films I'll be seeing by Sunday: Uncle Drew, Equalizer 2, Unfriended 2, Sorry to Bother You, and if I can fit them in....Sandlot Anniversary Edition (this isnt counted in A-List but I'll be trying to sneak in), and some interesting looking doc called Three Identical Strangers

-----

Sicario 2 is pretty damn good, one of the better follow ups to an already really good first film. No Emily Blunt was a downer a bit, but her story kinda fully arced in the first one. So I can see why she wasn't a part of this one.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #777 on: July 18, 2018, 12:06:54 PM »


Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado (2018), directed by Stefano Sollima

Sicario is one of my favorite films from 2015, but Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado is something entirely different, a film with a different tone and about subjects that are both related and unrelated. It's strange when sequels are directed by different people, it leads to different visions taking the screen, even if both films are written by the same person. Of course, Sicario was an impossible act to follow. It was directed by one of the best directors of the time, filmed by the best cinematographer of our time, had an amazing cast, was super balanced, was careful enough to not go overboard with violence until the end, and brought something different to the big screen. This, on the other hand, is a lot like Rambo. Is there anything wrong with Rambo? No. Is Rambo like Sicario though? Absolutely not. This isn't even a case of smashing genres together, it's an outright action film, and one can only judge it by those standards even though it is very difficult to do so. Two things do remain consistent with these two films though, it's that the violence in them is brutal while holding absolutely nothing back, and Benicio del Toro is awesome.

This film begins with a different take on the border as in the first film. Granted, in the first film a shed explods, but it's still different. During an illegal border crossing, a man leaves the group being arrested by Border Patrol, drawing them to a cliff. Before being apprehended, we learn that the man is a Muslim, and the man blows himself up to kill those officers. Next, we progress to a following scene in Kansas City. There's people in a store shopping, and three guys walk in. Of course, they also have suicide bombs. We are shown a scene where they blow up a little girl and her mom, but it isn't as gory as you'd think. How does that play into the events? Well, the government seems to believe that these two events are related and with good reason they believe it, even though it turns out later that they aren't. See what I mean by spoiling? I'm gonna spoil shit. The government's response is to do what the government does, to give CIA agent Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) permission to use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to combat Mexican drug cartels who smuggle these terrorists across the border.

Matt and the DoD decide that their best option is to start a war between major cartels, and we know what Matt does in these scenarios. There is a scene that re-establishes Matt in this CIA world for those who didn't see the original film, and I had to do a lot not to laugh at how ridiculous it was because there were other people sitting next to me. Anyway, we push on, and of course Matt recruits Alejandro Gillick (Benicio del Toro). Once again, we know what Alejandro's about, we know exactly what road he's going to go down. Matt's idea is executed very strongly, with Alejandro killing the lawyer for the Matamoros cartel. Graver and Alejandro subsequently follow that up with something really big, by kidnapping the daughter of the head of the Reyes cartel, their rival. Their plan in doing so is to make the Reyes cartel believe the Matamoros group did the kidnapping, and to execute it, they Isabel(Isabela Moner) up nicely and put a hood on her so she doesn't know she's being trafficked to Texas. Meanwhile, as in the first movie, there's another minor story playing out at the same time. Miguel (Elijah Rodriguez) is a young guy headed down the road of becoming a cartel member, at the behest of his cousin. His job? To traffic people across the border. Simple as that.

I said I was going to spoil a lot, and I am, but I'm not going to write about the entire film as you could go to Wikipedia for any of that stuff. Anyway, this film has a lot of moments that are blink and you miss them, or rather hit the pisser and you miss them. The point is, get an app or something that will let you know when to hit it. There's a scene with Miguel coming across Alejandro that if you miss, it destroys the entire film for you. Nobody left my theater during that scene, but if they had I can imagine the way they felt about the rest of the film was entirely different than me. The film also has scenes that simply aren't as impactful as those in the first one. The shootout on the dirt road doesn't even come close to the one at the border crossing, it simply isn't as tense or as well filmed. That's what I mean about this film being different, it just is. Its intensity is reserved for a scene where Alejandro gets busted on a bus, for a scene near the end where you think Matt might kill Isabel, except he doesn't. I can admit however that the aforementioned shootout is pretty good and built up to very well. Three humvees chugging along a road so fast that they can't see anything in front of them prior to getting attacked is pretty good.

This film is different from the first on so many other levels as well. There's the fact that Roger Deakins didn't film it, and you can immediately notice that because it is filmed more workmanlike than the original. This film also has very little female touch, with Catherine Keener playing a token character who only has a couple lines to keep Matt and Alejandro on track. Next, the soundtrack is different considering Jóhann Jóhannsson didn't take part in it, and I don't know if that was before or after he died. But, you can definitely tell the film is lacking in this regard. It's also directed with scenes that never would have been in the first film, with newcasters reading the news and shit like that. It's simply a different vision. That doesn't mean it's a bad vision, it just isn't the same and it's hard to accept at times. The ending is something I can't imagine Denis Villeneuve would have come up with, it's absolutely outlandish and hard to understand. del Toro gets shot in the mouth, but like, dude. It's not a life ending injury but the scene is just played so weird. On the other hand, the scene when Miguel encounters del Toro a year later is hilarious.

Ultimately, I think I do like this film even with its numerous missteps. It is ill-timed politically, but on the other hand, perhaps this is the kind of thing we really do need to see. Maybe we do need to understand that our government goes massively overboard in dealing with perceived problems, and while this film handles that in a heavy handed way which may make it difficult for people to get that message from the film, I think it was well handled. The film is also exciting and cool, because as I said, it's a Rambo movie. Benicio del Toro as the new Rambo is cool shit that I really like. I don't entirely buy him becoming fatherly towards Isabel, but he does know this isn't her fault, and perhaps he's learned from the previous incident where he killed Fausto's family. On the other hand, perhaps not. If you like action movies you should see this, and if you don't like movies that don't stand up to scrutiny, you should probably pass. Still, the two main characters are cool, Jeffrey Donovan is amusing as a special operative, and that's enough for me. I want to see more movies about cartel stuff, and I don't know if this will have a third entry without Sollima, but I hope so. Would like to see a third person's vision, preferably someone who treats the material the way Denis Villeneuve did.

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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #778 on: July 18, 2018, 12:22:50 PM »
I should also review the AMC A-List Pass.

I didn't see any capability to theater hop as my AMC seems to be vigilant in that regard, but my theater is extremely high traffic. They have people stationed in the hallways, you would definitely get busted. I don't think I could stay at the theater that long anyway, that's too much for me. I intend to use the three movies a week on most weeks, but people like us are in the minority. My brother only goes to three movies a month with his and was talking about only going to two next month. But, if you're paying for a Dolby or IMAX ticket, you should have this instead.

All I had to do to scan my ticket was show them my phone. You're allowed to see three movies a week and you're also allowed to reserve three tickets at a time. The app used barely any data at all, which was surprising and unexpected, I'm also big on saving data so that's nice. I also liked that I didn't feel obligated to buy concessions, but I still have the same problem I've always had with theaters, the previews spoil too much. However, I did like the ease of access, and when I read the way people complain about Moviepass even though it costs $10 less, it doesn't even slightly compare to this far superior product. It is probably not even worth your time to have Moviepass unless you live nowhere near an AMC.


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

Offline Spaceman Spiff 🚀

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5,266
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #779 on: July 18, 2018, 01:52:39 PM »
Eddie Vedder up there in that pic next to Steve.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #780 on: July 18, 2018, 06:19:12 PM »


Spectral (2016), directed by Nic Mathieu

Have you ever seen a movie so weak that you had a hard time finishing it? That's a stupid question as I know everyone has, but this is the first time in a year or more that I've had such a hard time finishing a film. Spectral was produced by Legendary Pictures, who was under contract to send this film to be distributed by Universal. The problem is, everyone knew this film sucked and couldn't possibly make any money. What happens when a production company spends $70 million on a film and it sucks that bad? They sell it off to Netflix at a massive loss. I don't know exactly how much Netflix paid for this film, but whatever they paid was simply too much. I am struggling to understand why they did this, but I know that they keep doing it, so this is a question that will remain unanswered as there is no logical reason for wasting money this way. Their claims of trying to conquer content are so laughable and such a massive joke, I just don't believe any of the bullshit they're selling. It appears that less and less people are, as firms are starting to say their stock isn't worth buying. That's not to say Netflix is dying, but people buying their bullshit isn't going to last for much longer.

Spectral is a massive pile of trash with one exception, so I'm going to breeze through this portion as fast as I possibly can. Dr. Mark Clyne (James Badge Dale) is a researcher for DARPA, and his mission is to fly out to Moldova. See, one of his creations requires some questioning related to them, they're hyperspectral imaging goggles. These are apparently a real thing, but in the film's opening scene, it appears that a ghost kills a soldier by going through them. Upon arrival in Moldova, we learn that there's a war there, the government had fallen and US military troops are now there, which is fantastic and exactly what we need. Clyne initially meets with General Orland (Bruce Greenwood) and Fran (Emily Mortimer), the latter of whom is a CIA agent. They show Clyne some footage of the ghost running through a soldier, and Clyne's advice is somewhat ignored. Fran believes that the insurgents are wearing active camouflage and has orders to bring it home from Moldova. This part is actually not bad, although it's slow, dry, and boring.

Where it gets bad is in the execution of revealing what these ghost like figures actually are, and what the soldiers are left to do in order to combat them. Clyne and Madison head into the field to find a team that went missing, and Clyne outfits an APC with a hyperspectral camera that is supposed to kill these things. Problem is, the team is dead and so are Moldovan insurgents, killed at the hands of these ghosts. The soldiers are subsequently ambushed, at which point we see clearly that regular ammunition and heavy weapons cannot kill these ghosts, which leads to a hell of a lot of people who seemed interesting immediately dying. Eventually, the soldiers retreat and run over some landmines, so it is impossible for them to get back to base. They are forced to run into a factory, at which point they encounter two children. These children tell them that this shit is straight out nonsense, that the ghosts are made of Bose–Einstein condensate, which allows them to move through walls and kill people by freezing them. Later on, we learn that 3D printing is used to create these things.

The point where ghosts kept running through soldiers is the point where I really wanted to turn this shit off, but the movie kept going and I have rules. I must not quit, it is not an option. I'm not judgmental, if you liked this, that's cool, but nothing about this made any sense to me. I thought the movie was full of ridiculous garbage, and I am incapable of making sense of it. Unfortunately, I am also incapable of turning my brain off as it relates to these kinds of movies, if something does not stand up to scrutiny I will wind up picking the thing apart. I don't want to do that in this review because I think to some extent that's a waste of time, this isn't a good movie and the production company knew that, which is why they passed it off. It's also bogus to call this a Netflix Original because it really isn't, it's just something they released after picking it up from Universal, so I have no idea why they would bill it as one. I'm also curious as to how a huge budget film like this gets made without any names. That strikes me as such a big error, one that is difficult to comprehend. The iron shavings plot device, by the way, is totally absurd in its execution.

There are positives though, I am nowhere near as stringent as I've made it sound like. These few positives do redeem the film to some extent. It seems like the entire budget went to just a few things. Filming equipment is one obvious thing, and man, this film is really nice to look at. It's definitely impressive, and I'm not sure how much of this is practical and computer effects, but the more practical things are something. The outfits and weapons look like they cost an absolutely massive amount of money. So do some of the sets, they are all worth a look at the very least, but you can just google them instead of sitting through such a weak movie. Still, I am shocked at the creations from Weta Workshop, which is Peter Jackson's big company. Somehow I have not seen any movie with their equipment that was even close to modern, only things fantasy related or from the distant past. I am very impressed by the things they put together here. The film, not so much, but its video game looks are certainly interesting. Overall, I think this shows how much of a massive risk it is to give a first time feature director this much money to make something, and every film needs to have actors the general public will recognize on some level.

4/10


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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #781 on: July 18, 2018, 06:19:34 PM »
Eddie Vedder up there in that pic next to Steve.

He has a role in the documentary towards the end.


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

Offline RedJed

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4,609
  • Rasslin' Rambler
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #782 on: July 19, 2018, 03:19:33 AM »
I should also review the AMC A-List Pass.

I didn't see any capability to theater hop as my AMC seems to be vigilant in that regard, but my theater is extremely high traffic. They have people stationed in the hallways, you would definitely get busted. I don't think I could stay at the theater that long anyway, that's too much for me. I intend to use the three movies a week on most weeks, but people like us are in the minority. My brother only goes to three movies a month with his and was talking about only going to two next month. But, if you're paying for a Dolby or IMAX ticket, you should have this instead.

All I had to do to scan my ticket was show them my phone. You're allowed to see three movies a week and you're also allowed to reserve three tickets at a time. The app used barely any data at all, which was surprising and unexpected, I'm also big on saving data so that's nice. I also liked that I didn't feel obligated to buy concessions, but I still have the same problem I've always had with theaters, the previews spoil too much. However, I did like the ease of access, and when I read the way people complain about Moviepass even though it costs $10 less, it doesn't even slightly compare to this far superior product. It is probably not even worth your time to have Moviepass unless you live nowhere near an AMC.

Yeah, Moviepass seemed much more confusing and frustrating to even get a seat in advance. I had heard stories that in many cases, by the time they got to the theater to get a seat, it was already sold out or at best they had a shit seat right in front of the screen in the first few rows. With this AMC pass, you can reserve it well ahead of time AND if you decide you can't make it, cancelling beforehand is simple too.

Sorry to hear they are on lockdown at your local AMC. The one in town is so low key it isnt even funny. 6 screens and usually on an off day, there is literally one or maybe two staff there, and they are only behind the concessions. As far as the other one I go to often, its a 18 screen multiplex (in the same mall that Mallrats was filmed at, little fun fact there) that has no employees around the theaters themselves until after a film is done. There is one point of contact when you enter the theater area off past concessions that just checks tickets, but that's it. So I never have any issues sneaking in anywhere.

Yeah, the Dolby Atmos/AMC Prime (which is a bit of a vibrating chair effect)/IMAX/3D versions of films that are acceptable to use with this pass is a HUGE value to me since I will go to those well before a normal screening anytime.

Offline Damaramu

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12,657
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #783 on: July 19, 2018, 03:32:06 AM »
I'm flying to SoCal one day and we're going to do some movie marathons god dammit.
I watched RAW. I thought it sucked. The usual problems and such.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #784 on: July 19, 2018, 12:16:41 PM »


Sorry to Bother You (2018), directed by Boots Riley

I did just review someone's first feature when reviewing Spectral, and it's fair to say that there's an obvious difference in talent levels between Nic Mathieu and Boots Riley. It's always nice to walk into a theater and watch something unique, which is exactly what this film is. The premise is actually quite simple even though things get complicated as the film goes on, both of which are pleasant surprises in their own way. The effort and vision given here is worth seeing for yourself, but if you're reading this thread and this review, you've either already seen this film, want my input, or just don't care one way or another. I'll give you my input, this is a film with a new leading actor, with Lakeith Stanfield finally jumping up to that level. It's a movie with some crazy shit, with things that you wouldn't expect, that goes super outlandish at some points. This is also a film with a message about capitalism, about the things that are expected from black folks, and about selling out. This is a film worth seeing, even if it turns out that you don't like it, there's a hell of a lot here to think about. I am definitely looking forward to Riley's next attempt, should there be one. Most stunning is that Riley says this film cost $3,200,000 to film. You can't tell!

This film takes place in Oakland, an alternative reality version of it anyway, but it's still Oakland. Not to the same extent as other small budget films, though. There's a hell of a lot to this movie, but I'm not going to spoil every single thing this time as some of it is impossible to describe. In this version of Oakland, Cassius Green (Lakeith Stanfield) lives in his uncle's (Terry Crews) garage. He's struggling as hard as someone can be struggling without being homeless. His girlfriend Detroit (Tessa Thompson) loves him, but it's still hard times for our man Cassius. The only job he can find is working as a telemarketer, which is where his friend Sal (Jermaine Fowler) works as well. In a humorous scene where Cassius gets the job, it is made clear that anyone can get those jobs. Also, Cassius' uncle is going to lose his house, cause shit is real tough out there. Unfortunately, this role is a bit part and Terry Crews doesn't say much. Cassius has a hard time selling bullshit to customers, but one day he's seated next to Langston (Danny Glover), who tells Cassius that what he really needs to do is adopt a white voice. That way he'll sell some shit, that way he'll get paid, and that way he won't be struggling so badly.

To set up the rest of the film, here's how Oakland is an alternate version of our current reality. There's a company called WorryFree, run by Steve Lift (Armie Hammer). WorryFree is a company that offers a life where you get free food and lodging, the company ensures that you don't have to pay your bills, but you work for them for the rest of your life. In this reality, it is ruled that this business practice is not equivalent to slavery and therefore totally legal. There's also a group of people who are fervently against WorryFree, called "The Left Eye". Detroit is a member, by the way. Cassius has members of his company, RegalView, attempting to create a union for telemarketers, the main ringleader being Squeeze (Steven Yeun). Lastly, there's an elevator in the building and numerous rumors about the best telemarketer becoming a Power Caller. What the hell's a Power Caller? You're gonna have to watch the movie for more of that because I've spoiled enough and would like to move on. The only thing we know about the elevator at the start, is that Mr. Eyepatch (Omari Hardwick) goes up there every day. I have no idea if that's supposed to be his name in the film, but he's unnamed. The most popular show of the time is also one where people get punched over and over again in the face.

Four characters in this film have "white voice," and I will list three of them in the following line. Cash's white voice is played by David Cross, Mr. Eyepatch's is Patton Oswalt, and Langston's is played by a sound engineer who sounds like Steve Buscemi. I don't want to reveal the last one because that's no fun and I've already spoiled and will spoil lots of other things. This is a film with lots of different messages, some of which are well told and well executed, but the director's vision goes so crazy towards the end of the film that I was left to hope it would end a minute or two sooner. Some things are better left filmed and left at the director's house for their own amusement. Others, on the other hand, are totally cool and necessary to show people, even though I'm convinced this film would have been near a Best Picture nominee without them. Again, those are okay though! There are so many good gags in this film and I was laughing constantly, even at one or two that nobody else laughed at and therefore I probably shouldn't have. I was the only white guy in the theater, and no, I didn't laugh at Cassius rapping at the party. I did think that was an excellent scene.

This movie is super ambitious, but the third act may have been too ambitious even though I enjoyed it. Admittedly, the film does turn into a mess. But that's not really what I want to talk about and to describe it would take up numerous paragraphs, but the messaging is more worthy of my time. I took some time to think about this film before writing down anything, and I think the first thing to point out is that this is a commentary on the current state of America as much as it's a fantasy. The idea that someone gets further in life by acting "less black" is a very accurate commentary, there are numerous instances in the film that show obstacles that are put in place of minorities. The film isn't trying to tell people that black folks have to put on a white voice to get up the ladder, but that people have to conform and act a certain way to be successful. Is that right? Well, no, not really. It simply is what it is. Of course, some people will ignore this message and focus on something different than that. The overall point is indisputable though, in order to succeed in a big business workplace, you must conform to the people who run that workplace, i.e. older white folks.

Another commentary throughout the film is one on capitalism, as well as our ability to do something about it even though we don't have the desire to do so at this time. When I say we, I mean pretty much everyone who does the things Cassius does in this film. Once Cassius does something about it, it's funny to see the results of that, but some of the surrealism of the film takes away from those moments. Still, the lengths people will go to in order to make a buck, it's too much sometimes. There are other things in this film, such as riffs on our prison system and art, but you know, those things create too much plot to be closed in any kind of definitive way. That's what I'm saying about the third act. That stuff is funny, but it detracts from the rest of the film and goes a little too far. It's too ambitious. Now, some other ambitious things really come off. As in this film's trailer, the scenes where Cassius drops down into the living room of people who answer his phone calls are all really good. I don't know if I've seen something like that before. There's another where Cassius moves into a new pad and the fixtures of his old one come apart to reveal the new. These are pretty cool.

Of course, the third act is ambitious to the point of being total nonsense, but I laughed at the way one of our film's characters suddenly become woke due to the ridiculous things they see. Is this also a social commentary? I genuinely don't know, but for some people it takes them seeing a cop walk up to an innocent and shoot them in the head for those people to realize police officers have a problem, so maybe it is a social commentary on those kinds of people. This isn't as good a film as Get Out, which succeeds because it keeps things so much more to the point, and it also conforms to genre norms. This, on the other hand, does not. It's one of the most ridiculous movies I've ever seen, it's also super inspired and detailed, in some cases to the point of being overboard. I would be surprised if any film the rest of the year was as provocative as this one, which ultimately renders some of my complaints totally irrelevant. Isn't a film being provocative exactly what they need. So what if this thing misses from time to time, overall it's really funny and had me thinking a lot.

7.5/10

2018 films ranked

1. Sorry to Bother You
2. Sicario


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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #785 on: July 19, 2018, 05:50:17 PM »


The Babadook (2014), directed by Jennifer Kent

Continuing my run of first time directors, which will end at three with this one, we have Jennifer Kent putting together The Babadook. My brother told me to watch this and I ignored him, and I really have no excuse for that, so if by some odd chance he's reading this I must apologize. Anyway, The Babadook is a category of film I don't watch often enough, one which I will watch quite a few more of, it's a horror movie. Everyone knows that. I don't watch enough of these to really analyze one properly, so I'm going to put down what comes to mind and that's that. This is a very effective film, it tells its story and that's that, but I have no idea what to make of its ending. The Babadook also features some of my favorite things in horror films. It has dread, you know something bad is going to happen and nothing's going to stop it. Creepy house with creepy rooms in it, that's something I want. Lightbulbs breaking? Hell yes. Supernatural stuff? Also yes. I prefer that to the general slasher flick. So, what we have here, is a film that goes through someone's own mental problems, where they've trapped themselves inside of their creepy house and effectively turned it into a prison. I'm sold.

Amelia (Essie Davis) is a mother with an absolutely batshit crazy son, named Sam (Noah Wiseman). Both have their problems. Amelia's husband died on the same day she gave birth to Sam, so the youngster has had no father. He's around 7 or 8 years old, and again he's fucking crazy. Sam is an insomniac, and he believes there's a monster everywhere. He's built some cool weapons, for some reason his mom hasn't thrown them in the trash because she's on auto pilot, and again, they're pretty cool. Wish I made stuff like that when I was a kid. One day, Sam brings a dart gun to school and gets caught, which leads to his expulsion. The next night, maybe even the same night, Sam asks his mother to read a pop-up book. Never liked those as a kid, but anyway, the book is named Mister Babadook. In the book, it describes the Babadook, what the Babadook does, and the way the Babadook torments people. Sam is absolutely convinced the Babadook is real, his mom not so much.

Some time later, weird shit begins to happen. Doors are opening and closing on their own. Amelia finds glass in her food and was eating it. She takes the book and tears it to pieces, because it wound up out of its hiding place. Can't have that! To make a long story shorter and not spoil, sometime after she rips the book...IT'S BACK. What the hell did you think would happen? The rest of the movie features psychological horror of the good kind, a weird as fuck ending that I think didn't make any sense, and an interesting mother-son relationship. The kid, obviously, is massively annoying. There's also a neighbor, an older lady whose name I didn't catch, and she does her best to help. Amelia also has a sister, Claire (Hayley McElhinney), and she has a daughter. As I said, Sam is massively annoying, and what implications do you think that would have on a film with multiple different characters?

Spoiler: show
The Babadook itself is a hell of a costume, at least in the terms of what they show or don't show. I guess this was a handmade monster and I could find out more about it, but some things are better left unsaid. The presentation of the monster was super strong, with the movie consistently building up to the moments in which the Babadook will make comments or appear on screen. Some of the dreams that Amelia has only enhance the dread factor of this film, you start thinking she might do something really bad, and then she actually kills their dog. That's pretty bad. The ending, I really don't know what to make of it. I don't like the idea that a monster would gladly live in someone's house, but that's a creative decision I will judge appropriately. This is a strong effort though, with something I didn't quite expect. I thought this was going to be a standard monster film and not something where I presumed that the monster was a manifestation of somebody's mental problems.


There's plenty in the spoiler tags if one wants to know what I think of the entire film, but things that don't belong in the spoiler tags will follow. The Babadook has excellent cinematic choices as well, particularly in framing what the viewer is allowed to see. Very much of the film focuses on Amelia's face, which not only requires a strong performance from Essie Davis but is also deeply unsettling. Noah Wiseman is also a hell of a child actor, and I bet we'll never see him again, but I completely bought his role in the film. The kid reminded me of one of my cousins. He was a dead on portrayal of a mentally disturbed child. The house set is also totally goofy, very well painted and designed. That's not all though. I think probably most important in setting the stage for this story is the book. They sell the damn book now, it would actually be a great gift to give to my brother, in which case I hope he isn't reading this. The stuff in it is amazing, it is very cool.

Again, I think this is a film about someone's mental illness, but that's something I touched on in the spoiler tags. I think that grief is a very real thing which can consume someone, and obviously a monster horror film is not realistic, but it definitely feels to many grief stricken people that they have a monster on their back. It's something that lots of people are simply unable to ever shake, it is also something that I don't know much about. Obviously, I've never been a widow and am entirely unqualified to state how a widow should feel. Jennifer Kent did a fantastic job of making Amelia seem like something more than a victim, someone who has in some ways done this to herself, someone who needs to move on with her life and cannot do it. Amelia effectively trapped herself in a house with a psycho child, she hasn't had a man, and has no seeming desire to do anything except play with her vibrator. She also doesn't sleep, and for some time I was wondering if the things in this film weren't real and were because she wasn't sleeping, but in fact that wasn't the case. If it had been, I really wouldn't have known what to make of this film or its ending. Instead, I'm merely puzzled by The Babadook's conclusion, but that's okay. It's hard for people to write endings to such good, haunting stories. I also need to watch the Conjuring series, which is something I may start doing next month, or the one after that. I have read those films are actually quite similar, although it's hard to believe they could be as good.

8/10


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #786 on: July 20, 2018, 06:22:57 PM »


The Equalizer (2014), directed by Antoine Fuqua

One afternoon, my dad was watching this movie, but I didn't join him and decided to just go about whatever I was doing that afternoon. Obviously, it wasn't very important, because I don't remember it. Yet, if I had watched this movie, I would remember what I was doing that afternoon and have a memory of it to intertwine with my viewing of it. Instead, I don't, and that may be a lesson learned in the long run. Spend time with your family members. Anyway, I intend to see The Equalizer 2 on Sunday, but I needed to watch the first film prior to doing so. After watching this, I suppose I am a little surprised that Denzel Washington would do this film. It seems to not coincide with his faith, which I don't know if he still has, but anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that this film is pretty violent. Although, if he's a person who believes in the death penalty, he may believe there's no difference between his character's actions in the film and that. I don't know and it doesn't matter. The main thing about this movie that's going to stick with me, is its ending inside of a Home Depot. Have you ever wanted to see an action movie climax in a hardware store? If so, this is definitely for you.

I suppose this is based on an old TV series in some way, but that is totally irrelevant to me. The film is as such. Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) is a man who lives in Boston. His life seems to be quite regimented, and he works at a Home Mart, which is our stand-in for Home Depot. Robert reads, he goes to work, he goes to a diner. This is what he does every day and night. He can't sleep, so the diner trip is at 2 AM or so. Robert has a co-worker, Ralphie (Johnny Skourtis), who is training to be a security guard. He's pretty fat, so Robert has to keep on him about what he eats, train him to carry big weights, etc. Why Robert does this is a total mystery, out of the goodness of his heart or some shit, I don't really know. He also has a habit of timing the things that he does, I don't know what that's from. On his nightly diner trip, he encounters Alina (Chloe Grace Moretz), a teenage prostitute who turns out to be working for the Russian Mafia. Check that, working is simply the wrong term. She's basically a sex slave. Robert likes to tell her about philosophy and stuff.

One night, Alina forgets about a job she's supposed to do and instead walks around with Robert in the middle of the night talking about this kind of thing. It is clear that Robert is in no way romantically interested in her, his role is of a motivating capacity, similar to the way he speaks to Ralphie. Unfortunately, her pimp Slavi (David Meunier) drives around and finds her, which isn't unrealistic because she's always picked up at the diner. Only so many places one can walk I suppose. Slavi slaps her and throws her in the car, and for a few days she doesn't show up at the diner. Sounds like a big problem. What we learn after that, is that Robert McCall is extremely dangerous himself. He seems to right wrongs done in the world. Hence, we shall call him...THE EQUALIZER. This is something that happens at the end of the film, when he posts an online advertisement identifying himself as such. Anyway, there's a problem with whatever it is that he did, he fucked with the Russian Mafia. Teddy (Marton Csokas) is sent to investigate, and Frank Masters (David Harbour) is a corrupt policeman who will help Teddy find out who decided to dare walk into a Russian restaurant and fuck with their program.

Again, this film is really violent, and I've already spoiled that it ends at a Home Depot. I don't think that's a really big deal, in pointing out any of the initial story, it isn't terribly hard to connect the dots and decipher what will happen. If you've seen one of the standard Denzel Washington thrillers, you've seen a lot of them, but this one features his character doing a lot of brutal things. I didn't expect to be watching a film with killings that belong in a horror flick, but that's what this is! The film is also really long, so the stuff here is drawn out into a very long story. It takes a long time for people to start killing each other in this, and it takes a long time for the story to develop to its conclusion. There also aren't too many scenes that could easily be chopped from this film. Alina and Robert are the only two characters with any real development, so it's not as if Fuqua decided to develop lots of characters, he kept the film moving along as it needed to. We also learn that Robert becomes more brazen after his initial exploits, which is something that served to show this wasn't just a one time thing of him righting wrongs, this is how he operates, it's possibly even how he went through life before the events of this film. I liked that stuff.

There are other things that are more minor and unfocused upon, but I liked those too. The dude reads goddamn Hemingway and Cervantes at the diner. Like, man, I didn't expect that. This is something that is also explained as the film goes on. Is it fair to say this is overexplanation? Perhaps, but I don't mind. If a film is going to center so much around one character, we need to learn a lot about them. Of course, in the process of doing so, we inevitably learn that some of the presentation is full of shit. There are two characters introduced in the middle of the film that provide a gigantic exposition dump. That part is really not good and slows down a very long film quite massively. Another weakness is that there are simply too many deaths, which overexposes what certain characters bring to the table, and there's definitely a point at which I felt like the film was starting to wear out its welcome in this regard. The ending is also overly long in some respects, I don't want to say anything but if you've seen this, you know what I mean. The two villains are also uninteresting, and while Teddy is imposing, ultimately he's quite boring. There's also an explosion scene that I find completely implausible, even compared to the other outlandish stuff in this.

Considering the reviews for The Equalizer 2 are not exactly fantastic, I don't know how I'll feel about that when I go see it. But, the thing is, The Equalizer had a Metascore that was only 8 points higher. That's all I've seen though, I refuse to read another review, so maybe I'll like it. I would be remiss if I didn't point out once again that the killings are more like those from a horror movie, so if you like that shit, you definitely get your fill here. Also, it's just really easy to buy whatever Denzel Washington does on screen. I can't explain how this is, it simply doesn't make sense. I see a 60 year old man run in from right field to catch a fly ball and I don't doubt it. I see him fist fighting and struggling with a guy bigger than him, with the other guy on top the whole time, and I totally buy when he takes a piece of glass and shoves it in his neck. I simply can't explain why this is, it's just how it is. Plus, the film ends...AT FUCKING HOME DEPOT. It's like Home Alone in that bitch. Who wouldn't want to see something like that? I must admit, this film is standard action fare, with its strengths and weaknesses, but nothing is so overly ridiculous that I wouldn't call this a decent effort.

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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #787 on: July 21, 2018, 06:12:12 PM »


Chef (2014), directed by Jon Favreau

This is the second food related film I've watched, and one is a lot better than the other although I'll let you keep reading to figure out about that. Both films are also entirely different, even giving the feeling early on that it may not be the case for these to be so different. Burnt, as you may have read, is a film about a washed out, drug addicted, rageaholic chef looking for redemption, who washes out again and still gets everything he wanted anyway. This film is nothing like that. There are lots of reasons that's the case, for starters this is a film where the director stars in the film. There's basically no way a film like Burnt would be a passion project for someone unless they were a total sociopath. Harvey Weinstein sure was one of those! So, this is a passion project for Favreau, who always wanted to make one of these kinds of movies. He also wrote the script in two weeks, you certainly can't tell from the quality of the film. His premise is that he wanted to draw on his experiences as a father, and that he wanted to go back to making a more simple film after directing a bunch of blockbusters. Afterwards he went straight back to making blockbusters. So, what does that mean? Probably not anything.

Carl Casper (Jon Favreau) is the head chef of a bougie restaurant in Brentwood, one of the most wealthy neighborhoods in my area. So, you know that this movie is going to be one of those kinds of movies, that some of the stuff in it will be unrealistic and all that stuff. Just go with it. Anyway, Carl is a really popular chef, with a big restaurant to run, but he doesn't own the place. Instead, the restaurant's owner Riva (Dustin Hoffman) is really intrusive in terms of what he'll allow Carl to cook. Carl has to stick to the basics and isn't allowed to do any of the kinds of new American staples that are becoming more and more popular. Carl's staff is quite surprisingly star studded for a film of this size. His hostess Molly (Scarlett Johansson) is only in a few things, but she keeps shit tight in that restaurant, making sure everything's on point. Martin (John Leguizamo) and Tony (Bobby Cannavale) are his assistants in the kitchen, and this is his ride or die crew, or so we're led to believe.

Of course, nothing in a film goes down like that, it would be foolish to assume that it would. Carl has other issues as well. His son Percy (Emjay Anthony) is really badly neglected by him, which actually bothered me in the way that those kind of film stories usually don't. It was weird. His ex-wife Inez (Sofia Vergara, lol) is somewhat of an empty figure throughout the film, which is a bit of a negative, but anyway, I just wanted to say that she was in this. She suggests numerous times that Carl should open a food truck. One day, Carl has the chance to serve a renowned critic, Ramsey Michel (Oliver Platt). It doesn't go so great. Afterwards, Percy and Carl create a social media presence for Carl, which leads to a pretty amusing event that leads to upheaval in Carl's life. So, about that food truck idea, I mean, it's only in the poster for this film. Hardly a shock! I did the best I could to completely obscure the events that lead to the food truck, and that's all I could do.

Considering this is about Favreau's experiences as a father, I think it is an obligation of mine to let people know what they're getting into if they turn this on. I do think this is a better movie than Burnt for numerous reasons. The cast is more star studded and shows the benefit of crafting relationships in Hollywood rather than molesting everyone the way Harvey Weinstein did. There are numerous actors who have cameos in this. Some were already mentioned, like Scarlett Johansson, but she's in four or five scenes so that isn't really a cameo. Same can be said for Dustin Hoffman. Robert Downey Jr., on the other hand, that's a cameo. Also, for all the money Russell Peters supposedly made years ago, I don't think I've ever seen him in anything prior to this. I guess that's kind of strange, maybe to some people anyway, but it doesn't matter. The point is that this film has a really solid cast, and that the script was good enough to get that cast in the first place. I think the movie is enhanced by some of the appearances here, but that's not what the film is really about in the first place.

Chef is actually about a father-son relationship, about what happens when fathers own businesses and their sons come to work for them. That's definitely not the case for everyone, but there's a difference between lawnmowing or plumbing businesses and being a chef. It's more glamorous and it isn't something that people settle to do when shit hasn't worked out for them. Like, I'm genuinely sorry if anyone here does those things, but I don't think it was your dream to do it. It still puts food on the table so I'm not commenting on that, but that this is a job a son would actually want to do from the jump. In the film, Carl teaches Percy about work, Percy teaches Carl about the modern world, and over the course of all that, their bond is strengthened massively. The ending stinks, but anyway, it's about their bond almost entirely. Of course, there has to be a second adult in the room while all this is going on, and I think Favreau chose the right character actor to accompany him on the adventure. John Leguizamo is usually good in his appearances, as in The Infiltrator, and as in that film he's necessary to make the plot work out.

The film essentially boils down to Favreau, Leguizamo, and the boy becoming a team. My brother made a comment to me earlier today about how when people watch a film, they're looking for the negatives in it so that they don't have to feel guilty for liking it. I don't know about the second part of that equation, but I think the first is dead on. People are always looking for something to nitpick, but in this case there isn't any real nits to pick. The ending and conclusion are entirely predictable and that's a bit weak, but the film is really solid. This is an ultimate feel good movie, which with the exception of Paterson is something that I don't watch very often. There's food porn here that could make everyone feel good, Leguizamo is constantly telling good jokes, and I was able to believe that Favreau's character was a real chef. His meltdown is actually a lot better than Bradley Cooper's in Burnt. The things that Cooper says are more hardcore, but Favreau's is a lot more realistic because he repeats himself over and over. Lots of people unconsciously do that shit when they get extremely angry, but very rarely do I ever see it on film. That being said, I must repeat, with feel good films comes some major unrealism. It is what it is, but I still liked this, nothing will change my mind either.

One thing though, I can't help but point out that the guy who wrote, directed, and starred in this movie had Scarlett Johansson and Sofia Vergara on his dick. I don't think that's nitpicking, come onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #788 on: July 22, 2018, 12:27:55 PM »


The Equalizer 2 (2018), directed by Antoine Fuqua

In the entire time I've been writing reviews, I do not believe I've seen a movie and its sequel in such quick succession. In a way, this is the perfect time to test out why or why I don't do that. I still will have to watch the last and current Mission Impossible movies this week, but there's nothing I can do about that at this stage and the damage is done. The point of these last few sentences is, I don't know if that was a good idea. I believe this is Denzel Washington's first sequel, or at least that's what all the advertising told me. This film is a lot different than the first one, though. I will explain as I go on, but really, it's a lot different and not always in a positive way. Where The Equalizer succeeds, The Equalizer 2 decides to get rid of a lot of that stuff. While enjoyable, it's definitely not the same film. So, in that regard, it's just like the other sequel I watched on Wednesday. The thing is, Denzel Washington is a supremely skilled actor. Even when given material that isn't fantastic, even when it isn't what you wanted or what you expected, when he's on the screen all the time you know beyond doubt that he will do everything it takes to entertain people. 100% of the time, he tries, it is only a matter of whether or not the material can be overcome. In this case, I think I would say yes, he did.

Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) has moved on from his job at Home Mart, and has moved on from his old apartment as well. Starting over is easy for a former CIA agent, I suppose. He still lives in Boston, but that's not how the film starts. I will leave that to everyone's imagination. Anyway, implausible as the opening was, we move forward. He still helps out the less fortunate, with his friend Sarah Plummer (Melissa Leo) helping him do so, as in the first film. Robert has decided his next job will be as a Lyft driver, which leads to him encountering lots of different people and listening to their stories, as well as their complaints. There are scenes here that re-establish his character in case people didn't see the first film, and in some ways it might be better if someone didn't see the first film. They don't have the memory of better things in mind, and the film trods over the same ground in order to create a new story. The focus is scattered all over the place as well, but I shall continue. Robert's main fare is Sam (Orson Bean), an old Holocaust survivor who regularly complains to him about a wrong that's been done to him, his sister being separated from him all those years ago.

Susan's role in the story is to help Robert with these kinds of things, including that one. She has found information as well. One day, Robert's apartment complex has been vandalized. In the process of painting it, either Robert meets or we are introduced to Miles (Ashton Sanders), a young man with problems. Miles is interested in art, and Robert likes him, so he gets Miles to paint over the vandalized area of the building. That storyline definitely goes somewhere as well and that isn't exactly surprising. Meanwhile, we are shown a man in Brussels being murdered by a group of scum. Susan and CIA operative Dave York (Pedro Pascal) are sent to investigate, and it turns out that Dave is Robert's former partner. While Susan's in Brussels, Robert keeps on doing his own thing, and we learn more about the other characters in the film as it goes on. Like I said, this film is definitely lacking focus and weaves too many plotlines together at one time.

I don't want to repeat myself for a third time, so I won't, but Denzel Washington's performance saves this from being a horrendous film as a result of its creative decisions. Creating characters who only exist as an attempt to recreate the first film is also not a bright decision. Lots of the things that made the first film good are not here. See, Robert McCall was shown gathering all his own information in the first one. In the second, they skip past a lot of those scenes, and some of the ones early on feature him happening across coincidences or being helped by Susan. This seems like a big error to me. The opening scene, however, is very good. To not give the entire thing away, it takes place in a different country. Our hero is shown wearing different clothes from usual, and he's no longer reading old books, he's reading Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates. This is a pretty cool scene, it is also the only one that we really needed to establish Robert once more, but the film would have struggled mightily without the other ones. I mean, this film really does struggle with some exception.

To list some of those exceptions, let's talk about Denzel Washington again. I wouldn't call this a great film, but the scene where he's beating up yuppies is fantastic. The things he says while doing it are something I couldn't have imagined him saying, he still does it, and it's pretty funny. There's another scene where he's giving a speech. It doesn't matter that this film is a blatant cash grab, he gives a speech that ranks up there with his best. Considering the lead actor and director, it's fair to say everyone knows exactly what they're getting when they go to see this movie. I saw this in Dolby and the sound was unbelievable, my seat was shaking big time every time something happened in the movie. It was really strange for my seat to shake when someone was getting punched in the face. Another good scene features Robert McCall telling someone he's going to kill them while smiling at their children. I mean, there are way too many subplots in this film, but it is borderline impossible for me to dislike.

The first film is better in a violent sense, the killings of evil fucks are better, and I feel that Robert McCall is a more well rounded character in it. Fortunately, this does not feel like another film made with the intention of making another film, and I would be really surprised for Denzel Washington to sign on for a third. The film is all over the place, and if it took this long into his career for Denzel to make a sequel, he won't be part of a trilogy. The film also suffers in one really major regard, we know basically jack shit about Pedro Pascal's character. This was not the case with Teddy in The Equalizer. If anything, we knew too much about that dude. People ultimately pay to see Denzel do his Denzel thing, and if you like that, this is worth your time. Bearing in mind that I paid nothing, I liked this even though it was full of problems and the action wasn't as good as the first time around. It simply doesn't come together as well as it should.

5.5/10

2018 films ranked

1. Sorry to Bother You
2. Sicario
3. The Equalizer 2


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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #789 on: July 22, 2018, 06:04:03 PM »


Sideways (2004), directed by Alexander Payne

Very rarely does one watch a film that hits them like a ton of bricks. I intended to watch this about ten years ago, but I read a note saying that a young person should wait to see what happens to them in life prior to checking out a movie like this. Otherwise, I suppose it would be difficult to understand. This is certainly true, I can't imagine that I would have felt the same about this film in those days. I would have been unable to understand the disappointments of life, why someone would put themselves through that without killing themselves, and why he was such a loser that these bad things happened to him. The reality is that once you're older, you realize that bad things happen to everyone. The circumstances in which they do are certainly different for everyone, but nobody has a perfect life. Everyone suffers their way through existing to some extent, it is very difficult to find anyone without these troubles. Financial, personal, a failure to achieve one's goals, romantic, everyone suffers from disappointment in some way. Nobody's life is what they envision it to be, it merely is what it has become. The overall point of this film, and of what the filmmaker wants to tell people, is that life is hard. It is very easy to write a film saying that, it is far more difficult to make one where people actually care about the characters and not believe their downfall is of their own becoming.

Miles (Paul Giamatti) is unsuccessful in pretty much every way. He's a writer who can't get published, so he settles for working as a middle school English teacher. He's divorced, depressed, alcoholic, and judging from a scene where he steals money from his mother, he is apparently broke. Or maybe he asked before coming. I really don't know. Regardless of that, it doesn't stop one from caring about the character, him being a thief is somehow such a small fact that it is easy to ignore. Miles is headed to the Santa Ynez Valley with his friend Jack (Thomas Haden Church), but they both have different goals there. See, Jack is a washed up actor, but he's also getting married. They're going on this trip in the sense of one last ride prior to Jack's marriage. Jack's intention upon getting married is to basically quit the acting business, take a few auditions, and enter the real estate business with his father in law. Once they head up to wine country, Miles wants to spend the week relaxing, playing golf, eating well, and drinking wine. That's definitely not what Jack is focused on. He wants to have a quick affair before getting married and put all that shit behind him afterward.

There are other films that have done this, but none of them are as good. The difference between this and the others is that they don't go over the top with anything funny until the very end. Upon arriving and after the scene I mentioned where Miles steals from his mom, they head to the Hitching Post II. Real restaurant, was told to go when visiting family, have never been. Anyway, Jack spots Maya (Virginia Madsen), and he thinks that Maya has a crush on Miles. Jack made another resolution upon heading there, he's going to get Miles laid or force Miles to do it himself. This simply needs to be done as he hasn't been with anyone since his divorce. Jack tells a few lies about how Miles is going to have a book published, then the next day they go out for some wine tastings. Jack and Miles meet Stephanie (Sandra Oh), a wine pourer, and almost immediately Jack decides he's going to ask her on a date. She knows Maya too, and Maya is also divorced just like Miles, so it's time for a double date.

The simple fact of this film is, I loved it, it is hard not to if you have any heart at all. There are numerous scenes I'm not going to get into as this isn't a spoiler thread, but pretty much all of the obviously funny ones near the end made me laugh hard. That being said, all the obviously sad ones made me even more sad and low. The scene at the house where Miles and Maya are talking to each other is one of those major low points, which is simply an effective piece of storytelling even if it brings bad memories to mind. That's what a good film does, you can relate to it even if you'd rather not think about that stuff. Sideways does this a lot, this is a fantastic screenplay bolstered by even better execution of the details. The ending is also superb, with things better left being unsaid or unshown, as anyone who watched and paid attention to the details should know what will happen at the end. This is a film with four strong performances, with Virginia Madsen and Paul Giamatti having the strongest ones. Awards are bullshit, yes, but this is the film I believe will be easiest to remember from 2004.

Even if you can't relate to the stories personally, you have to know someone who they apply to, and that's yet another strength of the story. When Miles steals money from his mother, it would be so easy to let that linger over the list of the film, yet it is never stated again. Miles hates himself, there is no reason he would ever mention it to anyone, and therefore it does not come up. It is super easy to suspend your disbelief and become engrossed by the events of the film. Jack is a similarly easy character to become interested in, there are lots of people like this. They tend to create their own problems, feel bad when shit doesn't go right for them, but still, we keep them around as friends because they know us. There's actually not a hell of a lot to say about this film other than what I've already said. It is focused, it tells its story to completion, and doesn't fuck the viewer around with ludicrous plot devices. There are scenes that will make you cringe, ones that will remind you of your own problems, and the movie is really only partly about the wine, which serves more as a metaphor than anything else. If I have any negatives, the jazz bar score certainly does it and I had a problem with the lack of silence that came as a result of its inclusion.

9/10

p.s there are a lot of old ratings I would change in the aftermath of watching this, but it's much too late for that now. The first one coming to mind is Master and Commander, which I would push down half a point even though I loved it.


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #790 on: July 23, 2018, 06:00:23 PM »


Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005), directed by Shane Black

I believe this was Shane Black's first attempt at taking the director's chair, but this film continues the trend of his entire career to this point. I guess I'll include what came after this film in that comment. If you've seen a movie he's written or one he's directed, you know that it's going to have some good lines, you know it will follow similar patterns, and that overall it's going to be pretty good. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is certainly no exception to that, even though some of the material in this film dates very poorly. Particularly, I'm thinking of all the gay jokes, very few of which I laughed at. Fortunately, there's very much more to this film than those, it is extremely similar to The Nice Guys, and that's good. I said before that I wanted to see more films like that, it turns out they exist. In watching this, I also feel that I really need to see Robert Downey Jr. walk away from the Marvel Cinematic Universe and make more movies like these ones. I believe I have said that before about him, and perhaps I said that about someone else, but I really feel that it's time for him to move on. I'm sure he will, and when he does, there will hopefully be roles like these to follow. If not, that's alright, but I don't feel bad for wanting him to do more than put on a suit and make some jokes.

The film starts at a party in Los Angeles, with Harry Lockhart (Robert Downey Jr.) doubling up as our narrator. He explains how he got to the party, which to make a funny story less funny, he decided to become an actor. You thought I was going to spoil this? No. I can't explain the logic behind spoiling films that just got in theaters and not spoiling these ones, but there's an ease of access for everyone to watch these movies compared to going to the theater for everything that I see there. Anyway, while Harry is there, he meets Perry (Val Kilmer), who is gay. This is something that we are reminded of throughout the film. Harry is auditioning for the part of detective, and Perry is one, so Perry's supposed to show Harry what the job is about. The party is hosted by Harlan Dexter (Corbin Bernsen), a retired actor whose daughter has just come back from overseas after a lawsuit. The same night, Harry encounters Harmony (Michelle Monaghan), an old friend from his very distant past. This is a pretty effective piece of storytelling to have a party with everyone you need to know about being in the film from the jump.

The next day, Perry and Harry are out on one of Perry's jobs. They're supposed to be surveilling a woman, then they're left confused by the way someone drives away from her house. They attempt to follow the person, but they've long parked and decided to do something with the car they were driving. Cinderblock on gas pedal, and into the lake it goes. Perry believes there's someone in the trunk, he shoots it open, and sure enough, there is. Obviously, they're dead, with a broken neck. What's more is that when Perry shot the truck open, he shot the woman, and they can't report the dead body because of that. Subsequently, Harmony and Harry learn that Harmony's sister has killed herself. Harmony thinks Harry is a detective, and he agrees to investigate. Meanwhile, someone's set Harry up to be framed. How? Dead body is back. In the bathroom. And he peed on it.

It may not surprise you to learn that this film is really funny, and if you've seen The Nice Guys, these two films are like spirit brothers. If you watch one you should definitely watch the other. Some of the scenes here are to ridiculous to believe, but again, you should know that considering the source of the material. The narration, by the way, is excellent. It fades in and out, which is the way I think it should be. I don't need or want a constant narrator, I prefer it to be this way. The way this film takes a dump on most buddy comedies is quite nice, and the way it deals with death is good for another laugh. I can see that this film would be easy to consider one of somebody's favorites, but I wouldn't go far enough to call it one of mine. Still, I will reiterate, movies like these make me want to see Downey doing something else with his career. This isn't an amazing case of directing, the shots are pretty much as a film could be, and there are also things that probably should have been left out. This is like something from the 80's and early 90's, though. If you like those kinds of movies, you'd like this.

As far as negatives go, I'm actually struggling to think of very many. There's the aforementioned gay jokes, which are numerous and kind of a problem. That this film was made in a different era doesn't exactly excuse those jokes. Val Kilmer's performance is really good, though. It's a naturally funny performance and its also one of his best, as well as one of his last attempts at being in anything meaningful. I do not know why this is, but that's what it is. It's funny how things like that work. Kilmer's career went into the tank after this film, while Downey was no longer a Hollywood outcast in part because of this film. I don't know why that is at all, but if I had to pick one to wash out and one to succeed...I would have had it be this way as well. Both guys have had very interesting careers, but Kilmer is now bitter, and a lot of people said that they didn't want to work with him back when he was making good movies. The point is, don't be a Hollywood problem. One can come back from doing drugs, not from being a dick.

This film's biggest achievement is in creating characters and quotable sequences that are worth our time. How about Harry supposedly being cool and shit, a super smart guy who can figure shit out, and then you learn that he can't even do math? This film definitely feels like some kind of experiment in what someone could actually get away with making, because the story is totally incoherent and the film tells you that it is. It does the same thing with the ending, with the beginning, and I could go on and on. This definitely isn't for everyone, particularly those who take everything too seriously, but it's a great movie. I mean really, surprisingly, it is. Even though there are jokes that don't hold up, there sure are a lot that do, and I laughed at this more than anything I've watched in a while. That in and of itself is quite a feat, because as my brother said to me, a lot of people usually look for a reason to dislike something. I am one of those people. Or, maybe, I'm turning into someone who isn't one of those people. It's funny the way one person can say a sentence, you realize that it applies to you, and maybe you decide that you don't want to be that person. That isn't to say I'll like every movie I'll watch for the rest of my life, but when it's good, enjoy it.

8/10


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #791 on: July 25, 2018, 05:16:03 AM »


Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018), directed by J.A. Bayona

This is the first time in some time that I've watched a mega budget film. For whatever reason, I try to avoid them for the most part. I can't exactly explain why that is before talking my way through describing this film, so bear with me. This is also the first time in some time that I've watched one of these Jurassic Park movies. I still remember seeing the first one at a drive-in theater, Mission Tiki Drive-In over in Montclair. Haven't been there in about 15 years, but I still remember going to see Jurassic Park there. That was a really long time ago, and I don't think I'm going to go back to a drive-in anytime soon. To not beat around the bush more than I currently am, this film comes nowhere near close to the magic of the original film. It isn't that the dinosaurs are now CGI, that part doesn't bother me, nor does it bother me that these films no longer use practical effects. That stuff is not a very big deal. They did use some animatronics, but you know, it's not really the same. What's wrong with this film, is that they seem to have run out of logical stories to tell, and are only making these movies with the intention of showing off what CGI can do, or what new dinosaurs they can create with it.

After the events of Jurassic World, a team of mercenaries arrrives at the park site to collect DNA from the bones of an indominus rex, a genetically modified dinosaur whose remains are at the bottom of the park's lagoon. They collect the fragment, but there's a major problem, there's a still living t-rex on the island. It chases one of the mercenaries and their helicopter, but eventually, they're able to get away. Or are they? There's still a huge bigfuck water dino in the lagoon, it can jump out of water as we know, and it eats everything. So, chew on those thoughts. Meanwhile, we head back to Washington DC, at a Senate hearing. Isla Nublar is going to explode as the volcano on the island is about to erupt. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) is giving testimony and says that the dinosaurs need to be allowed to die in order to correct the mistake of their creation. I am in agreement with this theory, they are a potential menace to society and could destroy it. It's just common sense. At the same time, there are lots of other things going on. Like, for example, the fact that the mercenaries left the gates open so that the water dino could leave the island entirely and head out into the ocean.

In a story that is actually different than the usual fare from this series, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard), former Jurassic World manager, has created a group to SAVE OUR DINOS. The Senate ruled against saving them as it was a private enterprise in the first place and probably a bad idea. Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell), a man so important we have never before heard of him, sends for Claire to come to his estate in Northern California. See, Lockwood and John Hammond were partners, and Lockwood's aide Eli (Rafe Spall) reveals a plan to relocate the dinosaurs to their new island sanctuary. Claire is needed to help a team of mercenaries locate the dinosaurs to bring them to their new home, because nobody else can access the system to log it in. Unsurprisingly, the benevolent group/mercenaries also want Owen (Chris Pratt), and two others from Claire's team, Zia (Daniella Pineda) and Franklin (Justice Smith), will come along with them. As we know, Owen trained a velociraptor, it's the last one that's left, and it's his job to find her. Zia is a veternarian and Franklin is a hacker. Pretty simple, and you'd think that one of our team dies, right?

Unfortunately, this film eschews tradition and none of them die, which sucks. How the hell can we have a Jurassic franchise movie with none of the seemingly good guys dying? FUCK IT, I CAN BARELY TOLERATE THAT. I don't like many of the creative decisions in this film, although it is quite entertaining as you'd expect it to be. I thought I would hate the volcano stuff, but I didn't and that was good. I had the misfortune of sitting next to a very annoying person who laughed at everything, but still, the meat of this film was actually good although I saw no reason to have a long sequence of scenes bringing the band back together. This film could definitely have used some trimming in that regard, but I'm confused by how that could have been done, which leads us to what we have. Still, it's bulky, difficult, and not very fun. Neither is the ending of the film, which features one of the leads doing something truly horrific, something which if they really wanted to do it, someone else should have. I have no idea who decided this was the way to continue the franchise, which will probably never end at this point even though there's no possibility of there ever being another great film from it.

I say no possiblity, because frankly, there isn't. If you look at what made Jurassic Park so great, those things are gone. They featured scenes the likes of which we'd never seen before. We never got to see any moderately realistic movie about dinosaurs prior to that, and Spielberg's effort was focused on revealing the wonders of them in the process of telling his story. That shit is totally gone now. I did enjoy Malcolm reappearing to tell his story once again, but it was too short, there is no character in this even remotely as interesting as he or Dennis Nedry. That's really unfortunate, you would think Toby Jones would fall into that role easily, but it doesn't work out that way. Also unfortunate is that there's no longer any reveal of the park, those reveals are confined to a lab near the end of the film, which simply isn't any big deal at all. The point is, it is very difficult to judge these films separately from one another rather than as a continuation of the franchise, a continuation which doesn't live up to my standards. I still try to do it, but it's hard.

As far as positives go, there is the aforementioned middle part of the movie. The jokes don't always hit for me, but it's good fun and a lot of interesting things happen. The dinosaurs are of course spectacular, and the subplot regarding whether or not human should let these dangerous animals go extinct once again is pretty good. On the same token, there's also the subplot of the way private companies decide to put every commodity, regardless of how dangerous, up for sale. A libertarian paradise I suppose this is. We also learn that one of the characters is a clone, and I'll refrain from saying whom, but unfortunately I saw that coming from a mile away. Of course, it is interesting to think about genetic engineering and the ethics of it, even though there are lots of things in this film that just don't make sense. The director is also given a very difficult task to expand the scope of this film, and while that does lead to an interesting premise, the ending falls super flat for me. The big new dinosaur is interesting, however. I usually hate that made up kind of shit, but the setting in which it exists makes for good viewing, as it has no capability to roam around and do completely outlandish things.

Spoilers incoming in this paragraph. Unfortunately, as I've already touched on, while I didn't hate this film, I think there are now so many weaknesses in comparison to strengths that I believe it's time to retire this franchise. There's basically no chance they ever will, but in that case they should put it in the hands of different people. J.A. Bayona did his best, but he didn't write this movie, once again that was Colin Trevorrow. Did I mention yet that I hated Jurassic World? This was actually better to me than that was, even with its nonsensical ending. Granted, I guess you can't just kill all the dinosaurs, but why does the good guy have to be the one to unleash them into the wild? I think that's pretty ridiculous, and I would have had someone else do it instead. Still, that's only one of the many ridiculous things here, but there's also a lot of fun parts, and as such you could either take or leave this movie. But, there really isn't anything left to do with this franchise other than turn them into horror movies where the dinosaurs eat people at their leisure.

5/10

2018 films ranked

1. Sorry to Bother You
2. Sicario
3. The Equalizer 2
4. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom


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: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #792 on: July 25, 2018, 05:47:27 PM »


Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015), directed by Christopher McQuarrie

This film may have the longest title of anything I've reviewed. It's actually really ridiculous. I did the classic thing and skipped the second and third entries in this franchise, jumping back on for the fourth and now the fifth. It's not like the second one was any good, and the reviews for the third were mixed. The fourth film, on the other hand, was excellent. The stunts ruled, so did the locations, and the new characters they introduced really made everything work so well. I'm going to see the fifth on Friday, so seeing the fourth film was essential and I couldn't wait until Thursday as I'd initially intended to do. The scenes were ridiculous, in some ways they were cliched, but they were unique, well thought out, and in some ways innovative. I think it's possible this series has lately surpassed the Bond films. This is something that clearly should not happen, something which needs to be corrected, but the people in charge of one know what they're doing. The other seem not to. Usually when one person plays a role for 19 years, usually when there are this many films made in the franchise, there is no way to keep it entertaining. So, how do they do it?

Let's set the stage for those unfamiliar with the movies. Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is an IMF agent, and the IMF undertakes impossible missions. Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames) is the team's computer specialist, Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) is the technical field agent, and William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) is their director in the field. This is our team, they stick together, period. Or do they? Our film begins with the team doing things they shouldn't be doing. Luther is hacking a Russian satellite in Malaysia so that they can hack into a plane, which is currently taking off from Belarus. As tends to happen, Ethan jumps onto the plane and intercepts a pallet full of nerve gas that is being sold to Chechen terrorists. This scene is cool. Once that's done, or maybe I'm deliberately altering the events, it is decided that the IMF is too controversial an organization due to the things that they do, without oversight and without regard for what could possibly happen. CIA Director Hunley (Alec Baldwin) is successful in having the IMF disbanded and folded into the CIA, taking our team along with him.

Thing is, like I said, I deliberately altered the events. Silly me. Ethan is hell bent on proving that a group called the Syndicate exists. In his estimation, the Syndicate is the most dangerous group in the world, and they commit lots of terrorist attacks that are merely passed off as coincidences. Except, he knows they aren't, because that's what he does. Duh. While at a record shop in London, he's supposedly receiving something from the IMF. Except he's not. Instead, the record has data from the Syndicate, at which point a blond man in glasses (Sean Harris) appears and kills the IMF agent who handed him the record. Subsequently, Ethan is drugged and taken to a torture chamber, where a man called "The Bone Doctor" (Jens Hulten) is set to torture him. Problem is, a woman stationed inside, named Ilsa (Rebecca Ferguson) is playing both sides. On top of that, Ethan is told that he cannot contact anyone involved with the IMF/CIA. Ever again. So, we fast forward six months, where the story continues in various other nations...

I generally detest Tom Cruise, I hate everything that he stands for, and I think he's a bad guy. The thing is, I am able to put these things aside when watching the film and I don't really care that much while it's on or while I'm thinking about him in the film. I can only appreciate his ability to take on these stunts, dangerous as they are. That he seems to not care about his own life is actually incredible. To some extent I believe that these stories are bullshit, but they can't all be. As with any other conspiracy theory, it will inevitably get out if it's true! The film, however, is not only about his stunts. It is merely enhanced by them. This film being filmed in three or four countries is far more important to establishing the story, as doing such a thing immediately gives the film credibility. Stunts can also be unimpactful without a good story to back it up. As for those stunts, I was most impressed by the one I saw tons of commercials about, Cruise hanging off the side of the airplane. Obviously he wasn't doing it without a harness, but that's still utterly ridiculous and shows immense effort and dedication. It's probably pretty risky too, I don't care that he's harnessed. The Burj Khalifa stunt in the last one was worse though, I don't see any way that could ever be topped in this series. I'll have to see the one in American Made for myself. Should be watching that sometime in the next few months.

As ludicrous as this story sometimes is, yes, it is a good story! Nothing requires any doubling back to understand, I had no questions when the film was over, and I don't think this film has a whole lot of weaknesses. If there's one coming to mind it's that this film doesn't do anything all that new, it's a spy movie and there's a limitation to how good they can be without bringing something new to the table. Another critique is simply that the plot of Ghost Protocol simply isn't followed up on. Isn't Ethan Hunt supposed to be married? Where did the dude's wife go? Those things are still small complaints, but the film coming out this weekend is getting buzz the likes of which I didn't think was possible for sixth in the franchise popcorn fare. Time will tell on that one, and I'll have written something about it by the time Saturday morning comes, but I'm really looking forward to that. While I'm not complaining too much about the film, I also should note that Cruise and Ferguson had like, negative chemistry. Maybe that was on purpose, maybe it wasn't, but it was weird sometimes to see them talking to each other. It felt so ridiculous and wooden.

Overall, any spy movie isn't fighting upstream with me. It is inevitable that I will watch it and judge on a scale that is comparable with there being a few sticks in the river that could possibly pile up and ruin the whole thing, but there's barely anything big enough that could entirely destroy my opinion. Plus, this movie has a damn underwater cavern/metal piece of shit. Like, what? Diving into water turbines? This movie also moves so damn fast, there's such a small amount of downtime that I was struggling to pick places to pause the movie to take care of small things that I had to do. The film is also well shot if unspectacular in that regard, it's really fun, and it tells a pretty good message about the intelligence world in general. Do I want to spoil more? No, probably not, but the overall point is that being an intelligence agent is fighting an uphill battle, and in the Trump era, we definitely know this shit is true. Good movie, lots of fun, good use of cast members with the exception of Ving Rhames, who isn't on screen doing things often enough for my liking.

8/10


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #793 on: July 26, 2018, 12:52:48 PM »


Skyscraper (2018), directed by Rawson Marshall Thurber

I have talked extensively with some people here about how I believe the Rock is in too many films, which creates burnout and leads people to not go see them. This is one of those films that I would classify as being simply too much even though there isn't anything wrong with it. The plot is extremely cliched, I've seen tons of movies that are like this, but what keeps the film in the positive column is that it moves quickly. It's still extremely stupid and that isn't the first time I've said that about a collaboration between this director and Dwayne Johnson. I was far too kind to Central Intelligence because I like the Rock and Kevin Hart, but that film stunk pretty hard. This one, I wouldn't go so far as to say it stinks, but that's because of what's on screen rather than anything the director did to make it better. The concept is rather rote, its execution is similar, but I just could not hate this. It was too amusing and sometimes in the wrong way, even though scientifically it doesn't make any sense at all. The Wikipedia page takes the events out of order and spoils everything, by the way.

Let's set this thing up as best I can. Standing at 3,500 feet, 220 stories tall, we have our skyscraper which is neither hero nor villain, The Pearl. All of the floors on this mega building are already constructed, but nobody lives in the building except its owner, Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han). Zhao lives on the top story in the building's penthouse, but the building is actually interesting enough to merit my time. It's curvy, nice looking, and able to be controlled by a stupid tablet. There's a 30 story park around halfway up the tower, it's totally ludicrous. The Pearl is nearly able to take residents, which is what brings us to our story. Will Sawyer (The Rock) is a former FBI man, who had something bad happen to him when he was on a hostage recovery mission. Unfortunately, the guy holding the hostage had a suicide vest, and decided to blow everyone in the house up, including his kid. Our guy Will had survived, but he's now without one of his legs. This is a plot point of sorts, but you know, not really. Other than Dwayne Johnson paying homage to Bret Hart by having an extremely consistent limp, you really can't tell. I have no idea why there was a small outcry from some that an amputee should have played this part, good luck selling this schlock without the Rock's name.

Now that I've set that up, I'll try to explain some of the rest. You can figure out exactly what will happen from my description. This may not surprise you, but Will brought his family with him to Hong Kong. Why? He's testing the building's security out to see whether or not an insurance company can insure the thing, expensive as that would be. His wife Sarah (Neve Campbell) is an Air Force veteran, and his kids are like, I mean, goddamn they're kids in a disaster movie. Those roles aren't characters. Let's skip past that. Apparently, it was Will's former colleague Ben (Pablo Schreiber) who invited Will to do this job, because Will apparently does his work at half the cost of everyone else. According to Will, everything's good to go and their fire security system is great. Will is also given a tour of the Pearl's penthouse, which sets up the rest of the film entirely. Problem is, a team of mercenaries/terrorists hads decided to...HIJACK THE SKYSCRAPER. Their leader is Kores Botha (Roland Moller), apparently a big shot in the terror world, and it appears he is also familiar with Zhao in one way or another.

There are some good gags here, even though the script and events can only be described as boilerplate. My favorite is probably Will's obsession with duct tape. He just loves that shit and so does this director, who constantly brings it up and doesn't forget at any point. My initial reaction after leaving the theater was that even though the film's domestic box office failure is probably due to too many movies with the Rock in them, I think that's a false conception of what this film actually is. This is not a film with too much of the Rock in it, the screen time is relatively shared with other characters. The building jump is also far more plausible than the preview initially led me to believe, with the exception of how fast his character climbed up the crane. That was really ridiculous, and not even close to the end of ridiculous things in the film. Still, I'm trying to talk about the good gags and I can only wonder why the Rock hasn't made an action movie with someone who actually knows how to do it. Why isn't Nicolas Winding Refn trying to make a movie with this guy? I just do not get it. Imagine how things would be if Arnold never made a film with James Cameron? The idea is totally blasphemous. I also liked that Neve Campbell's character wasn't completely helpless, and that her part in the story didn't end once she left the building. Lastly, I think that some of the whining about China's influence on movies is really overblown, even though this is obviously a film geared to their audience.

Now, this movie is really stupid as well as scientifically impossible, but I'm not a scientist so I'll just ignore those parts and talk about what I want. I mentioned him climbing up the crane, that was one mega ridiculous moment, not even close to the only one. It is implausible that someone like the Rock would have the upper body strength to do some of the things he does. I know how he looks and all that, but you know, dude can't hold up a bridge. The villain also has no character, similar to Will's children, and one thing he makes Will do is so absolutely ludicrous I can't believe it was ever filmed. Die Hard this is not, the story is not logical, but I still enjoyed it. This film is like a cartoon and you can take that for what it is, it means logic flies straight out the window. The characters are undeveloped and you should know this, and this film is at least relatively original. At least I can't think of any like this that were about burning skyscrapers, where the actors were tasked with running through indoor parks or breaking windows to create holes in the structure. It's like a cartoon or video game and that's cool, it's nothing to be ashamed of even though the director seems to be totally clueless as to how to create anything other than one-dimensional characters.

I would compare Skyscraper to Dante's Peak. Dante's Peak isn't a great film at all, but it's super memorable. I could tell you almost everything that's in it without having to look anything up, and I could tell you who's in it. I will probably be able to do the same with Skyscraper in the future. It doesn't matter that this film isn't particularly good nor particularly bad. It's fun, but again, I would prefer that Dwayne Johnson star in films made by some quality directors. There are plenty of them out there, they could make something better than the stuff that he's in. If not for him, this film would simply not be made. I should also point out that this film has excellent special effects. The skyscraper is not really there, but it is extremely easy to suspend your disbelief and believe that it is actually there. I don't know who did the special effects on this, but if the film was good I'm pretty sure they would be considered for an awards nomination, even though the fire itself makes practically no sense at all. Don't forget your duct tape.

5.5/10

2018 films ranked

1. Sorry to Bother You
2. Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado
3. The Equalizer 2
4. Skyscraper
5. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

Next week's schedule:

Friday: Mission Impossible 6
Tuesday: The First Purge
Thursday: Blindspotting


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

Offline Baby Shoes

  • CXF Writer
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,515
  • Baby Shoes
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #794 on: July 26, 2018, 04:02:32 PM »
Looks like some interesting picks lately.  Sideways is one I remember having to watch for a class a long time ago and liking it way more than I expected.  Likely my favorite of Payne's work but I would need to re-watch at this point as I don't remember a ton of it.
[img width=800

Quote
Fan: WHY CAN REY BEAT BIG GUYS BUT NOT KIDMAN
Kevin Nash: Kidman wears a wife beater

Offline Zetterberg is Go

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4,642
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #795 on: July 27, 2018, 12:22:23 AM »
Definitely need to rewatch Sideways at some point. Tremendous film.

Offline Brooklyn Zoo

  • BZ
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16,035
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #796 on: July 27, 2018, 03:21:40 AM »
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was one of my fav movies when it came out, then I forgot about it. Re-watched it after this review and a lot of the jokes still hold up because of how good Downey and Kilmer are. Also love Monaghan. Even though there’s a few gay jokes that don’t hold up, I like that Kilmer isn’t a stereotypical gay character and isn’t defined or characterized by those jokes. Definitely the OG The Nice Guys.

EDIT: watching sideways now. Man, what a sitch

Also, a recommendation, some parts of this movie remind me of “What Happened Was”

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #797 on: July 27, 2018, 05:27:15 AM »
When he drinks out of the spit bucket I wanted to puke. The only time I went to a wine tasting those things were so gross.


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

Offline Kahran Ramsus

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10,270
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #798 on: July 27, 2018, 11:06:28 AM »
While I appreciate the extent Tom Cruise is willing to go for his stunts, especially in today's climate of CGI everything, I can't help but think he's going to get killed doing one some day.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,886
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #799 on: July 28, 2018, 02:23:23 PM »


Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018), directed by Christopher McQuarrie

This is the second time I've watched a film and its sequel in such quick succession, and as you may have heard by now, this film is quite awesome. It is also a continuation of Rogue Nation, so there's no new story for this film to start off with, and the previews ensure that you know that. Still, the film does have a lot of surprises. The first thing I noticed was that when Henry Cavill showed up, he has his mustache. CGI removed this was not, and that got a laugh from a lot of people in the theater. Everyone seems to be much more aware of this kind of thing these days. While there wasn't any stunt in this film was crazy as Tom Cruise climbing the Burj Khalifa, there was a lot here to fill my appetite. What's more is that this film wasn't blatant sequel baiting, you could actually see the franchise ending here, even though this should be so critically and financially successful that it probably won't. It goes without explictly stating, even though I will do so anyway, that I loved this film. It only has one apparent weakness.

This film's weakness is something I'll get out of the way instantly, it is very long. Subsequently, the film is set two years after the capture of Solomon Lane (Sean Harris), our bad guy from the first film. The Syndicate has become a new group, called the Apostles. They are fundamentalists who believe in the destruction of our current world order so they can create a new one, and with only great suffering can a great peace be found. In Belfast, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) receives a new mission, which self destructs after it is read out. This mission is a complicated one. His job is to intercept the sale of three plutonium cores to the Apostles, who are acquiring them on behalf of John Lark. His mission sends him to Berlin, where Ethan meets his good old team. The mission goes south, and in the process of that, he decides to save Luther (Ving Rhames) instead of safeguarding the plutonium, which winds up in the hands of the Apostles. His mission is still to find those goddamn plutonium cores, at whatever the cost. There are some scenes here I will skip, one of which is hilarious.

His mission subsequently takes him to France, where he will have to HALO jump into Paris. Unusually, the CIA decides they want a man on the mission. It appears that Erica (Angela Bassett) is their new director, and her top assassin/agent is Walker (Henry Cavill), a man who will ensure the mission is completed, no matter the cost. On their jump into Paris, things don't go so great. This scene is also excellent and at the rate this franchise deals with stunts, you never know what they'll decide to do. Their job is to infilitrate the Grand Palais, where John Lark is supposed to buy the cores from the Apostles to use in an attack. An arms dealer, the White Widow (Vanessa Kirby), is supposed to act as a broker. Did I tell you yet that Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson), IMF Director Hunley (Alec Baldwin) and Benji (Simon Pegg) are joining all these people in Paris? Well, I didn't, but I just did. Ultimately, the mission is simple. Break Solomon Lane free, get the cores, prevent the attack. Do as the CIA wants, because they have their man on the job as well.

There are AMAZING scenes and connections in this, it is very hard to describe them all accurately. This isn't a scene, but my favorite connection in this film is between Walker and Hunt. Walker is an actual walker. If you've seen this series, Hunt runs everywhere. I thought this was an interesting contrast, something which made me laugh during a particular scene that turns into a chase. Again, there are too many amazing scenes to name. Everyone's seen the previews, right? I don't recall if there's a preview of the bathroom scene, which takes place quite early on in the movie. This is one of the best 2 on 1 fights ever filmed, yeah, I really went there. The tension is off the charts, and the adversary is totally worthy in every single way. You know this while watching it, too. There's jumping from building to building, the story is really strong and has lots of good and entirely logical points of change, I was really happy to have gone to see this. This is a film with stunts that are beyond explanation, helicopter chases the likes of which I thought weren't supposed to be in these kinds of movies anymore.

This film's main weakness is that it is very long, almost too long. There isn't any real point before the ending at which I decided it was too long, but after the extremely good fake-out scene, I was ready for the film to end. Then, after five minutes, it did. Even though the film is very long, it remains focused, but if you don't like this genre or the capeshit genre, you may well struggle to make it through the film. It is LONG. This isn't any kind of artistic masterpiece, it's an action film, but one with amazing stunts, some of the best ever. It has some of the best chases ever, some of the biggest surprises, and it's funny too. Everyone plays their role excellently, and Henry Cavill is a natural in this kind of film rather than as Superman. I would rather see him doing things like this, and I hope this isn't the end of the franchise. There's simply too much ground yet to cover, too many fancy locations, and the overarching storyline isn't exactly done and over with just yet. Problem is, I don't think Tom Cruise can climb up ropes attached to helicopters for very much longer, so this franchise's shelf life is likely limited. Someone, anyone, has to step up to the plate and do these kinds of insane stunts. Someone, anyone, has to ride their bike helmetless at full speed through Paris. I suspect nobody will.

This review is brief as it is a continuation of the story, but the casting and ideas are unique enough that I would rather someone watch the film than tell them what happened. That's pretty much all I can say about it. There has to be someone that will inevitably replace Tom Cruise when it's time for him to be replaced. Like, seriously. Please? You guys should go see this too. It might wind up in my top ten come the end of the year, it's really that good and has that much stuff in it. The story also makes sense and I can't find any holes in it. Trust me, I've tried. One thing though, if you haven't seen the other films, you may struggle to catch onto one of the plot points. It can be difficult to follow.

9/10

2018 films ranked

1. Mission: Impossbile - Fallout
2. Sorry to Bother You
3. Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado
4. The Equalizer 2
5. Skyscraper
6. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom


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