Author Topic: In Which I Review Movies  (Read 25578 times)

Description: Justice League

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline muzzington

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2,502
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: 31,448
  • 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: 31,448
  • 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: 31,448
  • 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: 13,873
  • 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: 31,448
  • 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: 31,448
  • 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: 31,448
  • 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 Hey!

  • BZ
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15,973
  • 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: 31,448
  • 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

Online

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,140
  • 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: 31,448
  • 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: 4,523
  • 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: 31,448
  • 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

Online

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,140
  • 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: 18,846
  • 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: 31,448
  • 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: 4,523
  • 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 brocklock

  • brock lock
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5,415
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: 31,448
  • 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: 31,448
  • 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: 31,448
  • 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: 31,448
  • 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: 31,448
  • 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: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #774 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 Spaceman Spiff 🚀

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5,248
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #775 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: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #776 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: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #777 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 Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #778 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: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #779 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: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #780 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: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #781 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: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #782 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: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #783 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 Baby Shoes

  • CXF Writer
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,846
  • Baby Shoes
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #784 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: 4,617
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #785 on: July 27, 2018, 12:22:23 AM »
Definitely need to rewatch Sideways at some point. Tremendous film.

Offline Hey!

  • BZ
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15,973
  • BZ
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #786 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: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #787 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: 10,082
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #788 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: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #789 on: July 28, 2018, 06:38:57 PM »


Adaptation. (2002), directed by Spike Jonze

This is a film unlike any other which I've seen before, something that is so odd, so interesting, with so many differing threads, that I don't really know what to think of it so shortly after watching it. As such, it will be difficult to summarize my thoughts in any kind of cohesive way, and I'll be forced to prioritize the events at my leisure. Again, this is something I wanted to watch in December, and I wasn't able to do so. Adaptation. is a film about making a film, and then it isn't, and then it's about a romance, and subsequently about some dude, someone's failing marriage, about the problems someone has in life from such a tough profession, and lastly about loss. The last of those is not covered much and in typical Hollywood fashion is brushed aside. That is also the point. The idea that someone could dislike this film sounds foreign to me, as if one could dislike something where Nicolas Cage plays two roles. As ludicrous as the whole thing sounds, you know, that is simply what it is, it is impossible to understand and summarize without having seen the film yourself. Nothing anyone could have told me would make me understand.

Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) is a real person, a screenwriter in Hollywood. Maybe he does hate himself, and maybe he doesn't. In this film, he does. He is hired to write the screenplay adaptation for The Orchid Thief, written by Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep). The events in this film are not like the book, it is stunning that anyone would write this kind of book about orchids, and similarly stunning that the author would allow the events of their book to be warped in this manner. It is a satire of sorts even though it doesn't feel that way. Charlie hates himself, and matters are made worse by the fact that his twin brother Donald (Nicolas Cage), lives in his house and pretty much leeches off of him. One day, Donald decides that he's going to become a screenwriter as nothing else is going positively for him. He is credited as the writer of this film. Donald is not real. Donald decides that he needs to go to one of Robert McKee's (Brian Cox) seminars in order to figure out the business of screenwriting, and how to make his ideas work.

I don't go back to edit things I write, but Charlie Kaufman (the real one) has said that these are the kinds of emotions he was having when trying to write the script for this book. It was truly an impossible job by all accounts of those who read this book, there's nothing there worth making a movie about. So, with that in mind, we head back to the film's version. Charlie wanted to make sure that his adaptation of The Orchid Thief was true to the book itself. The problem is, as I literally just said, this can't be made into a book. He's past his deadline, he's struggling in every way of life, and he hates himself. Donald, on the other hand, wrote a thriller full of cliches and is going to sell the script easily. Now, on the flip side and as it relates to the actual book, Susan was its author, and the book is about John Laroche (Chris Cooper). Laroche is a horticulturist who was arrested for stealing wild ghost orchids. His defense was that the law allowed Seminole natives to remove the flowers from the swamp, the state of Florida disagreed. Laroche is obsessed with finding these orchids, and the reason why...is something you'll have to watch the film to find out.

I am simply not talented enough with words to describe my thoughts of the film, but there are so many directions this story could have gone in. Instead, it goes in all of them and leaves nothing entirely off the table. It's a really strange film, the ending of which is intentional parody and really weird. What can one even say about something like that? The film is excellent in the sense that all the cards are immediately put on the table, with nothing left unsaid. Charlie (film version) is an excellent character, he tells you everything he thinks of himself, of his brother, of films, of creating scripts. It is irrelevant that the cliche loving asshole seminar giver says otherwise, it's his film, he's going to make it the way he wants. This movie is so weird, it is also so honest. It is not that there is a problem in its execution, my lone issue with the film is that there is no way to tie the events together in a way that would satisfy me. That also isn't the point.

Chris Cooper's performance is so good, so realistic, that it is implausible that things with he and Susan would work out that way. I was laughing constantly at the things he was saying, how crude his behavior was, and his reactions when things didn't go exactly how he wanted them to. Seeing this man who has played so many parts where his characters demand integrity, whether those characters deserve it or not, makes this film so fucking weird. It is not that I don't get the story, because I do. Adaptation. is completely original, clever, and unique. It can also be very difficult to weave its two plots together, the three years in the past and the current screenwriting plot being the two I'm talking about. The end is not disjointed, it is entirely point, but it something I simply can't get past. Your brain must be on and then some. The alligator scene is, you know, it is what it is. These are little bridges that are very difficult for me to get past, it doesn't matter how much I liked them, the film borders on being a bit too clever.

That the film is clever is not a death knell, it's still a film I loved watching. To see Nicolas Cage play these two roles, identical twins who act entirely the opposite of one another, is so goofy and so courageous. You can tell which is which without them needing to be identified, this is a performance to be proud of. Charlie going Donald with his screenplay is the only way I can describe what happens. Donald is supposed to be a hack, he's presented as such, Charlie summarily adopts his ways in order to create a screenplay that is successful enough. These two feel like real people, even though the ending does a disservice to the characters. The rest of the film leading to that point is spectacular, one of the best I've seen in a long time. The insecurity of Charlie is simply too ridiculous to be real, except for the part where you can listen to the real Charlie Kaufman speak, and he IS that insecure, he IS like this. That's how great Cage's performance is. But when I get something in my head about some kind of art, I simply can't forget it. I certainly understand the plight of Charlie Kaufman, the self loathing, depression, self hatred, it was a fantastic story. The ending was just not something that I felt suited his characters. I did something I promised not to do when writing this out, I really did, and now I feel bad about it. My intention isn't to say I hated the film or some shit, but if anyone's reading and was wondering why I didn't give this a 10/10, I needed to tell you. Entirely the ending. Besides that, you have one of the best stories ever created.

9/10


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #790 on: July 29, 2018, 06:13:40 PM »


Black Dynamite (2009), directed by Scott Sanders

This is a film I should have seen a long time ago, something which seems tailor made to my liking. Yet, it is something I didn't see, because I am not or was not a person who kept current with basically anything. There is basically nothing like this which is made today, it is something that we need more of. It is also probably something we will not get as this film didn't make any money whatsoever. Man, if I won the lottery, I would form a production company and make tons of these kinds of cult films. People want them, it's hard to make them for financial reasons, but we deserve to have them. My favorite thing about them was that as soon as the joke started to get old, it was over. It was also an exercise in restraint as the film could have been far more ridiculous, but it wasn't, and it's a shame that this film's director has apparently disappeared. Why is that? I am completely disappointed by that, someone who makes something so interesting should be given an opportunity to make more movies. This is yet more proof that Hollywood and awards are simply bullshit. This film was unrecognized, and its creators unrewarded.

Of course, this parody of a blaxploitation takes place in the 1970's, and Michael Jai White is BLACK DYNAMITE. Black Dynamite is a Vietnam War veteran and former CIA agent, he has a younger brother who has been killed. His former CIA partner, O'Leary (Kevin Chapman) reinstates him tinto the CIA. There is practically no way for me to describe this movie. While investigating his brother's murder, he learns that his brother was working for the CIA, just like him. Black Dynamite also learns that an organization has been filling black orphanages with smack. He vows to rid these streets of smack, and he won't crack. In the process of doing so, we encounter some interesting characters. With this being a parody, with this being a low budget film, this requires an enormous cast as nobody else can be in the film for too long. In the process of these events, Black Dynamite becomes admired by Gloria (Salli Richardson), a Black Power activist.

Again, this is so hard to describe because of how ridiculous it is. Black Dynamite is just too funny, the dialogue is great and so are its side characters. Black Dynamite forms a team, a team that will get him to the bottom of these problems. There are two militants, their leader Saheed (Phil Morris), Cream Corn (Tommy Davidson), and Bullhorn (Byron Minns). Bullhorn was my favorite of these characters. His voice and his lines are exactly what I picture when thinking of a film in this genre, and this film has everything that you'd want there to be in it. It is hilarious, and I don't intend to give the film short shrift, but this was so much fun. As you may have guessed if you haven't seen this, Black Dynamite's brother was basically killed by The Man, or an organization protected by The Man. It doesn't really matter. What does matter is what happens once Black Dynamite gets to the bottom of this problem, once you see what The Man actually means, but you should know anyway.

What I appreciated the most about this film was its attention to detail and authenticity. It looks like a 1970's film, it feels almost like a recreation. This is what I mean by awards season being bullshit, there's plenty here deserving of recognition, and I'm largely thinking of authenticity. This is an achievement in cinematography, when there are things in it that are goofy (boom mics), you know that they're there on purpose. It wasn't my intention to leave things so that I watched two similar satirical films in two days, it simply happened that way. I also loved Black Dynamite's theme, it's still going through my head, and it probably will for a few days. This is the kind of movie that we need, but it isn't one that there should be too many of. Simply more of them every once in a while. This came out nine years ago, after all. Sorry if that makes anyone here feel old. Kung Fu Island is another one of those things that will stick with me, it is once again something that I really liked seeing in a movie. It felt right.

That there is no sequel to this movie really pisses me off, as I probably would have watched it immediately after finishing. It is what it is. What I can't say after that film, is that Michael Jai White's career is what it is. That just doesn't seem right. To go from this to a bunch of direct-to-video movies is straight out wrong, there's really no part out there for someone who features in this kind of good material? Really? That just seems wrong, something totally inexcusable. His performance here wasn't only solid, it was essential to the film. He was our deadpan hero, who never smiled, always said the right things when we wanted to hear them, and was ready to kick some ass at a moment's notice. If I have any criticisms, they are related to the film starting to run out of steam so quickly. That doesn't make the film bad, but it's worth noting that the film went less than 90 minutes and started to run out of ideas.

Despite my review being as short as it is, that is no comment on the events in this film, it is merely that I am not skilled enough with words to describe them in a way that does not spoil them. It is my own failing, not that of the film. It is also possible that I would be able to describe them more if I was more familiar with the genre, or grew up on it as the people who made this film seemed to do. In any case, they made a hell of a film, one that is easily accessible to anyone with a sense of humor. The constant reminders that they're trying to make an homage film were so nice, fresh, and I would say something that I needed to see tonight. One of the best gags I haven't mentioned yet was their reusing of footage from earlier in the film in order to save money, exactly something that would have been done in lots of B movies of the time. The soundtrack is also awesome, so much so that I may buy it. I wish I'd checked this out much sooner.

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: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #791 on: July 30, 2018, 06:48:38 PM »


Observe and Report (2009), directed by Jody Hill

This is a film that I avoided for a very obvious reason, just look at the picture. Can you blame me? The thing is, this is a film made by one of the creators of Eastbound & Down. A lot of people really liked that show, I've never seen it, but now I'm wondering if I need to. I'm not trying to say this is a misunderstood masterpiece or anything, in fact this feels like one of somebody's first attempts to create something comedic. There are missteps, and I remember at the time that this looked like Paul Blart. This is definitely not Paul Blart, it's something entirely different. In fact, this premiered after Eastbound & Down, but I don't know the time frame in which these things were made. There are some really funny things here, there are things that aren't. I'm not one to appeal to authority, but it turned out that Quentin Tarantino loved this film. Why? This is something I needed to answer myself, because on the surface that didn't make any sense. After watching it, on some level his opinion of the film does make sense. I almost feel like tackling this review in a different way, but I don't think I'll do that after all.

Beginning the film, a flasher exposes himself to shoppers in a mall parking lot. I didn't catch the name of the mall at any point, or the location of it, and it didn't seem to be a big deal. Ronnie Barnhardt (Seth Rogen) is the head of mall security, and it is his mission in life to arrest the pervert and give them what they deserve. This character is weird as fuck and completely unexpected, as I thought that he would merely be a goof. That is not true. He is bipolar, and frankly insane, particularly once he goes off his pills. Ronnie is a bigot, as displayed once talking to Saddamn (Aziz Ansari) in a scene some distance into the film. Ronnie has delusions of grandeur, as displayed when Detective Harrison (Ray Liotta) begins investigating the pervert. Ronnie believes that Harrison is sabotatging his case, that he's stepping all over his dick, and that kind of thing. Ronnie's delusions don't stop there, as they extend to Brandi (Anna Faris), a woman who Ronnie is extremely interested in. This is not reciprocated. Ronnie is also blind to the idea that someone may have a crush on him, and he pretty much treats everyone like shit.

Ronnie isn't alone in this mall security position, but he is oblivious to everything around him. Dennis (Michael Pena) is a security guard with a strange lisp, and we don't learn anything about him until later in the film. I would consider this a waste of Michael Pena, and this character bummed me out. Charles (Jesse Plemons) is a mall worker who aspires to be a security guard, and of course, Ronnie treats him like shit while expecting him to be part of the team. There are also the Yuen twins (John and Matthew Yuan), guys that Ronnie kicks it at the shooting range with. The idea of these three guys is genuinely terrifying and it is quite haunting if you think about things from a different perspective. There are millions of people like these three who have guns. At home, there's Ronnie's mom (Celia Weston), who is a total nutjob with delusions about her own son.

Some of the scenes in this film are really amusing. I'm particularly thinking of Aziz Ansari's appearance, and some of the clothes that Ronnie wears are ridiculous. I bought this role entirely, it was great casting for Seth Rogen to be playing this guy. He played him awfully well too. Ray Liotta has a few rants that he tries as best he can to deliver with complete seriousness. There is another scene where Ronnie fights off a slew of people, it is filmed in one take, and it is really good too. I was surprised to see something like this in what I assumed was going to be a throwaway comedy. The ending is also totally ridiculous, and another positive is that the film is quite short. I believe it registered at just over 80 minutes, which is the right time for a film with a one note joke like this to be ending. I said the same about Black Dynamite, and even though I want a sequel for that and not this, that's still the case here. If I'd known that the creator for this film was the same as Eastbound & Down, I probably would have watched this sooner. The ending wasn't spectacular, but the shooting got a good laugh out of me. I didn't expect it.

I guess this isn't a throwaway movie, but I don't want to be overly effusive in praise. I can see how this film would be extremely divisive. It's a really dark comedy, there are lots of bad parts, lots of things that I don't want to be seeing. Fat guy dicks really bother me on a level lots of other things don't. I understand that this is supposed to be a comedy, I don't want to see that. Michael Pena, I must repeat, was totally wasted. I didn't care for his lisp, didn't care for any of the things that he said, and I also thought that if he was going to be a part of this film he wasn't in it enough. However, if he was going to have that lisp and these lines, maybe it's better he wasn't. The film is also slightly too dark. There is a scene where Ronnie is pretty much raping someone. I didn't find this funny, and I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way, and even though the other person told him to keep going, I felt like that was a weak copout to a really bizarre scene. Although, that seems like it was the entire point of it. Perhaps the most odd thing about this film is that it came from a big studio, the likes of which usually do not touch such material.

Ronnie is a character that more or less is a total scumbag. There are very few films that tackle such subject matter with the deadpan attitude that this one does, and there aren't many jokes that seem like a cue to get someone to laugh at them. It is beyond strange, but deep down, everyone knows someone like Ronnie. We have had people like him on this forum, but beyond that, everyone knows someone who is actually like him. Lots of people believe these kinds of delusions are actually real, that they can tell people they're going to shoot others and coast their way through life like nothing will happen to them. This character is sort of like George Zimmerman. He gets away with everything, you're helpless to watch and hope that he doesn't, but that's reality. Bad people get away with things. This character that Seth Rogen plays is totally shameless, there is nothing the character wouldn't do. This is not one of those performances where he's supposed to do a lot of bad shit and you're supposed to still like the guy. It's totally different, you're supposed to hate him. If that isn't the case, I don't know what to think of this film at all, it wouldn't make any sense. I would put this film down as being above-average. This character is the kind of guy who would shoot up a building, and this is a great performance. The problem is that when presented with such a scumbag, and a raping one at that, it can be difficult to find the comedic aspect of the film to be entirely to my liking. Still, very much of it is funny, regardless of how dark it really is.

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 Avid Warehouse Enthusiast

  • Laz
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13,873
  • 001101001101101100
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #792 on: July 31, 2018, 12:36:16 AM »
Michael Jai White took longer to "get" acting than you'd think. He was mostly just the guy hired because he was a martial artist who looked intimidating as fuck, an extremely early role being Toxic Avenger II no less, and he was tainted by Spawn unfortunately (which wasn't even that bad given its era). He had a late career boom, though, and I'm glad he did because he has a presence to him most lack.
Maybe the real deep state was the friends we made along the way.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #793 on: July 31, 2018, 06:35:18 PM »
subtitles, Japanese



13 Assassins (2010), directed by Takashi Miike

This is the first samurai movie I've seen, unless you'd like to count The Last Samurai in that, which I suppose you have to. I am 100% aware of how bad that sounds, I know it's a huge mistake. In watching my first samurai film, I wanted to ensure that I watched something true to the genre. I also wanted to ensure that I did not watch one of the absolute best films of the genre. There is nowhere to go but down when someone does that, and I didn't think it was wise to watch a Kurosawa film considering that. I think not watching one of these is like not seeing a kung fu movie, or never watching a Western. It's really bad, and I can't defend it at all. From what I understand about Miike, he is a deliberately provocative director who makes crazy shit. I don't have any intention of really watching crazy, gory shit, but I'm also not automatically against it. It just depends, I guess. This film is not one of those films. It feels like a traditional samurai movie. Perhaps that's because it's a remake, which fits in with my usual M.O. of watching remakes prior to seeing the original version. Again, that is something which is indefensible, but I also don't care. What about this specific movie, though?

I have absolutely no idea if this is an authentic remake, but this film seems to have had amazing care and attention put towards it. It's 1844, and the Tokugawa Shogunate is struggling. As people who know history know, it was the last feudal government in Japan. Lord Naritsugu (Goro Inagaki) is the leader of the Akashi clan, someone who received this position after his adopted father's death. His brother is the Shogun, the leader of the country. Naritsugu is an absolutely horrible person, who has finally went too far and done something totally beyond the pale. The film begins with someone committing seppuku, after which we learn more about the situation. Naritsugu has an enemy up high, Sir Doi (Mikijiro Hira). Sir Doi knows that Naritsugu will eventually ascend to a higher political position, which will create a problem as the man is insane. There are two things that have created a situation in which Sir Doi must take action, both of which horrendous acts committed by Naritsugu.

Sir Doi has called a samurai of great repute, Shimada Shinzaemon (Koji Yakusho), who served under the former Shogun. He must hear these stories. The first is of an action committed at a party, against the son and daughter-in-law of a lower lord. Naritsugu grabbed the daughter-in-law and raped her, then cut the son up into pieces. This is a very dry way of phrasing things. Naritsugu has also committed atrocities against peasants. The daughter of the peasant leader has perhaps suffered the most. Her tongue has been cut out, limbs cut off, and turned into a sex slave. She was summarily used up and tossed away. Sir Doi's mission to Shinzaemon is simple. He must assassinate Naritsugu. Naritsugu's right hand man Hanbei (Masachika Ichimura), another samurai who is a contemporary of Shinzaemon, has learned of these meetings by spying on Sir Doi. Hanbei makes it his mission to foil his foe, even though he does not approve of Naritsugu's ways. Shinzaemon must kill Naritsugu before Naritsugu returns to Akashi lands, and in order to do so, he must put together a team. Much of the film revolves around him putting together that team, some of whom are more personable than others. His nephew Shinrokuro (Takayuki Yamada), a master ronin swordsman named Hirayama (Tsuyoshi Ihara), and a hunter found in the woods seem to be the most important personalities in this story, but the mission remains. Kill Naritsugu, no matter the cost.

This is a film that culminates in a 45 minute battle piece, something I didn't know before I turned this on. If I'd known that, would I have approached this film differently? Perhaps I would have watched it earlier in the day, before it was nearly time for bed, which excited me a little too much to fall asleep so easily. This was a great series of scenes, so much happened that I wouldn't call it just one scene. Things happen as you'd expect, as the characters tell you they must happen. I am confused as to how this film only cost $6 million to make, but there must be some kind of cultural thing I'm really missing, like perhaps the actors not being paid anywhere near as much. Perhaps labor and crew costs simply aren't as high. Those things are the only confusing aspects of this film, it is very simplistic and nothing really surprises you until one thing at the very end. That surprise is also this film's lone weakness, one which takes me out of events, but the events are already over and done with by that point. This is 13 men against 200, it is done in a way that is easy to understand and without confusing camera angles to muddy things up.

This is a film with a really good story, a great battle piece, and excellent performances. Everyone is completely believable in their roles, and if they aren't, I genuinely can't tell due to the language barrier. I also don't know if this is derivative of other samurai films, or if this borrows entirely from something else, I don't know. That makes this a difficult review to write, as this really isn't my thing. Maybe it should become my thing. I really enjoyed this film, there's no other way to put it, and I really appreciated its efforts to look like it took place in the 1800's. The costumes were really cool, so were the buildings, and there were some nice explosions to...take care of those buildings that looked as if they were practical effects rather than computer generated. This is definitely a genre I need to examine more over the course of the next few years, and I probably will. I'm sure that there are a hell of a lot of these, and odds are that the ones people have bothered to subtitle are really good. This is one of the best movies that I never heard of until Netflix listed it as being an expiring movie, and it expires in just a few days. If you want to see it, you better hurry!

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: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #794 on: August 01, 2018, 06:47:58 PM »


The Good Shepherd (2006), directed by Robert De Niro

I remember that this story was advertised as being a story about the creation of the CIA. That is only somewhat true. I avoided this film for a very long time due to how long it was, but I've always wanted to watch this. It's just hard to clear out the hours, that's asking a lot of a person. It's always strange when an actor turns director. This wasn't the first time that De Niro did so, but I believe it was only the second and final time. I have no idea what brought him to want to make this movie so badly. He was apparently dead set on making a real spy movie, with basically no violence and no car chases, so it was his life's mission to do it. At least that's how it sounds, I mean, that's actually a crazy idea. This is a film that had a huge budget, ran for over 150 minutes, and it lacked those things I said above. So, how did it get made? Hell if I know. That just doesn't make sense, considering a studio had to know this would be a huge money loser. On the other hand, I can see how a studio would believe the script is Oscar material. I can also see how one would watch this, blinded by their preconceptions of the film, and see that Matt Damon put in a performance worthy of recognition. The problem is that this material is mega dry.

We jump back and forth between time, because that's the best way of telling the story. At the beginning of the film, the Bay of Pigs Invasion fails, and an envelope is dropped off at the house of Edward Wilson (Matt Damon), a senior CIA officer. The envelope contains spy material, like photographs, audio, and things like that. Throughout the film we are returned to these events with updates. You can actually tell where the story is going as you watch the film. Throughout the rest of the story, we learn about Wilson's path to this point. He is at Yale and is invited to join Skull and Bones, a secret society. He is asked to disclose a secret as part of his initiation, and he tells the group that his father killed himself, leaving a suicide note that he never read. After the ceremony, a fraternity brother, Richard Hayes (Lee Pace), tells him that his father killed himself as his loyalties were questioned prior to a potential government appointment. Afterwards, Edward is recruited by an FBI agent, Sam Murach (Alec Baldwin). Murach wants him to expose a potential Nazi spy ring at Yale, which is supposedly being led by Dr. Fredericks (Michael Gambon), a professor with homosexual tendencies.

Pushing forward through that part of the story, Edward begins a relationship with a deaf student, Laura (Tammy Blanchard). She rejects his sexual advances at some point, and subsequently there's a Skull and Bones retreat on Deer Island, wherever that is. Edward meets his friend's family, and later on that night, he is pretty much coerced into having a one night stand with his sister, Margaret Russell (Angelina Jolie). Poor guy. Anyway, later in the retreat, a General Sullivan (Robert De Niro) asks Edward to join the OSS, being posted in London. I will once again skip events that reveal spoilers, as if I sat through this, you must do so too. Edward pushes on to London, and his new wife, whomever that may be, remains in the United States with their soon to be born son. Once in London, guess who he meets again? Dr. Fredericks. See, Fredericks isn't a Nazi after all, he's a British intelligence officer. He tells Edward some tools of the trade, as there were no hard feelings and he was running his own game, probably getting names of potential German spies inside the United States. Who knows. I don't want to reveal anything, but the subsequent events do lead to the creation of the CIA, as well as Edward's lifelong battle with Ulysses (Oleg Stefan), a KGB big shot.

Joe Pesci, Billy Crudup, and Eddie Redmayne are in this movie too, but it's totally boring to tell you what exactly it is that they do. But, yeah. Joe Pesci! He's only in this for one scene, so don't get yourselves worked up that there was some hidden career renaissance tucked away in this otherwise very dry film. This is something I would almost call a good movie, it is also extremely long, and if you blink you miss something. The story is sprawling in the extreme, it also is a fictional story and as such there were complaints about historical accuracy. This story takes a lot of creative liberties that made people angry. Others, I don't know if they're true or not. One was that a lot of CIA agents treated the organization as if it was a WASP mafia. I don't know if that's true, but this film definitely gives off that impression. It also gives the impression that the CIA used secret societies and fraternities as recruitment stations for the agency. A definitely bullshit creative liberty in this film is that it blames a leak for the failure of the Bay of Pigs. Bay of Pigs was going to fail no matter what, it is actually quite bad to blame it for the failure of the operation. That being said, there are CIA reports that talk about the leak and that Dulles knew the Russians knew about it, they decided to proceed with the invasion anyway.

There are a lot of things I liked about this film, even though it is a little too much to handle. Matt Damon's performance as a stone faced, borderline sociopath, is one of the most strange things I have seen. I am confused as to how he was able to pull this off, or rather how many takes it took to ensure that he was able to keep a complete stone face while being yelled at and talked to the way some of the scenes in this film required. It was almost as if he did not even care. I wouldn't accuse him of not caring, which is what makes the performance so solid. Unfortunately, the film revolves around him to an extent that becomes nauseating. I am being careful not to spoil anything here, but his wife's performance also felt like a waste. To return back to the things I liked, even though the stories in the film are not entirely authentic, I thought the feel of the CIA's operations was spot on. I enjoyed John Turturro's performance as Edward Wilson's deputy, and there's a really good "is this really who it's supposed to be" plot that takes up much of the third act. There is also something at the very end which remained unclear, it's probably for the best.

A misunderstood masterpiece this is not, but this is a solid film even though it contains a lot of bullshit. It is just too long, though. I'm struggling to think of scenes that could have been cut from the film as other characters would have been given short shrift. However, it's fair to say Joe Pesci's character had no place in this other than to show the audience how Joe Pesci was looking 12 years ago. There are also lots of characters, which is a positive or a negative depending on your opinion of things, but this is also feels like a film directed by an actor. His inability to decide to cut anything leads me to believe that nothing was cut at all, that he decided everything mattered, and that everyone was going to get the film he desired to make. That has its positives and negatives, but the biggest thing in one direction or another is that a lot of people do not want to sit down and watch movies that are this long. I don't care, as long as I have the time to do it. Selling a movie ticket to something this long though? I can't see it. That's why I skipped Blade Runner 2049, which I need to watch pretty soon. I just don't know if I can sit down in a theater long enough to watch a movie that approaches three hours. It's an endurance test, one which I'm likely to fail. I will say that if De Niro was looking to create an interesting spy movie without special effects, he did that, but I've mentioned how long this is so many times that it is obviously a major problem to not have any of those things in 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: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #795 on: August 02, 2018, 05:56:32 PM »
spoilers all over the place



Swiss Army Man (2016), directed by Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert

This is a film that very much of the internet seemed to enjoy for various reasons, and I was asked to watch this a long time ago but only just got around to it. Swiss Army Man is a film that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and when I read what the ending was supposed to signify, I thought it was actually quite goofy. That line alone will tell you exactly what I thought of the film and whether or not you believe it's worth your time to read my review. I didn't hate this film, but I didn't have major positive feelings for it either. I think the film also breaks some of its own rules, its story is quite dark, and maybe this just wasn't for me. There are things in this that were for me, though. I don't know if I'm in the target audience, maybe I am, but the characters in this film don't remind me of anything in particular, so they don't really resonate me on a personal level. I also didn't see the trailer, which may or may not have given away the premise of the film.

Hank (Paul Dano) is a man who is on an island all alone, with every intention of killing himself. We learn lots of things about him as the film goes on, and some is seemingly more important than the rest, but it turns out that you need to remember all of it. While in the process of getting ready to hang himself, he sees a corpse wash up on the beach. Hank runs over to try to revive it, but the corpse farts a lot. In fact, it farts so much that Hank is able to ride it across the ocean like it's a jetski. I have zero problems with this part of the film, or with any of the corpse's bodily functions, just to clarify my stance on that whole thing. Eventually, Hank and the corpse land on a beach, very far from civilization but clearly in this country. Hank carries the corpse and they find shelter, and he soon discovers that the corpse can catch water in its mouth that Hank can subsequently drink. That's good, because it seems that he's lost and really needs food and water.

Over the course of the rest of the movie, the corpse begins to speak, and decides that his name is Manny (Daniel Radcliffe). Manny does not know the English language, because after all he's dead, which leads to Hank having to explain everything to him. Some other things happen, and once again we have a new bodily function, which I have no problem with. It's the rest of the story that presents issues. They find a swimsuit magazine, and we learn that Manny is able to be used as a compass when he gets a boner. Go figure that one. Manny acts like a child because he doesn't know better, and this seems to counteract with the ways Hank believes that a person should act. We also learn over the course of the movie that Hank is actually a fucking creep. We learn that Hank has secretly taken a picture of a woman on the bus, and at first we are led to believe he has named her Sarah (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). It turns out that Hank has constructed a made up bullshit ideal in his head, which he subsequently pushes onto Manny, and what do you know, I've gone and spoiled the movie.

There is only one way for me to tackle this review, and it's by spoiling the movie. I need to explain that I don't care about the stuff with farts or dicks, some of it is actually pretty funny. It's the story that just does not work for me. I wanted to like this because I know that people here do, but there are subplots that hit (Hank being a creep), and others that don't. It does all come together in the sense that you can understand exactly how all these things happened. Hank is obviously mentally ill, he has run away from his house and created fiction for himself, and he also has repressed emotions because of things his father has said to him. The events of the film seemed to me to be entirely a figment of Hank's imagination, which is something I find really weird. The film is just too weird for me. It's funny that I say that because that's exactly what this film is trying to address, that people don't do things because they're perceived as weird, and this film just blows straight through that stereotype as a simple matter of its creation.

Even though the film blows through societal norms, I just don't find the story compelling enough to hold my interest. I tried, I really did. For half of the film it is, for the other half it isn't. The ending and Hank's eventual emergence from the woods does do something to make up for the immediate thirty minutes preceding that event. I massively enjoyed that this film didn't have Sarah accept the creepy behavior that Hank displayed, where so many films have someone understand a person being creepy to them, this doesn't happen here at all. I really liked that shit. The guy was sick, and ultimately I think there is a lesson to be learned from the film. It is completely unacceptable to idealize people that you don't know, really ridiculous to fixate upon them, and it's bad to fall in love with the idea of someone. It isn't only bad, it's extremely unhealthy to build up a ridiculous fantasy of someone in your head. When it took people only five minutes to make it from Sarah's house to the beach, I was left to wonder how long Hank was actually out there doing creepy shit. The soundtrack for this film is pretty good as well, and even though this film wasn't for me, there is a confluence of things that lead me to give it a positive rating.

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: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #796 on: August 03, 2018, 10:01:09 AM »


Doctor Strange (2015), directed by Scott Derrickson

In some respects, a movie about Dr. Strange was the thing in the MCU that I wanted to see the most. In others, I thought that this would be the most likely movie to get fucked up. There are a lot of things with this story that could go so incredibly wrong, coupled with the fact  that Marvel has already had to tell too many origin stories. Ultimately, we've seen the origin stories so many times before, it can be difficult to approach them with a fresh and open mind. I have often had those problems myself, particularly when seeing the origins of Hulk and Superman over and over again. I don't need or want to see them ever again, but we have been subjected to them so many times. We will probably also be subjected to X-Men origin stories again upon completion of the Fox-Disney deal. This is something that we do not need. I don't always mind, but I also don't want more origin stories of characters who were already established at some point by different directors. See, the thing about Dr. Strange is that we haven't seen anything related to his origin story before. That's why I wanted to see this film, because I knew that whatever was going to be in it was going to be so much different than the rest of the franchise. But, did I expect Inception? Nope.

The film opens with a scene I didn't understand for quite some time into the film, even though it's easy to explain. Marvel had definitely taken creative liberties with the origin story here, using a character I've never seen in the books. This character is Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelsen), and he has entered the secret compound Kamar-Taj, which is in Kathmandu. He and his zealots behead a librarian, and subsequently steal some pages from a book that belongs to the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton). The Ancient One has taught every student at Kamar-Taj the mystic arts, including Kaecilius. It is irrelevant, as Kaecilius escapes after a fight that features a lot of visuals reminding me of Inception. This is actually a great scene in terms of preparing the viewer for what they are going to watch.

We snap over to New York City, with Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), a very wealthy neurosurgeon. He's playing around with his phone while driving, and his hands get super messed up, which means he can't practice his trade anymore. Surgery is more like an obsession for him, and even though his former girlfriend Christine (Rachel McAdams) encourages him to move on, he just can't. Eventually he hears of Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt), someone who once couldn't walk. Strange tracks Pangborn down and meets with him, which leads to his traveling to Kamar-Taj. Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is another sorcerer there, and he is insistent that Strange should join them. Strange thinks all this magic and stuff is bullshit, so the Ancient One shows him that it's not. Over the course of the rest of the movie, we are introduced to Wong (Benedict Wong), the new librarian who replaced the man murdered at the beginning of the film. We learn of other dimensions, of Dormammu, of the mystic arts, the Eye of Agamotto, the Cloak of Levitation, of the Sanctums, and of course, more about Kaecilius.

The film is naturally like the other Marvel origin stories in some ways, and not so much in others. Obviously, Dr. Strange is an extremely quick learner, that's a given with these kinds of films, and I'm looking forward to one in which that isn't the case. I assume that a film about Ms. Marvel would be the first to do so. Dr. Strange is also a character similar to Tony Stark, you could see either of them sharing the same lines, and that's a bit odd for me. I've said before that I think Robert Downey Jr. would have made a perfect Dr. Strange, but you know, that's not very possible. The narrative of these origin stories is what it is, there's no real sugarcoating it and making it into something it isn't. Everything that happens before Dr. Strange arrives in Kathmandu can only be described as normal. The things after it, on the other hand, aren't normal. They're really, really good. It is just a matter of waiting to get to that point, and truthfully, it doesn't take too long. I wish I'd been able to watch this in 3D as the film seemed tailor-made for it.

As everyone knows, there were controversies related to this film as well. Tilda Swinton's casting was probably the largest one, but it is one I don't have a problem with. It is well established that Kamar-Taj is not a typical monestary of some sorts, and it is also established that people of all kinds are there to begin with. I'm sure there was outrage from some white corners that Karl Mordo was blackwashed, I just don't care about that either. All things considered, I really appreciated the casting of this film. Everyone feels in the right place, even though actors like Mikkelsen are capable of delivering so much more than what he was able to do here. Marvel movies are limited in what they allow the villains to do, and limited in how much they allow the actors portraying those villains to create their characters. The only real solution to that problem is to make the films longer, but to do that creates yet another problem. I thought that Captain America: Civil War was very effective in creating its villain, but look at how long that movie was. To make a 150 minute film also explodes the budgets of these and is simply not cost effective as those extra thirty minutes can decide whether or not a person will wait to watch the film at home. Given the natural constraints placed upon these films, Kaecilius is a  good villain. Dormammu's inevitable apperance is also really fun and quite unexpected.

Speaking of Dormammu, and of things related to Dormammu, I would be wasting me time if I did not immediately start talking about the visual effects. The stuff here is mindblowing. I'm not particularly talking about the magic as that's merely decent, but the film's portrayal of alternate dimensions is something special. This film won very few visual effects awards, which is super odd. The Jungle Book also came out in 2016, and the realistic visual effects simply can't hold a candle to these as they are entirely unrealistic. The unrealistic features of Dormammu, or of the Dark Dimension, they're just too cool. They're like something you'd wish to see when on drugs. The sequence that features time rewinding upon itself is pretty cool too, and I particularly enjoyed the change that the Eye of Agamotto is able to do these things because it has an Infinty Stone. Some of the changes in this universe haven't been so good (everyone making jokes, having films with too many people, nobody having a secret identity), but this one ranks with the best of the changes (comic book feel, costumes, combining the stories, other Infinity Stone decisions).

In the end, I think a lot of the changes here, the extremely good special effects, and ultimately my interest in the characters that this film has wound up overriding my disinterest in origin stories. It's very difficult to do that once I've made up my mind that a specific part of a genre bothers me so much, but the long gap between origin stories after this film to Captain Marvel well be a huge remedy to fix that problem. On the other hand, DC is going full bore with origin stories and a lot of people seem to like those more than any other story that can be told. Good for them, but I'm not one of them. I also believe that the second tier characters are more interesting than the ones Marvel has correctly perceived to be their most popular characters, but I know I'm in the minority and I know that I'm one of the only people who is looking forward to those characters leaving so those actors can do other things. I keep circling back to Tilda Swinton's part in this movie. Were people really that mad they didn't get a Fu Manchu looking racist caricature? Fuck that. This movie is so much better off without that stereotypical garbage that only serves to harken back to a poor time in our history.

8/10


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

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • Poster of the Year
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 16,125
  • CWM
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #797 on: August 03, 2018, 11:56:34 AM »
Good review although needs more Benedict Wong love.

http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Kaecilius_(Earth-616) he's pretty obscure

Quote
Dr. Strange is also a character similar to Tony Stark, you could see either of them sharing the same lines,



Quote
nobody having a secret identity)
I'm trying to think of who in the MCU would have a secret identity outside of the MCU continuity that doesn't in it.

Offline Kahran Ramsus

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10,082
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #798 on: August 03, 2018, 12:23:29 PM »
I thought most of the characters (at least the supporting cast) in Doctor Strange were much improved over their comic book counterparts.  And I also loved the visuals.  Some of the best I've ever seen.  Like Inception on steroids.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 31,448
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies
« Reply #799 on: August 03, 2018, 01:02:14 PM »
Good review although needs more Benedict Wong love.

http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Kaecilius_(Earth-616) he's pretty obscure

Quote
Dr. Strange is also a character similar to Tony Stark, you could see either of them sharing the same lines,



Quote
nobody having a secret identity)
I'm trying to think of who in the MCU would have a secret identity outside of the MCU continuity that doesn't in it.

Tony maintaining a secret identity is something that lasted for a long time.


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