Author Topic: In Which I Review Movies Part II  (Read 2763 times)

Description: Come Sunday

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
In Which I Review Movies Part II
« on: December 31, 2018, 06:15:41 PM »
Spanish, subtitles



Julieta (2016), directed by Pedro Almodovar

Most people who review films like this one from such a notable foreign director are those who have seen their entire filmography, knowing what kind of themes the director generally includes in their films. I am not one of these people and I may be unqualified to review this as a result of that. Regardless, I will push on because that's the point of my reviews, to explore things I otherwise may not have in past years. I was able to hit well over 300 films ranked and reviewed in 2018, I'm hoping to do the same this year even though it could prove difficult. It also may turn out that these reviews drastically change in size, which would mean I simply post my thoughts without talking about the story at all. For now, it's time for a long review about Julieta. I saw that this was nominated for a BAFTA award for best foreign language film, and it being nominated for a big award means I should give it a look. Julieta was also expiring on Starz. This is a film that was based on a collection of three short stories, and it was decided by the director that he should draw out a full narrative from three of the stories. Julieta is a film that could be described as overly dramatic, with a beginning that I thought was so ridiculous I nearly turned the damn thing off. However, as the film rolls on, the events become genuinely compelling, something which I wouldn't have expected with how things opened up.

The film starts with Julieta (Emma Suarez) about to move from Madrid to Portugal with her boyfriend Lorenzo (Dario Grandinetti), and she seems quite happy with herself. Nearly as soon as the film begins, she runs into Beatriz (Michelle Jenner), the childhood friend of her daughter Antia. We learn that Beatriz has run into Antia recently in Switzerland, and that Antia is completely estranged from Julieta. Antia has three children, and unbeknownst to all of us how all these things happened, Julieta decides that she should stay in Spain and lease an apartment in her former building. After she breaks it off with Lorenzo, she decides to fill a journal about her life, in the hopes that someday Antia will mail a letter to her former building so she can send the journal in reply.

The journal begins with an explanation of how Antia came to be. The much younger Julieta (Adriana Ugarte) is a teacher, one who is on a train. On the train, she encounters an older man who creeps her out so much that she flees to the front cabin, where she meets Xoan (Daniel Grao). Xoan is a fisherman from the northern coast, and Julieta is from Andalusia, which is as far from the north as one can get. Xoan's wife is in a coma and has been for some time, and at some point in the near future she'll probably pass away. The train leaves one of its stops after the conversation between the two and stops abruptly, after which we learn that the creepy older man has taken his life. Julieta feels extreme guilt over this, and Xoan comforts her. Afterwards, she goes back to her job and Xoan to his life. She receives a letter some time later and decides she should visit, and upon arriving, she learns that Xoan's wife has died and he had been sleeping with one of her friends in the meantime, an artist named Ava (Imma Cuesta). Once Julieta arrives, that breaks off, and Julieta begins a romance with Xoan that culminates in the birth of Antia (Priscilla Delgado). That's all I'm going to say about the journal other than that this goes down a road I didn't quite see coming.

Julieta is a good film, but some of the cinematography and early moments feels like a thing that I'd watch on Lifetime. That isn't ringing praise, but the way the story builds into something greater than that was quite nice. I must admit I have never felt a stronger urge to shut something off inside of five minutes, which will be reflected in my overall score. This was a film with good performances, but I think its greatest strength is in the presentation of how Julieta's life was when she was much younger. We're talking 25-30 years younger and I should have clarified that much better. There are additional story points I didn't want to mention, but these make for a strong drama. I do have some other gripes, though. One is that the ending cuts off before the story is entirely resolved, another is that some of the translations of the subtitles are plain out wrong. The lack of clarity on translations can be brutal for those with no concept of what is being said.

Overall, what this is, is a straight dramatic film about someone's grief and how they came to be separated from their daughter. For whatever reason, Julieta does not understand why her life has gone this way, but it is clear to me that she was too needy and pushed her daughter away. With the exception of the beginning, this is a well crafted film. I think there are some minor issues with a lack of focus on the details, and I think this is a film that ends too quickly considering that, but overall, I liked it. The mystery of both Antia and Julieta shines through the material, but this seems like a very restrained film, one that a director so many people seem to enjoy should not be making. I could be wrong, maybe I'm not, but without that kind of back history I don't know if there's a whole lot more I can say about the movie.

7/10


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2019, 12:15:44 PM »


The Favourite (2018), directed by Yorgos Lanthimos

Having not yet seen The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I'm not sure if Yorgos Lanthimos had made any thematic evolution prior to The Favourite. I would rather not assume, but I thought this would be similar to The Lobster and yet it was not. The only similarity is the way the film ends without true resolution, but that's quite alright. This is a historical movie and yet it is not, with much editorializing and speculation as to the events. Truthfully, whether this is true or not is no big deal at all, and I don't really care to find out. This is another devilish attempt from Lanthimos, a film focusing on how power is such a corrupting force. It's also more than that, it's one of the best of the year for a reason, because the filmmaker who made this is so confident in their ability to tell this story that they are completely unrestrained and full of ideas. I hope very much that Lanthimos continues to churn films out at the rate of one every year, because there are few filmmakers who can tell stories on this level. These aren't easy roles to portray, but we have a director who knows how to get performances from their actors and actresses time and time again. I also liked that this was a larger film where Lanthimos was still able to tell his story without compromising his vision, and hopefully he'll be able to have such budgets for his films going forward. He will need a decent sized international box office and/or awards for that to happen.

The Favourite is a film that takes place in the early 1700s, with Britain at war with the French. This will be a catalyst for many of the events to follow. Queen Anne (Olivia Colman) has gout and otherwise bad health, and she's a bit strange. Governing the country is not her favorite thing in the world, and with her mental state being what it is, perhaps that's good. Anne had seventeen children either miscarried, stillborn, or dead in childhood, with none remaining alive. She's quite sad. Her confidant is Sarah (Rachel Weisz), the Duchess of Marlborough and called throughout the film by the name of Lady Marlborough. Lady Marlborough serves as the whisperer to the Queen, speaking to her so much that she's the one who runs the country herself, as the Queen wishes to please Lady Marlborough. The Lady is in a difficult position herself, as she has her own enemies, one being Robert Harley (Nicholas Hoult), a very influential landowner and member of Parliament. The Lady's husband is off at war, so she's quite stranded at court as the Duke (Mark Gatiss) leads the charge off in France. The Prime Minister, Earl Godolphin (James Smith) and the Lady have the Queen's favor, but that may not last forever with such a costly war going on.

At the same time, Sarah has a cousin named Abigail (Emma Stone), whose father had gambled away his fortune and given away his daughter to settle his debts. Abigail's family also lost their positions, so she is now poor and a servant. She arrives at court hoping to find work, and through her cousin, she is able to secure a position doing very, very low menial work. Sarah sleeps on the floor with everyone else, and this is very difficult for her because this wasn't her life. However, Abigail does see an opportunity. As a matter of luck, she is called up to the Queen's chamber one night during a bad gout attack. Abigail takes the initiative to go out in the morning and find some herbs to make a pestle, the pestle doing quite well to solve the Queen's problem. After being saved from being whipped, Abigail has found herself a new post, and she's going to be around the Queen a lot more often. Let's not spoil anything else and go back a bit, to the thing that drives the story forward. One night, after a party, Sarah and the Queen wind up back in the Queen's chamber while Abigail is looking at books when she wasn't supposed to be. Abigail spots them in the midst of a tryst, and upon leaving, she is approached by Harley and threatened with what may happen to her because she wasn't supposed to be there. Does Abigail want to move back up in the world? If she does, she needs to win favor, and Harley wants to know what's going on so that he can do so as well.

The Favourite is a title that accurately describes this film more than any other, because the entire story revolves around who will become the Queen's favorite. The trio of actresses all do an amazing job telling this story, a story which received many more laughs than I thought it would from the other people in the theater. I did not think people were that into dark comedy. The role of Queen Anne, due to her frailties both in mind and body, require lots of different things from Colman. Surprisingly she was the standout among the three, with her role changing from scene to scene and all of those roles being given as authentically as could be expected from an actress. The story is full of twists and turns, full of surprise moments, with lots of backstabbing and wit that was what I was hoping for. There were a few belly laughs, but The Favourite is the kind of film with a lot of moments you don't want to laugh too hard at for fear of looking like an asshole. Of course, if you do laugh at them, so will a lot of other people. One notable example is the scene where Abigail is arriving at court as some guy sitting across from her is pulling his pud. I laughed and then a lot of other people did.

Abigail plotting her rise to the top is where the film really thrives, and knowing the director's material you can see it coming the whole way. The stuff that happens is fantastic, you know for a fact that Abigail is no victim regardless of what happens to her, and that she's a woman with a plan. The thing is, all three of the women in this story are at the least somewhat evil, all clutching onto whatever power they have. This makes for an excellent story, one of the best I've seen this year. All three of them will seemingly do anything in order to make themselves happy. They would play each other against one another in order to do so and not even care at all. This is a unique film in that these scenes are executed near to perfection. My only qualms with it are related to its absolutely ridiculous non-ending, one which seemed to leave me and everyone else rather dumbfounded. I can't think of anything else to compare it to, there are non-endings and then there's that one. I'm mostly referring to the way things fade out with the rabbits, for what it's worth.

This is also a great script and some recognition should be given to Tony McNamara and Deborah Davis for writing it. I'm sure they'll receive some as this was a fantastic concept that the director was able to execute very well. There are other characters I did not mention yet, most of whom either serve the needs of Sarah or Abigail in order to further themselves, all of whom are discarded as needed by our main characters. It is interesting to see a film with this dynamic from a female perspective, usually it's the men discarding women en route to power, but this is not the case. I have read that some of the costumes and set design doesn't fit the time, but I thought it felt like a royal castle should have felt. While this is a Lanthimos film and therefore it isn't accessible to everyone, I think it's a film that very appropriately deals with how horrible humans can be to one another. The jokes in this film are certainly mean-spirited as is the story as a whole, but if you aren't interested in what these characters may get up to, I don't know what your deal is. I haven't seen everything from this year yet, but for now The Favourite lands inside my top five. This will win awards.

9/10

2018 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show
1.   Roma
2.   A Star Is Born
3.   First Reformed
4.   The Favourite
5.   Widows
6.   First Man
7.   BlacKkKlansman
8.   Blindspotting
9.   The Sisters Brothers
10.   A Private War
11.   Green Book
12.   Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
13.   Mission: Impossible - Fallout
14.   On My Skin
15.   Private Life
16.   Can You Ever Forgive Me?
17.   Mid90s
18.   Eighth Grade
19.   Sorry to Bother You
20.   The Old Man & the Gun
21.   Suspiria
22.   Vox Lux
23.   Boy Erased
24.   Bad Times at the El Royale
25.   The Other Side of the Wind
26.   Searching
27.   A Simple Favor
28.   The Hate U Give
29.   Bumblebee
30.   Mary Poppins Returns
31.   Creed II
32.   Hold the Dark
33.   The Land of Steady Habits
34.   Halloween
35.   Mary Queen of Scots
36.   Aquaman
37.   Outlaw King
38.   Overlord
39.   Monsters and Men
40.   The Mule
41.   Bohemian Rhapsody
42.   White Boy Rick 
43.   Papillon
44.   Game Night
45.   Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado
46.   Instant Family
47.   Alpha
48.   The Front Runner
49.   The Predator
50.   Apostle
51.   The Angel
52.   The Commuter
53.   Beautiful Boy
54.   The Nun
55.   Operation Finale
56.   The Equalizer 2
57.   The Spy Who Dumped Me
58.   Bird Box
59.   12 Strong
60.   Venom
61.   Skyscraper
62.   The Meg
63.   Assassination Nation
64.   The Girl in the Spider's Web
65.   The House with a Clock in Its Walls
66.   22 July
67.   Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
68.   The Little Stranger
69.   Tomb Raider
70.   Night School
71.   The 15:17 To Paris
72.   Peppermint
73.   Mile 22
74.   The First Purge
75.   Hunter Killer
76.   Kin
77.   Hell Fest
78.   Proud Mary
79.   Robin Hood
80.   The Happytime Murders
81.   Slender Man


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2019, 05:49:44 PM »


The Bourne Supremacy (2004), directed by Paul Greengrass

I thought that the best way to ring in the new year would be by continuing one of the franchises I picked up on the first page of this topic. The Bourne Supremacy seemed like the easiest way to go about things from there. The Bourne franchise is hardly the only one that I've never finished, there are countless others at this point. I need to get on smashing through these, but I'm desperately trying to catch up on 2016-2018. So, such things are going go to go by the wayside for a few more months. I'm trying my best. In any case, I think I needed to watch a spy movie as there hasn't been any released in theaters lately. I was able to remember the events of The Bourne Identity, which was nice. No needing was required, but I thought The Bourne Supremacy was a worse film than the first one. The inevitability of franchising leads to this happening, but I think there's more to it than that. Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is a character who seems to be better off being chased rather than doing some of the chasing. The end of the film eventually circles back to this, but I thought the events struggled a bit when this wasn't the case. There were some cool car chases and all, but I thought the first film in this franchise had heart. If you haven't seen this, just like me, we both live (lived?) under a rock.

After the events of the first film, we move forward two years, with Jason Bourne and Marie Kreutz (Franka Potente) off living in India, hiding from the CIA or anyone else who may come after them. Bourne still has flashbacks too. Over in Berlin, there's spy shit going on. Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) is a high ranking director in the CIA, she's paying a lot of money to a Russian for some files about a theft that happened many years before that. In the process of her agents procuring those files, they are shot by Kirill (Karl Urban), a man who works for an oligarch in Russia. Kirill sets things up in a way where it could plausibly be perceived to be Jason Bourne who committed these murders, steals the files, and bails the hell on out of Berlin. His next mission is to head to India to kill Jason Bourne. After a car chase, he takes his shot, and accidentally kills Marie instead of Bourne as they'd changed seats in the vehicle. Bourne swims away underwater, and afterwards it's time for him to leave India and head to Europe in search of Marie's killer.

There's much more to the story of course, it is a spy-action film after all. Of course, Landy is going to find Bourne's planted fingerprints, not that she knows they were placed there by someone else. It's then time to revisit some events from the first film, with lots of conversations about the team that Bourne and everyone he wound up killing were all on. Deputy Director Abbott (Brian Cox) was the director of Treadstone, which was made obsolete after Abbott had decided to have Chris Cooper's character killed in The Bourne Identity. Landy makes the mistake of telling Abbott what the files contained, but unbeknownst to her, he already knows. This is a poorly hidden twist considering that we already know Abbott had a CIA agent murdered. Seeing as Landy's operation was in Berlin and it went sour, she and Abbott head there to learn more. Simultaneously, Bourne arrives in Europe and begins to have his visions as in the first movie. Where do they send him? Berlin. Of course they do.

This is a good spy movie, but it's just a spy movie without much beyond the basics. It has only a few weaknesses too and is executed very well. What I can't handle are the rapid camera cuts that remind me of what Kevin Dunn does to Monday Night Raw. There's only so much of this I can take and after a point I felt like moving on from the scenes this was happening in. There's also no intrigue between Bourne and another character as was the case in The Bourne Identity. The human touch feels like it has been removed from the film, largely because...that's what happened when it was decided for Bourne's girlfriend to be killed. The Bourne Supremacy also has problems with how slowly the film begins, it feel like it could have been an issue if seeing this in the theater, which I did not. I also find the casting a bit strange and that it's odd to be seeing Joan Allen in this sort of role. There's really nothing to it performance wise, it simply exists and all lines feel like something read straight off the page. It's difficult for any actor to pull this off, and I don't particularly blame an actor for this. It's just weird.

The film isn't all bad, like I said, it's actually good. The stuff Bourne does in order to stay one step ahead of his adversaries is always interesting, and I got a good laugh out of how he decided to enter Europe in the first place. There's also the awesome car chase in Moscow, which I believe has played host to a few over the years in these kinds of movies. The stunts in this are excellent even though they're poorly filmed in one or two cases, but I am left wishing that they weren't so poorly edited. I would have rated this quite a bit higher otherwise. I also do understand that the story is supposed to be Jason Bourne righting one of the wrongs he made and in the process dealing with something that was done to him, and the film was effective in stating that case without ever going overboard with exposition or explanations from Bourne. Bourne being a man of few words is the way it should be. The massive amount of shaky camera does sink this to some extent, but overall I see why people usually watch this movie when it's on television. My mom and dad have seen it numerous times, but I had not. I do realize I'm giving out way too many 7 ratings recently, so I'm going to shake it up a bit tomorrow. Maybe it's just an issue with the fact that most films should be that good and I'm merely just discovering that now. I don't know.

7/10


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2019, 02:26:45 PM »


Vice (2018), directed by Adam McKay

i was supposed to watch Vice earlier last week, but some life matters got in the way of that, so I pushed back this oddly critically divisive film back a little bit. I am surprised that it is so divisive, even with flaws that I am well aware of. To some, these flaws clearly matter much more and that's okay, but I'm not in that camp. Of course, what I perceive to be flaws others may think are strengths, this is a film that can best be described as narratively bonkers. It's all over the place, it's skewering, not harsh enough at times, and quirky all at the same time. This is the kind of movie you'll either love or hate. What it also is, I hate to say, is true to the facts as they happened. I hate it because I wish those things wouldn't have happened at all, and I strongly believe that the Bush Administration has set us on our current course, but that's how things are. We have the government we deserve, the one people have chosen. We continue to make these mistakes because we as a society do not learn from them. Where Vice fails is because there's a distinct inability to explain what motivates people such as these, but that's also the nature of the world. Some of these things defy explanation, there is no way to know what makes someone this power hungry and evil, it's something only the subject can explain themselves. I believe Dick Cheney never has and therefore it isn't the fault of the film for not figuring it out, but they tried their best to put the events on the table and let the viewer make their own determinations.

Vice has one of the most strange narrative structures I've seen all year, with narration sometimes being given from Kurt (Jesse Plemons), a fictious soldier who was sent off to Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't know this until much later in the film, so sorry for my spoiling. Things start off with Dick Cheney (Christian Bale) in the White House, responding to 9/11 in a very heavy-handed way, showcasing his authority. After this scene, we are jolted back to the 1960s, with Cheney working on power lines in Wyoming. Cheney was an alcoholic and dropped out of Yale as a result of it, and eventually he gets busted driving drunk. After another incident where he's retrieved from jail by his wife Lynne (Amy Adams), she makes some serious demands of him to change his bum life. The way things are going just will not stand, and she doesn't want to live like her parents did. After this scene, we flash forward a bit, with Dick Cheney finding work as a White House intern. I have never, ever heard any explanation as to how this happened. If someone could explain this, that would be great, but this is a mystery like many of the other things about Cheney's life.

Everyone here knows a lot of shit about Dick Cheney, right? I suppose I should continue to flesh out the cast of characters, which in Vice is enormous. Cheney winds up attached to Donald Rumsfeld (Steve Carell), who we know as the Secretary of Defense, but when Cheney met him, he was Nixon's economic advisor. In the case of everyone Cheney encountered, it is easy to figure out how they got in these positions, but not Cheney. The film does attempt to explain that Cheney was a dutiful student, and that he did everything that Rumsfeld would have wanted from a lackey. Unfortunately for Dick and fortunately for the country, he was not to be in government for his entire life. We learn some things about his daughters, Mary (Alison Pill) and Liz (Lily Rabe), about what he did once Carter took office, about how he accepted George W. Bush's (Sam Rockwell) vice presidential nomination. We learn about what happened on 9/11, how we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, about Colin Powell's (Tyler Perry) speech at the UN. Almost everything that you'd want to be covered in Vice is covered in detail, if you wanted to know about how the Bush Administration came to believe their usage of executive power was appropriate, that's here too.

While the movie is highly informative, I should detail the flaws immediately in an attempt to temper expectations. There are some outright bizarre scenes, two of them immediately come to mind. One I thought was funny and the other one was not. There are also montages of real footage throughout Vice, I thought all of them were quite appropriately placed, but some seem to have taken that as obnoxious and pretentious. I don't feel that any of these roles are really played for comedy other than Rumsfeld and Bush, but it's hard to see them as anything else. I see Michael Scott playing Donald Rumsfeld and I can't shake it. I can admit that this is a movie I very much enjoyed because I agree with almost all of it. The bizarre scenes I have referenced were an attempt to make something ambitious more than anything else, and the Shakespearean one is admittedly very, very bad. One of the worst scenes of the year. Vice does make a few inferences that I'm not sure are true as well. I don't know if Lynne Cheney is the reason Dick made something of himself, and I don't know if Cheney was corrupted by the power he received in his first job. He wasn't a good person to begin with so there's no way to know. Other incidents and events also aren't given enough time because it's impossible to make the film long enough.

With what I said about time in mind, this is as comprehensive a feature film about Dick Cheney ever could have been. The film could not be longer, and there are some short scenes I would have removed, but none of them are lengthy enough to properly address Halliburton as much as it deserved, or Cheney's legislative record for that matter. However, this is a movie that makes clear how poorly misguided our invasion of Iraq was, it is also one that shows how easily people were made to go along with it. Vice is also a film that addresses the Bush Administration's disappearance of e-mails, and for that matter exactly how they came to pull it off. I haven't see The Big Short, so I don't know how smug that is or how overrated it is, I just see things here how I see them. I do think there are some expert touches. A scene about Cheney's heart transplant lingers on him for a very long time without any heart in his chest at all. Most would call this quite truthful. Another with his two daughters shows that the only religion the Cheneys believed in was that of having power. There are also good lessons about how not being an ideologue in the first place can lead to someone acquiring power and unleashing their beliefs upon everyone else.

Vice is a film that will have numerous Oscar nominations for acting, all of which are seemingly deserved. There's much more to this film that simply Christian Bale's performance, and arguably his isn't even the best one. Amy Adams makes for a great Lynne Cheney, someone who doesn't play a passive role in the events as much as I thought, she was often willing to take the driver's seat and ensure power was taken. Her scene on the campaign trail in Wyoming was great. Tyler Perry only plays Colin Powell in a few scenes, but he too was excellent. I would like to see him in a serious movie playing a role like this one, he was given nothing resembling a comedic line. Steve Carell, though, I don't know what to say about that. I was seeing Michael Scott the whole time, and I thought the portrayal was truthful to things I've read about Rumsfeld before. He didn't give a shit about anyone other than himself and saw things the same way as his protege, but his protege knew that he needed to serve the needs of others in order to get ahead. That, more than anything else, is the real lesson of Vice. In politics, the winners are often those who don't hold strong positions until they have hard power. Playing the long game and being a good soldier is a necessity. This is a good film, and with one scene removed it would have been a great film. Of course, with this film being what it is, people may have different opinions on what that one scene even is!

7.5/10

2018 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Roma
2.   A Star Is Born
3.   First Reformed
4.   The Favourite
5.   Widows
6.   First Man
7.   BlacKkKlansman
8.   Blindspotting
9.   The Sisters Brothers
10.   A Private War
11.   Green Book
12.   Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
13.   Mission: Impossible - Fallout
14.   On My Skin
15.   Private Life
16.   Can You Ever Forgive Me?
17.   Mid90s
18.   Eighth Grade
19.   Sorry to Bother You
20.   Vice
21.   The Old Man & the Gun
22.   Suspiria
23.   Vox Lux
24.   Boy Erased
25.   Bad Times at the El Royale
26.   The Other Side of the Wind
27.   Searching
28.   A Simple Favor
29.   The Hate U Give
30.   Bumblebee
31.   Mary Poppins Returns
32.   Creed II
33.   Hold the Dark
34.   The Land of Steady Habits
35.   Halloween
36.   Mary Queen of Scots
37.   Aquaman
38.   Outlaw King
39.   Overlord
40.   Monsters and Men
41.   The Mule
42.   Bohemian Rhapsody
43.   White Boy Rick 
44.   Papillon
45.   Game Night
46.   Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado
47.   Instant Family
48.   Alpha
49.   The Front Runner
50.   The Predator
51.   Apostle
52.   The Angel
53.   The Commuter
54.   Beautiful Boy
55.   The Nun
56.   Operation Finale
57.   The Equalizer 2
58.   The Spy Who Dumped Me
59.   Bird Box
60.   12 Strong
61.   Venom
62.   Skyscraper
63.   The Meg
64.   Assassination Nation
65.   The Girl in the Spider's Web
66.   The House with a Clock in Its Walls
67.   22 July
68.   Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
69.   The Little Stranger
70.   Tomb Raider
71.   Night School
72.   The 15:17 To Paris
73.   Peppermint
74.   Mile 22
75.   The First Purge
76.   Hunter Killer
77.   Kin
78.   Hell Fest
79.   Proud Mary
80.   Robin Hood
81.   The Happytime Murders
82.   Slender Man


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

Offline Cool, Bad, & Handsome

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28,564
  • KOAB
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2019, 03:21:52 PM »
I watched the Cheney Showtime documentary when it came out four or five years ago and even then I found it fascinating how there's parts that seemed skipped over like you mention in this review. From what I can remember he became a white house intern just thru his intense and tenacious nature since there were plenty of more qualified people at the time without any worries they might fall off the wagon and end up driving their vehicle thru someones living room... but those people cared about more normal things like spending a lot of time with their family or living what the politician he interned for considered a "normal life" while Cheney had much greater ambitions even though his academic records and other things didn't measure up in a traditional sense.

Offline The King of Trash

  • PosterFest 2014 Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,247
  • Your POV
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2019, 10:33:31 PM »
dick cheney sounds like an inspiration for those of us who took the less travelled path.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2019, 10:22:03 AM »


The Wall (2017), directed by Doug Liman

I have two of Liman's movies on my list for this month, but the first one to watch is The Wall, which is not about our border with Mexico. I thought this would be a good companion piece for Vice, but it wasn't as these were completely different. There's no grand statement to be made about the Iraq War here, this is a very simple movie with a premise that I will struggle to fill out a whole review for, so I'm just not going to do that. I did see after watching this that it was decided to change the film's ending after test screenings, and without spoiling I think that's for the worse. I am also not surprised that this film didn't make good money, even though I remember it being advertised quite well. This is...well, I don't really know how to address this as literally anything I could say is a spoiler. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO THE MOVIE OTHER THAN SPOILERS.

Similar to Phone Booth, but even more so than Phone Booth, The Wall is a movie that takes place in an extremely confined space over the course of a few hours. This is set towards the end of the Iraq War, with some of our boys sent over to investigate a pipeline construction site. Our sniper is Staff Sgt. Shane Matthews (John Cena), and his spotter is Sgt. Allen Isaac (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). These guys spend a very long time in overwatch, which isn't just a video game. Overwatch is when units support other units, and in the case of this scenario, there was a distress call put out and everyone at the site is dead. Our two soldiers need to be sure that the site is clear, and they spend 22 hours there before deciding that they need to move on. Matthews decides that he wants to investigate the site while Isaac isn't so sure, and once Matthews walks down there, he's shot by an Iraqi sniper. No surprise there. Isaac follows and tries to rescue his dying body, but he gets shot as well.

Isaac is able to take cover behind a wall, but he has major problems. Matthews got shot in the stomach and is dying, Isaac was shot in the knee and is continuing to bleed out. Isaac's radio was also damaged, and his water bottle is destroyed, so he's without rescue and will be dehydrated. I said that Isaac is hiding behind a wall, but to call this a wall is an overstatement, this is a collection of rocks. The sniper (Laith Nakli) has recovered some equipment it seems, including a radio with which he can communicate with Isaac and Matthews. Matthews says nothing, but Isaac is duped and tells the sniper far more than he should, with the sniper having done a good job of masking his accent and knowing enough lingo to bullshit his way through a conversation. Once Isaac finds out, he knows he's fucked, and it's hot and night is coming. Will he bleed out before it gets dark? Watch the movie if you want to know.

This is an outdoor film, but it's also confined to a very small space, and the camera is focused on Aaron Taylor-Johnson for practically the entire movie. He talks to the sniper for the whole movie, we all know this, and it is what it is. There are no wonders of cinematography or pretty much anything. The film only examines base motivations why Isaac and the sniper are in these positions in the first place, and the director rightfully determines that any interest comes from whether or not the sniper can be found. I don't want to spoil the movie, but this is just an above-average film and I liked it enough. That being said, I didn't realize I would hardly be able to write a single thing about this. Obviously this wasn't filmed in Iraq, but they chose a good location as a stand-in and I thought this did feel authentic. That's all I've got.

6/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Logan Lucky
6.   The Beguiled
7.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
8.   The Lost City of Z
9.   First They Killed My Father
10.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
11.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
12.   Okja
13.   Kong: Skull Island
14.   Split
15.   Personal Shopper
16.   Atomic Blonde
17.   Megan Leavey
18.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
19.   Imperial Dreams
20.   Win It All
21.   The Wall
22.   Breathe
23.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
24.   Alone in Berlin
25.   Trespass Against Us
26.   War Machine
27.   Justice League
28.   To the Bone
29.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
30.   Sand Castle
31.   Death Note
32.   Fist Fight
33.   Sleepless


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

Offline Hawk 34

  • Death Pool Winner
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,255
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2019, 12:48:26 PM »
The ending was the best part, I’m glad it pissed people off.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2019, 05:18:44 AM »


3:10 to Yuma (2007), directed by James Mangold

I have had 3:10 to Yuma sitting on my shelf for around 10 years now, in such illustrious company as Apocalypse Now, Inglourious Basterds, Jackie Brown, Lincoln, and Full Metal Jacket. I am saying that I own these and haven't watched them yet, that's the truth and it's shameful. These are all films that I will be watching in 2019, and in the case of 3:10 to Yuma, I've now seen it. There are countless franchises I would like to wrap up as well, but I'm not so sure I'll be able to pull that off.3:10 to Yuma is a remake of a film that wasn't mega popular at the time, and we always need more Westerns. This was, of course, before Hollywood decided that they were no longer profitable. 3:10 to Yuma was one of those Westerns that proved Hollywood correct because it was not, it is part of the reason that they're no longer made, but that's crazy. I decided to watch 3:10 to Yuma now because I saw that it was leaving Amazon Prime, so I needed to get on it. I didn't exactly know what to expect because I'm unfamiliar with the story, but I have been playing Red Dead Redemption 2 and was hoping for something with a comparably interesting narrative. This Western certainly provided that, and there are so many more of these that I need to get around to watching. I don't think this is one of the absolute best films in the genre, but it was a really strong effort.

Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a rancher and Civil War veteran, and things in his life have not gone so well. His youngest son Mark has tuberculosis, and the family is impoverished as a result of this and a host of other reasons. He owes money to a local man, Glen Hollander, and the debt is such that he may lose his property entirely. Hollander has also ensured this will happen by damming up the local stream, preventing water from reaching Dan's land. He wants the land so that he can sell it to the railroad, and in their local town of Bisbee, the rail agent by the name of Butterfield (Dallas Roberts) has a pretty good handle on that stuff. One night, Evans has his barn set on fire by Hollander's men because of how much money he owes, and it's clear the next day that he's probably completely fucked. While Mark and his other son William (Logan Lerman) are out trying to find the herd that got free that night, they come across something bad. Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is a major outlaw in the area, he and his gang have decided to rob yet another stagecoach full of Pinkerton agents. As part of his plan, there's a great stroke of fortune in front of him, it's Dan's herd. He uses the herd to stop the coach, and that, as they say, is that for the stagecoach.

After stopping the coach, it's time to get inside. We learn that Wade has an excellent #2 in his gang, Charlie Prince (Ben Foster). Charlie gets shit done, that's his deal. He's able to blow things up, and in the process of that, Dan comes across the scene. He tries to get his sons to leave quietly, but they're spotted by Wade. Wade doesn't want to hurt them, but he also doesn't want to get caught, so he takes away their three horses and leaves the horses tied up on the road some ways away. After Dan tends to the lone surviving Pinkerton, a nasty sort named Byron (Peter Fonda), they make their way back to Bisbee. It so turns out that Wade has gone there as well, and after some stuff I'm going to cut way the hell off, he's captured. Now we have a situation. Charlie was in the town still and knows what happened, he decides that he's going to follow the situation seeing as he isn't wanted himself. The railroad agent I already mentioned needs some help transporting Wade to Yuma, and he's going to need a posse to go do it. Seeing as Dan is super poor and in debt, don't you think he'll join it? For $200 dollars, he'll leave his loving but wanting wife Alice (Gretchen Mol) behind, and make the journey with Butterfield and three other men to Yuma from his own ranch, where they're storing Wade for the night.

I wouldn't go so far as to call 3:10 to Yuma a triumph of anything, but I do think that this was almost a great film. For the most part, this was driven by Russell Crowe's performance, as lots of Westerns are. Most good Westerns need a great bad guy. There's Gene Hackman in Unforgiven, Josh Brolin in True Grit, and Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. These kinds of performances are needed, they all differ from one another, but this is the best bad guy performance I've seen in a Western besides Hackman's. I need to watch more of them in general before making more grand statements, so I won't go further. Crowe's role here takes all the attention away from everyone else, not that all of these characters are so great in the first place. Peter Fonda's is another excellent role, but our lead played by Christian Bale is a little bit of a passenger in the film up to a certain point. I also enjoyed the way the action just kept on coming. Unlike other films that play it slow and do it well, it was decided here to keep things coming, and all the action pieces were quite good. The big finale was nicely done, and I also enjoyed the way it was decided not to overly edit things.

This is a very male-centric Western, and I was thinking about how if I didn't force myself to watch movies of all kinds, I would probably wind up being like my forefathers in only viewing Westerns and war movies. This does feel like most of the other Westerns I've watched, but it has a little something more that separates it from films like Open Range and Appaloosa, both of which came out around the same time. This is a film that is nicely cynical, which disposes of characters faster than you'd expect. The ones that stick around for a while, right at the moment you wonder why they're still there, they go out of the film within just a few minutes of that. The way I see 3:10 to Yuma is, is that this is just another film on Mangold's resume that helps bolster the idea he's one of the best big budget filmmakers that Hollywood can use. There's some great violence here, numerous instances where the actors have an opportunity to perform, and it's definitely a crowd pleaser. Not quite as good as a film like The Sisters Brothers, which gave no fucks about pleasing the crowd, but a more pandering effort can have its own good qualities. Most of my negatives are related to how implausible the ending is, but hey. Can't have everything.

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: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2019, 05:22:00 AM »


Thor: Ragnarok (2017), directed by Taika Waititi

With us getting nearer and nearer to a time where Captain Marvel is coming out, I need to pound through the remaining Marvel movies I have. Two a month sounds like it'll work from here on out, and I only have three more left now. Thor: Ragnarok was a movie that almost inspired me to get back to the theater, but I couldn't get over pricing issues. Now that I don't worry about price, I'm not very concerned with that. When it comes to Thor movies, I must admit that I didn't care for the other two. In fact I hated the second one, hated it so much I can't even discuss it without talking about how much I hate it. The acting in it is terrible, the story is fucking boring, and the side characters are annoying. Thor: Ragnarok is a film that removes these problems and replaces them with something so much different than the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe to this point. It's different, it's great, and I also thought it was the best film of the bunch until that point. I probably won't ever make a list ranking those movies, because I have to make lists at the time I'm watching things in order to be confident in them. Movies with this many special effects simply shouldn't be so good, but in the case of Thor: Ragnarok, there's a hell of a good reason why it is. They managed to do what the other films could not and made me interested in Thor. Who would've thought?

Everyone knows the story of Thor (Chris Hemsworth), but this is a film that puts its own spin on events. After the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron, Thor is imprisoned by a fire demon who says that Thor's father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is no longer on Asgard. The demon also states that a prophecy will be fulfilled, it is called Ragnarok. He says that he'll unite his crown with a flame that burns in Odin's vault, but Thor's able to free himself, defeat Surtur, and put the crown in Odin's vault away from that flame. Thor returns to Asgard afterwards and finds that Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is posing as Odin, which I believe is exactly where we left the Thor story off at. Thor forces Loki to find their father, and it turns out that he needs Dr. Strange's help in order to do so. Odin is off in Norway, says he's dying, and reveals that his passing will allow Hela (Cate Blanchett) to escape from prison. Hela is Thor's sister, and she is a bringer of death, who will do all kinds of bad shit. Of course, Odin has not entirely told the truth of her origins.

Once Hela appears, I want to do everything I can to not spoil things, so I won't. Through the events of the film, we are introduced to a giant wolf, and a new planet entirely. Sakaar is a world filled with garbage, and it turns out Loki has found his way there as well. Sakaar has lots of wormholes for some unbeknownst reason, but once Thor winds up there, he is enslaved by Scrapper 142 (Tessa Thompson), a mysterious individual who decides to sell him to the leader of this world. The ruler here is one of my favorite comic book characters, changed entirely for this film, the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum). This version of the Grandmaster is very eccentric, like much of the film, and he also holds a Contest of Champions. This is something I very much was hoping for, comic elements that previously were not thought as something to be adapted into a film. At the Contest of Champions, the last piece of our puzzle is entered, THE HULK (Mark Ruffalo). Will Thor be able to get back to stop Hela? How will he do it?

The most obvious point of praise that comes to mind for Thor: Ragnarok is that the comedy actually lands while it doesn't in so many of these movies. The early parts of the film are full of jokes while in the rest it is nowhere near that extent, which is something I also preferred. Thor has been presented as being a bland character in the vast majority of these movies, but that wasn't the case here. Obviously, the choice of director in the first two movies, as well as in both Avengers movies, plays quite a huge part in that being the case. Another reason this works is because the use of other characters, meaning not Thor, is finally done right and is entertaining without exception. The environment is also changed for once, off our own planet into an entirely made up world the likes of which we haven't seen before. It's very funny. This movie is more of the same in a lot of ways, but not that way. Some of the sets for this planet looked inauthentic, but I thought that was a tradeoff I can accept. The movie is also interesting in the way that it never deals with Goldblum's character. So, he may be able to come back in something else at some point. I hope so.

The vibrant colors of the film are something similar to Guardians of the Galaxy, but this is a film that's much better than that, and when comparing the two it's easy to see that one succeeds much more on every level. The way the villains are used is simply better, the story is much more cohesive because Thor has a distinct set of goals, and there are tons of weird moments in this film. The casting of these characters was also excellent without exception, my favorite being that of Cate Blanchett. I didn't realize she was going to be in this movie looking like this. I'm also glad that after all these movies, and it took a very long time for this to happen, but they finally had a giant character appear and completely destroy the area the film inhabited. WHY THE HELL DID IT TAKE SO LONG? I mean, really, we needed something like this to happen that would actually change the dynamic of these movies, and destroying Asgard actually feels as important as it should.

I'm usually not a fan of these CGI fests, and I do find that I've often overrated Marvel films considering how I feel about them months after watching them, but Thor: Ragnarok is going to be an exception to that. The movie goes as far over the top as these need to go, and this all feels unique even though it certainly is not. This feeling of uniqueness is what makes movies like this feel special, and it's something that not all of these films have been able to pull off. The clash between Hulk and Thor feels like something that should have been in one of these movies far sooner, but it not being there any sooner is what made it feel so special now. It's too bad that there probably won't be another Thor standalone movie, because there were lots of building blocks placed in order to do so. If not, hopefully Waititi is given another Marvel group to put his own spin on. I'm sure he will be, too.

8.5/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Thor: Ragnarok
6.   Logan Lucky
7.   The Beguiled
8.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
9.   The Lost City of Z
10.   First They Killed My Father
11.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
12.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
13.   Okja
14.   Kong: Skull Island
15.   Split
16.   Personal Shopper
17.   Atomic Blonde
18.   Megan Leavey
19.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
20.   Imperial Dreams
21.   Win It All
22.   The Wall
23.   Breathe
24.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
25.   Alone in Berlin
26.   Trespass Against Us
27.   War Machine
28.   Justice League
29.   To the Bone
30.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
31.   Sand Castle
32.   Death Note
33.   Fist Fight
34.   Sleepless


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

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • Poster of the Year
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17,423
  • CWM
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2019, 05:27:55 AM »
The use of comedy in this was really perfect. Both in how they got it right and when they used it/and when they didn't. The understanding of the big characters Thor/Hulk/Loki was also dead on, which added a lot to the interactions.

Offline Aero

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,981
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2019, 09:13:58 AM »
I was blown away at how much I enjoyed this one. Probably a top 3 Marvel movie for me.

Agreed on Asgard getting destroyed feeling big, and on that note, the other part that I thought was particularly unique here is that Surtur carrying out Ragnarok is how Hela is (apparently) taken out. As enjoyable as the Immigrant song fight sequence at the end is, I'm glad Hela doesn't just fall victim to a by-the-books defeat, even after Thor's power awakens.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2019, 01:39:07 PM »


If Beale Street Could Talk (2018), directed by Barry Jenkins

Barry Jenkins' follow up to Moonlight was always going to garner a lot of interest, but in the case of If Beale Street Could Talk, surprisingly there is less interest than I expected. Finishing 14th on last weekend's box office chart is a major surprise to me, and there are no easily discernable reasons why this is the case. I simply do not understand. Perhaps the previews are not explanatory enough, but I don't understand. Now, with that in mind, If Beale Street Could Talk is a very serious film, so much so that it can be difficult to watch at times. It is more than a bit upsetting. It is inevitable that one would compare this to Moonlight, and I do think that Moonlight is a better film than If Beale Street Could Talk. However, they do share some similarities in terms of how the movies are filmed, in some of the themes they share, with how little dialogue there is at times, and in the creativity with which these films are brought to you. I understand that If Beale Street Could Talk is a book adaptation, but it's a story I did not know, one that I needed to know, and something very pertinent to this day.

If Beale Street Could Talk is a story told through two narratives, one being the on-running story and the other being told through flashbacks related to what is told in the story. I believe the film is set in the 1960's, although it could just as well be the 70's. The present narrative is only a few months to a year before the flashbacks, and it is about Tish (KiKi Layne) and Fonny (Stephan James), a young black couple living in New York City. Fonny has been imprisoned, charged with doing something he clearly did not do, and the story is clear in showing that from jump. There are some issues with Fonny's imprisonment beyond the fact that he's imprisoned, and the most obvious one is that Tish is pregnant. That's the kind of hammer blow that let me know I was in for a potentially devastating movie, and if you don't want this spoiled for you, I recommend not reading this. Anything about the movie I could say beyond this point is a major spoiler of some kind. Fonny and Tish want to get married, but it turns out that Fonny was imprisoned because of a false rape accusation made by a Puerto Rican (this part does matter) woman. Now, he's locked up, and the key is basically thrown away. There is the potential of getting out, but he needs a lot of good things to happen for him. One of them is for the woman to recant her accusation, because all indications are that she has no idea who raped her and picked the first black guy she could find.

After Tish tells Fonny that she's pregnant, there's a host of other people who have to be told. She has no idea what anyone will think. There's her mother Sharon (Regina King), father Joseph (Colman Domingo), and sister Ernestine (Teyonah Parris). The one Tish is worried about is obviously her father. Surprisingly to her, Joseph is extremely accepting and wants to call over Fonny's folks. Fonny's folks, on the other hand, it's clear the first moment we see them that they may react in very different ways. Mrs. Hunt (Aunjanue Ellis) is a religious nut, and her daughters Sheila and Adrienne are super uptight. They hardly say anything so I didn't list who played them. Fonny's dad Frank (Michael Beach) is one of Joe's very best friends, and his reaction is assured to be positive. Once they're told, of course Mrs. Hunt goes absolutely insane and says all kinds of bad shit. After she leaves, it's time for us to finally get to some flashbacks, to understand how it is that Tish and Fonny came to love each other. It's also time for us to understand how they've struggled in life, what her family will do in order to get Fonny out of jail, and what may become of their unborn child.

Again, I must repeat that to say anything is a spoiler because of the nature of the film and how the story is told. The ending is the most major spoiler, it is devastating, accurate, and pertinent to our times. The film accurately portrays how the justice system is stacked against the unfairly accused, particularly when they're black. Barry Jenkins does a fantastic job of showing what New York City was really like in the 1970's. We've seen it in some films made recently, like A Most Violent Year, but lots of movies prefer to show us a sanitized version of a very dirty, very raw New York City. This is a film that does not sanitize things at all. The city was a grimy place, full of corruption and lots of strange people. The family interactions, on the other hand, are warm regardless of what surrounds them. These are great without exception, this is a filmmaker who knows what they're doing and how to execute it. It appears that Jenkins may be the kind of filmmaker who is only obstructed by the constraints of the stories he takes on. It seemed like it would be very difficult to adapt this material into a feature film, there are things in If Beale Street Could Talk that feel as if they were padded out in order to fill the film. This was expertly done, of course.

As with Moonlight, If Beale Street Could Talk is a very vibrant film despite its subject matter, full of great colors and scenery, played out in the way that Jenkins makes his films play. In addition, this seems to carry a similar theme of people needing to find themselves in times that aren't good for them. Personally, I'm a massive fan of Jenkins after seeing these two films. It feels like the lives of his characters are more important than in the majority of projects that get made these days. There's no other way to put it. I thought this was one of the best films of the year, and if more people don't go see this, that would be quite disappointing. Regina King did win a Golden Globe last night, but I didn't think hers was the best performance in the film or the Best Supporting Actress performance I've seen this year. Instead, I thought KiKi Layne carried this and showed vulnerability I haven't often seen on screen. It's her show, she does everything to make this film special.

There are no shortage of great performances and great scenes here, the only complaints I have are with regard to story constraints. I almost never feel that way about a film, and usually there's something, but not here. I thought the film brought humor when it needed an injection of it, and I thought the seriousness of the scenes involved was appropriately done and never overboard. There are a few short appearances from Brian Tyree Henry and Dave Franco that serve to balance the events out, giving the viewer what they need when they need it. Their roles serve to drive the flashbacks forward when otherwise it may not have worked, and the efforts to clear Fonny's name are all such good scenes without exception. I'm so pleased that films like these get made now, that they're put into theaters and that I have the ability to watch them. We are living in an era where new stories are explored, and I was going to say I was down on this year as a whole, but look at the top of my list. It's full of these unique stories, things that haven't been done. While it was lacking in science-fiction and Westerns, and I suppose in good comedy films, there's no shortage of great films. It's just that there weren't a lot of good ones. If Beale Street Could Talk is a great one because it was a film specifically about black love, the kind of film there aren't very many of.

9/10

2018 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Roma
2.   A Star Is Born
3.   First Reformed
4.   The Favourite
5.   Widows
6.   First Man
7.   BlacKkKlansman
8.   Blindspotting
9.   If Beale Street Could Talk
10.   The Sisters Brothers
11.   A Private War
12.   Green Book
13.   Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
14.   Mission: Impossible - Fallout
15.   On My Skin
16.   Private Life
17.   Can You Ever Forgive Me?
18.   Mid90s
19.   Eighth Grade
20.   Sorry to Bother You
21.   Vice
22.   The Old Man & the Gun
23.   Suspiria
24.   Vox Lux
25.   Boy Erased
26.   Bad Times at the El Royale
27.   The Other Side of the Wind
28.   Searching
29.   A Simple Favor
30.   The Hate U Give
31.   Bumblebee
32.   Mary Poppins Returns
33.   Creed II
34.   Hold the Dark
35.   The Land of Steady Habits
36.   Halloween
37.   Mary Queen of Scots
38.   Aquaman
39.   Outlaw King
40.   Overlord
41.   Monsters and Men
42.   The Mule
43.   Bohemian Rhapsody
44.   White Boy Rick 
45.   Papillon
46.   Game Night
47.   Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado
48.   Instant Family
49.   Alpha
50.   The Front Runner
51.   The Predator
52.   Apostle
53.   The Angel
54.   The Commuter
55.   Beautiful Boy
56.   The Nun
57.   Operation Finale
58.   The Equalizer 2
59.   The Spy Who Dumped Me
60.   Bird Box
61.   12 Strong
62.   Venom
63.   Skyscraper
64.   The Meg
65.   Assassination Nation
66.   The Girl in the Spider's Web
67.   The House with a Clock in Its Walls
68.   22 July
69.   Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
70.   The Little Stranger
71.   Tomb Raider
72.   Night School
73.   The 15:17 To Paris
74.   Peppermint
75.   Mile 22
76.   The First Purge
77.   Hunter Killer
78.   Kin
79.   Hell Fest
80.   Proud Mary
81.   Robin Hood
82.   The Happytime Murders
83.   Slender Man



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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2019, 05:09:56 AM »


The Great Wall (2017), directed by Yimou Zhang

The Great Wall is a film that I knew was going to be stupid when I turned it on, and it definitely did not disappoint. I knew the marketing was dumb when I saw previews last year, with a white guy's face plastered all over Chinese stuff, so it was a given that this film would get some hatred from a lot of people. Sometimes, those kind of movies that receive a bad reaction for reasons such as this are unfairly judged by appearances, but this is a film that has very few merits in the first place. It is an easy target for claims of whitewashing because it definitely features that, but this was an attempt for China and Hollywood to make a fusion movie. I think that was literally the entire point, to whitewash a few of the roles in this movie for a Chinese audience. It seems to not have mattered at all in terms of getting people to go see this to the extent Chinese investors wanted, as while this did make quite a lot of money, it was nowhere enough for the studios to make any profit. Good! The film is steeped in things that should be unique to Chinese people, their culture and their history, but the film is shit even if they had cast a Chinese person in the lead role. That's just how it is.

The Great Wall begins with a chase on horseback through the desert, us not exactly understanding why this is happening. It turns out that these are mercenaries, William (Matt Damon) and Pero (Pedro Pascal). They are traveling around China in search of gunpowder, but it turns out they are not actually near a part of China where they can find it until the first few scenes are over. They're resting in a cave with some other mercenaries and are attacked, but they're able to cut the monster's leg off and bring it with them. After they reach the wall, they are taken prisoner by some Chinese soldiers, whom are led by General Shao (Zhang Hanyu) and Strategist Wang (Andy Lau). It turns out that there are a few different orders of soldiers in this, and I'm going to be completely honest, this was never made clear enough at any point for me to discern them. They had different costumes, but that isn't quite good enough. The two soldiers I mentioned were part of the Nameless Order, which apparently deals with a horde of alien monsters called the Tao Tieh.

The Tao Tieh came from space on a meteor that crashed into a nearby mountain, and they're these green things that attack once every sixty years. The thing is, when William and Pero took the monster's leg, apparently this was a week earlier than the monsters were expected to attack. Here comes a battle, and during the battle, William and Pero are sprung free by Ballard (Willem Dafoe), another mercenary who had once been sent to China in search of gunpowder. He got caught and now teaches the soldiers English, which explains their use of it throughout the film. The three Europeans subsequently decide that they're going to steal gunpowder and finally make their break, with no intention of staying in captivity any longer than they have to. Then we're introduced to another military leader and you know what I'm done explaining this stuff. Let's get to why this sucks.

A movie has to be really boring and bland for me to just give up like that, and that's exactly what I thought of The Great Wall. Boring, bland, nonsensical and lacking the ability to separate characters from one another. I need more than costumes, I need some explanations. I also think that the concept is totally ridiculous, I never explained it during my synopsis because I couldn't bring myself to do it. This is a bad film. Even though it's bad, there are some positives. I thought the set design and monster design was pretty good even though I could never get interested in the monsters themselves. The Great Wall certainly has the look, make no mistake about that. It's too bad that the look was wasted on something so banal and cliched, but even in using a fake Great Wall of China, things seem to work out well. There's another scene near the end of the film that looks nicer than most anything, yet the film still stinks even with that being the case.

I'm shocked that this would even be made considering both the inevitable backlash and the quality of the story itself, which is practically nonexistent. What quality? Matt Damon and Willem Dafoe put in some of their worst performances here. Damon seems to alternate back and forth between having an accent, I don't know what the deal was there. It wasn't a good accent in the first place. The reimagining of the Great Wall of China being used to combat alien invasions is absolutely ridiculous on every level, I don't know what the point of this story was, and I can't really decipher it. I did enjoy Pascal's performance in terms of him bringing something to the film when nobody else tried, but that's about all I can possibly think of to say about this. The film was a bad idea, an attempt to make an epic film that didn't quite work out. I've seen worse recently, but not much worse!

3.5/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Thor: Ragnarok
6.   Logan Lucky
7.   The Beguiled
8.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
9.   The Lost City of Z
10.   First They Killed My Father
11.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
12.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
13.   Okja
14.   Kong: Skull Island
15.   Split
16.   Personal Shopper
17.   Atomic Blonde
18.   Megan Leavey
19.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
20.   Imperial Dreams
21.   Win It All
22.   The Wall
23.   Breathe
24.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
25.   Alone in Berlin
26.   Trespass Against Us
27.   War Machine
28.   Justice League
29.   To the Bone
30.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
31.   Sand Castle
32.   Death Note
33.   The Great Wall
34.   Fist Fight
35.   Sleepless


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2019, 04:58:39 AM »


Free Fire (2017), directed by Ben Wheatley

I was initially hesitant to watch Free Fire because I know it had some horrendous reviews around the internet, but it was still quite tempting. A movie set in 1970's Boston? Sounds like it could be fun. Something obviously ripping off Quentin Tarrantino? That's usually not fun, but who knows. I thought I'd give this a chance even if it didn't deserve one. The catch as far as this goes is that this is a picture that started filming way back in 2015. The release date was an awfully long time away, almost two years. For a film not requiring a ton of post-production, this seems as if it could be a problem. Usually when a film isn't released for such a large amount of time after the fact, it takes forever for them to find a buyer because either nobody thinks the film is good or it can't be sold. I was hoping this was good enough. This is a film that seems to be made in the sense of a filmmaker not caring what anyone else would think about the dialogue or creative decisions, or for that matter whether or not the film is even considered to be good. This isn't a great film, but it's one that goes counter to expectations and gives the viewer something different. Sometimes that's okay, and sometimes expectations need to be thrown out the window.

Our setting is an arms deal, and the film begins with two guys, Stevo (Sam Riley) and Bernie (Enzo Cilenti) driving to meet two IRA members. On the ride over, Stevo tells Bernie that he got beaten up the night before for doing bad shit. The group, including the IRA members, Chris (Cillian Murphy) and Frank (Michael Smiley), all meet in front of a warehouse in Boston. Now we have an intermediary, Justine (Brie Larson), and a representative, Ord (Armie Hammer). Let me be clear that the inclusion of these characters makes no real sense, because there should only be one of them. The group of IRA members (I guess the first four) wants to buy M-16's from an arms dealer, Vernon (Sharlto Copley). Vernon brings a lot of people himself, a big man named Martin (Babou Ceesay) who appears to be muscle, and I believe Harry (Jack Reynor) and Gordon (Noah Taylor) drive the weapons in. The trade is pretty simple, weapons for cash. At least it should be simple.

Now, with all these people in the room, it's never going to be simple. Case in point. There's arguments about the guns themselves, because they aren't M-16's. They're very good assault rifles, but not what the deal was supposed to be for. The money is good, but the IRA members get angry when Vernon decides that he's going to count it. Vernon had also placed ammunition in the back of the truck with the guns, but that wasn't part of the deal and he was going to include it to sweeten the deal, but that wasn't needed. Now, after the business with the guns and money, Chris wants all the boxes of guns opened to make sure that's what's there. As already stated, there's a box of ammunition there and the ammo was not supplied. Eventually, Harry notices that Stevo is the one he beat up the day before. The tensions are attempted to be defused, but Stevo winds up ruining that by bragging about what he did to Harry's cousin. In addition, I should mention that Stevo smoked crack on the way over to the deal, so he's erratic. So erratic in fact that he was swinging around a crowbar. Harry can't take this shit anymore, so he pulls out a gun and shoots Stevo in the shoulder. As you might expect, the groups split off and start shooting each other, and Martin is the first man to go down. Along with Martin, down goes the briefcase with the money in it, and of course Vernon wants the money, so we have an enormous shootout for the better part of an hour.

Is this film good? I don't know. There are many aspects of Free Fire that aren't, particularly the idea that people talk to each other during prolonged shootouts such as these. My conundrum is that I thought the lines in these discussions were sometimes quite amusing. Of course that isn't the case every single time, but sometimes. The entire situation is also implausible in the first place, in the sense that it doesn't take so long for people to die once they get shot. It's totally ridiculous, and I'm not sure I've ever seen a longer shootout in a film or TV show. The film only taking place in one scene does allow for the filmmaker to focus on the actors, but a few of them look and sound a bit too alike. I think Free Fire could have used more time than what it had, particularly as it relates to the conflict between Stevo and Harry. This is something that we should have seen the beginnings of rather than having been told about it, as the viewer would have been anticipating their conflict just a little bit more. It's also hard for a movie to sustain itself around one scene, and I'm surprised anyone would try to do that. The Wall was similar in this regard and I intend to give Free Fire the same rating, a film can only be so good when this is the case.

In terms of ensuring this film actually worked, I thought Sharlto Copley did the best job of keeping things entertaining. His South African accent and the lines he was given went together quite well, I was cracking up throughout. This being more of a comedy than anything else was a nice touch, but it leads Wheatley to keep some of these characters around for too long. I also thought that Wheatley should have done a better job laying out the warehouse prior to the shootout. There are some characters that get introduced as the story goes on, but they were weak bullet fodder, which I think cheapened the story to some extent. Overall, I liked Free Fire, but not too much. The film is overly talky like a Sorkin film, but the copious amount of dialogue works to its benefit. The film likely would have been boring otherwise. I'm not giving a ringing endorsement or anything, but I thought this was a lot funnier than it should have been.

6/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Thor: Ragnarok
6.   Logan Lucky
7.   The Beguiled
8.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
9.   The Lost City of Z
10.   First They Killed My Father
11.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
12.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
13.   Okja
14.   Kong: Skull Island
15.   Split
16.   Personal Shopper
17.   Atomic Blonde
18.   Megan Leavey
19.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
20.   Imperial Dreams
21.   Free Fire
22.   Win It All
23.   The Wall
24.   Breathe
25.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
26.   Alone in Berlin
27.   Trespass Against Us
28.   War Machine
29.   Justice League
30.   To the Bone
31.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
32.   Sand Castle
33.   Death Note
34.   The Great Wall
35.   Fist Fight
36.   Sleepless


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2019, 04:44:34 AM »


It Follows (2015), directed by David Robert Mitchell

I'm seeing Escape Room tomorrow, but before doing so I thought I needed to see a real horror movie. Enter It Follows, a film I wouldn't quite call a masterpiece, but something with a unique concept. This was awfully damn good. David Robert Mitchell has another movie coming out later this year that has gotten mixed reviews, I believe it's called Under the Silver Lake. If the mixed reviews are simply because he decided to push the envelope a lot more, that would be nice. I do think there's further that a director could go from this point, but I did appreciate that there were seemingly a few unique touches. One is the style of the film, both in terms of the color palette and choice of shots. The movie isn't completely different in this way, but it's different enough. There are also some interesting themes, but the most clear thing to see is that Mitchell's films are going to be a visual feast. It's sticking with me more than anything else, nothing showcases this more than the grand setpiece of the film. It Follows is even more about the director's ability to play around with things in order to create a look and feel. It is of course not solely visual, but that Mitchell fills this with 80's synth music like an admirer of John Carpenter. Is the film on that level?

It Follows begins with a scene featuring a girl running away from some kind of invisible figure. I don't exactly understand why or the reason, at least for about twenty minutes. The girl has obviously just had sex, and she stumbles out of a house near to hers. She runs around in circles for a while, and eventually she goes in her house, gets her shit, and decides to drive very far away. While she drives far, this is apparently not far enough. After stopping at a lake for the night, she falls asleep. We come around to the next morning, and she has been brutally murdered somehow, with a compound fracture of the leg. Big time dead. Afterwards, we switch over to our story. Jay (Maika Monroe) is going to go on a date with Hugh (Jake Weary), seeing a movie. Before doing so, we are introduced to her family, which consists of her sister Kelly (Lili Sepe) and an unseen mother. Her friend Yara (Olivia Luccardi) and another friend Paul (Keir Gilchrist) spend a lot of time at her house. Paul is very much the incel type and has a crush on Jay, it is certainly unrequited. Paul seems to be quite jealous about hearing Jay is going on a date with someone who isn't him.

Now, once Jay and Hugh to to the movies, they're waiting in line and all that stuff. They decide to play a game about switching lives, some bullshit. Don't care. When they get inside the theater it is Hugh's turn to ask Jay about the game. He goes around looking across the theater to see what's up, and he sees a woman in a yellow dress standing by the entrance. Jay can't see her, we don't see her, conceivably there's nothing there. There's something there. Hugh demands to leave the theater and they do, nothing seems to come of this. On their next date, Hugh and Jay go to a beach. Things go well. They drive some distance away to an abandoned auto plant and get down, after which Hugh gets in his trunk. He come back, it turns out he has a rag with chloroform on it, and out Jay goes. When Jay comes to, she's tied up in a wheelchair and Hugh takes it upon himself to give some instructions. Here's how it goes. He says that the curse can only be seen by the person with the curse or by the someone who has had it. The entity can take the form of any person and will consistently walk towards her. If It catches Jay, Jay will die and go after the previous person who has had the curse. Simple way of putting it? Jay needs to go sleep with someone else to get rid of this thing. Sounds like bullshit? It isn't bullshit.

The whole thing has a distinct Lynchian feeling to it, although of course there's never anything that does Lynchian like David Lynch. Some of the appearances of this spiritual entity are insane, I don't want to spoil them, but it's a horror movie and there has to be some expectation of seeing this thing. That's part of why I take a shit on some horror movies that decide not to show the enemy. There are instances when we need to see what people are afraid of, and there are times where we do not. It's largely dependent upon whether or not the filmmaker is skilled enough to make their film interesting in the scenes that don't feature the enemy. In this case, I thought It Follows was plenty interesting and that this wasn't a problem. It Follows is also about as long as it needs to be and doesn't feel like a film that overstays its welcome. I was going to say that as far as the film being Lynchian goes, you'll know if you've seen this. I also thought it was interesting how the film explored the idea of sexual intercourse potentially bringing a curse upon someone. There are so many ways in which this is true, but I'm not entirely interested in symbolism. I look at whether or not a film accomplishes its goals and pleases me. It Follows is the kind of film that is very likely to please me for many different reasons.

I should admit that I wound up pausing It Follows for 15 minutes because some nutjob was being chased by the police. It was insane. When I came back to the film, I didn't feel any letdown as if the events here weren't worth watching after seeing some guy plow into cars and traffic lights. I'm careful not to go overboard in praise, but I thought this was very effective in what it set out to do. It was often surprising to see where the film would be going, and it was odd to see a horror movie where the friends of the lead character actually believe what their friend is telling them. I'm not so used to that, and I thought this film was properly surrealistic. Most other directors are unable to pull that off even with far more money in their pocket, and they aren't able to prevent their films from becoming boring when they do attempt that. Obviously, I liked It Follows a lot, and I didn't mention too many negatives, but I think the film did have some. The attempts to obscure the time period the film was set in did not resonate too well with me, and for that matter I wasn't a big fan of the incel character. Still, this was good.

7.5/10


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2019, 06:25:58 PM »


The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected) (2017), directed by Noah Baumbach

The Meyerowitz Stories is a film that came with no shortage of controversy and problems. The first was at Cannes, when it was a debate whether or not the film should be allowed to compete for awards due to its status as a streaming film. It was allowed to do so, but now Netflix films aren't allowed to be shown in theaters in France, so never again will that happen. The other, obviously, is related to Dustin Hoffman. Hoffman has either been blackballed or decided not to work after allegations were made against him. I had interest in The Meyerowitz Stories and was not going to skip the film because of something he'd done many years in the past. I did believe the allegation, by the way. I believe the second of those controversies led to a lot of people deciding that they were going to swerve this one. They're well within their rights to do so, but I said why I didn't. The film itself is a very strong portrayal of family dysfunction, I thought. There are some issues with this story, and I would have liked to see this more focused on one of the characters a bit more, but I thought this was a very amusing film.

The Meyerowitz Stories is something that sounds like it could be an anthology, but it is merely separated into chapters. Danny Meyerowitz (Adam Sandler, up in here looking like Vlade Divac) has separated from his wife, and his daughter Eliza (Grace Van Patten) came along with him to New York City before heading off to liberal arts school as a film student. The purpose of his visit is to move in with his father Harold (Dustin Hoffman), an art professor and sculptor at the school Eliza is headed off to. Harold has been married numerous times, his current wife Maureen (Emma Thompson) is an alcoholic. For some reason Harold believes she has quit drinking, obviously she has not. Danny has a sister, Jean (Elizabeth Marvel), and she's there at the house as well. They're going to have shark soup and it takes like shit. We cut forward a little while, and I'm going to skip over some stuff, but Danny and Harold are going to be spending some time alone in New York City. When Danny was a child, his father ignored him, so this should be some good time for them to catch up. Jean is in the same boat, but she lives somewhere else and will not be taking part in this father-son time.

As part of Danny and Harold's time together, Harold's friend and peer L.J. (Judd Hirsch) is having a showing at the Museum of Modern Art. It's a retrospective of some kind, and L.J. invited them during a phone call without advance warning. For some reason Danny and Harold show up overdressed, and Danny finds himself in a similar spot to some of the things I've had to do. He's lost with nobody to talk to and wonders around the place, while Harold catches up with L.J. and seems to have problems with it. When Danny finally finds someone to talk to in L.J.'s daughter Loretta (Rebecca Miller), Harold hurriedly rushes up to him and tells him he's leaving. This leaves Danny in a position where he has to chase after Harold, and after this he decides to go stay with Jean up in Rochester. In the meantime, the story continues to jump forward, where we are finally introduced to Harold's third child, Matthew (Ben Stiller). Matthew is a very successful financial advisor, he also seems to be having marital problems, and he seems to be impressing upon his father that he should sell his home in Manhattan and move to Maureen's house out in Western Massachusetts.

Here's what's up. All three of Harold's children have problems with him and believe that he neglected them to various extents, this is what the film is about. I don't want to say what happens because that's really lame and kills the enjoyment of the film, but I wanted to say that Adam Sandler has probably never been better. He can act, but he obviously doesn't want to and I don't understand this. The amount of trash he's been in is incredible, but when he wants to do something serious, he's pretty good at it. Some people were saying he should get Oscar buzz for The Meyerowitz Stories, which would be completely ludicrous, but he was really good. It isn't only that the film is serious but that his comedic instincts are restrained. I never thought I would laugh at a film where Ben Stiller and Adam Sandler trash someone's car. This sounds so ludicrous, so bad. It isn't bad. The sharp cuts are something I also found appropriate, even though it's a little jarring. While our characters are in the midst of meltdowns, perhaps it's better that we don't see the aftermath of their worst moments. These people have daddy issues and they are all explained quite well throughout the story, I thought. When Harold tells his stories twice, the reactions to them remain interesting. You never know exactly what's going to happen here, and that's great.

The film isn't without warts, and I think the most notable case of this is the lack of focus on Jean. She's not in the film enough despite being the second most interesting of Harold's children, and even though Elizabeth Marvel does well with the time she has on screen, it isn't enough. This is a huge flaw, and in my opinion, it's really one of the only ones. The end of the film also comes off as feeling really weird, lacking conclusion, life goes on. I don't know I like this or hate it, I can't decide. Numerous times throughout the film I was thinking of things that I found to be realistic and reflective of my own life experience, but a few of them, like the Meyerowitz clan hunting down a nurse who'd had to go deal with other patients, didn't quite feel right to me. The movie is also ridiculous even though that's quite alright. The way Harold bragged about a five second conversation with Sigourney Weaver, if you could even call it a conversation, was great. I didn't want to hear that two times though.

Ultimately, this is a film that thrives on its performances, but the driving force behind each individual event really works for me. There's also something with Harold that I have completely avoided referencing, but this helps bring the film together and converge all these stories into a cohesive narrative. The Meyerowitz family seemed to be quite a lonely sort, whether they had children or didn't, whether they were married or not, and even Maureen is no exception although she's married to the patriarch. This was the 1000th film I've watched, and I think it was quite the appropriate thing to place in this slot. I was going to watch something completely different, but I decided after seeing Escape Room earlier, I should go in a completely different direction. I should also give some extra credit to the cinematography in this film. This is the second time I've noticed Robbie Ryan's work like this, The Favourite was beautifully shot and this was very much the same. Judging from his filmography it appears this is someone moving up in the world over the last few years. Good for him.

8/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Thor: Ragnarok
6.   Logan Lucky
7.   The Beguiled
8.   The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)
9.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
10.   The Lost City of Z
11.   First They Killed My Father
12.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
13.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
14.   Okja
15.   Kong: Skull Island
16.   Split
17.   Personal Shopper
18.   Atomic Blonde
19.   Megan Leavey
20.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
21.   Imperial Dreams
22.   Free Fire
23.   Win It All
24.   The Wall
25.   Breathe
26.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
27.   Alone in Berlin
28.   Trespass Against Us
29.   War Machine
30.   Justice League
31.   To the Bone
32.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
33.   Sand Castle
34.   Death Note
35.   The Great Wall
36.   Fist Fight
37.   Sleepless


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2019, 01:54:44 PM »


On the Basis of Sex (2018), directed by Mimi Leder

Very rarely have I left a film with such a strong feeling that something not happen. In this case, it was a hope that Ruth Bader Ginsburg not die before 2021. Perhaps a hope isn't the best way to put it. It's a request, I'm begging, can this please not happen? Time will tell on this one, I hope I get my wish, and there are a lot of people depending on it. Our country is nearly entirely dependent upon whether or not she will live. With that in mind, I expected On the Basis of Sex to be a propaganda film of sorts, one that served to bolster the legacy of Ginsburg, ensuring that younger people everywhere are more aware of her. She has become a legend and this is something a lot of people feel, it certainly isn't just me. Considering what I thought the film would be, it certainly lived up to my expectations. I wasn't aware of the cases involved and had no intention of looking them up prior to viewing the movie, nor will I do so now that I've given the film a look. I don't care enough to be bothered by the veracity of this film, and I don't think that was the point of this exercise in the first place. It was so that people could have a look at how Ginsburg was as a younger woman, to see things that helped craft her reputation.

Our film begins in the 1950s, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Felicity Jones) entering Harvard as a first year law student. Her husband Martin (Armie Hammer) is in his second year, and they have a child at home. While at school, RBG is presented with the usual problems that confronted women in that era, particularly those entering the law prefession. The Dean of Harvard Law, a bristly sort named Erwin (Sam Waterston), gathers everyone for a dinner and decides to ask the prospective female lawyers a question. Why do they deserve to be in Harvard Law instead of a man? The film also chucks in another scene with a professor, Mr. Brown (Stephen Root). He's teaching a class, refuses to call on Ginsburg, and once he does, there are lots of jokes made by everyone involved. Do you see why I said this is a propaganda film? There are lots of instances of this and that's hardly surprising. During her first year, Martin gets testicular cancer, and we are shown how determined Ruth Bader Ginsburg really is, as she attended Martin's classes for him, took notes, and typed out his papers that he would dictate to her. Talk about dedicated. This must be true considering that the film has Ginsburg's endorsement and I can't imagine her lying about something like that.

Two years later, after Martin has graduated and with his cancer in remission against the odds, he is presented with a job offer in New York City. Ruth is not finished at Harvard, but she doesn't want to separate their family. Erwin is a dick, so it turns out that they're going to have to, and she transfers to Columbia University. Once she graduates, she encounters difficulties finding work, and unfortunately her dreams are squashed. After being rejected over and over again by prestigious law firms, with her degree seeming not to matter, she decides that she'll become a professor at Rutgers. Her class centers around sex discrimination, which almost immediately becomes a point or purpose. Rather than beat around the bush, I'll get right to it. Martin is a tax lawyer and comes across a case that seems to be something Ruth can handle a whole lot better than him, it's about a man in Denver, Charles Moritz. Moritz hired a nurse to help him care for his senile mother so he could work, and he tried to claim a deduction on his tax forms. He was an unmarried male, therefore he was not eligible for the deduction. Ruth sees the opportunity to bust through gender discrimination, and nothing's going to stop her. She goes to the ACLU and meets with a man, Mel Wulf (Justin Theroux), he joins her case. Her daughter Jane (Cailee Spaeny) has grown up and is now quite the inspiring figure, she will continue to push on however long this takes.

So, I've said this is a propaganda movie, right? It is, even though it's entirely rooted in fact. There's no other way to put matters, it's a fact that Ginsburg was tasked with running through a cadre of white men in order to make things happen, and some of them had to be left demolished in her wake. This aspect of the film seems to have made a lot of people angry, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg tends to do to some people. The thing is, white people of all stripes seem to have problems with this presentation because of how ridiculous it seems, but when it's true I don't care that much about presentation. The film doesn't delve into critical analysis of Ginsburg, because that isn't the point. Everyone's made mistakes, but this isn't the time for a takedown. I thought the film was effective in presenting its message, and I thought Felicity Jones had a great performance. I only see the slightest of resemblance between her and Ginsburg, but the point of the performance is to play Ginsburg, to be like Ginsburg. I think the filmmaker would want to make sure the audience knows how stubborn Ginsburg is and was, this was accomplished quite well.

Even though Ginsburg is a hero figure to a lot of people including myself, I am capable of being critical of the film. The events seem to play out like a TV movie at times, the musical compositions do not do much to counteract this feeling. I also thought the way the events were presented diminishes how Jewish the Ginsburgs were, there's zero representation of is. Ginsburg does have a cameo at the end that can be interpreted as a tacit endorsement so maybe I should keep my mouth shut on that part, but it's something I noticed. I also found that On the Basis of Sex could have desperately used a bridge scene at Columbia between Ginsburg's time at Harvard and searching for a job. The film is also intensely obsessed with subtly making sure the audience knows exactly how far we've come in these years. That isn't a negative like the other things in this paragraph, but I think it's something viewers should be aware of before turning this on or going to the theater. On the Basis of Sex also presents this as being Ginsburg's first courtroom performance and her first lawsuit, so with that information in mind, you damn well better know what the film brings to the table.

With all that in mind, On the Basis of Sex is certainly a hagiography, but there aren't many more figures worthy of having a hagiography made about their life. So, this is totally a mom movie, even if your mom voted for Trump. Maybe your dumbass Trump voting mom would finally understand some things if they watched this, and perhaps not. I would be lying if I said this didn't feel like a Law and Order episode at times, and the casting is certainly part of that. If you cast Jack McCoy in any legal drama, that's damn well what I'm going to think about. The film is about someone's work in the face of rampant sexism, it removes religious bigotry againts Jews for some reason, but I still liked this film as a whole. Of course a large reason why that's the case is because of the film's subject, so I can overlook some of the flaws. As I believe I've said before, list placement matters more here than the score I give the film. The ending of the film was nicely touching and left me feeling good about the movie.

6.5/10

2018 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Roma
2.   A Star Is Born
3.   First Reformed
4.   The Favourite
5.   Widows
6.   First Man
7.   BlacKkKlansman
8.   Blindspotting
9.   If Beale Street Could Talk
10.   The Sisters Brothers
11.   A Private War
12.   Green Book
13.   Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
14.   Mission: Impossible - Fallout
15.   On My Skin
16.   Private Life
17.   Can You Ever Forgive Me?
18.   Mid90s
19.   Eighth Grade
20.   Sorry to Bother You
21.   Vice
22.   The Old Man & the Gun
23.   Suspiria
24.   Vox Lux
25.   Boy Erased
26.   Bad Times at the El Royale
27.   The Other Side of the Wind
28.   Searching
29.   A Simple Favor
30.   The Hate U Give
31.   Bumblebee
32.   Mary Poppins Returns
33.   Creed II
34.   Hold the Dark
35.   The Land of Steady Habits
36.   Halloween
37.   Mary Queen of Scots
38.   Aquaman
39.   Outlaw King
40.   Overlord
41.   Monsters and Men
42.   The Mule
43.   On the Basis of Sex
44.   Bohemian Rhapsody
45.   White Boy Rick 
46.   Papillon
47.   Game Night
48.   Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado
49.   Instant Family
50.   Alpha
51.   The Front Runner
52.   The Predator
53.   Apostle
54.   The Angel
55.   The Commuter
56.   Beautiful Boy
57.   The Nun
58.   Operation Finale
59.   The Equalizer 2
60.   The Spy Who Dumped Me
61.   Bird Box
62.   12 Strong
63.   Venom
64.   Skyscraper
65.   The Meg
66.   Assassination Nation
67.   The Girl in the Spider's Web
68.   The House with a Clock in Its Walls
69.   22 July
70.   Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
71.   The Little Stranger
72.   Tomb Raider
73.   Night School
74.   The 15:17 To Paris
75.   Peppermint
76.   Mile 22
77.   The First Purge
78.   Hunter Killer
79.   Kin
80.   Hell Fest
81.   Proud Mary
82.   Robin Hood
83.   The Happytime Murders
84.   Slender Man


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2019, 06:28:20 PM »


The Lego Movie (2014), directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

I wasn't sure that I was ever going to watch The Lego Movie, but while seeing another film last month, I saw a trailer for the sequel to this. At that point, I decided that I might as well, so here we have it. I believe this is the first animated movie I've reviewed that wasn't comic related or as a result of losing a bet. I am fine with this, and I'm not going to go nuts on animated movies, but maybe I should watch a few more. Don't inundate me with ideas like a lot of dorks do to people when they say something like that, please. I still have to watch The Lego Batman Movie this month, and I could see these becoming repetitive in a hurry, but I didn't mind this at all. I am shocked that this film was able to be done at a cost of $60,000,000. That's obviously a lot of money, but lots of these animated films cost a ridiculously large amount. I know this was in large part created due to the Lego video games, of which I played just a few, but kids really like those games. Obviously, adults have a soft spot for Lego's and that's why this was so successful. I guess I'll say that at least this wasn't The Emoji Movie. I have no intention of ever watching that, but one of these days...who really knows.

Obviously, The Lego Movie is set in some kind of Lego universe with moving and talking Lego pieces. No shit, right? Our scenario is that there's an evil guy, Lord Business (voiced by Will Ferrell). He finds a super weapon called the Kragle, which we later learn is a tube of Krazy Glue. Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman) is some kind of wizard, but Business blinds him with his robots. As Business leaves, Vitruvius has a prophecy, that someone called "The Special" will find a "Piece of Resistance", which is a brick that can stop the Kragle. Some years later, in a Lego city of Bricksburg, we meet an ordinary piece, a construction worker named Emmet (Chris Pratt). Emmet goes to work and does all his stuff like a good Lego should do, he's ordinary and not unique. There are many, many of similar pieces, and they build skyscrapers and things like that at the behest of Lord Business. I had a good laugh at the workers following the instructions, I can't explain why I wasn't expecting that, but I wasn't.

As Emmet's about to leave work, he sees a woman searching for something at his site. He walks over to investigate and falls into a hole, and once reaching the bottom of this seemingly endless hole, winds up next to...the Piece of Resistance. Emmet touches it and passes out, waking up in a police station with Bad Cop and Good Cop (Liam Neeson). All of a sudden, the woman shows up again and introduces herself as Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), and rescues Emmet. She believes he is a special Lego who can do all kinds of cool stuff, and we know that's not true, but she takes him to meet Vitruvius in the Old West. Here's how this thing goes. The group absolutely must find a way to put the Piece of Resistance on the tube of Krazy Glue. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it was the top for the tube. Along the way, we see some funny stuff that comes out of nowhere, and I laughed quite a lot at seeing a few of these pieces and ideas.

This being an animated movie, I will struggle very hard to complete a review. I thought that there were parts of The Lego Movie that were pieces of genius, but the live-action part destroyed my immersion. That's fair, right? I was a Lego player like everyone else as a kid, but I played with the kinds of Lego sets that other people probably didn't. I had the gas station, the space stuff, and a few other things that aren't coming to mind right at this moment. Upstairs right now, there's a bunch of stuff in this house that my brother built and left. He spent loads of money on that stuff while working at the Lego Store. He has the Kwik-E-Mart, countless Batman stuff, the Cinderella castle, Orthanc tower, the Simpsons house, and there has to be other things I can't remember. He is and was a Lego fanatic, but I don't know if he's seen this movie. I did think some of the takes at the end of the film were funny though. They were basically spreading out propaganda in terms of how it's okay to play with Lego toys. I could only laugh at this even though the messaging was sort of destroying how much I liked the film.

Overall, I still liked the film, but I don't think it was the greatest animated film ever or some shit like that. I did enjoy the numerous strange appearances from different characters in different franchises, I thought none of them were disappointing at all. The animation is fantastic on a level that it's incomprehensible how these things are even happening, and the choice of voice cast was excellent. I was sure not to look anything up beforehand, but Liam Neeson as a bad cop was a good laugh. This is the kind of film lots of people would be happy with their kids watching over and over, and the gags with things like Band-Aids were a joy. While I would have liked a complete paucity of live-action scenes, this was still enjoyable enough and the live-action scene wasn't completely horrendous. It was a good twist and something I wasn't expecting, but I must admit that without the scene, I don't see how this film could possibly have ended. I was trying not to spoil this in case anyone was on the fence, but I really didn't need to. I thought Batman's inclusion was the best part.

7.5/10


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2019, 06:16:20 PM »


American Made (2017), directed by Doug Liman

In American Made, we seem to have a film that claims to be based on a true story while stretching the limits of "true story" as much as humanly possible. I was reticent to watch the film around this time last year, knowing that this would probably be the case, but now it appears my format has changed and I don't have a choice. Besides, I think I was looking forward to it at this point. American Made is a film that deliberately intends to invoke thoughts of Narcos, Blow, Breaking Bad, The Wolf of Wall Street, and Goodfellas all at the same time. I think the quality of the film reflects that. I'm going to take some time to talk about how truthful this story is, but what I found most interesting was how cavalier this story treated the geopolitics of the time. We move through a lot of these things very quickly, and not everything that happened at the time seems to matter. The film also manipulates the plot in order to fit a narrative. I have said before that I'm okay with this, but in this instance I genuinely don't know what to think of it. On the other hand, considering how crazy the story is in the first place, is it really that bad? We're inundated with a lot of information outside of our title character's story and nearly all of it is true. Go figure.

Our story begins in 1978, with Barry Seal (Tom Cruise) flying planes for TWA. He lives in Baton Rouge with his wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) and a very young child, just trying to provide for his family. The first instance of this we're shown is some video of him smuggling Cuban cigars from Vancouver and Montreal to the States. A CIA case officer called "Schafer" (Domhnall Gleeson) is apparently well aware of these activities, and with Barry bent over a barrel, he'll take advantage of it as these CIA types tend to do. Schafer's plan is for Barry to start a new company, or rather for the CIA to start one for him, and through the company they'll fund his activities. Activities? His new job is going to be to fly a plane over Central America doing reconnaissance with cameras attached to the bottom of the fuselage. Barry attempts to tell Lucy of these changes, but it isn't going to work out. She just won't listen and that means he won't tell her anything unless he has to. Narrator: eventually he has to.

We move forward into the 1980s from there, with the job progressing to a point where Schafter asks Barry to start bringing money to Manuel Noriega in exchange for intelligence. Barry does that, and on one of his missions, he's picked up by the Medellin Cartel. That does not sound good. He's asked to fly cocaine to the United States, exactly as you'd expect them to ask them, and he has no real choice in the matter. Remember that he smuggled cigars in the first place to start this whole thing off? He accepts. This is quite difficult to pull off, and for whatever reason the CIA decides to ignore the drug smuggling. After all, the rest of the operation works for them and it's difficult to replace assets, much less an ace pilot. The DEA, on the other hand, they don't really give a fuck about any of that. While Barry's in Medellin meeting with Jorge Ochoa (Alejandro Edda) and Pablo Escobar (Mauricio Meija), he's captured by Colombian police. The Colombians get out, but Barry does not. Here's what he has to do now. He and Lucy have to leave Louisiana, and it's time for Barry to do something much more for the CIA. Something...Contra related. Right after this point, Tom Cruise tells you that shit gets crazy and it sure does.

This film plays loose with the facts, because it turns out that Barry didn't do anything for the CIA until he'd already encountered the Colombians and other drug smugglers south of our border. We don't see that the reason he left TWA was because he was asked to smuggle explosives to Mexico, was going to go through with it, and was arrested. He also moved to Arkansas himself and wasn't forced there by the CIA. The narrative of the film wouldn't make sense if they showed things like that, though. It's ridiculous and much too hard to believe. The film is flawed because it isn't authentic, and it's also flawed because this doesn't explain the results of Barry's actions. At times, American Made feels like a film where someone's bad decisions are excused because they did them for the CIA, but this didn't happen in reality. These things are hard to reconcile with one another. On the other hand, having been to the area of Arkansas shown in the film, I could definitely see how someone could have gotten away with having an army of planes smuggling cocaine out of there in the 1980s. To call this location a backwater does not do justice to the word. The accuracy of other things, such as Barry and other pilots smuggling drugs for the DEA and CIA, on the other hand, are completely accurate. I do appreciate a film spreading that message even though the story of the messenger is not accurately portrayed.

This is a film that I do think perfectly displays the ills of the Reagan era, but it's almost impossible for a filmmaker to not do that and get their film released. What mattered most then was green. Consequences were not something people considered. The country was prosperous and nobody cared how or why. The film is full of moments that show what someone would do to make that amount of money. The customary montage of what someone did with their money no longer interests me as a viewer, it's how they got it. In spicing that up a bit, I think American Made was a success. The scene with the overloaded plane was really nice, there are others with Barry's plane being chased by government agents, and if you need to see scumbag characters, look no further than JB (Caleb Landry Jones). Nobody plays scum better than Caleb Landry Jones and I don't ever want to see him in another role. I bet there are some and inevitably I'll get around to them, but let me have this. I also thought that Tom Cruise is...the absolute perfect person to play someone like Barry Seal. It's a natural role and he seems to revel in it. Cruise's performance is quite enjoyable. I also thought the intrigue regarding the possibility of Barry getting clipped nearly justifies the changes in the narrative. I mean, what if they changed that too?

Like Caleb Landry Jones, there's another role in this film that may have been chopped a bit, that belonging to Jesse Plemons. Plemons was playing a small town sheriff who didn't want to question the benevolent Barry Seal, but there are so few scenes with him in them and he's such a good actor that they had to have filmed things and cut them. It also seemed that Barry didn't care too much about his kids and wife, with scenes that consistently exhibit this. So, they aren't in the film too much. American Made is a movie that revolves around Tom Cruise a lot, and if you can't handle this, or the changes in Barry Seal's story, or the possibility that this may be glorifying a drug smuggler, I can't really recommend this to anyone. The only thing that I think really stinks and is indefensible is the way in which this story feels glorified. Who wouldn't want to bang their wife at zero gravity, fly planes all over the globe, make tons of money, go to insane parties, and have a whole fleet of people willing to do anything for you? Then you throw in the part of the story detailing that Barry basically got away with everything he did wrong due to what he knew about CIA programs, and yes. This is glorifying wrongdoing. It's also so blatantly far from the true story that the story needs to be judged on its own merits, which is what I'll do. I thought American Made was quite fun and I was looking to watch something like this. Sometimes I don't give a fuck about what someone did wrong, I just want to watch something where someone's doing bad things. I do think this is wrong on my part, but I can't help myself. Most people who can't admit that liking this stuff is wrong, they're the ones with a problem I think.

I've been trying to shorten my reviews as a whole, but this was easy to write and took no time.

6.5/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Thor: Ragnarok
6.   Logan Lucky
7.   The Beguiled
8.   The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)
9.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
10.   The Lost City of Z
11.   First They Killed My Father
12.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
13.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
14.   Okja
15.   Kong: Skull Island
16.   Split
17.   Personal Shopper
18.   Atomic Blonde
19.   Megan Leavey
20.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
21.   American Made
22.   Imperial Dreams
23.   Free Fire
24.   Win It All
25.   The Wall
26.   Breathe
27.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
28.   Alone in Berlin
29.   Trespass Against Us
30.   War Machine
31.   Justice League
32.   To the Bone
33.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
34.   Sand Castle
35.   Death Note
36.   The Great Wall
37.   Fist Fight
38.   Sleepless


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2019, 01:55:47 PM »


Ben Is Back (2018), directed by Peter Hedges

I didn't realize until I walked in the door and looked at this just now, but Ben Is Back is a project where Peter Hedges directed his son. How strange is that? I know this has happened countless times, but I cannot immediately think of an example, nor do I find it very important to have an example. What I was thinking while watching Ben Is Back was that this was a very similar film to Beautiful Boy, told from the perspective of a caring mother. There are reasons why this story works better, I will have to explain them as I go, but functionally the film should be the same thing. Both films have older lead actors, here we have Julia Roberts and in Beautiful Boy we had Steve Carell. We have Lucas Hedges here and Timothee Chalamet there. We have observing spouses played by Courtney B. Vance and Maura Tierney. Kids are affected by the problems of their brother too. These movies are...basically the same goddamn thing. Then, at the same time, they aren't. I think one's enjoyment of the two films could be entirely tied to who plays the drug addicts in these respective movies. In addition to that, there seems to be some actual intrigue in Ben Is Back that is not at all present in Beautiful Boy. Let me explain.

Ben Is Back begins with Holly Burns (Julia Roberts) driving her kids home from church on Christmas Eve, it appears that they are going to have a recital. Ivy (Kathryn Newton) is the oldest, Ben's sister. Liam and Lacey are Ben and Ivy's half-siblings, which is only pertinent in the sense of explaining how similar this is to other films. While Holly's at the recital, Ben is trying to get inside their house for some reason. He cannot. Instead, Ben (Lucas Hedges) is standing in the driveway, and Holly is quite pleased to see him. Ivy, on the other hand, immediately decides to get on her phone for some reason. Obviously we will see why. After some time where Holly goes around hiding all the valuables and pills in her house, along comes Neal (Courtney B. Vance), Holly's husband and Ben's stepfather. Neal is alarmed that Ben is there as he's supposed to be in sober living, because some event happened that was pretty bad. We find out exactly what happened later on, but Ben claims that his sponsor said a trip home would be good for him. Holly and Neal subsequently come to the conclusion that Ben will be allowed to stay for one night as long as Holly's watching him, which is going to prove quite difficult.

As the day goes on, Ben decides to look for Christmas ornaments in the attic, do activities with the rest of his family, and so on and so forth. While Ben and Ivy are going to wrap Christmas presents, Ben comes to the conclusion that he should buy some presents from him to give to other people. Holly agrees, so they go out for the day and Ben has things to do. After shopping for a while, Ben encounters someone who triggers bad memories, and Holly has some bad memories of her own after meeting someone else, which leads to Ben going to a meeting. Now, after Ben tells his story at the meeting, none of this done during flashbacks, he is approached by a young girl (Alexandra Park). The girl tells him that he was her drug dealer, which he didn't remember, and she wants to get high with him as her last time before going to rehab. Now, how should I leave this paragraph off? With Ben's mom finding the drugs the girl gave to Ben and Ben claiming that she handed them to him so that she didn't take them? Or should I close it with a mention that Holly's house gets robbed after the children's recital? I decided to mention both of them because I didn't know what to do.

I should immediately address why Ben Is Back is a better film than Beautiful Boy even though there are so many similarities. First, there are no flashbacks in Ben Is Back, which serves to keep the story on the right track. There is no muddled narrative here, no grief porn like when Steve Carell is desperately trying to find his son from miles and miles away. None of that at all. The narrative is much more constrained in Ben Is Back. When Ben departs from Holly, we know why, and there's some intrigue and genuine mystery to it. Such is the benefit of this film not being a true story, but more than that, it seems as if the focus is appropriately weighted upon both lead characters in Ben Is Back. I also liked that Ben had done some truly scummy shit in order for his friends and family members to feel this way about him, it isn't only the drugs that were a problem here. Of course, the story is still very similar despite these things to a point where it cannot be ignored. I did think that Julia Roberts performed her role better than Steve Carell as well, which is odd coming from me because I like Steve a lot. I didn't think I cared much for Julia Roberts, but maybe I'm getting older. People change, after all.

Ben Is Back also does a good job in creating backstories for their characters without doing so in flashbacks, which allows us to understand the meanings of these events without having to spend endless time watching them play out. The older I get, I also wind up appreciating scenes such as these. This is simply a better script and a better story, but it also isn't entirely original and that presents some problems. I liked Hedges performance, and some inauthenticity was required of his role in order to carry it out, but it's quite difficult to believe at times. Of course, a mother loves her son and all that, but this is almost too inauthentic at times. There's also the simple matter that the police should have been called, and the fact that they weren't is simply too illogical for my tastes. This also feels like an anti-drug PSA at times, which I suppose is unavoidable in the end. Still, there are other good characters I did not mention, and this is quite a good film. I don't think it's a classic of the drug addiction-drama subgenre, but it works and carries some decent emotional weight.

7/10

2018 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Roma
2.   A Star Is Born
3.   First Reformed
4.   The Favourite
5.   Widows
6.   First Man
7.   BlacKkKlansman
8.   Blindspotting
9.   If Beale Street Could Talk
10.   The Sisters Brothers
11.   A Private War
12.   Green Book
13.   Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
14.   Mission: Impossible - Fallout
15.   On My Skin
16.   Private Life
17.   Can You Ever Forgive Me?
18.   Mid90s
19.   Eighth Grade
20.   Sorry to Bother You
21.   Vice
22.   The Old Man & the Gun
23.   Suspiria
24.   Vox Lux
25.   Boy Erased
26.   Bad Times at the El Royale
27.   The Other Side of the Wind
28.   Searching
29.   A Simple Favor
30.   The Hate U Give
31.   Bumblebee
32.   Mary Poppins Returns
33.   Creed II
34.   Hold the Dark
35.   The Land of Steady Habits
36.   Halloween
37.   Mary Queen of Scots
38.   Aquaman
39.   Outlaw King
40.   Overlord
41.   Ben Is Back
42.   Monsters and Men
43.   The Mule
44.   On the Basis of Sex
45.   Bohemian Rhapsody
46.   White Boy Rick 
47.   Papillon
48.   Game Night
49.   Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado
50.   Instant Family
51.   Alpha
52.   The Front Runner
53.   The Predator
54.   Apostle
55.   The Angel
56.   The Commuter
57.   Beautiful Boy
58.   The Nun
59.   Operation Finale
60.   The Equalizer 2
61.   The Spy Who Dumped Me
62.   Bird Box
63.   12 Strong
64.   Venom
65.   Skyscraper
66.   The Meg
67.   Assassination Nation
68.   The Girl in the Spider's Web
69.   The House with a Clock in Its Walls
70.   22 July
71.   Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
72.   The Little Stranger
73.   Tomb Raider
74.   Night School
75.   The 15:17 To Paris
76.   Peppermint
77.   Mile 22
78.   The First Purge
79.   Hunter Killer
80.   Kin
81.   Hell Fest
82.   Proud Mary
83.   Robin Hood
84.   The Happytime Murders
85.   Slender Man


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2019, 06:14:21 PM »


Rogue One (2016), directed by Gareth Edwards

Ah, Star Wars. The ever frustrating, for some never satisfying, hardly ever great, yet beloved franchise that releases films that polarize fans like none other. I still haven't seen Solo and it bombed extremely hard, but I'll eventually get around to it. First, I had to watch Rogue One. This was a film that nearly got me out to the theater back in 2016, but as was customary for me at the time, I decided that I didn't really want to go. Times have changed, and while this is a film that I may have waited years to watch at some other time, that isn't the case anymore. Rogue One is a film with an inevitable result, that's something which impacts how good it can truly be. I find that this is an adage which was once again proven true, that the only way to move the Star Wars franchise forward is to create new characters or continue new stories. The Mandalorian is a case of something set in the past that has lots of creative freedom to be interesting, but a film is not likely to bring that to the table if set in the past of this universe. What I found was that Rogue One is the kind of film that brings so many things to the table that the viewer must decide what they like more. Do you like seeing your favorite actors in a Star Wars film or do you like character development? If none of these are amongst your favorite actors, then you very well may feel differently than I do. I thought Rogue One gave me what I wanted.

Rogue One begins with the creation of a new hero, as these films tend to do from time to time. Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen) is a weapons researcher, hiding on a planet with his wife and child. All of a sudden, Imperial weapons developer Orson Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn) shows up with a proposition. He wants Galen to complete the Death Star, and everyone knows what the Death Star is. It needs to be done, he argues, and the Empire will bring Galen's family with him to complete the job. Galen does not accept this as he no longer wants to develop weapons, but he has no choice in the matter. Once his wife comes out of hiding with a blaster and shoots Krennic, she's shot and killed as well, and Galen is effectively taken prisoner. His daughter, on the other hand, she's able to escape. She runs and hides, and eventually is rescued by a rebel extremist, Saw Gerrera (Forest Whitaker). This is one of his best roles, I think.

Of course, we move well on from there. Fifteen years later, a pilot has deflected from the Empire. Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed) has a transmission taken from Galen, he brings it to Gerrera himself on a desert moon. This place is quite interesting. Jedha is used for the Empire to remove kyber crystals, these allow them to power the Death Star. A rebel agent, Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), discovers information about the Death Star and it is decided that something needs to happen. He encounters Galen's daughter, now a woman, Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones). After Cassian breaks Jyn free, he brings her to the rebels. The new mission is for Jyn to find a way to rescue Galen from the Empire so that the rebels can learn more about the Death Star. For Cassian, his mission is a little different. Once Galen is found, Cassian is to execute him as he's too dangerous to leave alive or something like that. Once they get to Jedha, we encounter the rest of our group. Chirrut Imwe (Donnie Yen) is a blind warrior who believes in the Force, and his friend Baze (Jiang Wen) carries a very big gun. K-2SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) is Cassian's droid, a necessary component of any good team. Then, as you may suspect, Bodhi is being held by Saw Gerrera, who is still on Jedha. The Death Star is also looming. What could come of all this?

As far as what I hoped for, the story has its limitations, yet it seemed to meet all of my expectations. A singular Star Wars film leaves little room to develop characters, considering that everyone has expectations of Star Wars. You need a big battle, this is set prior to the destruction of the Death Star, and that means there has to be some scenes with Darth Vader. I liked that the film also had real consequences, although of course this is something forced upon it by the nature of the story. I don't think this is a fantastic film, but it's suitable. The film has tons of action scenes in order to ensure that fans aren't bothered by new characters, and it's no surprise that Disney would create a prequel show so that people who wanted character development could get that from the story. I thought the droid was the best character in the film, for that matter. Even though many of the other characters are played by people I like a lot, the droid is different and quite morbid. We need more of this kind of thing. I'm sure that'll be a priority in the prequel series, there's no doubt about it. This strikes me as a character who will become a major fan favorite over time.

The story is one where a daughter knows her father has been forced to do something wrong, gathers a posse and goes to find her father, but surprisingly this film decides to take things in a different direction halfway through. Rogue One is somewhat disjointed as a result of that, but I think this decision is redeemed by having all these characters die. There is no illogical conclusion for these individuals, it is appreciated. I'm going to cut myself off before droning on, but I think Rogue One really lacks an impactful scene stealer. There isn't a great leading presence in the film, and the final scene was beyond long. Something I found interesting was the use of CGI to place Carrie Fisher and Peter Cushing back in the series. I don't have the same reaction as most people, I guess. Neither moment took me out of the film, and I thought that the likeness of Cushing to...himself (?) was insane. I'm not a big fan of using CGI to bring actors back from the dead, but if it fits any series, using it here or inStar Trek is completely justifiable.

There were a few things I wanted to mention before I go, and the first was that I thought it was nice for the producers or whomever to decide to use some real, vibrant feeling locations in their film. The Death Star explosions are also excellent in this way, as it feels like these locations are folding over on top of themselves. It is a visual I never knew I needed this badly. I also wanted to mention the score, as I thought it was noticeable that John Williams didn't do the music for this film. While different, I found the score to be pretty damn good. I usually don't comment on music because it isn't that important to me, but in a film like this one, you notice it much more so than in others. Personally, I would have liked more character development myself, but we didn't get that and I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way. The film was plenty long enough and nearly too long without character development, so it wasn't possible to do anything else with the film's story.

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 Spaceman Spiff 🚀

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5,290
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2019, 12:23:15 AM »
Huge, huge fan of the space battle scenes during the climactic over Scarif.  The blackness of space really lets the greens & blues of the planet below pop.  Just some absolutely gorgeous shots with the camera set high looking down on the planet as the ships criss-cross the field of view and dive for the opening in the planetary shield before it closes.

Offline AA484

  • CXF Writer
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,219
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2019, 01:41:25 AM »
This was my favorite out of all the post-Disney Star Wars films.  I saw it in iMax and the CGI still didn't look out of place, at least to me.  I thought it was extremely well done.

I may even like this better than ROTJ, although it's still far behind the other two in the original trilogy.

Offline Kahran Ramsus

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10,488
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2019, 12:00:30 PM »
I thought Rogue One was far and away the best Star Wars film since the original trilogy.  It is a throwback to films like The Dirty Dozen, Where Eagles Dare, The Guns of Navarone, etc.  Except in space.

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • Poster of the Year
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17,423
  • CWM
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2019, 12:39:10 PM »
yeah i thought Rogue One was probably the best and i see the Guns of Navarone comparison especially.

Offline Kahran Ramsus

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10,488
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2019, 12:57:13 PM »
Regarding Peter Cushing, I know lots of people that aren't familiar with who Cushing was that thought Tarkin was the real thing until I told them.  You might complain about the ethics of it (although I personally don't have a problem with it, provided they get approval from the family/estate), but I thought the actual effects work was remarkable.

*In Fisher's case, they generally thought it was a younger lookalike.

Offline cobainwasmurdered

  • Poster of the Year
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17,423
  • CWM
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #27 on: January 17, 2019, 12:58:52 PM »
Yeah I didn't mind the cushing thing tbh. It looked great and it fit into the movie pretty well and I didn't think it felt exploitative. I don't want to see it done much more but if it's kept to something like that where it makes sense and is small I don't have a big issue with it.

Offline Kahran Ramsus

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10,488
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #28 on: January 17, 2019, 01:10:02 PM »
Yeah I didn't mind the cushing thing tbh. It looked great and it fit into the movie pretty well and I didn't think it felt exploitative. I don't want to see it done much more but if it's kept to something like that where it makes sense and is small I don't have a big issue with it.

I wouldn't want it for a major character or one in an ongoing series.  No CGI Hugh Jackmans when Marvel gets around to rebooting Wolverine.  But for a handful of scenes in a one-off film based on a famous film like this one, I think it worked.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #29 on: January 17, 2019, 06:28:38 PM »


The Mountain Between Us (2017), directed by Hany Abu-Assad

The Mountain Between Us is something I literally only watched because the Lakers win over the Thunder ran a bit longer than I'd expected, but in the end, it wasn't such a bad idea. I assumed from the poor reviews the film received that there would be nothing to this, I was wrong. It's actually quite rare that actors are given the opportunity to work in this sort of scenery, so I shouldn't have been so quick to rush to judgment. The movie is interesting, but it's not great. The cast carries this about as far as such a weak script could possibly go, and by cast, I should say a duo rather than a cast. It's really just two people here. When I saw the previews for The Mountain Between Us, I assumed this was going to be quite a bit different. I also thought it would be rated R, so imagine my surprise when at the end of those commercials, that PG-13 rating is blaring in my face. How does one make a survival film with no goddamn gore? This, as well as some other questions I had, were answered as time went on. There also aren't too many romantic dramas that I get around to watching these days, so I think I picked the perfect time to delve into this genre for a night. After all, the Lakers won, didn't they? I was in a good mood. I am surprised at who directed this, considering their past in foreign films, but that isn't a critical statement and merely one of interest. If interested, read on.

Trapped in Idaho at the airport, we have Ben (Idris Elba) and Alex (Kate Winslet). They both need to get to different parts of the East Coast, Alex to New York for her wedding, and Ben to Baltimore so that he can perform surgery on a child. Ben is a neurosurgeon from London working in the States, and Alex is a photographer working for the Guardian. She has had a photoshoot with some skinheads, not the most fulfilling of work to be certain. I do not remember what Ben was doing in Idaho, but I'm sure it was related to his profession. That I can't remember is not the best sign. After trying to get tickets at the airline counter, hoping they can get over to Denver and make their way to the East Coast somehow, it just isn't going to happen. They can't get a rental car as there are none, so it seems inevitable that they'll miss their chance to get home. Eventually, Alex gets the bright idea to head into an airplane hangar and hire a private pilot. Walter (Beau Bridges) is quite an old guy, and speaking honestly, I immediately knew where this was going. They get in his plane to head to Denver, along with Walter's dog, and it looks quite stormy ahead.

After a conversation in which we learn all that information I just told you guys, we encounter said stormy weather. Walter makes an attempt to divert the flight to Salt Lake City, but it's too late. Reason being? Surprisingly, the weather does not bring our flight down, it's Walter's health instead. He has a stroke and the plane begins to go down, clipping a mountaintop, which leads to the tail being removed from the rest of the fuselage. Of course, the plane is actually going to go down, and crashes very hard into some winter snow. Ben wakes up first, a bit shocked by the events but undaunted. He sees that the dog is alive, and that Walter is not. Alex is also badly injured, her leg maimed. Ben has some gouges in his side, but nothing too bad, he'll be able to push on. After using his medical skill to take care of Alex's wounds and injuries, and after burying Walter, he hunkers down and takes inventory of their food. Walter didn't bother to file a flight plan, he was weird and just got in his plane like a dumbass to fly these people over some mountains. So, there's very little chance of help coming along, unless the beacon on the tail of the plane is intact. Once Alex wakes up, she realizes what's going on, and can't believe that they'll be rescued. Ben feels otherwise, and the two will forge forward with that information left in your mind.

There are some good twists and turns, much of which are related to things that happen to the shockingly stable Ben. He's stable for a reason, he's a control freak and has his shit together because of that. Of course, no story with anyone stranded will leave people entirely unscathed, and while I knew that, the times at which these things happen are quite surprising. The script being as standard as it is, it's the direction that leads to these events being surprising. Rest assured that the narrative of the story remains the same, and that the ending of The Mountain Between Us is exactly what you would think it is. There are a few reasons I'm going to edge this film to the positive side, though. Despite being PG-13, there's much more nudity than I'd expected. How this got through? I don't know. Maybe someone at the MPAA got bored. If not for Elba, Winslet, and the director, this is certainly the quality of a TV movie in every way imaginable. The budget of this film being $35,000,000 seems to have no impact in my belief that this could have been a film headed straight to HBO. There's just not a lot to this, no hard questions about survival, and cerainly not any grand moral statement. Cannibalism or eating the dog are subjects never broached.

I'm not saying some shit like "I wish they'd talked about eating the dog," but I'm making the point that this film lacks grit. The film does seem to revolve a bit around the idea that Ben should leave Alex and her maimed leg on the mountain, but while Elba's character is certainly undaunted and a very stereotypical headstrong surgeon, this is something that would have been far beyond reasonable for his character. So, it did not happen. Knowing that there's no gore, no grit, or anything like that, this is a limited film that I think one's feelings of are entirely based upon whether or not they care for the two actors. Very rarely have I watched a two hour film with such little depth, but I do care quite a bit for these actors and was rooting for them to succeed. With all that in mind, there are many things I would have liked in this movie that I didn't get, and I'm a bit surprised that these actors would be in a film with such lack of depth. Or, for that matter, that the director who put together Paradise Now would sign up for this.

5.5/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Thor: Ragnarok
6.   Logan Lucky
7.   The Beguiled
8.   The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)
9.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
10.   The Lost City of Z
11.   First They Killed My Father
12.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
13.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
14.   Okja
15.   Kong: Skull Island
16.   Split
17.   Personal Shopper
18.   Atomic Blonde
19.   Megan Leavey
20.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
21.   American Made
22.   Imperial Dreams
23.   Free Fire
24.   Win It All
25.   The Wall
26.   Breathe
27.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
28.   Alone in Berlin
29.   Trespass Against Us
30.   The Mountain Between Us
31.   War Machine
32.   Justice League
33.   To the Bone
34.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
35.   Sand Castle
36.   Death Note
37.   The Great Wall
38.   Fist Fight
39.   Sleepless


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

Offline OldSchoolWrestling

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 409
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2019, 08:52:18 AM »
Good review. I am also a fan of both actors but really disliked the characters they played. I understand they were in a highly stressful situation, but they both came across as unlikeable. Kate would have been better suited playing it more like Titanic, instead she made me wish bad things on her in the movie. Idris was also kind of annoying in blaming her for talking him into taking the flight. I rooted only for the dog to survive by eating them.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2019, 04:54:58 AM »
Spoilers.



The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018), directed by the Coen brothers

I do not believe I've watched or reviewed an anthology film like this before. As a result, this feels quite foreign to me and I don't really know how to address the events of the film. I'm always interested in seeing what the Coens do, without exception. I need to go back through their catalogue and watch everything, which I suppose will happen over time, but it seems like a necessity. I'm actually very interested to see what the Coens do after making something like this. It's different, so much so that I don't know what to make of some of these stories. The film is really uneven as a result of this, with some stories needing more time and some less, so I think I'll score every story one by one. I did watch this last night, I didn't think it was possible to finish the review until today, so keep that in mind if I'm forgetting things. I thought this was a neat look into the West, both satirical and morbid from story to story, certainly inspired and not lacking fresh ideas. I thought one of the stories was absolute garbage, but I can't deny that it's different. It's also nice to see a film set in an older time period that isn't filmed as if it belongs in an older time period. This is shot like a modern film and that's something impossible to ignore throughout the events. Overall, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs brings a hell of a lot to the table. Is it great though?

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is an anthology, as I already said, with six distinct stories.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs centers around Buster Scruggs (Tim Blake Nelson). Buster is a singing outlaw, so his foes don't think he's an outlaw at all. I genuinely hated this story and don't really want to talk about it that much. The positives here are few and far between, and this is basically a musical. Take that for what it's worth.

The movie picks up during Near Algodones, the story of a young cowboy (James Franco). The cowboy intends to rob a bank, but the teller (Stephen Root) doesn't know that. The teller tells a story about when he was robbed, and inevitably Franco's character gets down to business. This story was extremely short and the result of it is pictured above, which isn't too surprising. Business picked up here.

Meal Ticket is a story about an older man (Liam Neeson) who has a wagon which he uses to put on shows. His subject is Harrison (Harry Melling), a man who has no limbs. They travel from town to town and Harrison talks about these things, and surprisingly some people pay them. This doesn't last very long, and the older man's money dwindles as they go from one mountain town to the next.

All Gold Canyon is by far my favorite story, nothing else comes close. A prospector (Tom Waits) arrives in a valley and decides to dig for gold. In these scenes, there is a lot of talking to himself. It's fantastic.

The Gal Who Got Rattled is about Alice Longabaugh (Zoe Kazan), a woman who is on her way to Oregon with a wagon train. Her brother claims that Alice will be able to marry someone in Oregon, the problem is, he dies of cholera not long after they set off. If you know anything about the West, you know the dangers of the wagon train. Another very good story.

Our last story is The Mortal Remains, which focuses on five people riding a stagecoach. We have a trapper (Chelcie Ross), a Frenchman named Rene (Saul Rubinek), an older wife (Tyne Daly), and two strange fucks opposite them (Brendan Gleeson and Jonjo O'Neill). Where are they going? Who knows.

This format of stories in The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is something that should have been a TV series, with all episodes registering in at around 30-45 minutes. Instead that wasn't the case. I think I appreciate the Coens ability to present six stories, all of them feeling unique, but I couldn't stand the first one and it left me thrown off-guard for too much of the rest of the film. I did also think it was incredible how easily the Coens were able to create sympathetic characters. Through the wonder of casting they were able to do so practically instantly. The Coens have made better films, there's no question about that, but this is just as unique as the rest. I did find it strange that despite the numerous appearances of Native Americans throughout the film, they did not have their own story in the movie. However, despite that, this is a very violent film with no character remaining free from such issues.

I thought that despite how bad I thought The Ballad of Buster Scruggs story was, I was able to find solace in the performances across the rest of the film. There are no shortage of great ones, but the real standout is Tom Waits as a worn out prospector. I thought his was one of the best performances of the year in one of the most difficult roles to pull off. A lot of people, for what it's worth, seemed to not care for All Gold Canyon at all. I think they're wrong but I wanted to point that out, it's possible people here felt that way and in that case you're wrong too. There are some little touches I didn't care for though. The storybook thing is far too twee for my tastes, and some of the meaning of the stories, like with The Mortal Remains, just aren't strong enough for me to actually pay attention to them. I also was annoyed by one of the background shots in the first story, where it looked like Buster was riding his horse through a landscape with a poorly made representation of the sky crafted as a backdrop. I think people who've seen this may know what I mean.

I think the Coens wanted to make this project because of the short stories allowed them to do whatever they wanted with their film without having to worry about maintaining a plot for two hours, but I would have appreciated The Ballad of Buster Scruggs much more if some of these stories were longer. As things stand, I would call this a very good film, especially considering that the part I hated was only ten minutes long. It may have been even less. Ultimately, a lot of credit needs to be given to the cinematographer, Bruno Delbonnel. The way everything was framed, the choice in lens, and the decision to shoot this digitally, well, all of these things made the film look quite nice. I do believe some of these stories were based on other works, but I think the public at large doesn't really know any of those stories. Because of that, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is something that feels fresh, even though it's possible you may not have liked this at all.

8/10

2018 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Roma
2.   A Star Is Born
3.   First Reformed
4.   The Favourite
5.   Widows
6.   First Man
7.   BlacKkKlansman
8.   Blindspotting
9.   If Beale Street Could Talk
10.   The Sisters Brothers
11.   A Private War
12.   Green Book
13.   Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
14.   Mission: Impossible - Fallout
15.   The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
16.   On My Skin
17.   Private Life
18.   Can You Ever Forgive Me?
19.   Mid90s
20.   Eighth Grade
21.   Sorry to Bother You
22.   Vice
23.   The Old Man & the Gun
24.   Suspiria
25.   Vox Lux
26.   Boy Erased
27.   Bad Times at the El Royale
28.   The Other Side of the Wind
29.   Searching
30.   A Simple Favor
31.   The Hate U Give
32.   Bumblebee
33.   Mary Poppins Returns
34.   Creed II
35.   Hold the Dark
36.   The Land of Steady Habits
37.   Halloween
38.   Mary Queen of Scots
39.   Aquaman
40.   Outlaw King
41.   Overlord
42.   Ben Is Back
43.   Monsters and Men
44.   The Mule
45.   On the Basis of Sex
46.   Bohemian Rhapsody
47.   White Boy Rick 
48.   Papillon
49.   Game Night
50.   Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado
51.   Instant Family
52.   Alpha
53.   The Front Runner
54.   The Predator
55.   Apostle
56.   The Angel
57.   The Commuter
58.   Beautiful Boy
59.   The Nun
60.   Operation Finale
61.   The Equalizer 2
62.   The Spy Who Dumped Me
63.   Bird Box
64.   12 Strong
65.   Venom
66.   Skyscraper
67.   The Meg
68.   Assassination Nation
69.   The Girl in the Spider's Web
70.   The House with a Clock in Its Walls
71.   22 July
72.   Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
73.   The Little Stranger
74.   Tomb Raider
75.   Night School
76.   The 15:17 To Paris
77.   Peppermint
78.   Mile 22
79.   The First Purge
80.   Hunter Killer
81.   Kin
82.   Hell Fest
83.   Proud Mary
84.   Robin Hood
85.   The Happytime Murders
86.   Slender Man


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #32 on: January 21, 2019, 04:55:26 AM »
Good review. I am also a fan of both actors but really disliked the characters they played. I understand they were in a highly stressful situation, but they both came across as unlikeable. Kate would have been better suited playing it more like Titanic, instead she made me wish bad things on her in the movie. Idris was also kind of annoying in blaming her for talking him into taking the flight. I rooted only for the dog to survive by eating them.

That's what I hoped for until Winslet showed the titties. Then I hoped for more titties.


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #33 on: January 21, 2019, 06:32:47 PM »


Happy Death Day (2017), directed by Christopher Landon

With Happy Death Day 2U coming out next month, I thought that I better get around to watching this as soon as possible. I didn't know what to expect in part because I've completely forgotten the trailer for the sequel. You know how sorry a trailer has to be for me to forget it like that? I've seen it tons of times by now. With that in mind, that should let everyone know, there's a very strong chance that I wouldn't care about this film whatsoever. That was, at least, until I bothered to turn this on. I have different feelings now than I did beforehand. While I don't think Happy Death Day was a great or even good film, it did bring something to the table. I thought that the concept was clever enough, but the ideas here also have some deep flaws. Fortunately, this isn't a movie that takes itself very seriously, and all one should expect from material like this are some good laughs. The problem is, at the same time, while one's expectations shouldn't be high, it goes without saying that I wanted something more. A film like this really needs to be rated R, needs some gore to make the killings matter, but that isn't here at all. This was a bit disappointing, but the question I wanted to have answered was whether or not this merited a sequel.

Our story begins with on a fictional college campus, the sort reminding me of films from a time long gone by. Tree Gelbman (Jessica Rothe) has gotten drunk the night before, and she wakes up in the dorm room of a classmate, Carter (Israel Broussard). She ignores a phone call, treats Carter like shit, and makes her way out of the room. She gets to her sorority house and throws a birthday cupcake from Lori (Ruby Modine) into the trash, then she goes about her usual day on campus. Apparently she has an affair going with her married professor, Gregory (Charles Aitken). Gregory's wife walks in, so nothing happens, and Tree goes to a party later that night. On her way there, she winds up in a tunnel, and gets murdered by a figure wearing a baby mask, which is apparently the campus mascot. The Bayfield Babies? What kind of stupid shit is that? I guess it's supposed to be a satire.

Of course, this has to have some kind of twist, and it is...Tree wakes up in Carter's bed once again. She relives the day, but this time she decides not to go down the tunnel on the way to her party. Everything before that played out the same, including an encounter with another sorority member, Danielle (Rachel Matthews). Anyway, back to not going down the tunnel, it appears that everything is fine. She goes to her surprise party, encounters some guy, winds up in his room. The problem is, the masked killer has followed her. Down she goes again. This time when she wakes up, she stays in her own room. Doesn't matter, the killer hides there, and she's dead again. So, what's up with all this? I think it's obvious. Tree has to get rid of her killer to break this time loop, and once she does, she'll live on to another day.

Obviously, Happy Death Day is a weird film, but it's very similar to other teen horror movies from the 1990s. I'm not going to say that we need a return of that era, but it's so different that I couldn't help but have positive feelings of the movie for a large portion of it. Unfortunately, the positivity does wear off due to the nature of the repetitive plot. There's no way for a film like this one to not be repetitive, it's the nature of it. I also thought that the film was entirely carried by Jessica Rothe's performance. Nobody else does anything memorable at all, even though quite a few of these people are on screen for a decent amount of time. I didn't know that there was a younger actress out there who could play Kaitlin Olsen's roles. This is quite a good attribute, of course. Movies like these have to be carried by someone, or they're just terrible. This is an average film, but that's okay.

None of the deaths are too inventive as a result of the PG-13 rating, which prevents gore and other things that...would be interesting. Taking this film for what it was, I was glad with what I saw. I was having some major issues with video quality as this was continuing, to the point where I was considering shutting the film off after about ten minutes. I'm glad I didn't do that, but this wasn't as good as I thought it would be. I am interested to know how Tree wound up in the time loop in the first place, and hopefully it's something answered in the second film. However, I can almost guarantee that when it is answered in the second film, a lot of people will complain about it. Perhaps I'll be one of them! I think this was a film for younger viewers, and most of them probably haven't seen Groundhog Day, so in the end this was definitely a good concept for a different generation. What, you think young people are going to watch something as "old" as Groundhog Day? I doubt that shit. Does it offend you if they don't? Admittedly, that does bother me, but this film really needed a bit more character depth with the other roles for me to say it was a good show. In some ways this also feels like a missed opportunity.

5.5/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Thor: Ragnarok
6.   Logan Lucky
7.   The Beguiled
8.   The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)
9.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
10.   The Lost City of Z
11.   First They Killed My Father
12.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
13.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
14.   Okja
15.   Kong: Skull Island
16.   Split
17.   Personal Shopper
18.   Atomic Blonde
19.   Megan Leavey
20.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
21.   American Made
22.   Imperial Dreams
23.   Free Fire
24.   Win It All
25.   The Wall
26.   Breathe
27.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
28.   Alone in Berlin
29.   Trespass Against Us
30.   The Mountain Between Us
31.   War Machine
32.   Happy Death Day
33.   Justice League
34.   To the Bone
35.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
36.   Sand Castle
37.   Death Note
38.   The Great Wall
39.   Fist Fight
40.   Sleepless


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2019, 06:25:36 PM »


Ben-Hur (2016), directed by Timur Bekmambetov

Hollywood's obsession with remakes is well known by now, but perhaps there is no more egregious example than the 2016 remake of Ben-Hur. I almost never say this, but did anyone really ask for this shit? The first sign this would be a bad idea should have been went Paramount went into casting for the film. When they couldn't attract any star leading man, they should have known it was a mistake to try to make this film. My understanding is that nobody else really wanted to do the film, and it appears to have taken ages to cast this thing. Bekmambetov was first tabbed to direct Ben-Hur back in 2013, it took until late 2014 to get casting going, andthey began filming Ben-Hur sometime in 2015. As I said, casting the film was difficult, they should have done that first and clearly they didn't. You shouldn't make a film like this without a leading man signed on before development. Unfortunately, Paramount and MGM don't care about those things, and they decided to make a remake that simply could never measure up to the original in the first place. What's more is that there were creative decisions made that effectively take focus away from the title character, pretty much the dumbest thing that anyone could do. Perhaps the worst part, is that in casting their lead hero, the producers cast someone who is best known in this country for a show where they had a mask covering one side of their face. Yikes.

Our film begins with Judah Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) and his adopted Roman brother Messala (Toby Kebbell) racing horses in a field. Judah cracks his head and Messala carries him back to their home, a scene that shows how strong the bond is between the two. Their paths, of course, must diverge. Messala has interest in Judah's sister Tirzah (Sofia Black-D'Elia), but this isn't going to amount to anything. Messala wants to travel the Earth fighting for the Roman Empire, and he's going to do exactly that. Judah is romantically interested in his family's slave Esther (Nazanin Boniadi), and when her father decides to marry her off to a wealthy Roman, Judah decides to state his case and woos her back to marry him. Such is life in Jerusalem under the Roman Empire, I guess. Meanwhile, Jesus (Rodrigo Santoro) makes very random appearances through this film, doing things that you would expect Jesus to do, and at the same time taking up too much focus in a story that isn't about Jesus remotely to that extent.

Some years later, Messala returns as a Roman officer. He's had a tough time of it in places like Persia and Egypt, but he's much acclaimed. While he's returning, the Zealots are taking root in Jerusalem. Historically, the Zealots were people who desired to incite a rebellion in the Roman Empire. You could call these terrorists or freedom fighters. They were violent, and the film does make that quite clear. Of course, they have good reason, Romans don't belong there and were oppressing their people. Judah, however, makes a very big mistake. He decides to help a Zealot, a kid named Dismas (Moises Arias) who has been wounded. This alone isn't the mistake, but it's one due to the things Judah has to deal with at the same time. Messala and Judah have their runion, and during it, Messala asks Judah for information about Zealots, should he have it. Judah refuses to do so, and in response Massala says that a new governor, Pontius Pilate (Pilou Asbaek), is going to be riding into Jerusalem. Massala has a request, but it's more like a demand, for Judah to ensure that Pilate arrives in Jerusalem without any hitch. There are hitches, you can probably figure out that Dismas did something Judah would not have wanted him to do. Massala is put to the test and Judah is blamed for the attack, which leads to Massala...killing Judah's whole family and sending Judah off to row a galley.

I know this sounds similar to the original, but I assure you it's not. The gamut of emotions Jack Huston is able to display in comparison to Charlton Heston, it's actually incredible these two played the same roles. The passion Judah displayed in the 1959 film is not shown here at all, and the relationship between he and Massala is also different in the two films. Someone in charge of this remake just could not bring themselves to treat Massala's character the way it deserved, and whoever did that was more interested in reconciling the brothers than giving the story the depth it deserves. There's only one thing I think is better in this film, it's the way the galley events were treated. Hell, it's the only reason I'm not giving this film a completely brutal rating. There's something wrong with you if you don't see it this way, too. Instead of go the route of the 1959 version, Bekambetov decides that he's going to make Judah Ben-Hur one of those figures that is actually treated like a slave instead of some hokey adoption shit. The boat is full of these sorts of characters, this scene has lots of crazy moments and gruesome deaths (especially for a PG-13 film). There's much value in this, I thought it was an effective presentation.

The effective presentation is limited to this scene, however. The chariot race borders on boring, we've seen things like it in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. So, to be honest, even with the update in special effects, I couldn't care less. The movie also could not be more stupid once the chariot elements are introduced. We have Morgan Freeman as a chariot owner who knows nothing of chariots and horses. He wants to enter the race but seems to have little concept of how a person could even raise a horse to get to that point. The Jesus storyline is also out of place here, considering what the film decided to become about halfway through. I find little value in Jesus having a continued relationship with Judah and Esther, I don't need any of these scenes. Mark Burnett had some influence as a producer on this film, and these scenes almost assuredly were there because of him. It's not Jesus being in the film I have a problem with, I have a problem with these scenes taking away time for our lead character to develop. This just isn't good, I mean, it's not. Jack Huston has absolutely nothing that Charlton Heston did, the things he says carry no weight, and at times the character feels like a pussy. There's no other way to put it, this casting ruins a film that was going to suck anyway. They picked people who've never won awards in Hollywood to direct a story like Ben-Hur, and they really should have known people would never take to that. The quality and attention to detail is lacking in the extreme here. In one of the first shots of the film I swear I saw modern housing in the background of it. That's all you need to know, isn't it? I will also leave you guys with this bit from Wikipedia.

Quote
Producer Mark Burnett stated that films like Ben-Hur, which are centered on faith and the messages of Jesus Christ, need to feel like epic summer blockbusters in order to attract younger and secular audiences.

Isn't this a film about fucking Ben-Hur? If you want to make a good Jesus movie, go do that, I'll probably watch it. Don't smash two stories together like this.

3.5/10


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

Offline Kahran Ramsus

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10,488
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #35 on: January 23, 2019, 07:36:37 AM »
I'm not sure what is so hokey about the adoption stuff in the original.  Judah saves Arrius' life and Arrius ends up being credited with a great victory and he adopts him out of gratitude.  That's a very Roman thing to do.

I never saw the new version.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2019, 06:04:07 PM »


The Light Between Oceans (2016), directed by Derek Cianfrance

After The Place Beyond the Pines, I'm sure a hell of a lot of people were looking forward to Derek Cianfrance's next effort. Did they expect that he would make something like this? The Light Between Oceans is a less ambitious film than his previous work, which isn't too surprising given that The Light Between Oceans is adapted from an Australian novel. I don't want to say I was disappointed because this was a good film, but it wasn't The Place Beyond the Pines. What could be, anyway? I shouldn't have high expectations like that. Those two films certainly have thematic similarities, that much was clear to me. It's nice to see something so different than the films I usually watch, but I was hoping for something with more intensity. While that was lacking from The Light Between Oceans, I thought this was solid melodrama. I also think that perhaps this is material best left in a book. Adapting a book with this many twists and turns has some problems, the largest of which relates to the end of the film. In the end, we are left with an ending I didn't want, one twist too many, something sad and still quite unsatisfying. The film was always going to end in sadness, but I was hoping for something else.

Tom Sherbourne (Michael Fassbender) is a man who has been through the grinder during World War I. He is clearly bothered by the things he's seen, unable to express his emotions. What Tom needs is a clean slate, something that will get him away from the world and allow him to tend to himself. The solution is to be hired as a temporary lighthouse keeper at Janus Rock, which is quite far off the coast of Western Australia. The previous keeper had been suffering from mental problems related to his isolation from the world. His wife had died two years before, yet he was seeing her attempt to flag down ships. He was taken away, and Tom takes his position. After some time at the lighthouse, he comes to town for a break and sees Isabel (Alicia Vikander) throwing food to seagulls. It turns out that he's going to dinner at the house of her father, and during dinner he learns about the previous lighthouse keeper's predicament. On another break sometime later, he is told that the permanent keeper decided to kill himself. Tom is subsequently offered a position as the permanent keeper for three years. He enjoys the work, so he accepts.

On his breaks into town over time, he becomes more acquainted with Isabel. She requests to be allowed to join him at Janus Rock, but he tells her that only the lighthouse keeper's wife and family can join him there. They are both desperately alone, Isabel in large part because he brothers died during the war. After the two send letters to each other, they decide to marry. They are very happy with each other and return to Janus Rock, continuing on with their life and having the intention of starting a family. Once Isabel becomes pregnant, they are both overjoyed. It's like a storybook. Unfortunately, things don't stay so nice for very long. Isabel has a miscarriage, they are forced to have a burial on the island. They decide to try once again, the same thing happens. Another marker, another burial. A couple days later, Isabel has clearly cracked and is entirely despondent, there is no escaping this depression. At least, that is, until Tom sees a rowboat in the distance. He shouts for Isabel and they come running to the boat. Inside, there's a dead man and a baby in the boat. I'll cut to the chase. In Tom's position, he is obligated to log the events pertinent to the lighthouse. His wife's miscarriage was not logged as it doesn't belong in the book. This, on the other hand, it has to be. Isabel is overjoyed as it seems her prayers have been answered by this child. What will Tom do though? Can they bear such a secret?

The answer to the last of my questions, at least in the case of Tom, is that he cannot. I was thinking about similar torment on someone's conscience as in The Place Beyond the Pines. I seem to remember Bradley Cooper's character being around when bad shit happens, and he couldn't handle it, but he used the events to get himself ahead. That's a film I think I need to revisit at some point in the next year or two, but that's just one of the similarities I noticed. Another was Cianfrance's willingness to let his stories play out over an unbelievably long period of time. The last coming to mind is his introduction of new characters well into the film, and the important placed upon them is similar to his prior movie. Unfortunately, the story he has to tell is one that works against him come the end. I thought the last few scenes were absolutely ridiculous nonsense, all of which happened far too fast over too long a span of time. We are essentially cheated out of seeing what happened to all of these characters, only seeing two of them. This part sucked.

I did like this movie, and I was wrapped up in the events, but I am very annoyed with how the film concluded. Regardless of that, I thought it was strong work. The story itself is quite tragic, although again, the finale does some work to undo that. The scenes on the island prior to the arrival of the child, when Tom's guilt consumes him, all of these scenes carry emotional weight. The introduction of Rachel Weisz's character into these events does the same thing, it's clear to see this is only going to end in painful fashion. The performances in this film from all three name actors are very strong, everyone's motivations laid out on the table. The ending, however, just absolutely kills me. I can't shake it, and I was going to rate the film higher, but as I'm typing these things out, it bothers me that much. The Light Between Oceans is a good film with a pernicious ending that serves to destroy all of the building blocks Cianfrance has created. This isn't his fault as it's an adaptation, but this alone shows that not all material merits being adapted into something else. If he couldn't do enough to make me forget about the ending, I'm sure that absolutely nobody could. I think Cianfrance is a great filmmaker and would like to see more work from him, and I think he has some projects in the pipeline. I think this would have been complete garbage without him and the performances he was able to draw from his cast.

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 Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2019, 06:05:03 PM »
I'm not sure what is so hokey about the adoption stuff in the original.  Judah saves Arrius' life and Arrius ends up being credited with a great victory and he adopts him out of gratitude.  That's a very Roman thing to do.

I never saw the new version.

In comparison to the way Judah escapes here, it is hokey. Do not bother to watch the new version though, it's terrible. Pretty bad that was the only thing I could think of to place above its predecessor.


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #38 on: January 25, 2019, 06:19:49 AM »


The Lego Batman Movie (2017), directed by Chris McKay

When I saw that they'd made a Lego Batman film, that was the first time I was interested in an animated movie for a long time. Probably since Toy Story 3, so I'd decided that when this was expiring on HBO, I'd finally get around to watching it. That's the case now, and if you want to see this and haven't, and if you have HBO, you should get around to it. My recommendation for people to get around to it isn't a recommendation of the film itself, but I'm trying to say that there's an easy way to watch this if you can. I didn't know exactly what to expect of this, but I thought that with this being an animated movie and all, it was a certainty that this wouldn't only be about Batman. Obviously, it isn't. I am still surprised that the budget wasn't even larger considering the absolutely massive amount of voice actors in this film. There's an enormous list that I won't be posting. What's really important to the audience I'm writing this review for, is whether or not this is too much of a kid's movie? I don't think it is, but at the same time, some of the choices in voice actors and characters is extremely annoying. That's not too harsh a critique, is it? I do think it was a smart move to take the best character from The Lego Movie and make a movie about them, though.

Of course, after The Lego Movie, it's time to delve into other Lego universes. The first I have even the slightest interest in would be DC's, and as the title tells you, we'll start off with Batman (voiced by Will Arnett). Batman is the same here as he was in the other film, no real difference...at the beginning at least. Batman is on a mission to stop the Joker (Zach Galifianakis) from taking over Gotham City, as is always his remit. He does so, and in the process tells the Joker that he isn't as important to Batman as he seems to think he is. Of course, that means Joker is going to seek revenge in a way Batman has never seen before. The next day, Alfred (Ralph Fiennes) is helping Bruce get ready for a gala celebrating the retirement of Commissioner Gordon. Gordon is slated to be replaced by his daughter Barbara (Rosario Dawson), something that I wish would happen in a real movie, but I'm sure it never will. Anyway, she has a plan for Gotham, and it includes getting rid of the need Batman. Such is the way these things go. Bruce, of course, is displeased. This is a cartoon movie, so imagine the kind of displeasure you'd get in that kind of thing.

While Bruce is voicing his displeasure, along comes the Joker, accompanied by every minor villain he could find. His goal? To surrender. Why would he do that, well, it's the Joker. Why else would he do something like that. The Joker drags every other minor or major Batman villain down with him, and they all wind up in Arkham Asylum. Again, this is what you'd expect. With that being the case, Batman doesn't know what to do with himself. While at the gala, Alfred and Bruce seem to have made the assumption that he's adopted a child. This doesn't make any sense at all, but that's how we get Dick Grayson (Michael Cera) into the mix. Dick is eager, wants to know more about Bruce, and Alfred invites him straight into the Batcave. Batman has a plan to actually get rid of the Joker, but the likelihood of completing it is quite slim. His intention? To put Dick in the Robin costume and enter Superman's Fortress of Solitude. Batman wants to send the Joker to the Phantom Zone, where all other villains from this Lego universe appear to have been sent. Who that brings into the movie? I guess you'll have to watch.

The Lego Batman Movie isn't as good as The Lego Movie, because it attempts to accomplish way too much and makes the mistake of throwing too many characters out there with no development other than that of Batman. Is that so bad though? Also take into account that the stupid stuff with Will Ferrell and his kid, or any other human beings for that matter, was completely removed from this story. I also think that the novelty of a movie with Lego characters is kind of destroyed by franchising things out like this, and I'm sure that this won't be the only one. I know they did the same thing with Lego video games too. As I already alluded to, the voice cast is too large, and the amount of characters in the film disallows for character development. Sans Batman, of course. I do think Batman's character development is good, and I also think that Will Arnett does a great job voicing him. It was an inspired decision, and I did laugh a fair bit, but not as much as I thought I would.

I'm actually left with not too many thoughts about this movie, because the animation style is basically the same and all that. There's not much to discuss here. I should point out that I really, really hated Robin here. I'm not a fan in general, but the voice and look of the character really bothered me here. I did, on the other hand, really enjoy the use of numerous other Warner properties in this film. I also thought the movie was geared towards those who already had knowledge of DC properties, yet at the same time, the film is a bit too childish to really cater to those like us. Or is it? I don't really know the answer to that. Lots of comic book fans love watching that cartoon shit. Overall, I think this movie moved at far too quickly a pace, but that's just my feeling, and truthfully it isn't much worse than The Lego Movie. As far as the appearances from other properties go, I probably liked Sauron (Jemaine Clement) the most. That was completely unexpected.

7/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Thor: Ragnarok
6.   Logan Lucky
7.   The Beguiled
8.   The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)
9.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
10.   The Lost City of Z
11.   First They Killed My Father
12.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
13.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
14.   Okja
15.   Kong: Skull Island
16.   Split
17.   Personal Shopper
18.   Atomic Blonde
19.   The Lego Batman Movie
20.   Megan Leavey
21.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
22.   American Made
23.   Imperial Dreams
24.   Free Fire
25.   Win It All
26.   The Wall
27.   Breathe
28.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
29.   Alone in Berlin
30.   Trespass Against Us
31.   The Mountain Between Us
32.   War Machine
33.   Happy Death Day
34.   Justice League
35.   To the Bone
36.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
37.   Sand Castle
38.   Death Note
39.   The Great Wall
40.   Fist Fight
41.   Sleepless


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #39 on: January 25, 2019, 06:21:42 PM »


Florence Foster Jenkins (2016), directed by Stephen Frears

I had some reticence to ever list Florence Foster Jenkins, but I decided to do so because Meryl Streep was nominated for an Oscar and I don't think I can not watch something that was nominated for an Oscar. That, I suppose, is the standard that I've set now. I also said at some point that I needed to go through Meryl Streep's list of films and start doing major damage on them, that not seeing her great performances is quite inexcusable. I do think this was a very strong performance, but probably not for the reasons anyone would expect. I don't think people really actually knew what this film is about. The commercial for Florence Foster Jenkins is actually very confusing and makes someone think this is a film about an eccentric singer. That is not what this is. Instead, Florence Foster Jenkins is a film about the way in which others will save their loved ones from embarrassment in an attempt to indulge their wishes. The commercial does not properly advertise this movie, and you'd really only understand it if you've seen the longer trailer. That strikes me as a major problem and because of that, it's no surprise the film bombed in the United States. On the other hand, shouldn't a studio have expected that? After all, we are talking about a period movie without violence...

Florence Foster Jenkins (Meryl Streep) was a very rich New York socialite who'd inherited a lot of money from her land-owning family in Pennsylvania. Apparently this gave her the means to do whatever she wanted. As this film tells it, she founded the Verdi Club to celebrate her love of music, and her husband St. Clair Bayfield (Hugh Grant) managed her career as best he could. The gimmick of the film is unfortunately revealed far too soon, it's that Florence Foster Jenkins was a horrendous singer. We also learn that she has syphilis, and unbeknownst to her, the apartment she thinks Bayfield lives in alone is also inhabited by his mistress, Kathleen (Rebecca Ferguson). Kathleen is well aware of the situation with Florence and Bayfield, but Florence is not and this could present real problems. However, at the time anyway, it does not. Florence has not passed syphilis on to Bayfield as they have not entirely consummated their relationship, with them both being well aware of this. They love each other though.

Anyway, due to Florence having syphilis, she frequently becomes very fatigued and cannot handle much exertion. She decides that she wants to start singing again, though. Florence hires a talented pianist, Cosme McMoon (Simon Helberg), and he's hardly able to tolerate her horrendous singing. He knows that this is a better way to live than working in a bar or restaurant, so he keeps on while stifling his laughter. Carlo Edwards (David Haig) is Florence's singing coach, he seems to have no such problems with laughter. He knows beyond doubt that Florence can't sing, but he's able to keep his composure, he's more professional and he's older. When you get older, you're willing to do pretty much everything for the money you can get. Bayfield arranges a recital and tries to fill it with Florence's friends, assuring that Florence will not receive criticism. The problem is that some others are invited in, McMoon can barely keep his mouth shut, and this seems like a situation that could turn out pretty badly. But, Bayfield seems to know his abilities quite well, and perhaps he's enough of a man to really protect his wife when he knows she needs it.

This isn't a great film, but I was very surprised by Streep's performance in projecting a complete inability to sing. You know how hard it is for someone to sound that bad? That takes some effort on her part, but the movie is just as much about Bayfield as it is her. I think to some extent Bayfield is the lead character here, and to that degree I think Hugh Grant's performance was a major surprise. This was his kind of character, though. He has faded quite a lot over the last few years, so I guess it's fitting that he would return with a big performance in something like this. It's right in his wheelhouse and there are rarely films like this one made these days. I think there are some major issues with the timing of this story, though. People are more likely to be interested when they have base knowledge of the subject, but Florence Foster Jenkins has been gone for an extremely long time. Nobody who went to see this, or almost nobody, could have actually experienced her singing as part of their childhood. That's the mistake in this film, it's something that should have been made many years ago even though it's too niche. I was also amazed at the ability of her husband to keep her shielded from criticism.

I did some reading and found that the performance shown at the end of this film was done when the actual Jenkins was 76 years old, but it makes an odd suggestion that Florence Foster Jenkins died because she saw criticism and couldn't handle it. I don't consider that a flaw of Florence Foster Jenkins, but the film is flawed for different reasons. I addressed one above when talking about how long ago these events were, but I also think that the film is quite thin as a whole and doesn't make the best use of its cast. A few of the roles, such as one played by Nina Arianda, steal the spotlight in the very little time they have. Others simply don't make any impact at all. Ultimately, this is a film that's carried by the performances of two people. I see why Meryl Streep was nominated for a Golden Globe in the Musical or Comedy category, and I thought that she was very funny here. I wasn't exactly expecting that, I thought her nomination was one of those cases where she was thrown into a category at the Globes just because they didn't have room in the Drama category. So, I was wrong. Florence Foster Jenkins does have good laughs, but I think it's too generic and doesn't take risks with the subject matter. It's a milquetoast presentation on someone's life, but if you're cool with that and if you want to laugh at bad singing, perhaps this is for you.

6.5/10


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #40 on: January 26, 2019, 06:42:26 PM »


It (2017), directed by Andy Muschietti

When you read books as a kid, you hope that somehow, someday, you'll be able to see these things as movies. At least that was what I thought when I was a kid. The ABC miniseries did not quite do It justice, so it was time to keep on dreaming. Sometimes, when you actually get what you want, it's even better than you thought it would be. That's where I'm at with It, a story that isn't yet completed, but one that I need to see out. I feel like I'm inherently biased in favor of this story, that I can't look at it objectively, and with that in mind my review should be taken for what it is. I was hoping that the film was able to capture moments from the book, although I didn't quite expect the movie to do much in maintaining its themes. One of the issues with the film is how much we've seen this kind of story done, but the source material is...the original version of the story. One of the best versions of the story. I think I've made clear that I've made up my mind. I do think there's another issue with how many times we see Pennywise, but besides that, this is one of the most faithful Stephen King adaptations that exists. This also feels like a time capsule, like another 80's movie, which there aren't enough of.

Our film begins exactly the way it should, with Bill (Jaeden Lieberher) giving his very young brother Georgie a paper sailboat. These events take place in 1988. Georgie sails the boat down a rainy street, and it goes into the storm drain. Once he goes to get it out, he encounters a timeless villain, Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard). Pennywise is a clown who inhabits the sewers, he's friendly to kids, or at least you'd think so for a little bit. Once Georgie comes closer to get his sailboat, Pennywise does the kind of thing that it turns out Pennywise does. He bites Georgie's arm off, then when Georgie is crawling away, shows incredible reach in dragging Georgie down into the sewers, killing him. The film continues the following summer, with Georgie long gone. Bill and his friends Richie (Finn Wolfhard), Stan (Wyatt Oleff), and Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer) spend their time heavily avoiding bullies which are led by Henry Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton). Henry is absolutely insane and it's clear to see that bad shit's going to happen when he comes around. I should describe the other characters too. Richie talks a lot, Stan is a Jewish kid who doesn't care as much about his religion as his family thinks he should, and Eddie is a hypochondriac who is encouraged by his mother to be this way.

When these four kids run afoul of bullies, it isn't very good. Bill finds out that his brother's body may have washed up in a wasteland called the Barrens, and he wants his friends to investigate. At the same time, a fat kid named Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor) discovers that their town in Maine has a history of strange disappearances and mishaps. They occur at a far higher rate there than anywhere else in the country. Ben, of course, is also targeted by bullies. After something that happens in the Barrens, our group nears completion. They encounter Beverly (Sophia Lillis) at a pharmacy, when in need of supplies to stop Ben from bleeding out. She's able to easily distract the perverted pharmacist, she's also been torn apart by awful bullying due to rumors about her sleeping with all her classmates. Lastly, in perhaps that character whose story gets cut the most, we have Mike (Chosen Jacobs). Mike is the lone black kid both in the group and for that matter in the whole movie. Obviously, that puts a large target on him, and it's the 1980s, and the bullies in Derry are demented. Here's how things go from here. They are terrorized and need to find out what Pennywise is, what they can actually do about it, and how to stop Pennywise from killing anymore kids. But the things that happen to them before that are all pretty bad, and in some ways this becomes a movie that sees how long you can last before wanting to shit your pants.

I think on some level, It is supposed to be the kind of horror movie you would want to bring a 10 year old to so that you can scare the shit out of them. Considering that's around the age I read the book, I think I would have let a kid watch this. I don't have any kids so nobody needs to call Child Services on me. Anyway, the film does have a hard break in the middle of it, which is another one of the flaws I mentioned here. The break comes and everything rapidly comes back together, which is a problem I suppose. Another are the scenes with children in their underwear. I don't care for these, I never will, and that's why I said this was a movie I think you were supposed to be able to bring your kids to. The box office reflects the possibility that a lot of people did bring their children to watch something they knew about when they were younger. I think the movie is properly scary to this end, there are numerous good jump scares. The scene where Pennywise pops out of the projector would have made me shart if I was younger. I also thought that the director did a good job of presenting the things that scared each child, this was also a difficult task. These things happen without any scenes in between to break them up, so someone may like this or they may not. I liked the change of pace and how quickly things came about.

Because of my attachment to the story, I can't really give this a fair analysis. I did hate the score as well, but all these things are overriden by the atmosphere of It. There are numerous scenes that are going to stick with me, it's a timeless story. I didn't just read the book once, I read it two or three times. So many of these presentations are very unsettling, particularly the one with Pennywise dancing in his lair. The performances of the kids vary in quality, but Beverly, Eddie, and Henry Bowers seemed to stick the strongest. In the end, it's all about Pennywise. The film nearly entirely rests on someone's ability to portray Pennywise, to carry off the feeling that Pennywise could be many things. We know that the being kills kids, but whether or not it's a pedophile, or how much it toys with the children before finishing them off, that's something we aren't going to find out. When you see that face, you wonder. I also think it takes some balls to actually go through with a film opening where the villain has to kill a child in gruesome fashion. This one did not disappoint in any way. Despite my critiques, most of them are small, but I have a feeling I could feel differently if I gave this a repeat viewing. So, I won't do that for a few years. It is something I'm going to have to keep in mind going forward, there are no real shortage of memorable scenes.

The Lois Lane line, by the way, is properly disgusting. I think one of the goals in the film is to make human villains seem as bad as the supernatural. Mission accomplished with that scene, or with the things Henry was doing. Yikes.

7.5/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Thor: Ragnarok
6.   Logan Lucky
7.   The Beguiled
8.   The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)
9.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
10.   The Lost City of Z
11.   It
12.   First They Killed My Father
13.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
14.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
15.   Okja
16.   Kong: Skull Island
17.   Split
18.   Personal Shopper
19.   Atomic Blonde
20.   The Lego Batman Movie
21.   Megan Leavey
22.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
23.   American Made
24.   Imperial Dreams
25.   Free Fire
26.   Win It All
27.   The Wall
28.   Breathe
29.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
30.   Alone in Berlin
31.   Trespass Against Us
32.   The Mountain Between Us
33.   War Machine
34.   Happy Death Day
35.   Justice League
36.   To the Bone
37.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
38.   Sand Castle
39.   Death Note
40.   The Great Wall
41.   Fist Fight
42.   Sleepless


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

Offline Avid Warehouse Enthusiast

  • Laz
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14,353
  • 0101100101
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #41 on: January 27, 2019, 06:03:02 AM »
I'm in the minority with Buster Scruggs, I guess, because I loved all of it. It may actually be among my favorite Coen Brothers works, actually. The titular short was like a gritty mockery of Tex Avery cartoons with some love toward 50s westerns, and anything featuring Tim Blake Nelson deserves love.

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #42 on: January 27, 2019, 03:13:15 PM »


Stan & Ollie (2018), directed by Jon S. Baird

Perhaps more than any year in terms of awards recognition, 2018 was one where biography movies reigned supreme. One just needs to look at the lack of award nominations for original acting performances to know I'm telling the truth here. In fact, none of the Best Actor nominees performed in an entirely original film. With that in mind, I am very surprised that Steve Coogan was not nominated for his performance in Stan & Ollie. I think his was a performance much better than some of the other nominees, and he would have been totally deserving of winning an award for it. But, such is life, and that's not my grand takeaway from the film. I should admit that I don't really know anything about Laurel and Hardy, or at least I didn't before I saw the film today. The film is very effective in educating its audience while ensuring that people who already know the story are entertained. Stan & Ollie also walks the line between being too sad or too pleasing in a very effective way, and considering what the story entails, it's certainly difficult to do that. While some of Laurel and Hardy's comedy is massively outdated by modern standards, that seemed to not matter as the film went on, and these characters are about as sympathetic as in any in a film all year.

The beginning of our film takes place in 1937, but we'll revisit this scenario at various points in the film. Stan Laurel (Steve Coogan) and Oliver Hardy (John C. Reilly) are the famous comedy duo that everyone at least has name recognition of. In those days, they were some of the most famous people in the country. While making Way Out West, Stan has a blowout argument with studio head Hal Roach (Danny Huston). Stan correctly believes that Roach is not maximizing the global appeal of Laurel and Hardy, not giving them the financial awards they really deserve. Stan and Ollie have separate contracts, though. Ollie is still attached to Roach, while Stan wants to go with Fox and do their own thing. He's quite convinced they can make a lot more money and take care of their respective problems. Ollie is supposed to meet with Fox and sign a contract, but he does not, and this leads to Stan feeling betrayed and bitter. After all, he thought Ollie was going to stay his friend for good, that they'd continue to make movies for years and years. That doesn't happen. Instead, Ollie continues to make movies for Roach and does so with a new comedy partner.

Those scenes happen at various points of the film, but I thought it was essential to lay out the situation prior to the following events. One of the only problems I have with the film is that they didn't do this. Many years later, Stan and Ollie are headed on a trip to revitalize their career, with the intention of gathering funding for a Robin Hood film that Stan is desperate to make for them both. Their trip? They're going to head around Great Britain on a theater tour put together by Bernard Delfont (Rufus Jones), a very shady seeming promoter. I kept waiting for him to screw people over, but that didn't happen. The tour is very grueling, and at the start of it anyway, the audiences aren't so big. Their lodgings are also not the best. Delfont is far more interested in his up and coming British star, he didn't really put much effort into this tour. One example of that is how people in Glasgow thought this was a tour where people were playing Laurel and Hardy, not those two doing so themselves. So, what's the deal and what's the drama with all this? Ida (Nina Arianda) is Stan's wife and Lucille (Shirley Henderson) is Ollie's, they are to join their husbands when the tour gets to London. This creates problem as tensions the two men have with each other comes to the surface, and they still haven't heard back from the producer of their proposed film.

The performances in this film, I think they speak for themselves. They are both very accurate representations of the subjects in terms of their looks, with John C. Reilly wearing a fat suit you have to see to believe. There's a scene where Ollie is in bed with his wife, and he takes up nearly the entire bed. The way this is filmed is fantastic in illustrating this and it's obviously the point. I thought Stan & Ollie was a film that accurately describes the struggle comedians and other entertainers go through when their career is on a downward slide to nothingness. We also are given a presentation of how money is often a deciding factor in these kinds of splits, they just happen due to finances and nothing can be done about it. Both pairings of actors have chemistry here, and if you haven't already figured it out, there are multiple scenes with Ida and Lucille together on their own. This is a strong comedy duo in and of itself. The confrontation between Stan and Ollie is also deeply cutting without being vulgar, an argument befitting of such a good film. The characters are both so good and so interesting.

I said that the scenes of Stan and Ollie in the 1930's are ill-placed, this is not an understatement on my part. I think the underlying tension between the two may have been better if the audience was aware of the entire story before the film got well and truly underway. However, these things are completely overshadowed by the costumes and appearance of John C. Reilly as Oliver Hardy. The makeup job, fat suit, all of that stuff looks incredibly realistic. I also thought the ability of the actors to perform Laurel and Hardy's shtick is quite incredible to me, that isn't exactly an easy thing to do. This could easily have looked very bad and awful, it did not. Also, it should be pointed out that there were lots of scenes of this, in fact nearly the whole movie is full of this stuff. Overall, Stan & Ollie is a film that makes me happy, it seemed to make everyone else happy too. It was touching at the conclusion of it, and if you didn't like this, I don't really know what you're thinking. One may vary on whether or not they think this is a good or great film, but I unapologetically loved this. Not much else to be said.

8.5/10

2018 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Roma
2.   A Star Is Born
3.   First Reformed
4.   The Favourite
5.   Widows
6.   First Man
7.   BlacKkKlansman
8.   Blindspotting
9.   If Beale Street Could Talk
10.   The Sisters Brothers
11.   A Private War
12.   Stan & Ollie
13.   Green Book
14.   Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
15.   Mission: Impossible - Fallout
16.   The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
17.   On My Skin
18.   Private Life
19.   Can You Ever Forgive Me?
20.   Mid90s
21.   Eighth Grade
22.   Sorry to Bother You
23.   Vice
24.   The Old Man & the Gun
25.   Suspiria
26.   Vox Lux
27.   Boy Erased
28.   Bad Times at the El Royale
29.   The Other Side of the Wind
30.   Searching
31.   A Simple Favor
32.   The Hate U Give
33.   Bumblebee
34.   Mary Poppins Returns
35.   Creed II
36.   Hold the Dark
37.   The Land of Steady Habits
38.   Halloween
39.   Mary Queen of Scots
40.   Aquaman
41.   Outlaw King
42.   Overlord
43.   Ben Is Back
44.   Monsters and Men
45.   The Mule
46.   On the Basis of Sex
47.   Bohemian Rhapsody
48.   White Boy Rick 
49.   Papillon
50.   Game Night
51.   Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado
52.   Instant Family
53.   Alpha
54.   The Front Runner
55.   The Predator
56.   Apostle
57.   The Angel
58.   The Commuter
59.   Beautiful Boy
60.   The Nun
61.   Operation Finale
62.   The Equalizer 2
63.   The Spy Who Dumped Me
64.   Bird Box
65.   12 Strong
66.   Venom
67.   Skyscraper
68.   The Meg
69.   Assassination Nation
70.   The Girl in the Spider's Web
71.   The House with a Clock in Its Walls
72.   22 July
73.   Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
74.   The Little Stranger
75.   Tomb Raider
76.   Night School
77.   The 15:17 To Paris
78.   Peppermint
79.   Mile 22
80.   The First Purge
81.   Hunter Killer
82.   Kin
83.   Hell Fest
84.   Proud Mary
85.   Robin Hood
86.   The Happytime Murders
87.   Slender Man


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: 10,488
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #43 on: January 28, 2019, 10:53:29 AM »
I need to see that movie.  I grew up watching old Laurel & Hardy films. 

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #44 on: January 28, 2019, 06:43:33 PM »
I need to see that movie.  I grew up watching old Laurel & Hardy films. 

You'll be stunned by their ability to pull these scenes off then. Doesn't feel inauthentic in the least.


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #45 on: January 28, 2019, 06:43:45 PM »


A United Kingdom (2017), directed by Amma Asante

I'm actually left at a loss for words after watching a A United Kingdom, an overly sentimental look at what became an independent Botswana's first ruling couple. I was hoping for more from this film, but I really should have known better beforehand. I took it upon myself not to look at any reviews, simply went by the expiration date and description, and gave this a shot. This wasn't a bad film, but I'm not sure I should have done this. It feels like I've seen this exact kind of historical film so many times before, and I have more on my list for next month in fact. I may change things up though. It isn't that I can't handle watching these kinds of movies because I could watch them all day. What I need is for a film to bring something extra to the table, and A United Kingdom simply doesn't have that. It's one of those things you know when you're watching something, but the most glaring example of this is that the film has the cinematic sheen of a television show. This is the kind of thing that even when a film is much better than this one, I have a hard time getting over. The other thing that I thought about this story was that it desperately needs the South African boogeyman to present itself in a form of a real character, simply mentioning it or using a British government official didn't effectively pull that off. Want to see how? Read on.

Obviously, A United Kingdom is based on a true story, one regarding the heir to the throne of Bechuanaland (pre-Botswana), Seretse Khama (David Oyelowo) and Ruth Williams Khama (Rosamund Pike), the woman who would go on to marry him. Seretse is in London after World War II, where he meets Ruth for the first time. He goes on to marry her, but the beginning of this film is extremely focused on the problems that come with such a marriage. Obviously, Seretse is black and Ruth is white, but there's more than that, the British government is very concerned about how this will impact their relationship with South Africa. Despite what you might believe, apartheid South Africa still had gold reserves, and ultimately that ruled over human rights concerns. Alistair Canning (Jack Davenport) presents this picture throughout the film, he's the British representative in Southern Africa. South Africa itself is terrified about the prospect of a black king marrying a white woman and how this will inspire their system to be overthrown/prevented. Ruth has her own problems though, those with her father George (Nicholas Lyndhurst), who hates blacks. He threatens to disown her after Seretse's proposal, but she goes through with it anyway.

After Seretse and Ruth marry each other, there are other problems brought into the equation. As you may suspect, the King of Bechuanaland would not actually have absolute power in the country, that role was done by white overseers. Seretse's uncle Tshekedi (Vusi Kunene) is the Regent, handling the duties of the thrown until Seretse is prepared. That day had come. Problem is, Tshekedi is demanding that Seretse divorce Ruth and marry a Bamangwato princess. As you might suspect, Seretse rejects this, but this leads to enormous problems as the British use the situation to drive a wedge between the two men. The British subsequently argue that the marriage is causing unrest in Bechuanaland, and make moves against Seretse to heavily restrict his power. When Seretse discovers that the British are looking into mining the country, he wants to ensure that the resources of the country go into the hands of his people, not into those of the British. The situation, of course, must come to a head. Ruth is called to London at a time when she's finally become close to Seretse's sister Naledi (Terry Pheto). The three of them realize that Seretse needs to go instead of Ruth. Problem is, what happens when the British decide to banish a king from his own country?

I've addressed most of the flaws I found in this film, but the one I didn't say anything about was the way in which the story was told. It's told in a way that, well, is highly simplistic and almost entirely through dialogue and not actions. We also see that people have problems with the ruling situation, but their concerns are entirely sanitized. People died in rioting over Seretse's exile, there is no scene of this in the film at all. The opening of the film that relates to Ruth and Seretse's courtship is also quite bland and cliched. I do think that the film is effective in presenting many aspects of the political situation, but it doesn't do as strong a job in pointing out that the marriage wasn't the sole reason the British were against Seretse's return to the country. Bechuanaland was an important location for the British, another bulwark against potential Communist thought on the continent. It was also rich in resources as this film makes one clear of. I believe Botswana now ranks 30th on the democracy index, it is a prosperous economy by most standards, and isn't a corrupt nation at all. The British wanted to keep some kind of hold on these resources and keep the region close to their vest.

I was more interested in the political aspects of the film than anything else, but I think it's really quite a standard film as a whole. I think it's effective in ensuring that people do understand the problems with colonialism, but I think the film could have gone further in doing so. There are some good scenes showcasing how Clement Attlee (Anton Lesser) got in bed with the South Africans over their gold resources, and another that shows Winston Churchill was a piece of shit like the rest, but I would have liked there to be more to this. I think the film lacked the anguish that happens when couples are separated like this, and I also think there was a great story to be told here if it was done properly. However, obviously I don't think this was done properly, and while there are strong contrasts shown between like in Africa and life in Britain, the film needs a little bit more driving force. Some explanation is required to explain why Churchill would campaign on ending Seretse's exile and change his mind after the election. There's none here. I would have liked something a bit more raw than this turned out to be, I thought A United Kingdom was lacking heart and passion. I hate to say that about a romantic film because of how bad it sounds, but it is what it is.

5.5/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Thor: Ragnarok
6.   Logan Lucky
7.   The Beguiled
8.   The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)
9.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
10.   The Lost City of Z
11.   It
12.   First They Killed My Father
13.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
14.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
15.   Okja
16.   Kong: Skull Island
17.   Split
18.   Personal Shopper
19.   Atomic Blonde
20.   The Lego Batman Movie
21.   Megan Leavey
22.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
23.   American Made
24.   Imperial Dreams
25.   Free Fire
26.   Win It All
27.   The Wall
28.   Breathe
29.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
30.   Alone in Berlin
31.   A United Kingdom
32.   Trespass Against Us
33.   The Mountain Between Us
34.   War Machine
35.   Happy Death Day
36.   Justice League
37.   To the Bone
38.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
39.   Sand Castle
40.   Death Note
41.   The Great Wall
42.   Fist Fight
43.   Sleepless


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #46 on: January 31, 2019, 05:23:26 AM »


Wakefield (2017), directed by Robin Swicord

Does a thought provoking film always have to be good? Wakefield is something that really tests whether or not that's the case, it's a movie that I actually have a strong feeling of distaste for. I know that's also the point. I don't think it's necessary to have a likable character as the lead in a film, but in this particular case it's very frustrating the way things turned out. I think at some point, a lot of people have felt like the lead subject in Wakefield. They've wanted to retreat from the world, but actually doing it is unconscionable, something most people do not want to inflict on their loved ones. Others have good reasons for retreating and decide to cut their family out for good, which is totally reasonable. Some kill themselves to get out of a bad situation, but that isn't what the deal is here. What we have here is someone who wants to remain involved at the periphery of the lives of their family members, but doesn't want to have real relationships with them and would rather they not know he even still exists. This character is so odious, so far beyond the pale, that I can't in good conscience say that this is a good film. I almost hate it and may have derived the incorrect emotions from watching this.

Howard Wakefield (Bryan Cranston) is a successful attorney in New York City, married to Diana (Jennifer Garner) and living with her and their twin daughters Giselle (Ellery Sprayberry) and Taylor (Victoria Bruno) out in the suburbs. On his way home from work, there's a power outage, so he returns home very late at night. A raccoon heads into his detached garage and winds up in the attic, but Howard's able to get that thing the hell out of there. He subsequently decides to look through the window and is able to see perfectly inside the house, where his family is eating dinner. For whatever reason, he decides to ignore calls from his wife and starts getting happy about her distress, but Howard really gets mad when she walks outside and throws his dinner plate into the garbage. In order to avoid fighting, he sits down with the intention of going into the house later, but he falls asleep. The next morning, Howard decides to narrate some of the details of his life. Diana and Howard decided to start flirting with other people in order to add spice to their sex life, but Diana hates it and can't stand Howard's persistent jealousy. Who could? After all, that's what he wanted and now he's whining like a fucking bitch.

This, unfortunately, is not the first time Howard whines like a bitch. When he wakes up that next morning, he believes that Diana will accuse him of having an affair, so he decides to wait for her to leave for work before heading into the house. The problem with that is, she's not going to leave for work for quite a while. When she sees that his car is in the garage, she realizes that Howard didn't leave her, and it's time to call the police to report him missing. Howard feels terrible about this and decides to go inside, but Diana's mom Babs (Beverly D'Angelo) shows up at their house. Howard hates Babs with every part of his soul, he will absolutely not go in that house while she's there. Eventually, everyone leaves and he goes inside, but this is when he has a major breakdown. After he goes inside, he realizes that Diana is carrying on with her routine without him, and he just can't have that. He thinks that his disappearance is a blessing in disguise for her, or that she's relieved, because she probably thinks she married the wrong guy. So Howard, in his infinite wisdom and consistently laughing at his wife's difficulties, decides to head back into the attic, with no intention of ever leaving, while spying on Diana the entire time.

The main flaw in this film is something a good director never would have revealed, and it was so easy not to do it. She just couldn't help herself. There is a scene where one can see that it's possible for any of to have seen Howard if they'd looked at the attic window while walking out of the house, and I think that's completely inexcusable. We are talking about Howard being in that attic for around 9 or 10 months without getting busted by any family members, that doesn't hold up under any level of scrutiny. I said something earlier about how I got the incorrect emotions from this film, and what I meant was that I found some glee in seeing Howard push the self-destruct button on his own life and effectively turn himself into a loser bum. There's also some joy in everyone being able to move on the longer that Howard stays gone, but this is something I also think is unrealistic unless it really was the case that Howard was a black cloud on their life as he seems to believe. This could also be considered a portrait of someone having a nervous breakdown, which he clearly was. I just find some deep disconnect with the reality of what would happen and what did happen in this film.

There's certainly some artistic merit to the film, I would never argue otherwise. In fact, it's the only thing keeping me from saying this was outright bad. I did have a ton of interest in seeing a story about someone who withdrew from life to this extent, but I think the story is ultimately too much and that anyone besides Cranston would not have been able to pull off the weight of this role. The problem is that his character is scum to the degree that only murdering or raping characters have been able to feel as low as, I had no sympathy for him at all. The character also has thoughts that are frankly insane, and all of these are narrated to the audience. There's a scene where Jennifer Garner has pretty much no clothes on and all he can manage to do is complain about her outfit. What the fuck? I just can't get behind this kind of character at all, this is super bizarre and I hated this character beyond all rationality. Towards the end of the film, once he decided to snap out of it, I did feel a bit bad for him. Problem is, I remembered that he abandoned his children and had only had thoughts about them a grand total of one time, and he enjoyed seeing them go through pain at the beginning of his disappearance. Fuck this guy.

5/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Thor: Ragnarok
6.   Logan Lucky
7.   The Beguiled
8.   The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)
9.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
10.   The Lost City of Z
11.   It
12.   First They Killed My Father
13.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
14.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
15.   Okja
16.   Kong: Skull Island
17.   Split
18.   Personal Shopper
19.   Atomic Blonde
20.   The Lego Batman Movie
21.   Megan Leavey
22.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
23.   American Made
24.   Imperial Dreams
25.   Free Fire
26.   Win It All
27.   The Wall
28.   Breathe
29.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
30.   Alone in Berlin
31.   A United Kingdom
32.   Trespass Against Us
33.   The Mountain Between Us
34.   War Machine
35.   Happy Death Day
36.   Justice League
37.   To the Bone
38.   Wakefield
39.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
40.   Sand Castle
41.   Death Note
42.   The Great Wall
43.   Fist Fight
44.   Sleepless


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #47 on: February 02, 2019, 06:07:55 PM »


CHiPs (2017), directed by Dax Shepard

I think there are two things I should get out of the way as it relates to CHiPs, a reboot movie clearly intending to launch a franchise. The first of those things is a question rather than anything else. Is it terrible to relaunch something that was never that good in the first place? I don't understand the outrage from those who thought this shit on a horrible television series, and that's truly what it was. Maybe it's that this continued the CHiPs tradition when people were hoping for something more? I don't know. One of the reasons I watched CHiPs tonight was because I heard someone the other day say that they ran into Erik Estrada, and that sounded like a good enough reason to me. The other problem with the film is that I can't stand Dax Shepard. This is probably related to the fact that my dad watched Let's Go to Prison no less than ten times and would regularly rewind the movie to go back and laugh at his favorite parts. So, yeah. That's where I'm at here. I also have absolutely no idea how he was able to land a gig directing a studio comedy like this one. I'm not alone in thinking he's done nothing to deserve that, right? It turned out that in the end, Warner Bros. got exactly what they deserved.

Shepard's film has a very different story than what CHiPs was in the first place, which could be part of the problem to begin with. FBI Agent Castillo (Michael Pena) is undercover with a crew of bank robbers as their getaway driver, helping to evade police in Miami. He changes vehicles and torches the car they were in to begin with, then he reveals that he's an undercover agent and helps the FBI arrest these guys. While that's going on, a former X-Games motorcycle guy named Jon Baker (Dax Shepard) has joined the CHP Academy. He really wants to be in our highway patrol because his marriage to Karen (Kristen Bell) has all but dissolved, with his glory days long gone it has been very difficult to keep his wife's interest. Jon fails nearly all the tests, but he can ride a motorcycle better than everyone else, and that leads to him being graduated on probation. He has to be a good officer in order to keep his job, or he's going to get canned. These scenes happen in around the same amount of time that it would have taken anyone to read the first two paragraphs, which sets the tone for a movie that is paced too quickly. I should also mention that Castillo is a sex addict and Baker is a pill popper.

Now, our impetus for the two officers coming together is that there's dirty shit going on in the California Highway Patrol. An armored van has been attacked by motorcycle riders, and their leader goes by the call name of "LT" (Vincent D'Onofrio, and if you can't instantly tell you're an idiot). Anyway, LT accuses the armored guard and a helicopter pilot named TJ of stealing from him, and they're boyfriends. TJ decides that given the choice of LT killing his boyfriend or TJ killing himself, TJ will do the deed. So, TJ jumps from his helicopter to his death. Now, Castillo is informed by his boss Peterson (Isiah Whitlock Jr.) that he's going to go into a new job, working as a CHP officer with a cover name of Francis Llewellyn Poncherello, or as everyone knows that name, Ponch. Ponch is supposed to go in and claim that he was transferred from Redding, and his new partner is going to be the village idiot, you guessed it (if you even care), the new guy Baker. We are subsequently introduced to numerous characters, including officers Lindsey Taylor (Jessica McNamee), Ava Perez (Rosa Salazar), Lt. Raymond Kurtz (Vincent D'Onofrio), the CHP Captain Jane Lindel (Jane Kaczmarek), and Castillo's supervising FBI officer, Clay Allen (Adam Brody). Castillo and Clay have some history, at the beginning of the film Castillo shot Clay on accident.

Movies that rely on gay panic to this extent can very rarely be good, but the moment I knew this wasn't going to be an exception to the rule was when I looked at my notepad and remembered that the scenes that were filmed in "Miami" were really filmed here at the port. I could tell instantly and I don't know why anyone would attempt to pass that off as the bridges are too obviously an LA landmark. More to the point of why this doesn't work, even though I enjoyed how much the film traversed across Los Angeles, very few of the gags in CHiPs land. The ones that do are more of the variety that is hard to even believe those things are being filmed, the bathtub gag being the worst of those. I'll save you guys the details on that one, and if you aren't interested in seeing how bad a movie can really be, you shouldn't watch this. One of the series of jokes that did land was a fight through the house of the widow whose husband killed himself. I was waiting for that to happen because Shepard took the creative decision of ensuring the audience would know that would happen, and even though I hated that part, the fight was very good. There's also a few funny things with Baker being a willfully blind cuck, and I can't help myself when it comes to that stuff. I think it's amusing. The film is also horrendously cast with multiple actresses given roles beneath their talents. One example of this is the way Rosa Salazar moved on to a big tentpole film like Alita: Battle Angel. That one may not be so good either, but surely it's better than this?

Unfortunately, or perhaps rather fortunately as I would rather there not be a series of these movies, this was quite terrible. Terrible enough in fact that there's no way there could ever be a sequel. The changes from the television show are all unanimously not good. I didn't understand why it was decided for Ponch to become an FBI agent, or why he'd tell Baker almost instantly about his real job, but anyway, that doesn't really matter to me. None of this did. I wanted to get this bad movie out of the way because I had a few more this month, but I do think CHiPs achieved its goals. I assume everyone in it got paid somewhat nicely, and this was a motorcycle chase movie. Motorcycle chase movies can really only be so bad, and a lot of these chases were quite good even though the end results of them were completely predictable. This is way too goofy, and I didn't think there would be such prolonged discussion of analingus in this film, but I guess I should have known better. There were many reasons this had bad reviews, but I feel an incessant need to find these things out for myself. I think there's an increasingly smaller market for films like this one, though. Nothing in it is truly unique, and even though I'm always down for motorcycle chases, I don't know what to think of this. It's a movie directed with no flair or anything at all. The comedy genre is basically dead and CHiPs is just another example of that.

If anyone cares about the list placement of this, I'll justify it. Recoiling at bad jokes and laughing a few times is a hell of a lot better than being unable to pay attention due to how boring a film is, or having a lead character who I hated so badly I wanted to see them die for the entirety of the story.

3.5/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Thor: Ragnarok
6.   Logan Lucky
7.   The Beguiled
8.   The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)
9.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
10.   The Lost City of Z
11.   It
12.   First They Killed My Father
13.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
14.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
15.   Okja
16.   Kong: Skull Island
17.   Split
18.   Personal Shopper
19.   Atomic Blonde
20.   The Lego Batman Movie
21.   Megan Leavey
22.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
23.   American Made
24.   Imperial Dreams
25.   Free Fire
26.   Win It All
27.   The Wall
28.   Breathe
29.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
30.   Alone in Berlin
31.   A United Kingdom
32.   Trespass Against Us
33.   The Mountain Between Us
34.   War Machine
35.   Happy Death Day
36.   Justice League
37.   To the Bone
38.   Wakefield
39.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
40.   Sand Castle
41.   CHiPs
42.   Death Note
43.   The Great Wall
44.   Fist Fight
45.   Sleepless


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #48 on: February 03, 2019, 06:31:08 PM »


Chuck (2017), directed by Philippe Falardeau

I think almost everyone in this country is at the least somewhat aware of Chuck Wepner, right? Chuck should have done a lot more to capitalize on this, but instead it appears that not very many people were aware of this film at all. You could barely call this film's release in theaters a real release. I didn't even know this existed until a few months ago, even though Chuck boasts some actors and actresses that I really enjoy. That's just a bad promotional strategy. Part of the other problem is that the film is only merely quite good. This is one of my favorite stories, though, and it's one that refuses to sanitize its content for anyone. Chuck Wepner had a hard life, he fucked up, and his local celebrity status did absolutely nothing to help him at all. The cast of Chuck is slightly too large, and there's some inconsistency with the story in terms of how characters fade in and out, but perhaps this is all quite truthful. I am getting a little tired of these kinds of biographies, which is a problem considering how much of the film landscape is littered with them, but I did enjoy this one. Of course, a biography about Chuck Wepner is a hell of a lot different than one of someone whose life we know more about. In the case of Wepner, we only know about 15 rounds against Muhammad Ali, and the rest is somewhat of a secret. At least until now.

Chuck is the story of Chuck Wepner (Liev Schreiber), a boxer best known for fighting Muhammad Ali (Pooch Hall) in Cleveland. Chuck was never a world champion, but he was tough as fuck. You don't get a nickname like the "Bayonne Bleeder" unless you can take some huge punishment and brawl. However, this story is about before and after the fight, with some huge emphasis placed on afterwards. Chuck is married to Phyllis (Elisabeth Moss), and they have a daughter. The problem is that Chuck can't keep it in his pants, and this gets a lot worse the more famous he becomes. Chuck's day job is one as an alcohol salesman, which puts him in contact with some strange people, and he likes to have fun. Unfortunately, one of the times he's having fun, Phyllis sees what's going on and decides to move out of the house with their daughter. Chuck is seemingly undeterred in his hustle, and it turns out that he's top ten in the world after years of club fighting. His manager Al (Ron Perlman) has a proposal from Don King, who wants a racial war kind of fight as Don King always really wanted. After the Rumble in the Jungle, Chuck will get a shot at the winner. Sounds great, right?

Chuck subsequently heads off to a training camp in the Catskills, the first time he's ever done that and the first time he says he's done anything like a real professional. Chuck narrates this film of course, because otherwise a lot of the events in it wouldn't make sense. I was reminded of Liev Schreiber's time on HBO boxing, narrating their 24/7 programs, it's a pleasant memory. Anyway, Chuck and Ali finally have their press conference showdown, this turns into a race thing, and what's done is done. However, the point of this film isn't the Ali fight, it's the downfall that came afterward. Chuck found some real positives in his fight with Ali, even though he came away battered and bruised. He was a real celebrity in New Jersey now. Of course, as you might suspect, overnight celebrities always do bad shit. There's drugs, and oh yeah, there's women too. It turns out that he'd entirely forgotten about his brother Donny (Michael Rapaport) for years, his best friend John (Jim Gaffigan) starts hanging around again too, and that he's interested in a bartender named Linda (Naomi Watts). Marriage will certainly not deter this man in his quest to destroy his life.

This is a slightly unique story in that I didn't find any redemption in the presentation of Wepner's life, and perhaps that's what I appreciated most here. Instead, there's an evaluation of the things that lead someone to ruin themselves after one moment of fame. There's not much to say about someone going on cocaine binges, womanizing, or thinking they're too big to be around other people. All of this applied to Chuck Wepner as the film presents it. I think to this end, Liev Schreiber was great casting. I would also like to see him play Jake Roberts at some point, not that I think that's going to happen, but the likeness when he grows out a handlebar mustache is uncanny. I think Chuck does make some mistakes in covering too long a time span in too short a film, but there are good performances from everyone throughout the film. Elisabeth Moss has one good series of lines when she catches Chuck about to start cheating on her, I thought this was one of the best parts of the film. Another is a scene where Wepner is watching the Academy Awards all by himself in hopes that his story portrayed in Rocky would win, and even though he celebrates he finds out that nobody cared.

There aren't enough stories about what happens to those who are unable to handle even the most minor of fame, and trust me, this certainly was minor fame. Getting destroyed by Ali shouldn't have made anyone super famous, but Chuck seemed to think that it did and that everyone should have cared about him. He was wrong. I think the weaknesses of the film lie in the fact that the plot does meander, if you can even call it a plot. Wepner is also a relatively minor subject, and if you don't care about prizefighting, you may not care whatsoever about this film. Ultimately, this is a film that I would consider to be a good ride at best, possibly boring if you don't care about the subject, but I think everyone can say there are strong performances here. Of course, this is yet another modern boxing film without much boxing in it. That presents some problems as well, I don't really care for that. The point of Chuck was that Chuck had some charisma and he ruined his life. The director does fall a bit in love with his subject, but I thought this film was similar to The Wrestler. When someone's past their prime, thinks they're famous, and there's nobody to go home to, some bad shit is going to happen. There are very few exceptions to this in reality, and I was glad that the film didn't pull any punches. Falardeau was clear to show that Chuck Wepner wound up in prison, many films would not, and I appreciated that.

7/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Thor: Ragnarok
6.   Logan Lucky
7.   The Beguiled
8.   The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)
9.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
10.   The Lost City of Z
11.   It
12.   First They Killed My Father
13.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
14.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
15.   Okja
16.   Kong: Skull Island
17.   Split
18.   Personal Shopper
19.   Chuck
20.   Atomic Blonde
21.   The Lego Batman Movie
22.   Megan Leavey
23.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
24.   American Made
25.   Imperial Dreams
26.   Free Fire
27.   Win It All
28.   The Wall
29.   Breathe
30.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
31.   Alone in Berlin
32.   A United Kingdom
33.   Trespass Against Us
34.   The Mountain Between Us
35.   War Machine
36.   Happy Death Day
37.   Justice League
38.   To the Bone
39.   Wakefield
40.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
41.   Sand Castle
42.   CHiPs
43.   Death Note
44.   The Great Wall
45.   Fist Fight
46.   Sleepless


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

Offline Firmino of the 909

  • Admin
  • Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 32,961
  • 909
Re: In Which I Review Movies 2019
« Reply #49 on: February 05, 2019, 06:23:19 PM »


Wilson (2017), directed by Craig Johnson

I didn't initially know what to make of Wilson, because when I first ran a search to see if this got positive reviews, there were a fair amount of positive and negative ones. I also looked at the cast, and I saw a fair amount of interesting actors who could make for a good film. I don't want to write a long list or anything like that, but there's quite a few. I did see that Wilson was an adaptation of a graphic novel, one which I actually won't look into to see if it was faithful or not. I don't think it cares. My take on the film is that it whiffs massively, I didn't laugh hard for about 38 minutes. This was a film that I'm surprised was ever made, and even though the roles were perfectly cast, it didn't resonate with me at all. How am I going to fill out a review for a short, not good movie that left me without too many thoughts? I haven't quite figured that out yet. I think Wilson was desperate to play on Woody Harrelson's celebrity and likability to create an asshole character...and it just didn't work at all. There are things about Wilson that I liked, and in some ways this is a good concept, but I didn't like it. It's fair to say Woody Harrelson should not be doing the same kinds of comedy gags that Clint Eastwood does about our culture.

Wilson (Woody Harrelson), as I already alluded to, is a man that seems to think there are lots of things wrong with what the world has become and none of them are his fault. He hates comptuers and all that stuff, like you'd expect from one of those kinds of characters. The anti-millennial shit comments are endless from this man and none of the gags are amusing, so it's fair to say that I never would have had a fondness for this character like I did Clint Eastwood's in The Mule. Wilson is an older white guy who thinks everything's wrong with the country, and that's how we got Trump, so yeah. There's not a hell of a lot I can say about this. We're introduced to him at a point where lots of things are leaving his life, and his friends are moving off to Missouri for whatever reason. He also routinely drops his dog off with a sitter, Shelly (Judy Greer). Surprisingly he doesn't try to hit on her, and instead he shoots his sights far lower. Ugly lady coming out of the pet store? Of course, that's Wilson's kind of thing. His way of getting her phone number is to try to rear end her, so this is the kind of guy that isn't exactly mentally balanced on any wavelength at all.

One day, after immense life failures, Wilson decides that he wants to contact his ex-wife who he hasn't seen in a very long time. Her name is Pippi (Laura Dern), and Wilson thinks all kinds of disgusting bad shit about her. I don't know if it's true and that isn't the point of the film. It turns out that they take a liking to each other again, and Wilson talks about an abortion that Pippi once had. She didn't really have it. Instead, their daughter was put up for adoption and is now 17 years old, she's named Claire (Isabella Amara). I don't see a good way to cut to the chase from here, but I'll do my best. Wilson essentially forces Pippi to go with him to the Mall of America to surprise Claire, and after many conversations, it turns out that Claire is not living her best life. She's bullied constantly, thinks that nobody cares about her, and she doesn't have any friends. Are Wilson and Pippi good enough influences to become her friends? The answer is obvious, of course they aren't.

The humor is hit or miss, but I could see someone really enjoying how dark Woody's material is here. It's the kind of movie that I can't ever recommend, but who knows? The thing is, speaking only for myself, I thought this was terrible and painful. It wasn't only the sketches, but the entire concept of the movie grated on me so badly. I'm usually not hyper critical of comedies, I just want to laugh. I didn't laugh at all though! This is supposed to be an examination of Wilson's life, but there's no explanation of his job situation or how he can afford to do anything at all. Even the scenes with Cheryl Hines and Margo Martindale don't bring anything to the table. This turns into a family comedy at some point, then it's a prison movie, and I just hated this shit, I really did. The prison movie line isn't a joke either, but I don't want to say how that happens. Wilson is a complete mess, I'm considering cutting things short here before typing another paragraph. It is genuinely that bad, but some people loved it. I am quite convinced that nothing could have made me like this, I hated it almost immediately. Wilson is the kind of guy who would walk up to you at a urinal and start talking to you, then the film actually shows him doing that, and I just couldn't handle it at all.

It isn't that Woody Harrelson and Laura Dern give bad performances, the problem is that they are unable to transform the material into something cohesive. The director was also working against them in this way, there's nothing tying most of these scenes together. It's presented like an episode of Always Sunny with none of the same charm? I don't really know how to describe a movie where it seems to me that everything falls apart. I found no value in Wilson's redemption as he was such an enormous piece of trash before that point, and I'm kind of over those redemption stories to begin with. The movie is goofy, but that's really all it is. What it should be is an examination of why people with that kind of attitude fail in life, but we didn't get that. As a whole, I'm giving this one a full burial job, I have never seen anything with a cast I liked so much that I hated as much as this. This is comedy gone bad, the director should be banished too. I didn't like A SINGLE SCENE and hated this more than Fist Fight, that says it all.

3/10

2017 Films Ranked


Spoiler: show

1.   Dunkirk
2.   Get Out
3.   Logan
4.   Wonder Woman
5.   Thor: Ragnarok
6.   Logan Lucky
7.   The Beguiled
8.   The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)
9.   Star Wars: The Last Jedi
10.   The Lost City of Z
11.   It
12.   First They Killed My Father
13.   Spider-Man: Homecoming
14.   I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
15.   Okja
16.   Kong: Skull Island
17.   Split
18.   Personal Shopper
19.   Chuck
20.   Atomic Blonde
21.   The Lego Batman Movie
22.   Megan Leavey
23.   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
24.   American Made
25.   Imperial Dreams
26.   Free Fire
27.   Win It All
28.   The Wall
29.   Breathe
30.   The Man Who Invented Christmas
31.   Alone in Berlin
32.   A United Kingdom
33.   Trespass Against Us
34.   The Mountain Between Us
35.   War Machine
36.   Happy Death Day
37.   Justice League
38.   To the Bone
39.   Wakefield
40.   The Hitman's Bodyguard
41.   Sand Castle
42.   CHiPs
43.   Death Note
44.   The Great Wall
45.   Fist Fight
46.   Wilson
47.   Sleepless



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