Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 9:09:14 GMT -5
Ghost in the shell...and yes I feel like a complete tool for knowing that.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 21, 2017 11:16:15 GMT -5
Ghost in the shell...and yes I feel like a complete tool for knowing that. You are a complete tool, but not for recognizing a scene from one of the absolute best classic animes of all time.
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on May 21, 2017 20:21:04 GMT -5
I almost banned floyd.
|
|
|
Post by ToNoAvail on May 21, 2017 21:32:09 GMT -5
That would have been a hughmungus mistake.
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on May 21, 2017 21:37:10 GMT -5
That would have been a hughmungus mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 23, 2017 15:10:26 GMT -5
GoG II - 8 of 10.
Well crafted, well paced, well edited filler, but that's kind of the secret to their success. Not a ton of plot points, not an overly complex story line, but the character development and writing is just tops in the hero genre right now, tied together with eye candy and a nostalgic/fun soundtrack. They've bottled lightning. I have no emotional attachment to these characters, didn't read it growing up, don't even particularly enjoy this universe, and it's an EASY 8 out of 10 even with a "filler" sequel setting up the Thanos showdown.
|
|
|
Post by MMAJim on May 23, 2017 15:54:21 GMT -5
x2 GoG II - 8 of 10.
I concur. My main downgrade was generally that they even tried to fully develop the plot. I thought the parental lineage angle was somewhat amusing at times, but I didn't ever feel like I wanted to see that plot element resolved. Filler to a GoG III and some sort of Avengers interaction in the Infinity War. I honestly thought a moment about how much shit I would have given you if you told me 5-10 years ago I would actually be a little moved by character played by WWE's Batista in a movie. The Drax character is great, and his moments of reverence fit his character (film version anyway, not a comic guy)
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on May 23, 2017 17:23:59 GMT -5
I'd give it a 7 or 7.5/10.
For me, this felt like it should have been the original, in a lot of ways, and the original should have been the sequel. My reasoning for that is that we're getting so much closer to the Infinity War period, and they've hardly devoted ANY time to setting up the main villain of the whole fucking universe (for these 3 phases, anyway). This didn't even have any real references to the Infinity Stones.
I have my doubts that they'll be able to successfully develop a believable supervillain and deal with the stones, gauntlet etc. in a film (or two, depending on what they do with Avengers 4). I guess I shouldn't be doubting them, given what they've accomplished, but I'm a bit worried.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on May 24, 2017 4:43:19 GMT -5
Idiot's delight (1939)
Clarke Gable plays a sleazy showman/ street hustler. All my life I wondered how huge eared, dumb looking Clarke Gable was ever considered to be so overwhelmingly handsome. Spend 10 minutes watching any Gable film, however, and it's easy to see. There has never been another male lead to equal him in terms of pure sexual power. Take Magnum PI, multiply by Captain Kirk and add some McGonahey and all the coolness of Han SoloHe truly was the cock of the walk.
This scene right here cemented my opinion of LaLa Land as the suck. Gable wasn't a song and dance man, but he moves in this scene with such incredible smoothness... In contrast to Gosling and Stone in LLL, who were both very wooden and looked to me like they were too lazy and stuck on themselves to accept coaching. A real shame i couldn't find a clip with the same resolution as on TCMHD, as I have watched this scene around 50 times, studying each hottie in the background individually, and Gable too. God damn I love that man.
At any rate, this is an interesting little movie, released in 1939 when WWII was shaping up, set partially in Europe, but Hollywood wasn't sure who the bad guys were yet (Hitler and Stalin still buddies), so they just made up entirely fictitious countries called "Estonia" and "Luxembourg." Just kidding, I don't remember what the made up names were.
I'll give this movie an 8. Gable is a 10, as always, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 7:13:56 GMT -5
That did not happen in the ScaJo classic... Besides, I'm not Asian.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 26, 2017 0:56:02 GMT -5
Alien: Covenant - 7.25 of 10.
Yeah, not great. Walking away my primary emotion was disappointment.
I walked in with some baggage. Alien is one of my top 3-5 sci fi films of all time, but it's a franchise that's lost it's way with a confusing and at times corny lineage of sequels and spin-offs, such as the AvP series. Prometheus was to be the grand reinvention of the narrative but, as with most fans, that left me feeling bitter-sweet, yet Alien: Covenant was supposed to remedy all that.
Well, it didn't.
It was considerably worse than Prometheus. Less imaginative. Less original. Less appropriately focused. And it repeats all of the same mistakes of Prometheus. Glossing over fabulously wondrous plot points like the fate of Shaw, the mad scientist's lab, the culture of the Engineers and their home world, all while lingering on meaningless dribble like the personal religious affiliation of a given crew member. We get the same stupid human tricks: Irrational actions of crew members. Posing more questions than it answers, and delivering some flawed or even contradictory answers when it does. No having seen both and viewing them as one continuous story, which they are, I'd easily identify "inappropriate focus" as the primary problem with both films. In Covenant, two MASSIVE plot points are casually glossed over and then never referenced again, but we spend considerable screen time crow-barring someone's irrelevant religious beliefs back into the plot for some weird reason, only to watch them die and none of it matter whatsoever. Whether or not Ridley is making these decisions or the writers or the studio, it's a ridiculous and repeated case of burying the lead and focusing on silly, ancillary bling.
So why is it a 7.25?
As a stand-alone film, not in context of the franchise, it's pretty good. If you'd lived under a rock for the past few decades and had no clue what you were walking into, I'll wager you'd rate this an 8-of-10. It's pretty, it's tense, it's weird, and it's bloody. It has flashes of brilliance. There are some absolutely incredible visuals at times, little teases of this larger, bizarre, advanced world, glimpses of deviant madness and monstrosity, flickers of what could have been a landmark sci-fi horror classic. Fassbender and McBride are really solid. The CGI is good. More of Ridley's famous world-building. The creatures look morbid and sexual and violent. And everything dies. 99% of everything you see in this film is dead, dying, or about to die, and the ending pulls no punches -- dark AF. But it's all mishandled, rushed in the wrong spots, lost in the chaos of what ends up being more-or-less a standard sci-fi gore and jump scare flick. And in the end, you can't remove context from a 40-year-old franchise. Too much mileage. And a lot of this felt recycled in that context. And not an effective recycle like the nostalgia of The Force Awakens, but like a lazy recycling like an old man who is out of ideas but still likes making monster movies. I would still rank this above Aliens and Alien: Resurrection, but well behind Alien, Prometheus, and maybe even Alien 3 with the black dude from Roc. So as the series goes, this is middle of the pack, but with the massive plot points being handled here and the obvious budget and technology at their disposal, they under-delivered and that's all there is to it.
I will say one interesting thing that stuck in my head watching Covenant, which is almost entirely centered around androids . . . Alien is Balderunner in Space. Bladerunner is Alien on Earth. A massive theme in Ridley's work is basically . . . broken robots who kill their creators and see themselves as superior beings.
Full Series Rating:
Alien - 9 of 10. Aliens - 6.5 of 10. Alien 3 - 7 of 10. Alien: Resurrection - 6.5 of 10. Prometheus - 8 of 10. Alien: Covenant 7.25 of 10.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 30, 2017 13:16:59 GMT -5
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword - 8 of 10.
Shocker. I hate Charlie Hunnam. He's a blue collar Gosling. I'm physically holding in vomit. But Guy Ritchie is good. It's visual porn from start to finish. The pace is crisp. The soundtrack is great. The style and narrative are really solid. Good quality casting everywhere except the mage (female lead). A few small editing errors bugged me, but overall a really fun riff on the classic Camelot tale. Several "Hooligans" and "Game of Thrones" cameos. A lot of the same flashy street lingo and attitude from vintage Guy Ritchie flicks like "Snatch", but kept in check enough where it doesn't overpower the period piece aspect. I wasn't just blown away, but I was interested start to finish and would watch it again, and genuinely enjoyed some of the cinematography and style of this film. I'm fairly perplexed as to why this has been a box office flop, other than millennials just don't give a fuck about King Arthur and these films never seem to do well. Ask Clive Owen.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on May 30, 2017 17:24:24 GMT -5
I thought the Clive Owen King Arthur film was actually a pretty good time.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 30, 2017 23:55:16 GMT -5
I thought the Clive Owen King Arthur film was actually a pretty good time. It wasn't bad. Got into some historic aspects of warring regions of that time. One of the more realistic feeling adaptations of the story. Well done. Massive flop. These just aren't marketable anymore, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 31, 2017 10:02:13 GMT -5
Without getting into spoilers, I read a review of Alien: Covenant last night that was just hard to take . . . because it was scathing, insightful, and very convincing. Worse, it focused less on the Xs and Os of the film and more on the larger structural problems and patterns we've seen in back-to-back films now. Weak character development, dialogue, and logic. A steadily waning grasp on what fans want to see. Inability to appropriately edit a film to preserve continuity, logic, and context. Inability to focus on core aspects of the narrative. Killing off main characters off screen and glossing over central plot developments. I mean . . . you lay it all out and combine it with bad word-of-mouth and a poor box office showing . . . the writing is on the wall. Ridley has to go, or they're gonna put this franchise on ice for another 15 years, back into the series hypersleep we just crawled out of.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on May 31, 2017 10:21:03 GMT -5
Or do they beg Neil Blomkamp to come back and put his idea into production? I could see it happening, if Ridley backs off.
Personally, I'd rather that didn't happen, as I like a bad Scott film more than I like a good Blomkamp one. I'll take Prometheus over District 9 any day. Fight me. (I haven't seen Covenant yet...)
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 31, 2017 10:38:35 GMT -5
The studio is in a tough spot. They're not fans; they're a business. And when you drop $100 mill on a production and then make $140 mill back, production gets skiddish. This type of slump in Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection is what got us a 10 year hiatus from the series in the first place. At a certain point you have to ask yourself: is Ridley still the right guy for the job? Or is he a 70 year old man who is just repeating himself at this point, less convincingly I might add.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on May 31, 2017 11:50:26 GMT -5
I think the desire to keep series going in a world where the MCU exists is just overwhelmingly strong for the studios. Look at Terminator, where the last movie made Prometheus look like an Academy award winner for best film, yet they're still proceeding with the franchise.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 31, 2017 12:45:02 GMT -5
LOL. Fair point.
My hope would be that Ridley can muster whatever creative juices remain within and put together one final coups de gras bridging Covenant to Alien and tying the whole thing in with the Bladerunner universe, in some epic final offering from a storied director.
|
|
|
Post by Premier on May 31, 2017 15:22:32 GMT -5
Watched about 30 minutes of that Brad Pitt movie on Netflix. No review yet, but not in a hurry to watch the rest. Anyone seen it?
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Jun 1, 2017 4:50:59 GMT -5
I'm frankly shocked that nobody wants to talk Gable
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Jun 1, 2017 5:08:01 GMT -5
I'm frankly shocked that nobody wants to talk Gable One of the best american freestyle wrestler.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Jun 1, 2017 14:40:53 GMT -5
I'm frankly shocked that nobody wants to talk Gable One of the best american freestyle wrestler. He was from Ohio, no? So was Clark I'll take it. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Jun 1, 2017 20:20:19 GMT -5
One of the best american freestyle wrestler. He was from Ohio, no? So was Clark I'll take it. Thanks Iowa. And Clark Gable without the stache looked like a creepy random can.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 21:20:14 GMT -5
Logan
7/10
Not as good as I thought it would be given the hype. The R rating didn't really do anything but allow f bombs and gratuitous violence. Didn't like the same old story of Wolverine being the reluctant hero blah blah blah. Well paced and some good action scenes but it was the same old generic formula with a R rating. I think I liked the second one better minus the ending.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jun 4, 2017 1:00:16 GMT -5
Logan - 8 of 10.
It worked for me on several levels, and if it had a few minor changes, it could have been a 9. Less kids, or at least older kids, and a few tweaks to the goon squad, and we've got a 9 of 10 on our hands. I don't need Bad News Mutants growing grass on my face ruining what has otherwise been a refreshing, dark departure from the spandex and superpowers franchise up until now. This thing got real, real fast, and stayed there, and I loved it. Real life is depressing and painful and fucked up and real violence is nasty and shocking and primal and people get old and sick and crazy and dead, and this motherfucker got right in your face and held up a mirror. Huge change of tone from previous installments.
|
|
|
Post by mmaphreak on Jun 4, 2017 15:20:58 GMT -5
Logan - 8 of 10. It worked for me on several levels, and if it had a few minor changes, it could have been a 9. Less kids, or at least older kids, and a few tweaks to the goon squad, and we've got a 9 of 10 on our hands. I don't need Bad News Mutants growing grass on my face ruining what has otherwise been a refreshing, dark departure from the spandex and superpowers franchise up until now. This thing got real, real fast, and stayed there, and I loved it. Real life is depressing and painful and fucked up and real violence is nasty and shocking and primal and people get old and sick and crazy and dead, and this motherfucker got right in your face and held up a mirror. Huge change of tone from previous installments. fucking poetry...
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jun 4, 2017 17:24:54 GMT -5
The Keepers - 9 of 10.
This is another series in the Making a Murderer tradition, except the "victim" is vastly more sympathetic and blameless and the cover-up is, believe it or not, actually more audacious and far-reaching. You get about 3 episodes into this and it's just jaw dropping, infuriating, disgusting, depraved bullshit that makes you want to puke and start a fist fight.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jun 8, 2017 23:32:40 GMT -5
Wonder Woman - 7.25 of 10.
Man, hurts to say that, but gotta call 'em straight. I'm a huge DC homer. Always preferred this universe to Marvel. Really want the JL stuff to be epic, but this just didn't do it for me. Granted, this is probably one of the stronger offerings in the DC universe, but for me it just pulled too many punches, almost to the point it felt borrowed, like some Thor/Captain America hybrid trying to steal the Marvel mojo. Sure, it works, it's proven, but I want to see DC cut its own path. Daring, risky, fresh . . . not this mash-up of the out of place Thor in the city who doesn't understand pants or cars (Wonder woman in London) and then the Captain America war hero bit (Wonder Woman in . . . the same war?). That's pure Marvel and I didn't care for any of it. You're Australian. Be Australian. The big bad was a bit predictable as well, and I didn't care for it, either. Are you my math professor or are you Satan? Because you need to pick one. What did work was the back story, Diana's youth, and the Amazon culture, as well as some of the fun origin bits revealed about who she really is (not really an Amazon, strictly speaking). Wanted more of this, maybe an entire film of this, and less of the contrived platonic 1920s era love angle with hunky Chris Pratt.
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Jun 8, 2017 23:54:54 GMT -5
Wonder Woman - 7.25 of 10. Man, hurts to say that, but gotta call 'em straight. Granted, this is probably one of the stronger offerings in the DC universe, but for me it just pulled too many punches, almost to the point it felt borrowed, like some Thor/Captain America hybrid trying to steal the Marvel mojo. It works, it's proven, but I want to see DC cut its own path. Daring, risky, fresh . . . not this mash-up of the out of place Thor in the city who doesn't understand pants or cars (Wonder woman in London) and then the Captain America war hero bit (Wonder Woman in . . . the same war?). That's pure Marvel and I didn't care for any of it. Be YOU. The big bad was a bit predictable as well, and I didn't care for it, either. What did work was the back story, Diana's youth, and the Amazon culture, as well as some of the fun origin bits revealed about who she really is (not really an Amazon, strictly speaking). Wanted more of this, maybe an entire film of this, and less of the contrived platonic love angle with hunky Chris Pratt. I thought WW was fighting in WW1?
|
|