Discuss and rate the last movie you watched

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT
 

Black Panther.

So I enjoyed the film for what it was, but felt it was also a bit of a missed oppurtunity. As much as Wakanda was important to the film, it felt like we learned very little of substance about it. Do they have a legal system? A Constitution? A series of tradiations everyone adheres to until they feel like they don't have to? I have no clue even after the credit rolled. It's a nation that has no real world counterpart and yet I'm still not sure what their actual culture is. It seems cribbed from all over Africa despite being incredibly isolationist and yet everyone seems to speak very good english despite never being colonized(Switching back and forth between English and their Native Language kinda blows up the "Translation Convention" explanation).

THe other thing that bothered me was the fact it felt like the MCU's version of the Hidden Elf Village. Somehow managed to remain incredibly ahead of the rest of the world yet so isolated nobody even suspects they might have anything worth caring about. It's stated they don't trade or accept aid, but they can be completely self sufficient both in resources and infastrutuce because....they have a metric butt ton of worlds magical space metal and apparently are really good at not letting their tech leak out into the rest of the world, so their "War Dog" sleeper cells are apparently very efficient at cleaning up after themselves and ensuring their all their advanced tech gets returned.

So yeah, good film but feel disappointed that my knowledge of Wakanada is still "Black Panther is their king/Prince. Lots of Magical space metal. Hidden African Elf Village".

Rating:
Triforce/"Snake? Snaaaaaaaaakeeee!"

I watched Steven Speilberg's Lincoln recently and this is something I potentially wanna talk about in the R/P forum but in regards to the movie.

I feel the movie doesn't properly introduces the audiance to the backdrop of the US Civi War. I feel its the case of Show don't Tell that is at fault with this movie. There is a scene where in the movie where they were in a telegram room discussing the outcome of two crucial battles where the Union army had taken Confederate Forts, but at a massive cost of casualties on both sides. To me I feel they should have shown that battle actually playing out in front of our eyes and see how horrible the war is going on.

And another case is that since this entire Civil War is about ending the slavery of black people, it doesn't represent that Black communities stake in the war enough imo. Like Frederick Douglas is not even mentioned in this movie at all.

I feel the problem with this movie is that its story is too big to tell in the timeframe that they choose because watching this movie without knowing the full story of the US Civil War besides the absolute basics, you are gonna get lost easily.

Heck I mostly forgotten whose charcater is who except for the big stars that were Daniel Day Lewis, Sally Fields, and Tommy Lee Jones.

And last but not least, I feel it was indeed a cop out to not show Lincoln's assassionation by John Wilkes Booth. Spielberg could have made the be all, end all depication of that assassination and would be visually referenced by many historians.

So in the end I think this movie was too lacking. It had a good foundation, but I feel this movie needed more than what we have. Heck the whole story of Lincoln and the Civil War would have been made better as a series than one movie. In the end it feels like a movie meant for people who already know about the Civil War's history.

Samtemdo8:
Spielberg could have made the be all, end all depication of that assassination

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G_5kX4Mmpk

Already made. :P

Hawki:

Samtemdo8:
Spielberg could have made the be all, end all depication of that assassination

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G_5kX4Mmpk

Already made. :P

What hasn't the Simpsons done?

A Quiet Place

3/10

So many things wrong with this. The movie blatantly doesn't follow its own rules. The major moment in the film happens in a way that it completely flies in the face of the entire movie. Its entire premise gets wadded up and thrown into the bin because we're running out of time so let's get stuff moving. I go into more detail here if you want it spoiled for yourself.

Also, I know people think so little of teenagers that they write them as idiots all the time. I hate with a passion the "Teens will always be stupid, even in a horror movie" Trope. The teen in this movie SEEN WITH HER VERY EYES what happens out in the real world. But nope! She just goes off and does whatever she wants because of... reasons?

Peppermint -

Jennifer Garner is alright, but the rest of it is so bland, standard and by-the-numbers revenge flick with choppy editing and poor pacing.

4/10

The Predator (?/10)

I like the effortless energy of the movie, how it genuinely feels like an early 90s action movie. There's really no pretense anymore of making a horror movie out of it and for all its bloodletting The Predator is 100% comedy driven. Comedy, meta humor, JK randomness is all very hit and miss but works in its endearingness. Some cute nods. Plot is a mess. Characters are likable but make little to no sense, as does everything else. Really does feel like this was either heavily chopped or made on-the-go, winging it Indiana Jones style. Probably both. I guess I'm a little disappointed by the 180? turn towards comedy.

Don't have time to go in-depth, but of what I've seen recently:

Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (4/10)

...

...

...well it's slightly less bad than its predecessor.

Crazy Rich Asians (7/10)

Good thing its title wasn't "Crazy Rich Asian People." Otherwise, instead of "CRA" as an acronym, we'd have...well, y'know...

But yeah, I liked it. It's a rom-com with the cliches you'd expect, but the characters are given enough depth that you remain engaged despite said cliches.

Hawki:

Crazy Rich Asians (7/10)

Good thing its title wasn't "Crazy Rich Asian People." Otherwise, instead of "CRA" as an acronym, we'd have...well, y'know...

Mandy

The second movie by Panos Cosmatos who's made his debut 8 years ago with a flick named "Beyond the Black Rainbow". Black Rainbow was a movie I admired much more than I enjoyed it, I felt it was a fantastic 40 minutes short film trapped in a 2 hour movie. Thematically it wasn't nearly rich enough to pull that slow, contemplative Tarkovsky shit. Still, it looked and sounded fantastic and showed quite clearly that the director was extremely talented.

If this hadn't been the year that also has Orson Welles' Other Side of the Wind and, fingers crossed, Gilliam's Man who Killed Don Quixote coming out, Mandy would have been my most anticipated movie.

I wasn't dissapointed, Mandy was the movie I hoped Cosmatos would one day make after I saw Black Rainbow. It's either the most exploitative artmovie or the artsiest exploitation movie I've ever seen. All artistic flourishes aside, Mandy is a movie where a bloodsoaked Nicholas Cage is hunting down demonic bikers and evil cultists with a crossbow and a fire forged battle axe. It still takes a bit to get going but once it does it's genuinely engaging. It's a gory, viscerally violent action movie held together by an intense performance by Cage.

Thematically, I'm not sure if there's much to it, it may or may not have something to say about religion, the fallout of the hippie era and the deep darkness at the heart of rural America but... you know, what it all comes down to is bloodsoaked Nicholas Cage with a silver battle axe and a crossbow. At one point he duels a guy with a chainsaw.

Mandy is a crazy, drug fueled melange of pulpy 80s occultism, part Ken Russell, part Tobe Hooper and part Wes Craven, a neonlit trip through the shared nightmare of Reagan's America that cements Cosmatos as what I already assumed he was: The good version of Nicholas Winding Ren.

Sicario 2. Pretty good on it's own but pales in comparison to it's predecessor. As a sequel it's kind of redundant as all of the movie's thematic elements were done way better in the first film.

Also finally seen Hereditary. Absolutely amazing and together with It Follows I consider this a modern classic. There is so much suspense building and things I didn't see coming. Very strong performances as well.

Hawki:
Don't have time to go in-depth, but of what I've seen recently:

Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (4/10)

...

...

...well it's slightly less bad than its predecessor.

But is it better than the one from this year?

trunkage:

Hawki:
Don't have time to go in-depth, but of what I've seen recently:

Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (4/10)

...

...

...well it's slightly less bad than its predecessor.

But is it better than the one from this year?

Hell no!

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (3/10)

Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (4/10)

Tomb Raider 2018 (7/10)

The Predator (4/10) -

I usually love Shane Black films, but was disappointed in it. A lot of it felt like studio inference or production problems. Its well shot, the acting is good for the most part, the classic Predator suit looks nice and a couple lines were funny. However, its hurt by a really weak script, tonally jarring with 3 or so subplots that feel like different films meshed together. Really incoherent too. The editing is incredibly choppy with scenes missing or too quick cut to tell what's going on. The humor was more miss than hit personally.

Sadly gets worse around the third act. I know it was reshot and rewritten due to poor test audiences, but its really terrible and dumb.

Overall this is more like a fun bad movie, but really didn't do much for me.

Terminal
Having avoided the lauded Margot Robbie for long enough due to a primal aversion (stereotype) towards the typically "Hollywood" attractive actors for reasons not entirely unfounded, I decided to break the cycle using this film, maybe aided slightly with the promise of Simon Pegg and Mike Myers cast in supporting roles.
Having known nothing about this beforehand, it was a pleasant surprise. A stylistically shot Brit neo-noir with it's focus on a small cast and few locations. It felt all rather cosy, like a fluffy blanket on a cold winter's night. And Margot Robbie is indeed confirmed as "good". Can see where the appeal of her as Harley Quinn would surface.
The strangest choice this film takes is to foist what appears to be a plot twist upon you somewhere near the end, but it has no bearing nor forshadowing beforehand and affects pretty much nothing anyway, so it's more a detail it decides to hide from you for no particular reason, other than to go "aHA! Bet you didn't know about this, did ya?" Well...I suppose I didn't, you're right. But I don't think you did either.
It doesn't help that the specific nature of said "twist" ("revelation" might be more accurate) is usually brandished by other films as a method of explaining various ongoing mysteries. But here, somebody forgot to add any applicable mysteries for it to explain.
All rather odd.
Other than that, is alright. Inoffensive comfort food to pass the time while the mind demons are kept at bay.

Was fairly surprised to see reviews for this as low as they are. It's not anything groundbreaking or life-affirming, but it was an above average experience. The people I usually check out haven't checked it out either, so it's possible I just got a case of the low standards.

A Quiet Place - 5,31/10

Not scary or even tense, this movie felt more like a family drama/home invasion movie with the occasional alien monster. It felt like Signs, only the aliens aren't vulnerable to water, they're vulnerable to some... radio frequency/interference or whatever? The cast is good and it looks great, but the world doesn't make much sense, like the kids playing monopoly with some gas lamp nearby, so they can break it and make some noise. Why? They clearly have power coming from somewhere. Not to mention some little things they do are clearly louder than others, and yet it's treated like it's the opposite. And if you're going to bring a loud baby into this world, and you know the waterfall is safe because it's so loud, why not build a little shack/hut or something around that area? It's safe enough that you can scream like an idiot, so I'm assuming it'd be safe enough to build something simple, so you can raise your baby there. There's more examples.

I usually don't mind this kind of stuff in movies because who cares, it's a movie, but since this one apparently tries to portray the characters being smart, it's hard not to notice the little things that make you go "wait, that makes sense how...?", like the parents leaving the city in the first minutes of the movie. If you have 3 kids, why would the parents let two of the kids walk behind them? Have mom keep an eye on them from the back or something.

Friends With Benefits (2011)

Predictable as hell and suffers from poor sound editing (loud, obnoxious music blaring all the damn time). Then there is the editing itself that makes it pretty much an action movie during the first half. The shot - reverse shot is so damn fast between the faces of the two stars it becomes disorienting. Luckily that stuff slows down a bit as the flick goes on (side characters get introduced, "plot thickens"). It's also good because it allows you to look into the background, which has some decent details a couple of times (though mostly the direction is safely holding your hand).

I honestly have little idea if the movie is romantic or not, but is it funny? No physical comedy with the main actors (very little elsewhere too). The bulk of the humor is Timberlake's character Dylan and Kunis' character Jamie fast-talking to each other and blasting stuff that normal people would consider a comedy act with straight faces. However, this is constantly broken up by joking that the characters ACTUALLY mean as jokes to which the other either chuckles at or stops everything until it's confirmed to be "jk". This holy trifecta is also supported by Dylan's Apatow-Rogen remarks which brings me to...

I have to give the benefit of the doubt to the movie's New York - Los Angeles juxtaposition -- Dylan is from LA and Jamie from New York, where Dylan arrives in the film's beginning. Jamie is aggressive compared to Dylan, but that really only shows near the beginning. Nothing much to it, really, from my perspective. The plot, after all, is as contrived as you can imagine.

The movie also has some hilariously outdated period-specific references (was Heroes relevant in 2011?) and LOTS AND LOTS of Sony product placement. And the White-est surprise available.

I'll give it 5/10.

Searching - 6,23/10

I went to see this one for no other reason than I like John Cho. It's the same reason I even bothered with the Star Trek movie. I first noticed him in the Harold and Kumar movies, which also led me to the discovery that he was one of the MILF guys in American Pie. Moving on, the computer screen gimmick is annoying and I was tired of it in no time, but to be fair it doesn't really matter, because when the daughter goes missing you kind of forget about this. Hopefully this won't become the new "found footage", though.

Lots of twists and turns, making this a somewhat entertaining thriller with some "funny" "internet culture" moments throw in, which took me out of the movie for a brief moment. It's a shame the twists and turns translate into a pretty weak ending. The "real footage" point of view only manages to make this worse. Anyway, between this and Columbus, I'm glad to see MILF guy playing a protagonist in some more serious roles.

Better than Unfriended but worse than Gone Baby Gone, there's lots of "Unsolved Mysteries" youtube channels out there with far more entertaining stories, honestly.

The Meg - 1/10

Nowhere near good, but also nowhere near bad enough to be "So Bad, It's Good". Instead it's something worse: boring. Just a rote shark movie with no surprises, no tension, bad jokes and cliched characters. A destitute man's Jaws of sorts, but that's too much praise. Also, it ends with the word "FIN" splashed across the screen. cuz, sharks have fins, but fin is also French for 'the end'. Get it? Yup, that's the level you can expect. Glad I wasn't the one paying.

Hawki:

trunkage:

Hawki:
Don't have time to go in-depth, but of what I've seen recently:

Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (4/10)

...

...

...well it's slightly less bad than its predecessor.

But is it better than the one from this year?

Hell no!

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (3/10)

Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (4/10)

Tomb Raider 2018 (7/10)

I'd agree with all these scores. The Angelina ones were pretty trash

Ladies in Black (5/10)

I...really don't have anything to say here. I get that I'm not the audience, that its audience are those who are nostalgic for 1950s/60s Australia, but I'd like to think good stories transcend time and place. I've never been to Singapore for instance, that didn't stop me from enjoying Crazy Rich Asians.

But...yeah. In a word, "saccharine." There's no real flaws to this, but no real strengths. No highs, no lows, it just...goes on. If you squint, there's argubaly reference to how Australia treated refugees in the era versus how it treats them now, but while that's a good topic worth exploring, this isn't the film to do it.

So, meh.

Chimpzy:
The Meg - 1/10

Nowhere near good, but also nowhere near bad enough to be "So Bad, It's Good".

Can I expect the ridiculously guilty pleasure of the super-cheese that is the Sharknado movies at least?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Chimpzy:
The Meg - 1/10

Nowhere near good, but also nowhere near bad enough to be "So Bad, It's Good".

Can I expect the ridiculously guilty pleasure of the super-cheese that is the Sharknado movies at least?

Nope. It takes itself way too seriously for that.

Hereditary: 5/10

I don't want to discuss the plot or specifics because I'm certain a lot of its innate (redemptive) value comes from the attempts at shock and surprise peppered throughout, but I will sum it up to say it's an odd amalgamation of many faces of the horror genre from the last 40-50 years, i.e.: '70s-'80s psychological and gore, '90's-'00s cringe, '10s jump-shock, etc. It didn't do any of those particularly well, then the build to its climax was a little too slow for my liking which made the ending ham-fisted and unsatisfying. They "hit the gas" a little too fast, and neither suspension of disbelief nor immersion were buckled in; by the time I realized they'd flown out the car, the director "hit the brakes," the movie ended slamming my forehead into the dashboard leaving deep imprints of the multitude of questions I had. If there are any horror buffs in here, I'd be curious to know what you thought; I'm open to the idea that I missed something or even that I simply didn't get it, but aside from some disturbing uneasiness, I don't think the movie did what it set out to do, at least not well.

Venom: 3/10

This is the funniest bad movie of the year.

Chimpzy:
Nope. It takes itself way too seriously for that.

That's a shame. I have no guilt in saying I quite enjoy, in a purely brain-numbing way, the Sharknado movies. Also movies like Anaconda ... or Arachnophobia.

This is one of the greatest scenes in all of movie history ...

Why yes ... that is Jeff Daniels wrestling with a spider...

Addendum_Forthcoming:
That's a shame. I have no guilt in saying I quite enjoy, in a purely brain-numbing way, the Sharknado movies. Also movies like Anaconda ... or Arachnophobia.

To be more precise, it kind of is. Sometimes. Other times, it isn't, playing things more straight and dramatic, more Jaws-like. It sort of flip-flops between those two tones and ends up not really doing either of them well because of it.

This is one of the greatest scenes in all of movie history ...

Aw man, when I saw the title 'spider flame thrower', I was hoping for a thrower that sprays burning spiders all over (or alternatively, spider-shaped flames). If I'd paid money, I'd want a refund.

Chimpzy:
To be more precise, it kind of is. Sometimes. Other times, it isn't, playing things more straight and dramatic, more Jaws-like. It sort of flip-flops between those two tones and ends up not really doing either of them well because of it.

There is totally a way to balance serious acting with the super-cheese. Arachnophobia is a great example. Jeff Daniels totally deserved that Saturn Award for Best Actor. Like ... that sense of paralytic fear is pretty spot on.

Aw man, when I saw the title 'spider flame thrower', I was hoping for a thrower that sprays burning spiders all over (or alternatively, spider-shaped flames). If I'd paid money, I'd want a refund.

Burning spiders is next scene over, and it's pretty hilarious ... I actually re-edited my post because I acidentally linked the wrong one. So if you want to check it out yourself :P

Isle of Dogs
A mostly great experience. Am amazed by how calm and soothing all the voice acting is in comparison to any other animated film. It's like snuggling up with a blanket sewn of spoken words. The comedy is more miss than hit though, which luckily isn't what this intends to rely upon. The animation for expression of subtler cues when the creatures speak is impressive.

Hostiles
Well that was a lot of emotion. (No sarcasm intended)

Chimpzy:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
That's a shame. I have no guilt in saying I quite enjoy, in a purely brain-numbing way, the Sharknado movies. Also movies like Anaconda ... or Arachnophobia.

To be more precise, it kind of is. Sometimes. Other times, it isn't, playing things more straight and dramatic, more Jaws-like. It sort of flip-flops between those two tones and ends up not really doing either of them well because of it.

I was wondering through the whole film if Jason Statham was ever going to straight up punch the shark right in the noggin. And that yapper dog should not have survived. Got nothing against small doggos, but that plot armour was considerable levels of bullshit.

Natemans:
Venom: 3/10

This is the funniest bad movie of the year.

Okay... Should I go see it? I now already know its a trash movie but if you have that in mind it can be fun. But I cant think of anything that would make me want to see it now, and not later on Netflix

trunkage:

Natemans:
Venom: 3/10

This is the funniest bad movie of the year.

Okay... Should I go see it? I now already know its a trash movie but if you have that in mind it can be fun. But I cant think of anything that would make me want to see it now, and not later on Netflix

Saw it last night. Its not nearly as bad as people say. The relationship between Venom and Brock is hysterical, the action is fine, and even though its not in the MCU it would have fit in fine.

Hold the Dark. 5/10.

I think you had to be there to understand why everyone is mad.

Silentpony:

trunkage:

Natemans:
Venom: 3/10

This is the funniest bad movie of the year.

Okay... Should I go see it? I now already know its a trash movie but if you have that in mind it can be fun. But I cant think of anything that would make me want to see it now, and not later on Netflix

Saw it last night. Its not nearly as bad as people say. The relationship between Venom and Brock is hysterical, the action is fine, and even though its not in the MCU it would have fit in fine.

From what I understand, the worst of it might actually be attributable to a misguided subset of Lady Gaga's fandom.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/10/4/17934636/lady-gaga-venom-star-is-born-troll-little-monsters
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/lady-gaga-venom-weaponized-fandom-1148979
https://www.cbr.com/lady-gaga-fans-fake-venom-reviews/
https://www.businessinsider.com/lady-gaga-fans-may-be-writing-fake-venom-reviews-to-boost-a-star-is-born-box-office-2018-10

With that being said, I do like one of the reviewer quips that made it to the Wikipedia page: "Venom's first standalone movie turns out to be like the comics character in all the wrong ways-chaotic, noisy, and in desperate need of a stronger attachment to Spider-Man." As I have yet to see the film myself, I have no idea if that's an accurate assessment or not, but I love how it was said.

Venom:

8/10

Just got back from watching it, and it blew past my expectations which were already pretty high after the second Venom trailer. This adaption just nails everything except one thing about the character. That one thing? No Spider-Man, and honestly despite the complaints about it the movie is far better for it by not having Venom have anything to do with him. Venom doesn't have that obsessive hatred of Spider-Man weighing them down and pigeonholing them into the role of a villain. This helps evolve them beyond the actually pretty generic bad guy they were in the comics and most other adaptions. This Venom can actually plausibly pass as an anti-hero because he's actually a goodish person at the start rather than be shoved into the role like he was in the comics. The plot was generic really but the effects and action were great. Much more importantly the character of Eddie Brock and Venom worked so well. The plot being a bit cliched didn't detract from how good the movie was because the protagonist and the rest of the characters were written pretty well. Venom himself was easily the best part, they brought deadpan wit and black comedy into the movie but not Thor Ragnarok levels of tone inappropriate humor, the writers knew when to stop.

The only reason it didn't get a 10 out of 10 was I felt like the "setting stuff up" part dragged on longer than it should have. It took too long to get to the point where Eddie actually bonds with Venom and things pick up, I feel like they could have cut a couple minutes here and there up to that point.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here