|
Post by mr. excellent on Jun 19, 2020 14:48:39 GMT -5
So, I just saw part 6 of the Friday the 13th movies. I think they ignored part 5, that's what it seems like. As a follow up to the 4th movie, I think it was pretty good. In that regard, I enjoyed the ending. Of the first six, I'd say the 2nd one is probably my favorite.
|
|
|
Post by brotherandbassist on Jun 20, 2020 18:48:29 GMT -5
Part 2 is okay I guess, I think it's basically the same thing as the first one but with slightly better acting and Jason as the killer. Of the first 6, the 5th is actually my favorite and I wish it would've been followed more closely. Tommy being the new bad guy would've been an amazing twist. In my head canon, it could've still happened. Maybe he stabs Pam but snaps out of it and she lives, then he still escapes with his friend later on
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Jun 21, 2020 16:58:04 GMT -5
The Friday the 13th franchise was like a fly by the seed of your pants kind of series. They pumped a new movie out every year for almost 10 years. If only they did a better job finishing storylines, right?
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Jun 23, 2020 17:06:33 GMT -5
Artemis Fowl: 6.5 out of 10
First let me say, I watched this movie with the right crowd. My in laws and my wife. Together they've seen so many films, from A list to... everything. When they like something, they like it. This was one of those films, granted, the flaws were glaring. I understand why Disney didn't bother releasing this in theaters, dropping it on Disney+ was just win win. Let me just say that I enjoyed the film and I'll watch it again at some point. However, it just didn't live up to what it could have. The villain was under developed, with lots of exciting plot details left to exposition, and there were creative choices that simply stumped me (the voices being near the top of the list). The movie was only 90 minutes long, yet they included a ton of set up for sequels we may never get. How do you justify wasting several minutes of their already short run time? Had they cut out some of the (sequel's) plot building and focused on developing the movie's villain and the relationships between Artemis and his father, the security guard Dom Butler, and friend Julie Butler, we could've become more invested in the interesting world they all operated in. Give the movie more focus, and a 2 hour run time, and we could've had an exciting new franchise on our hands. I'm bummed out because I really liked the design of their underground world and the magic of it all.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Jun 25, 2020 16:43:44 GMT -5
Fant4stic: 6.5 out of 10
I'm not going to say the first 55 minutes were the best thing ever, but I (mostly) liked what I saw. Honestly, only one or two things rubbed me the wrong way. I thought it was an odd choice to have a normal public school where kids elementary school age to high school were in the same classroom. To be sure, there are public charter schools that are K-12, but those kids aren't in the same classrooms. For a second I thought maybe Reed was being put in a class with much older kids because of his intelligence, but on second look there was a completely heterogenous mixing of ages and ability levels in his science class that didn't make sense. His teacher was also atypically very discouraging in the movie's opening scenes. It's a common trope to have the inept teacher's class on full display for the protagonist to have to slog through. Just another thing to help us feel empathy for the hero. Still though, what teacher in their right mind gets annoyed at a kid who is passionate about learning and goes above and beyond on all their assignments? This is alluded to in the dialogue of course, just as it's alluded that Reid isn't in an Honors/advanced science class. I figured this was just me being nitpicky and a little sensitive since I am also a teacher, but in a later scene Reid is years older and is still having to put up with this asshat of an educator. This time though, it's at a science fair. Reid manages to teleport, yes, teleport, a toy airplane to "the negative zone", only they don't call it that yet. His teacher, who witnesses this first hand, decides "magic tricks!" and disqualifies him from the event. At this point, even if it was a magic trick, it was one hell of a display that still would have taken ingenuity to pull off, and still would have been worth recognition at a science fair. They even had the kid whose model airplane was borrowed and returned (with a little dust on it, and not broken) call Reid an asshole. That was the straw that broke the camels back. I don't know a single kid who would've witnessed what Reid did who wouldn't be losing his sh!t in amazement. These portrayals simply don't match the tone that the movie is clearly going for. It was Disney Channel characterization in a post Nolan superhero movie. Now, with that aside, I actually loved everything else about the first 55 minutes.
Once Trank gets Reed to the Baxter Foundation, which funds the projects of similarly gifted youth, he (Trank) is very creative in showing these brilliant young minds at work. It's not as iconic as Tony Stark in the cave, but he (Trank again) definitely has some fun with it. The character interactions are also very strong. Though we only see Reid and Ben Grimm hanging out as kids for a short time, their friendship is believable and a treat to watch because unlike the classroom scenes, it feels real. The dynamic between Sue, Reed, Johnny, and Victor von Doom is also pretty solid. They are all immensely talented actors that have good chemistry and seeing them work together, and later, get drunk together because of government meddling just felt real. I definitely enjoyed it.
Where the movie "falls off the rails" is after they come back from the Negative Zone with their new powers. Not immediately, after, because there's a 10ish minute sequence where we discover each of their powers and there's some interesting portrayals involving body horror. But... there's a time jump that occurs after Ben Grimm makes a deal with one of the government heads. After that scene, it's like we're watching a different movie.
Of that second part, I gotta be honest... I don't hate it. It just felt like someone came in and cut out massive chunks of the movie. In my opinion, what was left wasn't terrible (bad wigs and all), it was just super abridged, leading to a conflict that boiled to a head and then resolved much too quickly. After watching Dark Phoenix though, I gotta say, I liked Fant4stic better. I think I gave them the same rating too, but even still. I like this one more. Do I blame the studio entirely for this film's failings? No, not really. I mean, it's no secret that Trank was losing his sh!t to the point that Miles Teller almost got into a fist fight with him during the shoot. Even still, I eagerly await the next opportunity Trank takes to share his craft. That Tom Hardy Capone movie looked kind of "meh" to me, but I haven't seen it, so who knows? I just wish he had been able to make it work with the studio, there was promise there.
EDIT: Reg E. Cathey killed it as Dr. Storm. He elevated all the scenes he was in, may he rest in peace. That voice man, so good.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Jul 1, 2020 17:01:03 GMT -5
Hacksaw Ridge: 10/10
I'll be honest, I'm no expert on Mel Gibson's transgressions. Obviously, you'd be hard pressed to find many that know the man personally, but considering his stature, his transgressions were highly publicized. He has slowly been reaccepted by Hollywood, and that re- acceptance has been controversial in its own right. That said, this movie grabbed me from the opening scene and never let go. It's so captivating, the whole story... be it Desmond Doss's childhood, the romance he struck up with his lifelong (and only) partner, his basic training days, and his time in combat. There was just something about the way each shot was framed that just got me. Like, when you watch a Ridley Scott film and everything just looks so grand and big, there's something to a Mel Gibson movie that's so very raw, but intentional and beautifully captured. I can't really put my finger on it.*
I've realized something that is somewhat of a coincidence, but two of my favorite actors are Tom Hanks and Andrew Garfield. Tom Hanks is actually my all time favorite, but that wasn't until I saw Saving Private Ryan. As a very young kid I was obsessed with Forest Gump (thanks dad), but him voicing Woody just kept him up there. Saving Private Ryan sealed the deal though. With Garfield, I watched Boy A, and Never Let Me Go, and the Social Network to get pumped up for what he would bring to the table for Spider-Man. While he was Spider-Man, I championed him as a mistreated commodity that deserved better from Sony. Now, I see this, and his performance firmly puts him up there, just below Hanks. This man, Garfield, is a treasure. Even in his interviews, his humanity just shines through. Wonderful human being he is. Guess those WWII movies just do it for me.
*I've still never seen Apocalypto or Braveheart **I fully intend to though.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Jul 5, 2020 0:39:16 GMT -5
American Ultra: 7/10
I liked it. Max Landis wrote the story, which opens up that whole can of worms regarding "separating the art from the artist", but that aside, I enjoyed the performances of Kristen Stewart, Jesse Eisenberg, Connie Britton, Tony Hale, and Topher Grace. The directing wasn't bad either, and the action rocked. I think I recommend this one... do I...?? Yeah, I do. It's on Hulu if anyone is interested.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Jul 15, 2020 5:03:31 GMT -5
Mucho Mucho Amor: 10/10 I didn't grow up watching this wonderful human being, but I knew of him. My parents would be watching Univision, and them being very conservative evangelicals, we'd have to turn the channel every time the "astrology guy" came on. Even still, said, I grew up seeing him on tv even if it was in passing. I loved this, it just connected me to it and made me feel as though I did watch his program on a weekly basis. RIP Walter Mercado. Palm Springs: 9/10 This movie is so good. Why is it a 9 instead of a 10? I don't know, it just didn't hit me like a 10 usually does, but maybe it should have? Maybe it'll hit you that way. Either way, it's a fantastic movie. I have zero complaints. It's funny, heartfelt, and highly entertaining from beginning to end. Oh, and did I mention it has EVERYBODY in it. Give it a "look see" if you can.
|
|
|
Post by brotherandbassist on Jul 27, 2020 16:48:40 GMT -5
Hacksaw Ridge is amazing. I've saw it twice this far. Desmond Doss is a huge inspiration for me
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Aug 23, 2020 20:36:15 GMT -5
JoJo Rabbit: 10/10
So, I know I've been handing 10s out lately like an evangelical distributing tracks back in the 80s, but people I'm telling you... this movie doesn't have a boring moment in it! In true Taika style, the laughs start the moment the film begins and only stop when a super poignant moment drops on you. Like Thor Ragnarok, only, you won't find many (if anyone) who will criticize this movie for not allowing the emotional moments to marinate. I wasn't ready, and am thankful I managed to avoid spoilers. There's no surprise Taika won the award for best screenplay with this movie, or that it was nominated in so many categories. If ever there was a movie that gets me pumped for Thor: Love and Thunder, it's this. While it may be difficult to discern when Mr. Waititi is being serious, when he says he wants to write romance in a movie, I can believe him and that he can do well with it. Without spoiling too much, I can say that the way he handles boyhood and young love in this movie is really special, and it makes me want to watch everything he has ever done and future projects. If you haven't seen this movie, drop what you're doing and watch it.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Sept 2, 2020 18:56:13 GMT -5
Of Batman: Under the Red Hood, I will say that after this movie came out, every other Batman movie started using the twist with Robin being the good guy turned villain. I'd put it in spoiler tags, but they do it all the time, so it's not even a spoiler at this point. I mean, at one point in time it was unique, but now not so much.
I respect the amount of time you put into watching movies man.
|
|
|
Post by brotherandbassist on Nov 15, 2020 11:12:11 GMT -5
I was busy the other day, but I'll go into some more detail on the aforementioend films.
Dr. Sleep is a sequel to The Shining by Stanley Kubrick and it much more faithfully adapts its novel source material than the first film in the series. This film is unique in that it feels like a completely different genre at times but also pulls off the nostalgia of the original to tie everything together. If the first movie didn't make sense, this explains everything. I would highly recommend watching this in the machete order. Watch Dr Sleep first, then The Shining. It's a life changing experience. Great cast, scary imagery, well written and relatable characters. Everything comes full circle and its explained in a way that doesnt ruin the mystery but keeps you wanting more.
It Comes At Night is your run of the mill "who's infected?" story. Very simple, very much done before but executed excellently with a great cast, great cinematography and a no apologies approach to story telling that doesn't shy away from showing a believable narrative. Without giving too much away, no one has plot armor in this story.
Maniac- I couldn't finish this one. It was very okay, in a lot of ways its your typical run of the mill slasher but it adds its own nuances in the fact that the killer is just a normal looking guy who snaps on a dime and chokes people. Its as ridiculous as it sounds and it was too awkwardly disturbing to finish. If not for certain choices made in the film I might finish it but it was so weirdly paced, such a bizzare lead character that I just couldn't stomach it. A 6 is being generous.
Ash vs Evil Dead Seasons 1-3- This show is amazing. If you liked Army of Darkness, you'll love this. Seasons 1 and 3 are mostly consistent but the middle season is kinda boring but still has great episodes. Even if the story is often illogical or drags out certain narratives too long, it makes up for it in the humor department.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Nov 15, 2020 13:05:12 GMT -5
Lopli, at the risk of sounding condescending, can I just take a moment to recognize how much you've grown as a writer? I mean, we've only ever known each other through our writing, but the way you broke those down was just so... smooth? I don't mean to condescend in any way, but it's crazy to me. I read that and it was like reading from a professional blogger, and to be honest, your writing has read that way for quite some time. It just really hit me today is all. Guess that's what happens when you prepare a sermon every week, huh?
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Dec 27, 2020 5:08:45 GMT -5
Wonder Woman 1984: 7.5 out of 10 Before I say anything else, I want to say how much I enjoyed this film. There's something special about that Patty Jenkins, Gal Gadot combo. Jenkins helps Gadot shine like no other, and boy does she shine bright. I love her depiction of Wonder Woman as much as any actor's portrayal of a super powered character. That said, let's get into it. There are so many superhero films that have come out since the Richard Donner Superman movies that it's almost impossible to make a movie that doesn't draw an immediate comparison to the films that preceded it. However, the 3 superhero films that stood out the most while watching this one are Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2, Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man 2, and Bryan Singer's X-Men Apocalypse. This movie does a great job of introducing the theme of its story and never forgetting it. In this case the theme is accepting the truth, being at peace with it, and by extension, one's own situation or existence. By the time this movie ends, we have come full circle and the spiritual freedom gained by its characters' acceptance of their truth feels earned. Without getting too deep into spoiler territory, I can share that Pedro Pascal's character Maxwell Lord is the most sympathetic "villain" since Alfred Molina's Doctor Otto Octavius. Indeed, Maguire's bit of dialogue where he says “Sometimes to do what's right we must be steady and give up the things we desire the most, even our dreams” fits this movie just as well if not better than any of this film's dialogue. Therein lies the most significant reference or homage to any of the 3 superhero films I've listed. Now, let's move onto the less flattering comparisons in descending order: X-Men Apocalypse. Once awakened, Oscar Isaac's titular character begins to recruit disciples (his 4 horseman), imbue them with power, and use them to do his bidding. In a similar manner, as soon as Maxwell Lord gets his hands on the Dreamstone, he essentially goes around doing the same thing. While he isn't granting people power, he is granting them wishes, all toward meeting his own grand scheme. I will say, I thought Patty Jenkins did a phenomenal job depicting the realization of Lord's scheme in comparison to Singer. While the early 2000s saw films tell contained stories with distinctive beginnings, middles, and ends, the 2010s seemed to convince audiences that grand ambitious story telling could only be achieved across multiple films. One of Singer's biggest criticisms on Apocalypse is that he tried to tell the story in one film without teasing it out in the prior movies (outside of a single post credit scene). While I do agree that Apocalypse would have been better served as a character that was built up by prior films, I also believe Singer could've pulled his story off in a single film had he done a better job crafting the story. Instead he chose to tread ground that had already been covered in earlier X-Men movies (see Magneto's story) and introduce characters that should've been introduced 2 movies prior. As a result, his film took time away from developing the comic's most compelling villain. Wonder Woman 1984 makes no such mistake, and with fewer characters to focus on, really gives Pascal a lot of time to shine. That said, there is a scene in Singer's film where Apocalypse takes over Cerebro and gains access to the entire planet's nuclear arsenal. He makes a speech where he says, "Always the same, and now all this. No more stones. No more spears. No more slings. No more swords. No more weapons! No more systems! No more superpowers. . . ." While the message is the opposite of what Maxwell Lord is doing, the grandiosity of it all is exactly on point with this film and I can only imagine Bryan Singer was going for what Jenkins achieved here. Now, for the least flattering comparison, Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man 2. Kristin Wiig's Barbara Minerva is essentially Jamie Foxx's Max Dillon. While both Wiig and Foxx are fine actors, they are being forced to play a type of nerd that feels too over the top. When Tobey Maguire plays a schmuck, you buy it. He is able to portray that kind of energy and it feels authentic. Wiig and Foxx, not so much, and it's not necessarily their acting. I think the problem lies in the way the other characters react to them. Wiig does a good job playing an awkward wall flower type. That doesn't change the fact that she's still a tall, attractive woman who happens to be a doctor with a respectable position at the Smithsonian. That said, we're expected to believe her colleagues think so little of her that they will walk over her, quite literally, in the same way Tobey Maguire gets walked over (and a bag to the head) in Spider-Man 2 at Columbia University. I suppose the fact that Wiig is wearing glasses is supposed to make this more believable? In high school, maybe, but she's portraying an adult with colleagues well into their 30s and 40s. Jamie Foxx has the same type of scene in TASM 2, and it's not believable there either. However, when they start to get some teeth to them, it's then that you start to buy into them as characters. Aside from that, there's a specific type of cheesiness to the film's opening act that wanes as the movie transitions into the second, and it has a very distinctive TASM 2 vibe unfortunately. Last second criticisms: Patty Jenkins seems to have forgotten how to direct Diana in action. This film's use of slow motion and CGI was nowhere near as good as the first. The beautiful fight choreography from Diana's WW1 days is not on display nearly as much here. She is still awesome, but the choreography is just not as ambitious. So with all that said, I still think it's a charming movie and it's one I plan to buy as soon as it's available. The highs from this film, for me, reach the highest of what this genre has to offer, even if the lows prevent it from being in the upper echelon of superhero films. Oh, and the opening scene is one of the best opening scenes of any DC film post 2012.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Feb 14, 2021 18:17:31 GMT -5
Logan: 10/10
I dunno what I gave it the first time, but the problems I had with it in my first few viewings aren't there any more. This is the best Marvel film ever IMO, MCU proper and otherwise. I think it's better than the Joker as well, which came out in... was it 2018 or 2019? I don't remember. Dear God, this memory thing is bad news. Hugh Jackman, Dafne Keen, Patrick Stewart, Boyd Holbrook, Stephen Merchant,... everyone is great in this movie. The background story and the world they created is just fascinating too.
I know that they pretty much did a western but set in the future with Logan, but... if Marvel continues to make Wolverine standalone movies, I'd love to see them do it one of two ways: biopic style where they go through the decades starting back in the 1830s. One where Wolverine's time fighting in the Civil War isn't relegated to the opening credits. Or, maybe they do a true Western where the entire film takes place in the 1800s.
To that end, imagine a limited Wolverine series set in the 1800s. He's traveling town to town taking bad guys out, just like in the old shows. I know that the Mandalorian kind of has this covered, but I think there's room for a Wolverine lead Western show if done the right way. Then again, there's other Wolverine stories people would rather see, but I digress.
|
|