|
Post by klawrencio79 on May 28, 2024 18:32:02 GMT
Now to go totally astray..... a few months ago, we talked about the silliness of the recent spate of Liam Neeson action thrillers, all of which are basically the same movie and of varying degrees of equality. Well, yesterday, I randomly started watching Cold Pursuit and I have to say, this one was significantly better than the others. Not because it was a good movie, but it was so batshit and tonally all over the place, and had such weird, random little character moments that I had no choice but to enjoy it. I couldn't get into it for this reason. It never decided what kind of movie it wanted to be. A couple of moments stand out in my memory. The receptionist telling the Native Americans they needed a reservation, and the question Neeson asks one of the guys before he kills him. "Greatest quarterback ever, Elway of Manning?" Now I'm hardly a Coloradan, only having lived there a short time. But that question is a no brainer for all true Broncos fans. The guy answers correctly, Neeson nods in agreement, and shoots him anyway. Good times. I get it, the entire movie makes no sense, no single character has a realistic (or even a remotely discernible) motivation and it just meanders on into weird little side-plots that are never resolved, or are just sprung on us out of nowhere. Also, I don't think Liam Neeson was in as much of this movie as I think he was. Like, he's in the beginning, and again at the end, but he doesn't do a whole lot in between. I also love how Laura Dern just kinda gets up and walks out of the movie at one point, and they yadda yadda over it, saying that she left him, or something. No doubt in my mind she finished filming a scene, cursed the director, walk off set and immediately fired her agent. Going into it, I assumed it would be an idiotic retread of The Commuter, or any of the other post-Taken Liam entries that all just blend into one another. But because it was so all over the place, I found it oddly endearing. Give me something unexpected, even it makes no sense, and I'll at least find it somewhat interesting.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on May 28, 2024 18:56:41 GMT
Watched this last night. I mostly liked it, it has a great supporting cast, and lately my tolerance for Nicolas Cage has grown higher. I like him in this mode where he's just a guy. He's quirky in the way a dull, older, lame academic is, and he's finally playing a character with his actual, natural hairline. And yes that scene was hilarious. It seems to be about viral fame and cancel culture, but I think it loses the point it's trying to make at same point. Mostly when discussing movies I feel like I have to argue that not every story has to be about all things. When someone says 'this movie portrays all men as terrible' I feel like I have to remind them that maybe this movie is just portraying THESE men as terrible. Not everything has to represent everything it relates to. But this feels like it's clearly trying to represent what happens to someone who hits viral fame, and then is canceled, but it in this case he's 'canceled' essentially for not really doing anything. In the beginning he gets famous for not really doing anything (he doesn't do the work he's been wanting to but wants credit for colleagues that are doing the work) and he's happy to accept it, and then everything turns and nobody knows why. I suppose he's sort of in a gray area with regards to infidelity (hilariously so) but the way people turn on him is so extreme and violent that it appears that the movie wants to argue that 'cancel culture' is out of control and destroying the lives of the innocent. That's one perspective, certainly, but it doesn't account for the people who do deserve the hate they receive. I guess a bad line of comparison to draw could be someone like Louis CK, who did engage in uncool behavior that was sort of a grey area and lost his top-of-the-world status very swiftly, but then was also widely blamed for things he never actually did... which is what happens here... but of course he was also getting credit for things he never actually did too... But this story just sort of details the downward spiral without really seeming to have a whole lot to say about that. I didn't expect it to moralize for the audience, but I thought maybe a specific perspective might emerge and I don't feel like it ever did. And then the final stretch of the movie involves a sci-fi element that piggybacks on the concept and how this is exploited by hilarious annoying and obnoxiously dressed Gen-z douche bags, but that doesn't ever move towards explaining the concept. It's just kind of accepted. I guess when you introduce a fascinating idea it's hard to be fully satisfying, sometimes. You either explain it, and then it's always a little disappointing, or you never really explain it leave the audience a little frustrated. I didn't need it explained, but I kinda felt like adding the sci-fi thing was a little out of place, even if the way it was utilized was fitting. My wife described it as the movie just turning into a Black Mirror episode at the end, which I thought was apt. In any event, it was nice to see a good, original, black comedy. Even if there are things that didn't fully work I always respect an attempt like this. I felt similarly about American Fiction, which I watched recently; Some of the messaging gets muddled and lost, and some of the plot details went in a direction that I don't think was for the best, but overall they both engaging, well acted and well made in completely different ways. I'll also point out that there are some kinda brilliantly subtle ways that the feeling of certain moments really put you in the mode of dreams. The performances work but also just different little technical things like the different way some of those scenes are lit, or the way they're in slightly slower motion or the frame is fogged up, or the disparity between the sound effects that are playing in the reality of a scene vs the dream that's being described. Small touches like that really work and make it feel dreamy and odd the way a lot of other films get that kind of thing wrong (looking at you Inception), so I appreciated that on a technically artistic level. Great stuff as always!! It's funny that you mentioned about how the cancel culture theme is present but not the main focus of the movie, to the point of the movie practically ignoring it at various points throughout. As I watching this, I remember having fleeting feelings about that being in it, but it kinda washed over me and became an element of the film that I had forgotten entirely. I'm all for the halcyon days of movies just being movies. I'm glad that Jaws eschews all this nonsense from the book about a mayor's moral compass being destroyed due to his mafia ties, and the love triangle among Brody, Ellen and Hooper. Sometimes a movie just needs to be about a killer fish and the townspeople trying to address it. Simple, direct storytelling, not speechifying. I think that's why I loved Dream Scenario as much as I did, because I didn't really think about what the movie was trying to say, if anything. And an amazing comp on American Fiction, which is a movie I expected to have a lot more to say but surprisingly the whole concept about white people using black literature for their own purposes became the backdrop, almost like a B-plot. From the trailer, it looked like that's what the entire movie was about, so imagine my surprise when it was really just a character study about Jeffrey Wright (who is brilliant as always). In the one, it almost had the opposite effect on me where I was expecting the messaging to be a little more front-and-center, and in that one regard, I do think it does the overall experience a bit of a disservice. Now to go totally astray..... a few months ago, we talked about the silliness of the recent spate of Liam Neeson action thrillers, all of which are basically the same movie and of varying degrees of equality. Well, yesterday, I randomly started watching Cold Pursuit and I have to say, this one was significantly better than the others. Not because it was a good movie, but it was so batshit and tonally all over the place, and had such weird, random little character moments that I had no choice but to enjoy it. I kinda felt the same way about American Fiction. It's good, but the best stuff was the satirical stuff, but it totally takes a back seat to the family drama, which isn't as strong (they all got over a death in the family remarkably quickly). With Dream Scenario, it's character exploration is so intertwined with the satire that it works well, but I almost wish that they'd never brought up the idea of 'culture war' and 'cancel culture' and everything. That kinda made it impossible for me to ignore that element. If they hadn't had the Michael Cera character bring up Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson, then it would be easier not to think about what the script is trying to say about that. Ok, so he's not interested in aligning with those people, so he's really like most of us in the socio-political center, but then what are we to make of he's being treated? Again, it could have more successfully just been a story about this guy if it didn't call it out multiple times in the dialogue, there and then in the way the third act develops. Anyway, it's still good and worth a watch. I just couldn't separate trying to sift through the commentary because they moved it from the subtext to the literal text a few too many times. Totally agree on Cold Pursuit. I watched it on a plane a while ago and had a lot of fun with its knowing silliness. I don't remember a lot of the specifics, but my memory is that it was purposefully dumb and that the tone progressed to meet how stupid it was. The Liam Neeson movies that take it seriously are fun and funny for unintentional reasons, and that was the first one I remember seeming like the movie was in on the joke. I know it's based on a European movie, and I've heard people say that the remake misses some of the dryness of the humor, but I felt like it was dryly funny and then became overtly funny by the end. I may never watch it again, but I'm much more likely to rewatch this one than most of the others.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on May 28, 2024 19:03:48 GMT
Devs - Miniseries from a couple of years ago created, written and directed by Alex Garland (Ex-Machina, Annihilation, Civil War). Eight episodes of about 50 minutes each. I read some good things about it and decided to check it out, on Disney+. It starts as a thriller about a ultra-secretive project at a high-tech San Francisco company, then it becomes something else when we find out that said project is a quantum computer so powerful that it can trace cause-and-effect and for all intents and purposes view the past and the future I was enjoying it a lot until the end, which didn't make a whole lot of sense to me and kind of contradicted itself. But it's a well-made series with many interesting ideas that I am glad I watched. Also, Near Dark (1987), a vampire movie that was Kathryn Bigelow's first solo feature film. Several actors from her future husband James Cameron's Aliens appear in it - Bill Paxton, Lance Henriksen, Jenette Goldstein. A young man gets far more than he bargained for when he tries to pick up a beautiful young woman who happens to be sunlight-intolerant. An interesting if not particularly innovative take on vampire stories, but a bit unpolished. A more experienced filmmaker could possibly have turned the same story into a more memorable entry in the sub-genre. As it is, well, let's just say that there is a reason why I had never heard of this movie before. Still, worth a watch. Haven't seen it in a while, but Near Dark is kinda considered a minor classic these days, and in my understanding the neo-western setting mixed with the vampire lore was considered innovative at the time. But vampires were having a moment at the time, especially in genre mashups. Fright Night was just 2 years earlier, Lost Boys was the same year, but this one was more adult and less funny.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on May 28, 2024 19:15:44 GMT
Ended up seeing Furiosa (2024) last night. I'll start by venting about Fury Road (2015). One of many things I didn't like about Fury Road was how it felt like a completely different world from the original trilogy. It's the definition of over the top sequelitis; just a bigger, louder, more nonsensical version of the original. Gasoline and ammunition are valuable commodities that are hard to come by in those movies; in these they came up with 'Gastown' and the 'Bullet Farm' in order to justify massive hordes of goons endlessly driving the wasteland, firing at each other for hours on end. Then of course there's calling it a Mad Max movie where Max barely does anything and Tom Hardy just grunts his way through the four lines of dialog he actually has. The feminist commentary literally written on the walls (as if we needed to be told women aren't 'things' or we couldn't tell Furiosa is a badass and also a woman, so you better spell it out for us) was the icing on the cake. At some point watching Furiosa, I just decided to accept that this is an alternate reality, separate from the original trilogy. It makes everything much more enjoyable, and you can focus on the stuff that makes Mad Max movies great. The actions is fun and inventive, and the creative details that fill out this world (costumes, wacky names, quirks of language ['Guzzleine, 'lady & gentlemens',etc.], the dude doing charades behind every Dementus speech) enhance the experience significantly. Also, I thought the characters seemed more fleshed out in Furiosa, which was a plus. And there's no shortage of testosterone in these flicks, that's for damn sure. Hot rods, monster trucks and guns, what else is there to life? As an aside, there is a cameo by Max himself (not played by Gibson or Hardy), but it's only one scene with no speaking lines in the background (well, technically foreground). All in all, Furiosa was a fun ride, but I still have no interest in ever watching Fury Road again. Furiosa, while certainly worth watching as an action fan, just made me want to rewatch The Road Warrior, which to me is the best of the franchise. It's interesting since most people seem to put Fury Road at the top of the list, or at least on par with the first 3 movies. I liked the movies I'd seen, but never really paid too close attention to that series. A few years ago I went back and watched each of them, and you gotta admit, the world is wildly inconsistent to begin with, and the characterization is always in the back seat... the way, way, waaay back seat. The first movie doesn't even look like it exists at the same time, because it wasn't meant to. It's in the middle of nowhere, but it's not really the apocalypse. Then the second movie is apocalyptic, but you'd never guess there was a society of gladiator games run by Tina Turner anywhere in the vicinity, then the next one comes along. The movies are all style. Not style OVER substance, but style AS substance, and for me Fury Road hit on that about as well as any of them could. So we now come to a place where gasoline and bullets are in abundance, but just because one tyrannical warlord is hoarding and controlling them all? Why the hell not? Does it feel like a plot convenience at this point? Kinda, but showing us something that's out there now that didn't seem like it could exist in the previous movie is what the series always, always did anyway. It's really not out of place with the way they developed from one to the next before. I do think The Road Warrior is the most stripped-down-to-the-bare-essentials of the bunch, so I'd probably pick it for the top spot too. But Fury Road is the most technically and visually accomplished by a long way, so that'd be my runner up. It's also by far the most fun and entertaining. It hits on what George Miller said he's been trying to do with this movies more than any other; which is to make 'silent movies with sound' to tell the story visually well enough that they 'don't need the subtitles in Japan.' Then again, I'm not the longtime fan that you are. I'd still like to see Furiosa. They say it runs directly into Fury Road. Could be cool to see it that way some time. It's kind of a shame that this one came up short at the box office.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 28, 2024 21:30:30 GMT
Ended up seeing Furiosa (2024) last night. I'll start by venting about Fury Road (2015). One of many things I didn't like about Fury Road was how it felt like a completely different world from the original trilogy. It's the definition of over the top sequelitis; just a bigger, louder, more nonsensical version of the original. Gasoline and ammunition are valuable commodities that are hard to come by in those movies; in these they came up with 'Gastown' and the 'Bullet Farm' in order to justify massive hordes of goons endlessly driving the wasteland, firing at each other for hours on end. Then of course there's calling it a Mad Max movie where Max barely does anything and Tom Hardy just grunts his way through the four lines of dialog he actually has. The feminist commentary literally written on the walls (as if we needed to be told women aren't 'things' or we couldn't tell Furiosa is a badass and also a woman, so you better spell it out for us) was the icing on the cake. At some point watching Furiosa, I just decided to accept that this is an alternate reality, separate from the original trilogy. It makes everything much more enjoyable, and you can focus on the stuff that makes Mad Max movies great. The actions is fun and inventive, and the creative details that fill out this world (costumes, wacky names, quirks of language ['Guzzleine, 'lady & gentlemens',etc.], the dude doing charades behind every Dementus speech) enhance the experience significantly. Also, I thought the characters seemed more fleshed out in Furiosa, which was a plus. And there's no shortage of testosterone in these flicks, that's for damn sure. Hot rods, monster trucks and guns, what else is there to life? As an aside, there is a cameo by Max himself (not played by Gibson or Hardy), but it's only one scene with no speaking lines in the background (well, technically foreground). All in all, Furiosa was a fun ride, but I still have no interest in ever watching Fury Road again. Furiosa, while certainly worth watching as an action fan, just made me want to rewatch The Road Warrior, which to me is the best of the franchise. It's interesting since most people seem to put Fury Road at the top of the list, or at least on par with the first 3 movies. I liked the movies I'd seen, but never really paid too close attention to that series. A few years ago I went back and watched each of them, and you gotta admit, the world is wildly inconsistent to begin with, and the characterization is always in the back seat... the way, way, waaay back seat. The first movie doesn't even look like it exists at the same time, because it wasn't meant to. It's in the middle of nowhere, but it's not really the apocalypse. Then the second movie is apocalyptic, but you'd never guess there was a society of gladiator games run by Tina Turner anywhere in the vicinity, then the next one comes along. The movies are all style. Not style OVER substance, but style AS substance, and for me Fury Road hit on that about as well as any of them could. So we now come to a place where gasoline and bullets are in abundance, but just because one tyrannical warlord is hoarding and controlling them all? Why the hell not? Does it feel like a plot convenience at this point? Kinda, but showing us something that's out there now that didn't seem like it could exist in the previous movie is what the series always, always did anyway. It's really not out of place with the way they developed from one to the next before. I do think The Road Warrior is the most stripped-down-to-the-bare-essentials of the bunch, so I'd probably pick it for the top spot too. But Fury Road is the most technically and visually accomplished by a long way, so that'd be my runner up. It's also by far the most fun and entertaining. It hits on what George Miller said he's been trying to do with this movies more than any other; which is to make 'silent movies with sound' to tell the story visually well enough that they 'don't need the subtitles in Japan.' Then again, I'm not the longtime fan that you are. I'd still like to see Furiosa. They say it runs directly into Fury Road. Could be cool to see it that way some time. It's kind of a shame that this one came up short at the box office. I was thinking that too, it's not like the original trilogy goes together perfectly, either. In fact, I'm pretty sure GM designed the movies that way, almost like dreams that meld into another with no beginning and no end. Visually, Fury Road was great. Beyond the continuity issues, I just didn't like the title character being turned into a bland sidekick. Furiosa is definitely worth seeing even as a casual fan of the franchise. I can't imagine anyone liking Fury Road and not liking this one. Yeah this doing poorly doesn't bode well for cinemas. I don't know what it's going to take for a movie to have a huge opening in 2024 and beyond. People say Deadpool & Wolverine might save the summer, but I'm not so sure at this point. Like we've been saying for a while now, you have to make it an event for people to bother going to theaters in droves. Barbenheimer happened organically, I don't know how you duplicate that kind of thing. I can't think of a movie franchise outside of Avatar (which is 100% about trippy visuals on a massive screen, nothing else) that feels like a guaranteed box office hit now.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on May 28, 2024 21:45:19 GMT
It's interesting since most people seem to put Fury Road at the top of the list, or at least on par with the first 3 movies. I liked the movies I'd seen, but never really paid too close attention to that series. A few years ago I went back and watched each of them, and you gotta admit, the world is wildly inconsistent to begin with, and the characterization is always in the back seat... the way, way, waaay back seat. The first movie doesn't even look like it exists at the same time, because it wasn't meant to. It's in the middle of nowhere, but it's not really the apocalypse. Then the second movie is apocalyptic, but you'd never guess there was a society of gladiator games run by Tina Turner anywhere in the vicinity, then the next one comes along. The movies are all style. Not style OVER substance, but style AS substance, and for me Fury Road hit on that about as well as any of them could. So we now come to a place where gasoline and bullets are in abundance, but just because one tyrannical warlord is hoarding and controlling them all? Why the hell not? Does it feel like a plot convenience at this point? Kinda, but showing us something that's out there now that didn't seem like it could exist in the previous movie is what the series always, always did anyway. It's really not out of place with the way they developed from one to the next before. I do think The Road Warrior is the most stripped-down-to-the-bare-essentials of the bunch, so I'd probably pick it for the top spot too. But Fury Road is the most technically and visually accomplished by a long way, so that'd be my runner up. It's also by far the most fun and entertaining. It hits on what George Miller said he's been trying to do with this movies more than any other; which is to make 'silent movies with sound' to tell the story visually well enough that they 'don't need the subtitles in Japan.' Then again, I'm not the longtime fan that you are. I'd still like to see Furiosa. They say it runs directly into Fury Road. Could be cool to see it that way some time. It's kind of a shame that this one came up short at the box office. I was thinking that too, it's not like the original trilogy goes together perfectly, either. In fact, I'm pretty sure GM designed the movies that way, almost like dreams that meld into another with no beginning and no end. Visually, Fury Road was great. Beyond the continuity issues, I just didn't like the title character being turned into a bland sidekick. Furiosa is definitely worth seeing even as a casual fan of the franchise. I can't imagine anyone liking Fury Road and not liking this one. Yeah this doing poorly doesn't bode well for cinemas. I don't know what it's going to take for a movie to have a huge opening in 2024 and beyond. People say Deadpool & Wolverine might save the summer, but I'm not so sure at this point. Like we've been saying for a while now, you have to make it an event for people to bother going to theaters in droves. Barbenheimer happened organically, I don't know how you duplicate that kind of thing. I can't think of a movie franchise outside of Avatar (which is 100% about trippy visuals on a massive screen, nothing else) that feels like a guaranteed box office hit now. In December, or whenever it was, Wonka and Aquaman 2 came out on the same weekend. People, rather amusingly, were calling it "Wonquaman" to try to capture the same moviegoer sentiment. It was all tongue in cheek, and obviously those movies didn't come close, but it's a pretty funny attempt regardless. I'm in the camp that loved Fury Road for all the reasons Goons laid out. I have no real allegiance to the original trilogy, though I do also think The Road Warrior is the best of the original 3. Fury Road is just such a technical marvel and it seems to have helped launch the phase of current action movies we're in now, that are just littered with huge set pieces, tremendous production design, brilliant camera work with long takes and limiting CGI as much as possible. While Fury Road obviously utilizes CGI in its landscapes and one scene where a car flips over, the lion's share of it is all done practically and in camera. John Wick came out first and had some of that stuff, but Fury Road really caused everyone else to seemingly reset their plans for action. After this, the Wick sequels ratcheted everything up, as did the ensuing Mission Impossible sequels. It's almost as if they were tired of seeing the Marvel movies, which are basically cartoons when compared to this, and this was the answer which everyone is now trying to emulate. It doesn't matter that Max is a side character in his own story when there's a fucking crazy dude with a guitar that shoots flames out of it...and even gets into the action! I also just watched John Wick 4, which has some of the most impressive stunt work I've ever seen, and also prominently features very long takes. I'll have to dig through the thread to see what you guys thought of that one.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 28, 2024 23:07:25 GMT
I also just watched John Wick 4, which has some of the most impressive stunt work I've ever seen, and also prominently features very long takes. I'll have to dig through the thread to see what you guys thought of that one. I believe the board consensus (of which I am a part) was that Wick 4 was solid, and filled with good ideas that dragged just a little too long in any given scene. The Arc de Triomphe traffic fight, falling down the stairs (twice) at Sacré-Coeur and so on were all great stunts that were kind of overdone on screen. My favorite sequence is probably the overhead room-to-room shootout with dragon's breath rounds. Overall I think 4 is an improvement over 3, so far as reining in the world building, even if it doesn't quite reach the heights of the original in terms of straightforward story and well-paced action.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on May 29, 2024 0:58:30 GMT
It's interesting since most people seem to put Fury Road at the top of the list, or at least on par with the first 3 movies. I liked the movies I'd seen, but never really paid too close attention to that series. A few years ago I went back and watched each of them, and you gotta admit, the world is wildly inconsistent to begin with, and the characterization is always in the back seat... the way, way, waaay back seat. The first movie doesn't even look like it exists at the same time, because it wasn't meant to. It's in the middle of nowhere, but it's not really the apocalypse. Then the second movie is apocalyptic, but you'd never guess there was a society of gladiator games run by Tina Turner anywhere in the vicinity, then the next one comes along. The movies are all style. Not style OVER substance, but style AS substance, and for me Fury Road hit on that about as well as any of them could. So we now come to a place where gasoline and bullets are in abundance, but just because one tyrannical warlord is hoarding and controlling them all? Why the hell not? Does it feel like a plot convenience at this point? Kinda, but showing us something that's out there now that didn't seem like it could exist in the previous movie is what the series always, always did anyway. It's really not out of place with the way they developed from one to the next before. I do think The Road Warrior is the most stripped-down-to-the-bare-essentials of the bunch, so I'd probably pick it for the top spot too. But Fury Road is the most technically and visually accomplished by a long way, so that'd be my runner up. It's also by far the most fun and entertaining. It hits on what George Miller said he's been trying to do with this movies more than any other; which is to make 'silent movies with sound' to tell the story visually well enough that they 'don't need the subtitles in Japan.' Then again, I'm not the longtime fan that you are. I'd still like to see Furiosa. They say it runs directly into Fury Road. Could be cool to see it that way some time. It's kind of a shame that this one came up short at the box office. I was thinking that too, it's not like the original trilogy goes together perfectly, either. In fact, I'm pretty sure GM designed the movies that way, almost like dreams that meld into another with no beginning and no end. Visually, Fury Road was great. Beyond the continuity issues, I just didn't like the title character being turned into a bland sidekick. Furiosa is definitely worth seeing even as a casual fan of the franchise. I can't imagine anyone liking Fury Road and not liking this one. Yeah this doing poorly doesn't bode well for cinemas. I don't know what it's going to take for a movie to have a huge opening in 2024 and beyond. People say Deadpool & Wolverine might save the summer, but I'm not so sure at this point. Like we've been saying for a while now, you have to make it an event for people to bother going to theaters in droves. Barbenheimer happened organically, I don't know how you duplicate that kind of thing. I can't think of a movie franchise outside of Avatar (which is 100% about trippy visuals on a massive screen, nothing else) that feels like a guaranteed box office hit now. I'd also add that I think the title character has kinda been a side character since the second movie. The series more or less consists of him traveling around and getting involved in someone else's conflict, so I didn't think it was out of step. But 'dreams the meld together with no beginning or end' is a good descriptor of the tone of that series. Each one has kind of a different flavor about them but each one does sorta just ease into the next. I do think Deadpool and Wolverine is gonna be big, but I don't know if it will save the summer. This is a down year at the box office and it feels more and more like the continuing trend than a blip. The best thing for the box office will be if something new becomes a hit. Fall Guy, while not technically original, was the big hope. Now it's back on the sequels and franchises to help put. But without a 'Gentle-minions' or 'Barbenheimer' to drive a viral campaign it seems like everyone has been trained to wait for streaming... and so far those kinds of things have not be able to be manufactured. And for the record, and in the interest of only posting one reply, I loved John Wick 4. I found the whe ending sequence terrific. I don't know if I wrote about it here (I think I did), but I think the elaborate stairway fight into the quiet but very satisfying. I was never fully bowled over by the first one really, and never thought these movies would appeal to me, but I found myself kind of liking each one more as it progressed. Maybe 2 was a bit of a lull, but the 3rd one was the first I saw in theaters and I had a total blast. They kind of end up running together, but I think the end of 2 sets up a spectacular beginning for 3, and then 4 ends in an excellent way. I really didn't think those movies would be my thing, but I now have great affection for them.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 29, 2024 3:01:16 GMT
I was thinking that too, it's not like the original trilogy goes together perfectly, either. In fact, I'm pretty sure GM designed the movies that way, almost like dreams that meld into another with no beginning and no end. Visually, Fury Road was great. Beyond the continuity issues, I just didn't like the title character being turned into a bland sidekick. Furiosa is definitely worth seeing even as a casual fan of the franchise. I can't imagine anyone liking Fury Road and not liking this one. Yeah this doing poorly doesn't bode well for cinemas. I don't know what it's going to take for a movie to have a huge opening in 2024 and beyond. People say Deadpool & Wolverine might save the summer, but I'm not so sure at this point. Like we've been saying for a while now, you have to make it an event for people to bother going to theaters in droves. Barbenheimer happened organically, I don't know how you duplicate that kind of thing. I can't think of a movie franchise outside of Avatar (which is 100% about trippy visuals on a massive screen, nothing else) that feels like a guaranteed box office hit now. I'd also add that I think the title character has kinda been a side character since the second movie. The series more or less consists of him traveling around and getting involved in someone else's conflict, so I didn't think it was out of step. But 'dreams the meld together with no beginning or end' is a good descriptor of the tone of that series. Each one has kind of a different flavor about them but each one does sorta just ease into the next. I think a lot of people felt about Thunderdome the way I felt about Fury Road. I guess the difference for me was watching the originals when I was a kid, I didn't care so much about the nuances of storytelling, I just loved the action and the badass anti-hero at the center of it all. Rewatching The Road Warrior a few years ago, it really hit me how it was the franchise at its best. The post-apocalyptic feel; the small, self-contained world that felt entirely plausible even at its most extreme. The people just trying to survive in a civil manner were relatable, while the ruthless raiders terrorizing them were darkly fun and twisted, with both factions fighting over what would be one of the few remaining commodities of any real value-- an oil refinery. And it features one of the best endings in film, not just for the action. Max is ultimately double crossed by the people he agreed to help (for a price), and you can't even blame them, given the circumstances. So he risks his life while having no idea he's actually fighting as a distraction, and he ends up with nothing. The narrator explains how the tanker was filled with sand as they got away with the gas in drums on the busses. They went on to form the great northern tribe and lived in peace. Max, beat to shit, surrounded by dead enemies and wreckage, is left standing in the road as the camera pans out. "As for the Road Warrior, that was the last time we ever saw him. He exists now, only in my memories." Fade to black, roll credits. The entire sequence is brilliant, and if you ask me, it's retroactively a hell of an (obviously unintentional) commentary on wartime military service in the middle east. So perfect was that ending that people probably didn't see the point of the third one, which again, I enjoy-- as a kind of knockoff of the previous film. The more I think about it, the more I'm able to make peace with Fury Road in that respect. I still just want to watch The Road Warrior again.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 30, 2024 20:11:27 GMT
Vortex – Six-part French miniseries on Netflix (at least here in Canada) with the subject matter that is my catnip: time-travel, time loops, time anything. Similar basic premise as the movie Frequency with Jim Caviezel and Dennis Quaid. The wife of a young police detective dies in an accident in 1998. Twenty-seven years later, another woman is killed in the same location. Are the two deaths related? With the help of a time vortex that allows him to talk to his wife in the days inexorably leading to her death, he investigates the present-day crime with an eye to changing the past and saving his wife, but at the same time trying to avoid negative “butterfly effects”.
Hardly “must-see TV” but well worth a watch if the premise is of interest and if subtitles are not a deal-breaker.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 30, 2024 23:12:12 GMT
Vortex – Six-part French miniseries on Netflix (at least here in Canada) with the subject matter that is my catnip: time-travel, time loops, time anything. Similar basic premise as the movie Frequency with Jim Caviezel and Dennis Quaid. The wife of a young police detective dies in an accident in 1998. Twenty-seven years later, another woman is killed in the same location. Are the two deaths related? With the help of a time vortex that allows him to talk to his wife in the days inexorably leading to her death, he investigates the present-day crime with an eye to changing the past and saving his wife, but at the same time trying to avoid negative “butterfly effects”. Hardly “must-see TV” but well worth a watch if the premise is of interest and if subtitles are not a deal-breaker. Sounds fun, I'll see if it's available here in the States. Space travel was the sci-fi specialty back in the 1950s - 90s, nowadays it's time travel & the multiverse. I'm currently in the middle of Outer Range season 2 on Amazon (I believe I did a brief write up on season 1 a while back) and Dark Matter on Apple tv+. I like both shows quite a bit, though Outer Range is really leaning heavily into the Twin Peaks 'weird for the sake of being weird' thing this season. Give them a look if you haven't already.
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on May 31, 2024 5:29:01 GMT
Great stuff as always!! It's funny that you mentioned about how the cancel culture theme is present but not the main focus of the movie, to the point of the movie practically ignoring it at various points throughout. As I watching this, I remember having fleeting feelings about that being in it, but it kinda washed over me and became an element of the film that I had forgotten entirely. I'm all for the halcyon days of movies just being movies. I'm glad that Jaws eschews all this nonsense from the book about a mayor's moral compass being destroyed due to his mafia ties, and the love triangle among Brody, Ellen and Hooper. Sometimes a movie just needs to be about a killer fish and the townspeople trying to address it. Simple, direct storytelling, not speechifying. I think that's why I loved Dream Scenario as much as I did, because I didn't really think about what the movie was trying to say, if anything. And an amazing comp on American Fiction, which is a movie I expected to have a lot more to say but surprisingly the whole concept about white people using black literature for their own purposes became the backdrop, almost like a B-plot. From the trailer, it looked like that's what the entire movie was about, so imagine my surprise when it was really just a character study about Jeffrey Wright (who is brilliant as always). In the one, it almost had the opposite effect on me where I was expecting the messaging to be a little more front-and-center, and in that one regard, I do think it does the overall experience a bit of a disservice. Now to go totally astray..... a few months ago, we talked about the silliness of the recent spate of Liam Neeson action thrillers, all of which are basically the same movie and of varying degrees of equality. Well, yesterday, I randomly started watching Cold Pursuit and I have to say, this one was significantly better than the others. Not because it was a good movie, but it was so batshit and tonally all over the place, and had such weird, random little character moments that I had no choice but to enjoy it. I kinda felt the same way about American Fiction. It's good, but the best stuff was the satirical stuff, but it totally takes a back seat to the family drama, which isn't as strong (they all got over a death in the family remarkably quickly). With Dream Scenario, it's character exploration is so intertwined with the satire that it works well, but I almost wish that they'd never brought up the idea of 'culture war' and 'cancel culture' and everything. That kinda made it impossible for me to ignore that element. If they hadn't had the Michael Cera character bring up Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson, then it would be easier not to think about what the script is trying to say about that. Ok, so he's not interested in aligning with those people, so he's really like most of us in the socio-political center, but then what are we to make of he's being treated? Again, it could have more successfully just been a story about this guy if it didn't call it out multiple times in the dialogue, there and then in the way the third act develops. Anyway, it's still good and worth a watch. I just couldn't separate trying to sift through the commentary because they moved it from the subtext to the literal text a few too many times. Totally agree on Cold Pursuit. I watched it on a plane a while ago and had a lot of fun with its knowing silliness. I don't remember a lot of the specifics, but my memory is that it was purposefully dumb and that the tone progressed to meet how stupid it was. The Liam Neeson movies that take it seriously are fun and funny for unintentional reasons, and that was the first one I remember seeming like the movie was in on the joke. I know it's based on a European movie, and I've heard people say that the remake misses some of the dryness of the humor, but I felt like it was dryly funny and then became overtly funny by the end. I may never watch it again, but I'm much more likely to rewatch this one than most of the others. I finished watching Dream Scenario tonight. I think the cancel culture part is character development. His moral compass is going to keep on slipping. He doesn't want to be on Rogan or Carlson, but he didn't want to be connected to Obama before either . . . until he needed to make a living. But the Obama option had already flown at that point (surprised that Sprite didn't get brought back up there). He isn't a principled man (obviously) but he thinks of himself in that way. But he's only principled in that he'll take whatever is least egregious to him - - so France. And he's above the Edward Scissorhands gauntlet - - until he isn't. So who would be surprised if moving forward he didn't go to Rogan once France is no longer an option. To me, it is the love story with his wife that feels tacked on, not the cultural commentary. It feels to me like the movie is the cultural commentary. What has the movie been saying about the spousal relationship most of the way? If the ending is supposed to be him overcoming his selfishness, that got solved very conveniently in the last ten minutes. He didn't earn some emotional growth over that time. I liked it a lot. I can't remember the last time that I had such a hard time envisioning what a movie's ending was going to be - - maybe I'm Thinking of Ending Things? I'll take that every day.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 31, 2024 13:50:23 GMT
Vortex – Six-part French miniseries on Netflix (at least here in Canada) with the subject matter that is my catnip: time-travel, time loops, time anything. Similar basic premise as the movie Frequency with Jim Caviezel and Dennis Quaid. The wife of a young police detective dies in an accident in 1998. Twenty-seven years later, another woman is killed in the same location. Are the two deaths related? With the help of a time vortex that allows him to talk to his wife in the days inexorably leading to her death, he investigates the present-day crime with an eye to changing the past and saving his wife, but at the same time trying to avoid negative “butterfly effects”. Hardly “must-see TV” but well worth a watch if the premise is of interest and if subtitles are not a deal-breaker. Sounds fun, I'll see if it's available here in the States. Space travel was the sci-fi specialty back in the 1950s - 90s, nowadays it's time travel & the multiverse. I'm currently in the middle of Outer Range season 2 on Amazon (I believe I did a brief write up on season 1 a while back) and Dark Matter on Apple tv+. I like both shows quite a bit, though Outer Range is really leaning heavily into the Twin Peaks 'weird for the sake of being weird' thing this season. Give them a look if you haven't already. Outer Range wasn't on my radar. Dark Matter definitely is, although I don't have access to it.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Jun 6, 2024 12:26:11 GMT
Dark City (1998) - If I am not mistaken this has become a Cult Movie of sorts. I remember watching it when it came out and being fascinated by it. Watching it again for the first time since then, my impression was very different. The visuals were still impressive, but the story left me just ... uninterested. Maybe I was just not in the right mood, I don't know.
Does anyone remember it? It is science fiction I suppose. A man wakes up with no memories, and finds out that there are strange-looking men after him, and that there is something really bizarre going on in the whole city.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 6, 2024 14:03:14 GMT
Dark City (1998) - If I am not mistaken this has become a Cult Movie of sorts. I remember watching it when it came out and being fascinated by it. Watching it again for the first time since then, my impression was very different. The visuals were still impressive, but the story left me just ... uninterested. Maybe I was just not in the right mood, I don't know. Does anyone remember it? It is science fiction I suppose. A man wakes up with no memories, and finds out that there are strange-looking men after him, and that there is something really bizarre going on in the whole city. I remember liking it, though I haven't seen it in ages. It's wild how similar it is to The Matrix, conceptually.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jun 6, 2024 14:50:21 GMT
Dark City (1998) - If I am not mistaken this has become a Cult Movie of sorts. I remember watching it when it came out and being fascinated by it. Watching it again for the first time since then, my impression was very different. The visuals were still impressive, but the story left me just ... uninterested. Maybe I was just not in the right mood, I don't know. Does anyone remember it? It is science fiction I suppose. A man wakes up with no memories, and finds out that there are strange-looking men after him, and that there is something really bizarre going on in the whole city. I too liked it, but haven't seen it in a long time. It's very odd and cryptic and the particulars of what is actually going on in the story are still pretty elusive. Kind of an achievement for a fairly big budget studio genre film. It plays more like an art film in that way... which I think is cool, but can be frustrating. I remember Roger Ebert really loved and championed this film. He recorded a DVD commentary track extolling its brilliance and explaining how he thought it was the culmination of the genre of modern expressionism in Hollywood, and argued that it succeeded Fritz Lang in the ways that he felt Ridley Scott's Blade Runner and Tim Burton's Batman films had failed. I'm not sure I agree with that, but that's certainly the attempt. The film is nothing if not ambitious. Alex Proyas started his career very strongly and has never lived up to that. I think this movie was considered kind of a flop and he hasn't really gotten to make the kinds of things he really wanted to, but this film really feels like a 'blank check' situation. He salvaged a hit from a potential disaster with The Crow, and he was given a chance to do whatever he wanted next. I don't quite know if that's how it played out, but it sure feels like he cashed in all his chips to spend a lot of money on something that would typically never get made at a studio. As I understand it, some of the sets and props were re-purposed for The Matrix, and the cinematography, with everything drowned in that green-ish tinge, and harsh shadows and edge lighting, certainly seems to have been highly influential on a lot of the genre movies that came out just after it. It may not be very well remembered, but it had its impact in some ways for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 8, 2024 3:37:58 GMT
It's been a while since I gave a movie a lengthy writeup, and unfortunately that trend will continue for the time being. I just don't have the time lately. But I will say Bad Boys: Ride or Die (2024) is the most fun I've had at the theater in a while. Will Smith and Martin Lawrence still have excellent chemistry, the humor hits, and there's a ton of inventive action in this flick. The John Wick films have really forced other action movies (even action comedies like this) to up their game, and the world is a better place because of it.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jun 8, 2024 11:16:58 GMT
It's been a while since I gave a movie a lengthy writeup, and unfortunately that trend will continue for the time being. I just don't have the time lately. But I will say Bad Boys: Ride or Die (2024) is the most fun I've had at the theater in a while. Will Smith and Martin Lawrence still have excellent chemistry, the humor hits, and there's a ton of inventive action in this flick. The John Wick films have really forced other action movies (even action comedies like this) to up their game, and the world is a better place because of it. I couldn't really have any less interest in another Bad Boys movie, but the John Wick effect has been good and bad. We've gotten fun stuff, but everybody thinks they can and should imitate this sort of intricate fight choreography and it's become an annoying trope at times. I just saw this trailer for a new movie with Jessica Alba where they are trying to imitate this style and its becoming a bit tiresome. And you get stuff like the Road House remake, which was entertaining enough I guess, where they try the new 'innovative' techniques to make the action more 'real' and 'visceral' but it just ends up feeling really weird. There's something strange going on with the way it's shot. Apparently there's some CGI fuckery going on where Jake Gyllenhaal and his opponents are shooting some of the closeup fight moments separately and hitting a pad and then they stitch them together via CG so the hits appear to really connect so nobody needs to pull their punches. It's kinda weird but I don't think that's really the issue. I think there's something going on with the framing that feels artificial. This kind of fight choreography is as much about camera choreography as it about the subjects, and in this movie it seems like maybe there's an post production framing device where the subject is locked into center framing at all times. So when Jake Gyllenhaal punches a dude to his left then elbows a guy to his right the camera whips around frantically to keep everything in the middle of the frame... but it doesn't feel like a great camera operator doing great work, but a weird artificial after-effect that makes everything a little weird and off putting and not that fun kind of controlled frantic shooting style that works well. I think a lot of action movie directors heard George Miller describing center-frame action directing and took the wrong lessons from it. He's got a real ability to draw the eye to the right part of the screen so that even the most hectic camera moves and action can be presented in a frenzied way that still comprehensible and feels natural. As opposed to the action in the remake of Road House that feels like am attempt at thar which never works, or a Michael Bay action sequence that's visually confusing and annoying as shit. But the Road House remake also is just kinda misguided to begin with anyway. It's fine and they could have just called it something else and it wouldn't have felt as desperate, but we all know that remaking a cult film is a fool's errand. You can't recapture the unintentional campiness from the original, and having the sense of humor and self awareness makes it a different thing altogether. So you're left with yet another knowingly silly action movie with one liners and half serious, half joking dialogue that just feels like everything else that's being done now. And, to everyone's surprise, Connor McGregor is a terrible actor. Shocking I know, but they seem to think that if they tell him to keep a permanent smile on his face that equates to him effectively playing a mentally deranged lunatic. The thing is he seems like a douche bag lunatic in his real life, but in the movie he looks like a guy desperately trying to act like one. It's kind of remarkable how bad he is. Also why does he walk like that? It's so strange.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 8, 2024 13:06:39 GMT
It's been a while since I gave a movie a lengthy writeup, and unfortunately that trend will continue for the time being. I just don't have the time lately. But I will say Bad Boys: Ride or Die (2024) is the most fun I've had at the theater in a while. Will Smith and Martin Lawrence still have excellent chemistry, the humor hits, and there's a ton of inventive action in this flick. The John Wick films have really forced other action movies (even action comedies like this) to up their game, and the world is a better place because of it. I couldn't really have any less interest in another Bad Boys movie, but the John Wick effect has been good and bad. We've gotten fun stuff, but everybody thinks they can and should imitate this sort of intricate fight choreography and it's become an annoying trope at times. I just saw this trailer for a new movie with Jessica Alba where they are trying to imitate this style and its becoming a bit tiresome. And you get stuff like the Road House remake, which was entertaining enough I guess, where they try the new 'innovative' techniques to make the action more 'real' and 'visceral' but it just ends up feeling really weird. There's something strange going on with the way it's shot. Apparently there's some CGI fuckery going on where Jake Gyllenhaal and his opponents are shooting some of the closeup fight moments separately and hitting a pad and then they stitch them together via CG so the hits appear to really connect so nobody needs to pull their punches. It's kinda weird but I don't think that's really the issue. I think there's something going on with the framing that feels artificial. This kind of fight choreography is as much about camera choreography as it about the subjects, and in this movie it seems like maybe there's an post production framing device where the subject is locked into center framing at all times. So when Jake Gyllenhaal punches a dude to his left then elbows a guy to his right the camera whips around frantically to keep everything in the middle of the frame... but it doesn't feel like a great camera operator doing great work, but a weird artificial after-effect that makes everything a little weird and off putting and not that fun kind of controlled frantic shooting style that works well. I think a lot of action movie directors heard George Miller describing center-frame action directing and took the wrong lessons from it. He's got a real ability to draw the eye to the right part of the screen so that even the most hectic camera moves and action can be presented in a frenzied way that still comprehensible and feels natural. As opposed to the action in the remake of Road House that feels like am attempt at thar which never works, or a Michael Bay action sequence that's visually confusing and annoying as shit. But the Road House remake also is just kinda misguided to begin with anyway. It's fine and they could have just called it something else and it wouldn't have felt as desperate, but we all know that remaking a cult film is a fool's errand. You can't recapture the unintentional campiness from the original, and having the sense of humor and self awareness makes it a different thing altogether. So you're left with yet another knowingly silly action movie with one liners and half serious, half joking dialogue that just feels like everything else that's being done now. And, to everyone's surprise, Connor McGregor is a terrible actor. Shocking I know, but they seem to think that if they tell him to keep a permanent smile on his face that equates to him effectively playing a mentally deranged lunatic. The thing is he seems like a douche bag lunatic in his real life, but in the movie he looks like a guy desperately trying to act like one. It's kind of remarkable how bad he is. Also why does he walk like that? It's so strange. Haven't seen the Road House remake, and I probably won't anytime soon. I hear you, though. Even in this flick, which overall I praised the action, it does a few things I didn't love. It has this kind of POV sequence where Mike & Marcus are throwing a gun to each other and shooting bad guys and what have you, and the camera follows the gun's POV through the air, then you're facing whoever is holding it, then it flips to a first person shooter POV as they use it. They're intentionally mimicking a video game, and it really didn't work for me. But it was only one among several actions scenes where I thought they did some really cool stuff. Regarding the Bad Boys franchise. It's funny because I was never a huge fan of the first two, but I ended up liking the third one a lot (maybe because my expectations were low), and I really got a kick out of this one. It might depend on how much you like the leads or how seriously (or not seriously) you're willing to take the movies. I remember thinking the first one was alright, and not liking the second one at all, because it was like a spoof of itself. Ride or Die is almost a spoof of a spoof, because Marcus (Lawrence) is so over the top goofy in this one. But there's a reason for it, and mostly I'm just impressed that they were able to find things for the expanded supporting cast to do, and they put genuine effort into the action scenes of a leftover franchise's fourth installment-- which has become mostly a comedy show at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Shane Falco on Jun 8, 2024 20:45:16 GMT
Last night was Pat Sajaks final episode of Wheel of Fortune as he is retiring. Wheel of Fortune is something I watch with my brother every night it's on and I try and get him to solve some of the puzzles. Its become part of his routine that he enjoys and we each pick a contestant to win and he gets super competitive over it.
Pat gave a nice heart felt speech at the end and while he has never been the most exciting game show host there is/was always a familiarity to him much like Alex Trebec on Jeopardy or Bob Barker on Price is Right. It is going to be a real struggle as the show transitions to Ryan Seacrest as the new host. Ryan Seacrest just seems like the most boring choice ever, doesn't that guy have enough gigs as it is? I know not every host can be like Steve Harvey who honestly makes the current version of Family Feud my favorite game show running but Seacrest is just so vanilla, but thats probably what the networks want so they don't offend people now days. Drew Carey was a horrible choice to replace Bob Barker as well and imo that show never recovered from the transition and I fear Seacrest will be the same. Vana White is staying on which is her choice and all but it would have made more sense to me for her and Pat to retire together and transition to two new hosts. That said, while Vana imo is easily replaceable I fear they'd replace her with somebody like a Kardashian or something.
They announced Seacrest as the new host like immediately after Pat announced his retirement which was also shocking. I figured they'd do more of a processed search but it seemed like they knew exactly who they wanted. Not like either of these two were ever up for the job but I'd have liked to see Conan O'Brien or Jason Alexander in the gig. Not sure what either of them are doing now days. The Miz (a wrestler from WWE) would have been great as well as he has a future in on air gigs post wrestling career.
With that all said, I'm gonna miss Pat as he has just been a staple and comfort to the Wheel watching experience. When you've been used to something for so long a change is always going to be rough.
|
|