|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Jul 22, 2024 21:33:28 GMT
I watched the new Beverly Hills Cop last night. It was fun to see Eddie Murphy reprise the role of Axel Foley. For those who remember fondly the originals, I think it is well worth the time. For anyone else, I am not sure the new movie stands on its own two feet. Going to get around to this eventually. I'm a fan of the originals, so I should get a kick out of this. Also Jep, have you seen the Extraction movies on Netflix? I can't remember if we've discussed them or not. Incredible non-stop action, with some decent story beats as well. Highly recommend checking them out if you haven't already seen them. Yeah, I saw and greatly enjoyed both Extraction movies. And on the subject of non-stop action movies on Netflix, one could do worse than "Carter", a one long-take movie (not really, there are plenty of hidden cuts, of course) Korean all-out action movie that has to be seen to be believed.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jul 24, 2024 16:06:12 GMT
This one became a bit hit, much to my surprise. I guess nobody cares that Will Smith is a psycho or that this franchise is lame and stale because this is the first movie of the season to over-perform. Certainly seems inevitable that there's gonna be another one of these. Genuinely curious, do you think what he did to be that big of a deal that people would boycott his movies? Maybe I'm in the minority but I just don't think it was THAT big of a deal to warrant the audiences to boycott his films. The incident was bad but I think it was the setting of it all and not the action itself. Had this happened at a random night club would people have cared? Doubtful. So I dont see how boycotting a Will Smith film based on the action itself being warranted. Had he assaulted a woman or something sure. Chris Rock insulted his wife, got bitch slapped for it. Smith deservedly so got banned by the Academy but again, I just don't see there being a huge moral high ground on my end for movie goers to not want to see him anymore unless they already disliked him. He was (maybe still is) right up there with the likes of Tom Cruise as a movie star that general audiences all enjoyed watching. I cant imagine what he did really changed those opinions that much. Seeing how other actors in Hollywood have been "cancelled" or boycotted for their actions I just can't seem to put what Will did on par with them. Its been a while since I've seen a Will Smith film but I certainly wouldn't purposely avoid watching a film he is in. Even in his bad films, I generally enjoy him in them like Suicide Squad. Not a big fan of the Bad Boys franchise, I think the first was fine and the second to be meh. Never watched the third. Maybe people were going out of their way to support this film in support of Will being back into a box office like picture? Its been what 4 years now since he has done a film and even longer since it was a movie designed for the general audiences to go out and enjoy. Just going back through this thread now, so my apologies for being late and annoyingly digging up out of date topics... but... without re-litigating the whole thing; Will Smith's whole 'brand' (to use the obnoxious term) was likability. He was a genial, pleasant guy, for all the brash attitude, that was what he was selling more than anything else, and that's been damaged. It's been dinged for a while with his obnoxious nepotism with his kids and his wife's whole persona, but that has still been his thing. Whatever your opinion or my opinion on him is or was, this was a BIG question in Hollywood. People were waiting to see the box office on this movie to see not just the viability of this franchise, but also to see if people would accept Will Smith as a movie star again. Whether or not you think they should or shouldn't, and whatever criteria that should or shouldn't be based upon, this was very much a question being asked in the industry. But also... let's also not minimize how crazy that was. It wasn't in a night club, the setting is the main reason why it was fucking crazy, but that dude lost his mind. It was the mildest of jokes, he laughed, his wife scowled, then he slapped a man in the face on the biggest stage in show biz. It was nuts. It didn't make me any more or less interested in yet another sequel to a Michael Bay movie, but if you were still of the belief that this was the nicest guy in Hollywood, and that's why you went to his movies, then it's within reason that someone might see him a little differently as a result. Again, that was just the question, but we got the answer, and apparently it didn't make much difference at all.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jul 24, 2024 16:14:45 GMT
Still Time – Another movie on the time travel/time loop general vicinity that always appeals to me. On the day after his 40th birthday, a man wakes up to find that it is his birthday again, and he has no memory of the intervening year. Then over and over he skips ahead by one year at a time and has a glimpse of how his life is changing, not necessarily for the better. This is an Italian remake of the Australian movie Long Story Short (both on Netflix). When I saw the description of the Italian version I wasn’t immediately reminded of the original (or of the Brazilian movie Just Another Christmas, which is also on Netflix and has the same basic premise except the day is Christmas, not the protagonist’s birthday), but pretty soon the bells started ringing and I paused the movie to look it up and saw the connection. Later when reading reviews on IMDb I saw a few users comparing it to Click with Adam Sandler, which I haven’t seen. Anyway, back to Still Time, I think it is billed as a comedy, but anyone expecting a barrel of laughs will be disappointed. I mean, it has a few funny moments, but clearly the intention and the tone of the movie are those of a drama with some touching moments and some food for thought. If I had a complaint it would be that it relies a bit too much on the tired husband-who-works-too-much-and-neglects-his-family trope. Once in a while it would be nice to see a movie where the source of friction between the couple is something else entirely (and not infidelity either, the other go-to plot device for screenwriters). It's been a while since I watched the Australian version so I can’t really compare the two. I think I may have liked the original a little better, even though the two versions are probably pretty similar. I am still glad I watched the remake, if for nothing else then just for the pleasure of hearing Italian. Those with plenty of free time and an interest in the premise might want to watch both versions to compare, and what the hell, throw in the Brazilian one as well, which is definitely played for laughs more than the other two put together. Interesting mention of a few films I haven't even heard of, and some which I may try to check out. Oddly enough, one of the best of these kinds of heavily formulaic time loopy kinda things that I've seen in the last few years is a Hallmark channel Hanukkah movie, of all things. They somehow started letting writers get a little funnier and a little more creative over there which saps some of the fun away from enjoying how bad those Hallmark movies usually are, but every so often one actually works. It's the kind of movie you watch and imagine with a more famous cast and somewhat bigger budget and a few script polishes, and see how it could have been a hit at the multiplex. It's an obvious Groundhog Day ripoff, but there are some clever turns and actual self aware dialogue where the characters use that movie to try to figure their own situation. There are even actual decent jokes to be found. It's strange, but they've made a few fairly decent movies of late.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jul 24, 2024 16:39:59 GMT
I went to see Inside Out 2 yesterday. Like the first one, it's funny, it's touching, and it's very clever. Even manly men like we are should be able to enjoy it!
I was glad to see the theatre 90% full. It wasn't one of those very large auditoriums, it was a "VIP" theatre with large reclining seats and food and bar service, but still, I took it as a positive sign that there were so many people in the audience.
Way back when you posted this, I had also recently just seen Inside Out 2. Ironically the first movie my wife and I saw in a theater in ages was a kids movie, but it was nice to see that on even on a weekday (albeit in the summer) the theater was actually pretty full with kids and families and everyone seemed to be on good behavior and enjoying the movie appropriately. This one was not quite as a good as the first, but man, Pixar still generally does this better than anyone. These movies, and Pixar's stuff generally, is more emotionally sophisticated than the vast majority of movies for 'grown ups,' and they also seem to be able to do comedy better in the context of a dramatic story than most comedies can in comedic ones... it also helps that pretty much everything Lewis Black says as this character is hilarious. I had my doubts that the first movie would appeal to kids because the themes and emotional beats seem so much more resonant as an adult looking back or possibly for parents seeing their kids growing up, but clearly kids took to it. This movie takes place as this girl enters adolescence, and again I doubted that kids would be able to identify with the themes here, but there's been no such issue. I don't know if children fully understand the brilliant visualization of the climactic anxiety attack, but it's so well depicted that you can still get the idea without having lived it. I thought the external conflict that drove the internal story felt a little slight, but then I also realized at a certain point that this was the entire point. She's entering a stage of life where she's behaving in ways and doing things that seem outsized compared to what's literally going on, but that's early adolescence for ya, and it's really well realized. One minor-ish thing that deserves attention is the incorporation of different styles of animation into this style. Riley has a few character that she still loves buried as 'deep dark secrets' and one of them is from a rudimentary kids' show and the other from an adavanced video game. They made a similar moment work in the first movie where our characters appear as depicted in different styles of art, but this feels new to the movie, not just like a reference to that, and the ability to make this work so seamlessly in a visual sense is really remarkable. Anyway, this was a terrific watch. Slightly less impactful when compared to the first, but even though it's a sequel it feels like a real return to form for Pixar, which has been on kind of a spotty streak recently. I had just assumed this was directed by Pete Docter, but when the credits came up it listed another name, which was good to see. It's nice that they have new, capable talent and that they don't have to just rely on the old guard to make their best stuff. But one thing that I noticed that was kind of amusing was that every human character other than the main character was black or racially ambiguous. There was even an establishing shot where a guy was walking by a building and it was a blind guy with a cane. They're clearly trying to hit some quota on an inclusivity index or something... and that's fine, and I don't care, but it was just kind of obvious. But the fact that this is going to make some people angry is hilarious to me.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jul 24, 2024 17:40:45 GMT
It's been a while, so I'm gonna forget to say the vast majority of what I would have said about it when I had just seen it (which spares everyone my rambling), but the wife and watched Ripley on Netflix semi-recently, and then to compare we watched The Talented Mr. Ripley immediately after.
As I understand it the series is very close to the novel, and the movie took some more liberties. There are major plot and character differences, but the most notable differences are in tone. The movie is like a flashy melodrama while the series is like a quiet art film.
The story of both are based on the Patricia Highsmith novel, which I have not read, but understand is the first in a series, and Netflix may very well greenlight a second season (they exhibited but didn't produce the first) since it's become a hit.
The story is that an American conman is given the opportunity to track down a wealthy business man's son in Italy, with all expenses paid, because it is believed that they are old friends. He finds him in this Italian village and begins insinuating himself into this young man's life, and dark and deadly consequences ensue.
This is true of both adaptations, but the details they follow are sometimes different and the title character at the center of it all is portrayed remarkably differently in each. In the film Matt Damon plays a very young, very gregarious and charming, opportunistic man who's neediness means he latches on to people and he acts out when slighted because he's emotionally volatile. In the series Andrew Scott plays a not-quite-as-young man (the actor is 47, but he could pass for younger) who is a cold and calculating opportunist who seizes on this opportunity to live the good life, but doesn't seem to actually make any personal connections with anyone in his life. He seems like a sociopath who is faking all of his personal interactions with everyone. Others don't feel that way, but from our perspective in the audience, we can see through it all. The film also heavily, HEAVILY implies that Thomas Ripley as played by Matt Damon is gay and is sexually infatuated with Dickie, as played by Jude Law. In the series one gets the sense that Ripley is asexual and may feign interest in romantic encounters, but that he has no use for sex or romance. It's never spoken but that's the feeling.
One crucial scene scene in both adaptations exemplifies the differences in these depictions of, ostensibly, the same character; and if you've seen either you'd know that there's a turning point in the story that takes place on a small boat. What happens on that boat in the film is framed as something of an accident where the emotions of the moment got the best of Tom and he made a mistake that he had to deal with. In the series what happens on that boat seems to have been decided on before he ever set foot in that boat. It's calm, calculated, cold, and to him it's just a matter of fact. Though the aftermath is a bit hectic, we are pretty sure that he knew what he was going to do after that boat ride well in advance.
All-in-all the movie feels a little shallow, and a little rushed compared to the series.. and of course it does. The series has more real estate. The first 3 episodes or so of the show are covered in the first 15 minutes or of the movie. But that's not even really what it comes down to. The series could have been cut down dramatically and kept the plot mostly in place. But it's a tonal choice. The show was shot in black and white. It's stark. It's quiet. The show leaves spaces in between dialogue. People move at a slow pace and some talk in a midly stitled way, like in a Kubrick film. The glance and lingering looks after a line is delivered speak more than the words themselves. The streets in these gorgeous Italian locales are largely empty. The sound of footstep clacking against the wet cobblestone ring in the ear of a character who knows someone is following him. Long corridors cast longer shadows in deeply textured walls of ancient buildings. Waves crashing on a beach give an uneasy rythm to an otherwise cordial exchange of pleasantries.
But the movie doesn't have time for that. The early scenes are bustling, crowded, fun. Jude Law isn't trying to be a painter here, but a Jazz musician because that will give a pace to a montage so we can get through the characters bonding more quickly. Gwyneth Paltrow doesn't dislike this character as quickly as Dakota Fanning does because it feels like more development if she makes a stark turn later on. Music rushes the fun early scenes along and punctuates the dramatic shifts more because it needs to convey how deeply dramatic this all is... and of course major threads are dropped, other characters are added.
All in all, the film noir/euro-art film/expressionistic aesthetic of the series works much better for me. That appeals to me way more than the pricey studio movie of the late 90s. As I said, the series is like an art film and the movie is like a melodrama. Had I seen (or remembered seeing) it first, I might have had warmer feelings about that movie. I know it's fairly well regarded, and there are things about it that I like, and some things that I like better. Even though Andrew Scott is terrific, it's hard not to notice that he's markedly older than these people he's latched onto, and perhaps to old for the character to live this way. I think Jude Law captures the magnetism of that young, dynamic, alluring, adventuresome, but also spoiled rich kid living off of the family trust better than Johnny Flynn does in the show. The series has a different tone, but that depiction feels more like the way it should have been considering what the character represents. Another old friend shows up in the story who challenges Tom, and in the film is played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman as a big fat ball of obnoxious energy that gets in the way of Tom's plans. In the series that character is played by Sting's 'non-binary' child as a quiet, sly, and suspicious vacuum of energy. Each evokes the tone of their adaptation, but the Phillip Seymour Hoffman portrayal makes more sense for the effect that the character has (not to mention the fact that in the early 1960s nobody would meet someone who is obviously biologically female and just accept that they must address this person as male).
But in general the story feels better told in the series (with the possible exception of a meeting of two character very late in the proceedings thar strains credibility... a scene that the movie does not depict at all, and I'm not sure was in the novel). The movie feels a little slight and the series feels fully, intellectually realized. The movie is VERY grand and emotive, and the series is VERY subtle.
What both have in common is the story's reliance on their time and place. This story could never be updated because so much of it relies on trusting that some is the person he says he is. This is a time when you couldn't just look something like that up, when there aren't cameras on any street corner, and when you may just never think to simply try and ask for a photograph. Assuming someone's identity and gaining access to someone's bank accounts could be as simple as having a few papers on hand and knowing how to properly glue a new photo in a passport book. This was possible as long as it was done with enough confidence, or enough cold calculation. Both of these adaptations depict that aspect rather well, and watching them in the 21st century, it is impossible not to notice how specific to its time this story is (although the movie and series also evidently take place a few years apart for whatever reason).
As I said earlier, there are multiple novels in this series, and apparently multiple films have been made from them. This series features a cameo of sorts from John Malkovich, who I learned played Thomas Ripley in a film based on one of the later novels. There are also other films (one starring Barry Pepper) based on later novels, and another adaptation of the first novel that these two projects were based on.. that one being a French film from 1960 called Purple Moon.
I hope Netflix decides to give this creative team, namely writer/director Steve Zaillian and produder/star Andrew Scott, a shot to continue on making this show based on the latter novels. I don't really know what comes later in this series of books, but if they can bring the sane level of artistry to the future stories then they really deserve the chance to make more.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jul 26, 2024 13:52:04 GMT
Also saw MaXXXine in the theater like a week ago and was surprised to see a mostly full theater on a weeknight following the opening weekend.
It's pretty good. Not as strong as the excellent first two entries in this series, bu5 Mia Goth continues to be excellent in these movies, and the 1980s Hollywood setting is fun and well realized. It just arrives at a fairly anticlimactic climax and takes a few turns that don't fully work. But the broad cast of well known character actors supporting her is fun to watch, especially Kevin Bacon taking progressively more and more abuse as the film goes on.
It's clearly Ti West doing a take on the 'giallo' but with a somewhat obvious 80s soundtrack and look. That kind of thing hasn't fully worn out its welcome yet, but there's been so much 80s nostalgia in the last decade or so that I kinda wished he would have gone with something a little more unique. The dirty, grungy 70s movie he made with X was a great take on a familiar thing, and then Pearl was a real step forward for him. He created a much deeper character study with that one, and it somehow worked to apply the look of a technicolor melodrama to a more true and honest look at this dark character based drama set in the days of the first world War when monochrome silents would have been the cinema of the day.
This one feels like he's doing a really good job with something that many of his contemporaries have already done. Still good though. Mia Goth and Ti West both have me interested in whatever they may do next.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 29, 2024 13:15:30 GMT
We saw Twisters (2024) on opening night, and then Deadpool & Wolverine (2024) this past Friday. I would lump them together and put them both in the shoulder shrug category, but I'll focus briefly on Twisters, since I have a lot more to say about the MCU in general, and I'll be saving that for a separate post.
Often when I watch mediocre movies, I find myself writing a better (well that's subjective, I suppose) version of it in my head while viewing. About halfway through Twisters, I realized I was just writing the original Twister. That's when I came to the conclusion Twisters kind of sucks. I had a low bar going in anyway (decided to see it last minute because I just needed something mindless to unwind on a Friday), but I just felt this movie was dumb. Like deliberately dumb. It felt like less of an adventure movie and more of a postcard to Middle America, complete with cliches like the educated people are all elitist assholes and the British reporter is a fop, falling all over the place and throwing up because he can't handle the rugged life of a 'Merican. I didn't hate it, it just wasn't for me. My wife enjoyed it much more than I did, though her biggest takeaway might've been that the female lead was nowhere near good looking enough to match up with Glen Powell.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jul 29, 2024 13:54:52 GMT
We saw Twisters (2024) on opening night, and then Deadpool & Wolverine (2024) this past Friday. I would lump them together and put them both in the shoulder shrug category, but I'll focus briefly on Twisters, since I have a lot more to say about the MCU in general, and I'll be saving that for a separate post. Often when I watch mediocre movies, I find myself writing a better (well that's subjective, I suppose) version of it in my head while viewing. About halfway through Twisters, I realized I was just writing the original Twister. That's when I came to the conclusion Twisters kind of sucks. I had a low bar going in anyway (decided to see it last minute because I just needed something mindless to unwind on a Friday), but I just felt this movie was dumb. Like deliberately dumb. It felt like less of an adventure movie and more of a postcard to Middle America, complete with cliches like the educated people are all elitist assholes and the British reporter is a fop, falling all over the place and throwing up because he can't handle the rugged life of a 'Merican. I didn't hate it, it just wasn't for me. My wife enjoyed it much more than I did, though her biggest takeaway might've been that the female lead was nowhere near good looking enough to match up with Glen Powell. I haven't seen Twisters, but I would have been shocked if it wasn't really dumb. But wasn't the original movie really dumb? Wasn't the most memorable thing about it that there was a crude CGI cow being tossed through the air? I remember being entertained, primarily by Phillip Seymour Hoffman reciting some very stupid dialogue and Cary Elwes being the effete British tornado chaser vs Bill Paxton down-home good ole boy tornado chaser. Seemed logical when I was like 7 years old or whenever that came out. But I certainly remember it being dumb. By the way. Glenn Powell has a weird face. I know the women all go nuts for him, and I get it, but his look is kinda weird. We recently watched Hitman on Netflix, the movie he was in and co-wrote with Richard Linklater, and he's pretty good in it and it's pretty enjoyable. But he plays a guy who eventually takes on multiple personas, and when he's wearing different outfits and wigs and makeup and stuff he looks very odd. It kinda works for the sake of the movie, but it's just kinda strange to look at him as the new 'it' guy who everyone thinks is so good looking, and seeing he's not necessarily classically, objectively attractive even though every woman on the planet seems to think he is. Also saw Deadpool & Wolverine. There's both a lot and not all that much to say at the same time. I had an enjoyable experience, it was fun and very funny, stuck the landing on most of the many moments of fan service, was self referential to a degree that they never did before, but clearly sacrificed having a strong narrative, or even a narrative that anyone who wasn't deeply invested on these movies would even really be able to understand. And that extended to a lot of the cameos and character moments. More than once my wife leaned over and asked me who certain characters were and why everyone was cheering. But it gets A LOT of mileage out of these guys and their personalities. You can see Ryan Reynolds winking and smirking even through that full face mask, and Jackman is there to take it seriously to be the counterpoint. They had to shoulder a lot of the story behind the story, like bridging the gap between the Fox and Marvel 'universes' and whatnot, and I did wonder at some point if it would have been more enjoyable had it been more of a straightforward odd couple, buddy cop kinda movie that didn't have to distract so much from the core two hander that it was with all of this other stuff... ...but it was just nice to see a lot of those moments, like Hugh in the suit and ultimately in the mask. I know that's superficial fan service, but god damnit, I was happy to see it.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 29, 2024 15:29:29 GMT
We saw Twisters (2024) on opening night, and then Deadpool & Wolverine (2024) this past Friday. I would lump them together and put them both in the shoulder shrug category, but I'll focus briefly on Twisters, since I have a lot more to say about the MCU in general, and I'll be saving that for a separate post. Often when I watch mediocre movies, I find myself writing a better (well that's subjective, I suppose) version of it in my head while viewing. About halfway through Twisters, I realized I was just writing the original Twister. That's when I came to the conclusion Twisters kind of sucks. I had a low bar going in anyway (decided to see it last minute because I just needed something mindless to unwind on a Friday), but I just felt this movie was dumb. Like deliberately dumb. It felt like less of an adventure movie and more of a postcard to Middle America, complete with cliches like the educated people are all elitist assholes and the British reporter is a fop, falling all over the place and throwing up because he can't handle the rugged life of a 'Merican. I didn't hate it, it just wasn't for me. My wife enjoyed it much more than I did, though her biggest takeaway might've been that the female lead was nowhere near good looking enough to match up with Glen Powell. I haven't seen Twisters, but I would have been shocked if it wasn't really dumb. But wasn't the original movie really dumb? Wasn't the most memorable thing about it that there was a crude CGI cow being tossed through the air? I remember being entertained, primarily by Phillip Seymour Hoffman reciting some very stupid dialogue and Cary Elwes being the effete British tornado chaser vs Bill Paxton down-home good ole boy tornado chaser. Seemed logical when I was like 7 years old or whenever that came out. But I certainly remember it being dumb. By the way. Glenn Powell has a weird face. I know the women all go nuts for him, and I get it, but his look is kinda weird. We recently watched Hitman on Netflix, the movie he was in and co-wrote with Richard Linklater, and he's pretty good in it and it's pretty enjoyable. But he plays a guy who eventually takes on multiple personas, and when he's wearing different outfits and wigs and makeup and stuff he looks very odd. It kinda works for the sake of the movie, but it's just kinda strange to look at him as the new 'it' guy who everyone thinks is so good looking, and seeing he's not necessarily classically, objectively attractive even though every woman on the planet seems to think he is. Also saw Deadpool & Wolverine. There's both a lot and not all that much to say at the same time. I had an enjoyable experience, it was fun and very funny, stuck the landing on most of the many moments of fan service, was self referential to a degree that they never did before, but clearly sacrificed having a strong narrative, or even a narrative that anyone who wasn't deeply invested on these movies would even really be able to understand. And that extended to a lot of the cameos and character moments. More than once my wife leaned over and asked me who certain characters were and why everyone was cheering. But it gets A LOT of mileage out of these guys and their personalities. You can see Ryan Reynolds winking and smirking even through that full face mask, and Jackman is there to take it seriously to be the counterpoint. They had to shoulder a lot of the story behind the story, like bridging the gap between the Fox and Marvel 'universes' and whatnot, and I did wonder at some point if it would have been more enjoyable had it been more of a straightforward odd couple, buddy cop kinda movie that didn't have to distract so much from the core two hander that it was with all of this other stuff... ...but it was just nice to see a lot of those moments, like Hugh in the suit and ultimately in the mask. I know that's superficial fan service, but god damnit, I was happy to see it. Yeah I wasn't a huge fan of Twister, either. (To be honest, I haven't seen it since it was in theaters, but was Elwes supposed to be a Brit in that movie? I thought he was a British actor doing a bad American accent.) Anyway, I just thought Twisters would've worked better if the woman was borderline psychotic about combatting tornadoes as if they were living entities-- which is what the Helen Hunt character was in the first one. A storm killed her father and she took it personally, as if the tornado did it on purpose. It became a kind of revenge/suicide quest for her as she eventually admits it to the Paxton character and he points out how dumb that is. This time around, the girl is just a dope with no confidence because things went sideways and people died the last time out. Either of these are understandable reactions to trauma, I just found the former a more compelling character than the latter. And the sci-fi nonsense of throwing some foam in a tornado and making it disappear. Originally they were collecting data to try to create an early warning system for twisters; now, in a post-superhero film era world, the movie has to give these regular folks the ability to actually defeat the storm outright. Again, it's not that Twister was a thinking man's film, it's just that Twisters somehow makes the whole concept even dumber, almost 30 years later. Feels like we should be going in the other direction. I guess Powell is decent looking, maybe the easy-going Cowboy type is just in vogue at the moment. All I know is that my wife said the girl wasn't good looking enough for him, and she was reading up on his other movies when we got home. She asked if we had watched Hitman on Netflix, and I reminded her we just saw it like a month ago. Goes to show how those Netflix movies stay with the average viewer. Hitman was alright, but it was a strange movie that couldn't decide what it wanted to be. It wasn't a romcom, it wasn't a crime story, it wasn't even the Fletch-esque undercover comedy it dabbled in from time to time. The best parts are easily the disguises, but they move away from that stuff pretty quickly. Then it turns super dark as the two main characters become murderers at the end because the movie thinks that would be funny(?) But the epilogue makes sure to tell you the real guy never killed anyone-- so why throw that in the movie? The Deadpool stuff I want to get to when I have a little more time. I've been perhaps a little harsh elsewhere on the site, but I really think it's my thoughts on the MCU as a whole being taken out on what was always intended to be a goofball comedy. There was some legitimately funny stuff in there, but I just feel like it's a tired act and I'm getting sick of the multiverse.
|
|
|
Post by Horselover Fat on Jul 30, 2024 0:45:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Horselover Fat on Aug 1, 2024 2:39:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 5, 2024 12:53:04 GMT
Frogs would've been all over this one. I'm guessing the classic M. Night Shymy twist is that the killer is the daughter and the dad is a schizophrenic ghost from the future. Saw it and enjoyed it, for what it was. There isn't really a twist, he's just a serial killer trying to escape. I guess the twist is that it's clearly a dark comedy disguised as a psychological thriller. A lot of Shyamalan movies are viewed better as comedies, even though they clearly weren't intended as such, but Trap is deliberately so. In better hands, it would've made a great thriller, but I think Shams wanted to make a demo tape for his daughter (who is very talented, for what it's worth) and kind of spoof himself at the same time. Nobody in the film acts like a human being, all of the dialog feels AI generated, and the actions taken by pretty much everyone in the movie defy all logic. There are a few details that are genuinely nifty, and the movie does occasionally take itself seriously (I think). But a lot of it is dark comedy, and the mid-credits scene makes it clear Shams was just having fun with the idea. He wants you to leave the theater laughing. Spoiler take Since he gets away in the end, I'm curious as to what Shams has up his sleeve for this character in the future. Will he try to tie it into a previous title, as he did with Split? Is Cooper supposed to be superhuman? He gets tased like 6 times before going down. I'm very curious as to how long it took him to dig a tunnel from his closet to the neighbors' yard, and how he got out of the limo that was completely surrounded by fans, unnoticed. It doesn't really matter in a movie like this, but I had to ask. Also, on a scale of 1-10, how traumatized are his family members by this whole ordeal? The wife is already a basketcase, but the daughter gives him a big hug at the end, and I don't remember if the son had any speaking lines. Maybe the son didn't actually exist!
One of the fun details I mentioned earlier was the scene where the pop star has everyone hold up their phone lights and forgive out loud those who have wronged them or whatever. The daughter does it, the whole audience does it. Cooper doesn't. He's haunted by the memory of his abusive mother and he can't let go. Just one of the little details that would've been great if this were a serious film. But alas.
As for me, I had fun with it, and I'm looking forward to a potential sequel. I'm already kicking around ideas to send to Shams. Maybe 'Trapped' but stylized as 'TRAPP2.' My favorite so far is Trap Part 2: House of Mirrors. Cooper is discovered to be working at a carnival and has to maneuver his way around the fair grounds to escape. In true Shyamalan fashion, he could keep bumping into other characters that are actually ghosts of his victims, separate personalities, aliens or some such. The title card is stylized with the word 'TRAP' and reflected underneath is the word 'PART' and then a 2. Maybe Hartnett with some clown makeup or something. We can workshop it later. Anyway, I thought it was a hoot. A buddy of mine also saw it and said it was in the top three worst Shyamalan movies. I disagree. Of course I had low expectations anyway, but I felt like for once the movie knew that it was a farce, which really made all the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Aug 7, 2024 15:09:51 GMT
I went to see The Instigators. a new movie starring Matt Damon and Casey Affleck that’s having a limited theatrical run before hitting Apple TV, to which I don’t subscribe. It’s a heist movie with comedic elements about two down-on-their-luck men hired to do a robbery that was supposed to be a walk in the park but that goes spectacularly sideways. Very entertaining. For those who have Apple TV, it should be worth watching it when it is released, which should be fairly soon. If you don’t have it, I don’t know that it is worth subscribing to it just for this movie, unless you are an unconditional fan of Matt Damon who must see absolutely everything he’s in. It takes place in Boston so Rey Kahuka might get a special kick out of it. There are also repeated references by the characters to fleeing to Montreal, which I found amusing.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 7, 2024 16:21:36 GMT
I went to see The Instigators. a new movie starring Matt Damon and Casey Affleck that’s having a limited theatrical run before hitting Apple TV, to which I don’t subscribe. It’s a heist movie with comedic elements about two down-on-their-luck men hired to do a robbery that was supposed to be a walk in the park but that goes spectacularly sideways. Very entertaining. For those who have Apple TV, it should be worth watching it when it is released, which should be fairly soon. If you don’t have it, I don’t know that it is worth subscribing to it just for this movie, unless you are an unconditional fan of Matt Damon who must see absolutely everything he’s in. It takes place in Boston so Rey Kahuka might get a special kick out of it. There are also repeated references by the characters to fleeing to Montreal, which I found amusing. Thanks for the heads up, Jep. I probably won't catch it in theaters, but I'm an apple subscriber so I'll check it out soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Aug 16, 2024 15:00:28 GMT
A bit late to the party but I finally went to see Deadpool & Wolverine. It was great fun and I had many a good laugh, but it was also too much. Too crazy, too frenetic, too many meta and fourth wall-breaking jokes, too much crude humour. I am not sure I will be watching it again - not that I am in the habit of watching Marvel movies multiple times, although it's been known to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 19, 2024 16:16:43 GMT
A bit late to the party but I finally went to see Deadpool & Wolverine. It was great fun and I had many a good laugh, but it was also too much. Too crazy, too frenetic, too many meta and fourth wall-breaking jokes, too much crude humour. I am not sure I will be watching it again - not that I am in the habit of watching Marvel movies multiple times, although it's been known to happen.
Yeah it was too much. Don't get me wrong, it had its moments, but it's just trying too hard to be edgy. And as far as story goes, there really isn't one. I wasn't bored watching it, but I can't imagine ever watching it again.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 19, 2024 16:20:53 GMT
This might be another hot take, so brace yourselves. Not sure how the board feels about this show, but I know its reputation at large. The Office (American version). I don't get it. I tried to watch a few different episodes of this show, and I never laughed once. Not one time. I kept wondering if it might've been funnier if it was animated, since these people all seemed like cartoon characters come to life. But there was nothing funny about it. The show's popularity is a total mystery to me.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Aug 19, 2024 18:08:29 GMT
This might be another hot take, so brace yourselves. Not sure how the board feels about this show, but I know its reputation at large. The Office (American version). I don't get it. I tried to watch a few different episodes of this show, and I never laughed once. Not one time. I kept wondering if it might've been funnier if it was animated, since these people all seemed like cartoon characters come to life. But there was nothing funny about it. The show's popularity is a total mystery to me. You might just have something wrong with you. Or, just as likely, you watched only some of the later episodes. The show falls into the same trap that a lot of sitcoms (if this counts as one) do which is that the characters and situations become caricaturized as the show overstays its welcome. But the show was notable for being the exact opposite of what you're describing. It was about generally the mundanity of the dat-to-day and except for the two who really stand out, everyone is kind of a boring, normal person. Now the original series is even more mundane and dry. The first season of the US version kinda tried to copy that tone before it found its own footing (the first episode uses a nearly identical script with only names and a few Brit-to-American translations as the only changes). Not that the human cartoon isn't a viable and sometimes great TV comedy approach, but The Office, in it's heyday, was very specifically NOT that.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 19, 2024 18:48:04 GMT
This might be another hot take, so brace yourselves. Not sure how the board feels about this show, but I know its reputation at large. The Office (American version). I don't get it. I tried to watch a few different episodes of this show, and I never laughed once. Not one time. I kept wondering if it might've been funnier if it was animated, since these people all seemed like cartoon characters come to life. But there was nothing funny about it. The show's popularity is a total mystery to me. You might just have something wrong with you. Or, just as likely, you watched only some of the later episodes. The show falls into the same trap that a lot of sitcoms (if this counts as one) do which is that the characters and situations become caricaturized as the show overstays its welcome. But the show was notable for being the exact opposite of what you're describing. It was about generally the mundanity of the dat-to-day and except for the two who really stand out, everyone is kind of a boring, normal person. Now the original series is even more mundane and dry. The first season of the US version kinda tried to copy that tone before it found its own footing (the first episode uses a nearly identical script with only names and a few Brit-to-American translations as the only changes). Not that the human cartoon isn't a viable and sometimes great TV comedy approach, but The Office, in it's heyday, was very specifically NOT that. Well there's definitely something wrong with me, I think we can all agree on that. But yeah it must've been later in the run then, because everyone felt like a caricature of a caricature of the most obnoxious people you've ever met. There was no straight man, everyone was a total flake. Nothing anyone said or did felt remotely realistic. It would be like watching Seinfeld featuring only four Kramers if Kramer was on crack. Speaking of cartoons, I also caught an episode of King of the Hill and found that enjoyable, go figure.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Aug 19, 2024 19:28:31 GMT
You might just have something wrong with you. Or, just as likely, you watched only some of the later episodes. The show falls into the same trap that a lot of sitcoms (if this counts as one) do which is that the characters and situations become caricaturized as the show overstays its welcome. But the show was notable for being the exact opposite of what you're describing. It was about generally the mundanity of the dat-to-day and except for the two who really stand out, everyone is kind of a boring, normal person. Now the original series is even more mundane and dry. The first season of the US version kinda tried to copy that tone before it found its own footing (the first episode uses a nearly identical script with only names and a few Brit-to-American translations as the only changes). Not that the human cartoon isn't a viable and sometimes great TV comedy approach, but The Office, in it's heyday, was very specifically NOT that. Well there's definitely something wrong with me, I think we can all agree on that. But yeah it must've been later in the run then, because everyone felt like a caricature of a caricature of the most obnoxious people you've ever met. There was no straight man, everyone was a total flake. Nothing anyone said or did felt remotely realistic. It would be like watching Seinfeld featuring only four Kramers if Kramer was on crack. Speaking of cartoons, I also caught an episode of King of the Hill and found that enjoyable, go figure. The Office is 9 seasons long, but once Steve Carell left in season 7 it essentially became useless. But even before that it started becoming too absurdist for its own good. I haven't watched it in a while, but even as it started getting sillier before that, I think I remember thinking it was still really strong until like season 5. Actors, and I guess writers, also get bored with a chatscter just being kinda flat and dull after several years, but when that's the basis of the show it sorta flies in the face of how it was built when you accentuate everyone's quirks. Toward the beginning of the show Angela is a stuck up, standoffish, Christian, cat lady, but by season whatever she's literally at home bathing cats with her own tongue; and Kevin starts as kind of a quiet, sorta slow, very bland fat guy and by the end he becomes a lobotomized food monster. Which seems to be what happens to so many shows. A guy who's kinda dumb becomes incomprehensibly stupid as a show progresses... and The Simpsons was already satirizing this sitcom trope by the late 80s, and yet it persisted. Formula works I guess. Speaking of which, Greg Daniels was the mastermind behind adapting The Office to US TV, and was also a writer with The Simpsons (the early, good years) before he left to start King of the Hill. The Simpsons started as an obviously purposeful caricature of sitcoms and pop culture, so when he went to co-create his first show he wanted to make an animated series that felt different and distinct from The Simpsons, so he made it more mundane, wrote fewer jokes and references, and gave it a much slower pace. I haven't seen every episode, but I think it kinda held that feel throughout thr run. Probably because he never left the show like he did with the Office, and because it didn't last long enough to lose its way.
|
|