Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    It's got a TV!    Come December, keep in mind there is already a Star Wars thread - Movie Reviews « previous next »
Author Topic: Come December, keep in mind there is already a Star Wars thread - Movie Reviews  (Read 19319 times)
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Print
Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #280 on: 01-04-2016 03:54 »

As somebody who hated the first two Mad Max films due to their lack of anything beyond action sequences, am I likely to get anything out of it?

I'm not actually familiar enough with the original Mad Max films to be able to answer that question, though the focus on Fury Road is definitely on action sequences (albeit beautifully shot and perfectly executed action sequences). There's very little in the way of story, character, etc. and the reason I loved the film was because it doesn't pretend to have any of that. Think of how many major Hollywood blockbusters force the audience to sit through shitty dialogue, predictable story tropes and cliched one dimensional characters in order to get to the big action set-pieces they came to see; Fury Road cuts right to the chase and wears its very essence on its sleeve at all times.

...Actually, the part about it not having great characters isn't entirely true - Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron's character) has received universal praise by critics and audiences all around, though I think it's largely due to what she represents. At a time when gender equality in film and television has been such a major talking point, Furiosa was exactly the character we needed; someone who subverted all the genre's gender-related pretenses and turned the awful "damsel in distress" trope on its head and then some. Max's name may be in the title, but it is totally Furiosa's movie.

And the fact that such a hyper-masculine franchise turned the focus over to a female protagonist is just one example of the bold risks Fury Road takes (another being the fact that we don't even see Max's face for the first quarter or so of the film, and the reason for it is fucking genius). So many other recent cinematic reboots have been able to coast on viewer nostalgia and cheap fan service, delivering soulless products of mediocre quality, but Mad Max went the completely opposite route and sought to create something fresh and brilliant, and didn't give a shit if it alienated the existing fanbase in the process.

... So, to answer your question: Maybe? tongue
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #281 on: 01-04-2016 11:23 »

As somebody who hated the first two Mad Max films due to their lack of anything beyond action sequences, am I likely to get anything out of it?
I'm surprised anyone would rank Beyond Thunderdome over Road Warrior, honestly.
When I said that I hated the first two films I didn't mean that I liked the third one - I haven't seen the third one. I watched the first because it's a logical place to start and I watched the second because it's generally regarded as the best (or it used to be - maybe Fury Road is, now?) and I thought I might like it despite not digging the first - kind of like you seem to.
I didn't see a point in watching the third one everybody hates. Is there any continuity at all leading into Fury Road that means that I ought to watch it?


Anyway, I will do Fury Road and I'll try to be as open-minded as possible but I'm fairly sure I'll hate it.
hobbitboy

Sir Rank-a-Lot
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #282 on: 01-04-2016 12:07 »
« Last Edit on: 01-04-2016 12:13 »

Recent viewings:

Star Wars: The Force Awakens — I enjoyed it very much. It felt like it had captured the essence of the original trilogy. I have several questions but I trust they will be answered in the upcoming installments.
Did I ever mention that I saw the original Star Wars when it was first released? Yes, I'm that old.

Snoopy and Charlie Brown: The Peanuts Movie (A.K.A. The Peanuts Movie) — I liked this one as well, though I suspect I missed many references because I didn't grow up with the movies & TV specials here in New Zealand.

The Good Dinosaur — Not Pixar's best effort. The story seemed weak and unfocused. Also, the writing didn't make me care about the main character. Still, it's more of an average movie than a bad one.

Don't hate me, Trinity.  I'm just the messenger.
Tachyon

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #283 on: 01-04-2016 12:37 »


Did I ever mention that I saw the original Star Wars when it was first released? Yes, I'm that old.


No, I don't recall that you did!  Earlier today I was starting to write a review of the restored DeSpecialized Edition of Ep IV but I gave up trying to convey just how much of an impact the the film had at the time.  I drove across the country on my motorcycle to visit family, and caught a matinee during opening week -- basically on a lark.  We were so blown away that we snuck back into the theatre to watch the next showing, from better seats.

Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #284 on: 01-04-2016 14:39 »

Is there any continuity at all leading into Fury Road that means that I ought to watch it?

Well, I'd only seen a few random segments from the originals, and my girlfriend had almost no knowledge as to what the franchise even is, and we both loved it (for the record, my girlfriend generally hates action movies, so make of that what you will). From what I've read, Fury Road is a reboot and not a sequel/prequel, essentially giving the series a clean slate to work with (not that it ever really had all that much of a "mythology" to begin with).

Anyway, I will do Fury Road and I'll try to be as open-minded as possible but I'm fairly sure I'll hate it.

I'd say give it 15-20 minutes. You should know by then whether or not it's for you (and make sure you watch a high quality version, because the visuals truly do warrant it).
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #285 on: 01-04-2016 15:19 »
« Last Edit on: 01-06-2016 15:56 »

Woah, I totally disagree. The first 15 or so minutes of Fury Road are by far the weakest, with the worst acting featured, the plot not yet readily apparent, and none of the best action sequences reached yet...I remember not even being sure if I was going to like the movie at that point, and I ended up loving it. If anything, I'd say that even if you hate the first 15 minutes or so, give it a bit longer to settle in. The movie doesn't really pick up until Max meets up with Furiosa.

I'm surprised anyone would rank Beyond Thunderdome over Road Warrior, honestly.

When I said that I hated the first two films I didn't mean that I liked the third one - I haven't seen the third one.

I sort of figured that was probably the case. I've heard others call Thunderdome the best though, so I was speaking somewhat generally.

Quote
I didn't see a point in watching the third one everybody hates.

I wouldn't say I hate it. It's not a good movie, but it's a lot better than the first one and it's entertaining in a cheesy 80s sort of way.

Quote
Is there any continuity at all leading into Fury Road that means that I ought to watch it?

No. In fact, it deliberately retcons several elements of continuity, including bringing back Max's car the Interceptor which was destroyed in Road Warrior (hilariously too, as he never gets to drive it in Fury Road and it serves almost no purpose whatsoever) and most noticably putting forward that the child he lost was a daughter of about maybe 10 years old, when in the first movie it was actually a son who was only a newborn baby.
Inquisitor Hein
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #286 on: 01-05-2016 00:32 »

I've seen four movies this last year:

Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Ant-Man, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Spectre.

That's my order as well.

I just watched Terminator 2: Judgement Day for the first time.

Fantastic movie. The CGI and practical effects have aged far better than the original film and it had a really compelling story with such brilliant set-pieces.

Only real downside was the actor playing John was kind of shitty every now and then, but I can look the other way for that since everything else is so stellar.

A tad late, but congrats to catching up with this revered classic. (Saw it at our local movie theatre upon release. And I even was of legal age to see it....kinda feel old right now...frown )

I'm curious, were you aware of Arnie being a good guy on your first viewing? I was, but the bait-and-switch they pulled was brilliant and I really wish I could've experienced that twist first-hand, in an era where that wasn't a common piece of movie knowledge.

I was aware of it. The announcements and articles about the movie in Germany were not really what you call "spoiler free". It you knew that "Terminator 2" did exist, you basically stood no chance to be oblivious of Arnies aligment.
Tachyon

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #287 on: 01-05-2016 01:00 »


Luckily I was among those who had no clue...   shifty

And it made for an exciting and enjoyable film.  Though one far from the dark, almost claustrophobic sense of dread and despair the first one was steeped in.

Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #288 on: 01-05-2016 01:36 »

Woah, I totally disagree. The first 15 or so minutes of Fury Road are by far the weakest, with the worst acting featured, the plot not yet readily apparent, and none of the best action sequences reached yet...I remember not even being sure if I was going to like the movie at that point, and I ended up loving it. If anything, I'd say that even if you hate the first 15 minutes or so, give it a bit longer to settle in. The movie doesn't really pick up until Max meets up with Furiosa.

Oh shit, does it really take that long for Furiosa to show up? I think I must've been enjoying it too damn much that the whole film just went by really quickly for me.

Alright, ignore my advice to give it 15-20 minutes, then! But everything else still stands. tongue
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #289 on: 01-06-2016 15:58 »

I have a handful of movies to catch up on, but since I'm apparently the only person who made it a point to see a lot of movies that came out last year, I'll be posting a list of my top 25 or 30 of them soon. This will be a somewhat revised list from the one I counted down on Facebook.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #290 on: 01-17-2016 17:17 »
« Last Edit on: 01-17-2016 17:23 »

I saw Tarantino's The Hateful Eight today.  In 70mm.  And I promised Tachyon to do a write up, once I was done.  So here it is.

The short version is this; go see The Hateful Eight and if you can, watch it in 70mm.  It makes a difference.  Why?  Read on.

I've always hated that Americans call cinemas 'theatres'.  Because they are not theatres, theatres are places where you watch a play, there is an intermission and it is a show.  But most importantly, the show and experience you get in a theatre is not something you can get at home.

Now that television and sound systems for consumers have progressed as they have, getting the 'cinema experience' is not difficult to get at home.  Indeed, the only real reason you go to the cinema these days is practically to beat the rush before the film eventually gets released on DVD, a torrent or Netflix.  Sure, cinemas have bigger screens, better sound systems and whatnot.  But to me (and I assume a lot of others), most films actually don't make good use of that.  Certainly not to the point where they are worth the effort and expense of going to the cinema.

But The Hateful Eight in 70mm reminded me why Americans call it a 'theatre'.  Because it was an experience, it was a show.  And more importantly, like a theatre, it was not an experience nor a show you could get at home.  Effectively, what Tarantino have done is get my fat ass out of my seat down to the cinema, for a film I would otherwise have waited for it to appear online.

I had the fortunate to watch in Ultra Panavision 70mm.  In one of 18 cinemas across all of Europe that showed it in that format.  Ultra Panavision 70mm is a special version of 70mm film, that hasn't been used since the 1960s.  In contrast to other 70mm formats, it requires its own special lenses and equipment to project.  Fortunately, one cinema with the such equipment is just a 15 minute walk from where I live.

Now you may have heard that it is shown in this format in numerous cities across the United States, but that's because in the US, it's a roadshow.  Effectively, the production company is lending out the equipment necessary to cinemas across the United States, so that a lot of people will get the opportunity.[1]  They are not doing this elsewhere, so they have to count on the cinemas to have the equipment available.

So we've talked a lot about a film format, but why does it make it special?  Well, let me give a counter example.  I like to listen to cassette tapes, I know Tachyon will explain why he hates cassette tapes.  But I find the distortion of the music to be a quality in itself.  It adds warmth to the music that would otherwise not be there.  And it's not warmth you can add with mere algorithms like compromising a sound file, because of the way tapes work.  It's the same reason why some people claim vinyl has better sound.

In the same way, 70mm feels different because it is better and worse than digital, all at the same time.  It adds a feel to the movie that digital would not be able to emulate.  Maybe at some point in the future, but not now.  Indeed, because it's not digital, it almost feels like a theatre production, where you feel closer to the actors than otherwise.  It's hard to fully explain, because it has to be experienced.  Therefore, I implore you to watch it in 70mm.  If only for the reason of watching a film in 70mm.

But this could be a way to perhaps save cinemas for the future.  3D was a naïve attempt by the film industry to revive cinemas and sort of get back at pirates, by creating something pirates couldn't copy.  It later turned out that they could and when people got 3D televisions at home, it sort of made whole point moot.  Add to that that 3D feels like a gimmick.  Filming and showing it in 70mm did not feel like a gimmick at all.  There were no obvious shots that took advantage of the wide format or something else (even though, there probably was, but you just didn't immediately spot them like 3D).

But here I will be naïve and hope that the film industry is taking notice.  This revival of an ancient film format is bringing people to cinemas, because this is not an experience they have any chance of being able to reproduce back home.  Although, I must admit, I doubt anything will really happen.[2]

That leads me to the man himself; Tarantino.  And here I will steal something from RedLetterMedia's review of the film and call Tarantino a genius.  A film making genius, that is.  That is not to say his films are flawless, perfect, have the greatest plots or is revolutionising the industry.  No, I call him a genius (like RedLetterMedia) because he cranks out this films with such ease.  It is almost like second nature to him.

Other directors, while they may even create even better films, seem to be exhausted and stressed out by doing so, not Tarantino.  He just looks like he is having fun.  People try to imply that his violent action scenes have some deeper meaning to them, but Tarantino just like splatter films.  He likes gore and violence, as he has tried to stress numerous times.  He's basically just a man with a fetish who writes and creates films purely for the purpose of fulfilling that fetish.

I can definitely admire that.  Although, I do not feel like would ever want to meet Tarantino personally, he seems rather obnoxious.  But more than just the ease with which he makes these films, it's also how well crafted they are.  Dialogue is well written.  The plot is well-paced.  The plot itself is understandable.  The characters feel real.  The scenography is great.  The locations are interesting.  And so on.

Lastly, let's talk about the film itself.  Because let's be honest, it's not the greatest film of all time.  It is probably not Tarantino's greatest film either (but as I haven't seen them all, I would make a judgement, although I do believe I liked Pulp Fiction better).  But that's also a dumb criteria to live up to or strive to be.  The film is fun, the characters are great (even if actually terrible people) and the visuals stunning.  Even for a film that mostly takes place in a cabin.  Well, a big cabin.

The film is exactly what you'd expect of a Tarantino film.  Lots of great dialogue, scenery and then a huge violent sequence of events just before the end.  In fact, when the Intermission sign came on (and it does in the 70mm version, because Tarantino just inserted 12 minutes of black film into the reels), I had completely forgotten that 2 hours had already passed.

Now I won't mention specific plot details, but I will say this that by the end of the film, everything suddenly makes sense.  Not that you were craving the explanation.

I don't really have anything negative to say about the film.  Although I wouldn't mind seeing a Tarantino film with less violence, I think.  Because I did like the dialogue scenes a lot more than the action scenes.  Not that the action scenes were bad, don't get me wrong, the dialogue and conversations were just so good that I just wanted more of that.

But yeah go see it.  And see in 70mm.  And if you are not interested in a Tarantino film, then go watch it in 70mm anyway, for the experience.

[1] Here is a full list of screenings, both in North America and Europe (among other places).
[2] Although, don't worry, I know my cinema will continue to keep the equipment, because they sometimes do special events where they show old films in that projection.
Inquisitor Hein
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #291 on: 01-18-2016 21:50 »

I always wondered if Tarantino had ever read "Sing a last song of Valdese" as inspiration for the H8ful eight. Sure, that pulp fantasy revenge story has a rather different plot, but much of the setup (strangers forced into a lodge house, connections between those strangers being revealed, etc...) felt familiar.

Then again, this might be just wishful thinking, as I will probably never see Wagner's Kane make it to the theatres, let alone a story in which he played only a minor role.
Zed 85

Space Pope
****
« Reply #292 on: 01-21-2016 14:16 »

So I sat down and watched Interstellar the other night, having wanted to for some time. Deliberately trying to keep myself spoiltless, I went in with barely an idea of the premise and little more preconceptions beyond the fact that it had been, on the face of it, very well received, plus, it was a Christopher Nolan film, and although I wasn't actually completely enamoured with The Dark Knight Rises, generally speaking I view him as having a Midas touch. I had no idea it would be so long though...

I am not a science boffin, though I am a sci-fi fan. So basically you could run quite a lot past me before I get upset (History, on the other hand...). That said, I was somewhat disappointed that the wormhole I had heard about was basically the result of Aliens - as in, "How does this work? Aliens". It seemed a bit of a cop-out when the rest of it proclaims to be founded so deep in science.

The Blight scenario was very well done, and it really gave a chilling atmosphere as towards a painfully drawn-out doomsday scenario for the Earth. It was very effective. As I huge fan of fiction in which mankind has mastered the stars and can zip around the galaxy with ease, Saturn seemed so isolated, so surrounded by nothing but a future now impossible to realise - empty.

But, one thing that again disappointed me was that everything seemed so localised. With the exception of an Indian Air Force drone, "mankind" only really seemed to cover a bunch of farmers and the people inside the NASA complex. Just a little more effort could have been made to give the storyline a more global feel. Films like Armageddon succeeded with just a few cutaways to give the storyline the sense that everybody was affected. Otherwise, it seems the entire world is doomed but only a shrunk-to-the-point-of-hiding-underground NASA seems to be doing anything about it and everyone else is meaningless. Maybe there was a mass resource-driven world war, maybe there is barely anyone else out there (maybe I missed that point) but as I say, it just seemed too localised. The original script (apparently) had them coming across the remains of a Chinese mission to save mankind. Why not involve other nations? Why not have "NASA" be an international space agency. I guess this way we avoid the cliche of token foreign characters - the token Russian, the token Chinese, the token European, the token Brit- oh, wait, I'm watching a Nolan film... hello Michael Caine!

Otherwise it feels a bit too much like they're not saving mankind, they're saving Americans.
Truth is though, Coopers' all about saving his daughter.

This is where I steer into the positives. The relationship with Cooper and his daughter is extraordinarily powerful. The acting (from everybody involved) is top notch. Hans Zimmer's score is unbelievably powerful and even hearing "Stay" on its own makes me weep. Saying goodbye to loved ones; a little too close to home that struck...

Fuck me I'm tearing up even now

On a broader side of things, the film with one hand offering such science, so much science and then with the other hand taking you and saying "now, leap into the realms of disbelief with me!" may seem jarring at first, but in other ways makes the film work better. As a piece of science-fiction, it acts as a prime example of its genre, reminding you that other "sci-fi" works are really just fantasy films. Blade Runner is not sci-fi because they clamber into cars that fly away, it's sci-fi because how do you cope with artificial humans developing emotions? I, Robot is more of a sci-fi film than Star Wars, even though both have sentient robots; this is because C-3PO doesn't stop to ask himself how or why he works - he just does. It's like tnuk said, Lightsabers just work. No one stops to explain why the Force exists... oh, wait, yes they do, and that's why we never speak of it...

Interstellar is sci-fi because it plays with the concepts of time, gravity, relativity and the force of more abstract concepts, such as love. For a while I was struggling, like I think others did, to reconcile how this advanced race could create all these amazing structures just to facilitate a father to communicate through a bookcase to his daughter. In my opinion, it is precisely because it hinges on a father communicating with his daughter. Would she have been so compelled to find her eureka if her ghost was just a ghost, or an alien? Some could argue that either way is a cop-out, but the suggestion that love is the most important link makes it all the more powerful. In some ways though I would agree that the twist creeps up on you with the same subtly as Gargantua but it doesn't ruin it for me.

The Sci-Fi definition I have given it brings the film strikingly close to 2001, but it also, to me, reeked of Andrei Tarkovsky's Solaris, so I was touched when I read that Nolan acknowledged Tarkovsky's influence, including his film Mirror, which is extremely powerful, and almost entirely based on abstract concepts. I adore Tarkovsky's films, and while I know he's far from being the only influence behind Interstellar, I will admit that his films appeal to someone as long as they like that sort of thing, and even then it can be a long and arduous watch. Not that I would say those who dislike Tarkovsky and Interstellar "just don't get it" but it is an approach to films that is not really mainstream and it will not appeal to everybody.

2001, Interstellar and Solaris are all based heavily in science and then dump upon the audience a central plot element of anti-science; i.e. something impossible to comprehend. Solaris is probably the easiest example, when men of science and logic are broken down into irrationality and emotion when frankly impossible things happen to them while they study the planet "Solaris", with the main character being plagued by his dead wife, who repeatedly kills herself and reappears unscathed. The eventual twist is that really, Solaris is studying them. The problem with Interstellar is that it probably tries to shoehorn the incomprehensible too much into the science and it doesn't fit too neatly. What is also apparent is that unlike with 2001 and Solaris (and Inception for that matter) where the audience is left to ponder whether it's a "good" ending, and that decision may be a very personal one, here we are explicitly told it is a Good Ending, and one that quite possibly requires the greatest suspension of disbelief for the entire film. It's like Nolan was told after Inception that he had to make the ending explicit. Certainly makes me feel happier leaving the movie, but maybe cheapens it slightly.

I don't know...



So, yeah, tl;dr a staggering film that is both brilliant to look at, stabs me right in the feels with a sarissa, but is not quite perfect.

That said,

A
Tachyon

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #293 on: 01-21-2016 15:10 »
« Last Edit on: 01-21-2016 15:12 »


Your tl;dr describes it well smile

The possibility of intra-country resource wars and mobs of desperate people in urban areas decimating the city populations did come to mind as I was watching it, and the localized, rural setting added to the bleakness.  fwiw, I'm pretty much a science person and am acquainted with time dilation due to gravitational acceleration and whatnot, and the completely implausible abstract aspects didn't disturb my suspension of disbelief at all -- I took it all in like it was wired directly to my emotional centre, and it shook me up and tossed me around like a rag doll in a tornado.  And it did leave me emotionally drained.  In a good way.


Films like Armageddon succeeded with just a few cutaways to give the storyline the sense that everybody was affected.


With respect, I thought Armageddon was a terrible film.  All flash and cliché and no emotional depth to it at all.  An amusement park ride.

If you've not seen it, Deep Impact is a far better treatment of the subject.  Not perfect, but it completely drew me in.  My only real annoyance was the lack of subtlety in the way Robert De Niro's character was used to sledgehammer in a tired trope.  Well, OK, I was just a little bit disappointed that the film was cut so tightly, and would have liked to see some of the character relationships fleshed out some more in the beginning.  Perhaps that was done because it was shaping up to release at the same time as Armageddon.  I'd love to see a longer cut of this movie.

Zed 85

Space Pope
****
« Reply #294 on: 01-21-2016 16:54 »

Heh, I was considering adding "Armageddon, a far inferior film," or words to that effect, but I was concerned that would have been too controversial  tongue

In all honestly I find Armageddon okay, but certainly use it as an example of a film that makes the scenario feel all inclusive. I have seen Deep Impact a while back and agree with your points; it is a better film, while Armageddon is more lowest-common-denominator. It's ironic that Armageddon gets repeated on a semi-regular basis and I barely see Deep Impact on TV at all.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #295 on: 01-24-2016 17:04 »

Ex Machina: wow, what a film! Great performances & a great story. Oscar Isaac is particularly brilliant. Hope it wins the Best Original Screenplay Oscar. Definitely worth checking out. smile
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #296 on: 01-25-2016 02:07 »

Spoilers: Ex Machina was my number one pick for 2015.

My list is still forthcoming by the way, caught up on a couple films and waiting to catch up on a couple more. It's already 2016 so at this point doesn't really matter how long it takes to finally give it, does it?
ShinyMetal***

Professor
*
« Reply #297 on: 01-31-2016 16:58 »

Mission Impossible 2: I'd give it a B/B+, I personally liked it, that's really all I have to say about it tongue good movie.

I know there's a star wars thread but I'm already here so that sucks for you.
Star Wars: again probably a B/B+, I really liked it and thought it was cool seeing old characters reintroduced. Not to mention, Luke Skywalker had just an amazing script, in fact so great it dropped my review down one whole letter. So that's that.

Love the Coopers: B+, thought it was a cute family movie (some material may be innapropriate for younger viewers so I'd keep it for like older family members) and it made me happy, it was good and just a decent, kind of cliché, Christmas movie.
Inquisitor Hein
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #298 on: 02-11-2016 23:52 »
« Last Edit on: 02-11-2016 23:53 »

Deadpool A-

If you know and like the comics: Go and see it: An adaption true to the orignal.
If you do not know the comics, but have a sense of crazy and not overly subtle humor: Also see it.

The main story "Protagonist becomes a superhero, has a score to settle with villain, who girlnaps heros maiden to set up a proper rescue showdown" could not be lamer. But that's basically just an aliby and excuse for some crazy action scenes and stupid remarks, many of which are crashing through the fourth wall with the subtelity and grace of a drunk, choleric elephant on speed, crack, and other substances even crack consumers would not touch.

You see the movie did not have an "Ultron" budget. Which turned out beneficary, as we did not have a horde of heros thrown together in one movie, but shifting the focus on just one for a change.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #299 on: 02-13-2016 05:30 »

You see the movie did not have an "Ultron" budget. Which turned out beneficary, as we did not have a horde of heros thrown together in one movie, but shifting the focus on just one for a change.

The lowish budget led into what I thought was by far the funniest joke in the movie:


I found it very enjoyable, especially the opening scene shown in all the trailers. I've seen a few violent superhero movies but nothing with such an insanely high volume of profanity and crudeness. That in itself gave it a unique identity, as well as the fact that Ryan Reynolds absolutely nailed it. I love how he was batshit insane even before he became Deadpool.
tyraniak

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #300 on: 02-13-2016 13:07 »

I thought deadpool was pretty solid, and I came in with zero expectation. I actually thought it would be a little more hard core based on all the buzz
AdrenalinDragon

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #301 on: 02-14-2016 14:07 »

Deadpool

Guess I'm in the minority, but I didn't find Deadpool to be all that funny to be honest. I appreciate a Marvel movie being more adult and the risks they made creating it, but considering it was a Comedy, so many jokes missed and that affected my personal enjoyment of the movie.

6/10
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #302 on: 02-14-2016 17:44 »

Can we stop referring to movies based on Marvel properties but not actually made by Marvel Studios (in this particular case it was Fox) and not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as "Marvel movies"? I just think it's sort of misleading. Like the more recent X-Men and Spider-Man movies, Marvel Entertainment helped produce them but had almost no creative involvement.
Inquisitor Hein
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #303 on: 02-18-2016 20:56 »

Can we stop referring to movies based on Marvel properties but not actually made by Marvel Studios (in this particular case it was Fox) and not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as "Marvel movies"?

No.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #304 on: 02-18-2016 21:47 »

Yeah, I think most people aware of the mess of film rights can make the distinction between "Marvel (property) movies" and "Marvel (company) movies".

It's a bit simpler now that the X-Men movies are really the only ones outside the MCU being made as well.


Anyway, I saw The Martian last week. Good movie with a solid pace. It gets 14 and a half coins of approval from me.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #305 on: 02-19-2016 01:32 »

I've actually been surprised to talk to quite a lot of people who don't know anything about the film rights and what studios are making what films, hence my suggestion to differentiate. Obviously I'm being anal, though.
Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #306 on: 02-19-2016 04:04 »
« Last Edit on: 02-19-2016 04:06 »

Hell, I don't even watch superhero movies and I still know about the differences with the film rights and which studio does which franchise. roll eyes

Back on topic, this year I've been to the cinema twice, which already beats my record last year of 0! Firstly I saw The Revenant, which I found really engaging and beautifully shot/acted, despite its very simplistic narrative. And secondly, I saw Anomalisa - a strange little drama written by The Greatest Film Writer of All Time™ Charlie Kaufman, and stop-motion animated by Starburns Industries. It was very moving and thought-provoking (and the animation was gorgeous), though I couldn't help but be a tad disappointed by the lack of a trademark Kaufman headfuck - the plot was surprisingly straightforward despite the initial weirdness of the concept. I'd still absolutely recommend it though; both films get an 8/10 from me.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #307 on: 03-13-2016 04:06 »
« Last Edit on: 03-13-2016 04:07 »

Mad Max: Fury Road

Daaaaaaayyyyyyuuum. This is one of the best examples I can think of where a film follows the "Show, don't tell" rule to a hair and doesn't shit out exposition every second. That's not to say that exposition is inherently bad, but it's so much more interesting when the audience isn't being spoon fed details and can connect the dots based on what's actually on-screen.

Anyway, for me the most impressive part was the visuals. Everything was so vibrant and high-contrast (especially the scene in the sandstorm, which is quite possibly the coolest-looking thing I've ever seen). It also doesn't abuse quick camera cuts to hide mistakes, and the action is shown cleanly and smoothly.

The acting was good, though not jaw-droppingly memorable. The best character was Beast Nux, with his hyperactive craziness.

Cars that would make great Lego sets!
Australian accents that don't sound dumb!
Fat-lady milk farms!
Sand!

Shit, I dunno. 8/10 maybe? I haven't given a rating in ages.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #308 on: 03-13-2016 18:58 »

I watched Fury Road the other week. There really is something special about the film, it's so easy to get into yet so entertaining. The action never becomes boring or a drag, and the pacing is pretty good. I love the filter they used for the film, it's literally "Blue and Orange*: The Movie".

*Hollywood LOVES to use these two colours together as they're the most visually pleasing and bring out the most colour or something like that:


There are lots of articles about it online. smile
Tachyon

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #309 on: 03-13-2016 22:08 »


I'll wait for it to come out on cable smile  I still have Thunderdome in my memory...

UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #310 on: 03-14-2016 00:10 »

It's funny, because I don't recall Fury Road ever using those two colour schemes at the same time.

Another thing I just remembered is that there's multiple points where it looks like it's about to jump right into cliche city, except then it suddenly doesn't.

Examples:


I don't think I've ever had a movie subvert expectations this much; especially an action movie that puts little emphasis on story.

Speaking of action movies, is it just me, or are there very few decent action movies these days? I suppose if you count all the superhero stuff as action, they could qualify (although, even as a huge fan of those movies, I'll be the first to admit that the majority of them are nothing groundbreaking). But either way, it feels like just about every action movie out recently is mediocre as fuck.

I blame today's violent media.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #311 on: 03-14-2016 03:38 »
« Last Edit on: 03-14-2016 03:40 »

Have you watched The Raid: Redemption and its sequel? I think you would love them.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #312 on: 03-14-2016 19:34 »
« Last Edit on: 03-21-2016 22:56 »

I suppose if you count all the superhero stuff as action, they could qualify (although, even as a huge fan of those movies, I'll be the first to admit that the majority of them are nothing groundbreaking).

You mean "capeshit"? tongue

*edit*

I saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last night. Great little thriller film, which is let down by the last 10 minutes or so. It also annoys me how it has practically nothing at all to do with the original Cloverfield, but we knew before it was even released that it started out as a completely different film, then had the "Cloverfield" title slapped on it for marketing purposes (plus a few reshoots).

It would have been the most perfect film if they left the "Cloverfield" name away from it, and cut out


I would have much preferred a direct sequel to Cloverfield, rather than them slapping the name on this film that was perfectly fine without any association to it. But hey, I guess you gotta sell shit in Hollywood. roll eyes
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #313 on: 03-26-2016 08:18 »

Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice

Veerrrrry big disappointment. The actual fight between the two was less than five minutes long and it was taped together with a story that made no sense. All the parts that might have been cool were already shown in the trailers.

The characterisation and motivations for everyone were a mess; you know something's seriously wrong when Batman has the highest kill count in the movie and there's not a single piece of dialogue acknowledging the idiotic recklessness. That said... Ben Affleck was actually pretty damn great in the role. I'd definitely watch a standalone Bat movie with him.

4/10
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #314 on: 03-26-2016 12:00 »

Snyder needs to stop making superhero movies.

Not that I care anyway, I don't care for superhero movies to begin with.

Hence why I call them movies and not films.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #315 on: 03-26-2016 14:12 »

Snyder needs to stop making superhero movies.

Well, I thought Watchmen was pretty cool. And I didn't hate Man of Steel like the rest of humanity does.

I still agree though. He nails visuals and scope, but isn't that amazing as a director.
LoveForFry

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #316 on: 03-27-2016 01:20 »


I would have much preferred a direct sequel to Cloverfield, rather than them slapping the name on this film that was perfectly fine without any association to it. But hey, I guess you gotta sell shit in Hollywood. roll eyes

Well a couple articles I've read say that they used the cloverfield name because its in the same kind of feeling/realm and with that I agree so ill allow it. And seeing as how I did not like the original cloverfield at all, I very much enjoyed 10 Cloverfield lane.

But I came here to talk about Midnight Special, which is currently on limited release, but if it comes to your area, go see it. It just feels different that anything else I've seen recently, and it didn't hurt that Jeff Nichols popped in to do a Q &A, cos he's local. 8/10
hobbitboy

Sir Rank-a-Lot
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #317 on: 04-03-2016 13:24 »

Kung Fu Panda 3

Not as good as the first two but not bad either.
Its fresh ideas are diluted by its strict adherence to the established plot structure.

Grade: B–


Why do witers of sequels insist on including characters from earlier films, in this case Master Shifu & the Furious Five, then doing nothing with them?

Don't hate me, Trinity.  I'm just the messenger.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #318 on: 04-03-2016 23:19 »
« Last Edit on: 04-03-2016 23:24 »

It also annoys me how it has practically nothing at all to do with the original Cloverfield, but we knew before it was even released that it started out as a completely different film, then had the "Cloverfield" title slapped on it for marketing purposes (plus a few reshoots).

It would have been the most perfect film if they left the "Cloverfield" name away from it, and cut out


I would have much preferred a direct sequel to Cloverfield, rather than them slapping the name on this film that was perfectly fine without any association to it. But hey, I guess you gotta sell shit in Hollywood. roll eyes

The filmmakers have been pretty clear about the fact that the two movies absolutely exist within a shared universe, and since the movie's release J.J. Abrams has said he plans to make a third film tying both the previous ones together more firmly if given the opportunity. Yes, there are no explicit references to the first movie, but it's pretty easy to imagine how they would be connected. As someone who was a huge fan of the first Cloverfield, I personally found the level of connection presented between the films to be perfectly satisfying, and it's made me extremely excited to see where the franchise could go from here. So for the record, I enjoyed the entire movie, including the ending. I thought the whole thing was executed thrillingly.
hobbitboy

Sir Rank-a-Lot
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #319 on: 04-10-2016 15:16 »

Zootopia

They said it was good and they were right.
So far Rich Moore's movies are batting 1000 for me.

Grade: A

Don't hate me, Trinity.  I'm just the messenger.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.239 seconds with 17 queries.