[Movies] Talk about the last movie you saw 2: Electric Threadaloo
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
fade
Staff member
Yeah I agree with most of that criticism. On the positive side, the technical aspects of the film are really well done. She harps on the unexplained sword guy giving backstory, but on the other hand, a great deal of the backstory was given through the titles and the clever use of graffiti. The story is hamfisted but I don't agree with her comparison to Crash. Not entirely anyway. Unlike Crash, Bright does make the point that the hatred is endemic and systemic. In point of fact it's kind of key to the dark lord stuff. On the other hand like Crash it spends too much time setting up unrealistic in your face individual racist acts that are cheap to redeem.
But still, it did have lots of neat visual stuff. One example is how the wife is obscured in the opening scene, but the moment she says the word "work", she turns to the screen so that you see her scrubs and ID, revealing she's a doctor with no awkward dialogue. Little things like that, and lots of visual Easter eggs in the background (e.g. "fire" in "fire escape" obscured, etc)
But still, it did have lots of neat visual stuff. One example is how the wife is obscured in the opening scene, but the moment she says the word "work", she turns to the screen so that you see her scrubs and ID, revealing she's a doctor with no awkward dialogue. Little things like that, and lots of visual Easter eggs in the background (e.g. "fire" in "fire escape" obscured, etc)
fade
Staff member
Okay I finished that essay on Bright, and she is actually flat out wrong--as in factually incorrect--about some of her statements. Like Nick not shooting the bad lady. She interprets "I'm out" as him refusing to shoot, but that's just wrong. He meant "out of ammo". You can hear the click and the accompanying musical cue just before he says it. As for Elftown, come on. A. That's probably a sequel setup. B. The name is no weirder than Chinatown or Little Italy. Etc.[DOUBLEPOST=1517629618,1517629370][/DOUBLEPOST]Actually she is probably wrong about Elftown's location too. She's upset that it looks like downtown, but she offers the sign, which is the Beverly Hills sign, as proof it's in the wrong place. Thing is, those two shots are not shown together. The Beverly hills sign is from the credits. Nothing says they are the same location. It's possible both Elftown and Beverly hills are elf exclusive.
Actually, her complaint was that he said it too "meh, i'm out of ammo", not that he refused to shoot her again. She was complaining that no one in that scene acted as if their lives where on the line.
Yeah, she's way too nit-picky about a lot of stuff, but at least she admits it at some point.
The Greasy Strangler was a much better movie than I expected. Charming in a lot of places, great dialog, hilarious moments.
The Cloverfield Paradox
I think Dave and I saw different movies because wow, that was bad. "Scary" scenes so poorly executed, they became unintentionally funny. Strange things happening without explanation. Lazily and laughably ties in with Cloverfield.
Good body horror and decent acting, though.
I think Dave and I saw different movies because wow, that was bad. "Scary" scenes so poorly executed, they became unintentionally funny. Strange things happening without explanation. Lazily and laughably ties in with Cloverfield.
Good body horror and decent acting, though.
It had some solid concepts riding it, too. Hang on, I'll discuss this behind a spoiler tag.
The movie had a great concept with the alternate universes. Maybe overdone in sci-fi, but it kept me interested to see where they'd go with it. Especially once the movie introduced Jensen, the woman from the other universe. And maybe if the movie had been made as a stand-alone like 10 Cloverfield Lane, it could've worked. But tying it in with Cloverfield made it sloppy because it felt completely unconnected. I actually felt invested in the story a few times, but then it'd jump back to her husband and I felt like I was watching a different movie. I read somewhere that it wasn't originally supposed to tie-in with Cloverfield and those scenes were reshot and added. If true, that explains a lot.
But all the crazy stuff happening, like the dude's hand cut off and then still alive. Or the foosball suddenly acting erratically. Or the worms or the thingy appearing in the guy's body. Or that he heard voices all of a sudden or whatever was going on with his eye. It made no sense in the broad scheme of things. I could somewhat buy system malfunctions with the magnetized wall or the hatch flooding. But the rest felt like, "Oooooh! Look at this! It's spooooky!" Except this isn't Event Horizon, which was meant to have supernatural elements. There was no indication of supernatural muckery going on here. Just a colliding of universes that somehow caused the giant monster to also appear in New York.
But all the crazy stuff happening, like the dude's hand cut off and then still alive. Or the foosball suddenly acting erratically. Or the worms or the thingy appearing in the guy's body. Or that he heard voices all of a sudden or whatever was going on with his eye. It made no sense in the broad scheme of things. I could somewhat buy system malfunctions with the magnetized wall or the hatch flooding. But the rest felt like, "Oooooh! Look at this! It's spooooky!" Except this isn't Event Horizon, which was meant to have supernatural elements. There was no indication of supernatural muckery going on here. Just a colliding of universes that somehow caused the giant monster to also appear in New York.
The husband texts John Goodman's character at one point and asks to use his bunker, which is where he takes the little girl
I wondered that. That's an even lazier way to tie it in, then.
I saw it as more of a tales from the crypt type of thing. Nods and easter eggs rather than any solid canonical tie-ins
Ordinarily, I'd agree with you. I felt the same about, say, Black Mirror. At the moment, I don't think the episodes all tie together. The last episode is making people think it's all connected, but I think they were just as you said: nods and easter eggs.
But here, it just doesn't work, largely because it's presented like it's supposed to be connected. 10 Cloverfield Lane had a few snippets of Easter eggs, from what I recall. But when the movie ends with the Cloverfield monster? When it's promoted as "Remember Cloverfield? Now see how it happened!"? This was meant to tie-in with at least the first movie and it just doesn't work. Especially when they make it seem like we were seeing events from the first movie from a different point of view. But at the end, the monster is MASSIVE compared to the first movie. Before, it wasn't tall enough for skyscrapers but now it can reach the clouds?
Basically, this movie raises too many questions, makes it seem like it's supposed to tie in, and just makes everything confusing.
So, you know, par for the course with JJ Abrams.
But here, it just doesn't work, largely because it's presented like it's supposed to be connected. 10 Cloverfield Lane had a few snippets of Easter eggs, from what I recall. But when the movie ends with the Cloverfield monster? When it's promoted as "Remember Cloverfield? Now see how it happened!"? This was meant to tie-in with at least the first movie and it just doesn't work. Especially when they make it seem like we were seeing events from the first movie from a different point of view. But at the end, the monster is MASSIVE compared to the first movie. Before, it wasn't tall enough for skyscrapers but now it can reach the clouds?
Basically, this movie raises too many questions, makes it seem like it's supposed to tie in, and just makes everything confusing.
So, you know, par for the course with JJ Abrams.
Dave
Staff member
I've rewatched it and have tempered my enthusiasm a bit, but I still liked it. I finished it the last time after midnight so fatigue maybe played a part. And some of the things behind the spoilers such as the foosball thing I agree with. But some of the other things can be explained.
Still, I did like it. The links to Cloverfield and 10 Cloverfield Lane were tenuous at best, but that doesn't bother me that much.
The two realities mixing explains the worms and the gyroscope being inside the Russian dude. They were from the OTHER dimension and appeared here just like the other lady just appearing inside the walls. But it's weird that things from different places would end up in the same body. As to the arm...I got nothing. I loved it and thought it gave Chris O'Dowd some GREAT lines, but it didn't make sense, especially when it wrote stuff.
Still, I did like it. The links to Cloverfield and 10 Cloverfield Lane were tenuous at best, but that doesn't bother me that much.
figmentPez
Staff member
Personally, I thought the explanation was perfectly reasonable.
No, seriously, that's the explanation, and I think it works. It's a play on pareidolia, apophenia, and the like. These are random things happening by the space-time of two (or more) universes colliding. Space and time are being warped, connections are made and broken, and this is a group of humans desperately trying to make sense of the noise. Humans that have been in cramped quarters for two years with incredible stress on them. I thought the movie did a fantastic job of taking what's usually done by some intelligent evil force, and making it done by the random warping of space-time.
Also, fair enough if you don't think it has a strong enough connection to Cloverfield. I'm not sure why that matters. Maybe I don't care because I thought Cloverfield was merely okay, but I loved 10 Cloverfield Lane. It doesn't matter to me if 10CL or TCP continue the story of Cloverfield, and I don't feel cheated or harmed in any way just because they dare to be loosely connected.
figmentPez
Staff member
The arm was still connected, just to another version of him in another universe, or in another time. That's why he wasn't bleeding, either. I think they just didn't go far enough with the concept to really fully explore the idea. The version of him in another reality got what was happening. That's how the hand could write a message. How he knew where the gyroscope wasn't explained but, but presumably they had some sort of clue in that other world (and/or other time) that told them where a gyro ended up somewhere else.
Furthermore, nothing says this is the same universe that Cloverfield or 10 Cloverfield Lane took place in. There have to be at least 3 universes (the one Paradox starts in, at least one alternate that they collide with, and whatever universe the monsters come from), but I'm assuming that there are many more. We don't even know if Cloverfield took place in a universe with an energy crisis and crazy space station power experiments. It could be the monster was unleashed on that reality because of what happened in another, possibly not even the specific reality that was the focus of Paradox.
Furthermore, nothing says this is the same universe that Cloverfield or 10 Cloverfield Lane took place in. There have to be at least 3 universes (the one Paradox starts in, at least one alternate that they collide with, and whatever universe the monsters come from), but I'm assuming that there are many more. We don't even know if Cloverfield took place in a universe with an energy crisis and crazy space station power experiments. It could be the monster was unleashed on that reality because of what happened in another, possibly not even the specific reality that was the focus of Paradox.
I was satisfied with the Cloverfield Paradox .
Not as good as 10 Cloverfield Lane perhaps but time well spent watching it.
I was somewhat surprised by the events of
Not as good as 10 Cloverfield Lane perhaps but time well spent watching it.
I was somewhat surprised by the events of
the room filling with water. When the door blew out I was really expecting the entire contents of the room to get blasted out into space and not instantly freeze. That didn't seem quite right.
I think I missed something when Mundy was killed by the magnetic field.
Everything metal was being pulled towards the far end of the room by the intense magnetic force including the repair substance which was being pulled towards him.
Just as it looked like it was about to spear him through the back, it grabbed him and pulled him in instead.
I think I missed something when Mundy was killed by the magnetic field.
Everything metal was being pulled towards the far end of the room by the intense magnetic force including the repair substance which was being pulled towards him.
Just as it looked like it was about to spear him through the back, it grabbed him and pulled him in instead.
I wrote both of these off as being because they're in a paradox where the laws of physics and logic no longer apply
I guess my issue is, except for the weird stuff in the middle, it largely plays as a straight sci-fi movie, as a human drama involving parallel dimensions. The final confrontation had no weird stuff going on, so the only reason the weird stuff occurred was to kill people off. How could the ships merge if only one was sent spiraling so far away? The weirdness isn't consistent with the rest of the logic the movie is trying to show. Weird stuff can happen in a movie, but it still needs to fit into its own universe's logic. This was basically the equivilent of Joe Quesada saying, "It's magic. We don't need to explain it" as a way to hand wave anything that didn't make sense."
I think "dare" is too strong a word for what I'm trying to say. The movie was advertised as a direct sequel and it doesn't deliver on that. The only thing that barely ties it in is the husband's side-story. But they do so little with it, there's no real narrative reason for it to be in there except to show how it's all connected. His character does nothing in the big scheme of things and there's no development. It's a series of "See? It's connected!" It felt completely unconnected with the rest of the story and in fact, got in the way of the flow of the space station's story.
Thing is, I'm not even really closely invested in the series. I dug the hell out of Cloverfield, but I wouldn't call it a "great" movie by any stretch. I greatly enjoyed 10CL...right up until the last 10 or so minutes, when it went completely off the rails. Similar to the husband's story in TCP, it felt completely out of place with everything before it and honestly ruined the movie for me. If it'd stuck with being a claustrophobic thriller, it would've been an all-timer for me. But I had the same reaction as the girl, "Oh you've gotta be kidding me." Plus, 10CL had the barest of easter eggs tying it in with Cloverfield, showing that they were doing more of an anthology series under the Cloverfield banner. And apparently, that's what TCP was originally meant to be. The stuff with the husband on Earth was filmed long after the fact.
Even if the science is hand-waved as "it's magic, we don't have to explain it," the movie as a whole is still not very good. The scary scenes are laughable. The husband's side story is superfluous and kills the pacing of the main story. There's little investment in the characters. They get over each death so quickly, like they barely spent five minutes with them, let alone what? Six years? My problems go beyond the hand-waved science and tie-ins to the other movies. It's just a bad movie. The other stuff could've been forgiven if it was a good movie in spite of it. But it's a bad movie with the other stuff just making it even worse.
figmentPez
Staff member
It's a disaster movie. This is like complaining that all the destruction in the Poseidon Adventure only happened to kill people off.
I don't really have anything else to say. I just disagree with you about almost everything, but it's purely subjective reasoning.
Disaster movies rely on large groups of people dying, not a small handful. And usually have a small core cast that are developed enough so that when THEY die, you care about them. Or certainly the other people around them care. The best example, of course, is Alien, which spends the first good third of the movie familiarizing yourself with the characters. And when each of them die, it's a MAJOR break for the characters. Another example is last year's Life, which wasn't great, but it took the time to familiarize the characters and they were upset when one of them died. Here, they move on so quickly, you'd think they forgot about the person they just spent half a decade with.
But you're right, any other disagreements are subjective.
Fifty Shades Freed
The missus wanted to complete the trilogy.
Okay, yes, objectively speaking this is not a good movie. It's better than the first one, maybe about par with the second, or slightly better. All the problematic parts regarding Christian and Ana's relationship dynamic are still there, such as his controlling and abusive nature being portrayed as strong masculinity. There are quite a few scenes and/or subplots that feel completely disjointed and pointless, such as the thing about Christian's brother and the hot female architect, and a sex scene involving ice cream that has no relevance to the rest of the film whatsoever.
Having said that, though, there's more going on in this film than just the "girl likes boy, boy gets his rocks off by abusing girl, girl lets him" storyline from the last two movies, which makes it automatically a bit more interesting than the last two films. Although, there's not much more going on; the thriller-esque storyline involving the crazy dude is rudimentary at best, while the stuff about Ana's pregnancy doesn't really have much of an emotional impact.
Speaking of emotional impacts, though, the final flashback scene set to Love Me Like You Do did twang a bit at heartstrings.
The cast did well enough. Dakota Johnson is competent enough, while Jamie Dornan doesn't really drop any clangers in this movie like he did in the second one. Also, his pectorals are ridiculous.
All in all, a fairly watchable film as long as your expectations aren't too high. Oh, but it's very much a sequel to the last two movies, so if you didn't watch them then you're gonna be really confused at this one. On the other hand, if you didn't watch the previous two I have no idea why you'd be watching this one.
The missus wanted to complete the trilogy.
Okay, yes, objectively speaking this is not a good movie. It's better than the first one, maybe about par with the second, or slightly better. All the problematic parts regarding Christian and Ana's relationship dynamic are still there, such as his controlling and abusive nature being portrayed as strong masculinity. There are quite a few scenes and/or subplots that feel completely disjointed and pointless, such as the thing about Christian's brother and the hot female architect, and a sex scene involving ice cream that has no relevance to the rest of the film whatsoever.
Having said that, though, there's more going on in this film than just the "girl likes boy, boy gets his rocks off by abusing girl, girl lets him" storyline from the last two movies, which makes it automatically a bit more interesting than the last two films. Although, there's not much more going on; the thriller-esque storyline involving the crazy dude is rudimentary at best, while the stuff about Ana's pregnancy doesn't really have much of an emotional impact.
Speaking of emotional impacts, though, the final flashback scene set to Love Me Like You Do did twang a bit at heartstrings.
The cast did well enough. Dakota Johnson is competent enough, while Jamie Dornan doesn't really drop any clangers in this movie like he did in the second one. Also, his pectorals are ridiculous.
All in all, a fairly watchable film as long as your expectations aren't too high. Oh, but it's very much a sequel to the last two movies, so if you didn't watch them then you're gonna be really confused at this one. On the other hand, if you didn't watch the previous two I have no idea why you'd be watching this one.
They should, considering her heritage. Here's Melanie Griffith (Dakota's mom) in Nobody's Fool.
Wonder
It was a great book that both of my kids have read. The movie had some things missing. Like a trio of friends was now a duo. Also they tried to tell the story from different perspectives like in the book, but it wasn't consistent. That was mildly annoying for me, but the kids didn't seem to care. I liked Owen Wilson as the dad. I thought Jacob Tremblay did well as Auggie. Noah Jupe was adorable. It was nice to see Mandy Patinkin, too. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed the movie.
It was a great book that both of my kids have read. The movie had some things missing. Like a trio of friends was now a duo. Also they tried to tell the story from different perspectives like in the book, but it wasn't consistent. That was mildly annoying for me, but the kids didn't seem to care. I liked Owen Wilson as the dad. I thought Jacob Tremblay did well as Auggie. Noah Jupe was adorable. It was nice to see Mandy Patinkin, too. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed the movie.
It’s always nice to see Mandy Patinkin. Even when accompanied by Turtles.
—Patrick
Not in money, that is...
I watched What If and Hello, My Name is Doris. They were entertaining enough.What If is a standard rom-com with a much more tolerable cast than most romcoms. Doris was more fun. Although, I feel that Hollywood always gives us the old guy and pretty young thing all the time and no one bats an eye.
There's not enough Harold and Maude in the world.
Okay, so I risked comedy at my wife's suggestion. Results are odd.
Bridesmaids: I didn't like it. The bathroom humor made me laugh, but I don't like cringe humor, and it was so so full of it.
Unleashed: Ridiculous rom-com involving a woman whose pets are magically transformed into men, and honestly, it was genuinely funny, almost entirely based on the performances of Justin Chatwin and Steve Howey as the pets personified. It reminded me of goofy crap I would watch as a kid that makes absolutely no sense but makes me laugh anyway (My Demon Lover anyone?).
And then obviously The Cloverfield Paradox. I liked it. It's not going to change any lives, but it was entertaining, and I like the idea of a series of movies that are only peripherally related.
Bridesmaids: I didn't like it. The bathroom humor made me laugh, but I don't like cringe humor, and it was so so full of it.
Unleashed: Ridiculous rom-com involving a woman whose pets are magically transformed into men, and honestly, it was genuinely funny, almost entirely based on the performances of Justin Chatwin and Steve Howey as the pets personified. It reminded me of goofy crap I would watch as a kid that makes absolutely no sense but makes me laugh anyway (My Demon Lover anyone?).
And then obviously The Cloverfield Paradox. I liked it. It's not going to change any lives, but it was entertaining, and I like the idea of a series of movies that are only peripherally related.
I remember it being slow and unfunny.