[Movies] Talk about the last movie you saw 2: Electric Threadaloo

The Batman

I watched this last night, and I had a really hard time staying engaged with it. Maybe it's different when you're watching it on the big screen? To me, the parts that should have had a lot of urgency... didn't feel that way? I guess the whole thing felt a little monotone to me. I didn't hate it, but I could almost forget I saw it. Maybe I need to watch it again.

I do have one nitpick,
in that I wish they had given Alfred a little more to do, because his near-death moment felt like it lacked the emotional impact it should have had. I like Alfred in so many of his appearances over the years (movies, comics, tv); it pains me to say this.
 
The Batman

I watched this last night, and I had a really hard time staying engaged with it. Maybe it's different when you're watching it on the big screen? To me, the parts that should have had a lot of urgency... didn't feel that way? I guess the whole thing felt a little monotone to me. I didn't hate it, but I could almost forget I saw it. Maybe I need to watch it again.

I do have one nitpick,
in that I wish they had given Alfred a little more to do, because his near-death moment felt like it lacked the emotional impact it should have had. I like Alfred in so many of his appearances over the years (movies, comics, tv); it pains me to say this.
I watched it Sunday night. After a certain point it was more of a I have to finish this just to see, rather than a can't wait to see what's next movie. Much the same that I felt about Kong vs Godzilla. It was rather monotone throughout and never got to a point of caring about any of the characters portrayed. Not the worst Batman movie, but far from the top of my list. I think my favorite part of the movie was Jeffrey Wright's James Gordon, but I've liked him in almost everything I've seen him do.
 
Batman spoilers

It kind of fell apart at the end, like flooding of that magnitude would have killed more people than some goons shooting from a rooftop wouldn't it? Riddler mostly won.

Also, it didn't need to be 3 hours. There could have been some trimming here and there.
 
I personally really, really liked The Batman, but I also like slow burn slightly pretentious movies, so you know, take that as you will.

It kind of fell apart at the end, like flooding of that magnitude would have killed more people than some goons shooting from a rooftop wouldn't it? Riddler mostly won.
I thought the ending was very good, precisely because Riddler did win. Batman didn't manage to stop any of his kills, and didn't figure out the Riddler's plan in time. Yeah, he stopped the shooting, but many still died, and the city is in a full blown disaster now.

But what I liked most about the movie is that, -if- you are going to tell a dark and gritty Zack Snyder type of Batman story, you need two things. You need it to be a proto-Batman (which this fits, being in year two) and he needs to realize how shitty he is. Batman fails in the end, realizes all this destruction was inspired by him, and realizes that the only way to help the people of Gotham is to actually, you know, -help- them.

As for non-spoiler stuff, I loved the score, I thought the cinematography was great, and I really liked Robert Pattinson's subdued performance. And Jeffrey Wright really is fantastic in everything he's in. I feel a bit like Andy Serkis as Alfred was a little wasted, but what screen time he did have was good, and hopefully if they go with sequels we'll get a lot more of him.

But with all that said, it absolutely didn't need to be three hours. I feel like you could easily trim 30 minutes off of this and it would flow much better.
 
Okay, saw it and it was fine.
I liked much of what they did....not so much some other stuff. Pattinson looked good in his Batsuit and it was simultaneously the best looking and most unrealistic yet. His Batmobile might be the coolest yet... dug that. His Bruce Wayne was...... sad?

The best part were the Bats and Gordon investigating together scenes and they should have had more of that and less of the additional villains.

But the movie was waaaayyyyy too long like when the third act finally started I took a break and realized there was still an hour left.
 
The Bad Guys

Fun little movie,plots kinda basic but the animation is fan-TASTIC .

I enjoyed this one a lot. It was fun, energetic, beautiful to look at, and had some wonderful character back and forth. It has a very Lupin III feel to it. Most plot twists are predictable but they still work well with the story. I really recommend it.
 
Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers
Not as impressed as a lot of the reviewers out there apparently. I don't see this as a spiritual successor to Who Framed Roger Rabbit. It has a lot of the awkward humor that I am not a fan of. It has some clever cameos from Disney characters and non-Disney characters. There is a surprising cameo of a character that I can't imagine that ANYONE saw coming, but yet I was still underwhelmed by it. The movie has a plot that I think could have used a bit more mystery. With everything seen in the trailers the whole story is very easily pieced together and didn't give me any particular fun surprises. The idea of the movie is fine, as I don't mind that this is sort of a "Galaxy Quest" type scenario where the Rescue Rangers was a show and Chip and Dale are the actors. A more serious reboot would have been better in my opinion, but only because I now know that this version was lacking.
 
Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers
Not as impressed as a lot of the reviewers out there apparently. I don't see this as a spiritual successor to Who Framed Roger Rabbit. It has a lot of the awkward humor that I am not a fan of. It has some clever cameos from Disney characters and non-Disney characters. There is a surprising cameo of a character that I can't imagine that ANYONE saw coming, but yet I was still underwhelmed by it. The movie has a plot that I think could have used a bit more mystery. With everything seen in the trailers the whole story is very easily pieced together and didn't give me any particular fun surprises. The idea of the movie is fine, as I don't mind that this is sort of a "Galaxy Quest" type scenario where the Rescue Rangers was a show and Chip and Dale are the actors. A more serious reboot would have been better in my opinion, but only because I now know that this version was lacking.
I have the exact opposite opinion: This movie is WAY better than I thought it was going to be based on it's trailers and while it can't really measure up to WFRR, it's definitely got the same feel to it. This isn't the gritty noir story of how society abuses and excludes it's animated stars even while profiting off of them... it's the True Hollywood Story of how Rescue Rangers fell apart and what revived the careers of everyone involved. It's got lots of amazing cameos (including a side character I NEVER would have imagined anyone using for anything ever again), some very fun chase sequences, and a lot of genuine love for it's source material (even as it rather brutally mocks things like 2000's era CGI, bad animated movies, and Hollywood Celebrity culture in general).

It's nothing AMAZING, but considering the options were ether this surprisingly fun weird movie or nothing (as the more straight reboot project had been abandoned after years of development), I'm glad we got something that was at least entertaining and heartfelt in exchange.

Didn't appreciate the Darkwing Duck dig at the end though. Come on Disney, you've been promising a reboot series for years and even set it up during the Ducktales reboot!
 
Opinions are pretty split across the internet for Chip N' Dale, so I went in with a open mind and lowered expectations. And I was honestly entertained. It didn't reinvent the wheel, and I never would have paid to see it in the theater, but for a Disney+ release, it was fun. I'm probably going to watch it a second time just to see all the jokes/references in the background. There was a LOT.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
I thought Rescue Rangers was enjoyable. It wasn't amazing, but I had fun.

Though I'm still really confused about the timeline and the world. This didn't feel like an authentic universe the way Who Framed Roger Rabbit did. There were a lot of inconsistencies.

So first off, I guess the Chip and Dale shorts that go back to the 1940s didn't happen in this universe. Donald Duck gets referenced, but I guess he never did any cartoons with chipmunks? Even without that, the movie starts in 1982 with Chip and Dale in the 3rd grade. Then they leave for Hollywood after they graduate, which would put them leaving for hollywood in 1991, but Rescue Rangers debuted in 1989. Were they intentionally making this timeline different from our reality, or did they just not do the math?

Also, if an eraser is a threat to a toon, then why is Dip such a big thing? Are we just completely ignoring how things worked in WFRR?

Yes, I know I'm over thinking this. The movie just isn't as smart or as polished as Who Framed Roger Rabbit was. I'd probably be more disappointed if Resuce Rangers weren't so far down my list on shows I would want to see rebooted.
 
Chip 'n Dale's Rescue Rangers

Meh?

For a movie all about cheap bootlegs, this felt like a bootleg version of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. It got a few small chuckles out of me, but that's it.

Like a lot of movies these days that are stuffed with random cameos (Ready Player One, Space Jam 2), the cameos in this were random, meaningless, and just results in a hollow "Hey, I recognize that thing."

Mixing traditional animation with CGI seems clever at first but they don't really do anything with it. That's ample ammunition to say something about the shift in animation, but it's left to maybe half a dozen cheap gags.

I don't know. I don’t regret watching it but it's not something I'll ever want to revisit. Let's put it this way: if I'd seen this in theates, I would have regretted paying money for it.
 
Last edited:
Two other things that bothered me in Chip and Dale.
The animation was pretty terrible. They had this potential to make the 2D characters actually hand-drawn but went with 3D models with a cartoony look instead. Considering that part of the joke is that Dale is supposed to have gotten a 3D "face-lift" it's kinda weird that Chip is also computer generated. It's a lazy and cheap style and it really doesn't work for me.
The other issue was just a mild plot one. For a show that has plenty of goofy cartoon antics to pull from, I find it a bit odd and almost kinda insulting to the original show that they went with a classic cartoon "little birdies" gag to defeat the baddie that NEVER shows up in the show itself. They even had to invent an episode of the show for the movie just to foreshadow it for later use. They even suggest in the film that the same gag was used in EVERY episode to wrap things up. Which for me was like "really? They had to dumb down Rescue Rangers that much?". I guess I was just hoping for something more clever.
 
Last edited:
Two other things that bothered me in Chip and Dale.
The animation was pretty terrible. They had this potential to make the 2D characters actually hand-drawn but went with 3D models with a cartoony look instead. Considering that part of the joke is that Dale is supposed to have gotten a 3D "face-lift" it's kinda weird that Chip is also computer generated. It's a lazy and cheap style and it really doesn't work for me.
Yeah that's my main complaint as well, the first season of RWBY had better Cell-shaded character models. Its even MORE annoying as the film DOES have traditional animation parsed throughout the film, just not for the main characters as that'd be TOO expensive for the billion dollar company that is Disney.

Like, its a 7.5 to 8.5 out of ten film for sure, but that still bugged me.
 
Ok 2022 has been quite the year and I'm WAY behind, sooo...

Groundhog Day (1993)
To be fair, I joined some friends watching this (in late January) after they had already started it and so I missed maybe the first 5-10min, but they assured me that this meant the only part I missed (besides the titles) were the bits establishing Bill Murray's character as an egocentric jerkface. They seemed surprised that I had never seen it (much like everyone else I'd ever met up 'til that point). And now that I finally have? I have to say...I'm actually a bit disappointed.
See, I guess I was expecting more of a heartwarming redemption story where, thanks to the unique plot mechanic, self-absorbed Phil (the subtly-named protagonist played by Murray) finally comes to realize just how much of a prick he's been and really decides to turn things around. What I saw instead was a story where Phil at first takes advantage of his situation in order to arrange events to his liking, but then sort of comes to grudgingly accept that there's a certain minimum of decency he's expected to achieve before he'll finally be free, and so he works to sort of achieve a comfortable minimum amount of progress rather than a full epiphany. By the time everything moves into the final act and reveal, I still felt like I somehow must've missed 20min or so of deleted scenes which would explain/show how Phil not only straightened out his own life, but also learned how to turn his relationship with his coworkers around, rather than just learning their "triggers," so to speak. Even Scrooged (1988) was better at showing the title character's turnaround/change of heart than this movie.
So still worth watching, but definitely a gaping, missed opportunity in the plot development. 6.99/10
The real star of this movie, btw, is Stephen Toblowsky as "Ned." He played that role to perfection and I never once realized he's the same guy who yells, "You captured their stunt doubles!" in Spaceballs (1987)

--Patrick
 
Hudson Hawk (1991)
I saw this movie about a week or so after Groundhog Day (1993, above), and so one of the first things I said while watching the movie was, "What? Andie MacDowell again?" This is a movie that my wife has been trying to get me to see for ages because it is one of her favorites (and not just because Richard Grant is in it), and we finally came to one of those movie-exchange deals where I watch one she suggests in return for watching one I suggest (more on that later).
So first of all, this is a cartoon. Oh sure, there are real-live walkin'-around people in it, but it's a cartoon. The characters are cartoons. The plot is a cartoon. They do cartoon things and have cartoon names and follow cartoon logic (and physics). I'm sure whoever approached Willis about his role* as the legendary cat-burglar of legendary legend did so because of his roles in Die Hard (1988) and Moonlighting (1988), and told him, "It's going to be like a whimsical Die Hard," because that's basically what it is. There was a point early on (in the car) where I actually asked out loud, "Is he ever going to get a cup of coffee in this movie?" before I realized that yes, this was going to be a thing. The villains are extra villain-y. The plot (plots, really. It feel like there are at least four of them) is implausible to the point of absurdity but that's okay because it doubles down on that fact several times without batting an eyelash and makes no excuses for itself. I hear that this movie did not do very well at the box office (Richard Grant supposedly called it "a stinking pile of steaming hot donkey droppings"), but that does not prevent it from being completely, entirely entertaining from beginning to end assuming, of course, that you know what's coming and are willing to suspend sufficient disbelief to just roll with it and enjoy the ride ("Air bags! Can ya believe it?!"). It's a real shame this movie ended up relegated to the "Cult Classic" category, because it is quite a show. If you want to see what probably inspired things like National Treasure (2004) or The Librarian: Quest for the Spear (2004), you should check this out. Solid and underrated 8.5/10

--Patrick
*So turns out it was Willis, himself, who was most responsible for casting himself in the film that he, himself, wrote. So I guess that was a given.
 
Finally saw The Batman.
Basically everything @Ravenpoe said. I liked that Bruce was still obviously new at this and made mistakes, and that he didn't outright win (because what's Batman going to do to stop catastrophic flooding?) His 'win' came from figuring out that Gotham doesn't need Vengeance, it needs a Protector.

What I liked most about this one is that it felt the most like reading a Batman comic--well, given the length, like reading The Long Halloween. ;) His origin story has been done to death, so I really like that it jumped right in and focused on Batman solving crimes. And I liked that they used the "regular" bad guys like Falcone, and I'm glad they kept Penguin and Riddler realistic.
 
Free Guy (2021)
I wanted to see this movie on the day it came out, which also just happened to be our 15th wedding anniversary and we were on vacation. But instead we went to a fancy restaurant. C'est la vie. To be fair, the food was really good. But it was noticeably lacking in Ryan Reynolds.
Months pass. I tried to get people to see this movie with me in theaters, but no luck. I really wanted to see this on a big screen. I waited until it had been out a while, because COVID and theaters and suchlike, and I figured there would be fewer people packing into theaters towards the end of its run, but still no dice. And then it went away.
And then one day, while grocery shopping in a local upscale-ish grocery store (wife can't have just ANY cheese for Xmas dinner stuff oh no must be special hard-to-find kind), I find they have a basket of movies on disc at the end of the wine aisle (Product placement!) which includes the Blu-ray of Free Guy and so I said heck with it, I'm getting it, 'cuz I've wanted to see this since it was announced eighteen months ago and I know I'm gonna want to add it to my library eventually anyway. Just one problem: we don't own a Blu-ray player.
So anyway, we now own a Blu-ray player (it was inevitable. And on sale!) and, "in exchange" for watching Hudson Hawk (1991) with her (it wasn't really an exchange, she already wanted to see it, though not so much as I did), we sat through it a week or so before I left for my current CA trip.

It was everything I was waiting for.

See, I've been a MMORPG player of one type or another since the days of LPMud. I've worked behind the scenes on games. Not to the same level as what's depicted in the film, of course, but still enough to know. And of course I've had the times where I imagine the characters living busy little lives of their own when we're not around, Toy Story-style. And if you are any kind of online gamer these days, you will "get" the world that Guy lives in--that we see in the film. It's simultaneously "a Ryan Reynolds movie" and a pastiche of as many gaming tropes as they could smoosh into this film without angering too many lawyers. And it's fantastic the same way that The Last Action Hero (1993) is fantastic, or that The Matrix (1989) or Dark City (1998) are fantastic. There's a story being told here, and that story is entertaining, sure, but the story unfolding in front of our faces is not THE only story being told, if you get what I'm saying here. Yes, there is a story about Guy achieving a sentience of sorts and trying to find out where he fits (Guy is also admiringly, spectacularly wholesome the entire time he is doing so, and, in a "show, don't tell" kind of way, attempts to [r|t]each the audience by example, without resorting to Hollywood's typical immersion-ruining unsubtle heavy-handedness), but there is also a YA romance/love story going on, and of course the whole selfish/evil corporate overlord schtick. There's a WHOLE lot of "Technology does not actually work that way!" going on, but I suppose that really only breaks immersion for people who actually work in the industry. Also the music is Shrek-level brilliant with its mix of specifically-selected pop hits alongside the electro-orchestral score provided by Christophe Beck (who has done soundtracks for some of the MCU, as well as Frozen).
My wife recognized more of the actors than I did, since she is more plugged into modern TV and cinema (and fandoms) than I, though I recognized more of the references. There was one in particular that I caught (no, not the Wilhelm scream) that I found supremely fantastic, but I can't remember what it was at the moment. Ah well. I want to watch it again anyway, and so I will have something else to look forward to once I get home.

--Patrick
 
Finally saw The Batman.
Basically everything @Ravenpoe said. I liked that Bruce was still obviously new at this and made mistakes, and that he didn't outright win (because what's Batman going to do to stop catastrophic flooding?) His 'win' came from figuring out that Gotham doesn't need Vengeance, it needs a Protector.

What I liked most about this one is that it felt the most like reading a Batman comic--well, given the length, like reading The Long Halloween. ;) His origin story has been done to death, so I really like that it jumped right in and focused on Batman solving crimes. And I liked that they used the "regular" bad guys like Falcone, and I'm glad they kept Penguin and Riddler realistic.
I actually was excited that they started The Batman with narration. Because all the non-Robin stories had Batman narrating his inner thoughts. Though it took a shile to realize that it was Batman's thoughts and not Riddler's.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Everything Everywhere All at Once

All these years, the only thing stopping me from becoming undefeatable was my unwillingness to stick a trophy up my butt?
This is the true Multiverse of Madness.
 
The Ring

Yeah, it came out 20 years ago. But I never saw it until tonight. And I gotta say… that was lame. I kept expecting it to get actually creepy. Instead it just kept plodding along. I found that as they explained more and more of the backstory the movie got more and more boring.

Twenty years ago my college girlfriend got so freaked out when she watched it with her roommate that she asked me to drive over an hour to spend the night with her (not that I was complaining about that part, mind you). And it was all over this? Some drippy ghost in pajamas?
 
The Ring

Yeah, it came out 20 years ago. But I never saw it until tonight. And I gotta say… that was lame. I kept expecting it to get actually creepy. Instead it just kept plodding along. I found that as they explained more and more of the backstory the movie got more and more boring.

Twenty years ago my college girlfriend got so freaked out when she watched it with her roommate that she asked me to drive over an hour to spend the night with her (not that I was complaining about that part, mind you). And it was all over this? Some drippy ghost in pajamas?
Ringu is better, the Japanese original, but keep in mind it plays more as a mystery with horror elements rather than an outright horror movie.

Now, if you wanna get wild, the original trilogy of books go off the fucking rails.

In the first book, the girl Sadako (who is an adult in the original, not a child) was a technopath in life who was murdered and raped, and infected with an STD that then became a computer virus that imprinted itself on video tapes. By the second book this turned into an airborne virus that impregnated women and made them give birth to a Sadako clone for a growing Sadako army terrorizing the world, and then in the third book the detective comes to the conclusion that all of this shit is crazy and impossible so they must be living in a simulation, and he turns out to be right.

The matrix happened to come out while the third book was being written, just FYI
 

Dave

Staff member
Just watched Everything Everywhere All At Once.

I liked it but not as much as a lot of people have. A couple of friends say it’s their favorite movie of the last few years. I don’t see that but it certainly was a thing.
 
Ringu is better, the Japanese original, but keep in mind it plays more as a mystery with horror elements rather than an outright horror movie.
Maybe that’s my problem. People in the past pumped it up as a horror classic, super creepy, can’t sleep for days after watching it, terrifying, etc. I guess I expected more because of that. Too much hype, I suppose.
 
Top