Probably would have worked better as a series, and in my opinion would have been better with unknown actors. Well, at least not A-list actors.
[Movies] Talk about the last movie you saw 2: Electric Threadaloo
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
I think the story would've been better if the alpha Deviant had sided with the Eternals fighting against Ikaris at the end. Like, this Deviant is growing smarter, and it realizes that Sersi's side, much like him, have become the enemies of the Celestials, so it decides to throw its lot in with the faction that's betraying the Celestials. This gives the alpha Deviant an actual story arc, instead of just meekly getting killed off by Thena.
I think I read somewhere that the filmmakers were so impressed with Angelina Jolie's performance as Thena that they decided to expand her role and give her more to do. I wonder if the "alpha Deviant turns good" storyline was the one originally planned, but they changed it so that Thena could have a dramatic final confrontation with the alpha.
I think I read somewhere that the filmmakers were so impressed with Angelina Jolie's performance as Thena that they decided to expand her role and give her more to do. I wonder if the "alpha Deviant turns good" storyline was the one originally planned, but they changed it so that Thena could have a dramatic final confrontation with the alpha.
Fresh (on Hulu)
This is one of those movies that it would probably help NOT knowing what it is going in, but with all the advertising its getting it's unlikely you're going to go into it blind without having at least some idea where the dark twist will take you.
It's a movie. It's clever at times. Not properly paced in others. Plenty of missed opportunities for something better with the concept they had her. But I could recommend it to someone looking for this kind of film.
This is one of those movies that it would probably help NOT knowing what it is going in, but with all the advertising its getting it's unlikely you're going to go into it blind without having at least some idea where the dark twist will take you.
This is a twist, that happens about 30 minutes in, which cleverly is when the title of the film and the cast credits begin, as if the entire first part of the film was just the standard opening scare/kill of your typical slasher/horror disguised as a rom-com. I think the film is a great commentary on modern dating and pairing it with a cannibal sub-culture is fitting. Sebastian Stan is a fun and charismatic villain with a lot of Patrick Bateman (American Psycho) vibes. Daisy Edgar Jones is also talented and deserves mention as the loveless gal stuck seeking dating apps for the one decent guy who doesn't send dick pics. And while most of the dialogue is fantastic I think where the movie fails is the tension and action. Maybe Sebastian's "Steve" is just too nice, plus there is also this poorly paced B plot with the best friend of our lead character Noa who is trying to track down her down after she goes missing. Even with the poor pacing and the lack of tension there was a lot of missed opportunity with this film such as the surprising lack of gore and not enough humor for what they define as a horror/comedy.
. And the lack of gore thing is weird because I feel that despite the R rating this movie is very tame for a story about a guy who slowly harvests women's body parts to sell to very rich clientele for consumption. But on that note IF the film were too gory that it veered into "torture porn" category I don't think I would have been able to finish it. There are also a couple of plot points that come up in the film that never lead anywhere oddly enough.
The two moments of decent comedy that I appreciated were when a victim of Steve who is missing a leg tumbles gracelessly face first out of a dumbwaiter after kicking him, and when the strong black-guy character who has tracked the girls to this location hears screams and gun shots and is like "Nope. I've seen this movie. I'm out." and actually leaves
Such as the woman who appears to be Steve's real wife (they have kids together) being silently upset when she discovers that Steve may have slept with Noa before kidnapping her. The wife is in on the plot, however it seems that Steve has remained a loyal husband up until Noa. What does the wife do with that information? Absolutely nothing. She even comes to defend him at the end of the film.
Last edited:
figmentPez
Staff member
Shadow in the Cloud
I'm not sure what to make of this movie. I enjoyed it, and there was some great suspense, but it left me with so many questions. Mostly, why is the soundtrack from the 80s, when it's a WW2 film? The synth heavy music really took me out of one of the action sequences, which was otherwise pretty damn awesome. Completely unbelievable, but in the best sort of badass action hero way.
If you want a dumb suspense/action movie where Chloe Grace Moretz kicks ass while looking attractive, then this one is fun. This movie showcases her, and she's wonderful.
If you're looking for a meaningful plot, well developed characters, or a cohesive aesthetic, then look elsewhere.
EDIT: Also of note, I watched it through Kanopy, which I had never heard of before, but is apparently a streaming service that is partnered with libraries (and was bought up by Overdrive last year. I'm familiar with Overdrive, I've gotten several audiobooks through them and the library.) The video quality was good, which is not usually my experience when streaming video through library services. I'll have to see if they have anything else worth watching. Viewing is limited to four movies a month, but I may not even be able to find enough to hit the limit.
Oh, and I found Kanopy through JustWatch, which I highly recommend if you're trying to figure out where a movie or TV show is available for streaming.
I'm not sure what to make of this movie. I enjoyed it, and there was some great suspense, but it left me with so many questions. Mostly, why is the soundtrack from the 80s, when it's a WW2 film? The synth heavy music really took me out of one of the action sequences, which was otherwise pretty damn awesome. Completely unbelievable, but in the best sort of badass action hero way.
If you want a dumb suspense/action movie where Chloe Grace Moretz kicks ass while looking attractive, then this one is fun. This movie showcases her, and she's wonderful.
If you're looking for a meaningful plot, well developed characters, or a cohesive aesthetic, then look elsewhere.
EDIT: Also of note, I watched it through Kanopy, which I had never heard of before, but is apparently a streaming service that is partnered with libraries (and was bought up by Overdrive last year. I'm familiar with Overdrive, I've gotten several audiobooks through them and the library.) The video quality was good, which is not usually my experience when streaming video through library services. I'll have to see if they have anything else worth watching. Viewing is limited to four movies a month, but I may not even be able to find enough to hit the limit.
Oh, and I found Kanopy through JustWatch, which I highly recommend if you're trying to figure out where a movie or TV show is available for streaming.
Last edited:
Overlord does the crazy horror/action/rock music mix much better in my opinion. Shadow had it's moments but I felt like it was trying to copy Overlord a bit.
West Side Story
I don't think this is ever going to be one of my favorite musicals, despite the fact I can't remember a time in my life where I didn't know most, if not all the songs from it. I think that, much like the source material it's based on, I just can't get over two people being like, "Oh, we just met! We're so in love, and everything is going to work out perfectly because love!". NO.
However, having said that, I think this is a far better version that the 1961 film. Yes, it does lack Jerome Robbins' iconic dancing...every 5 seconds... but it makes for a much tighter film. And to me, it spends that time giving more personality to the Sharks and the Jets, which makes them far more interesting this time around. YMMV with Ansel Elgort, but he does manage to be slightly less bland that the original Tony, and Rachel Zegler does a far better job than Natalie Wood, although Wood did set the bar real low.
I don't think this is ever going to be one of my favorite musicals, despite the fact I can't remember a time in my life where I didn't know most, if not all the songs from it. I think that, much like the source material it's based on, I just can't get over two people being like, "Oh, we just met! We're so in love, and everything is going to work out perfectly because love!". NO.
However, having said that, I think this is a far better version that the 1961 film. Yes, it does lack Jerome Robbins' iconic dancing...every 5 seconds... but it makes for a much tighter film. And to me, it spends that time giving more personality to the Sharks and the Jets, which makes them far more interesting this time around. YMMV with Ansel Elgort, but he does manage to be slightly less bland that the original Tony, and Rachel Zegler does a far better job than Natalie Wood, although Wood did set the bar real low.
Oh look, every high school kid ever. I had a talk with my youngest stepson about his high school girlfriend once, because he was all "we're soulmates", and I was all "You have two classes together. What do you really know about her? No seriously, tell me something, that you find attractive about her that isn't driven by your teenage need to fuck a willing partner?"
After a few minutes, he admitted he couldn't name anything at all about her other than he liked her, and she was pretty. He didn't even really know what music she liked.
I was captivated the entire time. It's an absolutely beautiful movie and it takes it's time splendidly. Most scenes are very slow (in a tension building way) and even devoid of dialogue.
It's funny how divisive this is, overall. There seems to be no in-between for people, you either love it or hate it.
Personally, I think it's the best depiction of Batman we've ever had but doesn't solidify that until
the last half hour.
The complaints of it being long I guess could be justified but there is so much intent with the length. Shots don't linger just to linger. They set tension that rushing them would absolutely hurt.
It's not a perfect movie, at all, it would benefit from cuts but I think visually, and tonally, it's a much more impressive movie than any of the Nolan films.
I would not have minded even more screen time (felt the same with Blade Runner 2049). If you have a good story to tell, take however long you need to tell it, but don't pad it out with filler if it doesn't help the story.
Like BBC programs, take your 6-8 episodes, tell your story, and leave, no need to drag it out for 5 seasons if you don't need to do so.
Like BBC programs, take your 6-8 episodes, tell your story, and leave, no need to drag it out for 5 seasons if you don't need to do so.
Last edited:
I will say that while some things could have been cut, I was not at any point bored nor did I feel it dragged and would have happily watched another hour, if that makes sense.
It was also really nice to not feel like I needed to watch 400 hours of content before this to have it mean something.
It was also really nice to not feel like I needed to watch 400 hours of content before this to have it mean something.
I don't mind "love at first sight", but even I got whiplash here. I swear, I was watching the high school dance scene--Tony and Maria have not met yet--looked away at my iPad for a moment, and when I looked back at the TV, they were together and completely and totally in love with each other. Whaaaaaat?
What I learned from this movie is that I just don't like West Side Story. I figured out it's because I don't like most of the characters. I don't like Tony. I spent most of the movie thinking Maria could do so much better in life if she got away from the gangs, so his death at the end wasn't a tragedy to me. The same with her brother's death. Both deaths removed unhealthy influences from her life.
Turning Red
This was such a funny, sweet movie. Pixar did a great job with it. The kids acted like real kids, and there was so many relatable scenes, especially your mother finding your "artwork" you really never meant to share...
. I had planned on watching it by myself while Li'l Z played video games, and he ended up ditching the video games because he got so engrossed in the movie. He loved it and thought it was really funny.
...which is why I'm so confused finding out afterwards that there's controversy? Because at one point they mention a girl's period (in non-graphic, minimal detail)? Sorry, don't see anything weird about that. My kid has known what a period is since he was 5; he was completely non-plussed by it. Or that people can't relate to it? Sorry, but a lot of themes were pretty universal, or VERY North American, and again, 9-year-old boy had no issue with it. I honestly thought this is one of Pixar's strongest films in a while, moreso than Luca or Soul, which are good films, but not firing on all cylinders like Turning Red.
This was such a funny, sweet movie. Pixar did a great job with it. The kids acted like real kids, and there was so many relatable scenes, especially your mother finding your "artwork" you really never meant to share...
. I had planned on watching it by myself while Li'l Z played video games, and he ended up ditching the video games because he got so engrossed in the movie. He loved it and thought it was really funny....which is why I'm so confused finding out afterwards that there's controversy? Because at one point they mention a girl's period (in non-graphic, minimal detail)? Sorry, don't see anything weird about that. My kid has known what a period is since he was 5; he was completely non-plussed by it. Or that people can't relate to it? Sorry, but a lot of themes were pretty universal, or VERY North American, and again, 9-year-old boy had no issue with it. I honestly thought this is one of Pixar's strongest films in a while, moreso than Luca or Soul, which are good films, but not firing on all cylinders like Turning Red.
I've seen chuds complaining that it's not white enough, not christian enough, that it's too 'woke', that it goes against family values because it involves a child thinking for herself... you know, all the normal stuff that bubbles out of a society built on white supremacy.Turning Red
This was such a funny, sweet movie. Pixar did a great job with it. The kids acted like real kids, and there was so many relatable scenes, especially your mother finding your "artwork" you really never meant to share...
...which is why I'm so confused finding out afterwards that there's controversy? Because at one point they mention a girl's period (in non-graphic, minimal detail)? Sorry, don't see anything weird about that. My kid has known what a period is since he was 5; he was completely non-plussed by it. Or that people can't relate to it? Sorry, but a lot of themes were pretty universal, or VERY North American, and again, 9-year-old boy had no issue with it. I honestly thought this is one of Pixar's strongest films in a while, moreso than Luca or Soul, which are good films, but not firing on all cylinders like Turning Red.
That reasoning is complete BS, though.
Snow white goes against her (step) mother. Ariel defies her father. Cinderella, Simba, the Rescuers, Dumbo, they are all about children defying parents, going out to choose their own lives. Mulan! Aladin! Heck. Even the Aristocats!
They may been (mostly) white (mostly) girls, but practically all modern renditions of Western fairytales are stories of youth daring to go against traditions and/or parents.
I know Disney gets a lot of flack sometimes for not being progressive enough (openly gay characters, good steprelatives, other variations of modernity), and sometimes I agree and sometimes I don't - but as far back as I can go, not a single hero has ever been racist or prejudiced - or overcoming that prejudice was a large part of the story.
Some characters may have been (hurtful) stereotypes, which partly really is something people need to learn to place within the time frame of when the movie was made (e.g. The Siamese cats in both Lady and the Tramp and in the Aristocats), but really, while Disney definitely likes to stay safe and take very little risks as a company, the message across their movies has always been a variation on "dare to be yourself". Whether that's an awesome king with a huge mane, or a girly girl wanting to be pretty.
Snow white goes against her (step) mother. Ariel defies her father. Cinderella, Simba, the Rescuers, Dumbo, they are all about children defying parents, going out to choose their own lives. Mulan! Aladin! Heck. Even the Aristocats!
They may been (mostly) white (mostly) girls, but practically all modern renditions of Western fairytales are stories of youth daring to go against traditions and/or parents.
I know Disney gets a lot of flack sometimes for not being progressive enough (openly gay characters, good steprelatives, other variations of modernity), and sometimes I agree and sometimes I don't - but as far back as I can go, not a single hero has ever been racist or prejudiced - or overcoming that prejudice was a large part of the story.
Some characters may have been (hurtful) stereotypes, which partly really is something people need to learn to place within the time frame of when the movie was made (e.g. The Siamese cats in both Lady and the Tramp and in the Aristocats), but really, while Disney definitely likes to stay safe and take very little risks as a company, the message across their movies has always been a variation on "dare to be yourself". Whether that's an awesome king with a huge mane, or a girly girl wanting to be pretty.
I don't know if you've noticed this, but these type of people don't care about being hypocrites or any kind of logical consistency. Get woke go broke roll tide!
Not only because of the title itself, Turning Red, hint hint nudge nudge, but because periods are one of those “unmentionable” subjects you’re supposed to cover by surreptitiously slipping your son/daughter a copy of Then Again, Maybe I’m Margaret*and letting them figure it out on their own.
—Patrick
*Given today’s climate, someone really needs to write this book for real.
figmentPez
Staff member
Criticizing the "CalArts style" is almost always a dog-whistle for misogyny and/or racism. The term was coined by John Kricfalusi, who groomed and sexually abused teenagers under the guise of helping them start in the animation industry.
I don't even think people are using that term correctly anymore. I remember the "CalArts style" to describe early Cartoon Network original programming*, like Dexter's Lab and Powerpuff Girls, with their thick outlines and geometric shaping. Luca and Turning Red look more like Aardman Studio-influenced. I can see how it would be a dog-whistle when dumbasses don't even know the difference.
Also, fuck John K.
(*Back when I was in college, we had an assigned character style guide that used to say NEVER to use bold lines to outline your characters. It was considered bad design for animation. But because of the changes of style and popularity of those Cartoon Networks shows, our professors would shrug and say we could ignore that piece of advise.)
It's worth mentioning that The Simpsons technically qualifies as "CalArts style" and is one of the forces that helped popularize it, alongside the Cartoon Cartoon shows and the series that spawned from them.
GasBandit
Staff member
I always thought that the "Calarts era" had started around 2010, just after the "geometric early CN" era
Granted, I've barely done more than a cursory google on all this, some time back
The most quoted distinguishing characteristics seem to be thinner lines, bean-shaped heads with banana-shaped smiles, and rubber tube-shaped noodle-arms.
That said, "THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME" is not really a valid point. I think the prevailing agreed sentiment is criticism of the so-called "CalArts" style is really just criticism of anything soft, friendly, colorful, and otherwise NOT hypermasculine.
Last edited:
So, The Batman. I liked it. It has issues, and more issues as I think about it, but overall, a damn great version of Batman. Probably the most fallible version of Batman since the Animated Series, and I mean that in a good way. He screws up often, sometimes attempting cool shit.
All the actors are top notch and I liked Pattinson more and more as the film went on. Zoe Kravitz arguably is the best Catwoman on screen so far. Paul Dano is a damn great Riddler. It was nice to see an actual crime-solving Batman, even though he was...kinda not great at it?
But that goes back to the "fallible Batman" that I mentioned before. He doesn't just screw up while attempting to do cool shit, but he screws up several times solving the mystery. And often called out by those maybe smarter than him. Certainly the ones more street smart.
Michael Giacchino's score is fantastic and you can hear that thumping in various pitches and levels throughout the movie. I think I heard a bit of Danny Elfman's Catwoman theme from Batman Returns, which was a great little touch.
I don't know why, but I didn't think I'd like Colin Farrell as Penguin, but he's phenomenal. Obviously less cartoonish than his processors, but he's another I hope we see more of in the future.
Some criticisms:
I HATE that his armor made him literally bulletproof. There's some scenes where the armor absorbs bullets from hardware that I'm PRETTY sure would be armor piercing, but he just walks right through it. Pistols, sure, but not machine guns or high-powered rifles.
This Batman is really brutal. And maybe chalk that up to this being his second or third year, but I've always preferred a Batman that's more efficient. A Batman that can take down a thug in two hits (and maybe break an arm) rather than a dozen punches. This Batman doesn't seem very well trained in a mixture of fighting styles. There's no finesse. It's mostly a lot of punches. No throws, barely any kicks. This is all more personal preference than a notch against the movie. I like a more efficient Batman.
As I said, Paul Dano is a damn great Riddler. It's a shame that, by design, he has to wear a mask 95% of the time because his best work is when his unmasked. Maybe we'll see him in the iconic bowler and 3-piece suit in the future.
The movie drags at points. There's some quieter, one-on-one moments that just didn't do it for me. Mostly because they were the same actor shots back and forth. There's one (the interrogation) that's one of the best parts of the movie, but that's it.
It's a GREAT mystery for the most part, but I didn't like the big finale or last twist of Riddler's plan. It felt kind of tacked on. Action was top notch, don't get me wrong, but it felt jarring after what felt like a smaller scale mystery or threat.
One part that I WANTED to like and hated was the car chase scene. The Batmobile is badass as hell (Batass?). But the actual chase was shot way too close up, with little sense of location. Some wider shots would have helped establish some blocking in the action.
They stuck the landing on the car chase, though. The last part of it, while maybe a little too neatly contrived in how it sets everything up, was incredibly well shot.
Not sure what I'd rate it or where I'd rank it among the other Bat-films. I want to say it's the best live-action Bat-film to date. It's not without issues, but it's a great realization of the character and in some ways a welcome change.
All the actors are top notch and I liked Pattinson more and more as the film went on. Zoe Kravitz arguably is the best Catwoman on screen so far. Paul Dano is a damn great Riddler. It was nice to see an actual crime-solving Batman, even though he was...kinda not great at it?
But that goes back to the "fallible Batman" that I mentioned before. He doesn't just screw up while attempting to do cool shit, but he screws up several times solving the mystery. And often called out by those maybe smarter than him. Certainly the ones more street smart.
Michael Giacchino's score is fantastic and you can hear that thumping in various pitches and levels throughout the movie. I think I heard a bit of Danny Elfman's Catwoman theme from Batman Returns, which was a great little touch.
I don't know why, but I didn't think I'd like Colin Farrell as Penguin, but he's phenomenal. Obviously less cartoonish than his processors, but he's another I hope we see more of in the future.
Some criticisms:
I HATE that his armor made him literally bulletproof. There's some scenes where the armor absorbs bullets from hardware that I'm PRETTY sure would be armor piercing, but he just walks right through it. Pistols, sure, but not machine guns or high-powered rifles.
This Batman is really brutal. And maybe chalk that up to this being his second or third year, but I've always preferred a Batman that's more efficient. A Batman that can take down a thug in two hits (and maybe break an arm) rather than a dozen punches. This Batman doesn't seem very well trained in a mixture of fighting styles. There's no finesse. It's mostly a lot of punches. No throws, barely any kicks. This is all more personal preference than a notch against the movie. I like a more efficient Batman.
As I said, Paul Dano is a damn great Riddler. It's a shame that, by design, he has to wear a mask 95% of the time because his best work is when his unmasked. Maybe we'll see him in the iconic bowler and 3-piece suit in the future.
The movie drags at points. There's some quieter, one-on-one moments that just didn't do it for me. Mostly because they were the same actor shots back and forth. There's one (the interrogation) that's one of the best parts of the movie, but that's it.
It's a GREAT mystery for the most part, but I didn't like the big finale or last twist of Riddler's plan. It felt kind of tacked on. Action was top notch, don't get me wrong, but it felt jarring after what felt like a smaller scale mystery or threat.
One part that I WANTED to like and hated was the car chase scene. The Batmobile is badass as hell (Batass?). But the actual chase was shot way too close up, with little sense of location. Some wider shots would have helped establish some blocking in the action.
They stuck the landing on the car chase, though. The last part of it, while maybe a little too neatly contrived in how it sets everything up, was incredibly well shot.
Not sure what I'd rate it or where I'd rank it among the other Bat-films. I want to say it's the best live-action Bat-film to date. It's not without issues, but it's a great realization of the character and in some ways a welcome change.
I could swear I was hearing the term "CalArts style" back in college, but to be fair, this was our area of specialty. Certain terms were not super common outside of the field at that point, and they had a different meaning. But your point is still true, particularly about the hypermasculine stuff.
GasBandit
Staff member
The prevailing sentiment among the laypeople is often erroneous, but we can't help what catches on and becomes memetically accepted.
Farrel was so good as Penguin he's getting a show devoted to his rise on HBO.
I watched Shang Chi. If it wasn't for the beautiful Wuxia style fight scenes I would have checked out hard. It was just a series of reasons to rush to someplace new for another fight, which I can respect. Barely coherent as a movie though. It's pretty hilarious how many mysterious Asian paradises exist in the MCU.
Villain spoilers if anyone cares for this, wow nearly year old movie now...Jesus I can zone out.
Villain spoilers if anyone cares for this, wow nearly year old movie now...Jesus I can zone out.
The Dweller-In-Darkness as the big bad of a movie (and oddly the first major boss in the Guardians of the Galaxy video game) was a choice, sure. Easily Marvel's lamest Cthulhu variant. Odd choice especially for a hand to hand fighting super hero. Again Marvel kind of ruins it's climaxes with a huge, massive CG fest ultrafight instead of a one on one with a bad guy you can give a shit about (see Black Panther).
Marvel Comics' Dweller-In-Darkness is literally a cyborg Cthulhu.
Marvel Comics' Dweller-In-Darkness is literally a cyborg Cthulhu.
Last edited: