The New Cinema and Movie Thread

[Gorgon]

Really ?, I haven't seen anything good in a while.  I dunno if good cinematography could save a bad movie, probably not, but the bar has been lowered. You can have "good enough" for drastically less money, and as a consequence excellence barely ever happens anymore. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

12 minutes ago, Gorgon said:

Really ?, I haven't seen anything good in a while.  I dunno if good cinematography could save a bad movie, probably not, but the bar has been lowered. You can have "good enough" for drastically less money, and as a consequence excellence barely ever happens anymore. 

Watch Bad Luck Banging or Loony Porn (one title).

[Amentep]

2 hours ago, KP From Another World said:

Top Gun: Maverick is boring US military propaganda whose "real planes" (and CGI they don't wanna talk about as much) can't save it from mediocrity, but there are tons of amazing films being made around the world.

The original TOP GUN was mediocre, not sure why the sequel would be any less mediocre.

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

15 minutes ago, Amentep said:

The original TOP GUN was mediocre, not sure why the sequel would be any less mediocre.

 

I either haven't seen or don't remember seeing the original. I'll consider that a good thing.

[ShadySands]

1 minute ago, KP From Another World said:

I either haven't seen or don't remember seeing the original

I'm going to need you to report to the nearest Scientology center for auditing

[Gromnir]

23 minutes ago, Amentep said:

The original TOP GUN was mediocre, not sure why the sequel would be any less mediocre.

 

rocky balboa (2006) were far superior to rocky v. in the case o' maverick, you had different writers and a different director, so if you like the new writers and director, that might be cause for optimism. that being said, recognizing that there is indeed a few sequels which is noteworthy superior and/or different than the preceding film, the odds suggest it is best to expect mediocrity or worse from a sequel to a mediocre film.

HA! Good Fun!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

5 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

I'm going to need you to report to the nearest Scientology center for auditing

OH NO! I'm sorry Tom......please don't have John Travolta kill me.

[Amentep]

12 minutes ago, KP From Another World said:

I either haven't seen or don't remember seeing the original. I'll consider that a good thing.

I still can't believe I got roped into seeing the original.

2 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

rocky balboa (2006) were far superior to rocky v. in the case o' maverick, you had different writers and a different director, so if you like the new writers and director, that might be cause for optimism. that being said, recognizing that there is indeed a few sequels which is noteworthy superior and/or different than the preceding film, the odds suggest it is best to expect mediocrity or worse from a sequel to a mediocre film.

HA! Good Fun!

Yeah, it can happen, even if its not often.  So I guess I shouldn't have been as dismissive as I was.  But I personally didn't like Top Gun, so admit I wasn't likely to find out if Maverick was the exception or not.

[majestic]

13 minutes ago, KP From Another World said:

OH NO! I'm sorry Tom......please don't have John Travolta kill me.

Too late, he already set everything in motion. With his mind. Might take a couple of decades, but it will kill you. Eventually.

[InsaneCommander]

3 hours ago, majestic said:

Can someone please put me out of my misery?

There is only one way to deal with it

Spoiler

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, Amentep said:

I still can't believe I got roped into seeing the original.

I can't believe I got roped into seeing the sequel tbh. Maybe we should start believing?

 

[Keyrock]

All this recent talk about Prey made me rewatch Deadly Prey. Given that, and not having seen Prey, I can say with 99.999998795% certainty that Deadly Prey > Prey. As a bonafide movieologist, I present the following evidence to support my argument:

1) It's right there in the titles. Obviously Deadly Prey is superior to regular, garden variety, unmodified Prey.

2) Ted Prior chops off a guy's arm with a machete then proceeds to club him with it. That's worth AT LEAST 10 CGI bears.

[majestic]

Can't believe you guys actively dislike Top Gun. There are worse movies out there. Go watch Fire Birds as a contrast, while that's helicopters, not fighter jets, it's... you know, actually like really bad.

[Keyrock]

12 minutes ago, majestic said:

Can't believe you guys actively dislike Top Gun. There are worse movies out there. Go watch Fire Birds as a contrast, while that's helicopters, not fighter jets, it's... you know, actually like really bad.

Wait, so your reasoning for Top Gun not being bad is there's this other vaguely similar movie that's worse? 

To be clear, I remember watching Top Gun and liking it well enough, of course I was at the age where anything with fighter jets was going to be cool by default. I have no desire to rewatch it, on account of it not having left much of an impression on me. The only thing I clearly remember is the volleyball scene. 

[majestic]

23 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

Wait, so your reasoning for Top Gun not being bad is there's this other vaguely similar movie that's worse? 

The wisdom of Confucius applies to movies as well: Even old clothes look new if put next to even older clothes!

Best read with an utterly racist accent. Can substitute whatever ancient wise man you want, Buddha, or maybe one of the Dalai Lamas. But yeah, exactly, nothing makes average action schlock look better than worse action schlock as contrast.

[Keyrock]

18 minutes ago, majestic said:

But yeah, exactly, nothing makes average action schlock look better than worse action schlock as contrast.

I sort of have to disagree; in the case of action schlock, bad is not necessarily a negative... Well, it depends on how we define "bad". For example, take Cobra; that movie is hilariously poorly written and thought out, yet wildly entertaining because it's so ridiculous. For a more extreme example there's Samurai Cop, a movie that's a complete disaster on practically every conventionally measurable level, yet it's very memorable and an absolute joy to watch precisely because it's so consistently terrible in all the best ways. Also...

What I'm trying to say is that I will sometimes rate action schlock movies that are conventionally bad higher than average schlock if they are bad in an entertaining and/or memorable way. Take this with a grain of salt, given that I am a lover of terrible movies.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Keyrock

[Raithe]

I'm half tempted to find time for this one ...

 

[Hurlshort]

3 hours ago, majestic said:

Can't believe you guys actively dislike Top Gun. There are worse movies out there. Go watch Fire Birds as a contrast, while that's helicopters, not fighter jets, it's... you know, actually like really bad.

These folks go into a movie about fighter jets and expect more than a bunch of jets flying fast. I don't know what to tell you.

[Hurlshort]

2 hours ago, Raithe said:

I'm half tempted to find time for this one ...

 

I've got it on now. It's a movie, alright. I'd say silly fun, for the most part. Prey is better.

[LadyCrimson]

---Dear Netflix, please stop making/pushing those horrible low rent romance movies.
---Dear Netflix audience, please stop watching those horrible low-rent romance movies and making them the "Top 10 watched" all the time.

---I never liked Top Gun. Altho again, I don't hate it. Just has nothing for me and I have not even a little interest in seeing the ... sequel, is it? Risky Business also did nothing for me. I was someone who didn't particularly like Tom Cruise as an actor/his roles until the early 2000's. Rain Man was the closest and that was because of Hoffman, not Cruise.

Edited August 20, 2022 by LadyCrimson

[Lexx]

6 hours ago, Raithe said:

I'm half tempted to find time for this one ...

 

I thought it was ok, but nothing special. Someone compared it to fantasy Die Hard and that's pretty fitting. Guess it's worth a watch because of that.

[Bartimaeus]

11 hours ago, Hurlshort said:

These folks go into a movie about fighter jets and expect more than a bunch of jets flying fast. I don't know what to tell you.

Tragic characters, complex themes, an emotional core so strong that it would make grown men weep...would be what I'd say if I was a moron inexplicably expecting a random Tom Cruise action movie to be something it's clearly not. Sometimes these things can surprise you (either for good or bad reasons), but if a movie is exactly what it presents itself as and you weren't interested in that, you only have yourself to blame for still watching it (alternatively, you can blame the people who pestered you into trying something when you made it clear it wasn't something you thought you'd like if they still recommended it to you anyways). Obviously, I'm not going to watch Top Gun, .

20 hours ago, majestic said:

As an avid fan of animation, for me, that ship already sailed 20 years ago. In cinema, you at least get the odd high budget movie that still looks good, with decently made CGI if there has to be any, or films that do not rely on special effects that work mostly without CGI, or films where CGI is used appropriately, whereas in animation, we will never ever get anything that isn't trash grade digital any more, and worse, to wit:

But to @Gorgon's point, the age of big budget films not looking like a gross/uncanny CGI disaster is pretty much over. Smaller and more grounded films may look good for what they are, but those types of movies aren't ever going to be like...epic action, fantasy, or sci-fi films, you know? So if that's the type of thing that you like (as opposed to someone like me with a taste for relatively simple, character-driven stuff that doesn't really much need special effects), I could totally understand feeling as though movies are pretty much dead. It's not too different from what we're personally familiar with in regards to pathetic modern Japanese animation...or really even the sorry state of triple-A gaming right now: while the particular issues are different, that dread feeling of the entire medium having moved beyond you is largely the same.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[Chairchucker]

13 hours ago, Raithe said:

I'm half tempted to find time for this one ...

 

Yeah, I enjoyed it.

On 8/2/2022 at 4:52 PM, Chairchucker said:

I watched the movie The Princess over the weekend. Starring Joey King of The Kissing Booth (I haven't seen it, apparently it is bad cheesy fun) fame, it is basically Die Hard in a castle tower with Joey King playing the role of The Princess, who is the John McClane stand in and makes her way down the tower, killing guards with swords and stuff.

It received fairly middling reviews, which may have been a bit generous.

I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Not saying it's necessarily a 'good' movie, but it had some fun action.

[Gorgon]

fighter jets are a really good match for GCI actually, the reason they used real air frames is the same reason they used animatronics in the latest star wars installments. It's for PR, and its because CGI isn't a selling point. Everyone has been bored with industry standard CGI for a decades already. It's the most bland thing and invokes nothing.  

[Hurlshort]

6 hours ago, Gorgon said:

fighter jets are a really good match for GCI actually, the reason they used real air frames is the same reason they used animatronics in the latest star wars installments. It's for PR, and its because CGI isn't a selling point. Everyone has been bored with industry standard CGI for a decades already. It's the most bland thing and invokes nothing.  

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow came out in 2004, so it was exactly 18 years ago that CGI became terrible.