The New Cinema and Movie Thread

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

3 minutes ago, Amentep said:

Really looking forward to catching up with 3000 years of longing

How many centuries do you have to go?

[Keyrock]

2 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 @KP From Another Worldl

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I feel like you don't want to know what's going on in a bad movie though, so that should really work against the film if anything, .

I disagree. Some terrible movies have rather straightforward plots, they just fail spectacularly in many facets of execution. Other terrible movies, however, have completely bat$#!+ crazy plots, bordering on incomprehensible. In those cases, I absolutely want to follow the story as best I can. I want all of the madness. ALL OF IT. In a Lovecraftian story I would 100% be someone who got too curious and delved too deep, winding up as a broken-minded half-fish cultist.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Keyrock

[Lexx]

That moment when people compare Aliens with a movie where planes shoot at each other.

[bugarup]

Top Gun inspired Hot Shots and that makes it OK in my books. Also I tried to remember things about Top Gun and realized that everything (well except for Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer totally wanting a piece of each other) was actually from Hot Shots...

Having recently rewatched Aliens, I still find it very, well, watchable. Stupider, sure, but I dunno, all that gun porn feels good and Vasquez rules.  Would've edited out the kid though, or at least her eardrum-piercing squealing. 

 

 

[Bartimaeus]

8 hours ago, KP From Another World said:

I can understand where you're coming from and agree that Aliens is a big fall from Alien (I have not seen Top Gun and do not intend to), but still I think on the merits of the films themselves Aliens is better than Maverick. Perhaps this is just my weird self, but I usually try to judge films in a vacuum.

Well, that's a key difference in our approaches: I never even try to judge anything in a vacuum, especially if it's part of a series. My expectations are a pretty direct part of how I experience it. If I go into a movie like Top Gun expecting it to be the worst thing I ever saw because there's literally nothing about it that should appeal to me, and I never painfully squirm while watching it and get some laughs and "that looks pretty neat"s, hey, that's a mildly positive experience...which is better than the absolutely miserable Aliens experiment. Between my own personal tastes (what kind of music, visual style, themes, characters et al. I like), my knowledge of other movies and what they've tried to do and have accomplished versus their peers, and my expectations set by how a film presents itself by various means, it's frankly impossible to ever truly watch something in a vacuum, so I don't even see any point in trying.

3 hours ago, Lexx said:

That moment when people compare Aliens with a movie where planes shoot at each other.

Yeah, it is pretty amazing that Aliens is such a giant pile of dog doodoo that the trashy war propaganda films were inexplicably a better experience. Thanks, James Cameron - very cool. Maybe make your atrocious 80s action flick in a different series that doesn't carry the "Alien" name next time...perhaps Predator would've been a better venue, .

8 hours ago, KP From Another World said:

The more I think about Maverick the more its popularity puzzles me. I can see the appeal of less overt CGI effects (despite some claims of being all practical, there are over a thousand CGI assisted shots in Maverick), but so many films have done that and have been more solid in all other areas. Maverick is like a hollow candy, when you crack open the spectacle of REEEEEL PLAAAAANES it's just hot air about a 60 year old man's long midlife crisis. Just this year we've seen Everything Everywhere All At Once and Three Thousand Years of Longing drop kick the absolute **** out of Maverick, and hell ELVIS was a better time than Maverick, so why the hell is the scientologists war crime adventure so damn enduring? Really grinds my gears. Seriously 

I can't disagree. I gave it a 5.5/10, which I think is a pretty fair/kind score coming from me considering what kind of film it is. I'll try to check out 3000 Years of Longing.

[Lexx]

1 minute ago, Bartimaeus said:

Yeah, it is pretty amazing that Aliens is such a giant pile of dog doodoo that the trashy war propaganda films were inexplicably a better experience. Thanks, James Cameron - very cool. Maybe make your atrocious 80s action flick in a different series that doesn't carry the "Alien" name next time...perhaps Predator would've been a better venue, .

Only problem is, you're a couple years too late for that criticism. Like, 36 years too late.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Lexx

[Bartimaeus]

8 minutes ago, Lexx said:

Only problem is, you're a couple years too late for that criticism. Like, 36 years too late.

It's never too late to criticize. I even waited to watch Aliens until five years had passed after I'd seen Alien - a little less than the seven in between them originally, but still a pretty good chunk of time to try to give it a fair shot. No dice.

[Amentep]

10 hours ago, KP From Another World said:

How many centuries do you have to go?

29.something.

[Gfted1]

An 80's movie is full of 80's schlock? I never saw that coming. Iirc, the Navy immediately experienced a recruiting boost when the Top Gun was released.

[Keyrock]

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

An 80's movie is full of 80's schlock? I never saw that coming. Iirc, the Navy immediately experienced a recruiting boost when the Top Gun was released.

Nothing like some good old fashioned Jingoism to drum up recruitment.

[Lexx]

Truth told, I never liked the original Top Gun, since I wasn't much into jets and it felt just boring to me. Same reason why I didn't like Hot Shots, but Hot Shots 2 was nice, since that one is more based on Rambo.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Lexx

[Keyrock]

Which Hot Shots! had the Kickboxer parody scene where instead of dipping his fists in broken glass Topper Harley (tremendous name BTW) dips his fists in ice cream toppings? That's the scene I most vividly remember.

[Hurlshort]

Landing jets on aircraft carriers is pretty crazy stuff. I watched Maverick this weekend with some buddies and some beers and that was a pretty good time. It followed the formula pretty well. I missed Kelly McGillis.  

[majestic]

37 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

Which Hot Shots! had the Kickboxer parody scene where instead of dipping his fists in broken glass Topper Harley (tremendous name BTW) dips his fists in ice cream toppings? That's the scene I most vividly remember.

Hot Shots! Part Deux

Gets another vote from me for being the better of the two. 

[Malcador]

4 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

An 80's movie is full of 80's schlock? I never saw that coming. Iirc, the Navy immediately experienced a recruiting boost when the Top Gun was released.

A good indicator of how stupid young men were back then

[uuuhhii]

5 hours ago, Lexx said:

Truth told, I never liked the original Top Gun, since I wasn't much into jets and it felt just boring to me. Same reason why I didn't like Hot Shots, but Hot Shots 2 was nice, since that one is more based on Rambo.

never interested in air combat stuff but 2019 midway was a pretty entertaining film

[Amentep]

Full trailer

[Bartimaeus]

Under the Skin (2013), a weird art house film singularly starring Scarlett Johansson, was described to me by a friend as being the slowest and most boringest film they'd seen in years. The way they talked about it, it sounded like another Memoria that would deliberately waste your time looking at, feeling, and experiencing nothing. I've never cared for Scarlett Johansson as an actress, weird art house films are pretty hit and miss with me, and I normally trust this friend's opinion...so why the heck would I ever watch it? I'm not entirely sure, but I did anyways. Unfortunately, it looks like I rather enjoyed a Scarlett Johansson film, and a pretty bizarre and very theme-heavy one at that. Whoops. Eh, just goes to show you that you can't always trust even the people you trust...or even yourself, .

(e): Actually, it was probably the poster that convinced me to at least give it 5 minutes, really (and boy, I was very prepared to quickly quit the movie if it wasn't working for me). I'm a terrible sucker for striking posters.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[majestic]

Scarlett Johansson is a (more than) decent actress when given good material, but usually everyone's brain turns off when looking at her, hence all the roles she gets where she's supposed to do the same for teenaged boys. Silly action in spandex.

Edited August 31, 2022 by majestic

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

15 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Under the Skin (2013), a weird art house film singularly starring Scarlett Johansson, was described to me by a friend as being the slowest and most boringest film they'd seen in years. The way they talked about it, it sounded like another Memoria that would deliberately waste your time looking at, feeling, and experiencing nothing. I've never cared for Scarlett Johansson as an actress, weird art house films are pretty hit and miss with me, and I normally trust this friend's opinion...so why the heck would I ever watch it? I'm not entirely sure, but I did anyways. Unfortunately, it looks like I rather enjoyed a Scarlett Johansson film, and a pretty bizarre and very theme-heavy one at that. Whoops. Eh, just goes to show you that you can't always trust even the people you trust...or even yourself, .

(e): Actually, it was probably the poster that convinced me to at least give it 5 minutes, really (and boy, I was very prepared to quickly quit the movie if it wasn't working for me). I'm a terrible sucker for striking posters.

I think I've seen this and really enjoyed it. Maybe I should watch it again, but I've got to get around to Wild Zero and Portrait of a Woman on Fire first. 

[Bartimaeus]

26 minutes ago, majestic said:

Scarlett Johansson is a (more than) decent actress when given good material, but usually everyone's brain turns off when looking at her, hence all the roles she gets where she's supposed to do the same for teenaged boys. Silly action in spandex.

That's doubly weird in consideration to this film, but I can't really explain without at least some major allusions to spoilers.

Spoiler

Film is dead-focused on her character for probably about 95% of its runtime and there is a lot of nudity, including plenty of her. But...I would say it's nudity not meant to be particularly attractive or without reason, which is maybe why I was less bothered by it than I could've been. However, her acting/material in this film is conversely quite limited and minimalist...but again with the caveat that it's deliberate and there's a kind of explanation for it. Anyways, it's a very weird film and I'm not totally sure how I feel about it yet, but I thought it was quite tense for most of its run time, I liked it, and it's certain to be memorable, and that's what matters.

 

8 minutes ago, KP From Another World said:

I think I've seen this and really enjoyed it. Maybe I should watch it again, but I've got to get around to Wild Zero and Portrait of a Woman on Fire first. 

I liked this one a bit more than Portrait of a Lady on Fire which didn't quite grab me all the way even though there was a decent amount about it that I liked, and I have no idea what Wild Zero is, .

Edited August 31, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[majestic]

16 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

That's doubly weird in consideration to this film, but I can't really explain without at least some major allusions to spoilers.

  Hide contents

Film is dead-focused on her character for probably about 95% of its runtime and there is a lot of nudity, including plenty of her. But...I would say it's nudity not meant to be particularly attractive or without reason, which is maybe why I was less bothered by it than I could've been. However, her acting/material in this film is conversely quite limited and minimalist...but again with the caveat that it's deliberate and there's a kind of explanation for it. Anyways, it's a very weird film and I'm not totally sure how I feel about it yet, but I thought it was quite tense for most of its run time, I liked it, and it's certain to be memorable, and that's what matters.

Well, I didn't know anything about this film, I was mostly thinking about Marriage Story - a film that surprised many people I know with Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson doing a really good job. Not surprising to anyone who has seen either in more than the MCU or Star Wars, but for many that was the only exposure.

Yeah, well, and maybe that 'wonderful' Ghost in the Shell movie.

[Bartimaeus]

Just now, majestic said:

Well, I didn't know anything about this film, I was mostly thinking about Marriage Story - a film that surprised many people I know with Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson doing a really good job. Not surprising to anyone who has seen either in more than the MCU or Star Wars, but for many that was the only exposure.

Yeah, well, and maybe that 'wonderful' Ghost in the Shell movie.

Yeah, I guess that's pretty fair, given that I've only seen her in cruddy action stuff like Marvel, a few minutes of Ghost in the Shell, and like half of that laughably terrible Lucy film...not counting some voiced roles as well, I suppose.

[Hurlshort]

Whoa whoa, The Island is more than just some cruddy action flick designed around her in spandex!

It also features Ewan McGregor in spandex.

[Bartimaeus]

27 minutes ago, Hurlshort said:

Whoa whoa, The Island is more than just some cruddy action flick designed around her in spandex!

It also features Ewan McGregor in spandex.

Wow, talking about moving the needle...straight up into my eyeballs so I don't have to see either of them in spandex, .

Edited August 31, 2022 by Bartimaeus