Jump to content

Movies You've Seen Recently Thread


Rosbjerg

Recommended Posts

GB2 is underrated. I doubt  the racist GB 2016 is better than that. :) But, what do I know I'm just a sexist rapist pigs who likes his anti woman films like Alien, Mary Poppins, and Scream. :)

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Date night, Mrs Nonek decided (i've stopped pretending to have a voice in our discussions) that we would see the new Ghostbusters movie, i'd heard there'd been some noise but haven't really paid attention. Didn't get much of a nap so I watched most of the film, it's not really bad but not good either, obviouly these young ladies faced an uphill struggle in trying to fill the charismatic and comedic boots of the original cast and it shows.

 

Even though the film was chock full of nods to the original movie I just don' think that the creative team "got" Ghostbusters, and some of the nods were cringeworthy such as the cameos. The villain was pointless, he needed to be moved front and centre or become a nebulous threat such as Ghoza, as it is he seemed an adornment. The proton packs were overused, no longer tools weilded by blue collar slobs who just happened to catch ghosts, they became flashy gimmicks and took away from the working man theme that Ghostbusters had. The CGI well it may have been better than the original but i'm already forgetting it, whereas the originals is something thats stuck with me. The cast also just do not gel and are frequently just irritating, the easygoing nature of  the four guys you'd like to have a drink with is gone, you'd avoid the modern Ghostbusters and probably go to another pub.

 

That said it's not a bad movie, just mediocre and far below its inspiration, but then again so was the second Ghostbusters film. I'd give it a four and proclaim it watchable but not very enjoyable, a little below Warcraft which would garner a five in my book as being watchable and moderately enjoyable. Mrs Nonek stated that in hindsight she'd have waited for it to come to Netflix, which is probably good advice.

 

Edit: Strangely enough I think that one of the things this modern reimagining lacked was the heart of the first film, there was a childish sweetness to the original Ghostbusters that just isn't found in the remake.

Edited by Nonek
  • Like 6

Quite an experience to live in misery isn't it? That's what it is to be married with children.

I've seen things you people can't even imagine. Pearly Kings glittering on the Elephant and Castle, Morris Men dancing 'til the last light of midsummer. I watched Druid fires burning in the ruins of Stonehenge, and Yorkshiremen gurning for prizes. All these things will be lost in time, like alopecia on a skinhead. Time for tiffin.

 

Tea for the teapot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Porco Rosso and it is the worst Hayao Miyazaki film I have seen.

 

It has no plot, no over arching goal to strive for, and it has no tension. It's just a series of events. Porco gets shot down by a pompous guy who wants to be famous. Porco go and gets his plane fixed (+ gets an co pilot). This costs much and he is now in debt. Pompous guy falls in love with co pilot. They make a bet: if pompous guy win he gets the co pilot, if Porco win pompous guys pays the debt. Porco wins. The end.

 

It isn't about Porco trying to find a cure to him being a pig. It isn't about the potential love between Porco and the bar owner. And it isn't about the military coming to shot down the air pirates. It's just series of events.

 

There is no tension. The debt is to Porco's friend, not to some mafia boss. Pompous guy isn't a nemesis type just pompous.

 

It has some beautiful moments, but all in all it has all the worst aspects of Miyazaki's film making put to a single film.

 

4/10

Edited by kirottu

This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I see the new "Birth of a Nation" movie is looking to grab headlines in a time of (needless) racial tension. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/new-birth-a-nation-poster-911730

 

That said I do want to see this movie. I always thought Nat Turner's revolt was a compelling story. I wonder why it never received a look from the movies. 

"While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before"

Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I see the new "Birth of a Nation" movie is looking to grab headlines in a time of (needless) racial tension. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/new-birth-a-nation-poster-911730

 

That said I do want to see this movie. I always thought Nat Turner's revolt was a compelling story. I wonder why it never received a look from the movies. 

 

Whoops, thought you were talking about Free State of Jones.  When I saw that preview, I always wondered why they didn't tell the story of John Brown and Harper's Ferry.  Seemed like better material.

 

This one does look interesting.  Confessions of Nat Turner is part of my classroom library, it's an interestingt piece.

Edited by Hurlshot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting ready for BvS on Tuesday with Age of Ultron.

 

Wanda Maximoff, Scarlet Witch, is easily the most powerful: Charm Person, Dominate Person, Dominate Crowd, Dominate Avenger, Dominate Infinity Stone, Deflect Energy Attack, Deflect Physical Attack, Project Energy Attack, AoE Disintegrate, Telekinesis, Runaway Train Stop ... probably Time Stop if she wanted, and a bunch more I'm forgetting from Civil War. If only she could cast Resurrection.  

All Stop. On Screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though the film was chock full of nods to the original movie I just don' think that the creative team "got" Ghostbusters, and some of the nods were cringeworthy such as the cameos. The villain was pointless, he needed to be moved front and centre or become a nebulous threat such as Ghoza, as it is he seemed an adornment. The proton packs were overused, no longer tools weilded by blue collar slobs who just happened to catch ghosts, they became flashy gimmicks and took away from the working man theme that Ghostbusters had. The CGI well it may have been better than the original but i'm already forgetting it, whereas the originals is something thats stuck with me. The cast also just do not gel and are frequently just irritating, the easygoing nature of  the four guys you'd like to have a drink with is gone, you'd avoid the modern Ghostbusters and probably go to another pub.

 

I disagree, I think they got Ghostbusters just fine.  The only cameo I thought didn't work was Ackroyd's cab driver - and it wasn't bad, it just felt stuck in within the context of where it fell in the film.  Murray's debunker was a character the film had to have - given that Yates and Gilbert were both "believers", there needed to be a skeptical voice there because there would be ones if this was 'real world'.  They also wisely don't try to force the character to be "the new movie's Peck", one of their many studious attempts to steer clear of just redoing the original film.  The other three previous Ghostbuster cast member cameos are fine in their contexts.

 

I felt the proton packs weren't overused; it felt natural to me that Holtzman would work on further developing the capturing ghost technology before moving to the issue of long-term containment.  This is actually something the original movie glosses over entirely, since they go from having experimental packs on their first trial to having become experienced using the packs and a containment unit for holding multiple ghosts in the span of a series of newspaper headline edits and quick cut scenes of them running out of a building having caught a ghost.

 

The villain is in the new film from nearly the beginning and his motivations are made fairly clear from his first line of dialogue.  I'm not sure how much more "front and centre" he could become without the film becoming "The Adventures of Rowan North and His Attempts to Bring About the Fourth Apocalypse, plus The Ghostbusters (not the originals)".

 

Can't say I get the working man theme you see in the original film.  Sure I can buy that there is an element of the 1980s slob comedies in the film, but the idea that a con man (Venkman), an academic (Stantz) a mad scientist (Spengler) and a working class man (Zeddmore) is somehow more "working man" than two academics (Gilbert and Yates), a mad scientist (Holtzman) and a working class woman (Tolan) is somewhat lost on me.  Perhaps its that idea that you'd "want to have a drink" with the original crew plays into it, but I never felt that way about the original crew given that Venkman arbitrarily antagonizes almost everyone around him. I can't imagine being well disposed to him in real life (don't get me wrong, he's a fine character for the film, but realistically he'd be a jerk if you met him in real life).

 

To my mind the cast for the 2016 film is fine, IMO and they work well together.  They are funny and charismatic and memorable in comparable ways to the original without just re-doing the original.  No one is going to out "Bill Murray" Bill Murray and wisely they don't try.  Wiig, McCarthy, McKinnon and Jones are fine as the leads; they work well together and I can buy their characters working together and developing as a group in the way the movie develops.  And I like that ultimately Gilbert and Yates' friendship is the heart of the group and the movie; it makes a nice change of pace.

 

I also thought the filmmakers did a good job of playing up some of the creepier aspects of the concept (some of the images are quite creepy, and the opening ghost haunting bit is like a miniature horror movie - compare to the original playing the first encounter entirely for laughs).  And they come up with some fun moments that I wasn't expecting (days later I'm still laughing over the JAWS gag).

 

So yeah, to me the new film is a fine addition to the Ghostbusters films.  And they wisely only have the Falloutboy Ghostbuster's song in the movie sparingly, so that was also a plus in my eyes ears

Edited by Amentep
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sony was only hoping for $30M? Seems a low target to aim for if you need $400M just to break even. "Box-office analysts and rival studios" claim much more was expected. :shrugz:

 

 

 

Ideally, they say, it should have opened to $60 million or more.

 

 

No, what I mean is that the experts were predicting $30 million based on tracking data going into the weekend.  The movie did better than it was tracking, so while it can't be what Sony hoped for I can see why they're putting a positive(ish) spin on the weekend.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horses for courses eh Amentep? Then again I find my sense of humour and character appreciation vary quite a bit from the norm, so it may jut be me. I should hope they recoup their investment though, the amount of advertising I have seen for this film has been staggering, the tube, buses, shops, television, saturation like that must surely pay off.

Quite an experience to live in misery isn't it? That's what it is to be married with children.

I've seen things you people can't even imagine. Pearly Kings glittering on the Elephant and Castle, Morris Men dancing 'til the last light of midsummer. I watched Druid fires burning in the ruins of Stonehenge, and Yorkshiremen gurning for prizes. All these things will be lost in time, like alopecia on a skinhead. Time for tiffin.

 

Tea for the teapot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, just to be clear I wasn't trying to say you weren't entitled to your opinion or anything, just using a couple of comments you'd said to frame my own thoughts.

 

EDIT: Particularly I thought it important to highlight how we see the original film so differently; it can't help but influence us on how we both viewed the current film.

Edited by Amentep
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh don't worry Amentep I respect your well reasoned views, and furthermore respect you as a poster and a man of good taste. If mankind did not have differences of opinion it would be a boring species and no mistake.

Quite an experience to live in misery isn't it? That's what it is to be married with children.

I've seen things you people can't even imagine. Pearly Kings glittering on the Elephant and Castle, Morris Men dancing 'til the last light of midsummer. I watched Druid fires burning in the ruins of Stonehenge, and Yorkshiremen gurning for prizes. All these things will be lost in time, like alopecia on a skinhead. Time for tiffin.

 

Tea for the teapot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh don't worry Amentep I respect your well reasoned views, and furthermore respect you as a poster and a man of good taste. If mankind did not have differences of opinion it would be a boring species and no mistake.

I find you a boring species nonetheless, all your differences come down to traditional flavors. No one ever argues that snail is the best and is taken seriously.

  • Like 1
I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chappie. I actually really liked it. Chappie was a fantastic character. I wasn't disappointed at all.

  • Like 1
The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.

Devastatorsig.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition. 

 

They say it contains thirty minutes of extra footage, but, honestly I didn't notice that many. Running time is over three hours, although it took four hours because I became obsessed with what kind of car Ms. Prince drives ... not a Jaguar, like I thought in the theater ... on pause it looks like some sort of Lotus, non-invisibility model.

 

Unfortunately, Wonder Woman has no extra scenes, to my memory, so I'm saying 'Ultimate Edition' is a misnomer. Still pretty decent, dark genre film ... 6.7 out of 10. 11/10 based solely on WW.

All Stop. On Screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adventures in Babysitting. Can't believe Thor was played by the Kingpin --who actually looked like Thor!

"Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin.

"P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adventures in Babysitting. Can't believe Thor was played by the Kingpin --who actually looked like Thor!

 

It was supposed to be He-Man (as the daughter was supposed to be obsessed with He-Man and She-Ra, so she'd have been wearing a She-Ra tiara, I think) but director Chris Columbus didn't know who He-Man and She-Ra were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Adventures in Babysitting. Can't believe Thor was played by the Kingpin --who actually looked like Thor!

It was supposed to be He-Man (as the daughter was supposed to be obsessed with He-Man and She-Ra, so she'd have been wearing a She-Ra tiara, I think) but director Chris Columbus didn't know who He-Man and She-Ra were.

Hmm. That we could make more sense. Seemed a little off that a 9(?) year old girl would be obsessed with a secondary -in popularity - Avenger.

 

Still, the movie holds up quite well after all these years.

"Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin.

"P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched Black Mass - The dark version of My Blue Heaven.  Johnnie Depp is going to give me nightmares, those eyes are creepy.  Pretty solid, I watched the documentary on Netflix awhile back and both were well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched Black Mass - The dark version of My Blue Heaven.  Johnnie Depp is going to give me nightmares, those eyes are creepy.  Pretty solid, I watched the documentary on Netflix awhile back and both were well done.

Good performance and it reminded me that Johnnie Depp is a good actor (one of my favorites actually) but the writing was a bit stale. The movie had some strong scenes that led nowhere because there was no overarching plot.

I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonah Hex I wouldn't say it was a terrible movie. It was okay in some parts but near the start with the animated sequence was a big WTF to me. I found it mildly entertaining and near the end I wanted it to be over. Luckily it only goes for 80 minutes so I didn't have to wait for long.

 

Wolf Creek 2 Not as good as the first movie but still enjoyed it. 

 

The Quatermas Xperiment This was a great movie. Now I'm off to watch the rest of the Quatermass movies and mini-series.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...