Jump to content

Movies You've Seen Recently


Recommended Posts

Yeah, I too am wondering what other DC movies Volourn means.

somebody mentioned catwoman earlier in the thread. the only explanation for many/most vol posts is that he is a refugee from star trek's mirror universe.  as such, am gonna go with the most unlikely option as being the vol choice.

 

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder Woman was good, it gives hope that DC is finally realizing what makes good super hero movie, although they again have massive CGI final battle so minus points from that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Batman can beat up Iron Man.

It really comes down to whom has the bigger bank account.

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 post
Share on other sites

For the randm movie trivia stuff...

 

30 Things we learned from the John Wick 2 commentary

 

 


Most action sequels are a step down from their originals. John Wick: Chapter 2 is not most action sequels. It’s that rare bird like The Raid 2, Police Story 2, and Lethal Weapon 2 that matches its original greatness beat for beat while building an even bigger world around its main character(s).

Keep reading to see what I heard on the commentary track for John Wick: Chapter 2.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)

Commentators: Chad Stahelski (director), Keanu Reeves (actor)

 

1. Thunder Road is Basil Iwanyk’s production company, and they’re the ones who first brought the character of John Wick to Reeves.

2. The score in the opening chase is meant to differentiate between the “big shark” that is Wick’s Chevelle and the “little fish” of the motorcycle he’s chasing.

3. NYC wouldn’t allow the opening chase down 5th Ave, so they filmed it in Montreal instead. The end of the chase returns to New York.

4. They filmed the car/motorcycle impact by launching the cycle into the car with a dummy atop it. The same setup is used for the cycle that flips after hitting Wick’s open car door. It’s an in-camera stunt most films farm out to CG or jumbled editing.

5. Reeves brought Peter Stormare into the film to play brother to the first film’s big bad. “We were actually hanging out,” says Reeves, “he loved the first one, and he said [in a rough Peter Stormare meets Count Dracula accent] ‘What can I do?'”

6. They initially had the cars in the warehouse without car covers, but Reeves felt confident that Wick would know the silhouette of his own car.

7. The first take of that “flying drift” out the warehouse doors destroyed the car.

8. They recognized they could have had Wick chasing after his daughter or his cat, but they wanted something a bit more mythical and settled on the marker idea.

9. The film starts less than a week after the first one ends.

10. Reeves asks “what happened to that shot?” regarding the bit with Wick walking across the bridge at 26:48, and Stahelski says, “I think we had some problems with some stuff we weren’t supposed to see, so we had to kind of push in a little bit.”

11. The museum sequence was filmed at Rome’s Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, “and we’re still shocked that they let us shoot there.” “God bless them,” adds Reeves. Many of the paintings are duplicates while the real ones were safely kept in the basement.

12. The High Table “will play a much bigger role in John Wick 3.” Stahelski also wants to see both Lance Reddick and John Leguizamo wield some weaponry next time around.

13. The idea to include a scene in a secret bank run by Hassidic Jews originated after eating at a kosher steakhouse during the first film’s production. They struck up a conversation with some of the Hassidic clientele and decided to include them in a possible sequel. “As long as we’re bankers,” they replied.

14. Composer Tyler Bates cameos as the guitar player on stage in Rome.

15. Common lobbied hard for a role in the sequel after loving the first film and even flew himself to Los Angeles for fight training.

16. There was apparently much debate over whether or not Wick actually needs to shoot Gianno D’Antonio (Claudia Gerini) even after she’s sliced her own wrists. They fought for it though because “in order to fulfill what you need to do you have to pull the trigger.”

17. They like making Wick suffer but acknowledge that his only real weakness is cars. “On his right side.”

18. The one question I was hoping they’d answer isn’t even touched upon here. Why does an elaborate, handmade suit with bullet-proof lining cost the same single coin as a single drink at the Continental bar? How does this economy function?!

19. Stahelski’s wife, Heidi Moneymaker, is an accomplished stuntwoman in her own right, and here she doubles for Ares (Ruby Rose) and plays the killer violinist.

20. They agree that one of the secrets to John Wick violence is to start with something funny, end with something funny, and fill the in-between with as much brutality as they can muster.

21. Part of the big action sequence that sees Wick encountering numerous assassins as well as Cassian (Common) was shot at the PATH Center in the Freedom Tower. This was the first film to shoot there.

22. They refer to working with the Wachowskis on The Matrix trilogy as “the Harvard of film schools.”

23. Reeves meets up with Laurence Fishburne a few times each year, and on one of those meetings the elder actor mentioned his love for John Wick. They got a script for the sequel to him shortly thereafter, and the actor replied that same day saying simply “I’m in. Fish.”

24. The white pigeon in the Bowery King’s (Fishburne) hands was snatched by a hawk later in the day during the scene where they release the birds. Reeves is not happy to hear this saying “Oh my gosh. It’s an urban jungle. Danger everywhere.”

25. The fancy party scene in the third act takes place in NYC but was filmed back in Rome at a museum. The floor resembling broken mirrors is basically that and has become something of a “living art” installation. It was put in crack-free, but visitors walking on it since it opened have left it cracked and continually refracting light in different ways. “What?” says an incredulous Reeves.

26. The big museum shootout is scored to Vivaldi’s “Summer” but in a “recomposed” version to match up with the gunshots’ percussion.

27. Reeves thinks his barricade technique is terrible.

28. The mirror room sequence, an acknowledged nod to Enter the Dragon, was the film’s most expensive set-piece.

29. “You can definitely tell we studied graphic novels,” says Stahelski. “Noo,” adds Reeves, “but cinemaaaa.”

30. Stahelski tries to end the commentary shortly after the end credits start, but Reeves is having none of it. They go on to compliment and point out members of the crew before promising they’ll be back for a third film.

 

Best in Context-Free Commentary

“You gotta at least garrote one person per movie.”

“John likes his car.”

“We wanted to be a pretty action movie.”

“We’re bringing back the turtleneck.”

“How many movies you can shoot a guy on stage and the crowd cheers?”

“These are the worst bodyguards ever.”

“That’s the ‘f**k you’ chamber check.”

 

 

Edited by Raithe

"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alien Covenant is the previous movies I have seen at cinema yeah it is good I rate it as 8/10 but not the best one of Aliens. For me the Alien II the one with marines is still the best Alien movie. Anyway I will probably go to movies again perhaps already this week because I got on discount price movie tickets and also from my part time work I have got as bonus some movie tickets. Generally I like Action and Horror movies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of sad to hear that with the embargo gone, the majority of reviews about the new The Mummy are not that favourable.

 

A lot of "too much MI action sequence after action sequence, not enough actual character time and horror/adventure".

"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why shouldn't it take itself seriously? The Variety film had a similar coment - basically saying that 'creature films' are so silly the only way to do it is for laughs.

 

I don't get it. The original Universal horror films weren't comedies, why does this have to be? (And yeah, they weren't action films either)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brenden Frasier films were very much campy and fun. I suppose you can try to go serious, but then why bother with the franchise at all? 

 

Also the Universal horror movies of the 30's may not have originally been silly, but they've definitely become a bit lighter with age.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the previous films (that this is not a sequel to) or how you feel about the classics (which for monster fans are serious, regardless of how modern audiences approach them), it just doesn't mean this film has to be a lighter.

 

Feel free to think the film isn't for you, but I have no issue with them trying to do a more serious film nor will I fault the film for not being something it's not trying to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it really is Mission Impossible with a mummy, then I find plenty of fault. :p

 

I am not really saying it can't be more serious. I would be happy to see some serious Egyptian Mummy stuff. This looks like typical action-fare though, and seems to lack the charm of the Brenden Fraser vehicle. Is it trying to be more grown up? Can I no longer take my kids to see it?

 

Also this is still an attempt to cash in on The Mummy IP, even if it is not closely connected. They even reworked The Mummy ride at universal studios to fit the new film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why shouldn't it take itself seriously? The Variety film had a similar coment - basically saying that 'creature films' are so silly the only way to do it is for laughs.

 

I don't get it. The original Universal horror films weren't comedies, why does this have to be? (And yeah, they weren't action films either)

*THIS*, so much this. I don't get this attitude nowadays where people ask of films to 'take themselves lightly', as if taking scenes that should be tense, dark or terrifying (as is usually the case with horror films) ought not to be either thing. Seriousness has its place in entertainment, we can all find enjoyment in tension, high stakes and *mood* and sometimes these require a film to play such scenes with a staight face.

 

I hear this **** about Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy (or, well, his films in general) all the time. I don't know, but even whilst being pretty dark and brooding films I had a blast with each, *in great part* thanks to their atmosphere.

Edited by algroth

My Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/alephg

Currently playing: Fallout 2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look, Marvel has a new movie out! It's called Wonder Woman!

 

Actually, in all honesty I was kinda expecting that DC would essentially surrender to the Marvel template and whitewash everything Snyder did up to that point, whether good or bad. I said it before and will say it again, there are things in Snyder's films that I like, I think there's an epic grandeur to his visuals that make certain moments at the very least visually striking, and there is also an ambition for deeper thematic exploration than gets lost because Goyer is entirely incapable of writing his characters with clear motivations and ideologies to give the story actual purpose and direction. Both of these aspects endure in Wonder Woman, but are refined and trimmed down in great part because finally they do hit on a concise theme and character arc. Possibly because as far as I'm aware, Goyer played no part in the actual screenplay.

 

⁠⁠⁠It's also because it is its own standalone story, opposite to another 'episode' in a long, incomplete cinematic series. Essentially the film just snips all the Justice League nonsense out and worries on developing a pretty clear and succint arc through the course of its duration *only*. Moreover, it also succeeds in introducing the origin story as part of the overarching conflict and thus gives it purpose in ways so many 'origin' films (superhero or otherwise) nowadays fail to do to their own. Right from the start of this film there's a clear conflict outlined that 'inspires' Diana to begin training and become Wonder Woman, and that's precisely what she sets out to confront through the rest of the film. The conflict and her arc is as follows: Diana bears a belief about human beings that they have been corrupted by Ares and all do evil essentially because of him. She has a very naïve and black-and-white vision of the world because of her staunch belief in a marked opposition between good and evil, and believes evil will end once Ares is destroyed. The film is precisely about how she learns that both exist simultaneously in all people despite the myth we dress them up with... Which is a simple and solid enough idea to carry this film forwards without having it meander in vague and incoherent philosophical musings, as happened with Snyder's own.

 

Ultimately though, the film is just good pocorn entertainment. It's visually striking, it's fun, it tells a solid story rather deftly, and really does about everything you'd wish of a popcorn flick. If there are any issues is that I do think they shove the 'feminist' angle down our throats a few times too many, and that the dialogue can at times be very, *very* heavy-handed. But then, it's a superhero movie, you kind of expect the latter by now. Good performances too... Gal Gadot still doesn't convince me all too much as Wonder Woman but Chris Pine is very good and Elena Anaya, David Thewlis and Danny Huston all chew the scenery in awesome fashion.

My Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/alephg

Currently playing: Fallout 2

Link to post
Share on other sites

WW is no Marvel film. Marvel films SUCK. WW is a DC film because DC films are AWESOMESAUCE.

 

WW > then Marvel crap.

 

So is MOS, BvS, and SS.

 

Gadot is a fantastic WW.

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why shouldn't it take itself seriously? The Variety film had a similar coment - basically saying that 'creature films' are so silly the only way to do it is for laughs.

 

I don't get it. The original Universal horror films weren't comedies, why does this have to be? (And yeah, they weren't action films either)

 

It doesn't have to be funny. But if it's serious, it should also try to establish characters and build some sense of suspense/horror in there. While I'm trying to not allow myself to biased before personally seeing it, what I am picking up from the surge of reviews is too much of a "This gets by on Tom Cruise doing Mission Impossible style action sequence after action sequence at a frantic pace" rather than story telling.

"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it really is Mission Impossible with a mummy, then I find plenty of fault. :p

 

I am not really saying it can't be more serious. I would be happy to see some serious Egyptian Mummy stuff. This looks like typical action-fare though, and seems to lack the charm of the Brenden Fraser vehicle. Is it trying to be more grown up? Can I no longer take my kids to see it?

 

Also this is still an attempt to cash in on The Mummy IP, even if it is not closely connected. They even reworked The Mummy ride at universal studios to fit the new film.

 

The Universal Mummy IP that dates back to 1932.  That the Bendan Frasier films were also an attempt to cash in on, one that was successful.

 

And honestly we'd probably be looking at a different iteration of mummy films if the last Frasier one hadn't done poorly at the box-office.

 

 

Why shouldn't it take itself seriously? The Variety film had a similar coment - basically saying that 'creature films' are so silly the only way to do it is for laughs.

 

I don't get it. The original Universal horror films weren't comedies, why does this have to be? (And yeah, they weren't action films either)

*THIS*, so much this. I don't get this attitude nowadays where people ask of films to 'take themselves lightly', as if taking scenes that should be tense, dark or terrifying (as is usually the case with horror films) ought not to be either thing. Seriousness has its place in entertainment, we can all find enjoyment in tension, high stakes and *mood* and sometimes these require a film to play such scenes with a staight face.

 

I hear this **** about Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy (or, well, his films in general) all the time. I don't know, but even whilst being pretty dark and brooding films I had a blast with each, *in great part* thanks to their atmosphere.

 

 

To me its about the story being told.  Being funny, being dark, being actiony, being thoughtful or ponderous...these are all aspect of tone and story telling.  The producers have said they wanted an exciting film, but also one that was a monster film.  So action-horror hybrid.  I don't know how successful they are in that goal, but the trailers make it obvious that is their goal.

 

 

Why shouldn't it take itself seriously? The Variety film had a similar coment - basically saying that 'creature films' are so silly the only way to do it is for laughs.

 

I don't get it. The original Universal horror films weren't comedies, why does this have to be? (And yeah, they weren't action films either)

 

It doesn't have to be funny. But if it's serious, it should also try to establish characters and build some sense of suspense/horror in there. While I'm trying to not allow myself to biased before personally seeing it, what I am picking up from the surge of reviews is too much of a "This gets by on Tom Cruise doing Mission Impossible style action sequence after action sequence at a frantic pace" rather than story telling.

 

Which may be a fair assessment; at least its a condemnation of failing at what it tries to do (be a horror-action hybrid) than condemning it for not being something it never tried to be (a comedy/light adventure like the Frasier films).

 

When I see the Mummy (and I'll see it because I try to see all Mummy films - and I've seen a lot of good and terrible ones), I'll be the least likely to notice how "M:I" it is because I refuse to watch any films from that film series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...