Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 684635 times)

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1330 on: September 07, 2017, 08:02:41 AM »
I was paraphrasing Starship Troopers. It was more recognizable in my mind.
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1331 on: September 07, 2017, 12:44:55 PM »
It (Andy Muschietti, 2017)

No, I haven't read Stephen King's book It. In fact, I've never read a Stephen King novel, short story, or anything. I understand that is something I need to remedy at some point in my life. It is a regret. No, I haven't seen the original mini-series It, released in 1990 and starring the incomparable Tim Curry as Pennywise the Clown. I have admitted this before, and should come as no surprise to many of my readers, but horror is typically not my priority, and certainly not my expertise. I enjoy a good horror movie, and count films such as Halloween, Silence of the Lambs, The Thing, Scream, and others among some of the best films of all time. I just tend not to seek them out, and more often than not I find them to be full of cheap scares and little substance. The 2017 adaptation of the Stephen King novel It is strange in that it manages to be quite good, while also not being very good. Let me explain...

It's Derry, Maine in the late 1980s and school has just been let out for the summer. A group of so-called "losers", consisting of Bill (Jaeden Lieberher), Richie (Finn Wolfhard), Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stanley (Wyatt Oleff) find themselves teaming up with a homeschooled outcast Mike (Chosen Jacobs) and a cute, but ridiculed girl named Beverly (Sophia Lillis) to avoid the town bully's. Of course the bully's are the least of their worries, as children continue to mysteriously disappear, dating all the way back to when Bill's kid brother Georgie (Jackson Robert Scott) disappeared in a rainstorm after an encounter with a strange clown who lives in the sewers named Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard). The group of misfits must come together to overcome their collective fears to survive this tense coming-of-age horror film.

It gets a lot of things right, and I mean a lot of things. But it also gets it's fair share of things wrong, and I readily admit this may be personal preference, but I do want to emphasize everything this film has going for it. First and foremost, these kids. The producers did a wonderful job casting these kids who carry the movie from start to finish. And director Andy Muschietti deserves credit for coaxing their stellar performances out of them as well. They have great comedic timing (with the numerous moments of humor and laughter sprinkled throughout a nice surprise in the film), they have good charisma, and perhaps most importantly, they have great chemistry. These kids are believable and play off each other in a great ensemble performance.

The screenwriters deserve a good deal of credit here too, with experienced horror writer Gary Dauberman teaming with Chase Palmer and talented filmmaker Cary Fukunaga. They write full-bodied characters each with their own experience, something unique to bring to the story. Bill is the lead here, but it's the group that stars as a result of the solid screenplay. Taking place in small town Maine, and featuring a rag-tag team of kids, It begins to feel much more like a coming-of-age classic like Stand By Me (also based on Stephen King material), or even better something like Super 8, just with a little more horror involved. So where the film manages to go wrong is when it brings in the horror elements of the story, which more often than not feel out of place, forced, and cheap when compared to the inroads made by the dramatic narrative-building done by much of the rest of the film. It has a bursting heart at its center and a cancerous obligation on the outsides.

Pennywise is a formidable villain, and what he stands for is a solid allegory. Skarsgard is effectively creepy in the role, but Pennywise also doesn't feature all too prominently in the film. What I found wrong, and off-putting, about It was how it played the horror. As I said, it feels as though it doesn't fit in with the rest of the film. There is such a solid core, and a great cast, emotional connection, that the style director Andy Muschietti goes with for his horror feels completely cheap and fake in comparison to the genuine feeling from the rest of the film. Sure there are scares, but I felt like most were unearned. It feels like two completely different movies that don't quite gel in the end and the supernatural elements are in direct opposition to the more grounded elements of the narrative. There is plenty here to applaud, and plenty to build on (wink, wink) that I have no problem recommending the film. I'm just not as confident calling this a great horror movie, since it works much better as a genuine coming-of-age tale.

*** - Good
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1332 on: September 07, 2017, 12:46:13 PM »
Ooooh, Schocktober is coming early  this year.

(Maybe 1SO will open the thread prematurely.)
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1333 on: September 07, 2017, 12:53:26 PM »
Caught up on this because of the upcoming sequel. Glad I did.

The Trip to Italy
Michael Winterbottom (2014)

I enjoyed this one a good deal more than the previous movie, which makes sense, Italy being superior to Great Britain in all things, especially where foodstuffs and vistas are concerned - but to the exclusion of those silly, weird-sounding, non-Byronian Italians. There are also less references to things I don't know and more jokes on more universal matters. Or perhaps I was just in a better mood, whatever. I had good fun. Coogan jumps off the wagon to enjoy the local one, as one should whenever in Italy ; Brydon indulges in extra-marital coitus ; everyone has a famously good time and quotes English poets a lot, which is always a good thing too.

7/10
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1334 on: September 07, 2017, 02:41:11 PM »
I enjoyed this one a good deal more than the previous movie

I did as well. Perhaps if this third one knocks it out of the park it will be considered for best non-blockbuster trilogy. :)

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1335 on: September 07, 2017, 03:40:08 PM »
Ooooh, Schocktober is coming early  this year.

(Maybe 1SO will open the thread prematurely.)

Actually, I have so many films to catch up with this year, perhaps I'll start early.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1336 on: September 07, 2017, 11:14:48 PM »
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
* * 1/2

... Much of the film is stolen by newcomer Kaya Scodelario, playing the one intelligent character caught up in the world of stupid pirates and the equally ignorant society out to destroy them.

I would have passed on this if it weren't for her. I have no idea how prominently she featured in the marketing - not much, I guess, since I didn't even know she was in it until your review. I agree that the film comes to life mostly when she is on screen, but I'm not sure it is "much of the film", since her role here can't really compete with Knightley's in the first film, both in writing quality and screen time. Or is that just my rose-tinted memory and the then freshness of that film?
I had seen Scodelario in Maze Runner and I remember the one female character being a favorite, but I didn't connect this was her. I haven't seen Skins or Andrea Arnold's Wuthering Heights, so this struck me as a breakthrough role, much like Knightly. I don't care to split hairs on screen time, but she's in this a lot and the most consistent bright spot. I watch the first film frequently. Though it's been tarnished by the sequels it remains one of the great modern adventure films.


Overall, I found the latest entry an often tiresome affair, with some amusing bits here and there and one stunningly beautiful overhead shot of Scodelario walking through the island star map. So while I don't regret watching it, the film lands in the 3/10 range for me, together with other disposables like Guardians 2 and the latest Furious film.
This is a fair evaluation. Despite the many negative reviews, I was excited to go back into this Pirate world and I kept finding enjoyable moments, especially with Jack's crew that are now questioning their lifestyle and their choice in leader. It didn't grow tiresome until the trident climax, but I was watching this on an airplane. I'll revisit this discussion when I watch it again at home.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1337 on: September 07, 2017, 11:36:57 PM »
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
* * 1/2


This is the wrongest you've been in a while. One thing is not liking 2 and 3,
Are you denying the existence of Pirates 4? I wouldn't blame you for doing so.


but putting this dreary mess above them?
Call Pirates 5 a lot of negative things, but I wouldn't call it "dreary". War...Apes, that's Dreary. Man of Steel is dreary. This is a mess, but an oddly bubble-headded one. As for a ranking, I rather enjoy Pirates 2, bloated as it is and I've been able to rewatch Pirates 3, which is nothing but bloat. This one gets back to the Pirate basics or drinking, destruction and special effects. It's a mess, but the story didn't make my head hurt trying to follow everyone's objective.


The girl character could have been entertaining had she been in a different movie, where she would not have jarred as much. She has no place in here, and what's more, I maintain that the whole « I am a rational, scientific minded person in a world of superstitious peasants and I will remind everyone of the fact every two lines » shtick was not funny whenever it was incepted, and in here it is utterly out of place.
Complete disagreement. One of the best moments is when she listens to to ridiculous pirate plans that's par for the course of the series and has to ask, "are all Pirates this stupid?" The crew's reaction shows they don't feel shame. They're happy being who they are as opposed to trying to better themselves.


But the movie doesn't understand how to make Jack work as a character
This is another reason why I want to watch it again. The specific moments where Jack seems harsher, even more socially impared than usual. The first film did an excellent job establishing Sparrow as a tactical genius disguised as an idiotic madman. They got away from the brilliance with the first sequel and now he's become a hedonist, always failing to greater success, as if by accident.


and has absolutely no clue about how to create new characters and chemistry.
We disagree about Scodelario. It's funny that the son of Orlando Bloom is an even more bland actor than Bloom. However, he's still well above the boring twilight romantic couple in Pirates 4.


gives us a lesser rehash of past Pirates villains without any of the things that made them memorable - or at least good.
Something I'm waiting to see about on a rewatch. Zombie pirates isn't very inspired, especially with Barbossa's first crew and the curse of the moonlight, and you could put the greatest minds to work and you will never top Davy Jones and his crew of creature effects. I got the concept of the appearance of Salazar's crew being stuck in the moment of their death, and I liked his hair, but the see-through parts is a lazy idea and just seemed like the crew was wearing green screen patches on set.

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1338 on: September 08, 2017, 08:07:04 AM »
I think I might start denying the existence of Pirates 4. It certainly deserves to have its existence erased.

The movie was dreary in that it lacked the joy of the first episodes. It was full of been there, done that moments done with spectacular mediocrity, poor dialogue, bad chemistry and it's eating heart was an abyss of charisma. I have no qualms about the actress but her character is poorly conceived, and as you say, Bloom's son is so unremarkable I needed the movie to tell me if he was the same guy the last movie introduced (who was equally bland, they should start a club). Nothing makes sense in the movie (insofar as things make sense in Pirates movies) and if I had uttered ugh as often as I thought it I would have been kicked out of the movie theatre.

Jack's mad sort of brilliance is present in 2 and 3 in how he manipulates the situation to get to his ultimate goals. He spends half of 3 going behind everyone's backs and double dealing and it all works out as he intended.

Yeah, the dead pirates are Barbossa's crew meets Jones' special effects, but at least they were better than Blackbeard in that movie that doesn't exist - set up as a formidable antagonist and then utterly forgettable. At least I will always remember Bardem's weird accent, I think.
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1339 on: September 08, 2017, 11:49:50 PM »
Train to Busan *** spoilers everywhere ***

I can't think of any zombie films made in the last 20 years that weren't a thrill when the zombies were in pursuit. The genre has been uniformly awesome in that regard, and Train to Busan was no different. But a real challenge for zombie films is finding ways not to suck when the action slows down. Like many, this film struggles a bit.

I like that the characters are caught up in the very beginnings of the outbreak. The little glimpses we see of a growing problem were excellent. And for a good while as things get crazier the film gets better. I was quite a ways into the movie before I felt like there was any kind of misstep. It's when the train reaches maximum zombie saturation that things seem to plateau. By their circumstances the characters are more fixed in place at this point and the film shifts to the "everyone stand around and argue about what to do" point in the story. The action that follows isn't quite as good as the action that preceded it. The characters are emboldened to start fighting the zombies and it gets a little silly. One shortcoming of the film I thought was that it never established whether the zombies could be killed. It doesn't seem like it, but none of the characters actually discuss it. Adding to that confusion is that the film seems to be unwilling or forbidden from showing certain types of gore or violence, such as zombies getting hit in the head. I don't know what the ratings requirements are in Korea, but it definitely felt to me like they were very deliberately NOT doing certain things. For instance there was a noticeable lack of anything sharp and pointy, improvised or otherwise, which would result in zombies being stabbed. Books, bats, fists, shields...all the weapons were blunt objects. The film had lots of blood, it was everywhere, but it seemed to shy away from showing the actual production of the blood. No direct gushing or spurting, just implied.

The unknown vulnerability of the zombies was bit of a problem for me because characters would put themselves in situations where it would seem impossible to survive if the worst damage you could inflict was to just throw a zombie off you and have him keep coming back. But that's kind of where the movie finds itself... characters punching and kicking their way through zombie hordes that in the beginning of the film seemed completely overwhelming. But now the characters are able to fight them off. I didn't like that turn and think the film would've done better to preserve the feeling that if even one zombie catches up with you you're pretty much dead.

The final act is the weakest as the film gets bogged down trying to give all of the remaining characters a special moment. Annoying characters meet their long overdue end, often in rather anticlimactic ways. By this point the film had lost most of the rawness it started with. It was never quite "found footage" raw, but it felt chaotic... like events were dictating the film. But by the end the film was very much dictating events. Trains crashing in overly convenient ways for instance.

This film started as an 8 or 9, but settles as a solid 7/10 for me.



A small side note: I don't know if I saw this for sure (I'm pretty sure I did), but at one point there are a bunch of zombies hanging off the back of a locomotive. It's great... one grabs on to the train, another grabs on to that zombie, and they just start accumulating until there's like a 50 zombie mass being dragged by the train and some of the zombies are crawling over the others and coming close to climbing aboard. It's a good sequence like in WWZ when they start massing against that huge wall and eventually there's such a big pile of zombies to climb they are able to get up and over it. Anyways... I'm pretty sure there's an insert shot of the locomotives wheels starting to spin. The camera cuts to the wheels and there's sparks shooting out... I think implying that the weigh of 50 zombies is actually starting to overwhelm the train engine. I'm pretty sure that's what they were trying to show there. I about went into a coma it was so dumb.