NOW CLOSED ; List some movies you've watched recently. Theatre, rental, TV... and give a */10

[DigDog]

Tucker and Dale VS Evil is superior to cabin in the woods.

i wholly agree. and i did not watch Ringu .. yet. I watched The Grudge - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364385/ and that kinda killed my willingness to explore modern Japanese cinema. Just because i love Kurosawa, doesn't mean i like Japanese film. Just like i love Bob Marley, but i can't stand reggae.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Cabin in the Woods is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It was marketed as some scary horror movie then it turns out to be some stupid satire type of movie that was just god awful. Fuck that movie.

I never once got any indication this was a 'scary horror movie' and I went to the theater to see it. Just like I never got any indication Tucker and Dale vs. Evil was scary. They are essentially the same kind of movie.

 

[purbeast0]

I never once got any indication this was a 'scary horror movie' and I went to the theater to see it. Just like I never got any indication Tucker and Dale vs. Evil was scary. They are essentially the same kind of movie.

Do you remember the trailer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsIilFNNmkY

I mean they make it like it's a twisted and demented horror movie but it was nothing like that. I even remember the trailers after the movie was out where they put quotes from reviewers in them and things like 'SCARIEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!' and bullshit like that was in the trailers.

 

[DigDog]

we need to go back a second and see what we mean by comedy horror: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvfeRSrM7rA

 

[DaveSimmons]

we need to go back a second and see what we mean by comedy horror: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvfeRSrM7rA

That is indeed the pinnacle of Three Stooges slapstick horror comedy, though the moose head scene comes close.

Cabin in the Woods isn't trying to be hilarious, it's going for amusing, clever and witty like Buffy and Angel often were. It succeeded with me, obviously not with you or purbeast0.

 

[shortylickens]

For some odd reason I almost forgot just how bad Death Proof is. Went back and tried watching again. A few things stand out that didnt before.
Quentin Tarantino does not know how to write women. He can write for men. He can write for men and women. He cannot write for women.
The dialog is annoyingly stupid and also much slower than his other films. Conversations are boring. The actresses are mostly good, but not here. They're all much better in other films. Zoe Bell does the best job in Death Proof and she's not even an actress.
Mindless violence is OK but in previous films there was always a tiny moral victory on top of the violence. Thats completely lacking here.
The film scratching and editing "mistakes" are just plain irritating. They arent cool. The massive tone shift between part A and part B also doesnt work at all. Telling the story in chapters is fine, moving around those chapters is cool too, it worked fine in Pulp Fiction. Great in Reservoir Dogs. Its lousy here.
Also too many call backs to previous films that did it much better, most notably conversations in diners about nothing.
Quentins foot fetish didnt bother me so much.

Oh, theres also the horrible, glaring plot hole. I dont normally go looking for plot holes, and dont usually see them unless somebody points them out, but in Death Proof is was painfully obvious.

Meh / 10.

Or 3 /10. Its still well filmed, at least the 2nd part, and thats enough to entertain me a little bit.

 

[purbeast0]

That is indeed the pinnacle of Three Stooges slapstick horror comedy, though the moose head scene comes close.

Cabin in the Woods isn't trying to be hilarious, it's going for amusing, clever and witty like Buffy and Angel often were. It succeeded with me, obviously not with you or purbeast0.

If they had marketed it that way, I wouldn't have had a problem with it probably. But it was nothing like what they marketed it as which pissed me off and made it just a stupid movie. It's kind of like how most of M. Knight Shamalayadingdong's movies are. They market them as something completely different than they are for the most part. Shit like The Village and Lady in the Water (or whatever it was called) were totally misleading based off of the trailers for those movies.

 

[Muse]

Digdog, when I saw that you were going to watch CITWoods, I contemplated advising you to save yourself the downer... but soon saw that you went ahead. Kudos on deconstruction. Seems reasonable to me, your imagining how this thing was created, the process. Nice imagination there, and yes, it is indeed all about imagination, without it we are lost after all.

 

[Muse]

Just because i love Kurosawa, doesn't mean i like Japanese film. Just like i love Bob Marley, but i can't stand reggae.

You can't stand The Wailing Souls? Toots and the Maytals? Bunny Wailer?

 

[shortylickens]

Finally sat down and made time for Logan.
Was better than I expected. Mostly because of cynicism so the fact it didnt suck balls was a really big win for me. Also I paid too much attention to the naysayers and looking back its obvious the film critics who hated it definitely did not watch it. They based their reviews on trailers from TV and perhaps a few short clips released exclusively to critics but certainly not the full movie.

10/10

Entertaining and couldnt see any glaring issues with either storytelling or cinematography.

 

[DigDog]

You can't stand The Wailing Souls? Toots and the Maytals? Bunny Wailer?

aah, yeah. i couldn't tell you specifically who those are, because i've never heard of the Wailing Souls, and i think Bunny is one of Marley's main musicians .. Toots is what i think of when i think of Reggae, and i think of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhH1Lxv-8sA

That's closer to R&B, the *original* R&B, not today's bullshit (which is just rap with a mask), but the closer you get to Dub, the less i like it. I *only* like Bob Marley, and i like his music very much, but can't stand anything else.
Let's see, if we look at this video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykzTx2NviUc
which is a collection of 80s and 90s reggae, i can't listen to any of those songs in its entirety. Except the first one because it's by Bob Marley. Better sound, better songwriting, MUCH better orchestration, better lyrics, and his voice is amazing.

I do like Jimmy Cliff, but i would hesitate to classify him as reggae.

 

[DigDog]

i watched

Lord Of The Rings - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077869/

nope. not that one. THAT one.

This was one of the very first films i have ever watched in my life. It was released dubbed in Nov 15, 1978, and i was taken to see it with my mom and dad (when my mom still wasn't a bitch, tnx mom). I was 6yo when i saw this.

This film wasn't well received. Even today, i'm not sure why. The animation was criticized for the extensive use of rotoscope (something you might have seen in A Scanner Darkly), and while every 2-bit critic ripped on it in the 80s and 90s, when Macross was showing everyone what Japanimation could do, today it looks closer to a work of art rather than a mass-market cartoon. In fact, it's so frightfully similar to the Peter Jackson version that i would imagine original director Ralph Bakshi would have good reasons for a lawsuit. He's still alive, you know?

Anyway, back to the film, i was .. disappointed, or rather, bewildered, when i watched this film. The story is far more complex than a young child can understand, and the film just suddenly ends with the siege of Helm's Deep. The second part was never shot, and my experience of this film is 2 hours of weird stuff happening and then ending without explanation.

The script is reasonably faithful to the books; Boromir looks like a barbarian and Strider looks like a thug, but Gandalf is the same Gandalf we've always known. In the end, i imagine you will love or hate this film depending on how you see the rotoscoped scenes. The orcs, for example, are clearly people wearing garbage bags. If you think it's cool and creative and artistic that they have no budget and somehow managed to make something that looks decent (with some suspension of disbelief), then you will be surprised at how well they managed to recreate the "unfilmable" LoTR. If otherwise you thought the CGI goblins in Jackson's mines of Moria section were cool, you will probably hate this film.

7/10

 

[slayer202]

Do you remember the trailer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsIilFNNmkY

I mean they make it like it's a twisted and demented horror movie but it was nothing like that. I even remember the trailers after the movie was out where they put quotes from reviewers in them and things like 'SCARIEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!' and bullshit like that was in the trailers.

it's even funnier when you go in not knowing what to expect...

 

[vi edit]

Finally sat down and made time for Logan.
Was better than I expected. Mostly because of cynicism so the fact it didnt suck balls was a really big win for me. Also I paid too much attention to the naysayers and looking back its obvious the film critics who hated it definitely did not watch it. They based their reviews on trailers from TV and perhaps a few short clips released exclusively to critics but certainly not the full movie.

10/10

Entertaining and couldnt see any glaring issues with either storytelling or cinematography.

Really? What sites were critical of it? I thought it was universally praised.

 

[zerocool84]

Really? What sites were critical of it? I thought it was universally praised.

It's universally praised so yea I don't get the complaining about critics part. I thought it was good but would not rate it a 10/10 as that's a perfect score for a perfect movie and Logan is not perfect at all. Lots that I didn't like but I did like it overall.

 

[DigDog]

this might be a surprise but i didn't like Logan either.

i'm not a fan of superheros in general, because often the stories tend to be unbelievable, and this is both for comics and films. I did like Dark Horse, Vertigo, and all the new "graphic novel" movement but Marver and DC never did it for me. Specifically, Marvel. Marvel comics have characters that appeal to people who will believe anything, and don't see how tokenish and superficial each character is. I also profoundly despise the Monty Haul nature of their stories, where each character becomes progressively more powerful, often when conveniently needed, to the point of ridiculousness. Which is fine to a point, when your stories are of a simple nature: Superman saves an airplane, or a bus full of kids. Spiderman ties up the bad guy with his web.

But when you try to flesh out these characters and make them a tad more realistic, they always fail; how does superman shave? How do superhero costumes resist air friction?

So, for me trying to make a "serious" superhero film is an oxymoron.

Now, looking at Logan as its own microverse, i really could not care less for the piss-easy story of Logan Becomes A Dad, because that's what the film is. Holy cow, this kid has claws like me, i'm soo gonna be super-protective and conveniently die (to be resurrected on a whim when the story needs it) because THATS WHAT FATHERS DO.
If that is the film that you wanted to make, you really don't need Wolverine in it. It is, i would say, counter-productive, when you appeal to an innate human emotion, to have a main character that does not reflect the spectator. It's like having a blue alien play robert deniro in the Deer Hunter - it does not improve the result.

And Xavier going all ramblomatic has no real purpose in the story if not to annoy the viewer.

Aside from this, it has the usual superhero problems that in production they go all crazy with CGI and create an universe of physics that do not work, i.e. a character survives something that would require him to be X strong, but later proves to be Y strong.
Bad guys acting all though and professional miss thousands of rounds at close range, only to recover their aim when our heroes are in a car, which is miraculously bulletproof, save the glass that tactically shatters preventing harm to any of the occupants. This is OK, *if* you are in a superman film, NOT so if you are trying to make a "gritty, realistic, painful" film.
Bad guy is finally killed but nobody thinks to shoot them in the face, albeit knowing full well they have inhuman regenerative powers.

There's already one film about a person whose life centers around violence, meets a young girl, and has his paternal instinct kick in, and this leads to their self sacrifice, redemption, and saving the life of their protegee. It's called Leon. If your script isn't better than that, you shouldn't film it.

 

[shortylickens]

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/logan_2017/reviews/?sort=rotten

 

[JujuFish]

i'm not a fan of superheros in general, because often the stories tend to be unbelievable,

And yet you're in love with Star Wars, lol.

 

[DigDog]

is there something you find fits the "unbelievable" tag in Star Wars?

Star Wars is great because everything in it is plausible. It doesn't have, let's say, someone whose mutant power is so strong, they can force the mineral contents of a person's blood out of them to forge a bullet, yet conveniently ignore that the prison they are held in is underground .. you know, where all the metal deposits are.

When you write a story, you get to make the rules. However, you must abide by the rules you write. Superhero films do not do this... sometimes.

 

[Ichinisan]

is there something you find fits the "unbelievable" tag in Star Wars?

Star Wars is great because everything in it is plausible. It doesn't have, let's say, someone whose mutant power is so strong, they can force the mineral contents of a person's blood out of them to forge a bullet, yet conveniently ignore that the prison they are held in is underground .. you know, where all the metal deposits are.

When you write a story, you get to make the rules. However, you must abide by the rules you write. Superhero films do not do this... sometimes.

LOL! Really?

Yes. Star Wars is chock full of those contradictions and bad storytelling devices.

 

[purbeast0]

is there something you find fits the "unbelievable" tag in Star Wars?

Star Wars is great because everything in it is plausible. It doesn't have, let's say, someone whose mutant power is so strong, they can force the mineral contents of a person's blood out of them to forge a bullet, yet conveniently ignore that the prison they are held in is underground .. you know, where all the metal deposits are.

When you write a story, you get to make the rules. However, you must abide by the rules you write. Superhero films do not do this... sometimes.

The fact that there are thousands of Storm Troopers in Star Wars who are trained soldiers who I think literally have 0 on the entire army's kill count with their guns in the entire Star Wars universe is pretty unbelievable to me. I am no Star Wars fan but I have seen them all and cannot remember a storm trooper hitting someone with their gun ever. They fire hundreds of shots but never hit anything.

 

[ImpulsE69]

On that note...

Just watched the Netflix Punisher series. 9/10.

 

[DigDog]

..Storm Troopers ... fire hundreds of shots but never hit anything.

You can have this as a valid storytelling device, as long as it's a fantasy story. I have no problem with that, it's the root of the Hero device - our hero escapes danger; he *has* to try, he can't just willy-nilly stand in the line of fire without getting hit, but simply ducking his head means he will not get hit, because otherwise it would be grisly, and that's not the story that we are telling. BUT, it *is* the story we are telling in Logan.

The point should not be too hard to understand: either you want pain, or you do not. You can't have pain, but then magically escaping pain. The opposite is also true, you cannot have a shiny superhero who stops trains with his web(nudge nudge, wink wink), bashes his head in free fall against a metal railing without a single scratch, and then hit him with a bullet and expect us to feel pain.

In the case of Logan, it just messes up the mood. The film starts really sad and depressing, with Logan having to put adult diapers on Professor X, and we're like "ooh, this is a serious film", and then
BRBBRBBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBBBRBRBRBBBRBRBRBR
"ooh, maybe it's not really so serious"

The viewer identifies with the protagonist. Whatever happens to the protagonist, needs to be something the viewer can relate to. When the protagonist is in a situation we can relate to, this generates a mood.
People are made of simple emotions, if you make them feel heroic, and then suddenly you shift mood and make them feel frightened, it doesn't work.

You want to know what i liked? I liked Watchmen. Maybe because it comes from the amazing source material of Alan Moore, but i liked how they handled Doctor Manhattan; this character has what can only be described as a "negative" character arc, he starts with being willing to use his powers to destroy tanks for propaganda purposes, and then shifts to "i am tired of humans", because his powers demand that he realistically shift to that psychology.
For however bad it was, also Hancock deserves recognition in that it treats the person with the right amount of respect when they assign him superpowers; the guy can crush a car, he's not going to give a toss about how he dresses or what people around him think.

These characters are "human", and by that i mean they aren't. But specifically because they are not human, then all the behaviours associated to our not-having-superpowers should not be in these characters. If you character has an awesome superpower, then he should act like a person who has an awesome superpower.

Otherwise (unrelated) it's the same bullshit that happens in JRPG: you are Krong, Destroyer Of The Thing That Was Just About To Kill Everyone, but you need to gather 20 pixies stones before the bouncer will let you in the club. Go find the stones!
Hey, how about no. How about i kill the bouncer, and i walk in the door? is the unrealistic?

 

[vi edit]

In the case of Logan, it just messes up the mood. The film starts really sad and depressing, with Logan having to put adult diapers on Professor X, and we're like "ooh, this is a serious film", and then
BRBBRBBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBBBRBRBRBBBRBRBRBR
"ooh, maybe it's not really so serious"

You understand the entire point of the movie was closure around a character? It took a character that in most other movies was immortal and shallow and gave him vulnerabilities and humanized him. In death he finally found his humanity again. Movies don't have to be a formula. This was a movie that Hugh Jackman wanted to make for the fans and for himself.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Logan was the only Wolverine (or X-Men movie in general) that I actually liked. Really liked.