MrSquished
Lifer
- Jan 14, 2013
- 21,370
- 19,826
- 136
Can it really try to be the Matrix and be better than the original Matrix movie? Or as good?
I mean it looks interesting but also like wtf at the same time.
- Status
Can it really try to be the Matrix and be better than the original Matrix movie? Or as good?
I mean it looks interesting but also like wtf at the same time.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 62,966
- 11,352
- 136
Hadn't heard of this before you mentioned it here. Just finished Ep2. Strange show. Not terrible,, just strange.
I'm not familiar with the back story around this show. Lots of unanswered questions for me.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 46,174
- 33,354
- 136
Visually, yes. I'm still not feeling any love for the story. I guess Egyptian mythology isn't my thing.
JujuFish
Lifer
- Feb 3, 2005
- 11,006
- 736
- 136
I'd like to see it, but the closest theater showing it is a 40+ minute drive away, so this'll probably have to wait until streaming.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 46,174
- 33,354
- 136
MrSquished
Lifer
- Jan 14, 2013
- 21,370
- 19,826
- 136
Going to see it on Easter (for the Gentiles) with my gf and her friend. Kind of excited now. I kind of agree with all your posts so that makes me think I'm going to like it, plus it looks like a movie that if it does pull it off, it's gonna be really really good.
Michelle Yeoh kept me interested through the first season of Star Trek Discovery. That woman has talent.
DigDog
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2011
- 13,511
- 2,128
- 126
i have watched for the first time Mississippi Burning - Mississippi Burning (1988) - IMDb
though i had watched snippets on youtube, so i had an idea of what the story was.
in the 1960s, deep-south M'sippi, a group on 3 young north-boys, activists for pro-integration movements, are summarily executed by the roadside by some local police. Next day, detectives Anderson (Gene Hackman) and Ward (William Dafoe) head down to the sheriff's office and take charge of the investigation. As outsiders, they are shunned and ostracized, even by those who had nothing to do with the killing.
It's a good film. It's a bit on the slow side, and it really hurts itself by not picking one actor over the other as protagonist; while we see much more of Hackman than Defoe, there are weird turns of events due to the relationship the characters have (Ward is Anderson's superior). It could really use a bit of slimming and trimming.
There is a wonderful, magnetic Frances McDormand in her prime, and a pretty decent supporting cast, although the characters aren't particularly memorable.
I respect the message, and feel that this film would have been more impactful in 1988 on release, but it doesnt hold a candle to In The Heat Of The Night.
My vote: 7.5/10 (8/10 for "they call me MISTER Tibbs!!)
though i had watched snippets on youtube, so i had an idea of what the story was.
in the 1960s, deep-south M'sippi, a group on 3 young north-boys, activists for pro-integration movements, are summarily executed by the roadside by some local police. Next day, detectives Anderson (Gene Hackman) and Ward (William Dafoe) head down to the sheriff's office and take charge of the investigation. As outsiders, they are shunned and ostracized, even by those who had nothing to do with the killing.
It's a good film. It's a bit on the slow side, and it really hurts itself by not picking one actor over the other as protagonist; while we see much more of Hackman than Defoe, there are weird turns of events due to the relationship the characters have (Ward is Anderson's superior). It could really use a bit of slimming and trimming.
There is a wonderful, magnetic Frances McDormand in her prime, and a pretty decent supporting cast, although the characters aren't particularly memorable.
I respect the message, and feel that this film would have been more impactful in 1988 on release, but it doesnt hold a candle to In The Heat Of The Night.
My vote: 7.5/10 (8/10 for "they call me MISTER Tibbs!!)
SMOGZINN
Lifer
- Jun 17, 2005
- 14,202
- 4,401
- 136
The writing seems to be either really lazy or very inconsistant.
The main character seems to go back and forth between believing if what is happening to him is real or he is having a psychotic break. Multiple times per episode he decides he is having a psychotics break and needs to seek help, then finds 'proof' that it is real but then just goes on acting like it is all in his head. The character's actions needs to be more consistent with his stated beliefs. Once he decides it is real he needs to act like it is real, at least until someone or something convinces him it is all in his head again.
Agree. Isaac's character is acting crazier than a person in his situation is supposed to act like. I mean, once you've seen the "other you" in the mirror, move on and do something about it rather than whine about why it's happening to you or how it's ruining your life, like your life was so perfect before these things started happening to you. Get a grip on yourself and come to terms with the "new reality" you are faced with. His whiny side is supposed to act as comedic relief but I find it more annoying than funny.
IHateMyJob2004
Lifer
- Sep 29, 2004
- 18,665
- 67
- 91
Watched Life last night. It was like a 9/10.
Super interesting plot/concept. I was disappointed by the ending. The rest of the movie was solid.
Super interesting plot/concept. I was disappointed by the ending. The rest of the movie was solid.
DigDog
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2011
- 13,511
- 2,128
- 126
M.K. ep 3 was ok, i still found many things i like in the way the show is made, written, etc. Didn't move quite as well in pacing, and there were too many faceless goon fights, but it was still better than i expected for the typical Episode 3 Crash.
The .. main .. scene, i guess, was fairly weak, so i'm not quite as enthusiastic as i was before, but ill keep watching.
The .. main .. scene, i guess, was fairly weak, so i'm not quite as enthusiastic as i was before, but ill keep watching.
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 17,760
- 9,707
- 136
Zack Snyder's Justice League
Meh / 10. It's four hours long and I've been watching it in approximately one hour sittings. I'm 2.5 hours in and it has failed to make me want to continue watching on each occasion.
Meh / 10. It's four hours long and I've been watching it in approximately one hour sittings. I'm 2.5 hours in and it has failed to make me want to continue watching on each occasion.
I'm kind of puzzled about how the team (minus Superman) haven't yet attempted an organised, teamworky attack on Steppenwolf and yet they've already decided to make a zombie Superman. I could understand their desire to do this is they had made such an attempt and totally got their asses handed to them, Earth is already mostly in cinders and they're thinking that a zombie Superman can hardly fuck things up any more than they already are. To make that decision at this point feels like the script-writer saying, "but Superman has to save the day, isn't that how it always is?". The rightful ending to such a stupid decision IMO is for Superman to go rogue, defeat Steppenwolf and take over the planet for himself, because these humans clearly aren't cut out to make important decisions.
purbeast0
No Lifer
- Sep 13, 2001
- 52,870
- 5,740
- 126
Infinite Storm 7/10
Chariot 6/10
Both are slow movies. Chariot was weird on top of that. If anyone sees/has seen it, do tell what the heck it was about.
Chariot 6/10
Both are slow movies. Chariot was weird on top of that. If anyone sees/has seen it, do tell what the heck it was about.
MrSquished
Lifer
- Jan 14, 2013
- 21,370
- 19,826
- 136
Pretty incredible movie. Really impressed with how many different things it touched upon - from an immigrant experience to family and generational drama to deep philosophical questions. All while paced very well - the editing was phenomenal, the costumes epic, the acting by the main characters was superb. I was sold.
Charmonium
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2015
- 9,006
- 2,566
- 136
Prometheus - 8.5/10
I give this rating grudgingly since I don't really like movies that try to scare. I have an unbelievably low startle threshold and I'm at the point where I want nothing to do with anything that bothers me. And I can't see things like this in the theater since I'll just scare everyone by screaming like a little girl.
But it's really odd how curiosity works. I'd watched this once before and by the end I was just like 'ruh?' And I knew this was supposed to be a sort of Alien origin story so I was completely engaged and barely noticed the scary stuff. So weird.
Anyway, I really, really liked it. The red herring at the beginning with the financier had me cold. I mean, I wasn't super surprised but it was definitely unexpected. The graphics, cinematography, sets, etc where pretty much perfect and are so essential to drawing you in. I'm not a great judge of acting - probably because I'm so spoiled I never really see what I could consider "bad" acting but wtf do I know. Let's put it this way, no one ever did anything that took me out of the story. But it's pretty rare that anything ever does in any of big budget productions.
Hmm, what else. Oh, not really relevant but I was amazed at how physically perfect the other aliens seemed to be, not to mention technically advanced and now I'm as curious as the main character about
.
I give this rating grudgingly since I don't really like movies that try to scare. I have an unbelievably low startle threshold and I'm at the point where I want nothing to do with anything that bothers me. And I can't see things like this in the theater since I'll just scare everyone by screaming like a little girl.
But it's really odd how curiosity works. I'd watched this once before and by the end I was just like 'ruh?' And I knew this was supposed to be a sort of Alien origin story so I was completely engaged and barely noticed the scary stuff. So weird.
Anyway, I really, really liked it. The red herring at the beginning with the financier had me cold. I mean, I wasn't super surprised but it was definitely unexpected. The graphics, cinematography, sets, etc where pretty much perfect and are so essential to drawing you in. I'm not a great judge of acting - probably because I'm so spoiled I never really see what I could consider "bad" acting but wtf do I know. Let's put it this way, no one ever did anything that took me out of the story. But it's pretty rare that anything ever does in any of big budget productions.
Hmm, what else. Oh, not really relevant but I was amazed at how physically perfect the other aliens seemed to be, not to mention technically advanced and now I'm as curious as the main character about
why they wanted us dead so badly
You will have to increase your startle threshold if you want to see the sequel "Alien: Covenant".
Charmonium
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2015
- 9,006
- 2,566
- 136
Thanks and f* you very much [kidding of course, see anon]
A f*ing trilogy? I looked at Wikipedia and read the first few paragraphs of the plot. It doesn't really sound like a sequel, but I have the utmost respect for Ridley Scott, so . . . . it seems my life may be shorter than anticipated.
DigDog
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2011
- 13,511
- 2,128
- 126
i watched The Batman - The Batman (2022) - Reference View - IMDb
with three whole hours of film, there is much to like and much to not like.
Staring with the good, the production is really, really good. The cinematography is impressive, the sets are great, the costumes are great, as long as we accept that this film is going for a "realistic" approach to Batman.
Robert Pattinson (who?) is a good fit for Batman, and i couldn't help thinking he would have been a great choice for Paul Atreides instead of that whining little bitch Chalumet.
Zoe Kravitz (daughter of butch rocker Lenny, and of hot mom / teen dream Lisa Bonet AKA Denise from Cosby Show) is stunning and fabulous in her role - i would not have complained if the film turned into a romance midways.
Jeffrey "token black" Wright is okaish as Lt Gordon.
I loved Paul Dano as The Riddler, here played a lot closer to the psychopath in the Saw films, than the spandex-suit buffoon of early Batman, and an unrecognizable Colin Farrel was great as The Penguin.
Andy Serkins (gollum) has a very minor role as Alfred - seriously, he's in two scenes and he does nothing in either one.
The plot is played as a straight police investigation story, Gordon and Batman dig up clues, beat down suspects, stake outs, surveillance, and all that.
The Bat-gear is (mostly) down to earth, again going for a "what if Batman was real" approach. There is one scene where Batman uses a wingsuit, and it gets ruined by a GCI crash that completely ruins the scene, but, still decent.
The bad is that .. it lacks vision. And it's three fucking hours long.
But really, it does lack vision, it doesn't have any of the grandeur normally associated with Batman stories, and while it does in a way make the story more plausible, plausibility is not what we go watch movies for, at least, up to a point.
It also doesn't really do much with the character of Batman, you could replace Batman for any ol' ruff 'n' gruff detective and the story would be the same.
The best thing about the film is without a doubt Zoe Kravitz as Catwoman, she's the best character, has the best acting, and you'll wish that the film dedicated more time and more script to her relation with Batman.
As Youmoviessuck pointed out in his review, the soundtrack is terribly repetitive, which doesn't help with the ridiculous runtime. Not that you could cut much, really, because the runtime is due to the director being extreeeeeemely methodical, in telling you EVERYTHING you could possibly want to know.
I would recommend The Batman; it's too long, it's not terribly inspired, but it's a decent film, with some great visuals, fine acting all around, and some amazing eye candy in Catwoman.
My vote: 7.5/10 - needs less of what it has, and more of what it doesn't.
with three whole hours of film, there is much to like and much to not like.
Staring with the good, the production is really, really good. The cinematography is impressive, the sets are great, the costumes are great, as long as we accept that this film is going for a "realistic" approach to Batman.
Robert Pattinson (who?) is a good fit for Batman, and i couldn't help thinking he would have been a great choice for Paul Atreides instead of that whining little bitch Chalumet.
Zoe Kravitz (daughter of butch rocker Lenny, and of hot mom / teen dream Lisa Bonet AKA Denise from Cosby Show) is stunning and fabulous in her role - i would not have complained if the film turned into a romance midways.
Jeffrey "token black" Wright is okaish as Lt Gordon.
I loved Paul Dano as The Riddler, here played a lot closer to the psychopath in the Saw films, than the spandex-suit buffoon of early Batman, and an unrecognizable Colin Farrel was great as The Penguin.
Andy Serkins (gollum) has a very minor role as Alfred - seriously, he's in two scenes and he does nothing in either one.
The plot is played as a straight police investigation story, Gordon and Batman dig up clues, beat down suspects, stake outs, surveillance, and all that.
The Bat-gear is (mostly) down to earth, again going for a "what if Batman was real" approach. There is one scene where Batman uses a wingsuit, and it gets ruined by a GCI crash that completely ruins the scene, but, still decent.
The bad is that .. it lacks vision. And it's three fucking hours long.
But really, it does lack vision, it doesn't have any of the grandeur normally associated with Batman stories, and while it does in a way make the story more plausible, plausibility is not what we go watch movies for, at least, up to a point.
It also doesn't really do much with the character of Batman, you could replace Batman for any ol' ruff 'n' gruff detective and the story would be the same.
The best thing about the film is without a doubt Zoe Kravitz as Catwoman, she's the best character, has the best acting, and you'll wish that the film dedicated more time and more script to her relation with Batman.
As Youmoviessuck pointed out in his review, the soundtrack is terribly repetitive, which doesn't help with the ridiculous runtime. Not that you could cut much, really, because the runtime is due to the director being extreeeeeemely methodical, in telling you EVERYTHING you could possibly want to know.
I would recommend The Batman; it's too long, it's not terribly inspired, but it's a decent film, with some great visuals, fine acting all around, and some amazing eye candy in Catwoman.
My vote: 7.5/10 - needs less of what it has, and more of what it doesn't.
Last edited:
Charmonium
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2015
- 9,006
- 2,566
- 136
Lost Cities of the Bible (Science channel series) - 10/10
Note: This is "safe" viewing for all agnostics and I suppose atheists as well. This is VERY scholarly series and despite the word "bible" in the title, biblical references are there mainly as anchor points. I would not recommend this for fundamentalist Xtians. They often and quite casually contradict a literal reading of the bible. But it's completely lacking any note of malice or intent to proselytize for Satan. In fact, when there is solid archaeology to support a biblical claim, they say so. But also do that when the evidence is weak or non-existent.
Additionally, when I say "scholarly" I mean that there is a continuous flood of names, places, dates, gods, kings, etc. If you have no familiarity with ancient near eastern history, I suspect you'll be overwhelmed. If your only reference points are biblical, don't worry. It's still very interesting and it's not like they will be a quiz. However, this is NOT for background viewing. That's simply pointless.
On a personal note, when I view documentaries, shit tends to bleed over into my posts. I recognize so much of what they present and it's so nice to dig up memories from over 40 years ago.
Note: This is "safe" viewing for all agnostics and I suppose atheists as well. This is VERY scholarly series and despite the word "bible" in the title, biblical references are there mainly as anchor points. I would not recommend this for fundamentalist Xtians. They often and quite casually contradict a literal reading of the bible. But it's completely lacking any note of malice or intent to proselytize for Satan. In fact, when there is solid archaeology to support a biblical claim, they say so. But also do that when the evidence is weak or non-existent.
Additionally, when I say "scholarly" I mean that there is a continuous flood of names, places, dates, gods, kings, etc. If you have no familiarity with ancient near eastern history, I suspect you'll be overwhelmed. If your only reference points are biblical, don't worry. It's still very interesting and it's not like they will be a quiz. However, this is NOT for background viewing. That's simply pointless.
On a personal note, when I view documentaries, shit tends to bleed over into my posts. I recognize so much of what they present and it's so nice to dig up memories from over 40 years ago.
BarkingGhostar
Lifer
- Nov 20, 2009
- 10,049
- 2,576
- 136
West World 7/10 across all three seasons. It started to get interesting in season 3 but ended short on eight episodes (seasons 1 & 2 had ten each). And then the last episode of season three seem like the script/plot was thrown into the clothes washer and scrambled to hell. Evan Rachel Wood and Thadiwe Newton are a delight to watch.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter