BryanM wrote:"It's just a movie. You don't have a problem with the magic robot suit." "THAT'S NOT THE POINT."
But to a very great degree, it is, your objection notwithstanding.
I'm reminded of how when I was in the single digits of age, when both of my brothers and I would be watching Road Runner cartoons, and every stinking time the coyote "bought it", we'd almost always chant "That could never happen..." with the blankest cadence to ever exude from the human mouth.
I don't see Looney Tunes being blasted for their lack of true-to-life physics, nor do I see them vilified for being garbage for including such things. It's a pretty broad standard, kids.
Things in a movie don't necessarily have to be correct or true-to-life, or even *try* to be, necessarily. The question is: can they make me buy into what they're selling, or, at the *very* least, make me *want to* buy in?
Better movies accomplish this. Worse movies don't. And yes: sometimes, it's entirely dependent on the watcher's particular mood at that particular time on that particular day. That being said, truly good movies can, and do, overcome that, even if sometimes it takes watching it at a different time for that to come to fruition.
^ I agree with this. Comic book is comic book, you have to suspend a certain disbelief and take it for what it is.
My problem with the Iron Man as a series is they're kind of average, very disposable, one watch is more than enough sort of things. But then there aren't too many superhero movies I'd watch twice, so the base level 2 hour entertainment purpose is served well enough.
9/10. Fantastic content: The film covers a lot of areas of the very reclusive, and posthumously famous Vivian Maier... a nanny with a largely unknown background that had an eye for street photography, long before it was a thing. We are shown all sides of her, including the dark. At 90 minutes there's not tons of dwell super deep on this, but it's clear that hers is no love story. In excellent film-making style, this is really two stories: The most obvious is hers, but the story of how the negatives (roughly 150,000 of them + 700 rolls of undeveloped film) were found and the ensuing research is an extra treat.
Can't really name a documentary I have enjoyed more. Very minor gripe: as a camera whore, they talk about her Rolleiflex and how it's the perfect candid camera. At some point (late 60's I believe) she switched to a Leica rangefinder. I would have like to have known when, and how it affected the work. Also, she shot mainly B&W but some color as well. They didn't really cover this too much. I saw color negative and slide, but these were not talked about.
Even though he's obviously profited from the discovery (no problem there, he did a ton of work) the director should be applauded by posting these on Flickr and generally having the interest to find out the story and share it with everyone. In an alternate universe, her negs were burned. Glad I'm in this one.
RegalSin wrote:New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.
Iron Man 3's embarrassing, whether you compare it to the other Marvel movies or the comic it's based on. If Ben Kingsley had thrown in a "tonight I dine on turtle soup," you'd have an episode from an '80s cartoon. And replacing the Chinese villain is just pathetic.
RegalSin wrote:You can't even drive across the country Naked anymore
BryanM wrote:You're trapped in a haunted house. There's a ghost. It wants to eat your friends and have sex with your cat. When forced to decide between the lives of your friends and the chastity of your kitty, you choose the cat.
I'd rank the 'goodness' of the Iron Man movies in the order in which they were released—even given the disdain I have for part 2.
I appreciate the fact that for a sizable chunk of 3, Iron Man isn't actually Iron Man—it's Tony Stark being a 'hero' as himself. I get it. But that's not why I watch an Iron Man movie. And I didn't care for the kid helper character at all. For everything I disliked about 2, at the very least we get some nice action scenes, the welcome inclusion of Black Widow and Nick Fury (tho I do wish Terrance Howard remained in), and Sam Rockwell was awesome as the co-villain. The 'feel' of 3 just seems totally different than the rest of the series. But I do applaud them for trying something new.
The original, however, is a perfect comic book movie to me. Probably my fav from Marvel. Shoot, it turned a character I really cared nothing about into one of my favs (tho Robert Downey Jr. deserves a lot of the credit). I find origin stories just inherently cooler, though.
(GaijinPunch, thanx for reminding me of Finding Vivian Maier.)
I haven't seen the first Iron Man movie, but I thought 2 was pretty mediocre, and 3 was a bit better but still pretty average. Then again, I really don't like the character all that much in the first place.
Out of the MCU movies I've seen, I'd probably rank them this way:
Guardians of the Galaxy
Avengers
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Thor
Iron Man 3
Iron Man 2
Have not seen:
Thor: The Dark World
The Incredible Hulk
Captain America: The First Avenger
Iron Man 1
Enjoyable. Cruise did good, here, and so did Blunt. I've heard people criticize the CGI in this movie... I didn't see anything particularly at fault.
Somehow, being a gamer, I felt oddly connected to the movie... You "continue", restart, learn and get better. You try new routes, until at some point you go for the 1CC.
The editing was good, but in my opinion was not as strong as Groundhog Day's. We get what's happening; a few times the first seconds of the "waking up" could have been skipped, and the movie would have felt better. Was a bit annoying, but not enough to throw the whole thing off.
First half superior to second half. One of the better sci-fi offerings in recent years.
Muchos años después, frente al pelotón de fusilamiento...
I may be late to the party on this one, but I still found it to be quite good. I wouldn't say that it's "Avengers" good, but it's still very good, and it certainly goes to great lengths to not take itself too seriously in any way. This leads to a lighthearted, funny action movie, which appeals.
Lots of 80's references, lots of things to laugh at, and some pretty odd casting decisions. I'd give it a "B-" or "B".
Enjoyable. Cruise did good, here, and so did Blunt. I've heard people criticize the CGI in this movie... I didn't see anything particularly at fault.
Somehow, being a gamer, I felt oddly connected to the movie... You "continue", restart, learn and get better. You try new routes, until at some point you go for the 1CC.
The editing was good, but in my opinion was not as strong as Groundhog Day's. We get what's happening; a few times the first seconds of the "waking up" could have been skipped, and the movie would have felt better. Was a bit annoying, but not enough to throw the whole thing off.
First half superior to second half. One of the better sci-fi offerings in recent years.
The ultimate pro restart point movie.
RegalSin wrote:New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.
on nick cage bashing: as a kid/young man, his strange, quirky personality worked for him. He's fantastic in "Wild at Heart"; a lynch film that often gets overlooked and is almost
as good as "Blue Velvet". it's just as bizarre and hilarious. Willem Dafoe's performance (you wanna f-f-f-uck Bobby Peru?) is on par with Dennis Hopper as Frank Booth. back to cage.
he's pretty good in "Racing with the Moon" and he's excellent in "Raising Arizona". ok, i admit, he's a pretty shitty actor.... BUT there have been a few exceptions!
Cold in July - follows a similar premise to "out of the furnace" and "blue ruin" but it's not nearly as good as either of those two. the entire movie takes place in texas and michael c. hall
gives a surprisingly good performance. don johnson makes an appearance towards the end and fucks the entire vibe of the film up. last 30 mins, the film takes a hard right and goes off
into a different genre.
Plot: an expedition into (and beyond...) the catacombs of Paris, based on a premise that is almost completely given away by the first name, just a few minutes into the film, and explained to death before the characters go underground. At 3 survivors out of only 6 explorers, the splatter level is very modest.
The story is partly well thought out (the main objective and the associated puzzles and traps) and partly arbitrary and unexplained to the point of randomness (the grossly supernatural "theme park" of strange stuff found below the city). Even character deaths are quite unjustified. Rather funny cliché abuses, from the reluctant companion who expects to be only a translator and wait outside the catacombs to feats of cowboy archeology that would make Dan Brown proud.
It's actually an excellent example of what a memorable dungeon run in Dungeons & Dragons or like-minded roleplaying games should feel like: unnatural environments, dissension in the character party, stupid initiatives, deadly traps, heroic altruism, wandering monsters, depleted resources, dubious allies, magical treasures, lethally failed saving throws, and most importantly getting the hell out of there.
Style: 100% diegetic cameras, mainly a professional one in the hands of a filmmaker who's following the protagonist and head-mounted small ones for everyone in the expedition. The effort is very serious and aesthetically successful, but not completely coherent (who's editing footage from cameras that are left behind? How can cameras, as opposed to characters, see obvious visions and illusions?).
Adequately scary, even without particularly meaningful threats; some scenes, like the character getting stuck in loose bones and freaking out, are quite memorable.
Summary: not a perfect film, but definitely a good hybrid of horror and adventure. Recommended unless you have a claustrophobia problem.
Last edited by Ixmucane2 on Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
A good n' gritty thriller about terrorism in modern-day London. I admit that I checked it out cuz it starred Sean Bean (as a quite badass secret service agent attempting to take down a local cell), but the story is actually more focused on a British-born student of Middle Eastern descent and his troubled transition from aspiring lawyer to member of an extremist sect. The moral of the story here is don't trust movie posters/DVD boxes.
As for the film itself, it's thought-provoking and realistically brutal. I recommend it.
A good n' gritty thriller about terrorism in modern-day London. I admit that I checked it out cuz it starred Sean Bean (as a quite badass secret service agent attempting to take down a local cell), but the story is actually more focused on a British-born student of Middle Eastern descent and his troubled transition from aspiring lawyer to member of an extremist sect. The moral of the story here is don't trust movie posters/DVD boxes.
As for the film itself, it's thought-provoking and realistically brutal. I recommend it.
Ha, I actually threw that on last night in bed but fell asleep like 15 minutes in. Seemed OK, will finish it soon
I watched a movie yesterday that I hadn't seen in probably 20 years or more, not since I was a wee lad sneaking down stairs late at night to watch the good shit on HBO...
This totally lived up to my memories. The costumes, the gangs, the one liners and puns, the robotic Pam Grier and fucking evil as shit Stacy Keach... So much awesome crammed in to one little movie. This viewing was also made even better when I learned via IMDB that the star was also in another childhood favorite of mine as Chris Chambers older brother Eyeball in Stand By Me.
I wish they still made these kinds of over the top gang movies. The last one I can remember was Doomsday and that was like 6 or 7 year ago.
rapoon wrote:back to cage.
he's pretty good in "Racing with the Moon" and he's excellent in "Raising Arizona". ok, i admit, he's a pretty shitty actor.... BUT there have been a few exceptions!
Leaving Las Vegas...
RegalSin wrote:New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.
Continuing my little horror marathon, just having finished Psycho II (1983) (shout out to emphatic for recommending this one), with the credits rolling and hearing the theme in a specific version, I feel obliged to write about it.
Wow... this movie left a lasting impression on me, as much as the first one did but... in a much more emotional way. You have to watch the first one to fully understand this one, because it will completely change your mind on Norman Bates, as this movie, is as good as it gets when it comes to providing a full psychological insight on his real "him".
I actually felt sorry for Norman all the way through, because of what he went through in the entire movie, I won't give it away but when it comes to suspsense, it's even thicker than in the first movie, because there are many new confusing questions which don't detract from the movie's quality, quite opposite, they actually add to it. There is one question you keep asking yourself throughout this movie which I won't give away either, because WHY SHOULD I, i'm not crazy (yes terrible pun intended). And the ending, didn't surprise me much, it was a consequence of all the events.
Great visuals, great music score (that credits theme, is really hitting hard in context of the movie), great cinematography, good writing because it did Norman Bates justice. A definitive 9/10 from me, the only downside is that some writing could have been better for anyone else than Norman really.
NOW few days before this I wasn't in mood for some deep cinema, due having a busy stressful life and all, so I decided to watch some mindless horror flick for once, sometimes, you just have to turn your brain off. And so I did, with Gothika (2003), a flick featuring Halle Berry and before-iron-man Robert Downey Jr.
Halle Berry plays a psychiatrist named Miranda Grey in a mental asylum, the movie starts off with her talking with a patient called Chloe, who's had visions of Satan entering her body and messing with her and losing control, Grey writes that off as bullshit and tells the staff to lock Chloe. After a mysterious chain of events, she too, becomes a patient, she doesn't remember why or how she did things she was accused of, and she's bent on figuring it out.
This isn't really a horror as it's more of a supernatural crime mystery movie and it should be perceived as such, basically the entire is movie is about Grey trying to not prove that she's not mental and figure out, what exactly happened during the memory blank she has, and try to figure out who's behind it all. And it delivers on this front, the way the crime mystery is solved is fun, worth seeing, but it goes beyond that, despite the great build-up and delivery, but I won't spoil it.
Plus the final sequence before the ending's cool, extremely suspenful, and the way it ends, is very cool and memorable.
Overall, if you don't mind a mindless watch that requires you to have an open mind and just have fun in tagging along the ride, you will enjoy this, it was a personal 6+/10 for me. A short breakdown why:
Good:
- Visuals, lighting, effects
- Most of writing
- The story, especially the plot twists and the ending
- Suspense in certain parts
Bad:
- Some writing could have been better IMO
- It unfortunately contains a bit of nonsense but it's nothing major, the rest is sound.
- Lacks a bit of polish overall, it's a bit rough.
I've a similar history with this movie - was an elusive VHS rental VIDEO NASTEH of my childhood (watched it behind Dad's back), revisited it recently for a laugh. Pretty good OTT fun and even more 1980s-Future than I could've imagined. Patrick Kilpatrick and John P. Ryan play great villainous robots, especially the latter. What an evil fuck! My Dad likes this movie too incidentally, having taught highschool for 30-odd years.
Glad you enjoyed it, Kaiser. It actually gets better on repeat viewings. Stay away from Psycho III!! I've heard that Psycho IV is decent though, but never tracked it down. It's supposed to show him growing up with Mother (played by the beautiful Olivia Hussey). Maybe I'll give it a go.
rapoon wrote:back to cage.
he's pretty good in "Racing with the Moon" and he's excellent in "Raising Arizona". ok, i admit, he's a pretty shitty actor.... BUT there have been a few exceptions!
Leaving Las Vegas...
ya, he's aight but it feels like hes in elisabeth shues shadow the whole time.
Always liked this one. Kiefer's stuttering doctor strains credulity if you've seen 24, but otherwise it's all around good sci-fi. Was my first screen-actor infatuation due to Jennifer Connelly's jazz singing. And of course it has William Hurt. Everything's better with a little Wm H.
William Hurt is indeed good. Dark City is a classic. "He can tune!" Plus there's Connelly, and that pier scene we also have in Requiem for a Dream, one of the best book to movie affair. Excellent stuff.
John Hurt, on the other hand, has one of the best voice in cinema. Any movie narrated by him automatically "levels up" in my book.
Part of the reason why I love Dogville so much, and that I thought Perfume was entertaining. That voice.
Liam Neeson also has a very clear, distinctive voice. Particularly striking in Taken, when he says: "They will take you." Anything he says in that movie, really. Rugged, to the point.
But I digress.
Muchos años después, frente al pelotón de fusilamiento...
rapoon wrote:on nick cage bashing: as a kid/young man, his strange, quirky personality worked for him. He's fantastic in "Wild at Heart"; a lynch film that often gets overlooked and is almost
as good as "Blue Velvet". it's just as bizarre and hilarious. Willem Dafoe's performance (you wanna f-f-f-uck Bobby Peru?) is on par with Dennis Hopper as Frank Booth. back to cage.
he's pretty good in "Racing with the Moon" and he's excellent in "Raising Arizona". ok, i admit, he's a pretty shitty actor.... BUT there have been a few exceptions!
Cold in July - follows a similar premise to "out of the furnace" and "blue ruin" but it's not nearly as good as either of those two. the entire movie takes place in texas and michael c. hall
gives a surprisingly good performance. don johnson makes an appearance towards the end and fucks the entire vibe of the film up. last 30 mins, the film takes a hard right and goes off
into a different genre.
and adaptation + matchstick men per my previous post >.>
adaptation probably being his best film, and I honestly think charlie kaufman brings out the best in actors which is why I was really excited for "frank or francis" with jack black, steve carrell, and nicolas cage before the project was scrapped.
also a lot of people really liked him in lord of war tho I wasn't the biggest fan.
I watched Lord of War for the first time just the other week, and while an average but watchable time sink, Cage was as classically useless as ever. The man is not an actor.
| My games - 
