Movies you've just watched

[BIL]

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014) Gleefully vulgar spy flick sendup. Good, violent, knowingly moronic fun for a couple of hours. Surprisingly decent writing, in fits and starts - daft shit elsewhere but to no real harm.

It Follows (2014) Respectable slasher/supernatural horror pastiche with Scooby Doo and the gang versus the worst STD ever. Debts to Halloween, Elm Street and The Ring are evident, but with it distilling some of their best features into a strong atmosphere of its own, it's easy to like. Found it refreshing that the eponymous horror is both incomprehensible and flatly, objectively "real," maintaining the air of a living nightmare. Nice to get a darkly sexual (and sometimes sexy! ;3 ;3 ;3 ) horror film more concerned with human bonds than shock/sophomore content, too.

[Skykid]

2 minutes from going into Jurassic World.

When I come out I shall endeavour to post a one word review.

[Satan]

Fetid

[Skykid]

Bloodless.

[BrianC]

Here's my three word review of a certain other movie with Chris Pratt in it:

I am Grooooooooooot!!!!!!!!

[lilmanjs]

Six Assassins
Early 70s Shaw Brothers movie about an evil lord who oversteps his boundaries by going out of his area of power and killing a family and then in turn the lord of that part of the land when he comes to arrest him. Things spiral from here to where a plot to kill the evil lord is hatched. Not a long movie at all, but man there are some great shots in it, and even if the final fight is good, you can't help but go, jeeze, outside jump to a soundstage? Still I recommend this. Not the main stars of the studio in this, but the guy who played the evil lord did a great job. He's all I hate everyone, I'm powerful, and you can't stop me. Like he never cared at all during the movie.

[Ixmucane2]

Fury

WW2 dumbed down for videogame addicts with no attention span to speak of (examples: the obviously CGI tracer bullets, color-coded and with more glow than fucking lightsabers, or Brad Pitt's grenade-proof hairdo).

It focuses on a U.S. tank crew in Germany (spring 1945), trying to combine a tale of heroism, or at least military success (mission after mission) with trite character development (Norman the inexperienced recruit bonds with the rest of the crew and becomes a soldier, a man, and a valued team member), with enough shallowness and lack of purpose to fail quite miserably. Most of the (very little) unpredictability comes from proceeding with the most predictable development with surprising haste.

Good photography, reasonable battle scenes and a bit of style prevent this film from being a complete disaster, but it's still a waste of time.

[Skykid]

Fury

WW2 dumbed down for videogame addicts with no attention span to speak of (examples: the obviously CGI tracer bullets, color-coded and with more glow than fucking lightsabers, or Brad Pitt's grenade-proof hairdo).

It focuses on a U.S. tank crew in Germany (spring 1945), trying to combine a tale of heroism, or at least military success (mission after mission) with trite character development (Norman the inexperienced recruit bonds with the rest of the crew and becomes a soldier, a man, and a valued team member), with enough shallowness and lack of purpose to fail quite miserably. Most of the (very little) unpredictability comes from proceeding with the most predictable development with surprising haste.

Good photography, reasonable battle scenes and a bit of style prevent this film from being a complete disaster, but it's still a waste of time.

I completely disagree. Cliche aside, I thought it was surprisingly good.

[boagman]

Fury

WW2 dumbed down for videogame addicts with no attention span to speak of (examples: the obviously CGI tracer bullets, color-coded and with more glow than fucking lightsabers, or Brad Pitt's grenade-proof hairdo).

It focuses on a U.S. tank crew in Germany (spring 1945), trying to combine a tale of heroism, or at least military success (mission after mission) with trite character development (Norman the inexperienced recruit bonds with the rest of the crew and becomes a soldier, a man, and a valued team member), with enough shallowness and lack of purpose to fail quite miserably. Most of the (very little) unpredictability comes from proceeding with the most predictable development with surprising haste.

Good photography, reasonable battle scenes and a bit of style prevent this film from being a complete disaster, but it's still a waste of time.

I completely disagree. Cliche aside, I thought it was surprisingly good.

Even Shia LeBoeuf?

[Skykid]

Fury

WW2 dumbed down for videogame addicts with no attention span to speak of (examples: the obviously CGI tracer bullets, color-coded and with more glow than fucking lightsabers, or Brad Pitt's grenade-proof hairdo).

It focuses on a U.S. tank crew in Germany (spring 1945), trying to combine a tale of heroism, or at least military success (mission after mission) with trite character development (Norman the inexperienced recruit bonds with the rest of the crew and becomes a soldier, a man, and a valued team member), with enough shallowness and lack of purpose to fail quite miserably. Most of the (very little) unpredictability comes from proceeding with the most predictable development with surprising haste.

Good photography, reasonable battle scenes and a bit of style prevent this film from being a complete disaster, but it's still a waste of time.

I completely disagree. Cliche aside, I thought it was surprisingly good.

Even Shia LeBoeuf?

Yeah he was ok. Inoffensive.

[Ixmucane2]

Fury is "surprisingly good" compared to not even trying: failing to tell something new or profound or coherent about war is much better than, say, a "flawless" Transformers sequel.
We're so used to the prevalence of meaningless, deliberately stupid entertainment that the respectable effort Fury shows is enough to make it relatively good.

[JBC]

Don't Blink -

The only mildly interesting thing is that the 'deaths' in this horror movie are literally just people disappearing through jump cuts. There hasn't been a cheaper special effect since Insidious' night vision sequence to simulate being in the 'other world' or whatever. The actors are pretty bad & the sets are just real places the crew must have rented out over the weekend. There was even a gunshot where I don't think they used a blank, but instead just a bang & glass shattering sound effect. The writer wasn't imaginative enough to stretch out the disappearing concept into a full feature film, so all the story progression involves characters succumbing to paranoia & fighting amongst themselves.

Summer of Blood -

Funny, but I'll never watch it again. The dialogue is the only draw. It's about a neurotic loser who becomes a vampire & then lives life on top. White contacts, vampy dentures, corn syrup. It was funny though.

Only Lovers Left Alive -

Total crap. Aside from some interesting nighttime shots of crumbling Detroit all you get is a never ending onslaught of pretentious references. It's hipster vampires as portrayed by an all-star cast.

[GaijinPunch]

I thought Fury was okay.

How shitty is Jurassic World?

[Satan]

Just watched Frank. Don't know what this has to do with Frank Sidebottom.

[Skykid]

Fury is "surprisingly good" compared to not even trying: failing to tell something new or profound or coherent about war is much better than, say, a "flawless" Transformers sequel.
We're so used to the prevalence of meaningless, deliberately stupid entertainment that the respectable effort Fury shows is enough to make it relatively good.

Simply, it was written ok, directed well, cast well (although Pitt was unnecessary, but still ok). The whole thing was refreshingly low key - it had no aspirations to be anything except a small war film in the tradition of similar movies made in the 50s. It didn't attempt to be a Private Ryan, the director was content with a small cast and a handful of personalities to develop within the microcosm of war and all its weirdness.

It was nothing remarkable. No special effects emphasis, just a few decent battles with some decent strategy and just enough tension that the pace ticked over smoothly. It stood out from the general Hollywood cookie cutter shit because it didn't try to do anything except be a straight-up old fashioned war movie. For what it's worth it got that right.

[Ed Oscuro]

How shitty is Jurassic World?

Considering how big that sea monster is, I'm guessing there's room for tons and tons of shit!

They probably won't outdo the famous shit scene from the original movie, though.

[Skykid]

I thought Fury was okay.

How shitty is Jurassic World?

Average shitty.

Obviously not as good as the original. Spielberg at least understood scene construction, tension, build up, hype and payoff. Jurassic World is utterly bloodless: death is obfuscated at every opportunity or turned cartoon enough by the CG to lose all impact.

The characterisation is nonexistent. Chris Pratt is wasted and totally underdeveloped. It's a movie screaming for human characters like a John Hammond or Dr Malcolm to offset its CG dinosaurs. It's actually reasonably entertaining, to its credit, but follows its predecessors with scant concern for originality.

It also uses the same one dinosaur to wrap up two pivotal scenes, which is too lazy for words.

[Stevens]

It had been years (well over 10 or 15), but I watched The Lost Boys again.

It has held up surprisingly well, although I would recommend not drinking every time they say "Michael".

Watching it as an adult I picked up on a lot of things I missed as a kid - specifically having to do with the grandfather.

At its worst it is still light years ahead of any vampire shit that has come out recently and I would watch it again, but not anytime soon.

[xxx1993]

I thought Fury was okay.

How shitty is Jurassic World?

Average shitty.

Obviously not as good as the original. Spielberg at least understood scene construction, tension, build up, hype and payoff. Jurassic World is utterly bloodless: death is obfuscated at every opportunity or turned cartoon enough by the CG to lose all impact.

The characterisation is nonexistent. Chris Pratt is wasted and totally underdeveloped. It's a movie screaming for human characters like a John Hammond or Dr Malcolm to offset its CG dinosaurs. It's actually reasonably entertaining, to its credit, but follows its predecessors with scant concern for originality.

It also uses the same one dinosaur to wrap up two pivotal scenes, which is too lazy for words.

No way, I actually liked it more than the original. At least it's better than The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III!

[Skykid]

At least it's better than The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III!

Surprisingly debatable, although it probably pips 3 on the whole and did some things better than 2 - other things not so well.

Basically you can lump the three sequels into a similar bracket of not living up to the original.

[system11]

Just watched Mythica 2 - very enjoyable, it's another Kickstarter assisted fantasy film from Arrowstorm who I'm starting to really appreciate lately. Better than the first, cast still really likeable, will definitely be backing the third as soon as the KS opens!

[GaijinPunch]

At least it's better than The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III!

Surprisingly debatable, although it probably pips 3 on the whole and did some things better than 2 - other things not so well.

I liked 2 the best. The only cringe worthy part was the gymnastics scene (WTF?!)

More people to eat: Check
Raptors running rampant: Check
That bus falling off the cliff scene: Check

2 also had Dr. Malcolm and Pete Postlethwaite.

[JBC]

Babadook -

Terrible sound design. It's one of those where the voice track is lowered & the effects track is raised to ear shattering levels so that they can pass by on jump scares. If it makes people jump a lot they'll tell you it's scary, but it's actually just annoying. The movie is at least visually interesting & gets decent around the middle. They overuse this 'blue' motif. It explores a bit of the madness that comes with sleep deprivation. I was glad to see the lead actress was an average looking person & totally believable as a mom. The kid in the movie is infuriating to even look at, & they pull some Home Alone bullshit on you with that character right away. It's pretty overrated.

Starry Eyes -

Excellent sound design, great lead actress, disappointing scares. The movie is great about building tension & features some truly deplorable villains but once the trouble begins it falls flat. It basically becomes a body-horror with Giallo-esque brutality scenes, which is nothing really new or frightening. Pretty great ending though. I feel the antagonists should have been explored further. Def worth a watch.

[jonny5]

Terrible sound design. It's one of those where the voice track is lowered & the effects track is raised to ear shattering levels so that they can pass by on jump scares.

I've noticed this more and more with new movies - really annoying, especially when you have to crank the volume to hear the dialog...cue gunfight and the end of the world as your ears explode in the next scene.

I don't know if it's just shit audio engineers mixing it, or perhaps the way they are mixing for large theater sound systems and then not making adjustments for home setups.

Dark Knight Rises was really bad for this; not only did Bane's voice level not fit at all, every time he spoke it was like they recorded his dialog in a different room than the other actors so it just sounds really off.

[Mischief Maker]

I liked 2 the best. The only cringe worthy part was the gymnastics scene (WTF?!)

More people to eat: Check
Raptors running rampant: Check
That bus falling off the cliff scene: Check

2 also had Dr. Malcolm and Pete Postlethwaite.

My rebuttal in video form.

[Shepardus]

I've noticed this more and more with new movies - really annoying, especially when you have to crank the volume to hear the dialog...cue gunfight and the end of the world as your ears explode in the next scene.

Me too, one reason I often find myself relying on subtitles.

[Mischief Maker]

Dark Knight Rises was really bad for this; not only did Bane's voice level not fit at all, every time he spoke it was like they recorded his dialog in a different room than the other actors so it just sounds really off.

They did. Test audiences found the original recordings even harder to understand than the final cut, so they ADR'ed his entire performance with more coherent voice effects.

[GaijinPunch]

I liked 2 the best. The only cringe worthy part was the gymnastics scene (WTF?!)

More people to eat: Check
Raptors running rampant: Check
That bus falling off the cliff scene: Check

2 also had Dr. Malcolm and Pete Postlethwaite.

My rebuttal in video form.

It was still better than the campy, overrated predecessor.

They did. Test audiences found the original recordings even harder to understand than the final cut, so they ADR'ed his entire performance with more coherent voice effects.

Which is somewhat ironic (or perhaps poetic) since Nolan said he wouldn't use IMAX for every scene of a movie b/c they're so loud, and he doesn't like duping the voices over.

[Skykid]

I liked 2 the best. The only cringe worthy part was the gymnastics scene (WTF?!)

More people to eat: Check
Raptors running rampant: Check
That bus falling off the cliff scene: Check

2 also had Dr. Malcolm and Pete Postlethwaite.

But it also was overlong, scatty, full of worthless characters doing inane idiotic things and the premise had no way near the intrigue or tension of the original. The bus/cliff scene is the best, the gymnastics the worst, and just about nothing of anything else in it matches the original in terms of dramatic highs.

The original's biggest crime is the relatively anti-climatic ending - but considering everything that's played out before it just about gets off on the charge.

My rebuttal in video form.

Lol, just watched that. Yeah, it was bloody awful, thanks for the reminder.

[BrianC]

I liked the first JP movie quite a bit, but I heard the movies are nothing like the books (still need to read the first book).