Movies you've just watched

[GaijinPunch]

Today I watched Metropolis - 2.5 times in one day.

Will the version on Netflix work for me if I've never seen this before?

What's the year and length? UK and US Netflix offerings are totally different.

Will check!

It's fucking terrible, sorry GP. I don't know if Spielberg jumped the shark as much as he did jump the track, derail entirely, and kill a small village.

Dunno... maybe it's all about expectations. I went for action/frills, and didn't really expect much about the story since the first one left me somewhat flacid. Way campier than the first for sure, but it's kind of what I wanted/expected. That being said, I've only seen it the once.

[jonny5]

Watched The Drop last night on netflix. Tom Hardy was great as the lead, he's really been on a roll lately.

Quite good, although the missus and I spent the whole moving going 'they better not hurt the dog.'

She started bawling when they killed the dog in John Wick

[boagman]

Watched The Drop last night on netflix. Tom Hardy was great as the lead, he's really been on a roll lately.

Quite good, although the missus and I spent the whole moving going 'they better not hurt the dog.'

She started bawling when they killed the dog in John Wick

See, I could tell who he was from the very beginning, and he really didn't impress me in that role at all. The script certainly didn't live up to his talent (for sure), and as a result, he looked worse for it.

[jonny5]

Watched The Drop last night on netflix. Tom Hardy was great as the lead, he's really been on a roll lately.

Quite good, although the missus and I spent the whole moving going 'they better not hurt the dog.'

She started bawling when they killed the dog in John Wick

See, I could tell who he was from the very beginning, and he really didn't impress me in that role at all. The script certainly didn't live up to his talent (for sure), and as a result, he looked worse for it.

It must suck viewing every movie you watch with such high standards you can't just enjoy things for what they are. I put it on as I do most movies - in bed, fully expecting to fall asleep; the missus is usually asleep before the openings credits are done - we both made it through this one. Not bad at all. Although Rocco was the show stealer...

[Skykid]

It must suck viewing every movie you watch with such high standards you can't just enjoy things for what they are.

On the contrary, being able to see things for exactly what they are allows you to really relish the stuff that's actually well made. It's beautiful!

I actually posted a nice succinct video comparison of just this a few posts up regarding the Dorian Gray adaptations. Check out those scenes (1945 first) and see if you can spot the mediocrity.

[jonny5]

It must suck viewing every movie you watch with such high standards you can't just enjoy things for what they are.

On the contrary, being able to see things for exactly what they are allows you to really relish the stuff that's actually well made. It's beautiful!

I actually posted a nice succinct video comparison of just this a few posts up regarding the Dorian Gray adaptations. Check out those scenes (1945 first) and see if you can spot the mediocrity.

No I completely understand that, and certainly see the difference between a great movie and an ok movie, I just thought his last couple reviews were rather harsh on movies that weren't really that bad. Perhaps not shining examples of brilliant film making, but not bottom tier garbage either.

[Skykid]

It must suck viewing every movie you watch with such high standards you can't just enjoy things for what they are.

On the contrary, being able to see things for exactly what they are allows you to really relish the stuff that's actually well made. It's beautiful!

I actually posted a nice succinct video comparison of just this a few posts up regarding the Dorian Gray adaptations. Check out those scenes (1945 first) and see if you can spot the mediocrity.

No I completely understand that, and certainly see the difference between a great movie and an ok movie, I just thought his last couple reviews were rather harsh on movies that weren't really that bad. Perhaps not shining examples of brilliant film making, but not bottom tier garbage either.

Everyone sees things differently, although I do believe there's a reason for that.

I'm not sure what movies you were thinking of, but for example I thought John Wick was a horrible piece of junk. It was only interesting for the first twenty minutes. After the MTV killing spree began it just dived as hard as a film possibly could. Even the hollow Equalizer remake with Denzel was better, as was the Death Wish remake with Kevin Bacon. Actually the latter was a far superior revenge piece, but no-one gave a crap about it. I can't fathom why anyone thought John Wick was edgy or interesting instead of stupid, trite and seriously overdone.

[jonny5]

Everyone sees things differently, although I do believe there's a reason for that.

I'm not sure what movies you were thinking of, but for example I thought John Wick was a horrible piece of junk. It was only interesting for the first twenty minutes. After the MTV killing spree began it just dived as hard as a film possibly could. Even the hollow Equalizer remake with Denzel was better, as was the Death Wish remake with Kevin Bacon. Actually the latter was a far superior revenge piece, but no-one gave a crap about it. I can't fathom why anyone thought John Wick was edgy or interesting instead of stupid, trite and seriously overdone.

I was referring to his reviews like this one:

"A Walk Among The Tombstones"

I will save you the trouble of actually wasting any portion of your life to watch this horrible, horrible movie. And no: if there's some "street word" that has "horrible" meaning "good" the way "phat" and "stoopid" used to be, that's not the way I'm using "horrible" here. It's just plain awful.

Skykid, since you care about character development so much, I can absolutely assure you: this movie has *none* of it. It doesn't even *try* to have any of it. You care about *none* of the people in this movie, at any time in this movie. It's just so, so poor.

Liam Neeson, for all of the great stuff he's done in the past, is really making himself a poor legacy with unadulterated garbage like this.

I want my two hours back. Honest. It's *that* bad.

I could understand a review that extremely negative for a film like Girls gone Dead or similar drivel, but this movie seriously wasn't THAT bad. On par with Taken at least. Again, not shining examples of ultimate film making, but well watchable. Seems overly critical of a movie that really isn't supposed to be awe inspiring, just mild entertainment for a couple hours. A movie like this doesn't necessarily need character development to carry the story. Although there WAS character development, which is what confused me even more about this review.

I don't know, to each their own I guess. I just don't understand why every movie must tick every box for what makes a great movie or else it's complete shit, all or nothing. Appreciate things for what they are.

[Satan]

I don't like the taste of semen. I have never tasted semen, but I still don't give a fuck.

[Skykid]

I don't know, to each their own I guess. I just don't understand why every movie must tick every box for what makes a great movie or else it's complete shit, all or nothing.

Not at all: a movie should attempt to tick as many possible boxes within its genre and the audience it's aiming for. Die Hard would be an action movie that ticks about as many boxes as possible, but of course not all. Sometimes small flaws are part of a movie's personality, and ticking ALL the boxes is a veritable impossibility.

That said, some artistry is a necessity no matter the type of movie. Most movies these days are clinical producer drivel patched together with forgettable everything and far too much CGI.

I never heard of the movie he was referring to. Taken 1 was fairly watchable shit - morseo than its fucking unwatchable sequels - so if it's on par with that I can understand why you at least found it entertaining.

[BrianC]

Angela Lansbury was in the 1945 Dorian Gray? How was she in it?

[Stevens]

Ghostbusters

More charming and brilliant an adult comedy than it ever was. Excellently conceived and directed by its starring cast and Ivan Reitman, it's punchy and full of life and energy. The ensemble is still glued almost completely by Bill Murray of course, but Ackroyd's schoolboy enthusiasm, Rick Moranis' comedy nerd and just the right dash of African American in Winston makes a great fusion for Ghostbusting. Critically, the dialogue is superb and the improv nicely handled. Doing the whole celebration of New York city long before Raimi's Spiderman, perhaps the most impressive feat is the way it blends a touch of genuine horror with sophisticated adult humour and a concept that seems totally for children. Only in the 80s.

Simply great fun.

A great write up of one of my favorite movies. The writing and acting is excellent, but I feel that the effects have aged very well for the most part too.

[Skykid]

Angela Lansbury was in the 1945 Dorian Gray? How was she in it?

Indeed she is!

Unfortunately the 1945 version seems to have been removed from YT so I have no idea about the movie (or Lansbury) as a whole. I only know there are some small narrative changes from the book, but it's considered by most to be the best of the various film adaptations.

I'll hunt it down at some point.

[Ixmucane2]

Predestination

A straightforward, to the point of being somewhat simple, story of time travel paradoxes. Set in a slightly divergent version of 20th century USA, focusing on the period between 1962 and 1975 and ranging from 1945 to (only implied) about 2010-2020; time travel was invented in the '80s and you cannot go more than 53 years forward or backwards. Meeting oneself in another time is harmless.

Ethan Hawke is a fairly standard temporal agent (working for a nicely high-tech agency, and trying to nail a fearsome terrorist who's going to kill thousands in 1975).
He goes undercover as a bartender in New York City, and in a huge flashback a stranger tells him the sad and weird story of his life. In the second half of the plot, lots of time travel take place, showing how and why the stranger's life was/is/will be tampered with. Moral: predestination is hard work, but its benefits can be great.

The main plot twists are quite predictable: announced well in advance in apparently unimportant lines and details (very well done), obvious as soon as the questions become clear, and explained clearly, slowly and repeatedly for dense or inattentive watchers. However, important points remains unexplained or quite subtle; there might be deliberate layers of more and less plain plot elements.

Good acting, particularly Sarah Snook, and low-key special effects used only to show a number of unusual and impossible things. The depiction of time travel is particularly commendable: you press a button, you vanish, air rushes in to fill the hole.

[xxx1993]

Terminator Genisys was awesome!

[Skykid]

Predestination

A straightforward, to the point of being somewhat simple, story of time travel paradoxes. Set in a slightly divergent version of 20th century USA, focusing on the period between 1962 and 1975 and ranging from 1945 to (only implied) about 2010-2020; time travel was invented in the '80s and you cannot go more than 53 years forward or backwards. Meeting oneself in another time is harmless.

Ethan Hawke is a fairly standard temporal agent (working for a nicely high-tech agency, and trying to nail a fearsome terrorist who's going to kill thousands in 1975).
He goes undercover as a bartender in New York City, and in a huge flashback a stranger tells him the sad and weird story of his life. In the second half of the plot, lots of time travel take place, showing how and why the stranger's life was/is/will be tampered with. Moral: predestination is hard work, but its benefits can be great.

The main plot twists are quite predictable: announced well in advance in apparently unimportant lines and details (very well done), obvious as soon as the questions become clear, and explained clearly, slowly and repeatedly for dense or inattentive watchers. However, important points remains unexplained or quite subtle; there might be deliberate layers of more and less plain plot elements.

Good acting, particularly Sarah Snook, and low-key special effects used only to show a number of unusual and impossible things. The depiction of time travel is particularly commendable: you press a button, you vanish, air rushes in to fill the hole.

It's quite good! Really took me by surprise that one.

Terminator Genisys was awesome!

No fucking way.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

^it was a decent enough idea for a sequel/reboot ruined by poor direction, awful performances and extremely ropey CGI. All the twists were in the trailers.

[Skykid]

poor direction, awful performances

Par for the course these days, really. I expect nothing less from 95% of Hollywood stuff.

I think I have the cut of xxx1993's gib: 1993 is probably the year of his birth and he really really enjoys shit movies.

[Leandro]

Terminator Genisys.

The 3D is horrible, everything on the foreground is too dark. This movie theater is a piece of shit, so it's probably not the film's fault.

Better than the awful Salvation and the mediocre T3. Still light years behind T2 and the original.

Cute grandpa aspect of T-800 Arnold just didn't work for me. Too cutesy for my tastes. But of course it's good to see him anyway. Jai Courtney sucks, no charisma, what a nobody. Jason Clarke was good in his role, but I think Bale would be great this time, his intensity would fit well the 2nd half of this film, while he was completely awful in Salvation.

the movie (like every popcorn movie these days) obviously tries to capture the younger crowd, catch new viewers for future installments... Kids will probably enjoy it.

I liked the twists, glad I missed all the advertising.

[boagman]

Although there WAS character development, which is what confused me even more about this review.

Challenge.

Aside from that, while I'll spot that perhaps the run of movies I've seen lately isn't all that great, I'm not a can't-be-pleased-by-a-movie kind of person. I like lots of different things, and some things, while they don't necessarily change my life, aren't all that bad (see my thoughts on "The Lego Movie"). I do call out things that are overhyped, though. A prime example: I was told that the original "Austin Powers" movie would have me in tears of laughter. It absolutely did not. It was funny in many ways, but tears? Heck, no. Same thing was done with "The Lego Movie", and while it was fine, it didn't do anything to make me believe that I want to watch it again.

I really, *really* don't understand what was redemptive about "A Walk Among The Tombstones". I hate that I even watched it once. Can you flesh out for me what you liked about it? I saw nothing of value, even in a popcorn-eating-story sense.

[Lord Satori]

Terminator Genisys was awesome!

Never enjoy anything. The vultures here will rip you apart.

[trap15]

Only if you legitimately have bad taste.

[Skykid]

Only if you legitimately have bad taste.

Or no taste.

I think you need to be almost completely blank to, and absolutely unable to ascertain, cookie cutter movie produce, dire acting, 5 cent dialogue, regurgitated everything, artless cinematography, cardboard plotting, ridiculous premises and turns of events, lens filtering, abundantly overused CG, and so much cliché it's like 600 movies you already saw stapled together, to really get your money's worth.

If you don't see any of the above, you'll be sure to have a whale of a time every time the movie factory whips up producer team C and shits out contract movie 00118274572 to a three month schedule.

Essentially, though, despite being in the poorest shape of its life, paling compared to television, and completely lacking a shred of the artistic integrity that makes film such a wonderful medium, Hollywood is enjoying remarkable success right now precisely because "Terminator Genysis was awesome!"

You keep eating shit and they'll keep making it.

[BrianC]

Which is worse, Terminator for Sega Genesis or Terminator Genisys? I'm guessing the latter since the Genesis game at least has a neat soundtrack by Matt Furniss.

[xxx1993]

No, both are good. But the best game based on the original Terminator is for the Sega CD.

[Skykid]

No, both are good.

Terminator for the Genesis is good?

[Ixmucane2]

While we are discussing Terminator...

Maggie

Another case, similar to Fury, of trying really hard and failing honorably.

There are a good idea (a fairly standard zombie virus setting, where bitten people have a long incubation period and are supposed to be turned in for "quarantine" when they become dangerously aggressive, is used for sorrow and tragedy rather than violence and survival horror) and unusual stylistic bravery for Hollywood standards (a very slow pace, with many scenes consisting of Arnold Schwarzenegger and/or Abigail Breslin looking afflicted, and a creatively depressing photography), but almost nothing comes out of it.

The plot is preordained (the infected teenager daughter of the macho farmer is going to die at the end, nothing new), feelings are simple and shallow, the ending is abrupt and unexpected in the worst way, acting is crippled by the very modest dialogue and not really good (Arnold Schwarzenegger and Joely Richardson look suitably sad and tired, but they also look like, respectively, the Terminator and some upper class lady who's being kept forcibly away from her hairdresser; Abigail Breslin is too plump and glamorous for a dying protagonist), the remarkably artsy style cannot do better than oppressive and unceasing music, the rather coherent script is unable to avoid some standard violent scenes, and while standard zombie action is avoided meaningful, plausible zombie background is avoided too (for example, why aren't the farmers worried about food? How many people have died? how long has the epidemic been going on?).

Hopefully this film will inspire deeper and more varied zombie stories from someone who has a more interesting purpose than establishing Arnold Schwarzenegger's credibility as a dramatic actor.

[Stompp]

Finally watched Willow Can't really say if it has aged with dignity but I did enjoy it very much. Among 80's movies it's probably one of the better.

[BIL]

Terminator for the Genesis is good?

answer rhetorical question
executing script "black_man.bat"
mild scorn with profanity subroutines
###########################


Aggressively mediocre like all the other damage sponging shit Virgin did on the platform. I wipe my ass with Richard Branson's beard.

edit: Earthworm Jim is cool though!

[CMoon]

Terminator Genisys was awesome!

Never enjoy anything. The vultures here will rip you apart.

I enjoy tacos


bring it on!