I added that to my list the other day. I love movies with hot chicks who can kick ass (e.g. Atomic Blonde). And M E Winstead is hot!
Neither am I.
My apologies, but I didn't even watch it. I loved the first one, thought the second was decent, and didn't much care for the third. I lost all interest after that. A sequel's fine but when they turn a movie into a franchise, the quality almost always suffers. And I would say that about John Wick, Jack Reacher, the Liam Neeson Taken movies (cue Geoff Peterson), Mission: Impossible, Jaws, The Exorcist, The Hangover, and The Hobbit, all of which had a first movie that was enjoyable to some degree (well... except for The Hobbit).
“From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away.” – Philip Marlowe
I don't believe the Matrix sequels are bad movies per se. When the first one came along it was very different, ans it changed the way action movies were made. The look and style of the movie was unique, and it was copied endlessly by other movies. Plus it was also parodied in other movies, and on TV sketch shows.
Hence, by the time the sequels came around we had seen it all, it looked dated already.
I re watch them occasionally and I find them perfectly decent movies. Not great, and not as good as the first, but thats a very high bar to reach.
I watched The Matrix trailer last night, it looked pretty good, I'm sure I'll watch it.
I do agree with you on sequels, The Hobbit is a special case though, on the others they had a successful movie and then decided to make sequels, for The Hobbit they had source material and stretched it over three movies when it was really only 1 and added all the stupid fairgroud ride stuff with indestructible characters. All three Hobbit movies were bloody awful.
Best sequels - Godfather 2, Aliens, BladeRunner 2049.
Ian
Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on progrock.com
https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-a...re-happy-hour/
Gordon Haskell - "You've got to keep the groove in your head and play a load of bollocks instead"
I blame Wynton, what was the question?
There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.
The first and last of which are better than the originals, imo, while Aliens is certainly equal to the original.
Some more sequels that were as good or better than the original: Dawn of the Dead (the '79 version), Terminator 2, Toy Story 2, and The Bourne Supremacy & Ultimatum (in spite of the quick cuts & shaky cameras).
“From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away.” – Philip Marlowe
The Dark Knight sequels were all decent.
What can this strange device be? When I touch it, it brings forth a sound (2112)
Guess I haven't missed anything then. I consider myself a Tolkien fan, although The Hobbit always struck me more as a kids book, and not really essential. However, I really like the LOTR films, and was all set to give The Hobbit a chance, until I saw the filming technique being used, by way of the trailer. It made it look animated to my eyes. Um, no thanks. (Apologies if I've already posted something like this in the past, I probably did.)
I found The Learning Tree (1969) on YT, but it's coming soon to the Criterion collection. The story, set in Kansas during the 1920's, covers less than a year in the life of a black teenager, and documents the veritable deluge of events which force him into sudden manhood. The family relationships and enmities, the fears, frustrations and ambitions of the black teenager in small-town America are explored with a strong statement about human values. The writer of the book, Gordon Parks, also adapted and directed the film. He also made the film Shaft.
The Hobbit is a kids' book at heart; it began as stories Tolkien told his children at bedtime. He did a lot of this. Two of his postmortem book, Mr Bliss and Roverandom both grew from tales told to his kids, and of course there's the Father Christmas Letters, where he wrote and illustrated chatty letters as from Father Christmas/Santa Claus to them each year until the youngest was pretty well grown.
But about The Hobbit -- when he wrote it up for publication, he tossed in little references to his mythology -- like Elrond and Gondolin -- which was, of course, already in progress. I'm talking about the stuff that eventually became known as The Silmarillion. When his publisher pressed him for a sequel, he started out with another story of Bilbo, whom he quickly redacted that to Bilbo's nephew "Bingo". He decided right away that the best starting place for a "New Hobbit" was the ring Bilbo had received (in the first edition of The Hobbit) as a gift from Gollum. It took him a little while to come up with its history, and even then the Third Age had quite a bit of shaping-up to do before it became what you and I know and love.
For example: when they first reached Bree, the young hobbits met a strange hobbit called "Trotter", who, strangely for a hobbit, wore boots. Tolkien decided that this was because his feet had been tortured by agents of Sauron in Mordor before realizing that this was no hobbit after all, but the rightful King of the West. (And "realizing" is indeed the word: these things came to him quite by surprise.) Similarly, the notes associated with the early draftings mention an evil giant named Treebeard who imprisons Gandalf...
As you can tell, I am not merely a Tolkien fan but an amateur Tolkien scholar. (One of my friends from high school is a serious, if minor, Tolkien scholar, and co-edits the journal Tolkien Studies, and until recently prepared (now he has help) their annual survey of literature on Tolkien. He occasionally mentions a book I ought to read, and I usually do -- which yields a much better "hit" rate than when I pick something on Tolkien out for myself. (Most recently, The Lord of the Rings and the Eucharist, an entirely useless book whose author frequently seems to be confused about whether he's discussing the book or the movies.)
But enough about this. Back to movies.
On a related topic, who's seen Peter Jackson's King Kong? It's a movie that really didn't need remaking, but it was good to have something modern that was better than the 1976 version, which is possibly the low point of Jeff Bridges's career -- not to mention those of Jessica Lange, Rene Auberjonois, and Charles Grodin. Jackson's movie at least has respect for the original, as well as for the monster. And Andy Serkis is (as usual) quite brilliant doing the motions for the big ape. I'd love to see him in a movie with Doug Jones.
Cobra handling and cocaine use are a bad mix.
King Kong is pretty good except for Jack Black, who only knows how to play Jack Black.
Ian
Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on progrock.com
https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-a...re-happy-hour/
Gordon Haskell - "You've got to keep the groove in your head and play a load of bollocks instead"
I blame Wynton, what was the question?
There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.
I completely get everyone's problems with the Hobbit movies. The real culprit is MGM studios, who wanted a LOTR sized box office take to rescue their failing studio. The suits there INSISTED on three movies, each padded to epic length. Jackson admits this and his complicity in it. Regardless, I am drawn to these movies like a crow to roadkill. Despite all the flaws, it's Tolkien, on the screen with decent effects and some great acting. It's nowhere near as impactful as the other three films but if its on, I'll leave it on that station every time. Also, it's been a while since my wife and I have watched LOTR. I need to get my Tolkien on. It's clear that I need help.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
Was looking for a movie on Prime and noticed quite a few that look interesting. These are the ones I added to my list:
Midnight in Paris - haven't been a Woody Allen fan in years but this looks kinda interesting.
30 Minutes of Less - Jesse Eisenberg is a pizza delivery guy forced to rob a bank. It's a comedy.
The Grand - A Christopher Guest-like spoof of professional poker with an all star cast including David Cross, Shannon Elizabeth, Woody Harrelson, Werner Herzog, Chris Parnell, Ray Romano, Jason Alexander, Hank Azaria, and Cheryl Hines. Cheryl Hines is what sold it for me. Love that woman.
Kill Me Three Times - Simon Pegg plays an assassin. A comedy.
Parallel - some friends discover a mirror is a portal to the multiverse.
Lured - guy goes to Asia to meet a woman he's gotten to know online. A horror movie.
Only Lovers Left Alive - Tom Hiddleston and Tilda Swinton play vampire lovers in a Jim Jarmusch film. Also stars Mia Wasikowska, Anton Yelchin, and John Hurt. The trailer made it look interesting. It's a dramedy.
In Dreams - Robert Downey Jr plays a serial killer terrorizing Annette Bening.
Vantage Point - "Seen from seven different perspectives, the President - who's really a body double - is shot during a speech in Madrid, while the real President is kidnapped by terrorists." Sounds kinda convoluted - and interesting.
The Informer - Joel Kinnamen is an ex-con who gets himself sent to prison to infiltrate the mob. Why? IDK.
Breach - SF movie with Bruce Willis and shape shifting aliens.
The Map of Tiny Perfect Things - a high school boy is apparently stuck in a time loop. Eventually he meets a high school girl stuck in the same loop. They fall in love. Some sort of twist occurs. Looks kind of interesting.
The Eyes of Lara Mars - I remember when this was released but never got a chance to see it. Faye Dunaway plays a woman who develops the ability to see gruesome murders before they take place.
When the hell am I going to watch all these?
“From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away.” – Philip Marlowe
That's my problem. It simply isn't Tolkien. The LotR films took some dreadful liberties, but The Hobbit not only had some ridiculous additions to make it what MGM wanted, it simply lost the spirit of the book. It is a simple little boy's adventure book (complete with no named female characters), with a lot of (admittedly rather twee) humor and some really scary (for a kid) scenes. All of that, except the "scary" part, is lost. And a Dwarf-Elf romance is simply anti-Tolkien. (Yes he has some Elf-Human couples, but that's okay in his mind because they're both Children of Eru, which the Dwarves, technically, are not.) The whole scene in the underground Goblin city is ridiculous rather than scary.
What is good in these films:
1. The unexpected party.
That's it. Shortly thereafter, Jackson (at the behest of MGM) completely loses his shit, or perhaps Tolkien's, and any resemblance to the book goes to Hell.
Cobra handling and cocaine use are a bad mix.
100% agree
Ian
Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on progrock.com
https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-a...re-happy-hour/
Gordon Haskell - "You've got to keep the groove in your head and play a load of bollocks instead"
I blame Wynton, what was the question?
There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.
Watched the new Clint Eastwood , Cry Macho , in theaters and HBOMAX . Relativly small movie , 91 year old Eastwood still bringfs it and its worth a watch.Nothing earth shattering but its Clint , so check it out if you're a fan.
What I am about to say refers to the books, not the movies... count me as one who always preferred The Hobbit to LOTR, because I preferred it’s much lighter tone, it’s coziness. The reason is simple... who didn’t want to live in Bag End? Or a Hobbiton? And the realization of Bag End by Jackson in movies is perfect for me. I think Jackson’s visualization of the underground Goblin city is also incredible. That said, how he/MGM butchered the tone of the original source material is, like someone else said, an abomination. The escape from the goblin city in barrels in the movie is a prime example. It deviated so far from how the original went that it completely ruins the tone as well as taking away from Bilbo’s growth and cleverness in The Hobbit.
Jackson’s biggest problem is that he goes so over the top in action sequences. InKing Kong, he just can’t have a stampede of Apatosauruses, it has to be a stampede down a cliff side road. And the cliff side road has the crumbling. Oh, let’s throw in attacking raptors in the midst of the stampede! Wait, the raptors can also spit fire and carry AK-47s!! Oh wait, not enough danger. I know! Lava! Oh wait, how about giant foot long flying spiders with stingers!?!
Its been years since I’ve seen Return Of The King, but I seem to remember that Jackson was able to make more menace from the Shelob scene than the hundreds of giant spiders in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets which came out just a little before.
Brian Dennehy: "I'm now 80 and I'm just another actor and that's fine with me. I've had a hell of a ride," ... "I have a nice house. I haven't got a palace, a mansion, but a pretty nice, comfortable home. I've raised a bunch of kids and sent them all to school, and they're all doing well. All the people that are close to me are reasonably healthy and happy. Listen, that's as much as anybody can hope for in life."
Dave Made A Maze
I had to watch this because I have a screwed up fascination for mazes Used to make cardboard mazes and stuff for my nieces all the time as well as workin in haunted houses and all that sort of thing. Anyway, for that reason I found this fun. The idea is cool, the cardboard world is creative and there is lots of corny humor. The movie kinda falls flat about halfway through, but I enjoyed it overall. Maybe give it a whirl if you want to turn your brain off and kill a quick 80 mins or so. On Shudder.
6 out of 10 giant paper vaginas
"Who would have thought a whale would be so heavy?" - Moe Sizlak
Bookmarks