Thread: Movies - Take Two. Action!

  1. #6301
    Member since March 2004 mozo-pg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    15,529
    Quote Originally Posted by hippypants View Post
    I just watched it. I was pretty indifferent to the trilogy. I thought they should have stopped at the first movie. The 2nd and 3rd movies to me were just an elongated regurgitation of that one, and didn't really add too much to the story for me. I'm not even sure I understood the conclusion to it, Spoilers: other than the machines overthrew the human race. There was too much kung fu action and bullets flying for me, and not enough story. I might see or stream the 4th movie if it gets pretty good reviews. It would be interesting if they went further into Reeves character ie. was he crazy, was it real, or just a mental break. From the trailer though, it looks like they are going to reprise what the trilogy did.
    I agree 2 and 3 were much weaker than the original. I'm a big fan of Reeve's recent work with John Wick so I'm hoping this one is decent.
    What can this strange device be? When I touch it, it brings forth a sound.

  2. #6302
    Member since 7/13/2000 Hal...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Buckeye Nation
    Posts
    2,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Lou View Post
    Kate
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveSly View Post
    He... claims that his latter-day film choices were done for artistic reasons, but not sure that Iím buying that.
    Neither am I.

    Quote Originally Posted by mozo-pg View Post
    Is nobody interest in the clip I posted on the Matrix reboot? I'm definitely going to see it!
    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).
    Many years ago, I started a misanthropic club. I'm still the only member.

  3. #6303
    Quote Originally Posted by mozo-pg View Post
    I agree 2 and 3 were much weaker than the original. I'm a big fan of Reeve's recent work with John Wick so I'm hoping this one is decent.
    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.

  4. #6304
    I'm here for the moosic NogbadTheBad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    7,812
    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

    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.

  5. #6305
    Studmuffin Scott Bails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Near Philly, PA
    Posts
    4,992
    Quote Originally Posted by NogbadTheBad View Post
    Best sequels - Godfather 2, Aliens, BladeRunner 2049.
    I would add The Empire Strikes Back to this list.
    Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally

  6. #6306
    Member since 7/13/2000 Hal...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Buckeye Nation
    Posts
    2,398
    Quote Originally Posted by NogbadTheBad View Post
    Best sequels - Godfather 2, Aliens, BladeRunner 2049.
    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).
    Many years ago, I started a misanthropic club. I'm still the only member.

  7. #6307
    Member since March 2004 mozo-pg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    15,529
    The Dark Knight sequels were all decent.
    What can this strange device be? When I touch it, it brings forth a sound.

  8. #6308
    Quote Originally Posted by NogbadTheBad View Post
    All three Hobbit movies were bloody awful.
    I think you're being far too kind to them. They are abominations.
    National Flat Earth Society: The only thing we have to fear, is sphere itself.

  9. #6309
    Member Joe F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Bothell, Washington
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerjo View Post
    One of Kilmer's better late-period movies is the 2005 Kiss Kiss Bang Bang with Robert Downey Jr.
    Absolutely!

    I also liked him in Spartan for a later role.

  10. #6310
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Planet Lovetron
    Posts
    9,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Sturgeon's Lawyer View Post
    I think you're being far too kind to them. They are abominations.
    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.)
    15 Cuban minutes
    Can get lost in the fog
    Life's a test, just do your best
    Like a three-legged dog

    http://www.discogs.com/user/moecurlythanu/collection

  11. #6311
    Highly Evolved Orangutan JKL2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    11,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Hal... View Post
    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).
    I love Dawn of the Dead. I may have seen that more than any other movie.
    The sweet smell of Afghanistan rewards a long dayís toil.

  12. #6312
    Member hippypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tyler, Tx
    Posts
    1,298
    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.

  13. #6313
    Quote Originally Posted by moecurlythanu View Post
    I consider myself a Tolkien fan, although The Hobbit always struck me more as a kids book, and not really essential.
    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.
    National Flat Earth Society: The only thing we have to fear, is sphere itself.

  14. #6314
    I'm here for the moosic NogbadTheBad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    7,812
    King Kong is pretty good except for Jack Black, who only knows how to play Jack Black.
    Ian

    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.

  15. #6315
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Kalamazoo Michigan
    Posts
    5,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Sturgeon's Lawyer View Post
    [I][B]

    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.
    It was ok, but did not really blow me away.

  16. #6316
    Quote Originally Posted by NogbadTheBad View Post
    King Kong is pretty good except for Jack Black, who only knows how to play Jack Black.
    Lucky for him he's Jack Black then...😊

  17. #6317
    Member moecurlythanu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Planet Lovetron
    Posts
    9,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Mail View Post
    Lucky for him he's Jack Black then...��
    If he was someone else, and was playing Jack Black, he'd have more range.
    15 Cuban minutes
    Can get lost in the fog
    Life's a test, just do your best
    Like a three-legged dog

    http://www.discogs.com/user/moecurlythanu/collection

  18. #6318
    Member Jerjo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    small town in ND
    Posts
    5,186
    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

  19. #6319
    Member since 7/13/2000 Hal...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Buckeye Nation
    Posts
    2,398
    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?
    Many years ago, I started a misanthropic club. I'm still the only member.

  20. #6320
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerjo View Post
    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...
    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.
    National Flat Earth Society: The only thing we have to fear, is sphere itself.

  21. #6321
    I'm here for the moosic NogbadTheBad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    7,812
    100% agree
    Ian

    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.

  22. #6322
    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.

  23. #6323
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Kalamazoo Michigan
    Posts
    5,891
    Quote Originally Posted by nycsteve View Post
    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.
    Thanks, I love Clint and was curious if this was any good.

  24. #6324
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    West Chester, PA
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Sturgeon's Lawyer View Post
    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.
    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."

  25. #6325
    Irritated Lawn Guy Klonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Rockland, NY
    Posts
    1,741
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •