Omni's Random Video Noise [Archive] - Page 2

Omnizoa

04-27-16, 10:46 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25111&stc=1&d=1461807951

Ikiru

Drama / Japanese / 1952

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
In a semi-sarcastic effort to de-plebianize myself, I decided to watch Ikiru after it also popped up in listings for Criterion Collection movies.

I took Zotis's push for Akira Kurosawa as an opportunity to watch Seven Samurai, but I distinctly recall Ikiru on Zotis's favorites list before he took them down. Perhaps this is what he had in mind?

My only impression of this movie is that it's a drama, and I said my favorite part of Seven Samurai was the character interactions, so going all in in that department should be a no-brainer, right?

Well, drama's a hard sell for me. Will Ikiru pull it off? WILL IT BLOW MY FRIGGEN' MIND??? Let's find out.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
Ikiru is by no means a bad movie, but unfortunately, I can't help but begin describing it as... a movie that shifts wholly back and forth between powerful moments and heavy-handed emotional drama.

I instantly recognize our samurai master,Takashi Shimura, as our lead and I think, "Hey! I liked him! Glad to see he's our lead this time." before opening narration informs us that he's already dead inside and about to discover that he has stomach cancer.

Following a great montage that takes a "**** yeah!" righteous stab at bureaucracy, our main man, who... I don't even know the name of. Section Chief? His name is Section Chief. Goes to a hospital and in a fairly roundabout way learns he probably has cancer. PROBABLY.

We never get any medical confirmation of that, or at least he doesn't. Seems a bit of a stretch to expect us to buy that he should be so certain he's doomed to die based on something a random stranger says. I think further emphasis on his interpretation of the how the doctors were acting would have telegraphed that information better.

Hell, this same plotbeat was told better in the song, Nightmare to Remember (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4RQmEiNdsZ8). I say it's better because we at least get the same impression from the perspective of the character. As far as he should know he really does just have an ulcer.

Anyway, he abandons work and rolls through various coping mechanisms. I say "various", but really he does two things:

He hits up a stranger who takes pity on him and takes him out partying and he tries to live vicariously through one of his upbeat employees.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25110&stc=1&d=1461807880

I honestly expected to see more things, but immediately following that we timeskip to after he's died and we're told through LONG expository dialog by ******* bureaucrats at his funeral WHAT HE DID.

Apparently he sought out the problem that was presented to him at the beginning of the movie and decided to fix it, making a park which he dies in for thematic significance.

I REALLY don't think this was the best way to present this story. It rips me out of it to divorce us from the story's continuity at such an odd time only to flash forward and then flash backward, only giving us glimpses of what happened intermixed with a pretty meager attempt to redeem his co-workers, which we're shown doesn't even stick.

Way to depress the hell out of me. Not even the one guy who suddenly sticks up for him out of the blue does anything like quit out of conscience. It's just a very ugly snapshot of bureaucracy.

I agree, bureaucracy is an ugly thing, but is that all this movie was trying to tell me?

You might argue that the story is of this man's significance as someone who breaks the mold.

Alright, I could buy that, but unfortunately I feel the movie stumbles over that in the same way. Also I really can't get over Mr. Takashi's performance.

Make no mistake, we've got some great moments with him, particularly when his son lays into him with cutting accusations of greed and promiscuity, not to mention an inheritance dispute. WOW. WAY TO MAKE ME HATE THAT CHARACTER.

Friggen' nice. The biggest kick here is we never really get to see his son eat that sweet sweet karmic backlash by finding out what he did by snuffing his dad in his moment of weakness, no, for some reason everybody's just out of the loop that he knew he had cancer.

I really don't know how this serves the story. Everybody's ignorance just feels like trampling on a grave.

But honestly, my biggest issue with the movie is this:

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/ikiru_bunny.png

It's that overacting again. It's that miserable, hunched, bug-eyed, look of horror on his face at all times that kills me. On top of his silence. He barely says anything most times, leaving people to wonder what's wrong with him and so scenes are just protracted out to a frustrating degree. I really liked the "Life is Brief" scene, but that should have been the climax for that arc in his development.

Isn't the common theme of knowing your doom, fear, followed by resignation? I don't feel like we ever got to that point. At the very least, we weren't able to share it with the character before he was whisked away into history.

I prefer Seven Samurai.

Final Verdict: rating_3 [Meh...]

Sexy Celebrity

04-27-16, 10:52 PM

I like "In the Mouth of Madness." I first saw it back in the '90s when it became available to rent. Your review makes me wanna see it again soon.

Omnizoa

04-27-16, 11:09 PM

I like "In the Mouth of Madness." I first saw it back in the '90s when it became available to rent. Your review makes me wanna see it again soon.
I don't even think it was a very good review, but yeah, it's fun, check it out.

https://thelosthour.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/in-the-mouth-of-madness-2.gif

Omnizoa

05-06-16, 12:08 AM

I've rewatched Imaginaerum by Nightwish and updated my review of it here: CLICKITY CLACK (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1469388#post1469388)

Omnizoa

05-09-16, 01:25 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25236&stc=1&d=1462809933

Lifeforce

Sci-Fi Horror / English / 1985

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Been venturing pretty far outside what might be described as my comfort zone, so here's an 80s B-Grade Sci-Fi movie!

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
Lifeforce immediately drops all pretenses at the beginning when it calls itself an adaption of a book called "Space Vampires".

Darn.

Alright, so how is the accurately titled, "Space Vampires"?

Well, the first half is dull, dull, dull, dull setup. It's very dull. Boring in fact, it's actually pretty boring. Mindnumbing you might say.

It begins out in space, SPACE!, where we got all the cool set design and then they find the vampires and bring them back to Earth where the rest of the movie takes place.

Oh... Earth... ( -__-)

It's just a lot of characters talking, speculating, becoming erotically transfixed with to the "perfect" nude woman who wakes up and starts sucking people's souls out. I guess that's risque, but I don't think the movie as a whole pushes the envelope far enough to be interesting.

THAT IS, until the second half of the movie where Patrick Stewart shows up, becomes possessed by Space Vampire Lady and wills an angry kiss from the nearest man.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25237&stc=1&d=1462810345
"No... no! Let go of me! LET GO OF ME!!!"

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25238&stc=1&d=1462810412
"Not until I get myself a piece of your hot young thang~"

After that moment permanently imprints itself into your mind, the rest of the movie pretty much just replays that whole Raccoon City bit before it ends with a couple vampires getting staked through the hea- I mean um... "energy"...

Cause they're "space"... vampires...

Other than that fairly amusing scene with Patrick Stewart, about the only decent or memorable thing about this movie is the practical effects they used to show the characters who've had the life sucked out of them. Or the "zombies" if you will.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/lifeforce.gif

Save one or two moments of glaring puppetry, they're actually pretty convincing.

Good on you Lifeforce, you made a pretty decent zombie, sort of...

...in a movie about vampires, sort of...

...that's supposed to be sci-fi, sort of...

I dunno, here's another funny picture of Patrick Stewart:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25239&stc=1&d=1462811016

Final Verdict: rating_3 [Meh...]

Gideon58

05-12-16, 11:30 AM

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/sexual_.gif

The Secretary

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
After seeing Patrick Bateman almost murder his secretary it reminded me, "Hey! The Secretary! I was meaning to watch that!" Mainly because I've heard it suggested over 50 Shades of Grey and hey, it'd be interesting if an SM-centric relationship drama managed to sell me, huh?

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
I really liked the first hour of this movie. It set up an interesting relationship between our main girl and Mr. lawyer dude. I was pleased to see that he wasn't going to be a total dick, but instead seemed legitimately concerned about her well-being, especially with regards to her cutting and family problems.

That was until the movie stepped out onto the railroad tracks and got hit by the stupid train.

The spanking scene comes on way too suddenly, and out of friggen' nowhere we're right where the beginning of the movie flash-forwarded to. They're just suddenly in an SM relationship now. Okay.

I would have preferred to have them more gradually slide into it with Mr. lawyer guy's punishments snowballing into the SM stuff rather that just *SPANK* "OH MY GOD I LOVE YOU NOW."

The rest of the movie gets really awkward, especially when Mr. lawyer guy pulls the, "I MADE A MISTAKE, YOU'RE FIRED" card which is always a rational and well-intentioned end to a workplace relationship, right?

All of it results a scene where our main girl runs away from her wedding and agrees to a test of her obedience by starving herself in his office chair where she pisses herself.

-1 point for the wedding. I hate weddings.

x2 MULTIPLIER! for bailing on a wedding when you had already agreed to it. Dick move.

x4 MULTIPLIER!! for urinating on camera. I didn't want to see that.

x8 MULTIPLIER!!! for urinating on an innocent woman's wedding dress. What'd she do to you?

x16 MULTIPLIER!!!! for another wedding.

Blegh. I've seen better endings to pornos.

By the way, I know the main lead's name is "Edward Grey", but we learn virtually nothing about him while we learn a lot about "main girl". And her name doesn't stick, so why should his?

Final Verdict: rating_2 [Just... Bad]

I loved your review of this film...it never really approached my radar because I've never been that crazy about Maggie Gyllenhaal, but your review has piqued my curiosity.

Omnizoa

05-12-16, 05:51 PM

I loved your review of this film...it never really approached my radar because I've never been that crazy about Maggie Gyllenhaal, but your review has piqued my curiosity.
Thank you!

Omnizoa

05-16-16, 04:39 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25418&stc=1&d=1463384331

Thought Crimes:
The Case of the Cannibal Cop

Documentary / English / 2015

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
So I was listening to scary stories about serial killers on Youtube which linked me to binge watching a bunch of TV documentaries about serial killers which linked me to this which, incidentally, isn't about serial killers.

Kinda.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
I'm going to overlook my usual gripes for this review since they're relatively petty and intrusive on the topic at hand and just say: I thought this was an excellent documentary.

If you don't know it essentially deals with dissecting the moral dilemma of somebody who's demonstrated extreme sexual deviance (read as: aroused by the thought of kidnapping, torturing, and cooking alive before eating family and friends), but hasn't acted on it.

Basically, this guy gets caught by his wife for having said some pretty ****ed up stuff online and it's brought against him legally for conspiracy to act on it. One side of the fence argues that he's a monster and should be locked up, the other side says to do so would be thought crime.

I strongly disagree with the idea that documentaries should present a neutral position on every topic, honestly that perspective really irks me, particularly when the the arguments are one-sided SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE the opposition is indefensible. But this drops us directly into a present moral gray area and it's interesting to hear both sides present strong compelling arguments only to have them cut down by the opposition by presenting new distinctions.

It's all fantasy... UNTIL you involve real people.

It's all fantasy... UNTIL you take actions to commit a crime.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25417&stc=1&d=1463384309

The documentary juggles around the idea of how this sort of thing even happens in the first place and sure enough, this guy isn't anything like your average serial killer, he's not socially inept, he wasn't abused by his parents, no one in his family even expected this of him, he's JUST A GUY. And a few point their fingers at society for it's general repression of sexuality, even addressing the issue of dishonesty in relationships founded on concealing these things of one's partner.

I really liked it, it hit the nail on the head for a number of things I've been thinking about and I'm pleasantly surprised to have come across it randomly. I definitely recommend you watch it and I will link below, THOUGH I do warn it's some seriously rough **** to look at and be expected to consider even-handedly.

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPwb0-tYLWs

Omnizoa

05-21-16, 12:14 AM

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/wings1.gif

Wings of Desire

Fantasy Drama / German / 1987

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Popped up in my search for carnival movies (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=45688). Sounded super interesting.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
Conceptually, Wings of Desire is great (and you know it's a good sign when I open up that way), but this movie is stupid boring.

The premise is that angels walk among us, observe us, and in times of grief can grant us a modicum of positivity. The twist here is that only children can see them and the angels' experiences are dulled in black and white, unable taste, smell, feel pain, you name it, their only real abilities are to fly, walk through walls, and and read minds. The story follows, primarily, one angel who becomes fascinated with a trapeze artist and becomes mortal to live life in her world.

Sounds great, right? Could be an excellent opportunity to paint a portrait of life and humanity and grief and IIIIII was just ****in' disappointed.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/wings2.gif

I have one singular issue with the whole movie and it's that it spends approximately 60+% of it WALLOWING, ****in' WALLOWING in philosophical navel-gazing that doesn't draw any conclusions, doesn't make, any points and often borders and even ventures directly into complete and utter nonsense.

You could be saying something MEANINGFUL, but instead it spends it's time needlessly drawing out scenes and babbling about things we have virtually no context for. There are people who think in clipped disconnected thoughts (you know, like really people?), but then there are these, I can scarcely call them, characters that walk around with an inner monologue full of complete mess.

The movie could do with some serious editing down and a stronger soundtrack would have definitely eased the frequently dead silence, but the biggest problem really is what they wasted their time on in each scene.

I will give you one example; this is verbatim what happens in the movie: Imagine you're an angel, descended from on high and have become mortal to see this woman. You go to a concert and find her at the bar. You offer her a drink and BEFORE YOU CAN EVEN SAY A WORD, THIS HAPPENS:

I’ve never been lonely, neither alone, nor with someone else.*lean in closer* Pardon me? I didn't catch that.

But I would have liked to be lonely.Oh! Di-did you want me to leave?

Lonelieness means: I am whole at last.Ummm... what?

Now I can say it, as tonight I’m lonely at last.A-are... you monologuing at me right now?

I must put an end to coincidence. The new moon of decision. I don’t know if there is a destiny, but there is a decision. Decide.Wait, me? I decide? I thought you were maki- aaalright, umm... I'd like to do it?

Now we are the times.What does that mean?

Not only the whole town, the whole world is taking part in our decision.WHOA, I'm really not cool with the WHOLE WORLD knowin'...

Now we are more than the two of us.Uhhhh... an... orgy?

We incarnate something. We are sitting on the People’s Square... and the whole place is full of people whose dream is the same as ours.Dang, you're into some kinky ****, lady.

We are deciding everybody’s game.What does that mean???

I am ready. Now it’s your turn.What did you take a turn already!? I missed this! What's going on!?

You hold the game in your hands. Now or never.Quit pressuring me! W-what game!?

You need me. You will need me.Would you make up your ****in' mind!?

There is no greater story than ours, that of man and woman.Are we talkin' about sex? We're talking about sex, right?

It will be a story of giants.Yes! Everyone in People's Square will see us!

Invisible, transposable.A-w-wait, are you into exhibitionism or not? You're really confusing me.

A story of new ancestors.You mean children? You mean children. Those are called successors, and I wasn't really thinking in the LONG TERM, actually...

Look, my eyes.YesIseeyoureyesarelovely, I guess I see what you're saying, I should have thought a bit more carefully, I mean we just meet and neither of us really want there to be a thing, I mean if you got pregnant, phew, yeah I think I'm pickin' up what you're layin' down.

They are the image of necessity... of the future of everyone in the place.Your eyes are... the future of... WHAT PLACE!?

Last night I dreamt of a stranger.OH YEAH! YEAHYEAHYEAH! That was me! You see I'm actually an angel, except not anymore, but I touched you while you were sleeping and you had a dream about me!

Of my man.Yeeeeaaaahhhh!! I'm your man alright, the man of your dreams!

Only with him could I be lonely...http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/wings3.gif

You know what, lady? I don't think I'm feelin' this anymore.

open up to him... wholly open, wholly for him... welcome him wholly into me...Yeeeaaaahhhh, it sounds like you're talking about sex... but I don't think you're talking about sex.

surround him with the labyrinth of shared happiness.I really... REALLY don't see why you have to make a labyrinth out of this!

I know... it’s you. *smooch*Alright, you know what? **** this. If it's gonna take a college thesis on existentialism to round first base I'm going to have wasted my entire mortal life before I experience my first orgasm.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/538/437/341.gif

Final Verdict: rating_3 [Meh...]

Captain Steel

05-21-16, 12:35 AM

Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop - I saw this too!

Fascinating. The topic is difficult (and I'm not talking about the cannibalism) - but the trying to determine where the thin line between a thought and an intention lies, and when it's been crossed.

I had a similar experience (again, not the cannibalism ;)) in coming across the film randomly, but as soon as I found it, it triggered memories of the many headline & radio shows I'd heard about the case. Since I have a mild interest in the unusual & the macabre (and since one of my favorite movies is Alive (1993)), I had to watch this.

It's a totally interesting and bizarre case in that (SPOILERS!)...
no crime ever actually occurred (aside from the cop utilizing the police database for personal use). But the way I saw it, no crime was ever really going to occur and this guy was tried on the basis of his disgusting fantasies that he shared with others who had similar interests.

Omnizoa

05-21-16, 01:06 AM

I also think it hangs a lampshade on that thin line at the end went it says the other people he was involved with online had actually crossed it in some regard.

Captain Steel

05-21-16, 01:19 AM

I also think it hangs a lampshade on that thin line at the end went it says the other people he was involved with online had actually crossed it in some regard.

True, but if I remember correctly he was about as directly involved with them as you and I are right now (i.e. communicating on line).

I hate to admit this, but part of me felt sorry for this guy. I hate to see people have their lives utterly destroyed over doing stupid things.

However, if anyone should have common sense it should be a cop. Still, this guy lost everything over something stupid. If he was an actual killer I'd have no pity for him, but he seems like an eccentric weirdo who got carried away with his deviant fantasies and had his entire life destroyed over a few mistakes (wasn't he like on the verge of erasing everything when his wife found it? And if he'd just acted a few minutes sooner to put this behind him, none of this ever would have happened?)

On a separate note - my sick sense of humor was somewhat entertained when the guy and his mom made jokes about cooking!

The ending about him dating seemed simultaneously pitiful and unintentionally funny.

Omnizoa

05-21-16, 01:58 AM

True, but if I remember correctly he was about as directly involved with them as you and I are right now (i.e. communicating on line).
That's what I meant. In the most positive interpretation, he was just roleplaying, but that was him, others were taking it further.

How would it look if you were on MoFo for the movies, but all of us were suddenly arrested for a massive digital piracy scheme that several of the people you were regularly talking to were directly a part of?

Omnizoa

05-26-16, 06:40 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25529&stc=1&d=1464255520

Cirque Du Soleil: Worlds Away

Fantasy Art / English / 2012

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Another bump in the road on my quest for carnival movies. Wanted to see it since I'd heard about it.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
Having only seen the commercial and none of the acts supposedly incorporated into the movie I had one single feeling going in:

"Gosh, I hope this what I wanted Across The Universe to be."

Imagine my surprise when they played a Beatles song.

And then another one.

And then another one.

And then another one.

And OH MY GOD THERE LIKE 7 BEATLES SONGS THIS WHOLE MOVIE.

Not that I necessarily mind them, but they honestly got really distracting after the after the first two. I mean, I like Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds as much as the next person, but holy crap when I see a Yellow Submarine when that song isn't even playing and when they leave the circus tent I can see it's decorated with amorphous strawberry imagery, I get a big feeling that this part of the movie is trying to tell me something.

Maybe that it just likes The Beatles? Probably, but still...

Anyway, having seen what Cirque Du Soleil is prior to watching this, I was honestly disappointed by what I got.

One one hand the movie has a fantastic opening and manages to do a lot with very little dialog. In fact at one point our heroine cries "Help!" and my first thought was:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PWk3i9WT-8

But no, that was just me being cynical. They play Get Back instead.

WWWHHHAAATTT???

Anywayanywayanyway... there's not much in the way of a bridging narrative between the acts.

In fact, that's a gross understatement, there's practically nothing and that's one of my biggest complaints. We set up this girl visiting a circus and falling into the world of CDS, but she almost immediately takes a background seat to drawn out stage performances which leads me to believe that the bridging narrative not only wasn't a big concern for them, it was practically ignored.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25530&stc=1&d=1464255546

That really bothers me since I would have enjoyed seeing this character escorted through different themed performances and that's KIND OF what they do, but only in the barest possible sense since we constantly lose track of her and the camera quickly forgets that she exists. We gets glimpses of the "Aerialist", but save three specific performances, he barely carries much narrative weight in the majority of the movie too.

The surrealism they go for also detracts from the themeing aspect I wished they'd pursued harder since it's frequently unclear what kind of themes they were going for.

Some performances are pretty exceptional in this regard: When the Aerialist is first released he does a solo with a wire cube which I think is an excellent way of portraying the how aerial acrobatics are elemental to Cirque Du Soleil. A lot of other **** is pretty... WTF-am-I-watching type of performance art.

At the very least the entire movie is very visually interesting and it's not as if there's a plot to criticize (kissing, ugh). The stunts are huge and impressive and some of my favorite moments are when they exercise their sets creatively such as when we smash cut to some pretty transparent bad guys and this industrial tone kicks in as we got guys in the background doing crazy stuff in giant hampster wheels in the background. The good guy/bad guy theme also appears again later when bad guys from sidestage shoot "arrows" at the platform that the good guys are climbing up, only for the entire platform to tilt and begin rotating while the "arrows" are used as acrobatic bars in a mock fight.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25531&stc=1&d=1464255583

They do some cool stuff and while there were a few big distractions I think it manages to elevate itself above Across The Universe in terms of musical performance while falling short of Imaginaerum in terms of narrative depth.

There's certainly something to be said for the stuntwork though and if you haven't seen a Cirque show yet, I definitely recommend this one.

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

Omnizoa

05-26-16, 10:46 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25532&stc=1&d=1464270314

Wing Chun

Martial Arts Comedy / Chinese / 1994

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Back to martial arts movies, I found this one starring Michelle Yeoh. A martial arts movie with a female lead? Lets get some Action Girl rolling!

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
Wing Chun is weird and amazing.

It's amazing because the fights are actually really cool and it's weird because it's just... bizarre and stupid at times.

Normally I'd complain about how long the movie idles between fight scenes, but surprisingly this movie is extremely brisk. I'm all in favor of that since I honestly don't expect the stories to be good, but it's worth considering that so much information flies by at a mile a minute it's difficult to even nail down what the conflict is at first.

What you eventually figure out is Wing Chun is a martial artist, returned from training in the mountains to help serve... some sort of food alongside a character whose name I don't know so I'll simply name Smelly Woman because that's the only way other characters describe her (she's got some money thing going on, but I couldn't tell you in the slightest what any of it means). Their joint is the best in town, but supposedly not best enough because no one likes Smelly Woman and Wing Chun is I guess too manly for them...

Nice.

One day a younger woman shows up with her dying husband in tow. He dies, we get some drama about whether or not to prostitute her for funeral costs...

Nice.

http://cdn.pastemagazine.com/www/articles/38martialarts-wingchun%20%28Custom%29.jpg

And eventually she joins Wing Chun and Smelly Woman as the server at their establishment and it gets all the men in town hot and bothered including Waise Lee (who I swear looks almost exactly like Tony Leung Chiu-wai), but excluding Donnie Yen who's seeking out Wing Chun after being separated since childhood.

There's a whole thing in which he mistakes the new girl for Wing Chun, Wing Chun for a man, and Wing Chun as the new girl's lover.

The story gets pretty uncomfortable around the time the new girl states matter-o-factly that it's because her husband died that she suddenly wants cock...

Nice.

In fact, this scene leads into Smelly Woman declaring that "All men are disgusting" to which the new girl replies by showing her the wonders of orgasmic lesbian foot massages (which just look like tickling). This immediately compels her to jump Waise Lee for some reason.

Honestly, the feminist overtones are pretty ****ing huge in this movie even going so far as to include a character that literally says:

Men are better than women except at having babies. Therefor I’m certain to beat you.That's HILARIOUSLY bad dialog and it doesn't end there.

Fortunately the core relationship between Michelle Yeoh and Donnie Yen is pretty decent (save a marriage scene because of course there's a marriage scene) and I'm relieved that it doesn't conclude with Wing Chun becoming "feminized". In fact I was really worried when Wing Chun revisits her master (female) who tells her that to defeat the bandit gang (by the way there's a bandit gang that doesn't factor into the rest of this story at all except to provide fight scenes) she must "find a man".

*SIGH*

Great, even Wing Chun needs a man to complete her life.

Actually, what I was expecting was for Donnie Yen to steal Michelle Yeoh's thunder in the final fight, but he's totally offscreen for the entire fight. The final fight is a bit anticlimactic too, albeit amusingly so since the bandits are all forced to bow before Wing Chun and call her "mother".

Probably the stupidest part of the whole movie is when Wing Chun chases the bandit leader out of the restaurant and finds the new girl, kidnapped and in a cart, just a few feet away and decides to just stop fighting and stand there as they drive away.

Well, come on, they got to the cart first, it's only fair to let them go and only chase after them after SOMEBODY ELSE CHASES AFTER THEM AND MANAGES TO BEAT HALF OF 'EM UP.

WTF, Wing Chun? Move yer ass!

Also horses.

But you know what? The fight scenes are the most important part, and how are they?

Pretty ****in' good.

Wing Chun kicks a massive ton of ass, the impact is there, the environment is used creatively, and even the superhuman stuff gets a laugh out of me, not because it's terrible, but because it's so over-the-top and this movie clearly isn't trying to take itself terribly seriously. Just look at this one scene which caused me to burst out laughing because it came right the **** out of nowhere:

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/brasnatch.gif

Yeah, I made that gif. I had to, because that's ****in' amazing. That guy's called "Flying Monkey" performing what can only be the most advanced ultimate move in his arsenal: The Flying Monkey Bra Snatch Technique. Wow.

Anyway, Wing Chun is easily one of the better martial arts movies I've seen and I'm pleased I watched it. STILL BETTER than House of Flying Daggers.

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

Omnizoa

05-26-16, 01:57 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25536&stc=1&d=1464281737

Cherry 2000

Action / English / 1987

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Aaand back to 80s sci-fi. Really making the rounds now aren't we? Red-headed Action Girl in a future wasteland? Let's do it (also neat poster (http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25535&stc=1&d=1464281714)).

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
UUUUGGGHHHHH... more like Crappy 2000.

Cats, donkeys, snakes, fish, Cherry 2000 is about as sub-par as it gets.

We open up on a man learning the hard way why you never get water on your robot wife before learning that his robot wife's model, Cherry 2000 is so outdated that it can only be found in the lawless wasteland outside of a world where sex requires a contract. For some reason.

He meets up with E. Johnson, our red-headed Action Girl, immediately underestimates her (because she's a woman you see), before eventually going with her to track down his sex doll.

It goes exactly where you think it goes.

He learns that robot love is not "real love". No, real love is with a human who will unabashedly lie to you. Mmmmyeahh, kiss 'em smooch smooch.

Ironically the acting on part of the robot changes specifically to fit this purpose since they only begin to act lifeless after this revelation comes to him. In fact, the acting in this movie as a whole is so understated that I felt suddenly ripped out of it when one of the victims of the villain, Lester, actually seemed like an actual person.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25537&stc=1&d=1464281755
I'm talkin' about the guy on the left here. I liked him.

Okay, a bit of a caricature, but SOME kind of personality.

Lester himself seems like a pretty unique villain in terms of how he's framed. He's sets up his wasteland home as a sort of resort paradise and he talks to his cronies in bizarrely familial terms:

Be friendly, yet firm.Remember guys, life is an adventure.Keep the sun out of your eyes and be yourselves.Not very villain-like, and THAT'S OKAY! I thought it was kinda funny how he wouldn't go out for revenge until he made sure his wife had packed sandwiches, BUT the problem here is I don't think the actor playing him gave much of a crap or was incapable of making him more interesting.

If he had a little more charisma he could have been a very memorable villain, but instead he's forgettable, like everyone else including E. Johnson who resolutely fails to bring any sort of life to the movie despite the "spunkiness" that was foreshadowed.

Naturally the romance is your traditional Overnight variety and it's about as baffling as it gets with our climax forcing our hero to choose between the strangely virginal E. Johnson and the Cherry 2000 who willingly exits a plane and approaches gunfire at the request of a Pepsi.

Just kind of a dumb ****in' movie without the 80s camp that makes less ambitious movies like Adventures in Babysitting fun or more ambitious movies like Looker interesting to think about.

Instead, you're left to puzzle over whether you missed something or they actually fit 7 ATVs into a truck.

Final Verdict: rating_2 [Just... Bad]

Omnizoa

05-27-16, 02:11 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25595&stc=1&d=1464368969

Shaolin Challenges Ninja

Martial Arts / Chinese / 1978

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Supposedly one of the best martial arts movies ever made for it's variety of weapons and fighting styles including the legendarily hilarious Japanese Crab Technique.

Also my first Shaw Brothers movie (I think?).

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
This one's a toughie.

The problem here is that the movie totally changes halfway through and goes from crap to awesome. The question then becomes is the awesome worth the crap?

The movie takes a LONG time before any actual one-on-one fighting appears and even then it's between our hero and his wife.

Actually, scratch that, he's not a hero. He's actually an *******. It shouldn't even be called Heroes of the East, since the antagonists are the only characters actually doing anything even remotely heroic. It shouldn't even be called Shaolin Challenges Ninja, but I'm calling it that because that's at least vaguely accurate.

The premise is about as unintentionally sexist and racist as you could ask for. Our main character (whose name I don't remember, yes) is forced into arranged marriage.

Except they make a distinction that an "arranged" marriage is not a "forced" marriage.

Anyway marriage, boo. It seems like he stands on his principals by refusing since it's not his choice, but he's immediately swayed when he discovers that the Japanese girl he's asked to wed is actually NOT UGLY.

HOW ABOUT THAT? A JAPANESE GIRL WHO ISN'T UGLY!

Naturally she's is all kinds of bad wife material because she insists on practicing martial arts in ways that don't look utterly ****ing insulting (our main guy demonstrates the RIGHT way and there's no other way to describe it other than WRONG).

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25596&stc=1&d=1464369050

Eventually though, the two start fighting. Like literally trying to kill each other except not. They're literally walking around loaded with weapons under their clothes just to get each other and apparently when the girl decides to go all ninja on him, she crosses the line because "ninjitsu is murder".

To be fair, she stabbed him, but to be unfair he escalated that **** by being an insufferable arrogant cock.

Allow me to approximate the dialog:

What are you doing with my weapons?They're garbage!They're not garbage, they're historical weapons of battle! Your weapons are inferior derivatives of Chinese weapons!No, Japanese weapons are better!But I beat you all the time!
And that's the whole deal. It insists on this facade of respecting Japanese disciplines, but when his nationalist claims follow her to Japan, all the best guys at her dojo suit up and stomp off to China to pound a mother****er. And he wins every time. It's stupid.

The girl never even enters into the picture again after that, the script just forgets about her while the men play with their toys.

That's the turning point, really. The first half is nothing if not irritating and sufferable only on the charisma of the actors, but when the 7 specialists show up to kick his ass it becomes an almost non-stop series of one-on-one fights till the end.

Fortunately these are pretty interesting and, at times, hilarious.

We see competing sword techniques, we see nun-chucks versus three-part-staves, we see judo versus kung-fu, and it's cool. They're pretty neat fights and they even get a bit inventive. My only real gripe is that the Japanese characters are plainly presented to be inferior to our Chinese character, not just in terms of general skill, but each of their respective specialties they seem to be less competent than him in. And he's looks so smug when he wins too.

Surprisingly, the long-awaited Crab Technique is reserved for the Very Definitely Final Fight with the ninja which is far from the only thing that's unintentionally funny about it.

It opens with our guy preparing for the ninja to appear by scattering nutshells on the ground to hear him. The ninja appears, he knifes him in the chest, rushes to him, and is immediately stabbed in the back by a sword, revealing that it wasn't actually him running out the door, but a totally unconvincing dummy. It was SO FUNNY to see this actor, the main character, an unbeatable hero, suddenly jumpcut into a dummy and killed.

The whole fight's this way, loaded with underhanded ******** left and right, but the most unfair thing is that unlike every other fight which lasts one encounter, the ninja runs away and ambushes him again later. TWICE.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25597&stc=1&d=1464369070

Actually, make that three times, because after they resort to swords and ditch them to go to Crane versus Crab (which yes, is very silly), the ninja runs away a fourth time to hide in a river. Our main guy follows his obvious blowpipe and attacks it only to get punked out by poison in the face. BOOM, down.

It was really shocking. And honestly kinda ********.

They carry him back and I guess this is where he learns humility in the face of Japan's greatest of martial arts, ninjitsu, right? No, he was faking and checkmates the ninja when he's unprepared.

*SIGH*

And the moral of the story is... Chinese kungfu is better than Japanese... kung... fu... what?

Final Verdict: rating_3 [Meh...]

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 08:27 AM

I like the idea of TONGO's Which Movie Should I Watch? thread (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=45629&highlight=which+movie+should+I+watch), but would like to focus it on visitors to this thread with the caveat that the chosen movie will get a new review (so those who like what I post here can gear a bit of what I put up).

I'd specify what would be a reassessment or blind viewing and I'd try to pick similar movies, saving obscurer stuff in favor of those you guys might be more familiar with.

Thoughts? Yay? Nay? Don't care?

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 04:49 PM

THIS POST IS AN ACCIDENT!

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JhqP3ygjHYA/hqdefault.jpg

Sexy Celebrity

05-28-16, 04:53 PM

Well, Cirque du Soleil did a whole show devoted to The Beatles and their music. Years ago. I think it was called "Love."

Sexy Celebrity

05-28-16, 05:02 PM

JayDee and I need to look out. You write nice, long, entertaining reviews.

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 05:36 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25669&stc=1&d=1464467741

The Gene Generation

Sci-Fi / English / 2007

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
A forgotten cyberpunk movie from 2007 starring a badass punky Action Girl? Why have I not heard of this!?

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
Okay, first off: This is not cyberpunk. This is biopunk. Biopunk is not a form of cyberpunk. Even Wikipedia will tell you it's a "related genre".

Second off: It sucks that this movie started off as strong as it did, but just couldn't seem to help making mistakes along the way.

Instantly I can tell you it's a more coherent story than Natural City and just as quickly I can tell you the characters are way more interesting than Cherry 2000.

You can also tell right away that this movie had a pretty decent budget and blew a lot of it on fairly gratuitous CG. We get CG blood, CG backgrounds, some pretty neat tentacle effects, and a little bit of visual flair with the action which at first made me wish the action cropped up sooner than the 20+ minute mark, but I soon realized that this is that variety of action where the camera chops up shots from different angles and spits 'em out rapidfire so it's generally disorienting.

Kinda sucks, and definitely cheapens the moments where Action Girl, Mitch (hey! I remembered her name!), manages to disarm 4 guys with guns to her head, unarmed. When you cut away from the specifics of each action like that, this is the kind of thing I'm thinking of and I've lost that suspension of disbelief.

But let's be real: I can forgive crappy CG and slightly crappy editing if the rest of the movie's interesting.

And it is... but it ****s up quite a few times by the end.

I'm not going to get into entire plot since I really don't care that much, but suffice it to say it's engaging and doesn't falter under surface scrutiny. That is until you get to characters acting like characters and not like human ****ing beings.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25668&stc=1&d=1464467712

Case #1: Gamble Guy, is the name I'm gonna call him. I like him in the sense that he's tends to steal whatever scene he's in, but his mere existence bothers me because of the total lack of genre-savviness of the other characters. Could have a more obvious Recurring Villain? Could he be any more cheesy yelling, "I want HIM~ ALIIIVE!!!"

Case #2: Mitch, our main protagonist. She apparently hunts down "DNA hackers" (yeah, they're called that) and my issue with her is one you can see coming within the first several minutes of the movie. You see her sitting at her desk looking longingly at her family photos.

Then you see a totally unrelated guy also looking longingly at family photos.

You see her.

You see him.

Her.

Him.

If it wasn't obvious enough we get a totally out-of-place shot of her sitting at home watching a romantic movie. IF YOU CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN YET, SHOOT YOURSELF, YOU ARE TOO DUMB TO LIVE.

Eventually she runs into him sneaking up on her since her brother, Jackie stole something from him and she kicks him in the neck knocking him. She estimates on the spot that he'll be out "for about 36 hours". HOLY ****, that's specific! From now on I shall call that the 36 HOUR KICK, that move you use when you want to remove pesky characters from the plot until you need them.

After most of the movie rolls by the guy wakes up, freaks out, since, duh, his stuff got stolen and he knows they have it, and she kicks him in the neck again and I'm like, "WHPBFFT Another 36 HOUR KICK!?", but no that was just a 3 Minute Kick.

He wakes up, they talk, she's got orders to kill him, he convinces her that he's not a "DNA hacker". Then they get closer and closer and she touches his shoulder and Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't DoOh good, he went back to his apartment.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25667&stc=1&d=1464467685

Alright, we cut to what Jackie's up to and we're back with Mitch knocking on the other guy's door looking longingly at him and they silently move closer and Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't Don't
AAAAGGGGHHHH!!!!!! DAMMIT!!!!

Case #3: Jackie, Mitch's brother provokes most of the events of the movie. Apparently he drinks and gambles away their money and his sister doesn't like it, but he doesn't like her assassin job, so there's some familial hostility and it's all well and good UNTIL ONE SCENE.

So he stole this "transcoder" device which was stolen from him by Gamble Guy who doesn't know the value of it, but took it in revenge for his sister killing 3 of his guys. She paid off more than what Jackie was indebted to Gamble Guy for, but he's still a righteous butthead and insists on more to cover the loss of his men.

ACTUAL VILLAIN shows up and offers Jackie a massive amount of money in exchange for the transcoder and here's how this ideally plays out in my head, right?:

Hey, Gamble Guy, I'm really sorry for the trouble I caused and I know I owe you a lot, but look, that device you took from me was what I was working on getting your money back with. I can give you 5000 RIGHT NOW, up front for it and after I get it to my buyer I can get you another 5000. That should make us square, right?Yes, I will agree to that deal because it is entirely within my best interest.

Of course that doesn't happen, but what DOES happen is Jackie gets all up in his own ass, throws caution and his sister's advice out the window and BUSTS INTO THEIR HIDEOUT WITH A GUN TO THREATEN AND HUMILIATE THEM INTO HANDING OVER THE TRANSCODER.

Let me remind you that this is the obvious Recurring Villain he's ****ing with.

The rest of the movie is pretty meh by this point. We get some stupid injuries (Mitch lies in a massive pool of blood that drips down her face immediately following getting shot in the LEG) and it's tough to forgive everything that's happened on top of the giant cliches the movie drops such as that totally non-specific fire that we'll only briefly mention as part of our backstory but significantly factors into the plot AS WELL AS...

What if he's dead?He's not. I can feel it.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/hearttellyou.gif

Altogether? Dumb movie. We need more like this.

With better writing.

Final Verdict: rating_3 [Meh...]

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 05:41 PM

JayDee and I need to look out. You write nice, long, entertaining reviews.
Well thank you. I think yours are more colorful, though.

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 08:28 PM

Thoughts?
Alright, well I'm just gonna throw this out here:

Which should I watch?
The Tree of Life?
~ OR ~
Melancholia?
You decide!
I haven't seen either movie.

Sexy Celebrity

05-28-16, 08:31 PM

Neither. I wanna give you a movie to watch and see your review of it.

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 08:35 PM

I wanna give you a movie to watch and see your review of it.
Shoot.

Sexy Celebrity

05-28-16, 08:42 PM

Oh, nevermind. Tree of Life.

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 08:43 PM

Oh, nevermind. Tree of Life.
I originally typed "I'm open to suggestions.", but thought "Shoot." sounded better.

http://www.animatedimages.org/data/media/159/animated-basketball-image-0121.gif

Sexy Celebrity

05-28-16, 08:45 PM

You could watch my guilty pleasure movie. "Chasing Amy" (1997)

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 08:46 PM

You could watch my guilty pleasure movie. "Chasing Amy" (1997)
Alright.

Sexy Celebrity

05-28-16, 08:49 PM

Cool! Get on it.

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 08:50 PM

Cool! Get on it.
It wasn't on my watchlist so it's in a short line at the moment.

Sexy Celebrity

05-28-16, 09:00 PM

It wasn't on my watchlist so it's in a short line at the moment.

Bump it to the top. It's totally a Saturday night kind of movie.

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 09:03 PM

Bump it to the top. It's totally a Saturday night kind of movie.
We shall see.

Sexy Celebrity

05-28-16, 09:03 PM

I could give you a different movie.....

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 09:07 PM

I could give you a different movie.....
The only thing that would speed it up is if you requested a movie already above it on my watchlist, and it's presently only second in line.

Sexy Celebrity

05-28-16, 09:08 PM

You should watch Hedwig and the Angry Inch just because Miss Vicky is making everybody watch it and I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 09:10 PM

You should watch Hedwig and the Angry Inch just because Miss Vicky is making everybody watch it and I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Uuuuhhhh... I don't think Vicky would want me to.

Miss Vicky

05-28-16, 09:11 PM

I'm "making everybody watch it"? :confused:

I guess Camo counts as everybody now and he's overhyped anyway. :laugh:

Sexy Celebrity

05-28-16, 09:11 PM

Uuuuhhhh... I don't think Vicky would want me to.

Well, I do.

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 09:15 PM

I'm "making everybody watch it"? :confused:
You do seem to mention it a lot.

Well, I do.
To be fair, I have not had much luck with her favorites.

Sexy Celebrity

05-28-16, 09:16 PM

I didn't say I was hoping you'd find luck with it....

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 09:16 PM

THAT SAID,
my next movie review will be one Miss Vicky suggested. *SHOCK GASP!*

Miss Vicky

05-28-16, 09:19 PM

You do seem to mention it a lot.

I mention it to Camo a lot.

I also mentioned it in Gideon's LGBT Movie Character list because it surprised me that he didn't include Hedwig especially given his love of musicals. Then I mentioned it again in his review thread. That doesn't equate to "making everybody watch it."

Miss Vicky

05-28-16, 09:20 PM

THAT SAID,
my next movie review will be one Miss Vicky suggested. *SHOCK GASP!*

This can't be good.

Sexy Celebrity

05-28-16, 09:20 PM

Omnizoa

05-28-16, 09:27 PM

This can't be good.
Oh, I hope it is.

Omnizoa

05-29-16, 01:43 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25680&stc=1&d=1464496808

Schindler's List

Historical Drama / English / 1993

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
It's been a movie I haven't been sure whether or not I've seen for years, but it wound it's way up on my watchlist and earned top priority after Miss Vicky included it in Sexy Celebrity's Strong Emotions Countdown thread (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=45771&page=3).

seeing this re-enactment of events and people showed me that monsters are real. They don't hide in closets or under the bed, but they exist.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
Horses, dogs, and Schindler's List all teach us the crucial lesson not to be like Nazis (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/34048-in-their-behavior-toward-creatures-all-men-are-nazis-human).

You can be WAY MORE EFFICIENT exploiting inferior people than they were!

Ugghh... I watched this movie for 3 fffffffffffffffff****in' hours... *YAWN* and it's my own damn fault for watching it when I was so tired, but whatever what's the first thing we check when it comes to a long, movie? Whether it kept my attention the whole way through, did it?

Yep.

Hearing the name so frequently and yet never knowing even the most pitiful ****in' thing about it left me with a lot of surprises.

Ben Kingsley? Alright.
Liam Neeson? Cool.
Ralph Fiennes?? As a bad guy? Neat.
Steven Spielberg!? Didn't know he had it in him.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25681&stc=1&d=1464496835

I didn't even know anything about the real Oskar Schindler, so the developments were a total surprise for me too (The women went to Auschwitz!? NOOO!! HOW DO YOU **** THAT UP!?) and honestly I think this was a pretty interesting story to make a movie about. Too often I feel that historical dramas aren't well picked for their effectiveness as actual stories.

Overall I think the movie was very well made, the acting was spot on and now following Strange Days I've become very fond of Ralph Fiennes. He has quite a presence as... uhhh...

...Amon Goth, yeah, that's right, I totally remembered that name *closes Wikipedia tab*

He's easily my favorite character and I really loved how he acted as a foil to Schindler (or more accurately, how Schindler was a foil to him). I was disappointed that their relationship never actually escalated into any sort of resolving confrontation, I was waiting what felt like the whole movie for him to lay into Schindler for being a Jew-lover or something.

I can concede that bit for sake of historical accuracy, but perhaps the biggest strike I would lay against the movie is honestly against Schindler's character himself.

There seems to be scant little separating him from the schmoozing war profiteer and the Direktor With a Heart of Gold.

Was he always that way?

It doesn't seem like it. He must have transitioned then.

When?

I dunno, he has a few shots looking on at genocide with a frowny look before complaining that he's losing money for each worker that gets killed. I'm legitimately not seeing much emotion here. But then BOOM! all of the suddenly he's all tears and hugging at the end of the movie because it's now just suddenly struck him that he coulda saved more lives if he were frugal?

Well, yeah, fair point, he was arguably generous to fault, though it could also be said that his overcompensation reinforced his social standing-WHATEVER, THE POINT WAS I didn't buy it.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25682&stc=1&d=1464496952
I did like the "He who saves a life saves the world entire" line, though.

But, I guess that's where the artistic decision to limit color to the little girl in a red coat who appears twice, seemingly arbitrarily when Schindler's looking on at the killings.

Perhaps it's the death of the girl in the red coat that symbolizes the unseen arc beneath the surface of the enigmatic Schindler? Perhaps Schindler was a generally concealed man and they wanted to preserve that air of mystery about him so they picked a face out of the crowd to connect us to Schindler in that way?

I could totally buy that if not for WHAT I JUST READ!

Spielberg said the scene was intended to symbolise how members of the highest levels of government in the United States knew the Holocaust was occurring, yet did nothing to stop it. "It was as obvious as a little girl wearing a red coat, walking down the street, and yet nothing was done to bomb the German rail lines. Nothing was being done to slow down ... the annihilation of European Jewry," he said. "So that was my message in letting that scene be in color."
What a load of ****, dude! How the **** is the audience supposed to glean that? Symbolisms have to tie into the moment of the movie, they have to make sense IN WORLD! You can't just extrapolate beyond the realm of immediate relevance to make a connection.

That'd be no different than if you picked out Stern's clipboard and colored it bright green as the only color in the whole movie to say, "It's as obvious as a bright green clipboard that Germany's blitzkreig was doomed in the Battle of the Bulge".

The Battle of the Bulge has nothing to do with this whole movie! And neither does the US bombing German rail lines! The US isn't even inferred in dialog BY ASSOCIATION until the end of the movie by which point, THE GIRL IS ALREADY GONE! It's impossible to make the connection withou a leap of ****in' faith!

DUMB! This movie is DUMB! In that ONE PART!

There also wasn't any BDSM so they took some creative liberties there (probably censorship).

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

Sexy Celebrity

05-29-16, 01:51 AM

What movie is next?

Omnizoa

05-29-16, 02:09 AM

What movie is next?
Chaaaaaaaasing Amy.

Omnizoa

05-29-16, 05:06 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25693&stc=1&d=1464552300

Chasing Amy

Romantic Comedy / English / 1997

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
You could watch my guilty pleasure movie. "Chasing Amy" (1997)
WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

A romantic comedy? Uh-oh.

Another movie with a lot of big names, Chasing Amy is an odd duck. It doesn't seem to be uniformly good or bad, but bursts of both in equal doses.

I had quite a few chuckles in this movie ("Chicks? Such a MAN."), but I was almost as frequently turned off by the humor and... shall we say "irreverent" dialog.

Bribing someone into karaoke with ecstacy?

Rapidfire graphic descriptions of cunnilingus gone wrong?

Bait-and-Switch Lesbians (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BaitAndSwitchLesbians) into an inappropriately drawnout snogfest for the discomfort of the protagonist? HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA........

And normally that stuff would be more than enough to put me off, but to be honest I found the characters fairly refreshingly realistic. The general dialog and delivery feels natural (at least until Jay and Silent Bob show up) and I really get a sense of these characters, with My Name Is Earl's Jason Lee as the relative highpoint for me.

He's a total dick, but I buy him. He's a very genuine dick. And I totally believe that he loves dick jokes. Dick.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25694&stc=1&d=1464552326
Let's get serious though.

There were quite a few things that bothered me in this movie, more in subtle ways that obvious ways, but let's build up to the biggest WTFs.

Our Token Black character (whose name and actor I don't remember because I can be damned if I remember anyone's name in this one) makes some interesting points, but he sticks out unpleasantly.

He promotes Ra-Ra-Racism as a publicity stunt while hiding the fact that he's a flamboyant gay. Even trying to ignore the annoying stereotype, it drags itself back into focus in what seems to be a throwaway line:

What is it about gay men that terrifies the world?What bothers me is the context in which this line is used since it immediately follows him irresponsibly encouraging a kid to fear and hate the "White Devil".

First off: This kid doesn't know it's a ****ing joke, he's going to grow up to be a racist little prick!

Second off: Is your question rhetorical? Because it seems that gay men instill terror in children through fearmongering other demographics.

Third off: That line seems to refer specifically to the fact that he feigns a personality, concealing his generally flamboyant one.

( o_o) I don't get that. Better to hate whitey than learn that I'm... gay? Why are the two mutually exclusive? They're entirely unrelated. And flamboyant doesn't mean gay or vice versa!

Honestly, the worst thing I can say about him is that they took the two most shallow things about him; the fact that he's gay and has dark skin, and made that his whole character.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25691&stc=1&d=1464552184

Other stuff that bothers me are the extended conversations in which the our Love Interest argues in favor of redefining "****ing" and "virginity". Are our goals with this movie so ****ing low that this is the sort of social commentary that we're making?

REALLY???

Was it really imperative that Kevin Smith get across to audiences his personal feelings about how going knuckle-deep into a vagina totally counts as sex?

I've said it before with the whole transgender thing, the more you try to rip open existing definitions and stuff new meaning in, the less useful the words become.

Alright, so licking genitals counts as "making love" now.

Okay, so when is somebody going to argue that you can "make love" without involving genitals at all? As soon as somebody snorts derisively at the idea that "Oh, you're one of those people who equating ****ing to penetration!" I just tune out, because I cannot be ****in' bother to care about their smug sense of "open-mindedness".

I have another issue with just this general sense that bisexuals are either not a thing or a thing to be loathed and disdained. Earl Hickey's comments on "the pink mafia kicking you out" suddenly collide with reality when this circle of girls apparently CANNOT grasp the concept of one of them digging a guy.

For ****'s sake, WHAT DO YOU CARE!? WHAT IT'S ****ING TO YOU, WHAT'S THIS "ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST" CRAP!?

Oh no, she likes someone and... they have a penis and... things with penises are evil, THIS IS ONLY REINFORCING STEREOTYPES!

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25692&stc=1&d=1464552269

But no, my biggest issue with this movie is how these previously realistic characters SUDDENLY, just ****in' outta NOWHERE take their stupid pills as if the script was literally appended with big spots of red ink that say, "FORCE CONFLICT HERE".

So we've built up Affleck and Nasally Voice's relationship pretty well so far, right? We get a time lapse, they've spent a lot of time together, they really like each other and finally Ben's like, "Okay, I gotta tell her how I really feel about her", stops the car they're in and just says, matter-of-factly, "Look, I really like you, this is what I've been feeling lately, and I know it may be difficult to understand and I'll be totally accepting if this makes you uncomfortable and you don't wanna hang out anymore, but I just had to say it."

Totally reasonable, well articulated, emotional, but not pushy, being a nice guy, right?

Her response?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1JAILio6-s

What. A ****in'. BITCH.

And you know what, it'd be one thing if they made the "I'm GAY, you idiot!" argument and stuck to it, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, she runs back and starts suckin' face like the whole conversation WAS MEANINGLESS!!!

.apine tuiovv.pncyb a,. pva,t. n uizeoutibou zoevui .o cpi n.p izeobe uib-o.ei**** you movie.

And then it goes on and on and on and on and then we have another thing where Batfleck finds out that Tonsil Hockey had a lot of freaky flings back in the day starts in on her during a hockey game after which we have an IDENTICAL SCENE in which she very articulately explains all of the different ways it shouldn't bother him and that the fact that she's settling for him now should really be telling him something.

His response?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_undGtyUxeg

What. A ****in'. BITCH.

These two are perfect for each other can't you tell?

I'm glad I found video clips rather than having to explain in large caps why this guy's a stubborn idiot.

FORTUNATELY, at least the second argument is eventually resolved in the sense that he learns that he was wrong thanks to a odd appearance by extremely UNrealistic characters, Jay and Silent Bob (crossing over with Clerks at this point), the latter of which being the source of some much needed humor and an overdue logic bomb.

So, Fleckman's got a job that needs doing. He's gotta resolve his friendship with both his best friend and girlfriend. Well good, it's finally time to sit down and talk it out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe7G8iCN_nM

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/obama.gif

Ya know, it'd be GREAT if that worked in this make-believe universe, but as she goes on to point out it's just not that simple and shouldn't even be necessary to mend a relationship.

Everyone splits up and we end on an oddly drawn-out conversation of hand gestures from across a room.

Altogether? NOT as bad as I was expecting it to be, it was even pretty funny at times, but it's still chock full of the muddy relationship crap that plagues these kinds of movies.

Also, Bluntman and Chronic? At least it wasn't a stoner comedy.

Final Verdict: rating_3 [Meh...]

Sexy Celebrity

05-29-16, 06:29 PM

I think she's kinda crazy. Joey Lauren Adams, AKA Alyssa Jones, AKA Nasally Voice. I had a big problem with her the first time I saw the movie. You're right about how bitchy she was to freak out at Holden (Ben Affleck) when he expresses his feelings to her.... and then she just runs back to him and wants him.

To me, it looks like she's just trying to get out of the rain. Like, she screams at him, she goes nuts, "HOW DARE YOU! I'M GAY!" -- then she runs away from him and proceeds to hitchhike.... then she realizes, oh crap, I'm terrible at hitchhiking and I'm stuck in the rain.... so she decides to stop the lesbian crap for the time being and runs over to Ben Affleck's arms. "TAKE ME! TAKE ME NOW! Get me out of the rain." She just needs a ride so she won't be caught in the rain.

I feel for Holden (Ben Affleck) the most, though. I completely understand why her sexual past bothers him. I think the movie's a tragic story for Holden and for Holden's relationship with his friend, Banky (Jason Lee). For some reason, what Alyssa does with Holden breaks up the Holden/Banky comic book duo. She's like the Yoko Ono to their Beatles. Now you may not agree with me about all I'm saying, but that's how I feel about it.

In Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Banky (Jason Lee) and the black gay guy from this movie... are seen together. TOGETHER. As in, they're a gay couple now.

But confusingly, I've heard Kevin Smith apparently say that Banky isn't gay. I think he is, though. Or bi, at least, or something. I get a sense from Chasing Amy that Banky has secret feelings for Holden (Ben Affleck). He may not want to admit them... but I think they're there... and I think he's jealous of Alyssa having Holden. I think Holden's right -- Banky does have feelings for him.

I see Chasing Amy as a sad, tragic, non-traditional romance. A lot of people think the message of the movie is, "You shouldn't judge people based on their past behavior." I think that's all fluff. A cutesy, easy explanation for everything. Holden loves Alyssa, but he's bothered by all the sh*t she's done, and the way she acts. Forget the sex stuff she's done -- the way she acted in that rain scene is evidence, I feel, that she's not all right in other areas. She's a loon. But he loves her anyway. I think their breakup is all her fault. When she smacks him at the end and leaves.... ridiculous. Holden's trying his best to work through his issues with her. He wants to be with her, but she won't give him a chance. I think she's probably just not comfortable trying to be straight. We see at the end that she's back with a new woman. He's uncomfortable with her, she's uncomfortable with him, and men in general. But I think he actually does try to work things out with her... just as she tried to work things out by being in a relationship with him since he was crazy about her. It wasn't her that made the first move -- it was him.

Omnizoa

05-29-16, 06:44 PM

I think she's kinda crazy. Joey Lauren Adams, AKA Alyssa Jones, AKA Nasally Voice. I had a big problem with her the first time I saw the movie. You're right about how bitchy she was to freak out at Holden (Ben Affleck) when he expresses his feelings to her.... and then she just runs back to him and wants him.

To me, it looks like she's just trying to get out of the rain. Like, she screams at him, she goes nuts, "HOW DARE YOU! I'M GAY!" -- then she runs away from him and proceeds to hitchhike.... then she realizes, oh crap, I'm terrible at hitchhiking and I'm stuck in the rain.... so she decides to stop the lesbian crap for the time being and runs over to Ben Affleck's arms. "TAKE ME! TAKE ME NOW! Get me out of the rain." She just needs a ride so she won't be caught in the rain.

I feel for Holden (Ben Affleck) the most, though. I completely understand why her sexual past bothers him. I think the movie's a tragic story for Holden and for Holden's relationship with his friend, Banky (Jason Lee). For some reason, what Alyssa does with Holden breaks up the Holden/Banky comic book duo. She's like the Yoko Ono to their Beatles. Now you may not agree with me about all I'm saying, but that's how I feel about it. I only don't agree with the understanding Holden part. It's long past happened and it's not really as if she were lying to his face about it.

And even if she was, so what? What can he do about it now? It doesn't and shouldn't affect them. Silent Bob makes the most sense when he blames it on insecurity. No better rationalization is offered.

In Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Banky (Jason Lee) and the black gay guy from this movie... are seen together. TOGETHER. As in, they're a gay couple now.
Oh REALLY? I've seen that movie, but don't remember that at all. It's kinda cool to see that sort of background continuity.

But confusingly, I've heard Kevin Smith apparently say that Banky isn't gay. I think he is, though. Or bi, at least, or something. I get a sense from Chasing Amy that Banky has secret feelings for Holden (Ben Affleck). He may not want to admit them... but I think they're there... and I think he's jealous of Alyssa having Holden. I think Holden's right -- Banky does have feelings for him.
Seemed confirmed when he agrees to the threesome.

I see Chasing Amy as a sad, tragic, non-traditional romance.
That's Harold and Maude in my book.

A lot of people think the message of the movie is, "You shouldn't judge people based on their past behavior." I think that's all fluff.Supposedly that was sort of the concept that inspired Kevin Smith to make it.

Omnizoa

05-29-16, 06:57 PM

Tree of Life.
I'll take that as vote.

Sexy Celebrity

05-29-16, 07:00 PM

I only don't agree with the understanding Holden part. It's long past happened and it's not really as if she were lying to his face about it.

And even if she was, so what? What can he do about it now? It doesn't and shouldn't affect them. Silent Bob makes the most sense when he blames it on insecurity.

.... Alyssa's not really wrong by not telling Holden about her sexual past with men. As she said during a freakout, she didn't tell him because Holden thinking he was her first man ... made him feel special.

But why should Holden be wrong for being uneasy about what she's done? Looking at Holden as if he's so terrible for being freaked out by her many secret sexual escapades in the past... kinda feels to me like you're saying, GET OVER IT! It's sex and sex should always be excused, no matter how much sex someone has had.

I'm saying -- that's not true. I think finding out your girlfriend or boyfriend used to be a slut can be grounds for being upset. Why not? It says something about that person and it could even predict future behavior -- what if she gets the urge to be an "experimental girl" while in a monogamous relationship with me? It's a red flag. Holden was getting red flags from Alyssa.

But the movie - and I guess Kevin Smith - is trying to push an "accept all the differences between you and your lover" kind of message. And that's OKAY -- that's an interesting message to think about -- things between Holden and Alyssa could have worked out if he hadn't freaked out -- BUT -- Holden freaked out, and I don't think it's wrong that he did. I think it's understandable. Banky freaked out, too. Banky freaked out about Alyssa's past, worried she was diseased. Holden wasn't alone here. There's reasons to be concerned about someone's sexual past. It shouldn't be 100% excused all the time. The movie may be trying to convey that particular message, but I don't agree with it.

Oh REALLY? I've seen that movie, but don't remember that at all. It's kinda cool to see that sort of background continuity.

In theory it's cool, but I don't personally like it. I think Banky and the black gay guy (Hooper) are a terrible couple. It upsets me. It makes Chasing Amy even more upsetting. I'd rather see Banky with Holden.

If Banky's in love with Holden.... Hooper is just so wildly different from Holden. It makes me feel like Banky's not getting something he needed. He doesn't have the right kind of man. I don't buy it. I think it's just another careless thing Kevin Smith tossed in.

Seemed confirmed when he agrees to the threesome.

Yep.

Omnizoa

05-29-16, 07:33 PM

But why should Holden be wrong for being uneasy about what she's done? Looking at Holden as if he's so terrible for being freaked out by her many secret sexual escapades in the past... kinda feels to me like you're saying, GET OVER IT! It's sex and sex should always be excused, no matter how much sex someone has had.

I'm saying -- that's not true. I think finding out your girlfriend or boyfriend used to be a slut can be grounds for being upset. Why not? It says something about that person and it could even predict future behavior -- what if she gets the urge to be an "experimental girl" while in a monogamous relationship with me? It's a red flag. Holden was getting red flags from Alyssa.
As in one red flag that evidently shocked him because it isn't substantiated by her regular behavior. Honestly this whole issue feeds to into a matter of paranoia that I feel is generally destructive in these kinds of relationships. "What if she gets the urge to be an 'experimental girl'" presumes to place value on the concept of monogamy itself which is something I've never really bought into.

There's a degree of common sense involved, but to a large extent it drills into a very restrictive and possessive idea of what a romantic relationship should be.

That's what I call Monogamy Syndrome in movies. It's a culturally validated plot device for creating conflict.

In theory it's cool, but I don't personally like it. I think Banky and the black gay guy (Hooper) are a terrible couple. It upsets me. It makes Chasing Amy even more upsetting. I'd rather see Banky with Holden.
Seems like it'd be the canon shipping.

If Banky's in love with Holden.... Hooper is just so wildly different from Holden. It makes me feel like Banky's not getting something he needed. He doesn't have the right kind of man. I don't buy it. I think it's just another careless thing Kevin Smith tossed in.
Like that entire character.

https://41.media.tumblr.com/4288259d23bbc693206e19e229c4abd2/tumblr_mz9783pwqp1qdcgydo1_500.png

Sexy Celebrity

05-29-16, 07:41 PM

As in one red flag that evidently shocked him because it isn't substantiated by her regular behavior. Honestly this whole issue feeds to into a matter of paranoia that I feel is generally destructive in these kinds of relationships. "What if she gets the urge to be an 'experimental girl'" presumes to place value on the concept of monogamy itself which is something I've never really bought into.

There's a degree of common sense involved, but to a large extent it drills into a very restrictive and possessive idea of what a romantic relationship should be.

That's what I call Monogamy Syndrome in movies. It's a culturally validated plot device for creating conflict.

Yes, but polygamy or polyamory -- whatever it is you seem to be into -- is your own personal way of seeing the world/looking at relationships. And while it may be true that humans are naturally not very monogamous creatures.... monogamy is still widely practiced and accepted. It's going to be depicted in films whether you like it or not. You can go watch movies with poly relationships, if you want, but that doesn't mean it has to be enforced everywhere. Nor do your ideas about sex and all that.

Frankly, you're almost sounding as stubborn as transgender people when it comes to your beliefs. Which doesn't surprise me since you did tell me that I needed to get over my idea that men and women should have separate bathrooms -- since you seem to believe we all should be sharing the same restroom. Something I am against.

Omnizoa

05-30-16, 05:40 AM

Yes, but polygamy or polyamory -- whatever it is you seem to be into -- is your own personal way of seeing the world/looking at relationships. And while it may be true that humans are naturally not very monogamous creatures.... monogamy is still widely practiced and accepted. It's going to be depicted in films whether you like it or not. You can go watch movies with poly relationships, if you want, but that doesn't mean it has to be enforced everywhere. Nor do your ideas about sex and all that.
I wasn't suggesting polygamy be socially enforced at all (and I'm not "into" it either *laughs*), that would bother me as well. The problem is one of them is enforced and monogamy just happens to be it.

It bothers me most because you see all these movies and TV dramas that revolve around this idea, not even necessarily involving infidelity, but few actually attempt to explore where this problem really originates, because "monogamy" seems like throwing in a yellow card, "it's against the rules" so to speak.

That just seems flimsy to me.

Honestly this reminds me of the first and second episode of Death Parade where this very topic was opened up and dissected. It made some fair arguments about it.

https://thereaderscompass.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/tumblr_inline_nnbsxj72za1s1d7td_5002.gif

Again, it's more important to me whether or not the other person was lying than whether they had X amount of sex prior to the relationship.

Frankly, you're almost sounding as stubborn as transgender people when it comes to your beliefs. Which doesn't surprise me since you did tell me that I needed to get over my idea that men and women should have separate bathrooms -- since you seem to believe we all should be sharing the same restroom. Something I am against.
It reminded me of that too, but more because we both seem to be in agreement up to a point. You don't want women in a bathroom used by men and you want to be able to hold peoples' sexual pasts against them.

Doesn't click with me, but that's what I'm getting.

Omnizoa

05-30-16, 07:57 AM

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/night2.gif

The Nightmare Before Christmas

Stop-Motion Musical / English / 1993

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
It's been a while since I've given anything a 5/5 and there's a certain line stuck in my head right now...

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"Well, at least they're excited, but they don't understand
that special kind of feeling in Christmas Land... oh well..."

It may come as a surprise for me to say that I don't actually celebrate any holidays. I don't even LIKE Halloween and Christmas.

But if there were one thing I dug about either holiday it's their festive and thematic qualities and Nightmare Before Christmas indulges purely in that.

NBC may be the most difficult thing for me to review fairly because I've watched it so many times and it's so entrenched in my nostalgia that it's a challenge to take off the rose-colored glasses and lay into it like any other movie.

Watching it again I can pick out a few things, but nothing that comes across to me as much more than nitpicking. There're occasional bouts of awkward animation, one or two continuity errors, and I'd be amiss if I didn't admit that the movie certainly doesn't come across with any sort of agenda beyond being unabashedly silly, even with it's lyrics.

One lull in the movie I've always felt is Sally's Song and just the general attempt to mold some skeleton of a romance into the plot. I really don't mind Sally, I find her interesting, but her solo song has always been the least interesting bit of the movie to me. It doesn't put me off as much as it used to, but I can still comfortably say it's my least favorite part of the movie.

There's also something to be said of the occasionally morbid character visuals that present the denizens of Halloween Town as intentionally unattractive. Fortunately, it's all meant in good spirit and it hardly detracts from my favorite thing about the movie that it's visuals.

I've since seen higher quality stop-motion animations, and even ignoring what must have been a tremendous amount of work to shoot (simulating camera movement in stop-motion must be a royal bitch) for sake of bias, I cannot help but praise the overall design of the world(s) which appeals to me on a truly fundamental level.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/night1.gif

The use of small isolated sets that give the impression of a stage play in combination with the surreal yet internally logical design of the environments really present this movie as more of an imagination grounded in a very specific range of emotions. It's not just the visual themes it's trying to evoke it's the emotional ones as well.

It's that touch of German Expressionism I brought up in Metropolis where the focus isn't in engaging you through realism (that's arguably an uphill battle anyway), but in engaging you through emotive design.

In that sense I think it's an absolute success and everything in the small details, from the clever lighting to the patchwork of themes, be they Rudolph or Dracula, feed directly into that.

A musical certainly isn't anything without it's music though and Danny Elfman really hits it out of the park because I'll be damned if I don't remember every single line of every single song.

I must emphasize though that it's not merely the composition of the songs or the lyrics that progress the story that appeal to me. A big chunk of credit MUST also go Danny Elfman's charismatic delivery as well as to Chris Sarandon (both of which double as hero, Jack Skellington's, voice) and to Ken Page who plays the villain, Oogie Boogie. Their varied emphasis and enunciations are just too much fun NOT to mimic.

Reeling it in, the story is about simple as any child's wonderment story could be. The king of Halloween is bored and wants to try something new and that's when he discovers Christmas. Shenanigans ensue!

It's not merely a comedy though, it's more of an adventure story with ideas of self-exploration and not overstepping your bounds, and in the pursuit of that story it does quite a few interesting things in it's attempt to crossover these two universes. Perhaps it's why one of my favorite pieces is Jack's Obsession:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTtZ1ck8YzE

It's not the most visually interesting piece and the song itself doesn't really stand out among it's peers, but the concepts that it juggles what with Jack, an avatar of Halloween and fear trying to rationalize what it is that appeals to him about Christmas and cheer just clicks with me, perhaps because this idea of trying to make sense of things and questioning yourself sounds familiar.

I struggle to explain what it is I exactly like about THIS MOVIE.

Sometimes I make mistakes, sometimes I make BIG mistakes and despite good advice I have to learn the hard way where it is I ****ed up, should have stepped back, and reconsidered.

Ultimately all I really have to do is say, "Look, the movie may be flawed and you're free to point out those flaws to me and explain why Coraline or ParaNorman or whatever is an objectively better movie, but you know what? I don't care. I love this movie. And you'll be hard-pressed to do one better in my book."

It's also one of my favorite worlds in Kingdom Hearts so there's that too.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25702&stc=1&d=1464605767

Final Verdict: rating_5 [Friggen' Awesome]

Sexy Celebrity

05-30-16, 12:13 PM

I wasn't suggesting polygamy be socially enforced at all (and I'm not "into" it either *laughs*), that would bother me as well. The problem is one of them is enforced and monogamy just happens to be it.

It bothers me most because you see all these movies and TV dramas that revolve around this idea, not even necessarily involving infidelity, but few actually attempt to explore where this problem really originates, because "monogamy" seems like throwing in a yellow card, "it's against the rules" so to speak.

That just seems flimsy to me.

Honestly this reminds me of the first and second episode of Death Parade where this very topic was opened up and dissected. It made some fair arguments about it.

I'm not sure I understand. I feel like you're saying if some character in a movie cheats on their lover and they're lover goes, "WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE MONOGAMOUS!!!", the cheater is unfairly seen as evil, instead of exploring the idea that this person was simply being human and having a moment where their hormones just happened to take over. Is that it? The problem is the idea of monogamy and shaming others is enforced, while exploring the idea that cheating may be natural isn't? Cause I could see your point there.

and you want to be able to hold peoples' sexual pasts against them.

I just think certain people who are bothered by someone's sexual past have every right to be bothered. If your lover had thousands of lovers in the past and it doesn't bother you, that's OK. But Holden (Ben Affleck) from Chasing Amy should not have to join in with the non-bothered people if he doesn't want to. Just like if a good Christian woman falls in love with a Satanist and she finds out later that he's a Satanist, she shouldn't have to be cool with it.

People leave relationships for countless reasons. Why should a person's sexual history be given a free pass? When we seek employment somewhere, people wanna know where we've worked before. It's the same with relationships -- people wanna know what we've been doing with whom. Where we were at before. If we were at certain "places" -- or maybe at TOO MANY PLACES -- that can signal a wrong match for us. Now, of course, rejecting a person for that kind of reason could be a mistake, but - GASP! - it might not be.

Just trust me on this. I know from experience. I know how there's been a growing movement to "accept everything." It's wrong. It's totally wrong. If you get a red flag, you better take it seriously. You better accept how it's making you feel. Don't listen to what other people believe in. Go with your instincts. Actually, sometimes people can warn you about problems you don't see, too. That's also worth listening to, as well. Just listen to everything that comes up. Don't ignore. Don't ignore yourself.

Omnizoa

05-30-16, 12:41 PM

I'm not sure I understand. I feel like you're saying if some character in a movie cheats on their lover and they're lover goes, "WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE MONOGAMOUS!!!", the cheater is unfairly seen as evil, instead of exploring the idea that this person was simply being human and having a moment where their hormones just happened to take over. Is that it? The problem is the idea of monogamy and shaming others is enforced, while exploring the idea that cheating may be natural isn't? Cause I could see your point there.
Uuuuummmm no. I said "not even necessarily involving infidelity", just this idea that relationships these days where "he/she is mine, not yours" or being very guarded about who your significant other spends a lot of time with, it's just terribly possessive and I don't think that's healthy.

Although you're right, I don't think infidelity is very often fairly judged on it's own merits. On one hand I think it can be a supremely stupid thing to do, but then I'm thinking on the movie, Locke, where the guy's wife's just completely inconsolable, refusing to talk, and wants to kick him out of the house for something he did and regretted a long time ago and has since apologized for. That just drives me up the wall.

I just think certain people who are bothered by someone's sexual past have every right to be bothered. If your lover had thousands of lovers in the past and it doesn't bother you, that's OK. But Holden (Ben Affleck) from Chasing Amy should not have to join in with the non-bothered people if he doesn't want to. Just like if a good Christian woman falls in love with a Satanist and she finds out later that he's a Satanist, she shouldn't have to be cool with it.
That's a very strange analogy.

People leave relationships for countless reasons. Why should a person's sexual history be given a free pass?
Well, on a surface level: because that should be considered already. If someone's sexual past would bother you for some reason or really ANYTHING including whether they worship Satan or not, it should be gotten out of the way before you start making awkward confessions to them.

I mean, if "sexually adventurous" is not a quality you desire in that person, then why leave that question hanging in the air to cause problems later? Why presume? Why not just say, "Look, I have a need to pry into your sexual history, please tell me how many guys, girls, or non-human animals you've had sex with, in what positions, format, and sexually transmitted diseases you may have accrued in the process"?

Whether that comes off as rude, funny, or totally reasonable then BOOM, issue out of the way.

What gets to me is that this should be any sort of friendship ending thing. Would that information have ruined your friendship with that person? If not, then why should it ruin your intimate relationship?

Holden bothers me particularly because he openly admits that it's not women he's concerned about her having sex with, but men. How is that not a double standard?

When we seek employment somewhere, people wanna know where we've worked before. It's the same with relationships -- people wanna know what we've been doing with whom. Where we were at before. If we were at certain "places" -- or maybe at TOO MANY PLACES -- that can signal a wrong match for us. Now, of course, rejecting a person for that kind of reason could be a mistake, but - GASP! - it might not be.
Again though, this is an analogy that operates on the idea that you're being interviewed before the job. It wouldn't make much sense for your job to fire you several years into it because they learned you used to steal office supplies or something, right? Not without evidence that you're still doing it.

Just trust me on this. I know from experience. I know how there's been a growing movement to "accept everything." It's wrong. It's totally wrong.
That's certainly not me.

Sexy Celebrity

05-30-16, 01:48 PM

Uuuuummmm no. I said "not even necessarily involving infidelity", just this idea that relationships these days where "he/she is mine, not yours" or being very guarded about who your significant other spends a lot of time with, it's just terribly possessive and I don't think that's healthy.

It can be a burden, but many people are jealous types. Marriage can be a very possessive thing. You have the wife, the house, the car. Toys of your own.

Although you're right, I don't think infidelity is very often fairly judged on it's own merits. On one hand I think it can be a supremely stupid thing to do, but then I'm thinking on the movie, Locke, where the guy's wife's just completely inconsolable, refusing to talk, and wants to kick him out of the house for something he did and regretted a long time ago and has since apologized for. That just drives me up the wall.There's a TV show I know of... umm... a man cheats on his new wife. She's the daughter of this woman... who lives with three other women... and all of the women are ready to kill the man for cheating.

"We're gonna drink white wine spritzers with Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan and Marlo Thomas and figure out a way to fry your wandering male behind."

Last time I saw it, I thought -- they're all getting so angry at him, but did they ever stop and wonder about WHY he cheated? I mean, the wife had short, mannish hair and wasn't attractive at all.

That's a very strange analogy.Sex, religion, what's the difference? Virgin/slut. Christian/Satanist. You get the picture.

Well, on a surface level: because that should be considered already. If someone's sexual past would bother you for some reason or really ANYTHING including whether they worship Satan or not, it should be gotten out of the way before you start making awkward confessions to them.But it isn't always. That's sort of the point. In Chasing Amy, they didn't get it out of the way. She kept it a secret from Holden that she had been sexual with a bunch of guys. She practically did lie to Holden if she was making him believe he was her first man.

I mean, if "sexually adventurous" is not a quality you desire in that person, then why leave that question hanging in the air to cause problems later? Why presume? Why not just say, "Look, I have a need to pry into your sexual history, please tell me how many guys, girls, or non-human animals you've had sex with, in what positions, format, and sexually transmitted diseases you may have accrued in the process"?

Whether that comes off as rude, funny, or totally reasonable then BOOM, issue out of the way.You're not wrong. Getting it out of the way isn't bad if you want it out of the way.

What gets to me is that this should be any sort of friendship ending thing. Would that information have ruined your friendship with that person? If not, then why should it ruin your intimate relationship?It could ruin the friendship with the person.... it may not, but it could. Who knows? All of this stuff can be very messy and tricky, but the point is, if something bothers you, you may be right to be bothered. If you can't be friends with a person for some reason, you can't be friends with them.

Holden bothers me particularly because he openly admits that it's not women he's concerned about her having sex with, but men. How is that not a double standard?That may sound bad, but it's not the whole story. Holden was falling for Alyssa BEFORE he found out she was apparently a lesbian. He was expecting her to be straight in the beginning. One could assume he probably expected her, as a straight woman, to have slept with men in the past.

Then he finds out she's a lesbian.... and she makes him believe he's her first man ever. She did it "because it made him feel special." But what she's done... complicated things. Suddenly Holden doesn't want to lose that specialness, it seems.....

But I personally think there's more to it. I don't think it's just the sex stuff that's bothering Holden. On the surface, it may be. But underneath, I kinda think he's just bothered by Alyssa in general. Alyssa and Holden both have issues -- but Alyssa's issues seem more front and center, I think, in this whole relationship. There's the fact that she kept information from Holden.... the fact that she was an experimental girl (and Holden probably wasn't THAT experimental)... the fact that she freaked out one second after Holden told her he loved her, then the next second, she's in love with him! There's also the fact at the end of the movie with how she dumps him when he was trying, in his own way, to deal with her.

Holden's own issues probably revolve around repressed sexuality. The issue with Alyssa's men could be sparking something with Holden about his own sexual feelings for men. I think it's why he gets the idea to have a threesome with Alyssa and BANKY. Suddenly, from out of his mind, he gets the idea to solve his issues with Alyssa by having sex with Banky. Now where on Earth did that come from? And why is Alyssa so pissed at the end? She's pissed because Holden is trying to turn gay. She WAS gay and she tried to turn straight... now Holden is trying to turn ... at least bisexual.

The root cause of Holden's inner conflicts with Alyssa probably comes more from his own issues with his sexuality. As I think you said at one point -- he was inadequate. He felt inadequate as a straight guy -- probably the reason why he liked the idea that he was having sex with a woman and he thought he was her first man. When that WASN'T THE CASE, Holden's inadequacy and his issues struck him harder. So he changes and tries to become something else -- something that might intrigue Alyssa the way he intrigued her when he thought he was her "first man" -- he becomes gay, too. He becomes bisexual, like her. In a last ditch effort to fascinate her again -- because he feels like she's not fascinated by him anymore after he finds out he wasn't her first man. He's lost a sense of virility he used to have when she blows away the fantasy SHE concocted (that he was her first man). He liked her for who she was at first -- but then he finds out she's a lesbian, and she puts him in a fantasy, and suddenly things go south. It's why I blame her -- because I think she plays mind games with him.

Again though, this is an analogy that operates on the idea that you're being interviewed before the job. It wouldn't make much sense for your job to fire you several years into it because they learned you used to steal office supplies or something, right? Not without evidence that you're still doing it.Well... they can fire you if they find out you lied on your resume.

Omnizoa

05-30-16, 02:47 PM

It can be a burden, but many people are jealous types. Marriage can be a very possessive thing.
And that's part of the reason I don't like marriage.

Last time I saw it, I thought -- they're all getting so angry at him, but did they ever stop and wonder about WHY he cheated? I mean, the wife had short, mannish hair and wasn't attractive at all.
*laughs* I'd have guessed because they were murderous psychos.

Sex, religion, what's the difference? Virgin/slut. Christian/Satanist. You get the picture.
Mmmmmmmmmmmm... both have such different connotations though. I know what you're getting at at least.

But it isn't always. That's sort of the point. In Chasing Amy, they didn't get it out of the way. She kept it a secret from Holden that she had been sexual with a bunch of guys. She practically did lie to Holden if she was making him believe he was her first man.
I would place a big part of that on Holden though. He didn't even know let alone ask these things that he thinks are so important before deciding he was in love with her. That "puppy love" thing makes a comeback.

Oh I was totally into you, but now I've learned that you're X and that really turns me off. *break ties, walks away*

You're not wrong. Getting it out of the way isn't bad if you want it out of the way.
Are you suggesting some people prefer it be IN the way?

It could ruin the friendship with the person.... it may not, but it could. Who knows? All of this stuff can be very messy and tricky, but the point is, if something bothers you, you may be right to be bothered. If you can't be friends with a person for some reason, you can't be friends with them.
You're missing my point though, I'm talking about the distinction between platonic and intimate relationships.

What if Holden found out about her past BEFORE he they started an intimate relationship? He was learning new things about her already, what if he learned that she'd been in a threesome before?

Can you imagine that ruining their friendship, does that seem like the kind of thing that would prevent him from talking with her, laughing with her, and hanging out?

I don't think so, and I say that because a lot of people have this weird separation in their heads where you can be friends, more than friends, or nothing. There's no room for "let's try a deeper relationship and see if it works out, if not we'll just be friends" and suddenly things that would have been overlooked as a friend are personally accosting as a sexual partner.

That may sound bad, but it's not the whole story. Holden was falling for Alyssa BEFORE he found out she was apparently a lesbian. He was expecting her to be straight in the beginning. One could assume he probably expected her, as a straight woman, to have slept with men in the past.

Then he finds out she's a lesbian.... and she makes him believe he's her first man ever. She did it "because it made him feel special." But what she's done... complicated things. Suddenly Holden doesn't want to lose that specialness, it seems.....
So being her first penis is some sort of badge of pride that he didn't want to lose so he broke it off? Even if she lied to his face that's profoundly shallow.

But I personally think there's more to it. I don't think it's just the sex stuff that's bothering Holden. On the surface, it may be. But underneath, I kinda think he's just bothered by Alyssa in general. Alyssa and Holden both have issues -- but Alyssa's issues seem more front and center, I think, in this whole relationship. There's the fact that she kept information from Holden.... the fact that she was an experimental girl (and Holden probably wasn't THAT experimental)... the fact that she freaked out one second after Holden told her he loved her, then the next second, she's in love with him! There's also the fact at the end of the movie with how she dumps him when he was trying, in his own way, to deal with her.
You're suggesting again that she's just nuts.

The problem with that is there's no narrative confirmation of it and women being fickle emotional idiots is a common trope in movies. It's far more likely that she was just written poorly.

Holden's own issues probably revolve around repressed sexuality. The issue with Alyssa's men could be sparking something with Holden about his own sexual feelings for men. I think it's why he gets the idea to have a threesome with Alyssa and BANKY. Suddenly, from out of his mind, he gets the idea to solve his issues with Alyssa by having sex with Banky. Now where on Earth did that come from? And why is Alyssa so pissed at the end? She's pissed because Holden is trying to turn gay. She WAS gay and she tried to turn straight... now Holden is trying to turn ... at least bisexual.
That's not confirmed by the movie either. In fact, Alyssa outright tells Holden why it bothers her. It reinforces his slanted perspective of her in his mind by assuming that she'd just be cool with it when she's stated that she's not that kind of person anymore.

This is backed up by their argument in the parking lot when she said she liked the way he originally felt about her. She doesn't want to lose that which is why she glossed over the truth. Now he's suggesting we feed directly into that so that HE can get over it, but that fails to consider her feelings on the matter.

It'd be kind of like finding out your partner accidentally killed a kid in a car crash and despite them feeling really guilty about it, you weren't able to let it go. Then you come back to them and suggest getting into a car together and running over some children so you can get over it. It's missing the point of why they concealed that information in the first place.

All of this is of course assuming that a threesome X many years ago is even that kind of a moral atrocity to begin with.

Holden doesn't appear capable of being able to accept that people can change. I'm sure he's done some stupid **** before. They emphasize the liberal/conservative angle wherein people look at things with different general perspectives. Alyssa may not have thought sex like that was that big of a deal, but what if she learned about something Holden had done that he didn't think was that big of a deal?

All of this just goes to inform that these kinds of things should be deal with before they can become problems.

The root cause of Holden's inner conflicts with Alyssa probably comes more from his own issues with his sexuality. As I think you said at one point -- he was inadequate. He felt inadequate as a straight guy -- probably the reason why he liked the idea that he was having sex with a woman and he thought he was her first man. When that WASN'T THE CASE, Holden's inadequacy and his issues struck him harder. So he changes and tries to become something else -- something that might intrigue Alyssa the way he intrigued her when he thought he was her "first man" -- he becomes gay, too.
That'sssssssssss an interesting interpretation.

He liked her for who she was at first -- but then he finds out she's a lesbian, and she puts him in a fantasy, and suddenly things go south. It's why I blame her -- because I think she plays mind games with him.
Mind games require an exchange and a lot of what Holden was dealing with was contradictions to his assumptions.

His claim to Banky that "she's totally into me" reads as pure delusion to me. Unless you put a presumptive weight on everything she says being veiled and read-between-the-lines kind of dialog, but playing those mind games, whether you're the speaker or the listener is almost ALWAYS a source of problems.

Well... they can fire you if they find out you lied on your resume.
Again that presumes there's an equivalent of a resume and even so it goes right back to what I said about lying. Lying is a totally different issue.

Miss Vicky

05-30-16, 03:08 PM

I'm not quite as enamored with Nightmare Before Christmas as you are, but it is among my favorites and it's nice to see you not bash something I love for a change.

Omnizoa

05-30-16, 04:07 PM

I'm not quite as enamored with Nightmare Before Christmas as you are, but it is among my favorites and it's nice to see you not bash something I love for a change.
It really appeals to me artistically and inspires a lot of my own work. Very few movies have a claim to that.

...thoughts on Schindler's List?

Miss Vicky

05-30-16, 04:09 PM

...thoughts on Schindler's List?

I think it's a much more powerful film than you give it credit for, but I'm glad you didn't hate it.

Omnizoa

05-30-16, 04:30 PM

I think it's a much more powerful film than you give it credit for, but I'm glad you didn't hate it.
I was going to mention something to that effect, but I either forgot to or couldn't figure out where to fit it in.

I was honestly expecting it to be a very emotionally crushing movie, but maybe I've just been de-sensitized to it? I've seen The Boy in the Striped Pajamas and was honestly surprised it wasn't taken as far as that movie by showing us the gas chambers in use, even though it did have shocking moments (some of which being a bit predictable to me perhaps didn't help).

When I think of a really depressing and emotionally draining movie I think of Grave of the Fireflies.

http://screenprism.com/assets/img/article/screen-shot-2013-12-23-at-10-17-43-pm.png

Honestly, for me, a movie that shows me the how monstrous humans can be are movies that focus not on their actions, but on their mindset. How they sickly justify it to themselves. Some movies are really good at that.

Sexy Celebrity

05-30-16, 04:31 PM

Are you suggesting some people prefer it be IN the way?Leaving the questions up in the air rather than resolved.... yeah, some people probably do keep it that way. Some people probably don't wanna know a person's sexual history. It might be better for them that way. The less they know, the better. For some people, it's just easier to deal with. There's all kinds of issues that can pop up over knowing about your lover's relationship/sexual history. Love is NOT an easy thing, I think. Not in every case. It can't always be cleanly looked over as you may think it can.

What if Holden found out about her past BEFORE they started an intimate relationship? He was learning new things about her already, what if he learned that she'd been in a threesome before?

Can you imagine that ruining their friendship, does that seem like the kind of thing that would prevent him from talking with her, laughing with her, and hanging out?

I don't think so, and I say that because a lot of people have this weird separation in their heads where you can be friends, more than friends, or nothing. There's no room for "let's try a deeper relationship and see if it works out, if not we'll just be friends" and suddenly things that would have been overlooked as a friend are personally accosting as a sexual partner.Here's an example of what I was just saying -- you're right. You're right. What if Holden had found out earlier, before the relationship started, that she had been with men? What if that made it easier to ignore?

BUT -- what if that had also caused Holden to not seek a relationship with Alyssa if he knew about the men? It's VERY possible, I think, that the deep affection for Alyssa might have grown because of the idea that Holden thought she was a lesbian and hence a virgin when it came to men. He might have just wanted a virgin woman, ya know? Sex with women might have just been silly, non-sexual things to him -- in case, that is the case, because it's like when they had their chat on the swings and she said "there's more ways to make love than just penetration." But he didn't buy that. And I noticed in your review that you, yourself, didn't seem to buy into the many different ways you can "make love." As in, fisting is not sex to you. Or licking genitals, as I believe you put it. Ohhhh, but it is. It can be considered sex, absolutely.

Anyway, Holden didn't buy into the idea that her lesbian sex was real sex. He basically thought she was a virgin. And she didn't reveal that she was otherwise.

So... probably.... Alyssa's appeal to Holden probably depended some on Alyssa being a lesbian. He was, basically, a lesbian chaser. He LIKED the fact that she had no other men to compare him to. But when he found out she DID.... the passion started to go away. The fantasy was over.

It's possible Holden and Alyssa may not have even become a couple if Holden knew about her thing with men, or about how "experimental" she was. Banky and Holden could have talked it over and Holden could have been like, "You know what? I don't want her. She's been with too many guys - I don't like that." But he finds out DURING the relationship.... that makes it complicated. It's complicated because he really doesn't wanna lose her... but he hates the change in direction.

It's all very psychological. Love is a messy, complicated business because so much of it is about our own psychologies. What works depends on our own minds and if we can resolve conflicts without screwing it up. But resolving those conflicts isn't as simple as 1-2-3. It may SOUND easy in theory, but it's NOT always easy in practice. Thus, I think you might be a bit naive about all this. You seem to me.... rather optimistic. Like a newbie. Or else you've just been lucky with your own love relationships. You seem to have simple, sweet answers to everything. I say it's not always so simple.

So being her first penis is some sort of badge of pride that he didn't want to lose so he broke it off? Even if she lied to his face that's profoundly shallow.It's his issue. It might be shallow, but it's his issue.

You're suggesting again that she's just nuts.

The problem with that is there's no narrative confirmation of it and women being fickle emotional idiots is a common trope in movies. It's far more likely that she was just written poorly.She seems nutty to me. And it isn't just because of the sex stuff. I mean, just look at her - always screaming and freaking out in that high pitched voice. Changing her mind severely in a matter of seconds. For the sex stuff, it's the way she seems to like to change her mind a lot, while also perhaps recklessly engaging in a lot of recreational sex. I mean, sex is great and all that, but rationally, in this day and age, if you're too hypersexual, it can be a problem and maybe even a mental problem. Someone who walks a dangerous line with sex, risking their life with the possibilities of HIV and diseases, can be seen as someone with a serious problem. Not just as someone who's happy and sexually liberated. Being VERY sexual isn't always a good thing, I feel.

That's not confirmed by the movie either. In fact, Alyssa outright tells Holden why it bothers her. It reinforces his slanted perspective of her in his mind by assuming that she'd just be cool with it when she's stated that she's not that kind of person anymore.

This is backed up by their argument in the parking lot when she said she liked the way he originally felt about her. She doesn't want to lose that which is why she glossed over the truth. Now he's suggesting we feed directly into that so that HE can get over it, but that fails to consider her feelings on the matter.

It'd be kind of like finding out your partner accidentally killed a kid in a car crash and despite them feeling really guilty about it, you weren't able to let it go. Then you come back to them and suggest getting into a car together and running over some children so you can get over it. It's missing the point of why they concealed that information in the first place.Like I've said... Holden and Alyssa both have their issues. Perhaps the issues with Holden are even more complex. If someone wants to get in a car with someone who accidentally killed a kid, and they want to see what it's like to run over kids themselves.... that's obviously an indication that the person has issues. More profound, more disturbing issues than what Holden has.

Holden's issues seem to point to him wanting to know what it's like to be "experimental" just like she was. Why else does he come to the idea of having a threesome with Alyssa? Is it really because he wants to work things out with his girlfriend and his best friend -- or is it because he wants to work out something going on WITH HIMSELF? Probably the latter. I mean, if you date someone who accidentally ran over kids with your car, and you wanted to know what that was like, wouldn't that mean you probably ALWAYS wanted to do something crazy like that?

All of this is of course assuming that a threesome X many years ago is even that kind of a moral atrocity to begin with.

Holden doesn't appear capable of being able to accept that people can change. I'm sure he's done some stupid **** before. They emphasize the liberal/conservative angle wherein people look at things with different general perspectives. Alyssa may not have thought sex like that was that big of a deal, but what if she learned about something Holden had done that he didn't think was that big of a deal?

All of this just goes to inform that these kinds of things should be dealt with before they can become problems.Well, Alyssa didn't deal with them. She played with Holden's mind -- for her benefit. She LIKED the way he was when he believed he was the only guy, okay? That means she's enjoying it for her own benefit. But when Holden finds out the truth -- BOOM. Volcano.

They were feeding off of each other. She gets the cute guy who thinks he's a macho stud, her FIRST real man. He gets the virgin lesbian who's never had a man. Neither are real. The relationship was all a fantasy. For both of them. But if you ask me -- she started it. She started it because she fed him the idea that she was a virgin with men. She seduced this little puppy dog with issues into following her around, thinking she had a bone he wanted, and instead, the bone had already been devoured by other dogs. Then when the dog actually tries to forget about the bone and act more like how she acted to get her love, she doesn't want the dog anymore.

I know she's a woman and I know you probably think I'm ripping her apart because she's a woman, but I'm sorry, she's a woman who plays head games. Even at the end of the movie, when she's with her new lesbian lover at the comic convention, the lover asks about Holden, "Who was that guy?" Alyssa coyly responds, "Oh, just some guy." Does Alyssa tell the total truth? Nope. Covers it up. Let's not talk about it! That's okay if she wants to cover it up, but I think it's another sign that she's a sly, sneaky girl, who wants things to be exactly as she wants them to be.

Mind games require an exchange and a lot of what Holden was dealing with was contradictions to his assumptions.

His claim to Banky that "she's totally into me" reads as pure delusion to me.It might have been. Yes. Absolutely. Especially since we saw her freak out at first about Holden liking her, then she changes her mind real quick.

Unless you put a presumptive weight on everything she says being veiled and read-between-the-lines kind of dialog, but playing those mind games, whether you're the speaker or the listener is almost ALWAYS a source of problems.Well, yes, I might put a presumptive weight on everything she says.

Miss Vicky

05-30-16, 04:38 PM

When I think of a really depressing and emotionally draining movie I think of Grave of the Fireflies.

I thought Grave of the Fireflies was very well done, but it wasn't anywhere near as draining for me as Schindler's List. I also think Schindler was a far more effective dramatization of the holocaust than The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, though the latter was good too.

gbgoodies

05-30-16, 04:59 PM

The Nightmare Before Christmas

I struggle to explain what it is I exactly like about THIS MOVIE.

Sometimes I make mistakes, sometimes I make BIG mistakes and despite good advice I have to learn the hard way where it is I ****ed up, should have stepped back, and reconsidered.

Ultimately all I really have to do is say, "Look, the movie may be flawed and you're free to point out those flaws to me and explain why Coraline or ParaNorman or whatever is an objectively better movie, but you know what? I don't care. I love this movie. And you'll be hard-pressed to do one better in my book."

Final Verdict: rating_5 [Friggen' Awesome]

Great review of The Nightmare Before Christmas. I love that you said "I struggle to explain what it is I exactly like about THIS MOVIE." because I feel the same way about it. I've watched the movie several times, and I like it more each time I see it, but I'm not sure what I like about it either. I just know that it's fun, and it has some catchy songs.

Omnizoa

05-30-16, 05:10 PM

Leaving the questions up in the air rather than resolved.... yeah, some people probably do keep it that way. Some people probably don't wanna know a person's sexual history. It might be better for them that way. The less they know, the better. For some people, it's just easier to deal with. There's all kinds of issues that can pop up over knowing about your lover's relationship/sexual history. Love is NOT an easy thing, I think. Not in every case. It can't always be cleanly looked over as you may think it can.
If it's easier to ignore those things, then those things should ACTUALLY be ignored. It's one thing to ignore something, it's another to be ignorant of it.

Here's an example of what I was just saying -- you're right. You're right. What if Holden had found out earlier, before the relationship started, that she had been with men? What if that made it easier to ignore?

BUT -- what if that had also caused Holden to not seek a relationship with Alyssa if he knew about the men? It's VERY possible, I think,
As in a sexual relationship? Then there would be no issue. What's the argument here? That it's better to not know and have it tear the relationship apart later rather than not having one at all? I don't think so, not when they could still be friends.

He might have just wanted a virgin woman, ya know?
Well **** him, then.

*laughs*

That just seems shallow to me. There's nothing special about virginity beyond a bizarre fetish or some obsessive compulsive idea of living out some unrealistic romantic ideal.

Sex with women might have just been silly, non-sexual things to him -- in case, that is the case, because it's like when they had their chat on the swings and she said "there's more ways to make love than just penetration." But he didn't buy that. And I noticed in your review that you, yourself, didn't seem to buy into the many different ways you can "make love." As in, fisting is not sex to you. Or licking genitals, as I believe you put it. Ohhhh, but it is. It can be considered sex, absolutely.
I didn't say it wasn't I just said it's a problem when these things aren't previous established and you're attempting to inject new meaning into them.

It's pretty commonly held now, so I wasn't even saying Alyssa's wrong, I just thought the scene was pointless and she came off smug by telling him the words he was using were wrong when for all intents and purposes they were perfectly serviceable to him.

Anyway, Holden didn't buy into the idea that her lesbian sex was real sex. He basically thought she was a virgin. And she didn't reveal that she was otherwise.

So... probably.... Alyssa's appeal to Holden probably depended some on Alyssa being a lesbian. He was, basically, a lesbian chaser. He LIKED the fact that she had no other men to compare him to. But when he found out she DID.... the passion started to go away. The fantasy was over.

It's possible Holden and Alyssa may not have even become a couple if Holden knew about her thing with men, or about how "experimental" she was. Banky and Holden could have talked it over and Holden could have been like, "You know what? I don't want her. She's been with too many guys - I don't like that." But he finds out DURING the relationship.... that makes it complicated.
And so because he didn't ask the "important" questions up front it created unnecessary conflict later.

Your argument seems to be that if he asked those questions there'd be no relationship.

EXACTLY.

It's all very psychological. Love is a messy, complicated business because so much of it is about our own psychologies. What works depends on our own minds and if we can resolve conflicts without screwing it up. But resolving those conflicts isn't as simple as 1-2-3. It may SOUND easy in theory, but it's NOT always easy in practice. Thus, I think you might be a bit naive about all this. You seem to me.... rather optimistic.
Or realistic.

Like a newbie.
*laughs* That's cute.

Or else you've just been lucky with your own love relationships. You seem to have simple, sweet answers to everything. I say it's not always so simple.
I don't think it's simple I just think people over-complicate things.

Even if I forgave Holden for not asking about these things up front (which I did), I still think he overreacted and was unreasonably uncompromising in the face of fair argument.

Holden's issues seem to be point to him wanting to know what it's like to be "experimental" just like she was. Why else does he come to the idea of having a threesome with Alyssa? Is it really because he wants to work things out with his girlfriend and his best friend -- or is it because he wants to work out something going on WITH HIMSELF?
I think he confirms that when he goes on to explain his rationalization for it.

Probably the latter. I mean, if you date someone who accidentally ran over kids with your car, and you wanted to know what that was like, wouldn't that mean you probably ALWAYS wanted to do something crazy like that?
*laughs* Probably.

I know she's a woman and I know you probably think I'm ripping her apart because she's a woman,
Not really.

but I'm sorry, she's a woman who plays head games. Even at the end of the movie, when she's with her new lesbian lover at the comic convention, the lover asks about Holden, "Who was that guy?" Alyssa coyly responds, "Oh, just some guy." Does Alyssa tell the total truth? Nope. Covers it up. Let's not talk about it! That's okay if she wants to cover it up, but I think it's another sign that she's a sly, sneaky girl, who wants things to be exactly as she wants them to be.
It's also, and again, FAR MORE LIKELY a total cliche because I knew exactly what she was going to say before she said it.

"Who was that guy?"

*meaningfully* "Oh... you know... JUST SOME GUY..."

It's writer's shorthand. There's no point in explaining on the spot and dismissing it moves the scene along without opening up the subject to questions which would ruin the sensation of a forgotten romance which is almost always the goal of these sorts of movies. They want to convey the idea that these characters are moving on, BUT that this was significant albeit secret milestone in their lives.

Omnizoa

05-30-16, 05:13 PM

I also think Schindler was a far more effective dramatization of the holocaust than The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, though the latter was good too.
I would agree, I just think seeing one possibly tainted my experience of the other.

Great review of The Nightmare Before Christmas. I love that you said "I struggle to explain what it is I exactly like about THIS MOVIE."
Thanks. I only noticed the narrative tie-in while I was writing it.

Sexy Celebrity

05-30-16, 05:43 PM

Alright, well, forget about all this. I've had enough.

Now you have to watch and review Hedwig and the Angry Inch because I really do wanna see your review for that. We all do.

Omnizoa

05-30-16, 05:49 PM

Alright, well, forget about all this. I've had enough.
Okeedoke.

Now you have to watch and review Hedwig and the Angry Inch because I really do wanna see your review for that. We all do.
DUUUUUUUHHHHI think I'll resume my current watchlist for now.

Sexy Celebrity

05-30-16, 05:51 PM

DUUUUUUUHHHHI think I'll resume my current watchlist for now.

No no no. You put that on your watchlist. Or I'm never coming back in here again.

Omnizoa

05-30-16, 05:57 PM

No no no. You put that on your watchlist. Or I'm never coming back in here again.
http://replygif.net/i/1448.gif

Okay fine, but it's LOW PRIORITY. No negotiations.

Sexy Celebrity

05-30-16, 06:00 PM

Oooh. I see avatar material.

Omnizoa

05-30-16, 06:12 PM

Oooh. I see avatar material.
And I have to see True Lies again.

Omnizoa

05-31-16, 10:07 AM

I've updated the OP to include my Hits and Misses. If you guys know of any movies that fit the bill, please suggest them!

https://media.giphy.com/media/1BeH3L8dfcsSc/giphy.gif

Omnizoa

05-31-16, 12:46 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25719&stc=1&d=1464709513

The Hurt Locker

Action Thriller / English / 2008

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Rrreeeaaasssssseeessssssmmmeeennntt*BOOM!*

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

Cats, Goats, Donkeys, Cows, Burgers, Butchers GET THE **** OUT OF MY MOVIE YOU PIECE OF ****!!!

And thus concludes by biggest complaints about the movie.

Other complaints would include the off-duty brouhaha and ultimately the last fourth of the movie which ends greats, but includes a ludicrous scene in which our main three characters LEAVE SAFETY... to SPLIT UP... to go HUNT FOR UNKNOWN BAD GUYS... in the DARK.

And one of them gets kidnapped and shot.

Way to go... you dumbasses.

At least they acknowledge it later so it's at least somewhat mitigated, but STILL this wasn't just the actions of one person, this was THREE DIFFERENT PEOPLE. You'd think ONE of them would dig their heels in.

Anyway, EVERYBODY thinks that part of the movie is stupid, but how's the rest?

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25720&stc=1&d=1464709532

Well... ****in' great. I mean I don't like movies that glorify the military, but I can actually dig this one because it's not really about the military at all, it's about an adrenaline junkie bomb disposal guy and it's basically a two-hour collection of his exploits.

"Fast-paced slow-burn" comes to mind. It's combination of gradual clenching and releasing of the background ambiance combined with increasingly quick camera cuts intermixed with each character's growing agitation because as time passes things become more dangerous. They could be attacked by a sniper, the bomb could be rigged to a timer, or the owner of the bomb could show up to detonate it. It's almost all totally engaging save maybe the overuse of shaky cam. That was kinda distracting.

It's all set into motion with a fantastic and memorable opening that shows you exactly what you're in for when we see the last bomb disposal go wrong, before our guy takes over.

Admittedly I have difficulty remembering the characters names beyond their callsigns "Blaster 1" and "Specialist", but while we see development arcs in all three of our main characters, it's our adrenaline junkie who takes center stage for his reckless (and therefor more exciting to watch) approach to his job. Sure, it may not be TOTALLY realistic, but I can totally buy this character as person.

I understand why he does the job he does and by the end of the movie we're presented the last of many contrasts to show us that living in that life or death situation is a kick and it's a kick with a job market.

I really enjoyed this movie. It IRRITATES THE EVERLASTING **** OUT OF ME that the creators cannot ****ing help themselves, but include animals both dead and alive in it,
BUT...

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25721&stc=1&d=1464709552

I gotta admit the good aspects mostly distracted me from the bad aspects. MOSTLY.

This'll be another movie that falls into that category of, "Would have LOVED to give you a 5/5, but you ****ED UP!", but will still find a place among my favorites because I JUST KEEP WATCHING IT.

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

Swan

05-31-16, 12:49 PM

Hey, I was talking about that movie just yesterday.

Omnizoa

05-31-16, 12:54 PM

Hey, I was talking about that movie just yesterday.
How 'bout that. I've been meaning to see it again.

Omnizoa

06-01-16, 08:36 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25739&stc=1&d=1464824153

12 Angry Men

Drama / English / 1957

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
I've been in a BIG HONKIN' ARGUMENT with Yoda about objective morality, empirical evidence, GOD, lots of big word stuff. Anyway, it's made me very interested to see this kind of debate in the movies he watches. The 50s Countdown has had people throwing "12 Angry Men" back and forth a few times and wasn't that on Yoda's favorites list?

OH! It's his number one. A favorite shared by ScarletLion, Spaghetti, DrSoup007, Horroist, and even Jackojacko2000.

And it's about a jury arguing over a court case? PER~FECT!

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

WELL.

Ummm...

It's just a great ****in' movie.

I was honestly surprised, AGAIN, I rarely watch black and white movies and I don't know any of these actors, seen anything else by this director, hadn't the plot spoiled for me, totally blind and I thought it was good. Really good.

I mean I hate courtroom drama (what don't I hate, right?), but this obfuscates out all of that petty legal system ******** and just presents 12 guys, all sitting in a room, a situation on which to make a judgment on.

Sure enough, 11 of them are for the guilty verdict except 1 (for predictable dramatic effect of course) and the rest of the movie is an intellectual dispute in an effort to overturn this certainty.

This concept definitely appeals to me, BUT NATURALLY I have to be very critical of how it's presented, if for no other reason than critical accuracy is precisely the point of the movie.

Did the arguments make sense? YES! THEY DID! It does look to be an open and shut case at the beginning and even by the halfway point where only half of the room is in agreement I WAS STILL ON THE FENCE RIGHT THERE WITH THEM! If we're all sharing the same information we should all be in agreement, but if there is still left unsaid and the collective is unsure then I should ALSO be unsure.

And in the end, I was convinced there was reasonable doubt!

BUT, they could have also ****ed this up by failing to present crucial information to the viewer before this point (so they can, "Surprise! New evidence!" and they did that once early on with the knife, but whatever it was a good stinger). Sure, the jurors reach new conclusions not previously considered, but all significant evidence is laid out for us right away so we can pick it apart along with them.

Admittedly, it's not a terribly surprising movie, all the arcs you would expect to see are here, but I had big grin on my face every time some ******* got called out for his ********.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tuZmfuYjls

AAAGGGHHHHH~that's satisfying.

Another impressive thing about this movie is that not only are the whopping cast of 12 characters nameless, but they each, ALL OF THEM, manage distinct separate personalities. They all seem like PEOPLE and some of them, particularly Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb have quite a presence to them.

It's just a very well-made minimalist drama with a couple neat little touches (anyone else glean the fan starting to work when it's matched 6 to 6 as "the winds of change"?) and manages to be equal parts emotionally charged and insightful.

NOW FOLLOWS MY COMPLAINTS:

But let's be real, I can only nitpick at this point.

When the rain kicks in we get a got of annoying background ambiance that while it doesn't make it too difficult to hear the characters, it's sufficiently loud enough to be distracting.

Some of the dialog between characters outside of the debate seems like needlessly feeble exposition like it's trying to squeeze everything it can out of each character, even though it's comparatively trivial next to the regular dialog.

The "prejudice" scene really caught me off guard because the theme was brought up before, and now it seems really uncharacteristic for so many people to react so acutely to it. Upon rewatching it, it's a bit easier for me to understand since he is saying some pretty objectionable things even by the standards of our other "antagonists", but it still sticks out to me.

PROBABLY because of my biggest issue with the movie which is the maddeningly immersion-breaking habit of so many characters standing up out of their chair and wandering around the room.

Maybe if one character was fidgety or another just didn't like sitting in general I can get that, but it's like half of the cast cannot stand to sit at the same table with somebody they disagree with and it's on principal that they stand up in a huff and walk away.

It just seems so unnatural that I couldn't help but focus on it. They must have been desperate to put some sort of movement into each shot to keep things visually interesting, but I'd have preferred that they just sat down and stayed sitting, or stayed standing, JUST MAKE UP THEIR ****IN' MINDS!

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25738&stc=1&d=1464824105

REWATCH UPDATE:

So I've watched this three times now and while my original complaints are hardly mitigated and I've even found new things I can criticize (some obvious points are drawn out unnecessarily, a couple performance stumbles, the last break period is a definite, albeit brief, lull), I've come to appreciate other aspects of it more, particularly how Cobb's character is foreshadowed.

He makes a brief overlookable comment about kids implying his bias at the beginning of the movie which is followed shortly by his primary introduction in which he articulately presents himself as "Now I have no personal feelings about this, these are just the facts..." which is a great little deceit. Later on when he offers his story, his most obvious piece of foreshadowing is pretty negligible. It obviously seems important in the moment but it occurs so early in the movie and he doesn't really even particularly stand out among all the other detractors for quite a while that there's no obvious sign that it'll be reincorporated later, particularly thanks to all the other moments where the characters interact and reveal a little bit about themselves. I STILL DON'T LIKE those scenes because they're transparently unimportant by the end of the movie, but if they were added to obfuscate this foreshadowing then I can at least understand why they're there.

Ultimately as much as crime solving may be an interesting idea for a movie, it doesn't appear to be the purpose of this movie. We never see the defendant again after the opening and really the movie neither seems to be about the characters themselves or the legal process. It seems to be about nothing less than the value of rationality in the pursuit of justice.

We have a sort of Inception moment partway through the movie where Fonda's character, Davis (he's one of maybe 3 characters ever named, but not referred to by name), is in the bathroom and another character asks him, "What if you convince all of us he's innocent and he really did do it?"

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25814&stc=1&d=1465342384

That's a good question, what if he really did do it? Reasonable doubt is not proof, so even if everybody sides Not Guilty, it's still possible the kid committed the crime and gets away with it.

The movie never explores this question, but perhaps because the answer should be reasonable to infer given the course of reasoning offered to us? Okay, let's say he did it: What does that mean?

It doesn't mean he'll kill again. It doesn't mean he didn't feel bad about it. It doesn't even mean the murder wasn't justified. All it means is that a criminal wasn't punished.

The inverse of that is an innocent who is punished.

Not punishing a criminal isn't an inherent moral wrong, it's a neutral judgment. If the punishment is death then it's a crime we are committing which is morally excusable. It's not morally "good" to put criminals to death, but it's not morally "bad" either, SO LONG... as the criminal in question is actually guilty and deserving of that level of judgment.

That's what's in question here. Davis begins the movie with no hard evidence to suggest the kid's innocence, but circumstances provoke him to question the fairness of such a verdict. Maybe he is guilty, but is he guilty a crime worth killing him for?

Even if none of that were in question though, the original question still remains an important one: What if he's guilty and he gets away with it?

Well, then that presents us a new conundrum: Which is worse? To give a killer a second chance or to condemn an innocent to death?

I think the implications speak for themselves: What we have to lose letting a killer go free is indefinite, and while it could potentially prove far more disastrous than one innocent death, one innocent death is precisely a consequence we can be certain of if we make the wrong decision. And even then it begs the question of whether condemning innocents can even be justified given a certain outcome.

What sort of justice is that?

Anyway I'll shut up now. My new rating for 12 Angry Men is 5 out of 5.

Final Verdict: rating_5 [Friggen' Awesome]

Sexy Celebrity

06-01-16, 08:37 PM

I've been in a BIG HONKIN' ARGUMENT with Yoda about objective morality, empirical evidence, GOD, lots of big word stuff.

Oh, no. Not you too.

Omnizoa

06-01-16, 08:43 PM

Oh, no. Not you too.
Me too.

gbgoodies

06-02-16, 12:51 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25739&stc=1&d=1464824153

12 Angry Men

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

Great review of 12 Angry Men, but only "Pretty Good"? :rolleyes:

Omnizoa

06-02-16, 01:06 AM

Great review of 12 Angry Men, but only "Pretty Good"? :rolleyes:
Any movie I give a 5/5 becomes an indefinite part of my personal collection, and often times I need to see a movie a few times before I've cemented my feelings on it. It's the same for Strange Days and Imaginaerum.

Omnizoa

06-02-16, 10:32 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25744&stc=1&d=1464874116

Changeling

Drama / English / 2008

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Honestly, for me, a movie that shows me the how monstrous humans can be are movies that focus not on their actions, but on their mindset. How they sickly justify it to themselves. Some movies are really good at that.

Reassessment time.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

I suppose it's commendable to some extent for a movie to broach big topics, but it's unfortunate when the movie itself is both figuratively and literally subsumed by reality.

The movie's okay. The story works, scenes are appropriately emotional, the acting's solid with the possible exception of Jeffrey Donovan who's southern accent suddenly takes on an Irish quality. Regardless he manages a pretty despicable bad guy, so that works.

There are a couple leaps in logic such as how Angelina Jolie's character Christine Collins somehow, if at least temporarily, apparently buys being told she's too distraught to recognize her own son.

I don't care if the kid's malnourished and the rest of her family was shot in front of her eyes, she's known her son his entire life, that's not a plausible mistake to make, let alone handwave (are you SURE it's not your son?).

The movie starts off pretty solid and manages that for I dunno, about half it's length before we get into the final stretch where we start playing that old game of Spot The Ending.

Is this the last scene of the movie? Okay.

Is this the last scene of the movie? Okay.

Is this the last scene of the movie? Okay.

To be honest there are some great scenes in the movie, particularly one which is the whole reason I rewatched it because it presents the resident doctor at a mental hospital (*ding!) as one of the most LOVEABLE TO HATE VILE SCUMBAGS IN THE PLANET YOU JUST WANT TO PUNCH HIS FALLACIOUS ****ING TEETH OUT.

https://youtu.be/U9oXKxnCFrM

Word-twistin' mother****er. That's some grandmaster chess levels of dickery and in fact this is what I was referring to in the post about Schindler's List. It doesn't bother me to see an image of one person callously killing another person as much as it bothers me to see someone contort and pervert logic so as to justify anything, particularly from a indisputable position of authority.

I'm honestly not entirely sure why it bothers me so much. Perhaps it's because this is the source of the atrocities we see in things like World War II. This is corruption, pure and simple, and it plagues their mind, unbidden by empathy or beholden to dissenters. It's mercilessly cruel chaos and it's unstoppable from it's perch, CRUSHING any hope of justice or retribution.

I wanna claw his eyes out, punch him in the throat, and cave his skull in with something ironic. **** that guy.

And **** mental hospitals. Those places suck. I-I mean... heh, I assume... ( o_o)

Favorite scene of the movie though.

ANYWAY, other than the movie lacking a certain punch to it that comes from what I believe is a slightly off-focus attention to it's various elements, there's KIND OF A PROBLEM when it comes to Real Life Stories like this. In that it's very blatantly misrepresented.

On one hand, there were two killers, not one, the guy's mom was involved. Also, that happy ending? Where the two main police dudes were fined and lost their jobs? And the whole courtroom applauded and cheered? Smiles all around? Yeah.

They never paid that fine.

They got their jobs back.

And Christine's son is still dead.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25743&stc=1&d=1464874087
~And They Lived Happily Ever After!~

Yes, it seems police corruption is alive and well.

What is it with California anyway?

First, Changeling's protagonist is committed by corrupt cops in 2008, cops get away with it,

then L.A. Noire's protagonist dies investigating corrupt cops in 2011, cops get away with it,

then this very real man is repeatedly stabbed to death (https://www.google.com/search?q=lang+marine) by corrupt cops just 5 months ago, cops get away with it.

It's almost as if the police don't answer to anybody, have no accountability, possess a disproportionate amount of resources despite that, and are free to exploit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States), abuse (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-hank-johnson/the-failed-war-on-drugs-i_b_6043558.html), and murder (http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed/) people through the control of information and the fundamentally flawed justice system which enables them.

And guess who pays their salary?

You got it.

You wanna know what else you pay for? For the serial killer in this movie, and in reality, to sit on his ass in prison for 2 ****ING YEARS, turning perfectly good food into anal waste while the bureaucratic CLUSTER**** OF A LEGAL SYSTEM struggles not to cough up a lung and deliver on it's promise to KILL THE WORTHLESS WASTE OF SKIN WITH A PIECE OF ROPE YOU COULD BUY FROM A DEPARTMENT STORE FOR 20 ****~ING DOLLARS!

And people wonder why I don't VOTE.

Oh yeah, the MOVIE. Idunno, Iduncare, just fuggin' leave me alone.

Final Verdict: rating_3 [Meh...]

Omnizoa

06-04-16, 11:46 AM

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/nattreas.gif

National Treasure

Adventure / English / 2004

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
It's reassessment time and this time we take a look at an old favorite of mine and see if it still deserves it's spot among my personal collection. This is gonna be a tough one since this is to determine whether it stays or leaves and I've been avoiding it for a while so let's find out.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

First off, I gotta say I don't know who in their right minds can say they dislike National Treasure. It's a fun popcorn flik that while YES it takes creative liberties and YES at times pushes beyond that boundary between fiction and realism, it's pretty darn good.

It's also the biggest argument I have against Nicolas Cage haters. He's just a charismatic guy. And I thought he was great in Lord of War.

Anyway, National Treasure, A.K.A. That Absurd Movie With The Absurd Premise That Got An Absurd Sequel With An Even More Absurd Premise posits that throughout all of early United States history, various historical relics are actually secret clues towards an ungodly sum of treasure.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25769&stc=1&d=1465051536
Common legal tender and Aquafina water bottles are some of the rarest of legendary relics.

It's dumb, but come on, isn't this an awesome "What If" scenario? I've always had a certain fondness for history and the march of time so this sort of thing fascinates me.

The movie is equal parts action, adventure, and even comedy with a totally unnecessary romance splashed in (go ahead and count that as a strike). It's well-paced, it's well-acted, it's writing is more than serviceable and I really do feel that it's realistic enough to buy, at least as any sort of Indiana Jones veteran.

Nicolas Cage, Justin Bartha, and Sean Bean are highlights in the movie as the first and second protagonists and main antagonist respectively, but Diane Kruger as the third protagonist disappoints. She's hardly a source of the movie's humor and her historical background seems to exist purely to validate Cage's character and serve as incredibly unsubtle Love Interest to him.

And yes they kiss (count that as a strike too).

The narrative developments are interesting and the character interplay is amusing, but if you haven't already gleaned already the movie overall just lacks a certain... luster. Something to really make it shine and stand out.

The soundtrack is arguably the strongest thing the movie has going for it so if nothing else I totally recommend you give it a listen, but the rest?

Eeeeehhhhhh, I gotta admit it's not all that exceptional. I mean, how did it get into my personal collection to begin with? Again, I'd say the premise and historical elements appeal to me even though I'm BY NO MEANS any sort of fan of United States history, or hell even the United States in general (*massive understatement*), but there is an appeal to the retcon.

Is it strong enough to warrant full marks from me?

As of today I've decided, no. I still enjoy the movie and I certainly recommend it, especially to fans of adventure fliks, but there are definitely one or two lulls in the movie's momentum where I get bored. The comedy is okay, but nothing special, and altogether the emotional stakes are preeetty low since that sense of hollowness kicks in when you realize there's very little in the way of subverting your expectations.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25768&stc=1&d=1465051471

Of course no one's ever gonna to get shot, the guy is gonna get the girl, and the movie's gonna end with the comedy relief saying something humorous. Hardy har har.

By no means a bad movie, but lacking that essential something to make it a great one. One I'd really wanna watch again.

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

Omnizoa

06-04-16, 02:16 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25773&stc=1&d=1465060372

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

Action Drama / English / 2009

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Reassessmerrrgghhggg*werewolf mode*

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"If devils you call us, rest assured, better the devil you know."

Horses.

Here's another movie which gets incredibly negative reviews, which I would argue is even more flawed than National Treasure, but I would also argue is more fun.

When people tell me that Twilight is a good movie, I balk at them, they don't get the hint, I ask them why, and they say "because I like vampire movies", I respond "Underworld 3". I mean hell, you got an interspecies romance with lots of contact lenses and shirtless werewolves, how can you not love this?

Underworld 3's world is precisely what I think of when I think of vampires and werewolves. A grimdark fantasy setting set somewhere in medieval Europe and featuring the thematic hallmarks you come to expect from such a setting. Gothic political covens, beasts of the forest, it's exactly the kind of backdrop you want to a movie like Underworld.

While Underworld went for a lot of gore-for-shock value type stuff along with an incredibly unengaging plot about hybridizing vampires and werewolves (to create the Blue Man Group), Underworld 3 ignores the awful sequel, Underworld 2, in favor of a prequel which presents to us the events which kick off the entire series vampire/werewolf feud.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25774&stc=1&d=1465060470

The secret is it's actually just Romeo and Juliet, except Juliet dies in the sun and Romeo makes Lord Capulet eat a zweihander.

Naturally given that it's a romance, it dares not breath into existence without at requisite kissing scene and even a sex scene, BUT the romantic development isn't an actual problem in the movie by virtue of the development having happened offscreen before the movie started.

Oh. Okay, well that's fine then. ( ^ ^)b

And the sex scene is brief and tasteful? Astounding.

Basically the plot has Lucien, our werewolf slave underdog try and run away with... uh... ummm... SONJA! Sonja. And Sonja's father, Viktor keeps watch over the developing struggle between master and slave.

I think even the regular dialog is pretty interesting and virtually no lines are spared for trivialities which I like. Bill Nighy as Viktor is pretty intimidating, much in the way that Davy Jones was and I really dig that, he's just a great villain and I'd argue he does a better job playing with drama in this movie than in Pirates of the Caribbean.

Michael Sheen also returns as Lucien as a much more likeable primary protagonist.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25775&stc=1&d=1465060499
Hrhrhrhrwhoa~ hello there... my my my, aren't you a sexy animal?

We are NOT ANIMALS!
Except you are. Yeah, that's a definite grievance on my part. Lucien distinguishes himself from feral werewolves because he's a special breed that retains his humanity and does so by saying he's not an animal. *SIGH*

The action's pretty Matrix-y, and the CG somewhat idles between pretty good and gratuitous, but I have to give a fair bit of credit: The werewolves themselves are frequently practical costumes and they look good save what mercifully brief moments of dismemberment and body-horror transformations we get. Any movie that gives me flashbacks to Helm's Deep from Lord of the Rings is doing something right.

All told, I can think of a bunch of problems that would distract your average movie goer like, "Are they making continuity errors with the contact lenses? Since when does sucking blood allow vampires to read memories!? WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP ADJUSTING THE VOLUME HIGHER TO HEAR THE DIALOG!?" and whatnot.

It's even got a couple moments of genuinely cheesy overacting and it can't help but feature the never-not-a-cliche line: "This isn't the end, this is just the beginning." BUT YOU KNOW WHAT??? I think Underworld 3 earns that line, because it retroactively improves my opinion of the first Underworld movie which it flashes forward to at the very end.

This is what I'm looking for in these kinds of movies: Interesting drama, interesting characters, not a lot of blood, not a lot of gore, and THEMATIC AS HELL.

You can lock this in as one that I know has a butt-ton of problems, but just can't help finding myself watching it again and again.

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

REWATCH UPDATE 3/9/24

Damn, it's been 8 years since I reviewed this, but I gotta say, my opinion really hasn't changed much.

This is a movie that doesn't waste any time getting to the central conflict of the story, and development follows rapidly from there. Bill Nighy chewing scenery the whole way is great and it really the movie feels like it's more about him than Lucian and Sonja.

In fact it feels more about Lucian than Sonja too. Of course this is necessary to some degree because only Viktor and Lucian appear later in the chronology, but these are also the only characters of the three that seem to see any sort of development.

Sonja's just kinda there as the pre-established love interest, whereas we get a bit of a montage of Lucian's life and his eventual turn into a rebel leader for the lycan slaves. We also get mixed glimpses into Viktor's sympathetic side, while also his cruel and racist totalitarian side to the point where he genuinely seems unpredictable at times, which of course makes him more enjoyable to watch.

I don't know what I was really saying about the CG in this movie earlier. I think it's serviceable, but it does oscillate in quality the closer the werewolves are to the camera, and likewise it's pretty obvious when they're using practical effects puppets/costumes instead.

Overall, a movie like this really does benefit from a brisk pacing and relatively safe, if unsurprising, storyline because I find little to complain about.

The sorta nitpicking that comes to mind would stuff like "Where do the extra keys come from?" Lucian is a "blacksmith" which explains how he made the first key, and the Vampire Advisor character gives him a second key, which ISN'T, apparently, the one key to the cell he was one, but even ignoring that, the same key prop just seems to appear in various characters' hands at different times to conveniently remove neck locks or open cell doors, and either there's some thought out path that this key travels between characters that isn't clearly emphasized in the movie, or these are just Deux Ex Keys manifesting themselves.

Either way, this definitely isn't one of the strongest movies I own, which is why I'm reviewing it, but I can still see myself revisiting it in the future.

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

Sexy Celebrity

06-04-16, 02:21 PM

Reassessmerrrgghhggg*werewolf mode*

See - women don't turn into werewolves.

Swan

06-04-16, 02:23 PM

See - women don't turn into werewolves.

http://data.whicdn.com/images/59924676/large.gif

Sexy Celebrity

06-04-16, 02:23 PM

Not often. Once in a blue moon.

Omnizoa

06-04-16, 02:26 PM

http://data.whicdn.com/images/59924676/large.gif
DAMMIT! You beat me to it, Swan. I was just about to say "Have you SEEN Ginger Snaps?"

Omnizoa

06-04-16, 02:29 PM

Not often. Once in a blue moon.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zKLAygVCmOA/Tw5zQOYcd6I/AAAAAAAAAeA/X3D3UwwB_2M/s1600/dark%2Bascension%2Blambolt%2Belder%2Bsilverpelt%2Bwerewolf%2Bcasualmtgdotnet.png

Omnizoa

06-04-16, 03:49 PM

Which should I watch?

Message From Space?
~ OR ~
Starcrash?
You decide!
I haven't seen either movie.

mark f

06-04-16, 04:12 PM

You can't lose with either godawful mess.

Omnizoa

06-04-16, 04:24 PM

You can't lose with either godawful mess.
Which one explodes more gracefully?

Sexy Celebrity

06-04-16, 04:31 PM

Turn off movie, consider masturbating instead.

See - women don't turn off movies because they'd rather masturbate.

Miss Vicky does not count.

Omnizoa

06-04-16, 04:34 PM

See - women don't turn off movies because they'd rather masturbate.

Miss Vicky does not count.
Who're you tryin' to convince, SC? Who're you tryin' to convince?

mark f

06-04-16, 04:38 PM

I don't think I'd use those words, but I'd go with Starcrash.

Omnizoa

06-04-16, 04:41 PM

I don't think I'd use those words, but I'd go with Starcrash.
No takebacks!

Sexy Celebrity

06-04-16, 04:42 PM

I still say check out Hedwig and the Angry Inch. You'll relate to it - it's about someone who's not sure if they're male or female.

Omnizoa

06-04-16, 04:48 PM

I still say check out Hedwig and the Angry Inch. You'll relate to it - it's about someone who's not sure if they're male or female.
Really? I thought it was about hair that proves the theory of folding space.

Sexy Celebrity

06-04-16, 04:57 PM

Who're you tryin' to convince, SC? Who're you tryin' to convince?

Angela Lansbury.

Sexy Celebrity

06-04-16, 04:58 PM

Really? I thought it was about hair that proves the theory of folding space.

No.

Omnizoa

06-04-16, 05:03 PM

Angela Lansbury.
http://i1.wp.com/www.dailycal.org/assets/uploads/2013/10/GIF-UH.gif

Omnizoa

06-05-16, 11:33 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25786&stc=1&d=1465137137

Starcrash

Sci-Fi / English / 1978

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
godawful mess... ...but I'd go with Starcrash.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"What in the universe!?"

Wow. Just... wow. I wasn't expecting anything good, but I wasn't expecting anything this BAD. This is monumentally bad. A FEAT in badness-okay, I'll lay off the "bad" for now, but come on, I'm literally impressed by how roundly incompetent this movie is.

Everything from the acting to the story to the fighting to the sound of Roger Corman physically ripping the movie away from plausible reality just creates this catastrophic mess which we see on screen.

The only occasionally commendable aspect of the entire movie are the practical effects, I legit wasn't expecting the robot's head to actually have machinery in it, but that's just how low my expectations WERE at that point.

I usually give a movie about 15 minutes to engage me and not 5 minutes into this movie I realized that had I been taking notes of everything I could complain about on an index card, I'd have already filled it. The WHOLE MOVIE is going to be like this isn't it?

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25785&stc=1&d=1465137087

I won't list everything wrong with the movie, I CAN'T, but I'll pick out what immediately comes to mind:

*sigh* Okay...

The robot is not programmed to emote, but emotes anyway.

Everyone speaks in exposition and either fails to emote at all, emotes too much, or emotes inappropriately.

The movie doesn't know how to layer laser effects to show depth of field so an unconvincing model ship looks even more fake shooting at an unconvincing stop-motion giant.

The story involves a protagonist who can see into the future and uses it to change the future, but when the other protagonist asks why he hasn't been using it to help them, he says it's "against the law" to change the future/destiny. So he broke the law to show how he refuses to break the law.

The same character outright refuses to survive a hilariously abrupt explosion which doesn't leave a mark on him for the same reasons. He dies because it's illegal to live.

I have no idea what's going on most of the time, but I managed to conclude that heroes cause more damage than the villains because they throw an entire city at him. DON'T WORRY! There's a throwaway line about evacuating it first.

All told, it's beyond me to do this movie justice, just watch this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSgHBbhEhO0
"Die, robot!" *PZEW!* "UUOOGGGGHHHH!!!!"

This is easily the most flawed movie I think I've ever seen in my entire life, but it's packed full of more cheese than Wisconsin and it's just far too easy to make fun of.

Get some friends together and have a blast.

Final Verdict: rating_2 [Just... Bad]

Omnizoa

06-05-16, 11:49 AM

Which should I watch?
Goodfellas?
~ OR ~
The Usual Suspects?
You decide!
I haven't seen either movie.

Camo

06-05-16, 12:22 PM

Goodfellas. Do you know the Usual Suspects twist? Just wondering because i knew going in.

Omnizoa

06-05-16, 01:20 PM

Goodfellas. Do you know the Usual Suspects twist? Just wondering because i knew going in.
All I know or think I know is that both are American crime movies. And now I know that Usual Suspects has a twist.

Camo

06-05-16, 01:31 PM

Oh, wow sorry. I thought everybody at least knew there was one because it is usually cited as one of the films with the best twists. Guess i'll keep my mouth shut in the future.

Omnizoa

06-05-16, 01:47 PM

Oh, wow sorry. I thought everybody at least knew there was one because it is usually cited as one of the films with the best twists. Guess i'll keep my mouth shut in the future.
Whatever, no biggy.

Sexy Celebrity

06-05-16, 01:48 PM

Neither.

Omnizoa

06-05-16, 01:57 PM

Neither.
OTHER than Hedwig, what would you recommend?

mark f

06-05-16, 02:53 PM

Goodfellas gets my vote. It's great but nothing compares to Starcrash. :yup:

Camo

06-05-16, 02:55 PM

Is Goodfellas your favourite Scorsese Mark? Non documentary at least?

mark f

06-05-16, 03:01 PM

Yes.

CosmicRunaway

06-05-16, 04:01 PM

If you don't already know the ending, perhaps watching The Usual Suspects before it gets spoiled is the better option? Though for a movie that's over 20 years old now, somehow not hearing about the "twist" is a pretty impressive feat. That's like saying you've never heard anyone mention the ending to Soylent Green while frequenting Sci Fi forums.

Omnizoa

06-05-16, 04:14 PM

Sexy Celebrity

06-05-16, 04:43 PM

Or the deep web.

I've got news for ya - this IS the deep web.

Omnizoa

06-05-16, 04:45 PM

I've got news for ya - this IS the deep web.
( o_o) I... don't think you know what that is.

Omnizoa

06-06-16, 05:05 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25792&stc=1&d=1465200229

Commando

Action / English / 1985

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
This one's been on my watchlist list since Iroquois reviewed it (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&highlight=commando&p=1465099#post1465099) and made it #99 on Sexy Celebrity's Guilty Pleasure Countdown (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=45609&highlight=commando&page=29).

Arnold Schwarzenegger with a bazooka? Sold.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"You're a funny guy, Sully, I like you.
That's why I'm going to kill you last."

Deer, Dogs, Fishing, Ice Cream, I don't think I've ever seen a movie that's spent as much attention on the male protagonist's body as the carnage that body causes. I mean it, cause whoever made this movie ****ing loves the **** out of Arnold Schwarzenegger. He even gets a speedo scene.

And I can't blame 'em, just look at those rippling pecs, those rolling biceps, those steel buns, and total inability to do drama! This movie was made for him.

This is basically all you could want or reasonably expect from a Schwarzenegger movie, but with the cheese-o-meter just slightly overcranked. It's a bog-standard plot you could see from a country mile away and it's crammed full of one-liners ranging from the terrible to the epic.

There are a couple brief lulls in the story, but mostly it's fast-paced and key in the ignition. An odd bit is the music which violently kicks into gear out of nowhere giving you mood whiplash, but once it's going it's tough to talk it down.

My biggest complaint may be fairly predictable at this point, but it would have to be the female lead who mercifully evades my outright dislike by never going full love interest, but still manages to put off merely because of her half-assed inclusion into the story.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25793&stc=1&d=1465200271

I don't mind giving Arnold a buddy, I'm all for it, but it didn't seem like they were trying here, they just threw a woman into the role to contrast his invincibility with her relative helplessness. She does have one great moment of initiative in the movie which I won't spoil (suffice it to say it was a great fakeout), but altogether I think my biggest issue is Arnold's character barely acknowledges her at all.

She has an extremely flimsy foundation for breaking the law multiple times to follow him around despite not knowing him at all and she doesn't even have his positive reinforcement to encourage her, they even make a joke out of him snuffing her for asking questions, come on! Give us something! Make me feel like this relationship isn't so convenient!

I've never seen Rambo, but following Arnold's transformation sequence from bikini model to super soldier, we get an extraordinarily protracted firefight in which he decimates an ENTIRE COMPOUND OF BAD GUYS, I feel like I have. The regular minions only ever manage to scar him with some grenade shrapnel, but beyond that he never gets shot and he racks up such and ungodly killcount that it's obvious that these guys went to the Stormtrooper School of Marksmanship.

People get blown up, they get shot multiple times, Arnold even gets chased into a toolshed and comes out with pitchforks and saw blades to start hackin' limbs off, it's just LUDICROUS the level of self-indulgent violence we get here. And to top it off we get a showdown with his rival who he goads into overacting manages to kill him with a bad one-liner.

Oooohh... you know how you do...

Time will tell if this proves to be one I revisit, but as it stands I only have one thing to say to people who don't like this movie: The **** is wrong with you?

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

Omnizoa

06-06-16, 08:18 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25796&stc=1&d=1465211860

Goodfellas

Crime Drama / English / 1990

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Goodfellas.Goodfellas gets my vote.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

I generally don't like crime/gangster movies and the reason is pretty simple: I can't empathize with these guys.

If I can't relate to the characters then I want their story, at the very least, to be engaging on it's own merits. If you can't hook me with the character, hook me with what the character is doing.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25795&stc=1&d=1465211811
Even if I didn't like Light from Death Note, his genocidal god-complex can still be extremely entertaining to follow.

In this respect I think Goodfellas succeeds because it managed to engage me even with what seems to be a rather hit-or-miss convention of having the main character monologue about his life over the movie. I think it works here because the entire presentation of the movie is shaped around this idea so while we largely follow around our main character during his rise and fall as a gangster, the camera really just seeks to absorb entire scenes and it's all edited together in a way that allows us to glean seemingly random bits of dialog to fit a picture.

In this way it also serves to excuse a lot of the period soundtrack which proliferates the movie, not only setting the general tone, but also being an easy element to pull away and turn up the tension in certain scenes. I honestly haven't seen a gangster movie which pulled me into the era and mood they were going for as well as this one, and I think that's a big point in the movie's favor.

I think my favorite scene is when Robert De Niro's character tells Main Guy's wife that "Oh no, there's a store right around the corner back here." Instantly I'm all "AWWW ****."

A point AGAINST the movie though, would have to be the main character, I KNOW I just said that I don't need to relate to them, but I do expect them to exercise some modicum of common sense and what this movie serves to exhibit is his inability to retain the status quo.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25794&stc=1&d=1465211768

He gets mixed up in one thing or another and whether it's by omission of information or outright recklessly ignoring advice, he brings it all on himself, and I'm not talking about getting caught by the cops, I mean he crosses the wrong people in the mob. Self preservation does not appear to extend far with this guy.

Another issue I have is that it takes nearly half the ****in' movie for him to press that envelope. Is this about his rise to success or his fall from grace? Cause I gotta tell you, I don't give a crap about anything that happens during a full half hour or more of this movie. When he finally gets involved in covering for Joe Pesci's character (by the way, LOT of big names perfect for these roles) I'm like, "Okay, NOW we see where it all goes downhill", but no it just continues to idle while his offenses rack up and it doesn't even really accumulate into anything it's just, "Welp, that happened. Sucks. Hope I don't get caught. Next scene."

His girlfriend/wife was aggravating too and I have no idea why she got any kind of narration because that perspective added nothing to the movie.

As you can imagine I also got righteously sick of all the food scenes. OH MY GOD, I get it. They're ****ing Italian. You don't need to cut down from the conversation to show one of them just poking at a sausage on the stove, YOU'RE JUST DOING THIS TO MESS WITH ME NOW, AREN'T YOU!? I'd make a 'breakin' my balls' reference, but Sexy's gonna leap on that in an instant.

Final Verdict: rating_3 [Meh...]

Omnizoa

06-06-16, 08:30 AM

Which should I watch?

Dark City?
~ OR ~
Logan's Run?
You decide!
Both are rewatches.

CosmicRunaway

06-06-16, 10:44 AM

Both?

I've been meaning to watch Dark City again. I haven't seen it in nearly 10 years. Come to think of it, I probably haven't seen Logan's Run in an equally long amount of time. haha.

Swan

06-06-16, 11:03 AM

Both?

Correct answer.

Thursday Next

06-06-16, 11:09 AM

Dark City > Logan's Run

although both are overrated

Omnizoa

06-06-16, 11:30 AM

Dark City > Logan's Run

although both are overrated
Leanin' towards Dark City then, if no one prefers Logan's Run.

False Writer

06-06-16, 01:05 PM

Even though you didn't give it a negative score, I'm gonna have to disagree with you regarding Goodfellas. It's one of my favorites and personally think it's one of the best films ever made—now I'm not saying it's a top 10 or anything but it's in the upper echelon imo.

I can see though that if you don't like gangster films in general then you wouldn't have been a huge fan of this one. I'll rep for the effort though, and for the fact that you gave it a proper chance!

Sexy Celebrity

06-06-16, 01:07 PM

Dark City seems like the kind of movie Omnizoa would like. I wasn't too crazy about it.

Sexy Celebrity

06-06-16, 01:08 PM

Arnold Schwarzenegger with a bazooka? Sold.

See - women don't care about Arnold Schwarzenegger with a bazooka.

CosmicRunaway

06-06-16, 01:16 PM

See - women don't care about Arnold Schwarzenegger with a bazooka.
I respectfully disagree.

(Though to be honest, I'm not generally a fan of bazookas)

Sexy Celebrity

06-06-16, 01:23 PM

It's the bazooka part that matters.

Omnizoa

06-06-16, 01:30 PM

Omnizoa

06-06-16, 01:31 PM

It's the bazooka part that matters.
Oh? Are you suggesting it exists to compensate for something?

Sexy Celebrity

06-06-16, 01:36 PM

Oh? Are you suggesting it exists to compensate for something?

I think the phallic nature of the bazooka is going to be more appealing to a man than to a woman.

Camo

06-06-16, 01:42 PM

I think my favorite scene is when Robert De Niro's character tells Main Guy's wife that "Oh no, there's a store right around the corner back here." Instantly I'm all "AWWW ****."

That scene always sticks in my head. It isn't clear if she is going to be killed or not. Personally i don't think she was going to be because Jimmy looks genuinely confused when she runs away and i think he would've made sure to kill both of them at the same time just in case Henry found out, and also he may not have actually flipped for all Jimmy knew but that would obviously push him to it.

When he finally gets involved in covering for Danny DeVito's character

Sure you watched the right movie homie? :p

Too bad you didn't like it not surprising since you don't like gangster movies as FW said.

CosmicRunaway

06-06-16, 01:43 PM

I think the phallic nature of the bazooka is going to be more appealing to a man than to a woman.
The problem with a bazooka is that it's boring. Also don't like grenades for the same reason. There's no skill required, and there's zero style. Dual wielding pistols is where it's at.

http://www.2dark.net/Downloads/equilibrium.gif

Omnizoa

06-06-16, 01:48 PM

I think the phallic nature of the bazooka is going to be more appealing to a man than to a woman.
Mmmmm~I dunno...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySvOFQjvi9s

Sure you watched the right movie homie?
OOPS. You know, I cross-checked that and for some reason I thought, "Dang, he looks way older."

Camo

06-06-16, 01:51 PM

I used to get them mixed up too. Weird because they look nothing alike, must just be their height.

Omnizoa

06-06-16, 01:51 PM

Dual wielding pistols is where it's at.
( o_o)

Omnizoa

06-07-16, 03:14 AM

I'm regretting putting up Logan's Run since it's much older. I should have put up Gattaca or something.

Omnizoa

06-07-16, 08:35 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25806&stc=1&d=1465299105

Vicious Lips

Sci-Fi / English / 1986

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
It's about a 80s-era all-girl pop punk band from out space going to perform their first big gig. Of course I'm ****ing watching it.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

The movie starts out strong with the apparent "villains" delivering over-the-top monologues about how their last band just inexplicably died and they need a new one.

That's just a couple minutes though and after that you slowly come to the realization that this movie is not going for camp, it's legitimately trying to be dramatic. *eyes roll* There's some story about the band's last singer dying and they hire on a Newbie Savant to be their new "voice". There's indignance in having her join and you would expect that the movie would be a journey about her earning her place in the band, but no, none of this is resolved thanks to the fact that this is All Just A Dream (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AllJustADream).

Basically the four main girls manage to avoid stereotypes for the majority of the movie before they all devolve into complaining at each other and getting into catfights. They have a male manager who I guess you can call the Token Male in this story since he clearly only exists to be kicked around by the girls. I don't mind that, it's nice to have a change of pace, but this guy is the only character of the main 5 who overacts and he's just an annoying skeezy little ****. I don't like him.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25807&stc=1&d=1465299261

All that really happens in this movie is the girls and guy steal a ship to get to the gig, they crash land in a desert, spend a lot of time bickering, and then we have this sudden and bizarrely purposeless subplot about the ship they stole containing a now-loose monster man?

Then inexplicably the ship slides down a hill and they find themselves partly in a building called "Pleasure Planet" where they just start... tripping the **** out??? There are drugs in this movie so I dunno, but there seems to be no connection or explanation as why the characters suddenly begin hallucinating cannibals and ****. Suddenly BOOM, we wake up and the character is running off to the concert talked about at the beginning of the movie and flashing back during what is the last of multiple montages in the movie as if everything we just saw was some eye-opening memorable experience.

It's not. It was 4 people sitting around wasting lines they could be spending on something funny or meaningful.

At least the two or three brief song numbers were good.

Final Verdict: rating_2 [Just... Bad]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU6suXCrOkI

Gideon58

06-07-16, 11:51 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25796&stc=1&d=1465211860

Love your review of this movie...it has always seemed like sacrilege to say anything negative about this movie here and I love that you expressed exactly how you felt about it, consequences be damned.

Gideon58

06-07-16, 11:57 AM

Another impressive thing about this movie is that not only are none of the whopping cast of 12 characters nameless, but they each, ALL OF THEM, manage distinct separate personalities. They all seem like PEOPLE and some of them, particularly Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb have quite a presence to them.

It's just a very well-made minimalist drama with a couple neat little touches (anyone else glean the fan starting to work when it's matched 6 to 6 as "the winds of change"?) and manages to be equal parts emotionally charged and insightful.

:D:)

Omnizoa

06-07-16, 05:05 PM

Love your review of this movie...it has always seemed like sacrilege to say anything negative about this movie here and I love that you expressed exactly how you felt about it, consequences be damned.
Thanks, I do realize I've rated it lowest of anyone else so far.

Omnizoa

06-07-16, 08:38 PM

:D:)
I've rewatched 12 Angry Men and updated the review: CLICK TACK TOE (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1525680#post1525680)

Omnizoa

06-08-16, 10:44 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25831&stc=1&d=1465436607

Dark City

Sci-Fi Psychological Thriller / English / 1998

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Dark City > Logan's RunDark City seems like the kind of movie Omnizoa would like.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN DARK CITY,
STOP READING AND GO WATCH IT.

I have very complicated feelings on Dark City. Mainly because it seems like an accident.

Collectively written by David S. Goyer (Dark Knight, yay! Dark Knight Rises, boo!), Alex Proyas (The Crow, yay! Knowing, boo!), and Lem Dobbs (Kafka... I need to see Kafka...), Dark City is awash in uncertainty.

It was even heavily cut down from it's original version because "people wouldn't get it".

I'm really not sure who those people would be because there's little to get. It's a Sci-Fi Fantasy Neo-Noir Paranoia Thriller, OBVIOUSLY I MEAN COME ON WE'RE NOT MAKING THINGS TOO COMPLICATED HERE.

Unlike say... an arthouse movie, Dark City's intentions are pretty transparent: It's there to put you in a mood, that tingly feeling you get when you read one of those cheap Orwellian sci-fi paperbacks with the bittersweet ending that's pleasant in the moment, but staggering in the scope of it's implication.

Dark City feels like The Matrix taken in a different direction. Where The Matrix dwells on the action and general ideas of skepticism, Dark City toys with themes of memory, individualism, and paranoia.

The theme of paranoia is a particularly strong aspect of the movie because every narrative thread seeks to tug at the corners of reality and unravel the mass deceit the protagonist finds himself in. He finds the walls of his cage and he's stalked by the supernatural "Strangers" who echo X-Files-style g-men in every sense.

The theme of individualism is explored in how the Strangers themselves act like a hivemind and even routinely shifted everyone's memories around to present them with a new reality. Are who we are purely a product of our own history? Yes and no. History shapes our relationships and interpretations, but it only tempers our personality.

The theme of memory is the capstone of this movie and it's presented in contrast to the development of our protagonist with the regression the city and it's occupants around him. There's a nostalgia for things as they once were, but it's established that what once was wasn't always what it might have been and what it might have been may not have ever even been true.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25830&stc=1&d=1465436576

It's a daunting feeling, to emotionally cling to something that never will be or may have never been. It really isn't a happy ending. Just as John's happy memories remain unrequited, the feeling of freedom is crushed and left to fester in the knowledge that the Dark City is was and only ever will be a spot in the void. A carving of life amidst nothing, strangled, and left to stagnate.

It sounds really ****ing depressing when you think about it and perhaps that will be a lot of peoples' takeaway from this movie, but I loved the ideas this movie played with. I remember the first time I watched it it really didn't leave much of an impression on me beyond, "it's okay", but watching it now really makes me think and gives me a huge rush of nostalgia for that brand of sci-fi that TRULY explored these ideas, that fed you imagination, that pulled those emotional chords, and made you think.

The overaching themes, the grim style, the subtle music, the solid editing, and even a couple hammy performances made for a very engaging movie.

So engaging that's it was honestly challenging to step back and assess it critically.

One thing's for the sure: the plot is certainly flawed.

Why would a kid who witnessed her mother's murder stay in the room and just sit around drawing the crime?

When and how did John's wife ever get the address of the prostitute he visited in the first place?

How did she and the detective EVER manage to find John, let alone with the awareness of people who understand the significance of midnight and the Strangers?

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25829&stc=1&d=1465436548

That's just too damn convenient. WAY too damn convenient for the plot. I don't buy it. The romance glommed onto the side of the movie is naturally off-kilter too with a particularly cheesy scene in which John breaks the glass wall of a visitor booth to kiss his not-really-wife which she doesn't react to at all.

At the end of the movie I was just WAITING for John to point at his heart and go, "You should have looked here". Fortunately he doesn't, but it's implied, and that's bad enough.

Narratively, Dark City is, shall we say... flimsy, but it's strong points shine through even if the end of the movie does get a bit carried away with itself with a goofy telepathy fight. Up until then it's a fantastic example of reticent CGI. The effects are hugely important in selling the concept.

Minus points for the goldfish and mice, bonus points for the spirals. I like spirals.

All in all it looks to me like a modern classic. Made by some extremely unreliable filmmakers.

Final Verdict: rating_5 [Friggen' Awesome]

REWATCH UPDATE 7/22/2021:
So I've decided to rewatch Dark City. Reason being that I've always been skeptical of my own perspective on it, and as you can read above, I've oscillated pretty heavily on my opinion, and this serves to reiterate that fact.

Prior to rewatching this movie I rewatched Titanic, a movie I've always had reservations about and I got the same experience watching that as I do every other time I watch it: It's ****ing great and it makes me cry.

But unfailingly, that's the result of a deeply interwoven combination of very different elements; music, setting, characters, acting, tension, payoff, direction. James Cameron's movies click with me harder than most any other director I watch (up until they make Avatar). Alex Proyas is much less consistent and in a movie like Dark City where they need to assemble far more elements to deliver a provocative story, or "film experience" than in say, The Crow, it's clear to see that James Cameron's movies just deliver that narrative flow so much better.

Rewatching Dark City, I do not at all share the same blown-away feeling as I did when I first reviewed this, and I'm leaning more towards the "it's okay" feeling I had prior. I think the reason is that I can infer a sense of deprivation from my review wherein the semi-surreal ultra-cosmic-dread feeling was oft overlooked in sci-fi movies.

Not that it is any better represented now, arguably it's worse, but I feel like I was able to isolate those elements which I may be granting a free "good movie" review and assessing the overall experience excepting the particular flair I'm biased towards.

What I'm left with is a little neo-noir fantasy thriller that really only ever presents me an enjoyable performance when Mr. Hand is on screen to chew scenery. It seems too quick and liberal with it's showing of the antagonists plotting behind the scenes and overall I was pretty unimpressed with the sets which far too often were just darkly lit dank industrial areas. The movie even makes a point to say that the environment is all randomized based on memories of different time periods, but I honestly didn't notice this anachronism at all and the environment could have been heavily exploited to reflect that, adding even more to the off-kilter world and the strangeness of it's inhabitants not noticing it's inconsistencies.

Something that's also not made clear, but central to the movie is the main character's ability to "chune". Why did he get this ability? How did he awaken to it? It's implied that it's like an evolutionary quirk, but the movie also says he's been imprinted and reimprinted with new memories countless times.

If the Strangers only cared about discovering the product of HIS soul, this would be much more like The Truman Show, and much less Planet of the Apes.

Anyway, I've had this movie set aside separately for a while with the intention to rewatch it and revise my opinion on it, and my opinion is now to drop it a rating and remove it from my favorites. Fine movie, but it is not the quality of psychological thriller I prefer.

Final Verdict: rating_3_5 [Good]

Camo

06-08-16, 10:50 PM

Thanks, I do realize I've rated it lowest of anyone else so far.

In the reviews maybe, everybody here seems to dislike Goodfellas now. Plenty still love it of course but most first time watches i've seen recently have been people disliking it.

Omnizoa

06-08-16, 10:54 PM

Which should I watch?
Jeepers Creepers?
~ OR ~
The Lords of Salem?
You decide!
I haven't seen either movie.

Sexy Celebrity

06-08-16, 10:56 PM

The Lords of Salem.

Omnizoa

06-08-16, 11:00 PM

In the reviews maybe, everybody here seems to dislike Goodfellas now. Plenty still love it of course but most first time watches i've seen recently have been people disliking it.
Really? Hmm.

Camo

06-08-16, 11:02 PM

Yes. Also Lords of Salem definitely. Jeepers Creepers is not good.

Sexy Celebrity

06-08-16, 11:07 PM

"The Lords of Salem" is not a good movie, though.

Watch my other guilty pleasure movie - "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2." You don't need to see the first film if you haven't.

Omnizoa

06-08-16, 11:37 PM

Jeepers Creepers is not good.
"The Lords of Salem" is not a good movie,
I've heard mixed feelings about both movies. Both certainly seem to have fans, even here.

Watch my other guilty pleasure movie - "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2." You don't need to see the first film if you haven't.
I don't know crap about Jeepers Creepers or Lords of Salem, but I know what I'm getting with TCM. That's really not my thang.

Sexy Celebrity

06-08-16, 11:51 PM

I don't know crap about Jeepers Creepers or Lords of Salem, but I know what I'm getting with TCM. That's really not my thang.

That's no excuse to me. TCM2 is a masterpiece compared to Lords of Salem. Actually, both of them are horror movies involving a female radio disc jockey. I'm sure Rob Zombie totally stole from TCM2 for Lords of Salem, knowing him.

Omnizoa

06-09-16, 12:26 AM

That's no excuse to me. TCM2 is a masterpiece compared to Lords of Salem. Actually, both of them are horror movies involving a female radio disc jockey. I'm sure Rob Zombie totally stole from TCM2 for Lords of Salem, knowing him.
I wouldn't know. All I do know is that I will almost certainly not enjoy TCM.

Sexy Celebrity

06-09-16, 12:31 AM

I wouldn't know. All I do know is that I will almost certainly not enjoy TCM.

Well, I guess I can't make you. I liked it. I think it's better than Lords of Salem. But, your mind is different than mine.

TheUsualSuspect

06-09-16, 09:12 AM

Lords of Salem is awful. Jeepers Creepers is misguided fun. It really comes down to if you like Zombie's style or not. I think Salem is his second worst film......

I really hate Halloween 2.

TheUsualSuspect

06-09-16, 09:13 AM

also Dark City is in my top ten. Love that film.

If you ever get the chance, check out Ebert's commentary on it. Very insightful.

Omnizoa

06-09-16, 09:53 AM

Why, hello there.

Lords of Salem is awful. Jeepers Creepers is misguided fun. It really comes down to if you like Zombie's style or not. I think Salem is his second worst film......
Looks like 2 votes Lords of Salem, 1 vote Jeepers Creepers.

also Dark City is in my top ten. Love that film.

If you ever get the chance, check out Ebert's commentary on it. Very insightful.
On it.

Omnizoa

06-09-16, 04:19 PM

COLLECTION UPDATE:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25837&stc=1&d=1465499285

Titanic: This release of Titanic is loaded with oodles of nice features including two separate commentaries which is a plus for me, however the movie itself is frustratingly split between two discs. Both discs have bonus features on them too so it annoys me that these weren't simply collected onto the second disc and the whole movie was left intact, but it's probably because of some "we want the highest possible quality" crap. I'd much rather have the movie compressed and viewable without having to swap discs like it was a PS1 RPG, but that's probably heretical thinking to some people. COMPRESS IT!? YOU MONSTER!

12 Angry Men: No such issue here and again I'm mostly pleased with the presentation. I say mostly because while there's little in the way of bonus features (which is understandable given the time period), they did this weird weird thing where menu item selection is indicated by multicolor brackets or dots which appear as pink on red. It took me a moment to realize anything was even showing up on screen.

skizzerflake

06-11-16, 11:24 PM

also Dark City is in my top ten. Love that film.

If you ever get the chance, check out Ebert's commentary on it. Very insightful.

I love Dark City because it's so contradictory. Memory is nothing you can rely upon in a world where everything is changed each "night". The whole movie has the quality of a nightmare that you can't leave. It's not logical, but is logical, just when you think you get it, it changes. Only Shell Beach seems to be there to give us hope. I would say it's all like Plato's Cave, a metaphor for the human lack of understanding about WHAT and WHERE we are (oops, I already did that, didn't I), but that would over-think it, so I will stick with nightmarish creepiness and the dark imagery that makes the whole thing work. Dark City is one of my favorite sci-fi-fantasy-noir films and probably my only sci-fi-fantasy-noir film, so I will leave it at that. Even if it was a cobbled-together film that none of the crew knew what to do with, sometimes great things do happen by accident.

Omnizoa

06-12-16, 04:53 AM

I love Dark City because it's so contradictory. Memory is nothing you can rely upon in a world where everything is changed each "night". The whole movie has the quality of a nightmare that you can't leave. It's not logical, but is logical, just when you think you get it, it changes. Only Shell Beach seems to be there to give us hope. I would say it's all like Plato's Cave, a metaphor for the human lack of understanding about WHAT and WHERE we are (oops, I already did that, didn't I), but that would over-think it, so I will stick with nightmarish creepiness and the dark imagery that makes the whole thing work. Dark City is one of my favorite sci-fi-fantasy-noir films and probably my only sci-fi-fantasy-noir film, so I will leave it at that. Even if it was a cobbled-together film that none of the crew knew what to do with, sometimes great things do happen by accident.
I like that.

Omnizoa

06-12-16, 10:47 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25858&stc=1&d=1465739122

Back to the Future

Sci-Fi / English / 1985

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Reassessment TIME!

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

It's interesting to think about how nostalgia comes and goes in waves.

I had said that Nightmare Before Christmas holds a lot of nostalgia for me and I would probably attribute that to not having seen it for over a period of 10 years at least. Since then I've popped it in regularly alongside Back to the Future and today I'm struck with the peculiar thought...

Imagine if this was the first time I'd ever seen this movie.

I don't even remember my first time seeing BTTF and I've seen it so many times that I feel the effect has seriously worn off on me. I can only imagine how pleased I would be having only just gotten around to it, but the magic new discovery or even revisiting old memories is gone... I've just seen it too many times.

Not that I don't like it any more, far from it, Back to the Future is a fantastic movie, but my experience with it now is probably a big reason why you haven't seen me review Ink yet, I just DON'T WANT TO WATCH IT.

I mean I DO. But I don't want to ruin it by seeing it too often, you know? I like to keep that experience preserved fresh.

ANYWAY, so what do I make of BTTF now that it's perhaps worn stale?

Probably harsher criticism.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/back2.gif

Seeing it again there's no mistaking that the movie is chock-full of melodrama, overacting, and numerous little leaps in logic. I couldn't even really begin to count them, they're everywhere.

Why is Doc working on a mind reading device without someone to mind read? Was he mind reading the dog?

Why do the farmers leap to the conclusion that Marty's an alien because of his car? Sure it looks futuristic, but it still looks like a car. They have cars in 1955.

Why is George so accepting of this total stranger with a bizarre and never explained compulsion to specifically hook him up with the one girl who's after him?

Why is the billboard any reasonable hiding spot for a car? It stands right in front of a construction site. Won't construction workers see it?

In fact, why do the first people Marty meets on the road freak out and drive away from him? Because he's a kid with a "life preserver" jacket? Is there's some 50s era paranoia about strange high school kids jacking old couples in broad daylight in the midwest somewhere? WTF was that about?

And of course there's the biggest plothole of the movie which is the fact that Marty and his family slowly vanishes over time if he triggers the Grandfather Paradox.

This doesn't make any sense at all since there's no direct explanation for why he would only slowly disappear at some arbitrary rate.

Is it relative to how close he is to his parents' conception?

If it is, then would he not see any effects if he went further back in time?

Why do his siblings disappear before him if not for dramatic convenience?

Why do his siblings disappear top to bottom, but Marty just fades from existence?

When Marty begins to fade away when George is parted from Lorraine it implies that the future is slowly undone by the progression of the now, not the inevitability, so what if Biff showed up and knifed George at the concert? Would Marty fade away?

What if he didn't die, just went to the hospital and he and Lorraine still got it on another day? Would Marty still fade away?

Marty's future seems dependent on their relationship, not their literal sex, so what if they got together and just agreed to be friends? Would Marty fade away?

What if their relationship was cut short, Marty faded away and their relationship came back together? Would Marty fade back?

Is Marty the same Marty if he was born on a different day?

Would it be a different sperm that makes Marty?

What if Marty had sex with Lorraine and Marty disappeared? Would her baby disappear?

He already shares some of her DNA so would only part of the baby disappear?

Would she miscarriage?

What if Marty had sex with Biff? Would Biff disappear?

What if Biff had sex with Lorraine who had sex with Marty and THEN had sex with George, would Marty disappear?

Would Biff be Marty's daddy?

Would Marty have different Biff siblings?

Would they be called Bifflings?

What if Biff got Doc pregnant? Would Marty disappear?

What if Biff was Doc's son? Wou-OH MY GOD I'M MAKING FAN-FICTION.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25857&stc=1&d=1465739072

The biggest issue here is the assumption that anyone would disappear at all. This seems to be everyone's answer to the Godfather Paradox that if you "shouldn't" exist, you stop existing, but that doesn't make any sense. All you're doing is removing history, you're not removing the present, so why should the present change? History isn't really gone, it's just separate timeline.

Which is one of the reasons Back to the Future: Part 2 is better. BTTF seriously pushes that level of acceptable suspension of disbelief. We don't REALLY have a firm understanding of time travel, so these assumptions are made for the sake of producing conflict. It's a significantly worse variation on what Inception pulled by suggesting that our dreams occur fast, rather than slowly.

I still like it though. And to be perfectly honest BTTF is a far smaller cluster**** than most other time travel movies.

Doc's still fun, Biff's still fun, Marty's... there, and all the little clever continuities in the background are neat to pick out. Also the soundtrack. It's a hard one not to revisit.

Butchu still got dogfood, dogs, meatloaf, kissing, obvious SFX, and...

..."love".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NMph943tsw

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/dancin.gif

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

Camo

06-12-16, 10:57 AM

Back to the Future: Part 2 is better

No.

Back To The Future is one of the cheesy family films from my childhood that i still adore. When i was about 9 it was my favourite film and i'd still say it is in my top 5 from the 80's.

Omnizoa

06-12-16, 11:03 AM

No.
Yes.

Back To The Future is one of the cheesy family films from my childhood that i still adore. When i was about 9 it was my favourite film and i'd still say it is in my top 5 from the 80's.
It's one of my favorites too.

But I like Part 2 better.

Omnizoa

06-12-16, 01:44 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25862&stc=1&d=1465749815

Johnny Mnemonic

Sci-Fi / English / 1995

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Reassessment hack.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

Johnny Mnemonic is easily one of the most faithfully cyberpunk movies I've ever seen.

The premise features a protagonist who removes childhood memories into order to install a harddrive in his brain and uses it to smuggle compromising information between corporations. By overloading the storage space in his brain, he's on a ticking clock to deliver the information before it kills him.

That's just friggen' awesome.

Too bad the movie suffers from a variety of problems; fish, continuity errors, an unengaging subplot about Takeshi's daughter, an unengaging subplot about some rogue AI ghost, some questionable camera choices, some ever more questionable CG character designs, and emotional moment with our hero lamenting over never being able to achieve his dream of renting out a 10,000 dollar hooker...

But easily the most damning problem is simply the acting.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25863&stc=1&d=1465749841

Nevermind how out of place Ice Cube looks, or how Takeshi can't emote at all, it's, sadly, Keanu Reeves who sinks the ship thanks to a persona that never manages to remain as steady as in The Matrix movies.

He's monotone and he shifts gears from uncomfortably flat to 11 with a lot of teeth-baring GRRRRRRRRR!!!

He comes across as really silly and it'd be one thing if the whole movie had an element of that, but it doesn't, it's just sporadic moments of facepalm worthy "Why did you think that was a good idea? Why did you use that shot? Why are you panning the camera around like this is way more intense than it is?"

At least in terms of themes and worldly design, Mnemonc hits it out of the park, but there's very little to speak of besides.

I don't have any interest in seeing it again. A REMAKE on the other hand...

Final Verdict: rating_3 [Meh...]

Sexy Celebrity

06-12-16, 01:51 PM

I wanna see Johnny Mnemonic. It looks like the kind of movie I'd review.

Omnizoa

06-12-16, 02:14 PM

I wanna see Johnny Mnemonic. It looks like the kind of movie I'd review.
...kinda.

CosmicRunaway

06-12-16, 02:16 PM

I also think Johnny Mnemonic is just okay, yet I've seen it way too many times for some reason. A little while ago I was at a local store, and they had it on DVD for $2. I was very tempted to buy it, and I kept asking my friend "Do I want this for $2?" We agreed that I didn't, but I secretly sort of still do.

Omnizoa

06-12-16, 02:18 PM

gbgoodies

06-13-16, 12:46 AM

Omnizoa

06-13-16, 06:26 AM

I think you're overthinking this. It's a movie, not a science experiment. Just enjoy it. :)
Perhaps it's a bit disingenuous of a review. That's not really the kinda stuff that goes through my head while watching it, I just know that the time travel bit doesn't make any sense so I just went off on that.

If you want to see a good movie that explores the idea of a time paradox, try The Final Countdown (1980). A time warp takes the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz back to Pearl Harbor, Dec. 6, 1941. It's a great movie with a top-notch cast.
Ooooh, color me intrigued.

Omnizoa

06-14-16, 11:02 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25906&stc=1&d=1465956130

Alice in Wonderland

Fantasy / English / 1951

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
And the reassessments outgrabe.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"The time has come!"

Disney's adaption of Alice's Adventures Underground is met with more criticism than I feel I will ever understand.

The main point of contention seems to be it's deviation from the book, it's half-hearted combination with sequel, Alice Through The Looking Glass, and the addition of relatively forgettable musical numbers.

As much as I can understand the sentiment, the accusation that it doesn't strictly follow the book's story is ludicrous because the ridiculousness of the movie is based entirely on the ridiculousness of the source material.

We're talking about a movie with basically no plot, no arcs, and no grand overaching theme beyond child wonderment taken to an absurd degree. You can't really RUIN that story without trying to make sense of it and Disney doesn't, in fact in revels in it.

Even in between the scenes cut straight from the book, Disney finds opportunities to sprinkle in nonsense like accordion owls and spiff up otherwise flat chase sequences on paper into visually arresting bursts of imaginative surrealism. This really is an ideal movie for, if no one else, the animators at Disney, because they have a lot of wiggle room to elaborate and get really creative while still remaining comfortably within the spirit of the original work.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/alice1.gif

At the same time, I think it improves over the book in a small handful of ways as well. Ignoring the advantages it has as a visual medium, it may suffer from an absence of the wordplay prevalent throughout the original story, but in the same sense it manages to inject song where it feels appropriate which keeps the scenes light and upbeat while turning Alice into a much more likeable Straight Man. She was kind of an insensitive bitch in the book.

On top of that, the idea that Alice in Wonderland is somehow one of Disney's weakest movies doesn't jell with the fact that it was easily one Disney's most pervasive productions up until The Little Mermaid. Even if you didn't care for it personally, you can't deny that even today it's one of the biggest movie influences Disney's ever put to screen even making it THE go-to adaption of Alice in Wonderland. It's sparked one of the biggest community responses I've ever seen and probably competes only with The Lion King and Frozen.

And there's a good reason for that. I've gone on at length to explain why I dislike Eraserhead and other general "nonsense" movies, but the distinction here is that Eraserhead isn't really a nonsense movie. It's supposed to have a point (whatever that is), but Alice doesn't really have any point at all, it's just confusing and trippy for confusing and trippy's sake.

If there's ANY takeaway from Alice as a compelling addition to the medium it's given away in a subtle gesture at the beginning of the movie:

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/alice2.gif

This isn't a slam against Alice's Adventures Underground, it's an admission that you don't need a traditional narrative to create something compelling or interesting, much like how Fantasia was essentially was just a collection of animations set to classical music.

Alice in Wonderland contains plenty of words, but what it does, arguably better than any other Disney movie to date, is create a world that simultaneously makes no sense, but is so visually, creatively, and thematically indulgent that it excels in taking that world of delusional fantasy from our dreams and trapping it in a bottle.

It's like an addictive fuel for artists, there's so much fan art and fan adaptions of the material that I was SO HYPED to find out Tim Burton was going to work on it.

Tim Burton!? Beetlejuice, Nightmare Before Christmas, and Peewee's Big Adventure, Tim Burton!?

When I first heard the news my mind immediately went to the video game, American McGee's Alice, which despite being a royally **** game, managed to present an intriguingly dark and stylistic approach to Alice in Wonderland by putting her in a mental hospital and suggesting she's schizophrenic a la Return to Oz.

I was SO LOOKING FORWARD TO IT... BUT... it was terrible.

It was really ****ing terrible. What a total wash.

And get this, just a year later, American McGee put out a sequel called Madness Returns, which is not only a much better GAME, but a much better Alice in Wonderland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFrs5UGB-ns

I really hope American McGee makes a movie.

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

Omnizoa

06-15-16, 12:21 PM

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/lolita.gif

Gothic & Lolita Psycho

Action Comedy / Japanese / 2010

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Reassessme-*ring ring* ...もしもし? なんで!?

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

Gothic & Lolita Psycho (I shall call it GLP from now on) is, I believe, one of the gems of total ******* whatthe****ery movies.

What is this movie?

Well, I'll tell you: It's about a girl who dresses up in gothic lolita clothes, for literally no reason other than to serve the title, and kicks ass out of VENGEANCE!

Yes. It really is that simple. We even get a fancy flashback and everything about how her mother was crucified in her own home and her father's legs were crippled so only she alone could seek cold VENGEANCE upon the 5 totally random and unrelated people who destroyed her family for practically no reason. It's kinda sad.

Kinda sad in that a movie called Gothic & Lolita Psycho is literally better written and choreographed than age-old Criterion-classic, Tarantino-inspiring Lady Snowblood, which if you haven't noticed I've been mocking the **** out of. VEVEVEVEVENGEANCE!

So the movie opens up, unpleasantly, with an extreme close-up of a man sucking down noodles and cigarettes hardcore. Fortunately it's nowhere near as bad as that atrocity in Avalon, but it's very shortly followed by overacting and surprise buttsex (not in that order).

It honestly took me a while to realize that the movie was a comedy because at the very beginning there's very little that gives away it's comedic premise and very shortly after we figure out that where we're supposed to be in a "gambling den", noodle guy walks out clutching his intestines in his hands, victim of our Gothic Lolita (which I will call her).

My biggest issue with the movie is easily the gore. While it falls victim to fake special effects, obvious feints, and even a fart joke, the gore is easily the worst the movie pulls.

It's not just fake-looking blood, it's not just dismemberment, it's not just disembowelment, and it's not even that one girl who gets her face shot off, but they went the full 9 yards with blood geysers and here's the thing with blood geysers:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25916&stc=1&d=1466003954

They're stupid.

Let me give you the one situation where it worked: The beginning of Army of Darkness. That worked because it was cartoony as ****. It wasn't graphic and it was a literal geyser. HERE, we're just dropping in blood sprinklers into dramatic scenes. There's legitimately no reason for it.

If they were meant as joke, they ****ing failed because that **** has never made me laugh anytime anywhere EVER, whether it was Army of Darkness, Bludgeoning Angel Dokuro-chan, or this.

It's not funny. Get rid of it. For the ****ing umpteenth time.

What IS funny are the funny parts. If half of the movie is gore and melodrama, the other half is action and comedy. The action's pretty good. Nothing special save the fact that all of it unfailingly involves a parasol (which is eventually upgraded into a gun, naturally), but I can't say the same for the jokes which are some of the most bafflingly hilarious moments I've ever had watching a movie.

AGAIN, SPOILERS! EXIT NOW IF YOU WANT TO BE SURPRISED.

The movie features it's own Team Rocket (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/QuirkyMinibossSquad) and even a ridiculous boss fight that looks like Mr. Fantastic vs. demon Bride of Frankenstein (or something), but there are two particular moments which stick out to me.

The first is the second fight against a perverted teacher who's apparently a... telekinetic? The fight opens up with him, armed with a mop and sitting down on a cushion after swearing to kill Gothic Lolita. It's somewhat amusing in it's attempt to portray totally different characters with each member of this group of bad guys, particularly one that will only fight sitting down, with a mop, and still manage to whoop GL's ass at every turn.

That is until he starts flying. It just comes RIGHT THE **** OUT OF NOWHERE, it's midfight and he's still sitting when he just careens forward into the air wagglin' his mop and the rest of the fight is him ****in' about on really obvious wires making Bruce Lee noises.

The second bit was actually kind of brilliant because it sets up our 4th bad guy as a gyaru Genki Girl with guns-for-knives. She's just totally playful and "bahng bahng!" the whole fight and it's kinda fun.

The best part begins when during a stalemate between her and GL, her gunknife rings.

Her KNIVES are also GUNS are also CELL PHONES.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25917&stc=1&d=1466003998

So the rest of the fight she's just offhandedly swatting GL away chirpin' on the phone until she's so bored and engrossed in her call she literally sits down and begins eating and complaining about how bad the bread is.

Eventually GL gets the upperhand on her, both of them are disarmed and we just sit and wait while Gothic Lolita very slowly tries to strangle Genki Girl to death.

Eventually the phone rings and we have this long drawn-out shot of GL strangling this girl as her phone rings incessantly a few feet away.

Finally GL just gets sick of it, loosens her grip so Genki Girl can answer the phone and that's when we get,

"What? You want to break up with me? Bu-"*click*

*neck snap*

Oh my god, she's ****in' dying on the floor and we let her answer the phone just so her boyfriend can dump her. That's amazing. It's even more amazing when GL guns her into a pile of jelly and the boyfriend calls back to apologize.

Wow. There's something special about this particular pile of schlock.

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

CosmicRunaway

06-15-16, 12:30 PM

It's not just fake-looking blood, it's not just dismemberment, it's not just disembowelment, and it's not even that one girl who gets her face shot off, but they went the full 9 yards with blood geysers and here's the thing with blood geysers:

They're stupid.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that. The only time I think it works is in a comedic setting when the rest of the movie is not bloody, or at the very least not filled with gore. I thought I had an example or two, but as I'm typing this they've completely left me.

Omnizoa

06-15-16, 12:45 PM

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that. The only time I think it works is in a comedic setting when the rest of the movie is not bloody, or at the very least not filled with gore. I thought I had an example or two, but as I'm typing this they've completely left me.

I mentioned Army of Darkness where it's plainly played for laughs, but on the other side of the fence you got crap like the Evil Dead remake where it's literally raining blood and they still gotta throw a chainsaw sprinkler in there (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2d7nfd7Yhcs/VApU-Nrm_oI/AAAAAAAABHM/PaL5cExJ1oM/s1600/evil%2Bdead%2Bchainsaw%2B1.gif). I thought it spoiled Sweeney Todd too (http://67.media.tumblr.com/3adfd3dae1d13a2cb36cf528fb8cc436/tumblr_n4784xTCgT1t0demio3_500.gif).

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ni9fjHlxPTg/U8we2znaLDI/AAAAAAAAA6A/CUu1frQryhw/s1600/001.gif

CosmicRunaway

06-15-16, 12:55 PM

The less said about the Evil Dead remake, the better.

Omnizoa

06-15-16, 04:09 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25920&stc=1&d=1466017728

Twilight Zone: The Movie

Horror / English / 1983

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
"There is a fifth dimension... beyond that which is known to man...
It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity...
It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition...
and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge...
This is the dimension of imagination, it is an area which we call...
the Twilight Zone Movie."

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

So we open up with Dan Aykroyd.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/twilightzone.gif
*high-pitched orchestral sting*

**** RIGHT OFF.

What a ****ing horrid way to kick off The Twilight Zone.

Thzuie eoui oeumdro This is the TWILIGHT ZONE! This isn't horror! This is psychological thriller! Not JUMPSCARES, stories to make you THINK and ask QUESTIONS! FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK.

And Dan Aykroyd, really, Dan Aykroyd? What a miscast.

Okay, so there are 4 stories here and I'm just gonna go through them one at a time:

1.) Time Out
Guy loses out on a promotion to a co-worker and vents his frustrations in the form of racism. Leaves the pub and finds himself chased as a jew in Nazi Germany (or someplace). Then as an african-american in the Confederate States (or someplace). Then as a "jap" in... Vietnam (or someplace)?

The obvious problem with this one is that there's virtually no deceit at all. It's just one minute he's in the real world and the next minute he's off to the concentration camps. It's telling that this isn't even a straight adaption of any existing Twilight Zone episode, it just borrows elements from A Quality of Mercy.

It's okay, but that's all it is. It seriously lacks the intrigue or even the musical queues that press the atmosphere of The Twilight Zone.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25921&stc=1&d=1466017754

2.) Kick The Can
Easily the worst of the 4, Kick the Can at least draws from an actual episode, but I can't help but criticize of all things it's direction (which is something I'm very aware that I rarely do).

Our rogue element at the senior home is the literal embodiment of the Magical Negro (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicalNegro) trope and he's always got that gummy grin rolling at 15% past comfortable. He encourages the other residents to act young if they want to feel young and after gifting them with youth long enough for them to appreciate their old age, he waddles off to another senior home.

It's an okay story in concept, but the focus confuses who it is we should be following and the whimsy is turned up to such stomach-churning levels you can't help, but go, "Okay soundtrack, COOL IT DOWN."

Beyond that, this seems to be an especially weak episode to pick. There's nothing in the way of slow-burning intrigue, and whatever moral there might be is lost in how obtusely it's presented.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25922&stc=1&d=1466017778

3.) It's A Good Life
Now this one nails that slow-burn right on the head. A little boy is attacked at a pub for disrupting a sporting event on television and a woman offers to take him home. Despite the boy telling her his family doesn't care that it's his birthday they are all very happy to see him and almost too friendly.

Everyone's acting a bit off and it slowly becomes a question of, "So where is this power struggle?" We eventually learn that the boy has god powers and a really demented imagination which the woman just accepts and agrees to stay with him... teach him... learn from him... forever... it makes no ****in' sense. Honestly it all just goes out the window when they pull a terrifying demon rabbit out of a hat and then proceed to stick a knife in the uncanny valley and twist it.

It gets really nuts on the visual effects. Which I guess is something memorable at least, but by that point it's strayed far far away from the minimalist fantasies you'd expect from Twilight Zone.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25919&stc=1&d=1466017705

4.) Nightmare at 20,000 Feet
EASILY the best one and the most iconic of the episodes featured in the movie, we have John Lithgow as the aviophobic protagonist and sole witness to the hideous gremlin on the wing of the plane.

I like John Lithgow and there's no exception here, but I'd also like to give particular praise to the presentation of the gremlin itself which not only blows the old black and white man in a fluffy suit out of the sky in terms of design, but it's also helpfully obfuscated by darkness, passing clouds, and only highlighted by the dim background and occasional bursts of lightning.

In this version it's much more believable that someone might not see it, but it's also much creepier to see just a black vaguely inhuman silhouette crawl around the wing, ripping up debris and chucking it in the engines.

That one was really cool.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25918&stc=1&d=1466017682

Altogether, The Twilight Zone Movie (or should I say "Twilight Zone: THE Movie"?) is an extremely shallow attempt to adapt the tv series to the big screen (I've sincerely listened to better radio dramas, I strongly recommend those if you haven't), but if there's one take away; it's the very distinct skillset and varying levels of loyalty to the source material that the director of each episode brings with them.

John Landis directed the first part and his experience directing comedies like Blues Brothers and Spies Like Us show us a background and comfort zone FAR outside the kind of thinking that would produce something like Twilight one. We can probably blame him for Dan Aykroyd too.

Steven Spielberg directed the second part and BOY IS IT OBVIOUS. The WHIMSY COULD NOT BE CONTAINED. I respect Spielberg more now for being able to pull off the likes of Schindler's List, but why that dark, serious, and thoughtful edge was not brought here is beyond me.

Joe Dante directed the third part and given his quasi-horror roots in puppet-centric movies like Gremlins and Small Soldiers, it's no surprise he hit closer to home, though he couldn't help bring his goodie bag of monsters with him.

Surprisingly, the guy who brings us the Nightmare at 20,000 feet is George Miller. Dang. Well, that he managed both Babe and Mad Max at least shows he has considerable range.

Kinda makes me wanna watch Dead Calm now...

Final Verdict: rating_3 [Meh...]

gbgoodies

06-16-16, 12:53 AM

If you want to see a good movie that explores the idea of a time paradox, try The Final Countdown (1980). A time warp takes the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz back to Pearl Harbor, Dec. 6, 1941. It's a great movie with a top-notch cast.

Ooooh, color me intrigued.

I'm looking forward to reading your review of The Final Countdown (1980).

gbgoodies

06-16-16, 01:11 AM

Your review of Twilight Zone: The Movie is spot on. "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" is easily the best of the four segments, and "Kick the Can" is easily the worst of the four.

Have you seen this scene from the TV show "3rd Rock from the Sun", with both Shatner and Lithgow referencing their Twilight Zone airline experiences?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTNOihQnqVQ

Omnizoa

06-16-16, 09:21 AM

Omnizoa

06-16-16, 10:50 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25930&stc=1&d=1466084999

Out Of The Blue

Drama / English / 1980

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
The next installment in my quest for punky girl movies, we have a drama. Let's check it out.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

Gotta admit, the title's pretty apt; just like anything else that comes right out of the blue all you can do is:

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/speechless.gif

Even so, I think a better title for the movie would be "A Series Of Unfortunate Decisions" because I didn't see a single sane character anywhere in this movie.

Our main character, Cindy, is riding with her dad, Dennis Hopper in a semi when she distracts him, he takes his eyes off the road, and he gets a Killionaire! ramming into a schoolbus full of children.

He goes to jail and so begins Cindy's decline. She laments the loss of her Dad and she laments the loss of Elvis, her favorite musician, and it's around this point that I start thinking...

Does she think Elvis is punk? This movie is made by Dennis Hopper, does Dennis think Elvis is punk? He's... not.

Anyway the movies seeks to endear us to Cindy by showing her hitchhiking and giving anyone who doesn't pick her up the finger. We're off to a great start.

We have some scenes showing her rather strained relationship with her Mom and Husband #3 (of which there are two others including Hopper). Turns out her Mom is taking hard drugs for some reason and Husband #3 is wet towel. Despite that they seem pretty nice and well meaning, but then her Mom very thickly advertises that Cindy should go to school...

so she can meet boys...

because boys will become men...

and men are "providers".

*EARTH-SHATTERING GROAN*

SO NOT ENOUGH PUNK UP IN HERE, let's get some punk music goin' in the soundtrack, alright? Alright, and that's... not punk music...

That's not even Elvis. WTF am I listening to this for?

Anyway, the first half of the movie sees Cindy try starting fights and threatening violence on reasonable people, she runs away from home, she hits up a cab driver for pot, she almost gets molested, she magically gets backstage at a concert, she gets arrested for...

Hold on, they're not telling us yet.

...

...

...still waiting...

...

...

Car theft. She stole a car. That's why she was arrested.

After that she's late to school one day, swears, and pushes a nosy girl into the grass-WHOAHOHOHOHO!!! NOW HOLD ON THERE, THAT'S PUSHIN' THE LINE LITTLE MISSY!

After the halfway point Hopper gets out of jail and you expect that this is the point where we see a change right? Her new rowdy behavior is looked down on by the dad she used to emulate? His influence reels her back in and calms her casual hate for hippies and disco? Maybe her living dangerously clashes with his now gunshy approach to life since he screwed up once and doesn't want to see her go down the same road?

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25931&stc=1&d=1466085021
NEEEEEEEEOPE.

He immediately brings Cindy along for rides again, he regularly takes his eyes off the road, he begins drinking and driving, drinking while operating heavy machinery, stealing dynamite, demolishing company property, getting fired, assaulting his employer, robbing his employer, and you know? We never even see his employer again so maybe he's just dead? They cracked him over the head in the middle of the street so maybe he legit killed the father of one of the kids he accidentally killed.

Intentionally.

After he'd given him a job.

Nice.

Then, OUT OF THE BLUE, there's some debate between Hopper and Husband #2 over whether they should have sex with her??? OR her mom??? That her mom misconstrues as calling her a dyke??? And Cindy starts yelling "I hate men"??? And then we have a weird dream-like transition where she stuffs her underwear in her dad's mouth??? And forces his face into her crotch telling him to "smell it"??? Then she stabs him in the throat with scissors??? And she blows up her mom and herself with dynamite??? While stating that it was punk??? Credits??? ??? ???

???

??????

?????????!?!?!?

Final Verdict: rating_1 [Irredeemably Awful]

Omnizoa

06-17-16, 10:24 AM

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/coraline.gif

Coraline

Stop-Motion Horror Fantasy / English / 2009

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
I was somewhat bemused the first time I saw Coraline. I want to see it again and figure out why. Reassessment time.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

Chicken, Pizza, otherthingsIwon'tcountcausethey'renotactuallyrealand/orthey'reusedbyevilcharacters, CORALINE is a bit odd for me.

I'm not gonna go OMG HENRY SELICK IS TE BEST HE CAN DO NO WRONG OMGRRRRRR, no, but I will say that I was and still am wildly impressed by the visuals.

Coraline is not only significantly higher quality animation than Nightmare Before Christmas; using more frames, cleaner base materials (so you can get those seamless closeups), and introducing more nuanced human gestures into the individual characters, the animation is incredible.

Not only that, but I think the visual design of everything is great too.

Okay, maybe not everything I mean, the old man in the attic is pretty unattractive and the whole of the movie has various moments of... shall we say TOO macabre... but overall besides I think it's fantastic. And excellent blend of cartoony, but still very real.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25944&stc=1&d=1466169736

The lighting, the colors, the button motif which begets the sowing motif which begets the spider motif, it all really creates a sense of...

...it's hard to describe. It's kinda like those kid's book horror stories with their themes of exploration and wanting something better?

Wait.

****. I totally forgot this was actually adapted from a book.

Well that EXPLAINS quite a bit and hey, kudos for managing to get that vague sense of what those kind of stories are like and making a movie out of them, BUUUUUUUUT I haven't actually read the book so I can't speak for it's quality as an adaption.

What I can say is that Coraline still loses me somewhere along the line and it's difficult to nail down why.

Perhaps those kinds of books just never really clicked with me? The premise is really interesting, no doubt, more than enough for me to want to check it out, but I think it may be a bit of misfire in it's execution.

I think maybe too much of the movie was spent on the spectacle of the thing. I mean, make no mistake it's great to look at and ****, it's not like Nightmare didn't do much of the same with an entire song titled "What's This!?", but it takes until the halfway point before Coraline's dream world becomes a nightmare and we get any serious level of deceit or intrigue.

The first half I think is divided up roughly between navel-gazing at "Oooooooh, ahhhhhhh, look at all the pretty things and awesome stuff going on! Let's spend the first 14 minutes of the movie setting up the tone before we bring in the core conflict at all! Yaaaaaaaaay." aaaaaaaaaand Coraline being a character.

Or a stereotype.

Just not anyone particularly likable.

Coraline is basically written as "Fed Up Preteen" character. She never does anything exceptionally rebellious, instead she spends the majority of her screentime moaning about what her parents won't allow her to do or making eyebrows as the hardtacked Straight Man character.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25945&stc=1&d=1466169779

The thing about Straight Man is it exists for 1.) to serve as a viewer surrogate and 2.) for reactionary comedy.

There's very very little comedy here so the Straight Man exists solely for us to comfortably slip into as viewers.

That's okay insofar as Coraline demonstrating reasonable disgust towards general affronts like receiving a lookalike doll from the odd neighbor kid ("creepy"), but this combined with her bemoaning her own existence in the face of adversity significantly weaker than that which you'd find in say... Inside Out... is a bit of a put off.

And that's a bit of a put off that persists throughout almost the entire movie.

So we have a rather bland if unpleasant protagonist combined with a gratuitous amount of money shots combined with a multitude of scenes that feel empty if only because they exist for no other reason than to be reincorporated later combined with some bizarre plot bumps like...

Why does she only need to find 3 eyes for the ghosts if they're missing 6?

Why are their eyes symbolized by regular old knick-knacks, but literally referred to as eyes?

When was it ever agreed that the game would be over when the movie was ominously implying it was?

Ehhhh...

I'm tempted too give this one a [Meh...], but to be honest the themes and visual aesthetic go a long way for me and I can still see myself watching it again. It's by no means a bad movie and I'd say it's a more than an appropriate addition Henry Selick's resume.

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

Gideon58

06-17-16, 11:21 AM

This is the dimension of imagination, it is an area which we call...
the Twilight Zone Movie."[/I]

Enjoyed reading your review...it reminded me that this film might have something more than being a legacy to the death of Vic Morrow, your review really made me want to re-visit the film.

MovieMeditation

06-17-16, 12:45 PM

Coraline is freaking great.

Omnizoa

06-17-16, 01:50 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25948&stc=1&d=1466181970

The Lords of Salem

Horror / English / 2012

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
The Lords of Salem.
Lords of Salem definitely.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

Ughhh...

****, man...

Bring back Coraline.

So, I guess this movie is about a girl who gets demonically possessed by satanists living in her apartment who are the descendants of Salem witches and who want her to give birth to... the Anti-Christ?

And she does.

...

I really don't want to say much more than that. I had gleaned that much from the friggen' promtional material, exactly what you think happens happens and it's much more of a traditional horror film than I had hoped it would be.

I've liked some stuff Rob Zombie's made. Mostly songs off Hellbilly Deluxe, but still. THIS... this was just unpleasant.

I'm just gonna list off the notes I took watching this movie, here's verbatim what I wrote:

Goat
Dog
Old Naked Woman
Licking up bloody afterbirth
AA "not my way" guy
"It's a shame she shaves her armpits."
Priest shoves her facefirst onto his cock,
BLAUGHs up black slime</dream>
Orchestral stings
standing jiggling the phallic intestines of Nemesis
Graphic nudity,
masturbation
massage in period blood ?
jumpcut to cthulu baby, no pregnancy/birthNah.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25947&stc=1&d=1466181940

The only remotely positive thing I can think of about this movie is that Trip to the Moon wall art reminded me of Tonight, Tonight by Smashing Pumpkins (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NOG3eus4ZSo). An awesome video made by a completely different hard rock musician.

Final Verdict: rating_1 [Irredeemably Awful]

Omnizoa

06-17-16, 02:03 PM

Which should I watch?
The Mist?
~ OR ~
Tremors 2: Aftershocks?
You decide!
Both are rewatches.

Camo

06-17-16, 02:11 PM

Seen neither. I'll go for The Fog since i hated the first Tremors.

CosmicRunaway

06-17-16, 02:19 PM

Depends on if you mean John Carpenter's The Fog (1980) or the 2005 version. I assume it's the former, in which case you should watch that. But if for some reason you hate yourself and are considering watching the other one, then don't, and watch Tremors 2 instead.

Sexy Celebrity

06-17-16, 02:24 PM

The original The Fog is boring and not scary. I know a lot of other people will disagree with me, but that's how I felt about it. I thought it was lame. Tremors wasn't anything special, either, but I haven't seen the sequels.

Omnizoa

06-17-16, 02:24 PM

CosmicRunaway

06-17-16, 02:27 PM

I actually rather like The Mist. And the depressing ending. So my vote is for that, definitely.

Camo

06-17-16, 02:28 PM

The Mist is a good film watch that.

Omnizoa

06-18-16, 05:22 AM

Ink Review
late Saturday/early-to-mid Sunday.

I expect it to be my biggest most comprehensive one yet. It'll be rather unconventional.

Omnizoa

06-19-16, 02:13 PM

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h33/RegalNightmare123/Ink%201.gif

Ink

Fantasy Drama / English / 2009

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
It's been a bit over 6 months. Reassessment time.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"What happened to you?"

Alright, so here’s what I’m gonna do: I’m gonna show you one clip from the beginning of the movie and if it clicks with you, WATCH IT. The rest of the review is going to be hardcore spoiler territory, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TysZoUWkLdc

Let me preface this review by making a case in favor of it’s objectivity:

I had only seen the initial trailer prior to watching the movie. I didn't know anyone involved in it's production, what budget it had, or even that it was independently made. And even if I did I do not believe those things necessarily inform the quality of a movie.

Whether it had a lot of money or not does not matter.
Whether it started a legacy or not does not matter.
Whether it features any recognizable talent or not DOES NOT MATTER.

Save the trailer, I was totally blind, and after it was over I was in tears and that self doubt kicked in like a JET ENGINE; Was it really that good? Did I miss some major plotholes? Am I overlooking some bias here?

I immediately watched again and was in tears for a second time. It's a great movie, and shortly thereafter I decided it was my favorite movie I've ever seen EVER.

That's why I'm going to explain to you, to the best of my ability, why I like this movie so much and in the spirit of what I believe to be the most fair and transparent way one can review something they love, I'm going to start off by telling you
EVERY SINGLE ****ING THING THAT'S WRONG WITH IT.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/Ink_Snap_3.png

That's right. This movie isn't perfect, NO movie is perfect, and I'm going to give you every single possible reason I can think of for you to hate this movie because fans should be the harshest critics. So strap in, we're gonna rip into this movie and I ain't using no anesthetic!

So here's the premise:

After night has fallen and the weary have retreated to their beds, invisible beings called Storytellers pop into the world and grant good dreams to those asleep, while a rival faction, the disturbed Incubi, spread nightmares. One night a new creature steps onto the scene, an ugly man by the name of Ink, who inexplicably wakes a young girl, Emma, into their dimension and kidnaps her for the purposes of becoming an Incubus.

The story is presented from three perspectives: That of Ink, Emma, and Liev (a Storyteller), that of Emma's estranged father John, and that of Allel, Gabe, Sarah, and Jacob, Storytellers out to restore Emma's soul.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h33/RegalNightmare123/Ink%203.gif

The effects are stupid fake.
Actually, that's a bit broad. Only one or two effects need work, the rest are fine. Very simple special effects, filters, and editing tricks are used throughout the movie and they work well. They're not a focus of the movie, but they compliment it and don't detract from it, just as they should be in all movies. But there's one special effect that's REALLY bad right at the start of the movie.
It's when the Incubi are first shown delivering nightmares. Storytellers deliver dreams by placing their hand on the head of the sleeper and their arm glows white. The Incubi's shadows move independently to consume the person... and it looks REALLY half-assed. Like... totally obvious bad Photoshop half-assed.
Fortunately, it only appears a couple times throughout the movie, once at the very beginning, and again later on, at which point you really won't care.

The nightmares are disturbing.
As mentioned above, at the very beginning of the movie, you witness some Incubi delivering nightmares to people. The images you're shown are very disturbing, extremely visceral, and very out of place with the rest of the movie's tone. It makes sense provided the context; they're providing nightmares, they SHOULD be disturbing. But unlike say... the game, Dante's Inferno, where the unsettling depiction of hell is horrifyingly believable and actually incentive to descend deeper, this is effectively just shock material, and it proves to be the only really uncomfortable part of the whole movie.

What the **** is "The Pod"?
The "Pod" is an unnamed device that occurs twice in the movie. The viewer must infer how it functions because it is never explained what it is or how it works. Apparently, Storytellers carry "remotes" (depressible rods) wherever they go. These remotes, when activated, trigger a previously placed "beacon" which acts as an emergency alarm, calling waves of Storytellers to come help.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this plot element beyond a single thing: You forget about it. It appears at the very beginning of the movie for a brief instant to call all the Storytellers to chase Ink who has just kidnapped Emma, and at the very end of the movie at it's climax when it's shown not to work. This needs more emphasis, we barely had time to absorb what it MIGHT be over an hour ago, so what makes you think we'll understand the dilemma now? "It's not working?" What do you mean? What is that thing? What's it supposed to do?

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/Ink_Snap_11.png

The explosive pill paints a really graphic mental image.
This is also really out of place. Early on, Ink force feeds Emma a mysterious pill which is later implied to be an explosive when he reveals a device strapped to his arm, we flashback to him giving her the pill, we zoom in on Emma looking at her stomach, and Ink pulls the line: "You'll wear her guts!". This is just... weirdly gruesome for a movie without any actual gore. Why does Emma look at her stomach? Can she FEEL the pill or something? And the idea of Emma exploding into viscera all over Liev is... horrible. What does it accomplish?

We already know Ink is an ******* because he kidnapped Emma's soul leaving her body to die and we just finished watching him try to kill Liev with daggers, so we really DON'T need it to prove how desperate he is. All this amounts to is Liev's surrender and we really do not need to go as far as a contrived exploding pill to do that.

The "lioness" subplot is pointless.
Throughout the majority of the movie, a recurring theme is Liev trying to convince a scared Emma that when she passed into their dimension she began transforming into a brave lioness. It's an eye-rolling moment every time because it never amounts to anything beyond a couple throwaway lines, and even Emma doesn't believe it when she outright says "You're full of it".

Even so, Emma's given a couple moments of rebellion where she roars at people, but the takeaway is virtually nil.

The keys are miniature bongos? Seriously?
By far the SILLIEST part of the movie is the fact that any time Ink or a Storyteller want to move between dimensions, they whip out a pair of mini bongos, play a tune, and a door of light opens before them. This... is... STUPID.

I know this sounds harsh, I mean, look at Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, the actual title of the game is about using a small instrument to play a tune to transcend some fabric of reality, right? Well, think about it: What do we associate flutes and ocarinas with? The delicate chirp of graceful music, right? It almost sounds magical. Well, what do we associate BONGOS with? I'd sooner see a childrens' xylophone in this movie than bongos.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/Ink_Snap_1.png

Occasional lines of dialog are just BAD.
Some lines of dialog are just... not done well. They either sound like they should have been cut out, or they just left in a botched take. They pull you out of the moment every time.

*looks at Liev* Liev *anime beat* the Storyteller...I think the change is complete! I see a lioNESS.I don't understand. Why are you here? *for UMPTEENTH time in the THIRTHEENTH hour*

The Incubus Leader isn't developed.
This guy needed depth. At the end of the movie, the characters confront the leader of the Incubi; the only Incubi who doesn't wear glasses or a faceplate, instead he has black eyes that occasionally flicker. Who is this guy? They just introduce him in the last few minutes of the movie, and we've heard nothing of him up to now. The entire movie Ink is trying to get to "The Assembly". It'd be a big step up for this character if instead Ink was try to get to "The Incubus Leader", it would actually establish him as an existing character early on and give us reason to expect him, not be surprised by his sudden appearance right before the movie ends. Let's see some build up for this guy.

Another thing that's strangely noticeable is that even though this character is given lines, you never actually see him speak them for what short time he's actually on screen. What's up with that?

The work scenes are confusing.
The scenes in which we see John at work are practically impossible to follow. A mixture of lingo and names we're unfamiliar with make understanding who John works for and what his problems are incomprehensible without extreme scrutiny. Fortunately, the movie only requires you to know one thing: ****'s going down at work, and he's gotta make a deal big time.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/Ink_Snap_9.png

'John' is the most boring name on the planet.
JOHN? REALLY??? Are we seriously calling a protagonist John?
Masterchief is John.
Rambo is John.
John McClane.
John Connor.
John Bender.
John Shepherd.
John Anderton.
John Dunbar.
John Smith.
John Shaft.
John Carter.
Papa John's Pizza.
John is also a euphemism for a TOILET and someone who pays for SEX.

Why not call him something humble? Like... Isaac? Or George? Or Luke? Or Chewy-come on, not JOHN!
*see you thought I was going for something different there but I wasn't*

'Storytellers' & 'Incubi' don't jell at all.
The name, "Storytellers" make sense. They give dreams and, in effect, tell an appreciable story. But "Incubi" is just random. There aren't any "Succubi" in the movie, and they don't resemble their mythological depiction at all beyond the fact that they're all male (for some reason) and attack sleepers. Ultimately, their names just don't mesh together well.

Jacob's kind of annoying.
Giving that he is plainly a comedy relief character in an otherwise very serious movie, this is, to a degree, acceptable, but a couple of Jacob's scenes are a bit offputting. He's kind of hysterical and at least the reactions from other characters are appropriate, but when he's first introduced and a second time later on, we're given a mini montage of him counting to himself "1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4..." and, especially when you're watching it for the first time, it's a bit lame. It's not as short as it could be, and there's only so much 1, 2, 3, 4ing you can sit through.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/Ink_Snap_5.png

Religious subtext? Spare me.
Yeah, if John wasn't enough, the movie portrays souls as the form people take when they die. This is totally fine by me because it's used merely to serve a fantasy context. A couple characters mention God though, and even though it's never implied in any religious way, I can't help but think that as a modern fantasy movie could do with leaving God out.

The sound design overtakes the visuals.
In a few instances of the movie we get a lot of ambient sound effects to accompany what's going on onscreen. In one particular scene we have Ink enter a warehouse full of junk and it sounds like Pee-wee's breakfast machine is chuggin' full speed inside. You never see it though and you just know they had nothing to show for it. At least the set seems to be a plausible enough place for a Mouse Trap-style cannon.

Collision sounds also sound a bit too crunchy.

Continuity errors are amateurish.
I SAW that teddy bear move! That was NOT the position it was in in the previous shot! You should feel ashamed of yourself, movie! ASHAMED!

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/Ink_Snap_4.png

ENOUGH with the yellow bloom filters!
Unlike movies like Avalon and Ghost in the Shell 2, the color filters here actually serve to help orient the viewer in what dimension we're seeing events play through. White means the real world while gold means the dream world and green means the nightmare world.

I don't have a problem with this at all as it's a productive shorthand to establishing certain scenes (the video above isn't revealed to be a dream sequence, you have to figure it out).

I do balk at the bloom though as it can strain the eyes and it obviously wasn't necessary to achieve the same purpose in The Matrix.

Make me sick with the camera, why don't you?
A combination of shaky cam and rapid cuts can get old after a while and really only seem to serve making the movie appear more brisk than it actually is. As much as that may help it can also be distracting, they really could have toned it down.

Liev is just a walking plot device.
Liev is actually a major character in the movie, right up until the climax, but she's the only character in the whole movie with such a title... and isn't even particularly likable. Her actor isn't bad, she's just not written anywhere near as well as the rest of the movie, and in a movie this good it really sticks out. Her concept isn't handled to it's full extent, she doesn't do or say anything particularly interesting, and since she's never given any sort of backstory, she's just... there.

I'm not invested in her character to care when she dies and I can only imagine that the absolute best way they could have handled this character is by somehow having her be Emma's mom. That would be EXCELLENT, it would reincorporate her character since we already know she's dead, it would explain her familiarity with Ink, and it could even be handwaved with the "we look different after we die" bit. This is such a awesome theory that it KILLS ME that there's nothing substantiating it in the movie.

Liev is easily my biggest complaint about the whole movie and this change would totally curb my criticism.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/Ink_Snap_6.png

....................................okay.

I can't really think of anything else to criticize right now so now I'm going to explain what I do like... no more spoiler tags now.

Here goes:

I think Ink is a story of redemption and never before have I found myself caring for a guy so easy to dislike.

We're first introduced to John in a flashback/dream sequence, but we're shortly given a glimpse of his real personality when we see him drop some papers on the sidewalk and he steels at an offer to help.

You could easily take this to mean he's simply having a rough day, but as it's implied by the movie later on, independence is critical, or put another way, "You need help? With it, shame."

The massive deceit of the movie is that John IS Ink or rather John will become Ink if he continues down the path he's taking. I'll talk about how this works narratively later, but for now I'd like to analyze this piece:

The idea that independence is shameful is an aspect of pride and pride is the true antagonist of this movie. This is never explicitly said however a tiny line is given away at the end where the the Incubus Leader says, "Pride is what we are made of."

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/Ink_Snap_7.png

Ink's path to becoming an Incubi parallels John's path in life. He's a recluse, he favors his wealth and what other people think of him, and even genuine offers of family from his step-father, Ron, bring out anger at the thought. The GALL this guy must have to ask ME to be a father after he stole custody away from me?

John's feelings are totally understandable and as we see from the nightmares fed to him by the Incubi, he's tormented by a past wracked with poverty and social ostracism. It makes sense for him to bury into his job which feeds him financial success and social comfort even at the expense of his own family.

This is also paralleled by two scenes which I honestly didn't really understand the purpose of when I first saw them. Ink visits two "Drifters", unaligned but allegiant to the Incubi and both of them are massive caricatures of this dichotomized sense of pride: Materialism and Vanity. One is obsessed with "what's mine" and the other is obsessed with "what they think of me". The reality is both are totally alone except perhaps with their dealings with the Incubi which trade in such superficialities.

The "Keymaster" Incubus who said that need of help is shameful also gave away another clue in the form of Ink's incentive: "You only have one opportunity... to become... numb."

Numb to what? To pain? So pride numbs the pain of life? Now suddenly we have a picture!

We have the Incubi as fantastical representations of society, a borg-like (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/586881-how-monotonously-alike-all-the-great-tyrants-and-conquerors-have) collective that, in it's writhing struggle to endure life, cross-imposes on itself a solution: that all you need are things and people to pat you on the back. What matters isn't a personal feeling of success or the bonds you might share with a significant other, what matters is MONEY, ALL THE **** YOU CAN BUY WITH THAT MONEY AND THE LOOKS TO FAKE IT TILL YOU MAKE IT. YOU WANT TO BE A COVER GIRL, SO YOU GOTTA HAVE THIS COLOR HAIR, THESE SIZE BREASTS, AND SHOES WITH A HEEL TO MATCH BECAUSE IT'S ALL THE RAGE NOW.

This is also reflected by the nightmares and dreams at the beginning of the movie. While some of the dreams are forgiveably shallow and arguably ENCOURAGE these values, the nightmares specifically funnel them. It's not just drowning and teeth falling out, it's being alone, it's being a victim of gossip, and it's failing to rise to expectations.

When John gets into a car crash on his way to the big business meeting, the Incubi influencing him says "Your whole life is going to crumble". This deceivingly implies that his entire life extends only to his job. Beyond his job nothing matters.

Yet when he pursues it it's the loss of his daughter that deepens his depression, fuels his drug habit, and incites him to commit suicide, becoming Ink, losing all sense of self and repeating the process over again until he becomes an Incubi, another cog in this machine of narcissism and misery, OR he discovers what really matters... personal pride be damned.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/Ink_Snap_2.png

It's a movie that unpretentiously suggests humility and I am SO INTO THAT.

Everything else helps too.

I like the subtle but interesting character design. The Incubi are appropriately uniform, Jacob's electrical tape Xs over his eyes are ENTIRELY POINTLESS (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) yet still appeal to me, and Ink himself has me fondly call back to the Mystics in Dark Crystal.

The soundtrack is a more than appropriately moody mixture of piano, strings, synth, and chimes and The Fort leitmotif is just ****in' amazing.

The acting is excellent, particularly with regards to Chris Kelly as John who manages to pull off both subtle mixed expressions and serious tearjerker drama with Quinn Hunchar as Emma also managing a believable precocious little girl.

A couple setpieces are especially memorable in their creativity, the best, I think, being "John's Walk" where we intercut John walking through a hospital with a fight between the Storytellers and Incubi battling to gain influence over him and become the new devil on his shoulder.

I loved the little spice they added to reality to shake it up and add emphasis. The rumbling wall clock and the ambient light dimming to just a glow above John and Ron's argument were great little touches. I eat that stuff up. A lot of great shot composition too.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h33/RegalNightmare123/Ink%204.gif

I like that the movie managed to not only to put me in a good mood, but also make me cry and laugh as well. Jacob's "we meet again" moment totally got me and it probably helped to brace me against his obnoxious personality.

The ending is also the best ****ing ending I've ever seen to any movie ever. It's brought me to tears almost every time, more consistently than anything else I've seen.

We even got a strong likable punky girl with Allel! :up:

I'll close this review out on two final points. The first point being the plot twist:

When I first saw the movie I did not suspect the twist that Ink is John at all even though other people have said they predicted it early on. I don't entirely buy this since while they may have suspected it, it couldn't have been rationalized until late into the movie.

The reason it didn't get me is it's plausible they're related characters only up until you see the Storytellers interacting with the real world anachronistically. If Ink is John, then why is John here and now reacting to something Ink has come and done? It's impossible UNTIL Liev says that "time works differently" late into the movie.

Only at that point can the connection be justified and even then renders itself practically impervious to scrutiny. It's never described exactly how time is measured or to what degree that the two timelines exist, it's just said "time works differently".

I suppose you could call that a cop-out, but to me it doesn't really stand far apart from Inception never explaining the dream device. You don't need to know HOW it works for the plot to make sense you just have to suspend your disbelief long enough to accept that it is what it is and considering how late into the movie this comes you've probably already come to accept a whole bunch of reality breaks by then.

It's also not as if this is deus ex machina either, these separate arcs are synchronized from the very beginning of the movie so saying one is an overlapping continuity is no ball out of left field.

On another note I think this movie distinguishes itself from other "twist movies" like The Game by being conceptually much deeper than it appears to be. It's much more rewatchable in that respect.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h33/RegalNightmare123/Ink%202.gif

My second and final point is in regards to what is doesn't do.

In what it manages not to **** up like so many other movies ALMOST ALWAYS DO.

1.) The drug-addicted ******* protagonist is actually redeemed!

2.) There's a romantic subplot that is believably initiated, reasonably time-lapsed, with chemistry AND it features neither kissing, weddings, or even "I love you"!

3.) There are no non-humans to be seen ANYWHERE IN THE MOVIE!

4.) And there's no food anywhere EITHER!

...Except a cake.

It could be vegan.

Probably isn't, though.

****!

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/Ink_Snap_10.png

What else can you say?

Well, if you want to pick up the movie, bear in mind that since it was never picked up by distributors (THE **** IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?), the creators have released it themselves which means DVDs are both ad-free and region-free.

And you know what? Isn't it a pretty scummy thing to do to stuff ads into something I already bought? Not to mention limiting it's playability to a country because of some cock-brained, glue-huffing, notion that imports will hurt your sales?

**** YOU, I'll take my awesome movie WITHOUT any of your slimy corporate fingerprints because I CAN NEVER WASH THAT **** OUT!

As a final final final postscript addendum shutthe****upalreadythisistoolongasitis, I'm going to concede that my most recent viewing of Ink has, unfortunately, DROPPED my opinion of it.

It is no longer my #1 favorite movie, so expect my Top 10 to shift somewhat in the near future. Regardless, I still highly recommend it.

Final Verdict: rating_5 [Friggen' Awesome]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5I1SavGyA

CosmicRunaway

06-19-16, 03:21 PM

Omnizoa

06-19-16, 03:23 PM

Sexy Celebrity

06-19-16, 05:00 PM

As a final final final postscript addendum shutthe****upalreadythisistoolongasitis, I'm going to concede that my most recent viewing of Ink has, unfortunately, DROPPED my opinion of it.

It is no longer my #1 favorite movie, so expect my Top 10 to shift somewhat in the near future.

I was gonna say.... reading this review.... I feel like you need to convince yourself that you actually DON'T love this movie as much as you think you do.

That was a difficult review to read. I wanted to read it all, but I started to just scan. I did watch the 3 minute scene you gave us. It didn't really work for me. I find the little girl annoying.

A lot of people watch the trailer and decide not to see it because "it looks like a horror movie". I have to keep telling them "it's seriously not, I swear".

I was sorta reminded in a way of Hellraiser by the trailer. Have you seen that movie? (I have a hunch you won't like it.) It looks like something a Hellraiser fan would like. Ink kinda reminds me of Pinhead in a way from what I know of Ink.

Omnizoa

06-19-16, 05:22 PM

I was gonna say.... reading this review.... I feel like you need to convince yourself that you actually DON'T love this movie as much as you think you do.
To be perfectly honest, most of it was written a few years ago. I'm only now deciding against it.

That was a difficult review to read. I wanted to read it all, but I started to just scan. I did watch the 3 minute scene you gave us. It didn't really work for me. I find the little girl annoying.
That's fair. Though if it's because she seems unrealistic, again it's narratively justified given that the Storytellers are trying to send him a positive message in his dreams ("You can do this").

Alternatively if it's just kids playing kids, then there's really no helping that.

I was sorta reminded in a way of Hellraiser by the trailer. Have you seen that movie? (I have a hunch you won't like it.) It looks like something a Hellraiser fan would like. Ink kinda reminds me of Pinhead in a way from what I know of Ink.
I have not seen Hellraiser or have heard that comparison.

CosmicRunaway

06-19-16, 06:07 PM

I was sorta reminded in a way of Hellraiser by the trailer. Have you seen that movie?
I have not seen Hellraiser or have heard that comparison.
After I made that other post, I watched the trailer you linked at the bottom of the review post. I thought it initially gave off a Hellraiser vibe as well, but only for the first bit though.

Sexy Celebrity

06-19-16, 06:13 PM

Okay, that is your next movie to review, Omni -- Hellraiser.

Omnizoa

06-19-16, 06:37 PM

After I made that other post, I watched the trailer you linked at the bottom of the review post. I thought it initially gave off a Hellraiser vibe as well, but only for the first bit though.
It's the nightmare sequences that do it I think. They constitute only a couple minutes of the movie.

Okay, that is your next movie to review, Omni -- Hellraiser.
Eeeeeehhh... I'll add it. I've was looking at it again recently.

gbgoodies

06-20-16, 01:17 AM

I've never heard of this movie before, and I have no idea what to think about it after watching that opening scene haha. Haven't read the rest of the review (other than looking at your score) in case I do decide to watch it.

Maybe it says something about the type of things I watch, but I totally expected that little girl to get hit by a train when she was trying to get her dad to play haha.

Other than a few people here who talked about this movie recently, I hadn't heard of this movie either, and I thought the same thing about the train when I watched the clip in the review.

A lot of people watch the trailer and decide not to see it because "it looks like a horror movie". I have to keep telling them "it's seriously not, I swear".

I'm glad you said that because I thought it was a horror movie, so I wasn't even considering watching it, but knowing that it's not a horror movie, I might give it a try someday.

Omnizoa

06-20-16, 06:55 AM

Other than a few people here who talked about this movie recently, I hadn't heard of this movie either, and I thought the same thing about the train when I watched the clip in the review.
I might've thought that too the first time I saw it. It doesn't really occur to me now.

Perhaps the setup seems too cushy for something bad not to hilariously destroy it.

I'm glad you said that because I thought it was a horror movie, so I wasn't even considering watching it, but knowing that it's not a horror movie, I might give it a try someday.
Ah, GBG. I think you could like it.

*EDIT: Bear in mind I have a very low tolerance for horror movies myself.

Swan

06-20-16, 06:59 AM

*EDIT: Bear in mind I have a very low tolerance for horror movies myself.

Nah really? :p

Omnizoa

06-20-16, 07:18 AM

Nah really? :p
Here, I've replaced the trailer. This one's less setup and more theme-oriented. Much less horror-y.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5I1SavGyA

Omnizoa

06-20-16, 03:31 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25978&stc=1&d=1466447260

Foxy Brown

Blaxploitation Action Drama / English / 1974

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Pam Grier kicks some ass? I can dig it.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

Eh... I wanted to see Pam Grier kick ass, not get drugged and raped.

It takes about over half an hour for her to whip out a gun and shoot her brother in the ear for ratting out her informant husband who gets shot by drug runners.

She immediately learns the name of the Big Bad (who happens to be a woman I assume purely for the same reasons why her handgun is tiny) and instead of shooting her on sight, effectively ending the movie, she uses her "assets" to join their organization so she can mildly irritate them by botching a bribe.

( -_-) <-- This is me impressed.

She shortly after gets caught and is returned the favor by drugging her with heroin (which sounds horrible but doesn't appear to affect her at all) and get raped by some wildly attractive southern gentlemen.

She sets them on fire, escapes, rallies together some 70s enthusiasts and finally gets her revenge by cutting off the Big Bad's boyfriend's PENIS AND GIVING IT TO HER IN A JAR.

She then aces her goons, pops her in the arm, and delivers the immortal line, "Death is too easy for YOU, bitch!"

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25977&stc=1&d=1466447235

Sweet, I feel like I'm watching The New Barbarians again, an hour of nonsense followed by a few minutes of HOLY **** WHAT THE ****!?

There's some colorful dialog, nipple slips, offscreen sex, it's honestly much less offensive than I would have expected, THOUGH...

In a Variety (magazine) (javascript:void(0)) issue on Wednesday, April 17, 1974, they characterized the film as being "something of a mess." The gory samples of violence and explicit sexual scenes, according to Variety, made it harder to stomach, and is beneath even the "gutter-high standards of the genre."

Really? That was the lowest of the low when it comes to gore and sex? By 1974 standards? PUHLEESE, are you seriously telling me castrating people isn't the solution to our drug problem?

Final Verdict: rating_3 [Meh...]

Sexy Celebrity

06-20-16, 03:42 PM

I love Foxy Brown.

Coffy, the film before this one (Foxy Brown is actually sort of a sequel to Coffy, though they changed Pam Grier's character's name), is a better movie. I thought Foxy Brown wasn't as good as Coffy back in the day. Yet, I think I would rather watch Foxy Brown now over Coffy.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25980&stc=1&d=1466448101

As I've said numerous times before, the villainess, Katherine Wall, makes the movie.

Omnizoa

06-20-16, 03:56 PM

I love Foxy Brown.

Coffy, the film before this one (Foxy Brown is actually sort of a sequel to Coffy, though they changed Pam Grier's character's name), is a better movie.
It's on my watchlist.

As I've said numerous times before, the villainess, Katherine Wall, makes the movie.
She really didn't leave any impact on me. She wasn't bad, but she hardly did anything.

Omnizoa

06-20-16, 06:56 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25985&stc=1&d=1466459645

Domino

Action / English / 2005

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Hard to say no to what it says on the tin (http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25983&stc=1&d=1466458386).

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

Now THIS is how you can be visually interesting.

None of that color filter bloom ****, you actually shift the hues and saturation of each shot, splicing in slow-mo and speed-ramp edits to keep things alive and movin' with emphasis on exactly what you want.

Domino does this and I really appreciate it because without the sharp visual flair I think it would be a much less interesting movie.

NOT TO SAY that I didn't get what I signed up for. Keira Knightley pulls off Badass Action Girl #1 fantastically and I'm pleased with the scenes she's allowed to steal. UP UNTIL about the halfway mark, see around that point we give up on this "history of my life" narrated play-by-play and focus on the crime caper we're flashing back to which requires a MASSIVE amount of difficult-to-keep-up-with setup and frankly the whole movie thinks it's own little Ocean's Eleven is way more interesting than it actually is.

Shortly after we establish Domino's spot on the team of bounty hunters between Ed and Choco, we establish Choco is resistant to having her join, we leap to their mutual yet unshared sexual attraction towards one another, then we have a scene where Domino unpleasantly yelling at Choco, and you know let me take just a second to say that Keira Knightley with her mouth wide open and expressing upsettedness doesn't work, she should just not do that (she even has a Reb Brown moment at the end which is just... funny).

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=25984&stc=1&d=1466459605

Then the daytime hooker from My Name Is Earl spikes their coffee with mescaline, they get ****ed up, the oversaturated visuals suddenly become TOO MUCH, and Domino and Choco have sex.

*SIGH* Great. Nice roma- .... *SIGH*

Then suddenly this preacher rolls up and starts calling Domino an "angel of fire" and what the hell, is the movie trying to be ABOUT something now?

I think you give up that right the second you include an extended scene in your movie in which Mo'Nique goes on Jerry Springer as the world's youngest grandmother to tell us all why we should be more inclusive of the "Blacktino" and "ChiNegro" population.

At least it helps to bust into song (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7Ds7d3opPg) anytime the characters do something horrible.

Also dogs and goldfish. ESPECIALLY the goldfish, because they were flushed down toilets more than once.

All in all it seems to be an entertaining, if admitted, wild exaggeration of the life of Domino Harvey. I could complain about the thick sexualization of Domino, but considering that the real Domino was on set, it makes me wonder if that wasn't exactly what she would have gotten a kick out of. Something tells me yes.

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

gbgoodies

06-20-16, 08:12 PM

I might've thought that too the first time I saw it. It doesn't really occur to me now.

Perhaps the setup seems too cushy for something bad not to hilariously destroy it.

Ah, GBG. I think you could like it.

*EDIT: Bear in mind I have a very low tolerance for horror movies myself.

I added it to my watchlist. Is this the right movie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfcVCK6_YNM

cricket

06-20-16, 08:22 PM

There's parts of Domino I like, but overall it's a disappointment for me. I didn't like the emphasis on style.

Omnizoa

06-20-16, 11:31 PM

I added it to my watchlist. Is this the right movie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfcVCK6_YNM
Yup, that looks like it.

Omnizoa

06-20-16, 11:32 PM

There's parts of Domino I like, but overall it's a disappointment for me. I didn't like the emphasis on style.
It's not far above a [Meh...] for me.

Omnizoa

06-21-16, 02:04 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26007&stc=1&d=1466528650

The Mist

Survival Horror / English / 2007

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
I actually rather like The Mist.
The Mist is a good film watch that.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"We're a civilized society."

"Sure, as long as the machines are workin' and you can dial 911, but you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, you scare the **** out of them... NO MORE RULES."

Mad props to Frank Darabont, the guy has quite the string of adaptions under his belt.

Too bad The Mist kinda ****s it up.

I mean, not that The Mist isn't well made. It's paced great, it builds tension well and it totally kept me engaged the whole way through. Even the CG monsters looked decent for the most part.

But the script is... bad and I can't even blame it solely on the source material or the changes.

In any survival horror movie we're forced to ask the eternal question, "How stupid are the protagonists?"

Any degree of "stupid" is bad and here I would have to say "mild to extremely stupid".

First off we establish the Mist is dangerous. We're not sure why, but it's suggested that it could be poisonous.

It's reasonable, but no effort is made to say, "Hey, she's standing in the Mist and she feels fine, must not be poison."

That may seem flat and needlessly explanatory, but the absence of this sort of inquisition leads people to recognize the Mist is dangerous, and then immediately assume that it's perfectly safe to walk out into it despite evidence to the contrary.

Sure enough, MONSTERS! We dismember a tentacle and instead of IMMEDIATELY moving the thing to show everyone else, "Hey, monsters!" we leave it and expect to convince everyone to just take their word.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26005&stc=1&d=1466528590

Sure enough a couple guys go back, see the thing, discover it's still alive before dissolving into a puddle and WELP, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE NOW BECAUSE YOU SEE THAT WE COULDN'T HAVE TOUCHED IT BEFORE WITHOUT IT REACTING AND DISSOLVING WHICH WE NOW KNOW BUT COULDN'T THEN HAVE KNOWN.

It's retroactive justification. Weak.

Sure enough, most people still take them for liars despite Token Black Guy's relatively pleasant exchange with our protagonist up to this point, he just suddenly assumes that in the wake of this unexplainable mystery, the only guys with any remote certainty explaining it are specifically conspiring to spite him over an old lawsuit?

Weak.

It's also the perfect time to get hot and heavy and makeout in the backroom of a supermarket besieged by unseen forces that want to tear you in half at the waist. With totally undeveloped characters.

GOSH I WONDER WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO ONE OF TH-*dead*

Weak.

A few characters decide that since every single other person who went outside never returned or wound up dead, WELL I guess we gotta go outside too! As soon as they're outside, they're walking slowly with their lights on.

I'm sorry, did we not already establish that there's a limit to how far/long we can survive outside and that the monsters are SPECIFICALLY ATTRACTED TO LIGHT!? It's FOG (mist, whatever), light isn't going to do you any favors! And they do this EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY'RE OUTSIDE, even when they escape to one of their cars they proceed to SLOOOOOOOWLY drive past the supermarket window to spite all the naysayers!

Weak.

Finally, when they finally run out of gas their first and only thought is "WELP, GUESS WE GOTTA COMMIT SUICIDE."

"BUT MALE PROTAGONIST, THERE ARE 5 OF US AND ONLY 4 BULLETS."

"WE'LL MAKE IT WORK." *shoots the other 4, cries uncontrollably*

Uhkay, first, was it beyond your spatial reasoning to figure out that all 5 of you could die if you lined your ****ing heads together?

Second, HOW ABOUT WAIT???

How about you not immediately conclude the worst BECAUSE IT WOULD COST YOUR ****IN' LIVES? How 'bout you not rush to kill yourself? HOW 'BOUT PATIENCE!?!?

NUP, OUTTA GAS, TIME TA DIE.

Weak.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26006&stc=1&d=1466528626

And I know what you're thinkin', "But Omni, what about the drama in the supermarket and the danger of fear-mongering mob mentalities?"

You know what? You're right, it was good. Carmody is a good love-to-hate-her sort of character. SO GOOD in fact, that SHE ONLY TAKES A COUPLE BULLETS??

WHAT THE HELL!? The first guy to die went out worse then that and the guy who killed her dies immediately after with his last words being an apology for KILLING THE EVIL HAG!

We don't even get the full satisfaction of seeing her skin ripped off, infected with alien venom, or turning into spiders!

And the guy who killed her was punk'd out by a monster you never totally see!

And the old woman who dented her skull with a can of peas is shot with friendly fire mere MINUTES BEFORE RESCUE!!!

WEAK.

Final Verdict: rating_3 [Meh...]

Omnizoa

06-21-16, 02:18 PM

Which should I watch?
The Black Hole?
~ OR ~
The Thirteenth Floor?
You decide!
I haven't seen either.

CosmicRunaway

06-21-16, 05:14 PM

I've had The Black Hole on DVD for many years now, but I've never gotten around to watching it. I think I've seen The Thirteen Floor, but I don't remember anything about it. I think The Thirteenth Floor is supposed to be the better film though, so it might be a decent choice.

Omnizoa

06-22-16, 12:43 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26026&stc=1&d=1466610104

G. I. Jane

Military Action / English / 1997

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
This could either be incredibly offense or incredibly awesome.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"Suck my dick!"

"Love", kissing, camels, goats, I'm ****in' ashamed.

Just ****in' ashamed.

With so many people right now.

Firstly I'm ashamed with every single butthead who made those "Top X Badass Female Characters in Movies" lists I spent all of last week searching through. I'm ashamed in every single one of them who picked Katniss from Hunger Games, and I'm ashamed in every single ****rag who picked a SUPPORT CHARACTER to fill out their list because they couldn't think far beyond Sarah Conner, Ellen Ripley, Furiosa, The Bride, Lisbeth Salander aaand... that one chick from Sin City?

Trinity in The Matrix??

Black Widow in The Avengers???

Lucy, GO **** YOURSELF!!!

We have Wing Chun! We have Savage Streets! We have THIS MOVIE and don't even get me started on how every single one of those ****ing lists fails to specify LIVE-ACTION!

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/maka.gif

G.I. Jane is SURPRISINGLY a great movie. It could very easily have pushed it's obviously feminist angle WAY past the breaking point with just ONE offhand remark, just ONE whisper of man-hate, just ONE... ANYTHING that would delegitimize what it tries to do, but it DOESN'T.

We IMMEDIATELY open up with whatsherface "Haven" publicly slamming "sensitivity training for men" in a televised hearing and instantly she becomes the bitch-in-charge to put the first woman into the Navy Seals despite all the sexism that rankles the comfortably cock-centric elite.

Demi Moore as O'Neil takes the hits, rolls with the punches, says "**** you" to handouts and insulting double standards so she can compete with the best of 'em and even kick a sexist Viggo Mortenson in the nuts. **** YEAH, GIRL POWER!

And that's when bureaucracy steps in, as it -always- does, accuses her of lesbianism (because it SOMEHOW affects them) and redacts all of her training.

All at the hands of the queen bitch-in-charge, Haven, who is EXACTLY the kind of personality that should have no ****ing input on this kind of movie.

It's bad enough when MEN are sexist to women, but when WOMEN are sexist to women, I wanna CLOCK HER IN THE TEETH! Cause that's your real antagonist! It's not just men keeping women down, it's women pulling the same **** because they've deluded themselves into believing there's a meaningful difference! It's an enemy on the INSIDE and it needs KILLING!

Sadly, she gets no such comeuppance and O'Neil returns to duty only to be sucked into real warfare and pull off her Mulan Moment when she has to save the life of her male superior officer.

And the whole team came to accept her, sexism was abolished, real lesbians continued to get ****ed over by Don't Ask Don't Tell and EVERYONE WAS HAPPY.

EXCEPT ME. Because I'm still ashamed!

In Demi Moore. WHAT THE ****, Demi Moore!? You looked great in this movie as it is, you didn't need the breast enhancement, I mean ****, you're not even recognizable anymore!

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26027&stc=1&d=1466610155

You star in one of the most pro-equality feminist films ever made and you come away with plastic surgery!?!? WELL, I GUESS WE'VE HURDLED THE GAP THAT IS WOMEN IN THE MILITARY, BUT UNREALISTIC STANDARDS OF BEAUTY?

PPPPPBBFBBFBFBFBTTTTT
YOU'RE NOT GETTIN' RIDDA THAT!

Just because a woman can fire a gun now don't mean she shouldn't have a little JUNK IN THE TRUNK.

And you know who else I'm ashamed in? ****in' these guys (http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/jun/21/gi-jane-has-whole-new-slant-20160621/?f=features-style). Not just the people passing the law (because **** drafts), but the people writing the article.

You specifically reference the title of a movie which ***** ALL OVER what you say in it and yet:

Still, the idea of disinclined women as conscripts of the armed forces (emphasis on force) makes me shiver. While I don't have children, I can't fathom my friends' daughters being drafted. I think about how inept and immature I was at age 18. I struggled just being a student. How could my country have counted on me to be a soldier?

HOW DO YOU THINK MEN FEEL, YOU SEXIST PRICK!?

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

CosmicRunaway

06-22-16, 01:21 PM

I disagree with the whole idea of a draft, but if you're going to draft men against their will, you should draft women too (with the exception of those who are pregnant and maybe those who have recently given birth). The fact that the author is offended by that idea baffles me, since she gives no indication that she believes men shouldn't be required to offer their service.

I don't know if Canada has a draft or not. My province was still a dominion of Britain until around 1950, so the military history we were taught in school was in regard to the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, and not the Canadian Armed Forces. All I know is that there hasn't been any talks about it in my lifetime, so I have no idea what would happen if there was a need for something like a draft. But if a country does not have enough public support to fill the ranks of their army with volunteers, then they probably shouldn't be going to war.

Omnizoa

06-22-16, 01:37 PM

Omnizoa

06-25-16, 07:42 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26055&stc=1&d=1466894385

Gypsy 83

Road Trip Drama / English / 2001

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
ALL ABOARD! NEXT STOP ON THE PUNKY GIRL TRAIN, GYPSY 83!

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"Okay, you know what? Some of us don't CARE to be defined by our sexuality."

Kissing, drugs, KFC, Burger King, basically any time "Whopper" appears in character dialog you should just tear up that page of the script and start over.

Well, I signed for a punky girl and I got a goth guy instead. Not complaining though, he was the best part of the whole movie.

Basically, the setup here is, Gypsy wants to become a rock star, so at the encouragement of best friend, Clive, the two goths run away from home and drive across state to perform at a Stevie Nicks tribute event.

My biggest issue with the movie is the main character, Gypsy, who begins the movie an emotional trainwreck. She gets stagefright, reacts poorly to insults, has a fricken' obtuse missing mother backstory and is just generally an unpleasant person to be around.

Is it just me or is the concept of the viewer surrogate being prone to irrational mood swings just kinda... dumb?

On the other hand we got Clive, our virgin gay goth guy who suffers almost exclusively from sub-excellent dialog. I would have loved to have heard some great one-liners out of him, but he's just generally a fun stable personality on screen. I like that he's a gay character who specifically subverts the common stereotype, and I like his look. He looks cewl.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/clive.gif

Unfortunately the entire movie is a victim of the story which seems to be composed of equal parts awkward moments, forced character development, and... not-quite self awareness.

It stumbles around before the road trip element actually kicks into gear and when it does it quickly arrives at what feels like a stock emotional hurdle: Gypsy encounters a woman who made it big, only to discover that she DIDN'T and is now a drunk in debt.

It's predictable, but this has some fairly understandable impact on Gypsy who freaks out and decides to bail before confiding in Clive that her mother didn't die, but left her and her dad.

It's actually a pretty emotional moment which surprisingly caught me off guard. I wasn't expecting that level of acting here, not the least of which as narratively justified.

It does quickly go downhill though as they pick up a runaway Amish guy who they paint up to look really awkward, Clive gets drunk in the middle of the day in a public park and says "I think you're the most beautiful man I've ever seen."

Egh... and to make matters worse is Amish Guy has the hots for Gypsy.

Sex immediately follows because ****, we can't take too much time to develop their relationships, we have to waste time on pointless side conversations.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26053&stc=1&d=1466894337

Clive hooks up with a closeted gay Fratboy who we see imposing extremely homoerotic hazings on newbies and honestly I didn't mind it too terribly. It's a first time for both of them and it was sorta cute... in an anonymous sex in a public restroom sorta way.

The scene is shortly followed by Fratboy's cronies vandalizing their car evidently out of personal regret and this could have been an interesting point in Clive's development, but it's never brought up again.

Meanwhile, Gypsy's ****ing Amish Guy and they're playing the romantic card hard especially when it's over and she says she'll be comfortable singing in New York "Now that I know you're gonna be there."

*eyeroll* Not only did JUST MEET THIS GUY and don't know a thing about him, but do you really want to tempt fate like that?

Nup. Gypsy can't catch a break, Amish Guy ran away from his wife and kids and immediately decides to go back after having sex with her.

Yeah, that's nice, don't forget about me, ya hear? You go back to your pregnant wife and remember that one-night stand you had with a random girl in a truck-stop restroom. Who could very well now be pregnant.

I'm sorry, THAT BOTHERS ME: If it's gay sex, I'm far less concerned about the characters making decisions without regard to significant consequences, but if it's straight sex, then who's to say she doesn't get pregnant? What a ****load of ******** that'd be! I can already imagine Gypsy bitching and moaning about how "OH WOE IS ME, I HAD SEX AND NOW I'M PREGGERS, WHO COULD'VE POSSIBLY SEEN THAT COMING???"

It really irks the **** out of me.

Remarkably this scene is shortly followed by Gypsy lashing out at Clive for no longer being a virgin, because now he can be... the stereotype now...? WHAT? Why does having sex mean he's gotta pop on the rainbow buttons and turn the flamboyance up to 11? Because now that he's had sex he "no longer needs her" now. You're kind of a bitch, Gypsy.

Sure enough, they eventually make up, Gypsy sings at her concert, and she decides to stay in New York... for no adequately explained reason and leave Clive with her dad's stolen busted up car... for no adequately explained reason... who's leaving... for no adequately explained reason.

I mean I think they try to handwave it by Clive taking it a bit hard when a couple goth goons call him out for pretending to know about a book they like and accusing him of being a poser but...

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/poser.gif

Seriously, this hits him harder than the first guy he's had sex with snuffing him for being gay? "Poser"?

Alright kids, let step back, sit down, and let Omni tell it like it is:

Omnizoa's
Guide to Counterculture

F*ck 'em.

That's it! This is where this whole picture collapses!

You can't be Gypsy, dress all up in goth gear and then get emotionally triggered any time someone calls you a "freak", that means you're DOING IT WRONG! It means you can't handle the consequences of your actions! It means you're trying to break the status quo, but you also want everyone to accept it, THAT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS, you can't have your cake and eat it too!

Clive rolls with the punches far better than Gypsy, but he also can't seem to come to grips with being called a poser.

Dude! You pretended to like a book you didn't know about, that's POSING, but you're also failing to realize that when these chuckleheads call you a poser, they're measuring you against a STANDARD.

The whole point is **** STANDARDS!

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26054&stc=1&d=1466894365

Do you're own thing! Have your own style! Wear whatever the **** you want regardless of what people think!

Whether it's punk, goth, visual kei, it doesn't matter.

You do you.

Everyone else does each other.

Final Verdict: rating_3 [Meh...]

CosmicRunaway

06-25-16, 08:54 PM

Camo

06-25-16, 09:00 PM

GI Jane is pretty terrible.

Omnizoa

06-25-16, 09:02 PM

I remember tracking down that movie ages ago because I really liked Kett Turton's character in Kingdom Hospital. I really don't remember much about it, other than it being kind of okay. I keep thinking I might watch it again, since it's been 11 or 12 years now and I might have a different opinion, but your review does not inspire much confidence haha.
Ironically, I was just looking at Kingdom Hospital specifically LOOKING for Kett Turton after this movie.

I get a feeling he doesn't quite have that opportunity he needs to really kick out and make a name for himself.

Omnizoa

06-25-16, 09:02 PM

GI Jane is pretty terrible.
In what way?

Omnizoa

06-26-16, 12:02 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26062&stc=1&d=1466910070

Enter The Dragon

Martial Arts Action / English / 1973

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
For the Action Movie Countdown (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=46011).

I know no one's holding it against me, but I HOLD IT AGAINST MYSELF! I've never actually seen a Bruce Lee movie. Time to fix that.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"Guns. Why doesn't anyone just pull out a .45 and BANG, settle it?"

Cats, Dogs, Fish, Lobsters, Chickens, Parrots, Pigs, Snakes, Lions, Tigers, and Bears OH MY GOD STOP IT.

Oh Bruce Lee, ever the unheroic pragmatist. So now that I've finally seen a Bruce Lee movie what are my thoughts?

Not tremendously different from most martial arts movies I've seen. It opens with a fight scene which I feel is always a plus for these movies, but it easily takes half of the movie before Bruce really starts kicking some ass.

Until then the movie tries to ratchet up the stakes in about as transparent a story as you can get.

The villain has NOT only betrayed his temple,

he isn't even just the culprit that drove Bruce's sister to suicide,

but he's also a kidnapping martial arts master druglord with a prosthetic hand which can either be replaced with a custom bear claw or be used to menacingly stroke Mr. Bigglesworth.

The characters literally call him a cartoon in the movie and when he escapes through a secret rotating wall panel into a personal mirror maze I realized that description has never been more accurate.

Too bad they named him "Han", they could have named him "Mr. Evil", "Death McKill", or "Very Definitely Final Boss (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FinalBoss)".

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26061&stc=1&d=1466910008

The dead sister backstory is a particularly baffling flashback in which she's walking with Bruce's mentor when they're confronted by Han and his thugs. Han approaches her, she beats him away, Mentor Guy knifes Sub Boss across the eye, and they inexplicably ignore him and chase after her during which she beats them into the ground repeatedly.

When they finally corner her, despite their unknown intentions and her proven ability to whoop their asses, she just gives up and stabs herself.

"DAMMIT. All I wanted to do was ask her out! WHY DO WOMEN ALWAYS KILL THEMSELVES WHEN I TRY TALKING TO THEM!?"

Naturally the biggest question is, how were the fights?

Nnnnn... They were okay. Nothing special. There are a couple cool moves here and there, but easily the best thing about any of them is simply how utterly insane Bruce Lee is, making his trademark yelping noises and baring the most hilarious messed up faces like there's a vice on his testicles and it tightens with every punch he delivers.

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/brucelee.gif

His general dialog is just funny too. He wanes between existential ******** about fighting and just generally not giving a ****. There's even one scene where some random guy on their boat walks up to him and asks to see his "fighting without fighting" style and he just says "Okay, but we need more room, why don't you get into this smaller boat and row over to that unknown island and we'll fight there?"

And sure enough the guy gets trapped on a sinking boat.

I think the best thing about Lee's dialog is his not-quite-fluent enunciation. Paired with his deadpan smirk, you get some great lines like "Mistah Ropah. Don't con ME. (http://movie-sounds.org/kung-fu-movie-samples/sound-clips-from-bruce-lee-enter-the-dragon/mr-roper-don-t-con-me)"

Ultimately, it's pretty average, though I might've been willing to rate it higher had they not dragged half a zoo onto the ****ing set.

Final Verdict: rating_3 [Meh...]

CosmicRunaway

06-26-16, 02:42 PM

I get a feeling he doesn't quite have that opportunity he needs to really kick out and make a name for himself.
Besides Gypsy '83 and Kingdom Hospital (where he doesn't have that much screen time but does play an important role) everything else I've seen him in has just been small bit roles or side characters.

I haven't watched the episodes of Kingdom Hospital since they originally aired, and definitely need to watch it again, but at the time I liked it well enough. I was frustrated by how slow it was dealing with the more interesting plot elements, but it had enough intrigue to bring me back week after week. I remember there was a big gap between some of the episodes, maybe halfway through the series or so, and I was worried we wouldn't get to see how it all ended haha.

Omnizoa

06-26-16, 04:57 PM

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/somethingdifferent.gif

And Now For Something
Completely Different

Comedy / English / 1971

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Reorganizing my Top Ten list. Reassessment time.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"Now it's just gotten silly."

Monty Python's ANFSCD is about as pure a comedy as you can get, it's just a bunch loosely connected Flying Circus sketches which range from the absurd to the mildly silly to the absurd.

I find it difficult to talk about comedies without just repeating the jokes, so instead I'd like to talk about "British Humor" and why I don't get it.

Or rather why other people "don't get it".

What's not to get? A big reason this movie was said to have flubbed in the US was because "American audiences don't get British Humor" and yet, Holy Grail is probably one of, if not THE MOST, popular comedies in America.

You telling me American audiences didn't get this over a movie specifically set in Britain?

I never understood that at all and looking up "British Humor" casts a bit of light on the issue, drawing attention to cultural proclivities like deadpan, social ineptitude, the class system, and even "taboo" topics which this movie certainly doesn't shy away from.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26066&stc=1&d=1466971049

There's one scene in which we get a narrator describing the radio drama horror that is a woman at a typewriter as she gets literally swept away by the Yellow Peril before the United States rolls in and begins marketing "American Defense" like a commercial advertisement.

It's plainly tongue-in-cheek, but you would NEVER be able to get away with that **** nowadays. SJWs would crucify you.

Beyond that, I often just can't help but puzzle over what's so alien about the jokes in the movie. I mean it's FAR from what I would expect from a Japanese comedy, for example, but I think good comedy's fairly universal so long as you get the references.

When a couple sit down to dinner at a fancy restaurant and the guy requests a new fork because his is dirty, the entire restaurant staff trips over themselves in apology, becomes violently self-defeating, and eventually starts killing themselves and fighting each other before-

AND NOW THE PUNCHLINE:

"Good thing I didn't tell him about the dirty knife!"

What's not to get? It's funny, this isn't some bizarre British X Factor, it's "vicious gangs of keep-left signs" and "a bank robber walks into a lingerie shop", the comedy is self evident.

SOMETIMES you'll have a more thoughtful piece such as "Expedition Interview" where John Cleese plays a man with doublevision who pluralizes everything or "Nudge Nudge" where Eric Idle presses Terry Jones with rapid-fire innuendos only to admit he's a virgin, but none of that is uniquely British, it's just comedy.

Anybody can get it, it just comes slightly easier those of a British persuasion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0WOIwlXE9g

ANYWAY, I think ANFSCD is great, it along with Holy Grail have been huge memorable influences on my own personal sense of comedy for years.

If I had to make complaints they would obviously include the animals that appear (I'm not referring to stock footage or prop mice) and, you know, I've never been a big fan of Terry Gilliam's animations.

There are really funny ones ("and there was much rejoicing"), but they often just drift off into surreal nonsense like "Conrad Poohs and his Dancing Teeth" which is just a minute of some close-up desaturated face baring his teeth as they animate up and down to music. There's nothing to it, it's just visual drek.

For the most part though, if you're ready for sketch-city, Monty Python-style, this it it. Check it out.

Final Verdict: rating_5 [Friggen' Awesome]

Omnizoa

06-26-16, 08:13 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26068&stc=1&d=1466982759

Hook

Comedy Adventure / English / 1991

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Reorganizing my Top Ten list. Reassessment time.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"We gotta make him BANGARANG!"

Dogs, Pigeons, Chickens (both dead and alive), Eggs, Steak, Meat Slabs, I can totally understand someone not liking Hook. It's so filled with Cheese and... maybe I should start a new sentence.

Hook is so filled with whimsical cliches, plotholes, and basically failures to explain what the hell the rules of the world are (Why can only Peter fly? Why doesn't he need fairy dust? What's the deal with the thimbles? What the **** was up with that ending?) that it's easy to get lost in cynicism and criticize it's not semi-unconventional plot.

But that's also probably the biggest defense that could be made about the movie. It's all about AVOIDING that cynicism. It's echoed in how Peter is too involved in his job to appreciate his kids while they're young and it's further echoed by how Neverland never really opens up to him until he learns to flex that old imagination and play like a kid again.

NOW, you could criticize Robin Williams for yet again reprising his role as a manchild and you could further criticize the cast with Julia Roberts and even the child actors. AGAIN, I'm not saying they're not problematic, Dustin Hoffman is great as the eponymous scenery-chewing Captain Hook and I think Smee also gets a few great moments, but yeah, I'm not denying there are problems with this movie, I just don't think they're as bad as what... 30% on Rotten Tomatoes?

REALLY? THAT MANY PEOPLE hate this movie? Come on, did two-thirds of the audience seriously not take a hint and just try to enjoy it for what it is? The movie features a pirate baseball game where someone gets shot for stealing second base! Can't you just appreciate that!?

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26067&stc=1&d=1466982734

There are a fair number of annoying scenes, Peter scolding his kids comes off as awkward, and the third act hits a massive pocket of DEAD when Peter remembers his past and Tinkerbell comes onto him creating this extraordinarily alienating 4-way romance where...

Tinkerbell loves Peter... who loved Wendy... who loves Peter... but Wendy grew old... so Peter instantly falls in love with Wendy's daughter Moira while she's sleeping... which is just ****in' weird.

THAT PART of the movie sucks. BIG TIME.

But, for me at least, I really do go for it's message of growth. It's not simply that it sucks to grow up and anyone who grows up becomes a pirate equivalent, it's just that it's important not to let go of that childish wonder and never to forget what it is that makes you happy, as being a father is to Peter.

It can be easy to forget why you put your nose to the grindstone everyday when your kids are causing trouble, it's just gonna happen and one of the worst things you can do is forget what it was like to be them.

Ironically despite Spielberg defending the movie, he's since gone on to say he dislikes it, even saying if he could have he'd have done it all on a digital stage. Damn, not even Spielberg remembers what it was all about.

Beyond all that, I just think it's a fun movie. There's some really funny and memorable scenes and John Williams' score is naturally excellent.

It's one of those "to be a kid again" movies like The Goonies. It doesn't make a tremendous amount of sense, but it's a ride nonetheless.

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Pretty Good]

Omnizoa

06-27-16, 08:43 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26073&stc=1&d=1467027802

Inception

Psychological Thriller / English / 2010

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Reorganizing my Top Ten list. Reassessment time.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"I've come back for you... to remind you of something.
Something you once knew... That this world is not real."

Inception is one of those rare movies that not only got me hyped with the trailer, but more than delivered on it's promises.

I remember seeing the poster with that stereotypical loner-with-his-back to the camera layout and even though it said "from the director of The Dark Knight", which I thought was great, I wasn't impressed.

It wouldn't be until I sat in one of the D-Box demo seats outside my local theater (which actually seriously narrows down the number of places I could have seen the movie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_D-Box_motion-enhanced_cinemas)) that I first saw the trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66TuSJo4dZM

I sat through that trailer several times and while I would eventually become disappointed that Zack Hemsey's Mind Heist wouldn't appear in the movie or even the official soundtrack, the movie more than delivered on the tone and concepts it promises.

In fact, Inception baffled me with the sheer scope and complexity it ran with, flying directly in the face of recent blockbusters, by presenting what appears to be an action movie, but really leans the brunt of it's weight on the concepts and emotional themes it plays with. Again, spoilers here, but how often do you find yourself needing to track the events of a movie with a diagram? Let alone THIS kind of diagram?

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26072&stc=1&d=1467027772

Holy **** is that a lot to keep track of! But unlike most other movies which are complicated because they're poorly written, Inception holds no cards save the explanation of the dream device which is necessary to rationalize the story in the first place. Nearly EVERYTHING is given to the viewers to keep track of what's going on and it's edited to be presentable and digestible so that the onus is on the viewer to understand and interpret exactly what's happening and why onscreen.

Originally, I thought that my biggest complaint about the movie was simply the liberty it took to justify the plot, the contrivance that time goes slower in the dream than it does in reality. This is the total inverse what anyone who's ever dreamed knows to be true, but it's one of the only serious suspensions of disbelief asked of us and I find it more than acceptable to justify the plot.

However now, on my latest go-round, I feel that Inception actually suffers far and away most by it's complicated setup. It takes a LONG TIME, nearly half the movie to feed the audience enough information to keep us oriented in the second half and even then it's still very easy to lose track of which dream is who's and even what some of the characters' names are.

I know Ariadne, Cobb, Mal, Saito... uh... Fischer... uh... Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Tom Hardy. Pharmacist Guy. And that's just the characters' names.

It's a lot of exposition, which HONESTLY is well disguised amidst it's pacing and presentation, but it's still exposition. A LOT OF IT and I think it's easily the biggest reason why I find myself resistant to watch it again because it's a rough climb to the good bits. It's not bad, it's just not very easy going down.

Aside from that I pleased to see that a movie so intellectually demanding also offers some potent emotional narrative. The idea of Cobb literally haunted by his ex-wife in a world where dreams are tangible realities is compelling and I think it's worked in excellently with the central narrative of Inception.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26071&stc=1&d=1467027748

The ending is fantastic too with the question of whether everything is a dream or not left hanging in the air. I think a big reason why the ending is so effective though is that the movie specifically includes a scene that would rationalize a "bad ending":

Earlier we see Cobb testing Pharmacist Guy's sedative in a nameless room where people are left to dream because "the dream has become their reality". Shortly after, Cobb awakens and escapes to the bathroom to spin his totem to test whether he's still awake or dreaming. We've seen this a couple times by this point and know what it means, but this is the last time he does it before he performs the Inception job and he's interrupted.

We never do see whether he was dreaming or not. It could very well be that Cobb is also in one of those beds, dreaming out his happy ending.

That is if Word of God didn't say that wasn't the case. I'm cool with that, I'll certainly accept a happy ending with a splash of BUT WHAT IF!?
Ultimately, Inception is a must watch. It asks you to think harder than your average movie while playing with themes of reality, dreams, and ideas. It offers some impressive setpieces, particularly those involving absence of gravity, and it's a solid emotional gutpunch which is thumbs up in my book. :up:

Final Verdict: rating_5 [Friggen' Awesome]

REWATCH UPDATE (8/10/22):
I first saw Inception when it released in 2010 and it remains one of my fondest movie-going experiences. So rarely do I see a trailer, am immediately sold, then go and see the movie, and get exactly what was advertised.

6 years later I wrote the above review, giving it top marks, but I later removed it from my Favorites list and have been resistant to see it again until now... another 6 years later. It's become another one of those movies, which, while I casually granted a high rating based on my strong first experience of it, I have always remained skeptical of my own opinion and privately braced myself to think differently about it after giving it some time.

It has now been over a decade since the movie has released, to glowing fanfare, and a legacy of other movies borrowing it's BWOM sound effect so prominent in the trailer.

So how does it hold up?

Well, overall, I am still extremely impressed with the movie. In all the years since, and across all of the movies I've reviewed since 6/27/2016, I have yet to see a movie I'd so readily call "intelligent". That may sound pretentious, and I want to avoid using the term "challenging" since it's not exactly a hard movie to follow or "complicated" at the risk of sounding negative, but how else can I describe a movie that asks me, as a viewer, to mentally keep track of 5 different timelines, operating at different speeds, and synchronizing across them with the same characters playing different roles all in the pursuit of presenting a reverse sci-fi heist, complete with foreshadowing, plot twists, a cliffhanger ending, and an emotional subtext to tug at your heartstrings.

This must read like the most delusional, over-ambitious piece of shit movie ever conceived, but I'd be completely lying if I said it didn't knock almost all of it out of the park.

Trying not to retread stuff I've already talked about, I would still agree that this movie takes a significant degree of exposition to get up to speed, not just to establish the setting, the characters, and their roles, but also rationalizing the creative liberties necessary for the plot to make sense.

I don't think it was at all necessary for them to pull the "you use 10% of your brainpower except when you're asleep" line, it really only exists to double down on the "you perceive more time when you're asleep", which is completely opposite of my dreaming experience.

It's dumb, but it's a small concession for the story it allowed them to tell. And it helps that again this movie is presented like a heist thriller, which greases the exposition scenes the same way a bank heist movie would go. We're given a clear idea of their plans and how it's expected to go, so we have the strongest grasp of what's going on when it inevitably goes wrong.

The whole movie is engaging, but that doesn't change the fact that it still has to dump all that pretext on us before events can simply unfold and allow us to experience them as they happen.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=88363&stc=1&d=1660197171

Now to actually get into some story gripes for once, because while this movie is incredibly thoughtful, it is not without apparent plotholes:

The concept of a kick is not clearly distinguished from suicide. It's argued that killing yourself under a certain level of sedation wouldn't lift you up one dream level, but that it would send you to "Limbo", a non-deepest depth of dreaming with unclear properties beyond the understanding that because of the way time works, anyone in limbo could be forced to live a very long time over what may be a few minutes in the real world.

Both Saito and Cobb are presented as though they've forgotten that Limbo is a dream, but why would that be a property of Limbo? It's implied that they can simply kill themselves to escape which seems to trivialize the threat of ending up in limbo in the first place because if killing yourself once sends you deeper, but killing yourself again wakes you up... what's the concern?

Again, this turns entirely on the assumption that Limbo would cause you to forget that you're dreaming, but no part of the movie suggests why that would be, especially considering how Fischer is able to maintain a contiguous memory of the previous dream, even though he didn't create the dreams until then.

Why also does the anti-gravity effect extend to dream Layer 2 when the van is in free-fall, but not into Layer 3 when the elevator is?

How does Cobb even get to Limbo? We literally cut from the apartment in what I thought was Limbo to him laying out in the waves elsewhere... in Limbo? There's seriously no transition between these scenes.

The worst line in this movie is when Mal drops from the ceiling in army fatigues in Dream Layer 3 and shoots Fischer and Cobb deadass asks "how can you be sure" she's not real instead of shooting her. It's so completely contrived for his character to do that in that moment since he's been adamantly insisting that she's not real the entire movie. It's just an awful excuse to shoot Fischer and drag out the movie even more.

My least favorite character in the whole movie is easily Ellen Page as Ariadne and I definitely felt this way when the movie was new. Juno came out 3 years prior so she was basically at the height of her popularity at the time and it really felt like she was just the celebrity casting choice. Main reason for this being that her role as the "Architect" is so poorly communicated by the events of the movie. Other characters, like Tom Hardy's Eames play an active role in the actual perpetration of the inception. The other characters shoot guns, drive vans, set explosives, time the kicks, are otherwise rationalized to have made them custom drugs offscreen...

But Page is supposed to be the "architect" that "designs the dreams" and "teaches the dreams" whatever the **** that means. So she's the one who dreams up the world and everyone else populates it. We don't want the population to become aware of her dreaming though, so she has to design the world in such a way as to mitigate interaction, just as by the example of "closed loop" paradoxes.

This is NEVER shown in practice in the movie, each dream is just one big environment, and she's only the dreamer of the Layer 1, so why is the only closed loop paradox shown in Layer 2? JGL is shown to be the dreamer of Layer 2 and he's the one explaining how much of this shit works in the first place, so we don't need her! Are we just describing random doors and paths through traffic as parts of a maze?

Am I supposed to take for granted that every Dream Layer is actually full of invisible walls secretly implemented by Ariadne and no character runs into them?

Having no obvious role in the heist and just tagging along is bad enough, but her entire character seems to exist purely to concern-troll Cobbs about Mal every ****ing step of the way. She brings up Mal and even deliberately engages Mal more than any other character, ostensibly because the transient "danger" she poses.

Sure we get a train flying out of nowhere... once... in the Dream Layer SHE was chiefly responsible for, but we're already expecting projections in the dream to be trying to kill the cast! So what does it matter if one of them literally prefers to take a knife to a gunfight!? JUST SHUT THE HELL UP, GOD!

I also just don't like Ellen Page. I liked her in Hard Candy, but I thought Juno was awful, her video game, Beyond: Two Souls was a joke, and now she's a millionaire whinging online about wearing dresses to red carpet events. What a tortured existence she must live.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=88362&stc=1&d=1660196495

Anyway, that's about as much griping as I can muster. It's still a really good movie. Music is utilized very well both in terms of pacing and mood, some CG never looked quite right, but there are also practical effects I still wonder how they accomplished, and altogether it delivers an experience that's intellectual stimulating, plays with ideas I love to think about, and rounds the whole thing out with an exciting and emotionally charged ending that makes me so desperately want things to work out in the end, which is the best impression I think you can leave on viewers when it comes to any fictional conflict.

I'm more alert to the movie's flaws, but I still have to give it an incredibly strong rating and I may rewatch it again to decide whether I want it on my Favorites list after all.

Final Verdict: rating_4_5 [Excellent]

Omnizoa

06-27-16, 03:31 PM

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/aliens.gif

Aliens

Action Horror / English / 1986

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Reorganizing my Top Ten list. Reassessment time.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"You know, Burke, I don't know which species is worse.
You don't see them ****ing each other over for a ******* percentage."

If you know me by now you know I've a very low tolerance for horror. Considering that it's probably not difficult to figure out which of the first two Alien movies I prefer.

What you may not know is that I think Aliens is a pretty damn fine movie.

For one, and I know it's probably been said before, but Ellen Ripley is perhaps one of the most potent heroines in action movies (and **** EVERYONE who says Katniss Everdeen). Not only does she demonstrate that she can hang with the guys with her own set of skills and not only does she kick the colonial marines in the ass when they need it, but there's also a deep recurrent theme of motherhood throughout the whole movie, particularly in the superior Special Edition cut.

We learn that in Ripley's stasis since the first movie her daughter has aged and died without her, effectively robbing her of her time being a mom. Shortly after returning to the alien planet she discovers Newt who also manages to show up the marines (namely Bro #1, Hudson) in her survival ability and emotional stability. Ripley casts some motherly affection her way and soon she's not just an authority, but she's a mom too. She doesn't serve any traditional representation of beauty either nor is she ever sexualized, she's just an average woman doin' what needs to be done.

Naturally this all comes down to a skill-infused battle against the Alien Queen, but not before stuffing her boot up the ass of Burke, a particularly memorable weasel of an antagonist.

Ripley's great. She's strong in her actions, she's assertive in her relationships, she's intelligent and skilled, she's emotional where it counts, and she's even flawed in her prejudice against androids.

I've said it before, but my favorite moment in the movie is when she's in the elevator prepping for the finale and she just closes her eyes and takes a deep breath.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kB_CnsxYY

You gotta imagine what she's feeling, barely skilled in the equipment she has and going into a soon-to-explode nest of the most violent creatures ever known to man just to rescue a girl she isn't even certain is still alive. And yet she sucks it up and gives a look of, "Alright, LET'S DO THIS."

The movie's just full of memorable dialog and as is typical of Cameron by this point it's paced excellently so even though it takes quite a while before we see our first alien, it's a solid slow burn in which we learn to orient ourselves with the characters and the atmosphere.

My complaints would obviously include the cat and hamster that appear, but beyond that I'd have to admit I'm simply not a fan of the aliens. They're not outright hideous, but they're certainly not attractive, especially when we're given money shots of the Facehugger's proboscis or the Queen ripping her eggsack. Ew. I did not want to see that.

There's also Newt's scream face. She just cannot convey a look of terror at all, she looks like a sister screaming in her brothers' face just to annoy him.

Beyond that it's kind of hard to complain about the movie. Bishop's Countdown is a memorable backing track, but it's literally the only one. It's also disappointing that we never see Burke in the nest (the scumbag), which was a scene that was cut from the movie. Would have preferred to see him suffer, but at least all my favorite characters survive so props for that.

ANYWAY, it's a slick movie and one I just find myself watching over and over again. Unlike Alien 3 which I pretend doesn't exist.

Final Verdict: rating_5 [Friggen' Awesome]

Sexy Celebrity

06-27-16, 03:56 PM

Aliens and Inception.... I love both of those movies. Though I haven't watched Inception in awhile and I've seen Aliens more times.

Omnizoa

06-27-16, 03:59 PM

Aliens and Inception.... I love both of those movies. Though I haven't watched Inception in awhile and I've seen Aliens more times.
Same.

Omnizoa

06-27-16, 07:00 PM

http://twilighthollowproject.b1.jcink.com/uploads/twilighthollowproject/joker.gif

The Dark Knight

Superhero Action Drama / English / 2008

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Reorganizing my Top Ten list. Reassessment time.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*

"This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object."

Dogs, Meat Slabs, Kissing, Marriage, talk about sequels with inferior sequels, here's a poser: How does Dark Knight stack up against Inception?

In my opinion, I'd say that the highs are higher, but the lows are lower.

Everything that's been said good about this movie is spot on, Heath Ledger as the Joker makes this movie, but unfortunately, if you take him out, what more are you left with?

Christian Bale isn't as appealingly idealic as in Batman Begins and he just comes across as silly much of the time, especially with the tryhard voice combined with a mask with brows just a little too furrowed, you know?

You got the likes of Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman backing you, but they're all very minor roles. Aaron Eckhart plays Harvey Dent and he does a fine job at it I think, but his figurative transformation into Two-Face isn't quite as compelling as his literal transformation.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=26082&stc=1&d=1467064829

The strongest thing going for the movie I THINK, other than Ledger of course, is simply the thematic duality. I kinda got a thing for that sorta stuff.

On one hand you have Bruce Wayne's alter ego, Batman, the Dark Knight, fighting crime above the law, but at the same time you have Two-Face's alter ego, Harvey Dent, the White Knight, fighting crime below the law. On top of that we see another parallel in Joker and Batman where joker represents chaos and anarchy while Batman represents order and justice.

It's neat stuff to think about and it all ends with Batman pinning Dent's crimes on himself because BATMAN CAN TAKE IT YO.

I'll be honest, this is THE MOVIE that actually opened me up to superhero stories. For the most part I have difficulty getting into the muscly-ripped cape-and-leotard sort of characters, you know? So it was refreshing to see something a little bit deeper and more compelling onscreen than Spider-man or Superman or... Hulk.

Since then I've seen Iron Man and The Avengers which I thought were pretty fun and I've yet to see Guardians of the Galaxy so there's hope there too.

Now though, I kinda feel like The Dark Knight is wearing on me. The Joker scenes are cool, but it's not all about him and everything else is kinda... eh... I dunno, hearing Dent talk about the court system or trying to force some sort of emotional turmoil onto Gordon all feels... either boring or forced.

On top of that there's this weird disconnect where the movie regularly ventures into horror mode with jumpscares and Psycho Strings (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PsychoStrings), it gets a bit much.

Altogether it's a fine movie, no doubt, but I think the magic has worn off. Joker's cool, would watch his scenes any time, but the rest? Ehh... I could take it or leave it.

Final Verdict: rating_3_5 [Good]

3/25/24 REWATCH UPDATE!
When I reviewed this movie 8 years ago, I'll admit I was a little burnt out on it. The hype was still strong for this movie and it was easy to doubt my own opinion of the movie because of how much hype it had received and the reputation it carried with it beyond it's release.

Batman Begins was an obligatory origin story that I haven't been compelled to revisit, and The Dark Knight Rises was quite simply terrible. It got rave reviews on it's release, but it was frankly dogshit compared to The Dark Knight, there is simply no comparison. The reviews it got were absolutely unjustified.

The Dark Knight, however, is STILL a great movie, and revisiting it well after it's relevance has refreshed itself in my mind all the reasons I liked it and more.

It's still a densely paced, high-octane thriller with some truly memorable character moments. I'm still inclined to say that Batman himself takes a backseat in this movie, but Harvey Dent leans in to fill that void nicely.

I guess I always struggled to follow a bit of the legal particulars they were stringing along in the movie and Dent's transformation felt really contrived to me.

Of course, it's a superhero movie, but there were some details I picked up on this time around that I appreciate having missed previously.

For some reason it was never made entirely clear to me why Dent had it out for Gordon, but now I realize it's because Gordon, "just working with what he's given" really wasn't able to address corruption within the police, and it's the police who ultimately kidnap Dent and Rachel. Dent repeatedly expresses his skepticism towards how safe the police department is and that skepticism is borne out by both information leaks and the eventual kidnapping.

Apparently my mind had just skimmed over this detail and it weakened Dent's transformation to me.

Another little think I have never understood up until now was the exchange between the clowns at the start of the movie in which one of the henchmen complains that Joker "doesn't know how to count". I didn't understand what they were saying, but I now get that he originally was asking if the Bankman was out of shotgun shells, and Joker takes a moment to count in his head before nodding, only for him to shoot at them another time.

Little things like that I guess I just didn't pick up on, and still, off the top of my head, I couldn't really explain why a man named "Harvey" and a man named "Dent" both had to die to communicate that the Joker's targeting Harvey Dent. Wasn't his DNA found on the Joker card? Wasn't the Joker card placed on a body flung into a window where Harvey Dent was?

I really don't think we needed the elaborate crime scenes to communicate that Joker wanted Dent.

But I dunno, clearly I've missed some details so maybe the movie's just a little bit too fast-paced for once?

Either way, reading back my review makes it sound like every scene without the Joker is a slog to sit through and it really isn't. It's a real solid popcorn movie and the fast-pace absolutely keeps me engaged.

Still very fun and the audio design is top-notch. Will definitely return this back to my shelf of favorites.

Final Verdict: rating_4 [Great]