Omni's Random Video Noise

→ in
Tools    





Who the hell said anything about tags? I haven't tagged a single one of my own reviews.
So it's over the word "review"? I've since edited it out of the OP, but I originally said that this thread wasn't even necessarily going to contain reviews, just my afterthoughts on movies I've been watching. You'll notice a good portion of the movies listed in the OP aren't linked to review pages, that's deliberate.

Originally Posted by Miss Vicky
Also, you waste fewer seconds typing "N/A" than you do typing out the code for popcorn ratings.
Which I'd have to retype after each "N/A",
AND retroactively apply to all of my other unlinked
movies just to remain consistent,
AND once again, a 0/5 already passes for NO RATING under seemingly arbitrary site conditions,
AND I'm lazy. So people on a movie website who have more than just the last post I made to make a judgment about me mistakenly believe I've assessed an entire movie's quality in under 5 minutes.

So what.

Not like I haven't done it before, or weren't completely justified.
__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel



Okay, whatever, you do you.

It just seems like way less of an effort to me to do as I suggest than to do it your misleading and confusing way and then having to explain to people what you really mean. You should also say somewhere in your review/write-up/whatever the hell you want to call it that you didn't actually watch the movie.



Okay, whatever, you do you.

It just seems like way less of an effort to me to do as I suggest than to do it your misleading and confusing way and then having to explain to people what you really mean. You should also say somewhere in your review/write-up/whatever the hell you want to call it that you didn't actually watch the movie.
Oh, I watched the movie alright. There's no "actual" about it, I just didn't finish it.

This rolls back to whether or not you can make a reasonably fair judgment about something you haven't fully experienced. Mass Genocide isn't something I've fully experienced, but I think I have a pretty reasonably informed opinion about it, likewise I don't think sitting through only 7 of the 8 hours of Empire makes me significantly less informed about that either.

Seeing a movie open up to the sort of humor I would shoot on sight seems to me like a pretty damn good indicator that this is not about to end up in my DVD collection.



Watching less than 5 minutes of a 108 minute film does not qualify as watching that film.
According what reality? I saw the movie, I've given reasonable evidence that I've seen the movie, even if I interrupt you I still heard you speak.

You're asserting a standard with consequences and implications you totally fail to account for. I'm accounting for them.



Welcome to the human race...
What's the point of writing about it, though? Even what you did write about that first five minutes doesn't tell me anything apart from the fact that you've got such a major personal conviction against organised religion that you're disappointed when an action movie starts with a church not getting shot up - otherwise you're just halfheartedly describing the opening scene. Even knowing that you didn't finish it doesn't mean that we should have to work to infer exactly why you didn't finish it - you practically had to say why anyway when people challenged you over it. It becomes a question of who you're writing these posts for - yourself or others.

In any case, it is rather obtuse to act like watching a few minutes of a feature-length film counts as "watching it". You can technically have an opinion about a film on the basis of the first five minutes, but only watching five minutes does limit your ability to discuss and criticise the film as a whole since you're coming from a place of very literal ignorance. Your Boondock Saints write-up tells us nothing about why you dislike the film except that a scene where two guys peacefully attend church bothers you simply because you hate religion on principle (and if that's not the correct interpretation, then maybe your point isn't that well-conveyed). This may be your style of writing, but to the rest of us it begs the question as to why we should bother reading what you write.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



I think Murph slapping Connor in the face with a slab of meat (and then Connor subsequently beating Murph with it) was the real reason Omni turned the movie off. I can't say I'm surprised. Omni was going to have problems with this movie anyway because...

WARNING: "Boondock Saints" spoilers below
...we all know what happens to the cat.

People should be free to write a post in their review thread about why they turned a movie off, but when it's put in a Review format, obviously people are going to assume that that post is an attempt to review the movie despite only having seen a few minutes of it. That's certainly what I thought when I saw the Kingsman review/post.

Omni, I don't think you need to go back and change all of your incomplete movie reviews/posts, but if you want to avoid people questioning you like this next time, maybe consider setting future incomplete movie posts up differently from your normal Reviews, or just avoid giving them a popcorn rating.



What's the point of writing about it, though?
Just want to be consistent. I've made a post about almost every other movie I've started so far.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
Even what you did write about that first five minutes doesn't tell me anything apart from the fact that you've got such a major personal conviction against organised religion that you're disappointed when an action movie starts with a church not getting shot up
It is an action movie about two guys taking the law into their own hands and I like when an action movie jumps right into it, so yeah, that's about what I would hope for regardless of the setting.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
otherwise you're just halfheartedly describing the opening scene.
Yep.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
Even knowing that you didn't finish it doesn't mean that we should have to work to infer exactly why you didn't finish it - you practically had to say why anyway when people challenged you over it. It becomes a question of who you're writing these posts for - yourself or others.
Obviously myself first and others second, I imagine your own reviews aren't purely an act of being charitably informative either.

I also thought what I typed was kinda funny, so if no one gets the joke, then no one gets the joke. Whatever.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
In any case, it is rather obtuse to act like watching a few minutes of a feature-length film counts as "watching it".
I obviously only disagree using the most literal sense of the term. I don't much care for people delegating that I should have watched X amount of a movie for me to be justified in saying X amount of words about it.

There are numerous threads on this very board about the merits and lack thereof of movies that haven't even come out yet and even I agree that opinions should be tethered to the limits of our understanding of the topic.

No, I didn't watch all of Boondock Saints and what few clips of it I've seen on Youtube do little to convince me that it wouldn't sting of the time I had wasted having seen it when I could be watching something else. And even then, I put some degree of stock into explaining why I didn't finish the movie, which I thought was the apparent conclusion given that I've done this several times in the thread already and the people confronting me on this have read my thread before.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
You can technically have an opinion about a film on the basis of the first five minutes, but only watching five minutes does limit your ability to discuss and criticise the film as a whole since you're coming from a place of very literal ignorance.
That's completely true.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
Your Boondock Saints write-up tells us nothing about why you dislike the film except that a scene where two guys peacefully attend church bothers you simply because you hate religion on principle (and if that's not the correct interpretation, then maybe your point isn't that well-conveyed).
Apparently not. The main reason I forfeited the movie was because the setup left something to be desired and the most immediate attempt at humor completely fell apart for me.

I understand that the first joke in the new Ghostbusters is a queef joke. I would be similarly put off.

Originally Posted by Iroquois
This may be your style of writing, but to the rest of us it begs the question as to why we should bother reading what you write.
Fair enough.

Considering that I don't intend to finish every movie I start (as much as I would like to say I'm comfortable spending that amount of time on suffering past bad first impressions when I have many other more important things I'm hopelessly procrastinating on) and that I like to give reasons for why I didn't finish a particular movie, especially when someone might actually want to know what I think of it, what do you suggest?

I'm quite aware that this conflicts pretty heavily with your much more professional approach.



I think Murph slapping Connor in the face with a slab of meat (and then Connor subsequently beating Murph with it) was the real reason Omni turned the movie off. I can't say I'm surprised. Omni was going to have problems with this movie anyway because...

WARNING: "Boondock Saints" spoilers below
...we all know what happens to the cat.
Oh really...?

Originally Posted by CosmicRunaway
Omni, I don't think you need to go back and change all of your incomplete movie reviews/posts, but if you want to avoid people questioning you like this next time, maybe consider setting future incomplete movie posts up differently from your normal Reviews, or just avoid giving them a popcorn rating.
I don't really agree with the insistence against the popcorn rating thing given the fact that it's damn hard to excuse rating something a flat 0 out of X when there was actual effort put into making it worth something.

Still, I'm considering it as much as I don't really care to. I HAD been thinking about making some "First Watch", "Rewatch", "Favorite", and "Incomplete" graphics or something like that, though.



It is an action movie about two guys taking the law into their own hands and I like when an action movie jumps right into it, so yeah, that's about what I would hope for regardless of the setting.
Actually, the MacManus brothers believe that they have been granted God's permission to cleanse "scumbags" from the face of the earth. So opening the film in a church is actually rather appropriate.



Actually, the MacManus brothers believe that they have been granted God's permission to cleanse "scumbags" from the face of the earth. So opening the film in a church is actually rather appropriate.
Narratively, that's fine. The opening scene really didn't convey that.



Narratively, that's fine. The opening scene really didn't convey that.
This post is going to contain spoilers.

It's not something that they believe at the start of the movie. After the opening credits, they get into a bar fight where they humiliate some Russian mobsters. Those guys then track the brothers down, and plan to kill Murphy. Connor and Murph kill the Russians in self defence, and when they realise they did the world a favour, that's when they have their revelation (and a shared dream about having God's forgiveness) and start tracking down criminals.

Their religion is very important to them, and that's something I think that the opening scene does establish fairly well. They don't care for the actual conventions of the Church (they disregard the service and pray themselves behind the Priest, much to the surprise and protest of the guy who has never been there before).

It's impossible to separate their religious beliefs from their actions in the film. If you had seen further into the movie, you'd know that they say a special prayer after every bloodbath they take part in. They truly believe that they are doing God's work.



I didn't think it would be. Religious themes (and imagery) are integral to the story of The Boondock Saints, so when you opened your post complaining about the Church and religion, I knew before scrolling down (and seeing how quickly you bailed out) that there was no way you'd enjoy the movie.

(And that's regardless of the meat slapping and cat incidents which I knew would put you off anyway.)





The Great Dictator
Comedy / English / 1940

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Suggested by CosmicRunaway for the Pick A Movie For Me (Chain Game).

Never seen a Charlie Chaplin movie.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
"I wish I was a man, I'd show ya."

And that's how you get transgenders.

Cats, Birds, Nazis, nah, I'm kidding, nazis are cool.

About what I expected. Lots of visual gags, slapstick, wordplay, unfortunately this felt pretty tame and at times, slightly juvenile. I got, I think, one small laugh out of the movie and I don't even really remember what it was I found funny.

It was mildly amusing enough to mostly keep me engaged, but I was pretty bored, honestly.

The topic itself is, honestly, a goldmine for humor, but unfortunately they play it too straight at times and even though the nazis are initially presented as petty tomato thieves, the movie really doesn't mind talking about decapitating people and martyrdom and concentration camps.

I've read that Chaplin wasn't aware of the extremes to which cruelty was inflicted during the war, but COME ON, you're casually talking about soldiers going out into the streets to blow up people's homes out of hatred and the only tinge of humor to it is Chaplin is slipping on roof shingles trying to escape. That seems pretty tone-deaf to me.

At the very least there's a pretty bomb speech at the end (no pun intended). A good way to wrap it up and sober any of the chucklers still in stage seating.


Final Verdict:
[Meh...]

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Film_562w_GreatDictator_video_still.jpg
Views:	648
Size:	30.0 KB
ID:	27213  





John Wick
Crime Action / English / 2014

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
For the Action Movie Countdown.

It seems that after The Matrix and failing to restore his critical status with the likes of Constantine and The Day The Earth Stood Still, Keanu Reeves has got deeper into martial arts and returned to direct Man of Tai Chi and star in action vehicle John Wick. Is Keanu Reeves back?

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
"Yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back."

It's seems genuinely difficult to me to square the financial support of this sort of movie since doing so rather implicitly gives a pass to using dogs as critical plot devices.

I really didn't know where the movie was going to go after it's flashforward and I was disappointed to find that after Wick goes on his killing spree to avenge his first dog, he ends the movie by replacing it with another. That's SO ANNOYING because it's probably the most transparent way they could have possibly objectified dogs.

Guy needs emotional support. Gets a dog. Feels better. Dog dies. Gets another dog.

There isn't even any mention of the fact that you can't replace something with sentimental value AND EVEN THEN we're saying a dog has sentimental value because of it's status as GIFT.

BIGGEST complaint of the movie, easily, obviously, even debatably worth saying at all, but it really is the one thing that holds this movie back for me because otherwise I thought this was a solid flik.



The gunplay and CQC was tight and varied, this is much more the Hard Boiled school of shootouts where engagement comes from a power fantasy character smoothly transitioning through a chaotic environment, disabling and executing baddies one by one.

As a power fantasy character, John Wick isn't even that hard to empathize with, even given his criminal background and even given his extremely questionable relationship with dogs (especially given that ending). That's rather tough to pull off and I would attribute a good amount of that to a combination of tone, pacing, and world-building.

We spend almost double the standard 15 minute sell-me window to root this movie in an emotional well before we really get our first shootout and by then we've fairly established the characters, their motives, and the excuse to hit puree with the rest of the movie. The conflict is established fairly well. I really can't complain.

The world-building is somewhat subtle, but I much appreciated the odd moments of inferrable jargon and reference to established constructs that comprise this underworld that John's a part of. It's that little bit that presses the movie forward.

I suppose I shouldn't neglect the mix of B-list actors either, even Willem Dafoe who gets a short turn as an uncertain ally is a much appreciated inclusion. Most everybody pulls in for a good time.

I'm also pretty big on the music which was unafraid to adopt the ambient synth/rock backing from the club or bathhouse to accompany it's action scenes. The tone's consistent and it gels well with the action. Far better than the nonsense you'd get in Haywire.

Really, I liked the movie, and I'd be plenty content to say I'd have no regrets seeing it again, but interweaving the dog into the plot was really damaging. It doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth.


Final Verdict:
[Pretty Good]

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	John-Wick-Keanu-Reeves-Beagle.jpg
Views:	1193
Size:	138.2 KB
ID:	27219   Click image for larger version

Name:	John-Wick-Action-Scenes-Sequences.jpg
Views:	716
Size:	32.2 KB
ID:	27220  



Welcome to the human race...
I don't necessarily see him as "replacing" his first dog at the end. The first dog wasn't just supposed to be a normal gift from Helen to John, it was also supposed to help him with the grieving process by giving him something to care for while also not leaving him on his own after she dies. The fact that that got prematurely taken away from him - not just because it was an innocent puppy dying a violent death for no good reason, but also his last connection to his dead wife - is what really drove him to exact his vengeance on the underworld in order to make things right and help him process his loss. Him picking up another dog (and not just any dog, but a pitbull - a breed with an unfair reputation for being violent and one that's very far removed from his original beagle, which works because he's not just replacing the dog with an identical one - that's due to be put down) is supposed to indicate that he's finished grieving over his wife and his first dog and is ready to move on with his life. It's not going to have the exact same sentimental value as the first dog, sure, but that doesn't mean he has to abandon dogs completely - if anything, the fact that he willingly adopts a dog instead of passively receiving one as a gift only suggests that he's once again taking charge of a life that had been thrown into chaos by forces beyond his control. All things told, a good conclusion.

Glad you liked the rest of it, though.



I don't necessarily see him as "replacing" his first dog at the end. The first dog wasn't just supposed to be a normal gift from Helen to John, it was also supposed to help him with the grieving process by giving him something to care for while also not leaving him on his own after she dies. The fact that that got prematurely taken away from him - not just because it was an innocent puppy dying a violent death for no good reason, but also his last connection to his dead wife - is what really drove him to exact his vengeance on the underworld in order to make things right and help him process his loss. Him picking up another dog (and not just any dog, but a pitbull - a breed with an unfair reputation for being violent and one that's very far removed from his original beagle, which works because he's not just replacing the dog with an identical one - that's due to be put down) is supposed to indicate that he's finished grieving over his wife and his first dog and is ready to move on with his life. It's not going to have the exact same sentimental value as the first dog, sure, but that doesn't mean he has to abandon dogs completely - if anything, the fact that he willingly adopts a dog instead of passively receiving one as a gift only suggests that he's once again taking charge of a life that had been thrown into chaos by forces beyond his control. All things told, a good conclusion.

Glad you liked the rest of it, though.
I still find it rather questionable since much of that isn't explicit, but I also intended it to be apparent that his relationship to the dog didn't bother me as much as the fact that a dog was in the movie at all. I tend to edge in against these things on two levels: the reality of the animals on set, and the fiction of the animals onscreen. This is a farcry from what Django Unchained pulled.


By the way, I was hoping for a reply to what I said earlier.





Returner
Sci-Fi Action Drama / Japanese / 2002

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
For the Action Movie Countdown.

Been putting this reassessment off for a LONG time.

You know that one day years and years ago when you were just bored out of your mind one day and vegged out in front of the TV flippin' channels and you wind up in the middle of a really weird subtitled movie? You don't think much of it at the time, but years later you'ru KICKING YOURSELF trying to remember what in the hell that friggen' movie was.

That was this movie for me, and I found it.

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
"I'll return, I promise."

Squid Ink and Lobster.

Take Independence Day, E.T., Back to the Future, and The Matrix, mix it all together, heat it up just long enough to burn all the good CG away and serve with Japanese actors, you got Returner.

The biggest complaint I read about Returner is that it's derivative, and that's completely true, there's scarcely an original bone in it's body, but unlike some movies that simply ape their source material trope for trope, Returner seems like a genuine attempt to cram all of those influences together and produce something appealing on it's own, and personally I think it succeeds, even if it is incredibly flawed.

The CG looks ugly, the dialog is, at times, cheesy as all hell ("GO! The future is in YOUR HANDS!"), a couple characters being possessed to speak for the aliens is cringey as ****, and you'd think the villain must be extremely fast to silently run all the way across the deck of a ship out of site and onto a helicopter in a matter of seconds, THAT IS, until you realize the protagonist can be eating and keel right the **** out to sleep in even less time.

It's a goofy stupid movie, but it's one saving grace, if there is only one, would be it's actors and their characters.

The plot involves an alien invasion on the brink of destroying humanity's last stand when protagonist Milly escapes back in time through a time machine humanity just happened to having hanging around in order to kill the first alien which is told to have summoned the invasion of Earth. She immediately encounters Miyamoto, a sarcastic and skeptical mercenary, who she compels to help her by blackmailing him with an explosive to his neck. Thus follows a far-from-entirely-serious relationship which involves a lot of fun interplay between them.

I don't think I can really do them justice with words, so here's a clip:



Turns out while Milly's after the alien, Miyamoto's after the Big Bad named Mizoguchi. Mizoguchi's a great villain because he MUGS THE CRAP OUT OF EVERY SCENE HE'S IN. He's a very entertaining sleazebag and I daresay he's got an excellent death scene if you think about it a little bit.

WARNING: "Returner" spoilers below
I really don't think we're supposed to empathize with Mizoguchi at all given how over the top goofy he is, but if you think about it... remember those few instances where he's literally trying to dodge bullets when the main characters have demonstrated literal bullet time?

Imagine this from Mizoguchi's perspective: he sees these brats running around, messing up his ****, making him look inferior, and demonstrating an uncanny ability to move fast enough to dodge bullets. All the way up to the climax, Mizoguchi increasingly moves in a way that looks like he can just sidestep hitscan weapons and after they beat him out time and time again with bullet time, IMAGINE how frustrated he is and angry to prove himself superior, SO SUPERIOR that when they can dodge bullets, he can CATCH THEM, and then you have that glorious little moment where he looks so ******* proud of himself only to have a delayed reaction to being shot in the face.


The music has bursts of genuine quality, the story, while prone to surface-level scrutiny like "why are they burning time at a salon when they gotta save the world?", and you naturally run into about the same narrative failures as Back to the Future when it comes to the time travel aspect, but if you can forgive the movie for it's obvious influences and it's very pedestrian CG, I think it's a pretty touching movie by the end with an ending that features reincorporation that's foreshadowed, but still surprising.

I really like this movie. This is one of those that I totally concede has pretty significant issues, but would also certainly regret not having in my personal collection.


Final Verdict:
[Pretty Good]

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	houseofthedead.jpg
Views:	1237
Size:	42.3 KB
ID:	27225