The Resident Bitch's Movie Log

→ in
Tools    







Ghostbusters (Paul Feig, 2016)
Imdb

Date Watched:10/14/16
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: I was at a friend's house and she wanted to watch it
Rewatch: No


Well... That was... How do I put this? Not good.

I don't even care about the gender switching thing. Whatever. I don't even consider myself a fan of the original movies. I like them well enough, but they're not favorites. But those movies were fun. They had a little bit of the creep factor, some really funny scenes, and some very likable and memorable characters. Also the cutest villain ever in the form of Mr. Stay Puft.

This had none of that. I never laughed. Not even really cracked a smile. I wasn't creeped out even a little. And even now, maybe 30 minutes after finishing the film, I'm struggling to recall the specifics of any scene or the name of any new character.

An instantly forgettable waste of time.




"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



Welcome to the human race...
I gave it
but nobody trusts my opinions.
__________________
Way too much stupid talk on the forum. Iroquois, I’m thinking about you.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
Damn you just killed Ghostbusters;
?!!!

While I certainly wouldn't call myself a fan I actually didn't think it was that bad, certainly not as awful as I was expecting given the trailers. While it wasn't especially funny I found it a fairly easy watch, quite breezy and decently paced. My main problem with the cast wasn't that it was all female (though I am starting to hate this new fad) but who was actually part of it. Had it been the likes of Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Emma Stone etc I'd have much preferred it. Kristen Wiig is ok and quite likable but I don't get the big deal about her. While Melissa McCarthy I've never found funny. The big problem for me though was Kate McKinnon as the 'kooky' one of the group. I just found her so irritating. Her performance felt so forced and unnatural to me

What I found quite ironic given all the hoo-hah about the female cast is that it was the single male member of the main cast (Chris Hemsworth) that I found the most entertaining.





Terminator 2: Judgment Day (James Cameron, 1991)
Imdb

Date Watched:10/23/16
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: Sci-Fi Countdown, also my internet was down and I had nothing better to do
Rewatch: Yes

It's been a long time since I last watched this movie. I remember loving it as a kid and being blown away by the special effects. What I'd forgotten though is just how cheesy this movie is and how obnoxious Edward Furlong is. I hadn't remembered the father/son dynamic between John and the Terminator, which I'm not sure that I buy (sorry but Arnold is not that good at passing for a real human. He's excellent as a robot, though). I also hadn't remembered Furlong's squeaky, pubescent voice, which grated on my nerves every time he spoke. As for the special effects, they still look okay, but their age definitely shows.

But none of this is to say that I didn't enjoy it. They cheesy one-liners are fun (Hasta la vista, baby!), the action sequences are exciting, and I'll admit to getting a little misty-eyed at the iconic thumbs-up finale, but I do have to wonder how I would've felt had this not been a nostalgia filled rewatch.

-



I was just thinking yesterday that I might review the original Terminator 1 soon.



The first Terminator is far superior, but much less an action film. Which is probably one of the reasons it's better.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
I'm assuming that's the first film you've watched from the trio you picked up last weekend yeah?

Anyway I love Terminator 2; such a blast. And I've got to say that the last time I watched it I was really impressed with how strong the effects still were. I also prefer the first one however





Over the Hedge (Tim Johnson and Karey Kirkpatrick, 2006)
Imdb

Date Watched:10/25/16
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: I just felt like watching something fun
Rewatch: Yes

The quality of Dreamworks Animation's films have been spotty at best. Some of them are excellent, others not so much. I've always felt that Over the Hedge falls into that former category.

Although it was marketed for children, the creators of this film most definitely did not forget that adults will be watching it, too. Yeah it's got a few butt jokes and slapstick for the kids, but it also has plenty of fun little jabs at our food-obsessed, consumerist culture and features some cool nods to classic films like Citizen Kane, Silence of the Lambs, and A Streetcar Named Desire. It also boasts a pretty impressive voice cast, including Bruce Willis, Steve Carell, Gary Shandling, Wanda Sykes, William Shatner and Nick Nolte (among others) who all do well to lend their characters some real personality.

If I have a gripe about this movie, it's that the animation does look a little dated. There's not much texture to the designs and it all looks slightly flat. However it's only a minor complaint and given the advancements in CG animation that have occurred in the ten years since its release, it can be easily forgiven.

Overall it's a really fun film and an excellent choice if you're just looking to have a good time. It still irritates me that this one failed to make the animation countdown, though just barely.


+



I quite like Over The Hedge, some of the characters are endearing and the script is good enough to make me laugh.
__________________
Purely for the benefit of my bad memory: 2016 • • • 2017 • • •
2018 • • • 12 • • • C&C • • • 110 • • • Summer • • • Noms


Almost famous for having nailed Madonna once



I actually thought that might be your HOF nom after you said it didn't make the countdown.
I can see how you would think that, but I nominated something else.



Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?
Been a while since seeing Over the Hedge, but it is a funny lil watch. I remember chuckling watching Shatner play a opossum that was CONSTANTLY playing dead with true Shatner zest.





Jurassic World (Colin Trevorrow, 2015)
Imdb

Date Watched: 10/27/16
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: I stayed home sick from work and wanted some mindless entertainment
Rewatch: Yes, I think this was my fourth time seeing it

I know this is not an especially popular film around here, but I do not and likely never will understand the hate it gets. I've seen people complain about there being "nothing new" here and they say that the characters are flat. I really have to ask (again) what were people expecting? It was only ever going to be a movie about a dinosaur amusement park where the dinosaurs break free and start killing people, just like the three Jurassic Park movies that came before it. And I don't recall any real depth to any of the characters in those other films, nor do I care much about characters in a film like this.

I care about people being hunted by giant predators and I care about cool special effects. Jurassic World has plenty of both.

-



Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?
I care about people being hunted by giant predators and I care about cool special effects. Jurassic World has plenty of both.
And THAT is a pretty damn good argument to check it out. Which I haven't, so I really should at some point.



Welcome to the human race...
I think a major problem with Jurassic World isn't so much that there was "nothing new" so much as what new stuff there is on offer isn't good even on the relatively simple level at which a movie like this is supposed to operate. A major point of contention was that this was the first Jurassic movie to actually kill off a female character, which had the result of making her get what might just be the most drawn-out and absurdly brutal death in the series (which is thrown into even sharper relief by the fact that the genuinely despicable human villain dies a swift off-screen death, whereas the worst this woman does is lose track of some kids for an instant). It calls to mind Ian Malcolm's whole quote about how scientists were thinking about what they could do rather than whether or not they should. The attempts to offer empty replications of old characters (e.g. the two kids) not only function as empty call-backs (as do the various references to the old park) but don't even offer any interesting variations to make them into decent characters even by the relatively low standards of the previous films. The kids' parents are getting a divorce? Who cares. The down-and-dirty raptor guy has tension-laced banter with the uptight female executive? Groundbreaking. You may ask what any of this has to do with watching a movie about dinosaurs eating people full of special effects. I'm positing that it's hard to care about effects-driven spectacle in a vacuum. It'd be one thing if these characters were just flat, but their treatment within the film goes past flat and into bad, which makes it hard to care about who lives or dies (even the most genuinely tragic death in the film has multiple asterisks attached to it). There's got to be at least a little worthwhile substance in place and Jurassic World - a film that takes easy pot shots at bland corporate products even though it is one - is so lacking in it that even the effects do little to paper over the gaping cracks.



Ive never seen either on this page. The first Jurassic Park was great, 2nd was good, 3rd ok, and I havent seen the rest. Jurassic World must be action packed to get a