MovieMeditation�s Diary Reviews // �Come and meditate with me!�

Hullo

09-17-16

I like Part 2 best.

__________________
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

Swan

CIA Spook

09-17-16

1 is the most taut and well-made, but I think 2 is the most fun.

MovieMeditation

Friendo.

09-17-16

Originally Posted by Omnizoa

I like Part 2 best.

I can see people enjoy it more, so I won't argue about it.

But personally, I think Swan explains it well:

Originally Posted by Swan

1 is the most taut and well-made, but I think 2 is the most fun.

2 might serve as better entertainment for some, but the "best" movie out of the two, in the classic sense, would be the first. 2 is far too messy and confused and over the top to be as slick and well put together and original as the first.

But it's all opinions of course, and neither of these post state: how do y'all like the third film then? Agree with me or not?

__________________
/watching movies for mark f/
MovieMeditation's Cinema Reviews // Film Diary 2015 // Letterboxd Profile // MovieMeditation's Top 50 Horror

Last edited by MovieMeditation; 09-17-16 at 04:01 PM.

Omnizoa

Hullo

09-17-16

Originally Posted by MovieMeditation

I can see people enjoy it more, so I won't argue about it.

But personally, I think Swan explains it well:

2 might serve as better entertainment for some, but the "best" movie out of the two, in the classic sense, would be the first. 2 is far too messy and confused and over the top to be as slick and well put together and original as the first.

I fail to see this massive gap in quality you're referring to. To my mind, Part 2 doesn't depend on a ridiculous Grandfather Paradox to drive the conflict in the narrative and given it's status as a time travel movie it doesn't relegate itself purely to the past or to the future, we explore the timeline in both directions as well as it's alternate branches. It even makes uniquely strong use of the events of the first movie to run a parallel sidestory which builds upon the original and makes revisiting it with knowledge of the sequel more interesting in retrospective.

Part 3 was always my least favorite and I chock a big part of that up to my dislike of westerns as well as it's general lack of a time travel element.

MovieMeditation

Friendo.

09-17-16

Originally Posted by Omnizoa

I fail to see this massive gap in quality you're referring to

Well, there is no massive gap. I gave the two half a popcorn from each other. I guess what seperates them is purely opinion. That said, it is a strong and mainstream opinion and critics and audiences alike seem to say the same stuff I do, more or less. It's fine if you don't agree, but you are in the minority, especially for not being able to see the problems, appearently.

Omnizoa

Hullo

09-18-16

Well I'm plenty used to being a minority, but this supposed "inability to see it's problems" smells a bit when your review uses relative nonspecifics like "tacky" or "not as straightforward".

GBG said the movie was confusing and that people complained that it was too complicated to follow.

Really??? The first movie opens itself up to massive criticism by contriving a paradox into a ridiculous ticking clock element and yet in the sequel they obfuscate it in favor of consistent internal logic (like two people looking at each other is gonna destroy the universe, you're not meant to take it seriously), and yet THEN people complain that it's too hard?

That kinda annoys me cause it's the sort of rationale you could use to say, "I don't care HOW the characters get out of this dangerous situation, just say that the power of love and friendship helped them survive, I can understand that."

Last edited by Omnizoa; 09-18-16 at 11:34 AM.

MovieMeditation

Friendo.

09-18-16

Originally Posted by Omnizoa

Well I'm plenty used to being a minority, but this supposed "inability to see it's problems" smells a bit when your review uses relative nonspecifics like "tacky" or "not as straightforward".

GBG said the movie confusing and that people complained that itwas too complicated to follow.

Really??? The first movie opens itself up to massive criticism by contriving a paradox into a ridiculous ticking clock element and yet in the sequel they obfuscate it in favor of consistent internal logic (like two people looking at each other is gonna destroy the universe, you're not meant to take it seriously), and yet THEN people complain that it's too hard?

That kinda annoys me cause it's the sort of rationale you could use to say, "I don't care HOW the characters get out of this dangerous situation, just say that the power of love and friendship helped them survive, I can understand that."

Personally I never used the word "confusing" because I don't think it is, I just feel like all the travelling back and forth, multiple times, in three time periods doesn't have the same elegant nicely balanced curve of events the first one had. Weird to answer my comment with a comment about GBG's comment... But anyways, "Not as straight forward" is clearly said in context as to why I think that, so it's not really nonspecific - maybe for people who haven't watched the movie but even for my long cinema reviews I try to keep spoilers at a minimum but still shine enough light on my problems so that people who saw the movie would be able to draw the direct connection.

"Tacky" is admittedly a little nonspecific, buf it mainly refers to the goofy "oversaturated" outer look of the film and the overacting to go in hand with that. I wasn't a fan of the "dress up game" in the first film, but that was at a minimum; here it is boosted to a level a little too ridiculous and goofy for my taste. That's basically what I meant and tbh that element annoys me more than the story structure - especially since I did praise the intervening elements of the last third of the film, which you also talked positively about.

And again, I gave the movie a 3.5/5 - a very positive rating from me and only half a popcorn from the first - so clearly I enjoy this despite its problems...

Omnizoa

Hullo

09-18-16

Originally Posted by MovieMeditation

I say it because you immediately responded to GBG with "I agree completely, GB."

Originally Posted by MovieMeditation

But anyways, "Not as straight forward" is clearly said in context as to why I think that, so it's not really nonspecific - maybe for people who haven't watched the movie but even for my long cinema reviews I try to keep spoilers at a minimum but still shine enough light on my problems so that people who saw the movie would be able to draw the direct connection.

The movie's surely not as straightforward as the first, but the first didn't make full use of it's concept either, it's not unlike the The Time Machine, which inspired the movie, they only travel one direction in time from their starting point and we never get to see the the other direction, I don't think that should be neglected. Part II shows us the future and the past and plays with concepts like The Butterfly Effect and The Grandfather Paradox in a more narratively tenable manner while also giving us previously unexplored tropes without seriously invoking plotholes and paradoxes.

Originally Posted by MovieMeditation

"Tacky" is admittedly a little nonspecific, buf it mainly refers to the goofy "oversaturated" outer look of the film and the overacting to go in hand with that. I wasn't a fan of the "dress up game" in the first film, but that was at a minimum; here it is boosted to a level a little too ridiculous and goofy for my taste. That's basically what I meant and tbh that element annoys me more than the story structure

Doc was always a mad mugging fool, Biff, Elaine, George and even Marty on occasion all overact like crap in the first movie ("He's such a dream~!!"), but that's part of what makes it fun.

I'm not sure if you just notice it more easily with robot Biff flippin' out in brightly-colored 80s Futureland, but it hardly seemed any different in Part II.

gbgoodies

You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.

09-19-16

Originally Posted by MovieMeditation

MovieMeditation presents...
HIS FILM DIARY 2015
total movie count ........... viewing day count
258 .......................... 295
__________________________

October 23rd

�� 1990 ��

�� adventure ��
PART III

REWATCH
So, if you thought the first follow-up felt a bit tacked on, unwanted and unwarranted for,
then this final entry in the �Back to the Future� trilogy surely puts itself on a wanted poster
of wrong moves within the movie business

In all honesty, I was more than fine with the first film being a standalone affair, but despite a lot of problems, the first sequel saved itself from sinking by being entertaining, while pushing the envelope even further in many aspects, technical and script-wise, for better and for worse. This one is also envelope-pushing, but only in terms of story-centered set ups, since it starts out where the second film ended, which sees Marty receive an envelope with a letter from Doc and how he is doomed to a destiny of certain death� Anyways, in many ways, you could call this callback to the lost times of cowboys and Indians an intriguing set up and simultaneously a smart way to sidetrack itself from falling into all too familiar territory for the third time in a row. Because time travel can get tiring with time, especially if you keep on crossing the same story and cutting through the same events over and over and putting on the cowboy hat was a welcome western change...

Unfortunately, director Robert Zemeckis seemed to sit on his high horse way too much throughout most of this movie � and being filmed back to back with 'Back to the Future Part II' might have been a bad decision as well � resulting in a clouded vision without a new and fresh directorial angle to film from. He might have ridden right by the same old setting, with a century or more, but everything else is all too familiar to feel fresh or seriously fun throughout. The way this film plays out comes off dustier than the setting itself and older than the period of which this film is set in. Marty, and especially Doc, repeats their catchphrases more commonly than what feels comfortable and it feels more like a forced fan service than a forwarding of any plot or character. The only reason I can actually ride this one out myself, is because of the small glimpses of something greater combined with some characters who do feel worn out and barely worth it, but thankfully they are still played by the likable duo of Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd, who admittedly can do a lot better than this. Essentially, this period piece has turned into a parody piece and all the actors and actresses playing "dress up" with their family roots is beginning to feel frantic and fatal for the franchise. Everything is knocked up another notch and Zemeckis ultimately finds himself in a knot after putting himself on the ropes way too much with this one.

Frankly, I remember really loving this entry on first watch, but I sure have no idea what I ever saw in this film to begin with. Granted, Zemeckis did have a train of thought that resulted in the entertaining and exciting finale on the train tracks, trying to reach 88 miles per hour before they fall into the canyon. I feel like the movie began to pick up a bit when we got closer to the climax. The rest felt foolish and forgettable in a story that felt more like a stumble than a structuring of an actual plot; a compilation of character moments and major plot points in the first two films, now rehashed and rewritten for a new setting. It worked okay in the first sequel, but this sure ain't no two-trick pony... The first one was a prancing idea, which had the first sequel barely holding on to its predecessor� and now, with a third film, the story is basically dragging its own characters and story behind, quite literally, in a dusty and dated mess of a movie that just have me eager to go back to the future and out of this disaster. I have to say, Zemeckis really is a rootin' tootin' tool for trashing this franchise the way he did. He may see himself as a son-of-gun with some seriously slangin', but in my eyes he was seriously slacking and shooting loose powder through most of the runtime. And honestly, this franchise ran out of steam already by the second film and making a third one I think Zemeckis is just shooting himself in both feet at this point...

__________________________

Back to the Future Part III was easily the worst of the three movies. I'm not much of a fan of westerns, but when I first saw it, I thought that it had a chance to be a good movie because I was already familiar with the characters, so maybe I could relate to them even in the western setting, but sadly, the movie was just boring. It didn't have any of the clever dialogue of the first two movies, and I didn't even like the characters much in this movie. Plus, the ending was kind of predictable.

Thinking back on it, I think the most annoying thing about both sequels was the part that came out of nowhere, Marty's reaction when someone called him "chicken". There was no sign of that in the first movie, and it was an unwelcome addition in the sequels.

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.

gbgoodies

You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.

09-19-16

Originally Posted by Omnizoa

Just to clarify, I didn't say that I thought it was confusing. I said that other people complained that it was confusing.

Originally Posted by gbgoodies

IMO, the original Back to the Future is far superior to Back to the Future Part II. It's a lot more fun, and a lot less complicated. I remember when Back to the Future Part II was released, many people complained that it was too confusing, but I didn't think it was confusing. I just thought it wasn't as good as the first movie.

I think people were confused because of the timeline jumping all over the place. They went ahead to the future, then back to the present. Then back to the past, etc. And the overlapping timelines didn't help because people had to keep track of which Marty was from which time, and why things kept changing in the timelines. It just seemed like the movie was all over the place, but it wasn't worth the effort to keep track of everything that was going on.

Omnizoa

Hullo

09-19-16

Originally Posted by gbgoodies

And here I thought Doc explained it pretty clearly.

They go to 2015 where Old Biff steals the Delorean and Almanac.

Old Biff goes back to 1955 and gives Young Biff the Almanac then returns to 2015.

Doc and Marty return to 1985 *and this is where you might have a plothole because IF time travel is linear then they should arrive in the 1985 that produced the future they came from, not the 1985 that was produced by the altered 1955* and find it affected by 30 years of Young Biff's meddling with the Almanac.

Doc and Marty go further back to 1955 where the timeline first branched, take back the Almanac, preventing the timeline from branching that way and that's when Doc is hit by lightning and sent to 1885 for Part III.

gbgoodies

You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.

09-19-16

Originally Posted by gbgoodies

Originally Posted by Omnizoa

I appreciate the explanation, but as I said in my previous posts, I didn't say that I thought it was confusing. I said that other people complained that it was confusing.

I understand everything that happens/happened/will happen in the movie. I just didn't think it was a great movie.

MovieMeditation

Friendo.

10-11-16

MovieMeditation presents...
HIS FILM DIARY 2015
total movie count ........... viewing day count
259 .......................... 295
__________________________

October 23rd

�� 2011 ��
S H A M E
�� drama ��
REWATCH

Steve McQueen strips the human brain and body bare
with his sophomore effort, Shame...

this review contains spoilers
The movie is bleak in its appearance and even bleaker in its story about appearance, asociality, anxiety and abnormal sexual activity. The distinctive directional style of Steve McQueen goes hand in hand with the intimate and inner struggles of a man, who is mostly driven by lust and dragged down by life. His sexual obsession has distanced himself from any real emotions or relationships, which causes his decisions to cloud up and slowly become a blur based on protective intuition. Siblings and strangers are no longer separated by affection or priority, but begin to break off into little pieces that slowly crumbles in the hands of our main character, Brandon, who can no longer control nor distinguish one from the other, without putting his personal and overly protective and obsessive addiction first, no matter who or what stands in his way.

'Shame' is such a draining, daunting and daring deconstruction of the human brain and body. Together with Steve McQueen's distanced yet dominating direction, it makes for a very different and almost demoralizing cinematic experience. As an audience, we really get to dwell in the deepest state of the mind, uncomfortably lingering in that of loneliness and lust, while (un)willingly being witnesses to how such things may lead to depressive and even deadly conclusions. I love the arc of our main character; how he is first presented as a lone predator of sorts; a man who hunts down women for sex, while surrendering to sad and desperate self-pleasure when there is no woman around to please his needs. And when he finally falls for someone who sees him as a person and not a �paycheck for prostitutes�, he is unable to hand over his heart to a soul mate and actually commit to something genuine. His obsession with sex has steered his every move for far too long and love is too complicated and controlled for his otherwise straight-forward and free-form lifestyle.

His very loose understanding of actual sensual intercourse as an intimate, elegant, experimental as well as essential element in life has been completely cut down in favor of sex as a demand, a need or simply a hobby. So when his mind is presented with love instead of pure and utter lust, his body has nothing familiar to go on, and like his erection, his addiction leaves him weak and helpless when he tries to have sex with someone he really loves. This only makes matters worse and he goes on a sexual vendetta of sorts to overcome his failures and feel dominate and in control again, all the while his grip on relationships, reality, and the repairing of these factors, degrades even further than before. He sends himself down a destructive and almost demonically driven spiral, which sees all of his emotions rage forward in a split set-up of revenge and regret. No matter if he psychologically slaps himself across the soul several times or he gets someone else to physically do it for him, the worst of scars are those he leaves on the ones he cares about, with every step he takes in the wrong direction.

All the while Brendon was a man in desperate need of a true slice of life, someone else was depressingly seeking the same thing; and that slice slit itself a little too close to Brendon and his destructive path of sexual addiction, which has now ended in suicide attempt by his mentally destressed sister. Being too dear to discuss, too fragile to fumble with, too powerful to play around with, too dangerous to disarm, too personal to present, too evolved to erase, too cemented to change and too essential to end, the shame in Brandon has been put on display in the most humiliating and hurtful way possible. �Shame� is a beautifully ugly movie that truly creeps under your skin and slowly forces itself onto your mind throughout. Thankfully though, there is no shame to be said about what McQueen has created here. This is excellent cinema right here.

__________________________

CiCi

Msg

Survivor 5s #2 Bitch

10-11-16

I really liked Shame, it's definitely a film I'll remember quite vividly for a long time. Fassbender and Carey Mulligan were brilliant in it. I agree with you as well, the film doesn't live up to its title at all

MovieMeditation

Friendo.

10-11-16

Originally Posted by CiCi

Yeah, I wish I could've given a negative review and ended with "and that's a shame..."

But glad you like it too. Thanks a lot for the comment too, Callum, always appreciate those!

edarsenal

Women will be your undoing, P�p�

10-12-16

at first I wasn't going to read your review since I haven't seen Shame due to spoilers, but, the real shame would have been NOT reading it.
An engaging review, MM. In particular, this line: "Being too dear to discuss, too fragile to fumble with, too powerful to play around with, too dangerous to disarm, too personal to present, too evolved to erase, too cemented to change and too essential to end,"
Truly does illustrate JUST HOW MUCH it effected you to evoke such a poetic exclamation.

MovieMeditation