Movies
-
After Earth: shite sandwich. I like Will Smith but his son clearly doesn't have the same acting chops as his old man.
Expendables 3: 6/10. Mindless action fun. Not great but not bad either
-
American Gangster: 5/10. Such a long, meandering plot that had me kinda bored toward the end. Funny seeing RZA in this movie with his Wu-Tang tattoo out in full view.
Wall Street - Money Never Sleeps: 3/10. Boring
The only upside is that both films had Josh Brolin in them
-
-
Expendables 3 > American Gangster? ???
Expendables 3 was a fun popcorn movie and nothing more. It had gratuitous violence, explosions and a bunch of washed up action stars rolled into one.
American Gangster, while interesting, became tedious at points and from what I've read, most of the film is fictitious even though it's supposed to be based on a true story. I guess I have a hang up about Hollywood taking liberties with details surrounding bio pics in order to move the plot along. I liked the actors in the movie I just found it too long and at times dull.
-
American Gangster: 5/10. Such a long, meandering plot that had me kinda bored toward the end. Funny seeing RZA in this movie with his Wu-Tang tattoo out in full view.
Wall Street - Money Never Sleeps: 3/10. Boring
The only upside is that both films had Josh Brolin in them
Interesting take.
I think most people would have them at:
American Gangster: 7.5-8/10
Wall Street 2: 6-6.5/10 -
@Max:
Wall Street - Money Never Sleeps: 3/10. Boring
???
Max, don't be confused with Wolf of Wall street.
-
American Gangster: 5/10. Such a long, meandering plot that had me kinda bored toward the end. Funny seeing RZA in this movie with his Wu-Tang tattoo out in full view.
Wall Street - Money Never Sleeps: 3/10. Boring
The only upside is that both films had Josh Brolin in them
Interesting take.
I think most people would have them at:
American Gangster: 7.5-8/10
Wall Street 2: 6-6.5/10i'm a heretic, I know.
-
@Max:
Wall Street - Money Never Sleeps: 3/10. Boring
???
Shia Labouf annoys me and I didn't think Gordon Gekko was Gekko-y enough
-
Funny seeing RZA in this movie with his Wu-Tang tattoo out in full view.
Apparently Ridley Scott was fully aware of the tattoos appearance in the film and even quoted as saying, 'Wu-Tang has been around forever'.
-
Recently I found out a Han Solo spin-off is scheduled for next year. Disney really knows how to milk the Star Wars franchise. Though, I must admit I really enjoyed Rogue One contrary to Episode VII which was an uninspired and cringy mashup of all other Star Wars episodes combined that left me asking: are they being serious?
-
The Han Solo movie sounded interesting because Lord and Miller (21 and 22 Jump Street, The Lego Movie) were directing. Unfortunately, after clashes with the writer and producer, they were fired, and replaced with Ron Howard.
It's probably going to be less interesting as a result.
I think that Lucasfilm are trying to figure out how to make Star Wars films. Some of the difficulties faced by Edwards with Rogue One, and Lord and Miller with Solo could be down to the producers getting nervous. Ironically, I enjoyed the morally ambiguous parts of Rogue One the best, where it felt very much like a 2000AD story. I suspect that the iconography of the saga might be sufficient to keep the right "feel".
Marvel Studios, who're also a part of Disney, have tended to cleave to a particular format. The Incredible Hulk (the Edward Norton one) has a very different feel to Iron Man and subsequent entries into the franchise. They've had a few, similar problems to Lucasfilm. Norton was ejected, as was Edgar Wright from Ant-Man.
Interestingly, Thor: Ragnarok pushes the template a bit, going for a more comedic tone, though it's borrowing a lot from The Guardians of the Galaxy. I enjoyed it a lot, though I don't think that it's as great as some of the reviews say.
-
The Han Solo film isn't really doing anything for me personally, so whether it's Lord & Miller or Ron Howard at the helm, makes no difference to me. I thought Rogue One was well done. It was nice to see a Star Wars film diverge from the others and take on a darker tone.
The Marvel films all seem to have a lot of comedic moments that lend to their success. The first few Hulk movies were more serious, at the same time, the cgi at the time was pretty bad. The first 2 Thor movies, likewise, were more serious in tone and the cgi was horrible, so they're probably banking on the humour aspect to make it stand out from the others.
Studio meddling is nothing new. I was really pissed off when The Thing prequel came out. By all accounts a lot of the fx were done using practical animatronics and such, but of course, the studio stepped in and decided it needed a ton of cgi which completely ruined everything. It also didn't help that the plot & characters were damn near identical to Carpenter's film.
-
The Happening: horrible, horrible film ???
-
Have you only just watched that shocker of a movie? @gaseousclay
It was god awful! The scene where they're running away from the wind in the field… gobshite
-
@Sam:
Have you only just watched that shocker of a movie? @gaseousclay
It was god awful! The scene where they're running away from the wind in the field… gobshite
@Sam yes, I only just got around to watching it for the first time. I've been trying to catch up on old films I haven't seen and The Happening was available at my local library. I also watched After Earth, another M. Night Shyamalan turd fest, but The Happening was by far the worst film i've seen in a long time. Can't even believe it was greenlit and made into a film.
-
Just saw Blade Runner last night. It was enjoyable, but was far too long and suffered from a few issues. Without spoiling, they attempted to mimic the pacing of the original while packing in far too much storyline. This is why I (and you) felt like the movie was too long. I'm not against longer movies, but I should never be sitting there thinking "wow this movie is long."
Also, there were far too many decisions made for the sake of homage. Things that were done for a reason in the original were present purely because they were done in the original, not because they had any meaning. Again without spoiling I can offer an example. Roy Batty wears a black leather coat with a high collar:
He is the fallen angel. The greatest creation of God (Tyrell), but he has decided to rebel. His pale skin, white hair and blue eyes are how his creator envisioned him (purity). He has decided to don the black leather coat, indicative of his chosen path. All of this is communicated to you via the imagery, and whether or not you consciously acknowledge it, it all enriches the other things you do notice.
In the recent movie, Gosling wears a leather coat with a similar collar. And he does it…well because it reminds us of the first movie. So my issue is the lost opportunity. How could Goslings jacket have informed us of something without just explaining it (which is what movies have just decided to do recently)?
That said, I go into all of this because I did enjoy it, and though it was worthy of comment, unlike most movies out there.
