*spoiler alert* I didn't dislike it as much as you did, but I was a bit disappointed, I had higher expectations. I did not understand why General Korchnoi outed himself to a sparrow when he didn't have to except to move the plot along for the next final twist (more the book's problem though). The acting wasn't all bad, but yes I also thought Lawrence was weak in this. In the same genre, Charlize Theron is better in Atomic Blonde and Noomi Rapace in Unlocked. Better movies too IMO. There's also something darker/more sinister about Red Sparrow that I didn't like but don't know quite how to explain it. I didn't dislike it like you did but you don't get a good feeling about the Lawrence character at the end like you do with the characters played by Theron and Rapace.
Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It
- Thread starter ThePhoenixx
- Start date
- Status
*spoiler alert* I think Korchnoi was getting old and he saw in Dominika a very worthy successor for his cause, and was willing to sacrifice himself for that. To me the ridiculous part was the prisoner exchange at the end. I suspect that the ones making the exchange have a way to make sure that the exchange occurs safely and one the prisoners does not get whacked. Besides, the Russians probably would be more interested to kill such a high ranking mole, rather than letting him go to the Americans where he could possibly spill more secrets. But suddenly, after musing the entire movie about killing Dominika, the Russian now value Dominika's life so much that they are willing to risk letting the mole go.
But my main gripe is not with the plot, it was kind of ok, but with the atrocious acting, dialogue, and pointless sex scene (well, I guess half of this movie revenue is based on moviegoers paying to see JL naked, so perhaps it is not pointless after all.) Jeremy Irons was the only one that was ok, the rest was just bad, including, surprisingly, Charlotte Rampling.
Ordet: 7.5/10
bullet in the head (1990): 5.5/10 4 or 5 guys kill about a million bad guys in little over 2 hours. With also ridiculous music.
bullet in the head (1990): 5.5/10 4 or 5 guys kill about a million bad guys in little over 2 hours. With also ridiculous music.
Deadpool 2 (2018) Directed by David Leitch 4A
If people liked the first Deadpool, they will almost certainly like the second one. There is not a whole lot to choose between them, but the differences are telling. I found the first one to be a sophomoric sham, but I don't remember it going out of its way to be as ingratiating as this one. The strength of the movie is once again Ryan Reynolds and the absolute glee with which he dives into his swing-from-the-lip character. The weakness is just about everything else, starting with a script that is more concerned with setting up the future franchise (and selling Budweiser) than with telling a good story. Somehow Deadpool 2 comes across as soft and sentimental--with a new family of superheroes forming not to right wrongs so much as to give our anti-hero Wade a sense of belonging (and, of course, to give the franchise a reason for existence now that the badmouth superhero novelty may begin to wear a little thin). Thanks to Reynolds' breaking of the fourth wall, a gimmick that goes back as far as Hope and Crosby Road movies of the '40s, thanks to a brilliantly funny scene about a rescue gone awry before it can get truly underway, and thanks to a new superhero whose superpower is luck (plays great), the movie does have its share of laughs. But whenever Ryan is off-screen for more than a few seconds, the fizz goes right out of the cola real fast.
Last edited:
Shareefruck
Registered User
Baby Driver by Edgar Wright - 1.0 (Negative)
Felt like an impressive-as-hell film-making exercise where Edgar Wright goes hog wild and painstakingly uses every directing technique in his repertoire to try to single-handedly elevate a really forgettable and mediocre movie with bland, unlikeable characters into something respectable, and maybe gets as close as one could reasonably expect, but still felt like it was just covering up an otherwise pretty bad movie. Might be worth watching just to see that and get a kick out of it, but it sure as hell didn't work for me as a whole.
There were some weird and unexpected twists and heel-turns toward the end that woke me up from the dull predictability but also didn't seem to make any sense.
And final thought..... Maybe this is blasphemy, but for some reason, every time I see Kevin Spacey in a new thing, I feel less and less that he's as good of an actor as I previously thought. He has this shtick that he sticks to that feels really artificial to me.
2017
1. After the Storm - 4.0 (Flawless)
2. The Red Turtle - 3.5 (Great)
3. Get Out - 3.0 (Very Good)
4. The Third Murder - 2.5 (Good)
----
5. Ladybird - 2.0 (Positive)
6. I, Daniel Blake - 1.5 (Neutral)
7. Blade Runner 2049 - 1.5 (Neutral)
8. The Big Sick - 1.5 (Neutral)
----
9. I Love You, Daddy - 1.0 (Negative)
10. Baby Driver - 1.0 (Negative)
11. Logan - 0.5 (Bad)
12. Spiderman Homecoming - 0.5 (Bad)
13. The Last Jedi - 0.5 (Bad)
14. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri - 0.0 (Terrible)
Felt like an impressive-as-hell film-making exercise where Edgar Wright goes hog wild and painstakingly uses every directing technique in his repertoire to try to single-handedly elevate a really forgettable and mediocre movie with bland, unlikeable characters into something respectable, and maybe gets as close as one could reasonably expect, but still felt like it was just covering up an otherwise pretty bad movie. Might be worth watching just to see that and get a kick out of it, but it sure as hell didn't work for me as a whole.
There were some weird and unexpected twists and heel-turns toward the end that woke me up from the dull predictability but also didn't seem to make any sense.
Like why the hell would Kevin Spacey suddenly help him after all that, let alone sacrifice himself to save him? That felt completely out of left field to me.
And final thought..... Maybe this is blasphemy, but for some reason, every time I see Kevin Spacey in a new thing, I feel less and less that he's as good of an actor as I previously thought. He has this shtick that he sticks to that feels really artificial to me.
2017
1. After the Storm - 4.0 (Flawless)
2. The Red Turtle - 3.5 (Great)
3. Get Out - 3.0 (Very Good)
4. The Third Murder - 2.5 (Good)
----
5. Ladybird - 2.0 (Positive)
6. I, Daniel Blake - 1.5 (Neutral)
7. Blade Runner 2049 - 1.5 (Neutral)
8. The Big Sick - 1.5 (Neutral)
----
9. I Love You, Daddy - 1.0 (Negative)
10. Baby Driver - 1.0 (Negative)
11. Logan - 0.5 (Bad)
12. Spiderman Homecoming - 0.5 (Bad)
13. The Last Jedi - 0.5 (Bad)
14. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri - 0.0 (Terrible)
Last edited:
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
If I were still 15 or 16, I'd probably think Deadpool was the best movie ever made by anyone ever. But I'm not. While Ryan Reynolds is perfect for the character, I've always hated him. Just SO annoying.
I'll probably wait until Deadpool 2 is on the on-demand. Or Netflix.
I'll probably wait until Deadpool 2 is on the on-demand. Or Netflix.
Shareefruck
Registered User
It makes me wonder, is Deadpool maybe just an annoying and stupid comic book character, period? Is the source material even supposed to be any good?
You have to find your the inner kid in you Shareefruck. I haven't lost mine yet. Can't wait to see it. I'm sure I will like it no matter what. Don't wait for a review though, I will not pile on.
I saw Ready Player One this week. Loved it. Spielberg hasn't lost the kid in him either.
I saw Ready Player One this week. Loved it. Spielberg hasn't lost the kid in him either.
Shareefruck
Registered User
Believe me, I've found my inner kid, and like we talked about before, he's still dragging me around to do things that I immediately regret. I just wish that little brat would go away and stop bothering me.You have to find your the inner kid in you Shareefruck. I haven't lost mine yet. Can't wait to see it. I'm sure I will like it no matter what. Don't wait for a review though, I will not pile on.
I saw Ready Player One this week. Loved it. Spielberg hasn't lost the kid in him either.
*spoiler alert* doesn't make sense still. If she turns him in, she wouldn't be a good successor. Big risk. And he tried to snuff her out for the first half of the movie/book while her 'hated' uncle defended her, although she did not know that. Anyway it's just a book/movie. You go with the flow. Same with her American love interest. And I still didn't get how she got away with walking in for the assault on her ballet partner at the beginning without being noticed (as a prima ballerina). She must have that luck superpower like in Deadpool 2. Whatever. I have tons more questions but...It's just a dumb movie. Still liked it better than you though...
Watch Atomic Blonde of you haven't seen it yet. It might not be smarter... but it's more 'John Wick' cool.
Fair enough. Mine doesn't get me in so much trouble... He was ok. I still like him
Led Zappa
Tomorrow Today
Why is it you, do you think, that you dislike so many movies that others really like a lot? Are you just different, smarter than others, seen more movies than others, ... I'm really curious.
Bye Bye Germany (2018) Directed by Sam Garbarski 7A
In Frannkfurt in 1946, David (Moritz Bleibtrau), a survivor of a Nazi concentration camp, is being rigourously interviewed by a female American officer, herself born a German Jew, who is trying to determine whether David collaborated with the Nazis during his time in the death camp. He came under the protection of the camp's Commandant because of his ability to tell jokes, and the prosecutor is wondering whether his involvement with his captors might not have possibly gone deeper than that. David went through an unimaginable nightmare and came out the other side. Even if he is not telling the whole truth, should he be punished for surviving under circumstances in which he had no control? Half of the movie deals with his interrogation by the beautiful Army Captain; the other half of the film deals with the business he and other Jewish survivors have started in Frankfort scamming German housewives into buying fine linen. His business dealings seem just shady enough to be a little uncomfortable, but Bye Bye Germany treads very lightly over almost all of this material; indeed, its tone is the most disconcerting thing about it. An oddly light, intermittently comic movie about Holocaust survivors that reinforces some Jewish stereotypes? Seems a very risky approach. But it works beautifully. Keeping his cards close to his vest, David is indeed a complicated character, both charming and a little aloof. It is a Johnny Depp role, and I wonder if it is a coincidence or not that Bleibtrau is such a near ringer for the far more famous actor. Whatever the case he gives an absolutely perfect performance, one that could not have been bettered by anybody. In an almost offhand way, the movie touches on a host of important issues without ever once feeling like it is sending a message. The movie ends with a written coda that I am going to repeat as it gives away nothing except the film's tone: "After the war, 4000 Jews remained in Germany. Years later they still couldn't tell their children why." If you find that joke funny, if you think it is even a joke at all, then the subtle, complex pleasures of Bye Bye Germany will be a very good fit for you.
subtitles
Best of ’18 so far
Foxtrot, Maoz, Israel
You Were Never Really Here, Ramsay, US
Bye Bye Germany, Garbarsky, Germany
Annihilation, Garland, US
Last edited:
Shareefruck
Registered User
That's a helluva loaded question with a lot to unpack. I could have sworn we've done this dance a million times before, but I'll try to put something together that explains my views.
Led Zappa
Tomorrow Today
I don't want your views. I want you to try and explain why you don't like movies the bulk of other people do. Look inside. It's an honest question. I'm 56, considered pretty bright by my peers and have seen a lot of movies. I fail to see how you fail to get any enjoyment out of clearly good movies. And not any certain type of movies either. You don't seem to enjoy almost all movies outside of art house, high minded stuff with few exceptions.
I wanna know why you think you think like you do that you can't get any enjoyment out of it? I mean, I feel sorry for you in a sense that you enjoy so few movies and I have to think this outlook extends to your life in others ways. I could see if it were 20/30% of movies others like, but you seem to be hitting 80%.
I mean, WTF is this? Stupid? Supposed to be any good? What do you think that says to others that like it? This seems to be flat out saying those that like it are either immature, stupid, like annoying movies or all of the above.
Jussi
Registered User
This picture expalins the character well. He manages to annoy Spider-Man who talks and quips a lot.
Last edited:
That'll sure calm the waters. After he gets done responding, maybe you could go into some detail about why his critical stance bothers you so much. Fair is fair.
Led Zappa
Tomorrow Today
It doesn't bother me. I'm just really curious why he thinks he gets so little entertainment from so much. Does he think it's because he's smarter than the average bear? Cause clearly he's not smarter than so many people. Movie genius' love some of these movies. I'm not saying that's what he thinks, but the stupid comment doesn't help his case if it isn't.
Jussi
Registered User
Let's just say he comes off as old man yelling at clouds, completely unable to not take himself or movies seriously and when someone or something doesn't and makes jokes about it, he's unable to see or unappreaciate the humour of it all. It weird, odd and sad at the same time. Or if it's just a gimmick, then Takeo's already done it to death and therefore it would be gimmick infringement and you know it!
Jussi
Registered User
For some reason I can imagine Roger Ebert saying "what's his problem?"
Because that man could appreciate a whole lot of movies as what they were intended to be. Art or entertainment.
Last edited:
I'm the old man yelling at clouds, you dingbat; get your villains straight (the one thing you should be expert at doing). I always look forward to his stuff, so go toss your lizards. Or we could have a food fight.
Last edited:
Shareefruck
Registered User
My views are required to give an accurate picture of my explanation.
When I was a kid, I got about as much enjoyment and excitement out of blockbuster-y type movies as anyone does now-- I think that I can relate to the feeling it gives people perfectly well, and I don't think I'm missing anything when I speak about them. In hindsight, when I compare the reward that I got from those experiences with the best experiences I have now, they pale in comparison and seem insignificant, ultimately did not ACTUALLY matter to me in any meaningful way, and I realized that they only served as cheap, shallow distractions that were really accessible, addictive, easy to consume, and admittedly more intuitive to continue returning to-- things that pull you in to occupy your time solely as escapism from reality, when plenty more rewarding but less accessible and more challenging experiences existed.
When I watch these things now, I am not denying their ease, addictiveness, accessibility and potential for hollow thrills, those things are all still present and I'm more or less capable of getting those same thrills that I did as a kid, the only difference is that I'm realizing that it's only serving a regrettable function that I don't think is all that worth valuing or appreciating (even though it admittedly still has a hold on me). In addition to that, once you see the strings being pulled, there's also an equal degree of being annoyed by the soullessness, manipulativeness, childishness, and stupidity driving the whole thing. Now, I could turn that thought off and delude myself into enjoying myself more in order to emulate the lack of awareness that I had as a kid, but what would be the point of that? That level of enjoyment, even at its absolute peak, is insignificant to me in the grand scheme of things, and it doesn't matter to me either way whether I get it or not. It's an "inner-dork" adrenaline shot and nothing else.
In regards to speaking freely about this, I would RATHER be ultra critical and honest about everything, pull no punches, and emphasize the stuff that matters to me at the expense of things that don't by scaling everything to be relative to that. I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking that I feel that these things are remotely comparable, and it doesn't matter to me that I'm being a little bit unfair or mean to the things that I find more or less insignificant, in the process-- especially when the not as good ones ALREADY have a natural advantage when it comes to marketing and accessibility. Being ultra critical and thinking hard about maintaining the separation that I see in how satisfying experiences are to me also helps me organize my thoughts and encourage me to want to keep seeking out things that are worth the effort-- after all, it's tougher to get up for them and easier to procrastinate (which I do anyways). Having this curmudgeon-y attitude has been way more rewarding than damaging for me, and focuses my attention on the more rewarding aspects in art and in life in general. As for cynical views making me more miserable or whatever, that's complete nonsense-- I'd rather acknowledge, appreciate, and swim in the imperfections of reality than seek a temporary escape from it. I think that if you convince yourself to tolerate and like everything, you just end up truly liking nothing. I prefer the opposite viewpoint and find it more rewarding.
As for why others feel differently, who the hell knows, and how is that my problem? I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence or patience-- admittedly, I am not particularly adept at either of those things (which is why my reviews focus more on feelings than intellectual analysis), but one way or another, I have stumbled onto this realization for myself (which I could be wrong about but don't currently feel that I am) and cannot just pretend otherwise. It would be patently unfair to me to suggest that simply presenting this as my opinion and making comments as though I think it's true is offensive or insulting to anyone who feels differently, through indirect implication. If we're going to be even remotely honest about what we think about things, we're going to indirectly step on each others toes in one way or another, and it's all of our responsibilities to grow thicker skin and not to feel insulted or threatened about indirect/unintended implications that don't really even have anything to do with us. If someone made a comment about how they think high-minded artsy movies are terrible and stupid, it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for me to react like "What!? How dare you! Are you calling me stupid!?" ..... and as far as I can see, that's pretty much all that has transpired here. I don't think I've crossed any lines here or made fun of or insulted anyone for feeling differently about anything.
Last edited:
Shareefruck
Registered User
As for the Deadpool comment that apparently was what bothered you (I had no idea), it was a sincere question. I was wondering if the source material is even a well regarded thing in the first place, enough that one can even expect a faithful adaptation to be any good. Does the comic book, in its prime, get criticized for the same kinds of things and is targeted towards 15-16 year old kids (as the post I was replying to mentioned), and is this just an extension of that? I think that's a fair question that I'm legitimately curious about.
As for separating entertainment and art and appreciating/having a sense of humor about what they are, I don't really see the point, personally, when art is already entertaining and entertainment (or escapism) without art isn't useful, in my opinion. I fundamentally disagree with/get frustrated by Ebert's approach to that, even though, sure, he's obviously way more intelligent than me.
As for Takeo, I think his views would be perfectly fine if he didn't so aggressively try to force them onto others, treat them as definitively objective, and viciously ridicule/mock anyone who feels otherwise or suggest that it could only be due to some dumb ulterior motive, rather than merely present his own opinion. I don't think I've done any of the former. The worst I do is give a counter-opinion every time I see something that I disagree with, and not use flattering words to meet them in the middle, which may be annoying to you, but is perfectly fair game.
As for separating entertainment and art and appreciating/having a sense of humor about what they are, I don't really see the point, personally, when art is already entertaining and entertainment (or escapism) without art isn't useful, in my opinion. I fundamentally disagree with/get frustrated by Ebert's approach to that, even though, sure, he's obviously way more intelligent than me.
As for Takeo, I think his views would be perfectly fine if he didn't so aggressively try to force them onto others, treat them as definitively objective, and viciously ridicule/mock anyone who feels otherwise or suggest that it could only be due to some dumb ulterior motive, rather than merely present his own opinion. I don't think I've done any of the former. The worst I do is give a counter-opinion every time I see something that I disagree with, and not use flattering words to meet them in the middle, which may be annoying to you, but is perfectly fair game.
Last edited:
Led Zappa
Tomorrow Today
That's a lot you unpacked. I'm not gonna go through it thought for thought, at least right now, but thanks for the reply. It explains some things.
Yeah, my grade is probably a 5.75 at this point. I applaud the effort, and it is an interesting approach, but I dislike the resolution more and more now.
The movie would probably have ended the same way even without Phoenix's character,which means that the movie has been an utter waste of time, and it frustrates me to no end.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Post-Game Talk: Montreal - where the people are beautiful and Oilers hockey is ugly- Latest: CantHaveTkachev
-
