Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DG]

Even bad sci-fi can be interesting sometimes, because it could have some cool idea or concept that even when executed poorly, sort of works.

You mean good sci-fi in a bad movie?

[Kuildeous]

After rewatching the X-Men trilogy, and at the cost of any reputation I may or may not have as a cinephile, I can declare that the correct ranking for them is (with a significant margin between each of them) :

1. X-Men: The Last Stand
2. X-Men
3. X2

And while I can maybe comprehend why The Last Stand rubs people the wrong way, I cannot for the life of me understand how X2 came to be so revered.

It's a bold stance to take, but kudos on you taking it.

I also don't get the X2 love. I mean, I liked it. It plays into the government paranoia thing. X2 was nice in that it didn't need to introduce too many characters. The first X-Men showed us the genesis of Magneto and Rogue. Then they showed us how Rogue met Wolverine, how Rogue met Storm, how Wolverine met Phoenix, and so on. While X2 and X3 did introduce some new characters, they were a bit more organic. There was no need to pause the story for introductions.

I suppose that the reason I consider X2 to be overrated is that I feel Wolverine is overrated, and this movie was mostly about Wolverine. Yes, Hugh Jackman plays him wonderfully, but he gets so much screen time that the other characters are just begging to tell their stories.

That being said, I do disagree with your list. I feel X3 belongs on the bottom, but I don't feel it is as bad as others make it out to be. It's not a great movie, and it suffers some flaws, but I don't change the channel when it comes on. It probably has the most comic-book feel to it. C'mon, Magneto redirecting the Golden Gate Bridge? Lovely. And I enjoyed the interaction between Kitty and Juggernaut (though the "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch" line seemed forced).

My biggest gripe about X3 is how quickly Magneto turned his back on Mystique. I suppose this was to polarize (heh) Magneto. It's not enough that mutants no longer be marginalized. Mutants are the only breed worth keeping. It took a complex character played by Ian McKellan and made him more into a caricature. I saw the relationship in a way where at best, Magneto would still value his friendship , and at worst, he would use her as a pawn. For as brilliant as he was, he was pretty indiscriminate about letting the government get a hold of a valuable resource.

[Teproc]

Yes, Magneto is in full-supervillain mode in that film, and him leaving Mystique behind is a clear signal of that. But... it's very impactful, it's not like the film plays it off as if nothing happened (and it comes back to bite him).

I should say I'm not a comic book reader at all, so I don't really care about this being "true to Magneto" or whatever. It's an evolution of the character that I buy and find interesting : just because he's more extreme doesn't mean he's not interesting !

[Awaclus]

I just saw Girls und Panzer der Film for the second time (I saw it for the first time on Thursday) and it's fucking amazing. I'm probably a little biased because I think that tanks are just super cool to begin with, but I actually think that a lot of the strategic/tactic elements of senshado (the fictional sport of WWII-era tank fighting that GuP is all about) would probably appeal to a lot of this forum's userbase, because the strategy is the main focus and it's incredibly well done — you can easily follow what's going on, but it's also really clever.

If I managed to get you interested, which I'm only trying to do because I super loved the experience so I want to share it with others as well, you can start by watching the TV show or the movie first; the movie is a continuation but the events aren't directly connected so the order doesn't matter that much and they both are 10/10 by the standards of their respective formats in my opinion.

[Kuildeous]

I recorded Snakes on a Plane. Should I watch it? I have plenty of other things on the DVR to watch, so if the movie is blah, then I could skip it.

But if it's truly awesome, I'll make it a point to watch.

[KingZog3]

I recorded Snakes on a Plane. Should I watch it? I have plenty of other things on the DVR to watch, so if the movie is blah, then I could skip it.

But if it's truly awesome, I'll make it a point to watch.

From what I understand it's not good. But in a way that you can laugh at it being so bad. I feel like it would be a movie to watch as a group.

[Witherweaver]

I recorded Snakes on a Plane. Should I watch it? I have plenty of other things on the DVR to watch, so if the movie is blah, then I could skip it.

But if it's truly awesome, I'll make it a point to watch.

Just wait until you suddenly exclaim, "I'm sick of these motherfucking Snakes on a Plane on my motherfucking DVR!". Then watch it.

[Jorbles]

I recorded Snakes on a Plane. Should I watch it? I have plenty of other things on the DVR to watch, so if the movie is blah, then I could skip it.

But if it's truly awesome, I'll make it a point to watch.

It's a very self aware movie that is terrible, or to put it another way: it's a very well made terrible movie. If that appeals to you I'd watch it. If not give it a pass. It's a fun movie to watch with a group of people who are socializing and making fun of it. Alcohol doesn't hurt in this situation. I would not recommend sitting down by yourself to watch the movie for the quality of its story.

[Witherweaver]

I saw The Lobster this weekend.  I'm still digesting it.  My initial reaction is that it's pretty brilliant, though.  Evem without the questions that it leaves you with, it's just entertaining to watch (if you like that kind of quirky humor, I guess).  I guess I mean, it's entertaining to watch even if you don't understand it.

[KingZog3]

I saw The Lobster this weekend.  I'm still digesting it.  My initial reaction is that it's pretty brilliant, though.  Evem without the questions that it leaves you with, it's just entertaining to watch (if you like that kind of quirky humor, I guess).  I guess I mean, it's entertaining to watch even if you don't understand it.

I saw it with a few people who walked out on it, and me and one other person who liked it. I think it's a great movie too, although I did think it was a little too long. But it's really funny, and one of the most awkward movies I've ever seen (awkward in a good way though).

[drsteelhammer]

So, what are your favourite releases so far this year?

These are mine:

Hail, Caesar!: Coens homage to Classical Hollywood cinema, told through different substories which are all connected by the main protagonist whose job it is to "care" for the studio employees (read: avoid bad press). All of it is overly ridiculous that some people came to the conclusion that this film is critiquing the film business but I think it's very well-spirited. Also, did I mention that it is absolutely hilarious? Basic knowledge about the Classical period and about film theory (Marxist) may enhance the experience, but it is absolutely not necessary. How the Coens made such a well looking film with this huge cast for only $20 Million is beyond me.

Mustang: Technically a 2015 release but not in my country. A drama set in contemporary Turkey (no politics) showing the life of five young girls in a rural village sorrounded by the conservative relatives who do not value freedom and self-expression as much as the girls would like. Each girl has their own way of dealing with their situation, with varying degree of success. The only problem I had with the movie is that the opposition is portrayed too "villainy" (you'll know it when you see it), setting up a bit of a strawman. Besides that, the girl actors are pretty good/amazing and their relations are really moving. Also amazing editing at the end, it made watching the film so rewarding. One of my favourite movies already and I haven't even rewatched it.

Love&Friendship: Whitman's adaption of the Jane Austen novella "Lady Susan". Absolutely delightful, as the Brits would say. The film had me smiling all the way through, not only because it's very funny, but also because it caused a genuine feeling of happiness. The ensemble cast was great, with Kate Beckinsale doing such a good job at playing the protagonist that the character just works so well (If she didn't perform, the film would have fallen apart). You might say that a period drama based on a Jane Austen novella is not for you, but trust me, I wouldn't have thought it was for me, either. To quote Kermode: "Here's the test whether or not the film works for you: Take two fingers and put them on the inside of your wrist. Do you feel a pulse? If so, then go [see it]!

Sunset Song: My first Terrence Davies, just saw it recently. I don't know how to put what I saw into words. It felt very honest, someone called it "humanistic" which I find very fitting. It follows a girl/women through the beginning of the 20th century in Scotland going through a cycle of hardships and good times. Another drama that was really moving to me.

[Seprix]

Basic knowledge about the Classical period and about film theory (Marxist)

Do you mean the Soviet Montage Theory? That theory may be one of the greatest things to come out of Communism. The Soviet Montage Theory is a critical cornerstone of modern cinema. Not to mention there was a guy named Eisenstein who helped solidify all of the details, which is pretty gosh darn awesome.

[drsteelhammer]

Basic knowledge about the Classical period and about film theory (Marxist)

Do you mean the Soviet Montage Theory? That theory may be one of the greatest things to come out of Communism. The Soviet Montage Theory is a critical cornerstone of modern cinema. Not to mention there was a guy named Eisenstein who helped solidify all of the details, which is pretty gosh darn awesome.

No I meant the socioeconomic theory. Formalism is always important!

[Seprix]

Who here saw Ghostbusters? Nobody? Well, you're all obviously sexist then! 

[Kuildeous]

Who here saw Ghostbusters? Nobody? Well, you're all obviously sexist then! 

That conversation can just move on down to RSP. I know it already.

Since my wife was out of town this weekend, we didn’t have a chance to see it yet. We’re actually taking a vacation day on Wednesday just to unwind, so we’re going to see it then. Matinee even.

A friend of mine said that it’s worth it to see it in 3D IMAX. I normally dismiss 3D movies since they weren’t made for 3D anyway. I also had a miserable time watching Attack of the Clones in IMAX aside from the fact that I was watching Attack of the Clones. That movie was just terrible on IMAX because it had so much movement.

So any thoughts on Ghostbusters in 3D?

[Witherweaver]

I hate things in 3D in general, whether or not the movie was designed for them.

Ghostbusters looks poor. I don't like any of the leads, and the humor seems a lot of pop culture gags instead of funny things.

[Seprix]

I didn't mean to start an RSP conversation. It's just a conclusion I've seen from some media outlets lately.

[Kuildeous]

I didn't mean to start an RSP conversation. It's just a conclusion I've seen from some media outlets lately.

I’ve been hearing them too, and it’s a funny jab. I’m just returning the jab.

I can’t imagine that people on here would follow that tripe. Someone here who doesn’t like the movie probably does so for legitimate reasons.

[pingpongsam]

I'm arguably the most sexist bastard here and even I wouldn't take it that far. If a movie sucks, it sucks, not because it has female leads. Women make outstanding actresses.

[Kuildeous]

Finally saw Ghostbusters. It was enjoyable, but it's not great. It's definitely worth watching at least once. I wouldn't bother with 3D, as it did nothing for me. A couple of scenes work for it, especially projectile vomiting.

Overall, it was a pretty good story with competently played characters. The humor factor is not as high as I'd had hoped. I got some laughs out of it, but I wouldn't call it rip-roaring. I felt the best character was Holtzmann with her mad scientist vibe. Sadly, she was also the weakest in terms of story; we know nothing about her. The relationship between Erin and Abby was pretty solid. Patty brought in her street smarts, because every group of nerds needs someone with street smarts. The receptionist, Kevin, was a caricature of idiocy and vapidness. The over-the-top stupidity of the character rivaled Chris Pratt in Parks and Rec but without the charm.

I felt the opening scene was a little disjointed. It presented an air of malice and danger with a murderous spirit that didn't really mesh with the overall light-hearted feeling of the movie. The fight in Times Square also felt odd to me since the proton packs were used in ways I wasn't anticipating, but if you view it without any comparison to the original movie, then why not use the proton packs that way? Also, our mad scientist invents other devices for incapacitating ghosts. Those scenes were the only ones that really stood out as subpar to me, and honestly the Times Square scene was short enough that it was not unwelcome. When you compare it to really tedious fight scenes like the Matrix or Snowpiercer, this is really nothing.

There are plenty of homages to the original. The fire station makes an appearance. Each principal living actor from the original minus Moranis made an appearance (I guess Peck wasn't principal enough or that actor declined to appear). Seeing them each was a cute little zinger as you recognize the actor--which does detract a bit. As much as I wanted to enjoy each one, I really didn't like Aykroyd's cameo. The others were pretty good. And yes, you'll see the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man and Slimer. The movie is very cognizant of its fanboys and fangirls, and it pays us plenty of lip service.

The villain was the weakest link, I felt. We could have learned more about him. His plot was straightforward enough, and we could gather his motivation, but he was really just a one-dimensional plot device. Deleted scenes of his background may make this a stronger part of the movie.

So I suppose I'd probably give it a 7 or 8 out of 10. I'm leaning toward 8, but I tend to nitpick movies a bit after watching them. Whether it does get downgraded to a 7 will depend on how it stands up to that post-viewing nitpicking.

[Witherweaver]

Finally saw Ghostbusters.

Only took you 32 years.

[tripwire]

Finally saw Ghostbusters. It was enjoyable, but it's not great. It's definitely worth watching at least once. I wouldn't bother with 3D, as it did nothing for me. A couple of scenes work for it, especially projectile vomiting.

Overall, it was a pretty good story with competently played characters. The humor factor is not as high as I'd had hoped. I got some laughs out of it, but I wouldn't call it rip-roaring. I felt the best character was Holtzmann with her mad scientist vibe. Sadly, she was also the weakest in terms of story; we know nothing about her. The relationship between Erin and Abby was pretty solid. Patty brought in her street smarts, because every group of nerds needs someone with street smarts. The receptionist, Kevin, was a caricature of idiocy and vapidness. The over-the-top stupidity of the character rivaled Chris Pratt in Parks and Rec but without the charm.

I felt the opening scene was a little disjointed. It presented an air of malice and danger with a murderous spirit that didn't really mesh with the overall light-hearted feeling of the movie. The fight in Times Square also felt odd to me since the proton packs were used in ways I wasn't anticipating, but if you view it without any comparison to the original movie, then why not use the proton packs that way? Also, our mad scientist invents other devices for incapacitating ghosts. Those scenes were the only ones that really stood out as subpar to me, and honestly the Times Square scene was short enough that it was not unwelcome. When you compare it to really tedious fight scenes like the Matrix or Snowpiercer, this is really nothing.

There are plenty of homages to the original. The fire station makes an appearance. Each principal living actor from the original minus Moranis made an appearance (I guess Peck wasn't principal enough or that actor declined to appear). Seeing them each was a cute little zinger as you recognize the actor--which does detract a bit. As much as I wanted to enjoy each one, I really didn't like Aykroyd's cameo. The others were pretty good. And yes, you'll see the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man and Slimer. The movie is very cognizant of its fanboys and fangirls, and it pays us plenty of lip service.

The villain was the weakest link, I felt. We could have learned more about him. His plot was straightforward enough, and we could gather his motivation, but he was really just a one-dimensional plot device. Deleted scenes of his background may make this a stronger part of the movie.

So I suppose I'd probably give it a 7 or 8 out of 10. I'm leaning toward 8, but I tend to nitpick movies a bit after watching them. Whether it does get downgraded to a 7 will depend on how it stands up to that post-viewing nitpicking.

I think we must thinking of a rating out of 10 differently. I also would likely give it an 8 out of ten, but I liked a lot of things that you didn't. I considered the inconsistency of tone (ghosts were menacing but the movie was often ridiculous) to be a feature, not a flaw. I also liked Kevin a lot when he was being absurd and not just normal stupid ("which one of these photos makes me look more like a doctor?"). Finally, I enjoyed the action scene in Times Square. Like you said, it didn't overstay its welcome, and like a good Marvel movie the "action" was often character motivated and just looked like people were having fun (I was gleeful when Holtzmann goes to town).

I agree with you that I wish Holtzmann was explored more (especially after a moment towards the end suggests that she really is more than a caricature). I also had issues with the villain. In addition to not being very developed, I thought his motivations were too unsubtle.

Finally, I just liked the look of the movie. Colors looked great, supernatural stuff that periodically broke the frame of the film was fun, and I enjoyed the designs of the original ghosts. Throwbacks to the earlier film (slimer, stay puft, the logo ghost) on the other hand, all felt uninspired and out of place. The cameos were a mixed bag. I liked Aykroyd's, but Weaver's just felt like ticking a box.

In general, nothing groundbreaking, but good fun. I enjoyed myself and so did others in the theater (some people clapped after the film).


Nothing to do with Ghostbusters, but which Matrix action scenes did you find tedious? Revolutions is definitely a snore throughout, but Reloaded's action scenes are the only good part of it and I love almost every aspect of the first film.

[Seprix]

I think Ghostbusters would have been much better if there were no cameos or call-backs or anything. I think it would have been better if it was just entirely fresh.

[silverspawn]

yeah, you should think about what your ratings mean (not saying you haven't, but it varies widely). For me what you wrote sounds like a weak 6.

[Seprix]

Rating systems are completely arbitrary. Someone's 5 could be someone else's 7, or someone's A could be someone's C. It's completely covered in bias. I think the only system that works more consistently is pass/fail and liked/didn't like.