Hello Guest


Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Started by G
3089 Replies    374469 Views
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Kaos
  • Senior Brother
  • Board of Trustees
  • *
  • Jeez
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    26674
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Uncut Gems

Didn't really know what to expect.  Don't much like Adam Sandler, but I'd read that this was his resurrection from the lazy, scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel attempts at comedy his spectacularly shootty films (yes, even the abhorrent Grown Ups) had become.  There were rumors that he was purposely making terrible movies just to see how low the movie-going populace would go.  

I've seen other comedic actors try to change their career path with varying degrees of success. I just don't think Sandler really made the seismic shift he was hoping for.  He was the same goofy, annoying schlump he is in every other movie, except he limited the lame comedic lines and didn't mug as much.  

I wanted to enjoy the movie and was semi-invested in the outcome, but the perpetual wheeling and dealing, the steady stream of shady deal stacked on top of another shady deal backed by another shady deal actually grew tiresome. The rapid-fire, talk-oriented pace tired me out. 

The biggest problem I had with this movie is I didn't know who I was "for."  

Did I want Sandler's scummy character to win in the end? 
Did I want his slutty girlfriend to come out on top?
Did I want his frosty wife and snotty kids to be the victor?
Did I want his low-life family members to win? 
Did I want his double-dealing friend to make the score?
Did I want entitled Kevin Garnett to take it home? 

There were zero likeable characters, none of whom I felt deserved to take a victory lap.  When you want them all to lose, all to fail, all to end up with nothing -- that doesn't work.  You need a protagonist.  If every character in the film is an antagonist and you don't have that one guy to root for even a little?  It leaves you hanging.  Every single character had a very small vein of okayness, but all were despicable at their core. 

One good thing?  He knocked on his neighbor's door and it was John Amos.  Guy was onscreen for less than 30 seconds.  But he was there.  Made me smile.  Beastmaster mode. 
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

#NotMyAriel


Kaos
  • Senior Brother
  • Board of Trustees
  • *
  • Jeez
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    26674
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Birds of Prey

Imagine that the people behind the insipid Ghostbusters remake with Melisa McFarthy got drunk and watched a back to back marathon of Kill Bill and Deadpool.  Then imagine they smoked a little weed and decided to make a movie.  If that had happened, Birds of Prey is likely the movie that would have come from that.  

It ripped off Deadpool from the opening credits on, bouncing in the narrative, talking directly to the audience, using the opening graphics in a "fun" way.  It ripped off Kill Bill in the twisted timeline of the narrative and in the fight sequences employed by the female stars.  I truly expected Harley to turn one of the bad guys over her knee and spank him just like Beatrix Kiddo did during her sprawling brawl with the Crazy 88.  Might have been better if they had.  

The REALLY thin story focused on Harley recovering from her breakup with Joker, trying to establish her own identity, teaming up with some really terrible actresses (the worst of which had to be Rosie Perez) and fighting with some badly sketched Gotham mob kingpin (played hammily by that idiot McGregor).  

It just didn't work.  Margot Robbie tried really, really hard to breathe life into the one-trick-pony that is Harley Quinn, but her efforts were wasted in a badly-shot, badly-acted, poorly plotted mish mash of noisy dumb.  

It wasn't as terrible as Aquaman - which might be the worst superhero movie I've ever seen - but it proved once again (and perhaps for all) that DC is in bumbling hands.  They just don't know what to do with these characters.  Every step is a misstep filled with more problems than promise.  No exception here.  

It was meant to be an irreverent response to Deadpool with a ham-fisted nod to female empowerment.  It was supposed to paper over the splattering turd that was Suicide Squad.  Gum-snapping Harley gave it a try, but it's not 1/10th the movie Pool was.  It wasn't nearly as fun as they clearly meant it to be.  Everything about it was wrong, from the color palette to the cartoonish violence.  

Batman, Harley, Joker, Catwoman, Batgirl, Penguin and Riddler have a layered, complicated, tangled relationship with Gotham and its residents.  DC has consistently failed to bring that to life.  I really wish they'd scrap this entire exercise (keep Wonder Woman, please) and just start completely over.  But not with freaking Twinkle the Vampire as Bruce Wayne.   

DC doesn't get it.  They just don't.  The characters are there.  Better characters than Marvel, really.  But they just can't make it work.  It's disheartening. 
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

#NotMyAriel


GH2001
  • Board of Trustees
  • *
  • Hot. Very hot.
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    21049
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Uncut Gems

Didn't really know what to expect.  Don't much like Adam Sandler, but I'd read that this was his resurrection from the lazy, scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel attempts at comedy his spectacularly shootty films (yes, even the abhorrent Grown Ups) had become.  There were rumors that he was purposely making terrible movies just to see how low the movie-going populace would go. 

I've seen other comedic actors try to change their career path with varying degrees of success. I just don't think Sandler really made the seismic shift he was hoping for.  He was the same goofy, annoying schlump he is in every other movie, except he limited the lame comedic lines and didn't mug as much. 

I wanted to enjoy the movie and was semi-invested in the outcome, but the perpetual wheeling and dealing, the steady stream of shady deal stacked on top of another shady deal backed by another shady deal actually grew tiresome. The rapid-fire, talk-oriented pace tired me out.

The biggest problem I had with this movie is I didn't know who I was "for." 

Did I want Sandler's scummy character to win in the end?
Did I want his slutty girlfriend to come out on top?
Did I want his frosty wife and snotty kids to be the victor?
Did I want his low-life family members to win?
Did I want his double-dealing friend to make the score?
Did I want entitled Kevin Garnett to take it home?

There were zero likeable characters, none of whom I felt deserved to take a victory lap.  When you want them all to lose, all to fail, all to end up with nothing -- that doesn't work.  You need a protagonist.  If every character in the film is an antagonist and you don't have that one guy to root for even a little?  It leaves you hanging.  Every single character had a very small vein of okayness, but all were despicable at their core.

One good thing?  He knocked on his neighbor's door and it was John Amos.  Guy was onscreen for less than 30 seconds.  But he was there.  Made me smile.  Beastmaster mode.

Snags prefers them all to be "uncut"
WDE


Kaos
  • Senior Brother
  • Board of Trustees
  • *
  • Jeez
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    26674
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
The Gentlemen

This is the kind of movie they don’t make any more.  Which may be why I liked it.  

It was a meandering, talkative gangster-ish film with a British sensibility.  

Matthew McCongaheyhey as an American with the U.K. weed market sewn up.  He’s ready to retire. The film follows the bloody trails of the rivals with designs on taking him out.  

Clever performance by Hugh Grant. Collin Farrell (don’t know why I like him but he’s good again here) as a low-level street hood who gets drawn into the fray.  Some guy with a beard through whom the story threads wind (my girls knew him I had no idea.  Charlie Hoffman or something).  

The story moved along at a good pace, things weren’t always what they seemed and the misdirection was both well placed and well handled.  

The guy who directed Sherlock Holmes (with Downey Jr) and Snatch amidst a pot full of real stinkfests did this movie.  

I thought it was good and didn’t get the attention it deserved. 
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

#NotMyAriel


wesfau2
  • Officer
  • Alumni President
  • ***
  • I love it when you call me Big Poppa
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    11502
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
The Gentlemen

This is the kind of movie they don’t make any more.  Which may be why I liked it. 

It was a meandering, talkative gangster-ish film with a British sensibility. 

Matthew McCongaheyhey as an American with the U.K. weed market sewn up.  He’s ready to retire. The film follows the bloody trails of the rivals with designs on taking him out. 

Clever performance by Hugh Grant. Collin Farrell (don’t know why I like him but he’s good again here) as a low-level street hood who gets drawn into the fray.  Some guy with a beard through whom the story threads wind (my girls knew him I had no idea.  Charlie Hoffman or something). 

The story moved along at a good pace, things weren’t always what they seemed and the misdirection was both well placed and well handled. 

The guy who directed Sherlock Holmes (with Downey Jr) and Snatch amidst a pot full of real stinkfests did this movie. 

I thought it was good and didn’t get the attention it deserved.
Agreed.  Not flashy, but a solid film with a great cast.
You can keep a wooden stake in your trunk
On the off-chance that the fairy tales ain't bunk
And Imma keep a bottle of that funk
To get motel parking lot, balcony crunk.


Kaos
  • Senior Brother
  • Board of Trustees
  • *
  • Jeez
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    26674
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Dr Sleep
There’s no real middle ground when bringing a Stephen King novel to the screen.  The two choices are to make it so long that it borders on interminable or leave gaps in the pursuit of brevity. 

Dr. Sleep — the follow up to Stanley Kubrick’s (greatly overrated) version of The Shining — lands in the latter category.  It’s not bad as a stand-alone movie but because it didn’t have or take the time to fill in some of the blank spaces it didn’t resonate as well as it could have. 

Just one for-instance.  The movie didn’t give me nearly enough insight into True Knot - the semi-eternal traveling crew of vampires of the psychic who feed not on blood but fear (maybe? But that doesn’t much explain their hunger for people with psychic abilities).

And another... it only briefly glossed over grown Danny Torrance’s work in a nursing home and the death-sensing cat azarel before just abandoning that entire storyline. 

Overall it was fairly well done.  It’s just not a good enough story, really, to carry the weight of a feature film. 

Ewan McGregor was his usual terrible, worthless, sack of sawdust self. His lackluster performance really helped drag the movie down.  I don’t know why anyone takes him seriously as an actor. He’s just not good.  In anything.

On the flip side there was something so raw and plainly sexy about the leader of the True Knot (Rebecca Ferguson) that I kept watching just to see her.  Don’t know what it was about her but I think i would have to let her eat me. She just oozed it.

The story was so sparse and the rules of engagement so arbitrary that too much of it made little sense. 

Still, it’s not the worst thing I’ve ever seen and not the worst of King (Maximum Overdrive or the almost unwatchable Rob Lowe/Gary Sinese version of The Stand come to mind).

There is a nice shoutout to something that appeals to me early on when drunk Danny is leaving the apartment of his hookup whore.  I may be the only person on earth who caught it.
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

#NotMyAriel


wesfau2
  • Officer
  • Alumni President
  • ***
  • I love it when you call me Big Poppa
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    11502
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Dr Sleep
There’s no real middle ground when bringing a Stephen King novel to the screen.  The two choices are to make it so long that it borders on interminable or leave gaps in the pursuit of brevity. 

Dr. Sleep — the follow up to Stanley Kubrick’s (greatly overrated) version of The Shining — lands in the latter category.  It’s not bad as a stand-alone movie but because it didn’t have or take the time to fill in some of the blank spaces it didn’t resonate as well as it could have. 

Just one for-instance.  The movie didn’t give me nearly enough insight into True Knot - the semi-eternal traveling crew of vampires of the psychic who feed not on blood but fear (maybe? But that doesn’t much explain their hunger for people with psychic abilities).

And another... it only briefly glossed over grown Danny Torrance’s work in a nursing home and the death-sensing cat azarel before just abandoning that entire storyline. 

Overall it was fairly well done.  It’s just not a good enough story, really, to carry the weight of a feature film. 

Ewan McGregor was his usual terrible, worthless, sack of sawdust self. His lackluster performance really helped drag the movie down.  I don’t know why anyone takes him seriously as an actor. He’s just not good.  In anything.

On the flip side there was something so raw and plainly sexy about the leader of the True Knot (Rebecca Ferguson) that I kept watching just to see her.  Don’t know what it was about her but I think i would have to let her eat me. She just oozed it.

The story was so sparse and the rules of engagement so arbitrary that too much of it made little sense. 

Still, it’s not the worst thing I’ve ever seen and not the worst of King (Maximum Overdrive or the almost unwatchable Rob Lowe/Gary Sinese version of The Stand come to mind).

There is a nice shoutout to something that appeals to me early on when drunk Danny is leaving the apartment of his hookup whore.  I may be the only person on earth who caught it.
Mostly agree with this, but I thought this was a rare instance of the movie that is better than the book, if only at the end.  The cinematic ending (with all the Overlook's creepy crawlies) was FAR superior to the book's psychic showdown.
You can keep a wooden stake in your trunk
On the off-chance that the fairy tales ain't bunk
And Imma keep a bottle of that funk
To get motel parking lot, balcony crunk.


Kaos
  • Senior Brother
  • Board of Trustees
  • *
  • Jeez
  • Status:
    Offline
    Posts:
    26674
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Mostly agree with this, but I thought this was a rare instance of the movie that is better than the book, if only at the end.  The cinematic ending (with all the Overlook's creepy crawlies) was FAR superior to the book's psychic showdown.
Agreed on that.  

The book was forgettable, honestly.  I didn't remember the ending.  I'm sitting here at my desk now looking at Under the Dome and Duma Key on my bookshelf.  I know I read both, but can't remember the first thing about either.  
If you want free cheese, look in a mousetrap.

#NotMyAriel